Archive for the ‘The Diary of I.M. Kane’ Category


Calvinism and Arminianism Are Irreconcilable Theological Positions Regarding Salvation through Jesus Christ

By Jerry A. Kane

The following exchange of comments took place on my youtube channel imkane2012 in response to the abduction and the “miraculous” release of 10-year-old Willie Myrick the subject of my most popular youtube video BOY SINGS THIS GOSPEL SONG UNTIL KIDNAPPER CAN’T TAKE HEARING IT ANYMORE AND SETS HIM FREE.

Response from Jasey:

Never believed in god, but trust me, i want to be able to but i just can’t.

My Response:

You are so right, Jasey. None of us can believe God unless God gives us life and the faith to believe in Him. We all are born with a sinful nature and spiritually dead in our trespasses and sins. I will pray that God bestows grace and mercy to you and awakens you to the truth of Christ Jesus.

Response from Jasey:

Thanks 🙂 i hope that someday i will see it

Response from Debi to Jasey:

Jasey, the same way you learn about math, sports, video games or zombies (lol) is to study and immerse yourself into whatever it is you desire to know or be better at…it’s the same with God, you can’t truly know Him if you don’t seek Him out and read His Word – The Bible. God is right there in front of you, holding the most amazing gift you will ever own, but if you don’t reach out and accept the gift, and bring it home, and open it up, and hold it, you will never have or know this gift. There is historical proof that Jesus existed, but you just need to read His Word to know Him. Isiah 53 was written 700 years before Jesus, yet it describes Jesus crucifixion (years before crucifixion was even used) God proves himself over and over in The Bible, but you have to read and study it to understand what it means for you. Find a really good church that can come along side you, and help you to understand God’s love for you, dig into God’s Word and accept the best gift you’ll ever receive.

My Response to Jasey and Debi:

Jesey: What has been presented to you are Protestantism’s doctrines of salvation known as Calvinism (my position) and Arminianism (Debie’s position).

In Calvinism, God chooses men for salvation, and He chose those who are and will be saved (the elect) before He created the world. He foreknows those who will accept His salvation because He knew them and planned their salvation before the world began.

In Arminianism, man’s “free will” determines salvation. It is God’s will for all men to be saved, but men decide whether they will accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. God’s foreknowledge is based entirely on man’s response. God didn’t predetermine everything before He created the world; He adjusts his plans accordingly based on man’s responses.

Christians cite Scripture to support both theological positions, but the vast majority of Protestant denominations today preach and teach Arminianism.

Although an argument can be made for both positions from Scripture, only one position can be true for they are mutually exclusive.

For more on the mutually exclusive Calvinism and Arminianism positions, see Calvinism & Arminianism Compared.

Read Full Post »

NRA Backs Gun Background Check Legislation

By Jerry A. Kane


Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican leader, introduced legislation today that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers.

The proposed legislation is being backed by the National Rifle Association. Jennifer Baker, spokeswoman for NRA legislative affairs, said the bill took “meaningful steps toward fixing the system and making our communities safer.”

Cornyn’s bill would increase grants under the government’s main law enforcement program by up to 5 percent for states that send the federal system at least 90 percent of their records on people with serious mental problems.

States providing less data could see their grants from a broad range of justice programs penalized by the same amounts, at the attorney general’s discretion.

So what criteria will the Uni-party use to determine a “serious” mental problem, and how long before it mandates what type of psychiatric exam everyone must get to purchase a gun?

Didn’t Hussein I (peace be upon him) and his minions suggest that fundamentalist Christians and staunch conservatives have serious mental problems? BTW, this latest assault on individual liberty and the 2nd Amendment is headed by a Republican senator and the NRA, and not Charles Schumer and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Communist Goals (1963) Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963:

  1. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
  2. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

Some children who exhibit negative, defiant, disobedient and hostile behavior toward adults and authority have been diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder. For a child to receive an ODD diagnosis, the behaviors must occur for at least six months.

Right now it’s only children who are diagnosed with ODD, but it’s not hard to imagine that eventually the parameters of the disorder will expand to include adults.

For more on the NRA sell out, see No. 2 Senate Republican proposing gun background check bill.

Read Full Post »

The Fiend Sulking behind the Crucifix

By Jerry A. Kane

Shortly after Barack Obama’s controversial Prayer Breakfast remark about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the terrible deeds people committed in the name of Christ, I stumbled upon a commentary that appeared in the Washington Post, and sent it out with the following comment:

“I never imagined I’d find myself agreeing with Hussein and citing the ComPost, but as they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows.”

Jay Michaelson’s WP commentary that I copied and pasted in the email appears at the end of this entry.

My email led to the following exchange between me and a member on my email list.

Response from email member:

I saw this [commentary] before and discarded it as on of the most misleading and biased “analyses” possible while having enough integrity to deceive the masses. I may write the real story and have been considering it but stopped when I heard a number of historians casting this history in a more accurate fashion on recent FOX shows.

For now, two points omitted: (1) Christians didn’t initiate war with the Muslims. It was the Muslims that attacked, defeated and ruled Jerusalem starting in the year 638 granting different rules for Christian and/or Jewish existence depending on the Caliph of each era which culminated in the Crusades being initiated with the goal of freeing Jerusalem after suppression, denial of pilgrimages, and the destruction of Christian symbols including the Church of the Holy Sepulchur, (2) Perhaps my history is bad but I have never heard the KKK viewed as a Christian organization and, even if someone of note has stated such, there is no justification for saying the existence of such was done to honor Christ.

And don’t forget Constantinople, Spain, France, even Rome being attacked by the Muslims prior to the Crusades while the Muslims were threatening the Baltics leading directly into Europe.

I patently reject that the objectives of freeing Jerusalem and protecting Europe while Muslims were conquering much of the civilized world had anything to do with honoring or following the teachings of Christ. To me, it is absolutely absurd. We might as well also say that WWI and WWII were Christian wars as each was initiated by nations that could be readily described as Christian nations.

My Response:

You referred to the WP commentary as “the most misleading and biased “analyses” possible while having enough integrity to deceive the masses.”

Obviously the commentary is biased because the author is defending Obama’s Prayer Breakfast remarks through his analysis. This isn’t a news story, [name omitted]; it’s an opinion piece, which means it’s biased. As for your claim that the piece is misleading, I couldn’t disagree more.

You wrote, “Christians didn’t initiate war with the Muslims.” First off it was the Roman Catholic Church i.e., Pope Urban II, that initiated the First Crusade and other subsequent popes who carried on other Crusades.

You’re right to say “the Muslims attacked, defeated and ruled Jerusalem starting in the year 638 granting different rules for Christian and/or Jewish existence depending on the Caliph of each era,” but I take issue with your claim that the act “culminated in the Crusades.”

I would argue that the papacy’s reason for initiating and carrying on the crusades for over 200 years was purely political. Keep in mind, this was the Middle Ages during the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, a specific time period sandwiched between the Dark Ages and the Renaissance. It was a time period when the state wielded its power through the papacy, and the papacy wielded its power through the state-a time when emperors picked popes and popes picked emperors.

At the time of Urban II, the papacy was gaining greater wealth and power in the West, and Urban II used freeing Jerusalem, the attacks on pilgrimages, the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchur, and the struggles of the Byzantine emperor, Alexios I to appeal to the masses and to justify his war with the Muslims.

Don’t misunderstand my position. I vehemently oppose the satanic jihads of the Muslim religion as much as I do the satanic crusades and subsequent Inquisition of the Roman Catholic religion.

The problem I face is that the term Christian is so loosely defined that it has come to mean any person, group, or organization that self-identifies as Christian and claims to believe in Jesus. Such are the perilous and interesting times in which we live.

If you have time, check out the following links from Historyworld.net.

The Holy Roman Empire

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa35and http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=349&HistoryID=aa35&gtrack=pthc.

And the Crusades

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?gtrack=pthc&ParagraphID=foa#foaand http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=1793&HistoryID=ab54&gtrack=pthc.

Response from email member:

 My basis for all I said was the history as recorded by Will and Ariel Durant, who I have found to be credible and well documented.

 My Response:

I am familiar with Will and Ariel Durant from various citations in articles and books that I’ve read, but I have not read any of the volumes from their series “The Story of Civilization.”

That said, the sources consulted and cited in the historyworld.net website are mainstream ones. http://www.historyworld.net/about/sources.asp

What I’m saying about the papacy is nothing new and was once understood in this country to be factual.

Response from email member:

I can only tell you what the Durants have reported which is what I used in a non-published book that I have written concerning the 14 centuries of War and Terror imposed by Islamist upon any people or nation that was within reach of their armies which included the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 and the slaughter of Jews, Christians, and many others throughout the history of the past 14 centuries. Nothing, and I mean zero, of the Durant history is incompatible with anything that we have personally observed in recent years. History is repeating itself only this time there are no massive armies with Jannissaries leading the way but rather a more sinister attack using what is called “The Project” created by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The only conclusion that is mine alone is that they have been at war with their so-called non-believers or infidels for 14 centuries and, frankly, I don’t give a damn what Christians or Jews or anyone else does to defend and destroy during a time of war. Much of this is covered in Durant’s Volume 4 with significant detail. Lastly, I personally prefer original work with documentation using sources created during the time of the actual events rather than much of the revisionist stuff published as history today. Islam was the aggressor in 638 and continued as such throughout their history, not the Christians just as Palestine is the aggressor not Israel, and just as the Islamists were the aggressors on 911, not America.

It may already be too late but it will most certainly favor the Islamist goals of world dominance if we continue to excuse them with political correctness and revisionist history.

 My Response:

You need to reread what I wrote. I am NOT defending Islam. I’m refusing to give the Roman State Church a pass on her brutal and heinous acts against those she branded as non-believers and heretics. She has been every bit as wicked and despicable an enemy of Christ as Islam has been to those whom it brands as infidels.

Many historians have tried to set the record straight on the Crusades, and they are not revisionists, but mainstream scholars offering what they’ve discovered over several decades of careful, serious scholarship. In fact, Edward Gibbon, author of “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire” wrote that “the principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism [that] “had checked rather than forwarded the maturity of Europe.”

Voltaire called the Crusades an epidemic disease and went on to say that leprosy was the only thing that Europeans had gained from the crusades.

You seem to want to ignore the atrocities the Roman State Church committed throughout the two hundred year history of the Crusades and the six hundred and five years of the Inquisition.

And to make matters worse, you continue to refer to her as Christian. The Pope is not Christian; he’s Catholic. And the Roman State Church is not a Christian church; it is a Catholic Church. That truth does not come from revisionist historians; it comes directly from the men and women who witnessed and chronicled her wickedness and savagery throughout history.

Response from email member:

Sorry, but the Roman Catholic Church is not my enemy nor my country’s enemy, and you are right, I am not to interested in what they did hundreds of years ago and I have no desire to give Barack Hussein Obama a pass for a distorted view of the Crusades.

My Response:

You don’t have to go back hundreds of years ago to see The Roman State Church atrocities. You can find them during WWII in Yugoslavia:

The Role of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia’s Holocaust

 During the Second World War in Yugoslavia, Catholic priests and Muslim clerics were willing accomplices in the genocide of the nations Serbian, Jewish and Roma population. From 1941 until 1945, the Nazi-installed regime of Ante Pavelic in Croatia carried out some of the most horrific crimes of the Holocaust (known as the Porajmos by the Roma), killing over 800,000 Yugoslav citizens – 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 Roma. In these crimes, the Croatian Ustasha and Muslim fundamentalists were openly supported by the Vatican, the Archbishop of Zagreb Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac (1898-1960), and the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husseini.

Many of the victims of the Pavelic regime in Croatia were killed in the war’s third largest death camp – Jasenovac, where over 200,000 people – mainly Orthodox Serbs met their deaths. Some 240,000 were “rebaptized” into the Catholic faith by fundamentalist Clerics in “the Catholic Kingdom of Croatia” as part of the policy to “kill a third, deport a third, convert a third” of Yugoslavia’s Serbs, Jews and Roma in wartime Bosnia and Croatia

Ante Pavelic, the Real Butcher of the Balkans

Ante Pavelic was the original “Butcher of the Balkans.” He was the leader of the Nazi puppet government of the “Independent State of Croatia” who died peacefully in Madrid in 1959. The mass murderer of 80,000 Jews, 30,000 Gypsies, and over 500,000 Serbs survived the Second World War and never faced a war crimes tribunal.

Instead Pavelic was offered sanctuary by the Vatican and became a security advisor to Juan and Eva Peron before retiring to fascist Spain. Key to Pavelic’s survival was the so-called Croatian Treasury, really nothing more than Pavelic personal wealth, the plunder of concentration camps and massacres throughout the Balkans and beyond. Wherever the loyal Ustashe (Croatian Nazis) served Pavelic and Hitler, Orthodox Christian churches and Jewish synagogues were plundered and the property of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, Ukrainians and others were confiscated. The crimes of Pavelic and the Ustashe were so barbaric that even hardened Nazis were disgusted by it.

In the final days of World War II, Pavelic and his inner circle bought and bribed their way to Rome where help was waiting at the Vatican. Pavelic committed genocide on a level far greater than any known before or since in the Balkans but he had been personally received by Pius XII during his reign of terror. The Franciscan Order and Vatican bank eagerly helped launder Pavelic’s loot the proceeds of which were used to establish the so called ratline which helped thousands of Nazis and Ustashe escape to South America.

There it is, [name omitted]. You can either accept the truth or continue to live in denial.

Response from email member:

I believe your apologies for Obama are clearly stated as “Nazi-installed” per Ante Pavelic. You might recall that Italy itself was involved. Let us now blame all Lutherans and Germans for the holocaust!! This is absurd as this has nothing to do with either the Crusades or Obama’s denigration of Christianity and his attempts to destroy Western values. I will take you off of my distribution list as you simply miss the big picture of world events and world history for your own personal reasons.

My Response:

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Bye, bye [name omitted]

The truth is papal Rome has a bloody history. Its oppression of Jews, non-believers, and heretics has been widespread and consistent throughout history.

The papacy was designed for power and dominion over men; and its purpose hasn’t changed, which is why Lord Acton opposed it so vigorously.

“The papacy contrived murder and massacre on the largest and also on the most cruel and inhuman scale. They were not only wholesale assassins but they made the principle of assassination a law of the Christian Church and a condition of salvation…. [The Papacy] is the fiend skulking behind the Crucifix.”—John Emerich Edward Dalberg, a.k.a. Lord Acton


Was Obama right about the Crusades and Islamic extremism? (ANALYSIS)

By Jay Michaelson

The conservative Twitterverse is all riled up because at Thursday’s (Feb. 5) National Prayer Breakfast (an event founded and run by the secretive Christian organization known as The Fellowship), President Obama said that Christians, as well as Muslims, have at times committed atrocities. His words:

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

This would seem to be Religious History 101, but it was nonetheless met with shock and awe.

“Hey, American Christians, Obama just threw you under the bus in order to defend Islam,” wrote shock jock Michael Graham. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., called the comments “dangerously irresponsible.” The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue said: “Obama’s ignorance is astounding and his comparison is pernicious. The Crusades were a defensive Christian reaction against Muslim madmen of the Middle Ages.”

More thoughtfully, Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama’s comments about Christianity “an unfortunate attempt at a wrongheaded moral comparison. … The evil actions that he mentioned were clearly outside the moral parameters of Christianity itself and were met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians.”


1. The Crusades

The Crusades lasted almost 200 years, from 1095 to 1291. The initial spark came from Pope Urban II, who urged Christians to recapture the Holy Land (and especially the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem) from Muslim rule. Like the promise of eternal life given to Muslim martyrs, Crusaders were promised absolution from sin and eternal glory. Militarily, the Crusades were at first successful, capturing Jerusalem in 1099, but eventually a disaster; Jersualem fell in 1187. Successive Crusades set far more modest goals, but eventually failed to achieve even them. The last Crusader-ruled city in the Holy Land, Acre, fell in 1291. Along the way, the Crusaders massacred. To take but one example, the Rhineland Massacres of 1096 are remembered to this day as some of the most horrific examples of anti-Semitic violence prior to the Holocaust. (Why go to the Holy Land to fight nonbelievers, many wondered, when they live right among us?) The Jewish communities of Cologne, Speyer, Worms, and Mainz were decimated. There were more than 5,000 victims. And that was only one example. Tens of thousands of people (both soldiers and civilians) were killed in the conquest of Jerusalem. The Crusaders themselves suffered; historians estimate that only one in 20 survived to even reach the Holy Land. It is estimated that 1.7 million people died in total.

And this is all at a time in which the world population was approximately 300 million — less than 5 percent its current total. Muslim extremists would have to kill 34 million people (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to equal that death toll today. As horrific as the Islamic State’s brutal reign of terror has been, its death toll is estimated at around 20,000.

The Inquisition

While most of us regard “The Inquisition” as a particular event, it actually refers to a set of institutions within the Roman Catholic Church that operated from the mid-13th century until the 19th century. One actually still survives, now known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was directed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before his 2005 election as Pope Benedict XVI. These institutions were charged with prosecuting heresy — and prosecute they did, executing and torturing thousands of suspected witches, converts from Judaism (many of whom had been forced to convert), Protestants, and all manner of suspected heretics, particularly in the 15th and 16th centuries. Historians estimate that 150,000 people were put on trial by the Inquisition, with 3,000 executed. Arguably, the Islamic State’s methods of execution — including crucifixion, beheading, and, most recently, burning a prisoner alive —are as gruesome as the Inquistion’s, with its infamous hangings and burnings at the stake. ISIS is also committing systematic rape, which the Inquisition did not, and enslaving children. As for torture, however, it’s hard to do worse than the Inquisition, which used torture as a method of extracting confessions. Methods included starvation, burning victims’ bodies with hot coals, forced overconsumption of water, hanging by straps, thumbscrews, metal pincers, and of course, the rack. Believe it or not, all of this was meant to be for the victim’s own good: better to confess heresy in this life, even under duress, than to be punished for it in the next. Contrary to Moore’s statement, the Inquisition was not “outside the moral parameters of Christianity itself and … met with overwhelming moral opposition from Christians.” Though Moore may distinguish between ‘Christianity’ and the Roman Catholic Church, for all intents and purposes the Roman Catholic Church WAS Christianity at the time, or at least claimed to be.

Slavery and Jim Crow

“Slaves, obey your masters,” the New Testament says — three times. And indeed, Christian teaching was cited on both sides of the slavery debate, with both slaveholders and abolitionists using it to justify theiractions. Segregationists also looked to the “Curse of Ham,” from the story of Noah, and the notion that God had separated the races on different continents. The effects were world-historic in scope: Nearly 12 million people were forced on the “Middle Passage” from Africa to the Americas. More recently, though the vast majority of Christians abhor it, the Ku Klux Klan, to the present day, still insists that it is a “Christian organization.” There’s a reason the Klan burned crosses alongside its lynchings and acts of arson, after all. Of course, there was also organized Christian opposition to slavery and to Jim Crow, and Christianity is at least as much the property of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., as of the segregationists and slaveholders of the Old South. But this was precisely Obama’s point: All religions have their hateful extremists, and their prophets of justice. What about popularity? Do more Muslims support the Islamic State today than Christians supported Jim Crow in the past? No. At the height of the KKK’s popularity in the 1920s, approximately 15 percent of white male Americans were members. That number is eerily similar to the 12 percent of Muslims worldwide who support terrorism today.

In other words, not only is Obama factually correct that Christian extremism across history has been at least as bloody as Muslim extremism today, it is also factually true that such extremisms have been equally popular. True, as Rush Limbaugh points out, the Crusades were “a thousand years ago,” the Inquisition ended 200 years ago, and Jim Crow legally ended in the 1960s. But the president specifically noted that “humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history.”

Which is the real point. There are two narratives about radical Islamists, and indeed about enemies of any sort, that coexist in American culture. According to one, they are different from us — Muslims, Palestinians, Israelis, Communists, you name it. Thus, in the battle against Islamic extremism, Islam is, in part at least, the enemy.

The other narrative is that all peoples, all creeds, all nations contain elements of moderation and extremism. Thankfully, racist Christian extremists are today a tiny minority within American Christianity. But only 100 years ago, they were as popular among American Christians as the Islamic State is among Muslims today. Thus, in the battle against Islamic extremism, it is extremism that is the enemy.

Hysterical commentary notwithstanding, no one is suggesting that Christians are just like the Islamic State. But Obama did suggest that Christianity is like Islam; both faiths have the capacity to be exploited by extremists. Christians should not be insulted by the facts of history. Rather, all of us should be inspired by them to recognize the dangers of extremism — wherever they lie.

Read Full Post »

Jonathan Gentry isn’t afraid to talk about the breakdown of civilization in the black community. He addresses the black activists and civil rights leaders and responds to the Michael Brown killing where an unarmed black 18-year-old was reportedly shot after an alleged altercation with a white police officer.

In the 6:18 youtube video that he had posted to his Facebook page, Gentry gets right to the point about the looting and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri. He tells the black looters, rioters, and arsonists that what they are doing isn’t helping.

“[T]his is embarrassing. The whole country is watching us act like Planet of the Apes, Part III. Acting like Curious George on Red Bull ain’t helping.”

By the way, Curious George is a brown monkey character in a children’s book series that is brought from Africa to a big city, and Red Bull is a fizzy, caffeine/sugar-laden energy drink.

According to Gentry, he is telling black folks what they “need to hear as opposed to what you want to hear.”

“All we know how to do is march, and riot, and loot. … All we know how to do is blame the police and white folks for our actions. … I’m sick of it. … Let’s change as black people. When is this gonna stop. When! How are our children supposed to grow up when we’re out here acting like a stoned fool? How are our kids supposed to grow up when we’re out here acting stupid? How? … When, are we gonna overcome? It’s been fifty plus years and all we’re doin’ is goin’ ’round in circles.”

Gentry says he’s “still waitin’ for us to overcome.”

“Change is not going to come until we change it. … Let’s stop marchin’ and let’s just change.”

Read Full Post »


The barricades blocking the WWII Memorial were easily moved away earlier this week to allow an Honor Flight of World War II veterans access to the open-air memorial on the Mall. However, Barack Obama’s Office of Management and Budget has turned the screw and ordered National Park Service (NPS) employees to shore up the barricades and tie them together to prevent any more Honor Flight veterans from visiting the site.

The Honor Flight Network has scheduled tours for WWII Veterans to the Memorial throughout October. See the Honor Flight Network schedule at: http://www.honorflight.org/tou.

Most of the Honor Flight veterans are in their 80’s, and have been anxiously awaiting their opportunity to see the memorial dedicated to them and their fallen comrades. A lot of time, money, and preparation has gone into flying them to DC and touring the WWII Memorial.

For Obama’s administration to spend money and manpower to wire together barricades to keep these WWII veterans from seeing their memorial is a nothing short of a cruel, petty act of a “shameless, desperate bully.”

Matt Walsh’s “An open letter to President Obama” echoes my sentiments exactly:

Closing down parks, monuments and memorials just to score political points is hardly your most insidious deed, but it’s certainly one of your pettiest. That’s why it stands, ironically, as a monument of its own. If we ever build a statue of you, Mr. President, you won’t be triumphantly holding a flaming torch like Lady Liberty, or standing authoritatively with a look of determination, like the MLK memorial. No, it will be a statue of you pulling the wings off of a fly, or spitting in someone’s orange juice. It will show you in your essence, as monuments are meant to do. It will show you as a petulant, skulking, juvenile bully. It will you show you as you are.

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »


Obama Orders War Memorials Closed During Government Shutdown

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OBM) ordered the closing of several DC open-air/war memorials including the Lincoln Memorial (pictured) and the WWII Memorial. OMB is part of the executive branch and reports directly to Barack Obama.

Some Park Service employees, who were scheduled to be furloughed during the government shutdown, were given special exceptions just to barricade and police the District’s more popular open-air memorials.

The Clinton administration did not close the open-air/war memorials during the 1995/1996 government shutdowns. In fact, Obama’s decision to barricade and police the Lincoln Memorial during the government shutdown is the first time visitors have been denied access to the memorial during a shutdown.

Open-air/war memorials are open to visitors 24 hours a day, seven days a week regardless of whether or not park service employees are on-site.

Read Full Post »

“This election was won with progressive constituencies and a PROGRESSIVE AGENDA.”— Stewart Acuff, People’s World (PW) news web site associated with the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)

America’s republican form of government died last Tuesday when government-dependents, union members, and illegal aliens chose to speed past the last off ramp on the road to serfdom and vote for Democrat Party rule and a benevolent dictatorship.

“Our Constitutional Republic died a peaceful death on November 6, 2012. Having reached the point of no return in a comatose state after years of progressive and illegal immigration assaults, the fabric of conservative society is now completely unraveled and Uncle Sam’s America is no more.

After 236 years of existence, a new country emerges today, run by secular progressives who rejected our Constitution, what we stand for, and who we are as a nation. The Supreme Court will be forever altered after its last conservative members will be replaced by the liberal academics who call themselves “progressives.” The rule of law will be implemented by Executive Orders, making Congress irrelevant.

The communist motto “Forward” that resonated with so many ignorant Americans will plunge us into many years of darkness from which we will never be able to recover. We have proven our Founding Fathers right, they did give us a ConstitutionalRepublic and we were unable to maintain it.”—Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

I.M. Kane

For more, see “The End of an Empire” and “We won! The American people speak and act with strength and determination.”

Read Full Post »

MUST SEE video!

“Before you were born, I only worried about how your disability reflected on me. Now, there’s no better mirror in the world.”—Heath White

A beautiful thing is never perfect.” We’re all defective; it’s just a matter of degree. Or as Augustine put it, “This is the very perfection of a man, to find out his own imperfections.”

I.M. Kane

E:60 – Perfect 14:08 Video

Read Full Post »

All that was heard during the Democrat convention was how Obama saved General Motors, and how Mitt Romney would outsource jobs and destroy America if elected president.

If you wanna know the truth and find out who’s really been outsourcing jobs, take the next ten minutes and check out the video “General Motors is becoming China Motors.”

Warning:  This is your last chance. Once you start watching the video, there is no turning back. You ignore it; the story ends. You wake up tomorrow and believe whatever the Democrat Party wants you to believe. You watch the video; you learn how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

I like Chinese,

I like Chinese,

I like their tiny little trees,

Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin and yang-ese.

I.M. Kane

General Motors is becoming China Motors 9:16 Video

Read Full Post »

Why I Oppose Same-Sex “Marriage”—Part II

By Jerry A. Kane

As a rule I seldom engage fools in their folly, but I have on occasions made exemptions for former students. The exchange below is one such exemption that occurred on Facebook:

I.M. Kane

Student:  Perez v. Sharp, Perez v. Lippold, Loving v. Virginia – in each of these court cases, arguments were made against interracial marriage. These arguments included that interracial marriage was unnatural in he eyes of God, that it was “always productive of deplorable results” (Perez v. Lippold), that it leads to incest, that interracial marriage spreads disease, and that it’s bad for children to be raised in such an environment.

Does this sound familiar? We may know better now, but the arguments themselves haven’t changed – only their target has.

Asserting that something is true doesn’t make it true; outside of the Bible and Christianity in general, what studies are in place that show that homosexuality is purely a choice? From what I can see, the results are a mixed grab-bag at best – with some homosexuals saying it’s a choice that was made, others saying they were born that way, and sociological/​psychological/biological studies show just about everything in-between. Personally, I’m about as straight as an arrow – I don’t find any physical attraction to the male figure. If homosexuality is a choice, then why is it a choice that I seem naturally inclined to make for myself – without anyone telling me what’s natural or unnatural? Where is the evidence for what you’re claiming?

I’m not throwing out the rule of law, but I do realize that morality and legality have absolutely nothing to do with one another – it’s not tyranny to support homosexual marriage any more than it’s tyranny to condemn it, but the application of force by the government to try and combat a victimless crime is something that I find abhorrent. I agree with you that forcing homosexual marriage on those who morally oppose it is tyranny, but no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying, “Marry a homosexual”. Just because the State recognizes a union between two consenting adults doesn’t mean that you have to, any more than two atheists getting a marriage license are recognized as being married by a Christian church.

I recognize that people in the 1960’s opposed interracial marriage for reasons of prejudice – but I also understand that, in the minds of those who fought so passionately against it, it -was- an issue of morality. To them, there were very real moral justifications for what they believed in, and very little in the way of facts.

Yes, I understand that Big Brother is in reference to George Orwell’s 1984; Big Brother is synonymous for the abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties. We do not live in a totalitarian state, but a totalitarian state isn’t a prerequisite for abuse of government power.

I don’t think that I’m being naïve when I say that the government has no place in legislating my morality. A government is supposed to protect our natural rights, not grow large enough to dictate who we can marry and what we do with other consenting adults.

..And only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I.M. Kane:  This may be a matter of pearls before swine as I have other responsibilities and matters of greater importance that warrant my attention; but I will address your folly lest you think yourself wise.

The argument made against interracial marriage in the court cases you cited is extraneous to the point, i.e., skin color and sexual behavior are mutually exclusive. Just because lawyers used a similar argument to oppose interracial marriage doesn’t invalidate the argument. The argument doesn’t apply to race, but it most certainly does apply to homosexual behavior.

You would be hard pressed to find a biblical basis to forbid interracial marriage or that it is unnatural in the eyes of God. The Bible does not forbid interracial marriage; it forbids believers in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from marrying unbelievers and idolaters involved in pagan religions. Conversely, the Bible does condemn homosexuality as unnatural in the eyes of God; in fact, the Bible calls it an abomination. As for interracial marriage spreading STDs, if the lawyers provided stats to support their claim, I think their facts would prove to be dubious at best. However, the claim that homosexual sex increases the risk of STDs is quite valid.

Homosexual sex leads to greater health risks and the spreading of STDS because the rectum was not designed for anal intercourse. The vagina has natural lubricants; it is supported by a network of muscles and a mucus membrane that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist infectious agents carried in the semen. Conversely, the anus (sphincter) is an “exit-only” passage comprised of small muscles. With repeated friction and stretching, the anus loses tone and the ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal matter that can easily become chronic. A British researcher summarizes the danger as follows:

“[P]enile-anal … sexual contact … may encourage the entry of micro-organisms and thus lead to primary syphilitic lesions occurring in the anogenital area.” (See, R. R. Wilcox, “Sexual Behaviour and Sexually Transmitted Disease Patterns in Male Homosexuals,” British Journal of Venereal Diseases, 57(3): 167-169, 167 (1981)).

Only a single, thin layer of tissue separates the intestine [rectum] from highly vascular tissue, which is blood. That means organisms introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in the vagina. This thin layer of tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, which means that anal-genital intercourse exposes participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluid.

The fragility of the anus and rectum allows for the easy transmission of HIV and other infections during anal-genital intercourse. The following list of diseases is frequently found among male homosexuals who engage in anal intercourse:

·       Anal Cancer

·       Chlamydia trachomatis

·       Cryptosporidium

·       Giardia lamblia

·       Herpes simplex virus

·       Human immunodeficiency virus

·       Human papilloma virus

·       Isospora belli

·       Microsporidia

·       Gonorrhea

·       Viral hepatitis types B & C

·       Syphilis

Data from a 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report point out the disproportionate impact of HIV and syphilis among homosexual and bisexual men in the United States. An analysis of the data shows that the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. (See, CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men. Press Release. Wednesday, March 10, 2010.)

A 1988 CDC survey identified 21 percent of all Hepatitis B cases as being homosexually transmitted while 18 percent were heterosexually transmitted. Considering homosexuals comprise between 1and 3 percent of the population, they have a significantly higher rate of Hepatitis B than heterosexuals. (See, Edward O. Laumann, John H. Gagnon, et al., The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States, p.293, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.)

Data collected in 1989 show that the rates of anal cancer among homosexual males is 10 times that of heterosexual males, and on the rise. The rates double for those with AIDS. (See, Mads Melbye, Charles Rabkin, et al., “Changing patterns of anal cancer incidence in the United States, 1940-1989,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 139: 772-780, p. 779, Table 2 (1994.))

Health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle is undeniable. Increased risks of STDs, physical injuries, mental disorders, and a shortened lifespan are all by-products of the homosexual lifestyle. Human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate anal intercourse.

You ask, “what studies are in place that show that homosexuality is purely a choice?”

Were you free of your mind-forged manacles you could have conducted a search and found the following studies quite easily:

·       “The Innate-Immutability Argument Finds No Basis in Science” at http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

·       “Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14567650.

·       “Human sexual orientation. The biologic theories reappraised” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8439245.

·       “Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12585809.

·       “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference Is A Shifting Concept” at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53140-2004Jan4?language=printer.

There is no scientific evidence that shows homosexuality is genetic. The media have perpetuated the myth of a homosexual gene. I think homosexuality has more to do with socialization and a learned, preferred lifestyle than genetics.

Race and gender are not optional lifestyles. They remain immutable. Conversely, homosexuality is not an immutable condition; it is a learned behavior. The predominant cause of homosexual behavior is the result of social conditioning by parents, siblings, dating, and interacting with others.

“The idea that people are born into one type of sexual behavior is entirely foolish. Homosexuality is … something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.”—John DeCecco, professor of psychology San Francisco State University

If homosexuality is genetic, then homosexuals are not responsible for their behavior because they can’t change their genetic predisposition. The same reasoning would hold true for child molesters who also claim to have a genetic predisposition for their sexual desires. Shouldn’t they be allowed to fulfill their desires if enough studies support the view that pederasty and pedophilia are in fact quite harmless and should not be considered sexual abuse?

Sane people would agree that it is unnatural, perverted, and depraved to sexually molest children. Pederasts and pedophiles were not born with those desires; they learned them, whether intentional or not. The same is true for homosexual behavior. What is learned can be unlearned.

Homosexual behavior is a voluntary act controlled by the human will, as is heterosexual behavior. According to author, teacher, social critic, and lesbian activist Camille Paglia:

“Homosexuality is ‘not normal’. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single, relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait. … [T]here is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise.”

Consider also that homosexuality was rampant throughout the ancient world, especially in ancient Greece. Unless ancient Greece suffered from a genetic outbreak of homosexuality, what explains an entire society normalizing and practicing homosexuality?

You go on to say that “morality and legality have absolutely nothing to do with one another [and] that the government has no place in legislating my morality.”

Sheer nonsense! Don’t you know that every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, i.e., every law is an instance of legislating morality? Furthermore, a nation’s laws help shape the beliefs, character, and actions of its citizens. It is impossible to separate morality from law, so your point about legislating morality is moot. The real question is which moral system will be made legally binding.

It’s not a matter of whether morality can be legislated; the question is “Whose morality should be legislated?” To argue that homosexual behavior should be viewed and treated the same as heterosexual behavior suggests that you have adopted a moral position. And to call me a bigot for not agreeing with your moral position on homosexual behavior is a moral judgment. Obviously, you believe that your moral position on homosexual behavior is beyond reproach, so anyone who disagrees or challenges it is a bigot. Such colossal ignorance is either the product of an educational deficit or the product of narrow-minded thinking.

You ask, “why is it [my sexual preference] a choice that I seem naturally inclined to make for myself – without anyone telling me what’s natural or unnatural?”

Whether you realize it or not, you internalized and adopted the societal norms and expectations imposed by your generalized other.

I did not concoct my own morality; I inherited it. I did not decide that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, any more than I decided that stealing and murder are morally wrong. The morality I espouse is the result of taking on the moral perspectives imposed on me by my generalized other.

But you and your bag-head generation insist on imposing your morality on the rest of us.  So the question is does your morality strengthen the social fabric and further the cause of personal freedom and individual liberty or would it destroy society and undermine liberty? I think John Adams, second President of the United States, answered this question October 11, 1798, in a letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts:

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

You write, “I agree with you that forcing homosexual marriage on those who morally oppose it is tyranny, but no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying, ‘Marry a homosexual.'”

This is a pointless statement if ever there was one.

First of all, the government doesn’t force anyone to get married, asshat! And secondly, no one has the right to get married because marriage is not a human right; it’s a privilege, even for heterosexuals. Heterosexuals don’t have the right to marry plants, or animals, or parents, or siblings. Government rightly discriminates regarding the privilege of marriage, which means it’s not unreasonable for society to place restrictions on marriage to serve its best interests, i.e., the encouragement of children and families.

The government has supported traditional marriage as a benefit to encourage the formation of strong families to produce future citizens. It hasn’t conveyed special benefits for friendships or other special relationships because it has no compelling reason to do so.

You write, “Big Brother is synonymous for the abuse of government power, particularly in respect to civil liberties.”

Damn it! Big Brother isn’t a synonym for the abuse of civil liberties by a government. You have no right to capriciously change the denotative meaning of a word to fit your agenda-driven “argument.”

Totalitarian regimes control all aspects of life. Conversely, authoritarian regimes severely curtail freedom and limit arenas of expression, but they don’t regulate and control their citizens’ thoughts and actions to comply with a particular ideology. Totalitarianism is an extreme version of authoritarianism; it is a system where power and society are subsumed to an ideology.

Orwell’s Big Brother character personifies a benevolent, ubiquitous dictator in a totalitarian system, as Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge character personifies a misanthrope miser in Victorian England. Big Brother represents more than just a powerful dictator, in the same way that Scrooge represents more than just a greedy rich man.

Your final remark, “only a Sith deals in absolutes” reminds me of a Three Stooges bit I’d seen years ago. Moe and Curly were mulling over some sort of project and the exchange went something like this:

Moe:  Are you sure this is gonna work?

Curly:  Absolutely!

Moe:  There are no absolutes, knucklehead.

Curly:  Are you sure?

Moe:  Absolutely!

In your mind my opposition to homosexual “marriage” is tantamount to bigotry. In my mind you have entered a rubber room for the reality-challenged where angels fear to tread.

Until reality bites,

I.M. Kane

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »