CalvinDude.com

One of the refrains that leftist newscasters (but I repeat myself) oft repeat is that the Republican Party is in trouble because it embraces its radical right wing kook fringe. The premise is that if the GOP would just get rid of social conservatives and focus only on maintaining fiscal conservatives, the GOP would win elections again.

Given that this advice comes from leftists, conservatives already ought to reject it (since when does the opposition really care about helping their enemy win elections?). However, since there is a libertarian wing that is fiscally conservative while socially liberal, they echo these claims too.

That’s why examining the recent initiatives in California and Maine are so important. In California, the courts ruled that gay marriage should be allowed because there was nothing in the state constitution to deny it. So social conservatives passed a constitutional amendment to outlaw it. Even though Obama carried the state by a wide margin, gay marriage failed.

Ditto in Maine, where the only distinction is that the legislature passed the law instead of the courts ruling it. Still, it was not put to a popular vote, and once it was…gay marriage was defeated. In fact, in every state (31 total) where gay marriage has been put to a vote, it has been defeated.

And more importantly, in the California election, the initiative came at the same time as the presidential election. Which means there were a lot of people casting a vote for Obama and Proposition 8 at the same time. In Maine, homosexual activists were quite vocal in trying to keep the law the legislature had passed, yet they failed too.

Because of libertarians, we know that one can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But voting evidence indicates there are also a sizeable number who are fiscally liberal while remaining socially conservative. This is why California and Maine could vote for a liberal president and still vote against gay marriage.

If the GOP wants to win elections, they have to stop nominating “moderate” candidates and return to their socially conservative base. The public consistently votes for socially conservative initiatives even in liberal states. This means liberals must rely on the courts to impose their agenda, because they lack popular support.

Why anyone would consider socially conservative voters to be a weak-point in their party can only be explained by willful blindness.

There’s something wrong with this…

Oh yes. They sing about Star Wars…with no Star Wars themes.

Many of our Arminian friends make the claim that Calvinism is not found in the Bible, but it instead eisegeted in by the Calvinist. I would humbly ask a question of any Arminian who believes this:

From whence did the belief of Calvinism originate?

That is, suppose for argument that you are correct and that the Bible does not teach Calvinism. Why, then, would anyone who reads Scripture come to a Calvinist understanding of those passages? If Arminianism is true, then why would any man read Scripture and believe Calvinism to be true? What worldly system proffers a view like Calvinism such that a Calvinist believes this false philosophy and imputes it into the text of Scripture? What is that false philosophy? Name it and trace the path between it and the Reformed view. Or barring any actual existent philosophy, name the error of thought that would render a man incapable of reading Arminianism in Scripture and instead coming to the opposite conclusion.

Because the Calvinist can answer this question in reverse. For even Arminians ought to be able to see that if you assume Calvinism is true (for the sake of argument), then we know that man is depraved and wishes to think more importantly of himself than is his due. This will immediately tend to make a person believe he has more power in determining his salvation than he actually does. Hence, if Calvinism is true, Arminians are to be expected.

But how does that work for the Arminian? Even if man is depraved, God supposedly gives grace that makes it possible for all to believe—at least all who hear the Gospel. Why, then, in the presence of this grace, would any man believe Calvinism instead of Arminianism? What are the steps there, Arminian brothers? How does this follow? Have you thought it out at all? Does this not interest you in the least?

Someone brought donuts in to work today. Since I work in a department with mostly women, that means that right now, 5/16ths of a donut remain in the donut box.

A guy would never do this.

See, if there’s five guys in a department and someone brings in four donuts, that means that four guys gets donuts and one guy gets nothing. But if there’s five women in a department and only four donuts, you can guarantee by the end of the day there will be a box with only 5/16ths of a donut in it. And no one will know where any of the donuts, or donut parts, went!

This is an axiom. You cannot deny it.

This is why guys sometimes have to take it upon themselves to be merciful to the last donut. If we get to the box and there are only two donuts left, we take both of them. Because there’s nothing more pathetic than seeing 5/16ths of a donut. Alone. In the wilderness of a donut box.

I love how the media complains that bloggers need to be “fact checked” and yet then they fall for fake quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh without bothering to, you know, “fact check” and all. Irrelevancy would be an upgrade for the lamestreet media.

Here’s hoping Limbaugh sues for libel. In any sane legal system, he’d win. But this is America…

I just got back from the neighborhood Target (yet, French pronunciation is a must). Normally, as I wander through the halls of that place, I get bombarded with people in red shirts who, just like their Star Trek counterparts, are seeking to make an impact in their five seconds before they’re offed into oblivion. So every three steps its, “Can I help you find something?”

I figure this happens so often because I know exactly what I want and need no assistance in locating it. After all, I have been here before and the shelves are not migrating.

Be that as it may, today I went in and grabbed a bottle of Sobe’s Lifewater (the Strawberry Kiwi flavor) off the shelf. Apparently, the citrus flavor next to it had been overlooked many times already, and this was the final straw. Due to extremely low self-esteem, it leapt to its death and splattered all over the aisle.

Normally, I’m not much of a sentimental guy. But I figured this nice bottle of whatever needed a proper funeral. So I picked up the empty shell of its former life and set it aside, then went to find a redshirt to officiate over the funeral.

I walked up and down the entire hall, even into electronics. There were no redshirts around. They’re only there when you don’t need them.

So I finally said, “Enough of this. I’ve got what I came for.” And I went to the checkout line, where I told the woman at the register about the fate of one lonely bottle of citrus Sobe Lifewater. About ten seconds later, a second cashier came over to the first and said, “This lady just said there’s a mess in the juice aisle. I’m on the registers. What do we do?”

At least the woman at my checkout stand believed me. She even thanked me for informing her of the suicide, even though register workers cannot do anything about it.

I figured it was enough to blame gravity, and headed on my way. But of course, we all know the real culprit.

George W. Bush.

I still blame you.

We’ve known for some time that the Nobel Peace Prize is a piece of crap, worth little more than the prom king crown. It’s nothing but a gauge of how well leftist Eurodweebs like you. A popularity contest among an inbred festering sore of intellectual laziness.

I thought Al Gore winning it was bad. Winning as a talking zombie obsessed with the thermostat was pretty far down on the list of “reasons why you should win the Nobel Peace Prize” in my book. Now President 0 has “won” it. Yet nominations ended February 1—you know, when Barak was still picking the color of drapes Michelle would wear to their first “let’s go to New York” trip.

Apparently, peace these days means “being a president not named Bush.” Because as far as I can tell, that’s the only thing Barry has managed to “accomplish” in his whopping 9 months of using our country as a rented mule. Perhaps a 9.8% unemployment rate (17% if you count numbers the way they were under Bush, who had the horrific 5% rate that proves he was a dunce) is a means to peace. After all, it works well in France, all those unemployed “youths” who go around burning cars in the name of peace…

If Nobel knew his prize would have been used in this way, I think he might have dynamited Oslo himself.

Rockies have clenched the Wild Card spot, so they’re going to the playoffs again. Also, if they win their last three games of the season, they’ll actually win the division. Stranger things have happened.

Like this amazing come from behind victory:

Now that is a great victory…

How is it already October?

WARNING: This post contains graphic quotes from court testimony and is not meant to be read by children.

—

It is impossible for the Left to get their priorities straight. This has been seen often in the court system where leftists victimize the perpetrator of crimes while accusing the victim of promoting the crime. Most recently, we can see this displayed in the hysterics leftist raise regarding the arrest of admitted pedophile Roman Polanski.

When Polanski was arrested in Switzerland on a 31-year-old warrant, Hollywood elitists went ballistic. A petition has been passed around the Zurich film festival stating, in part, that “Film-makers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision.”

Dismayed that an admitted pedophile is arrested?

“It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary film-makers, is used by police to apprehend him.”

And I find it inadmissible that a party in Jack Nicholson’s home, paying homage to massive Hollywood egos, is used by a pervert to rape and sodomize a 13-year-old girl. Somehow, one of these “inadmissible” behaviors is not like the other.

Producer Henning Molfenter told The Hollywood Reporter:

There is no way I’d go to Switzerland now. You can’t watch films knowing Roman Polanski is sitting in a cell 5 km away.

Yes, poor Roman! He’s going through what some Polish film-makers have called a “judicial lynching” all because of something that happened back in the 70s. He’s the victim here. Not the 13-year-old Californian girl.

I mean, really, if you read the testimony of the 13-year-old, it is obvious that Roman Polanski was the true victim.

Q. What did you do then?

A. I went into the bathroom and started drying off.

Q. Did you see Mr. Polanski then?

A. Yes, he came into the bathroom.

Q. What happened at that time?

A. He asked me if I was all right, if my asthma was bad.

Q. What did you say?

A. I said that I wanted to go home because I needed to take my medicine.

Q. What did Mr. Polanski say?

A. He said, “Yeah, I’ll take you home soon.”

Q. What did you do?

A. I told him – I said that I wanted to get – I wanted to go home. I said, “No, I have to go home now.”

Q. What did Mr. Polanski say?

A. He told me to go into the other room and lie down.

…

Q. What did you do when he said, “Let’s go in the other room”?

A. I was going, “No, I think I better go home,” because I was afraid. So I just went and I sat down on the couch.

Q. What were you afraid of?

A. Him.

…

Q. What happened when you sat down on the couch?

A. He sat down beside me and asked if I was okay.

Q. What did you say, if anything?

A. I said, “No.”

Q. What did he say?

A. He goes, “Well, you’ll be better.” And I go, “No, I won’t. I have to go home.”

Q. What happened then?

A. He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, “No,” you know, “keep away.” But I was kind of afraid of him because there was no one else there.

Q. After he kissed you did he say anything?

A. No.

Q. Did you say anything?

A. No, besides I was just going, “No. Come on, let’s go home.”

Q. What was said after you indicated that you wanted to go home when you were sitting on the couch?

A. He said, “I’ll take you home soon.”

Q. Then what happened?

A. And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness.

Q. What does that mean?

A. It means he went down on me or he placed his mouth on my vagina.

…

Q. What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?

A. He was just like licking and I don’t know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of – I was going, “No. Come on. Stop it.” But I was afraid.

Q. And what did he say, if anything?

A. He wasn’t saying anything that I can remember. He was – sometimes he was saying stuff, but I was just blocking him out, you know.

…

Q. How long did Mr. Polanski have his mouth on your vagina?

A. A few minutes.

Q. What happened after that?

A. He started to have intercourse with me.

Q. What do you mean by intercourse?

A. He placed his penis in my vagina.

Q. What did you say, if anything, before he did that?

A. I was mostly just on and off saying, “No, stop.” But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go.

…

Q. At any time did he ask you when your period was?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. While he was having intercourse with me.

Q. Did he ask you about being on the pill?

A. Yes.

Q. When did he say that?

A. At the same time.

Q. What did he say?

A. He asked, he goes, “Are you on the pill?” And I went, “No.” And he goes, “When did you have your period?” And I said, “I don’t know. A week or two. I’m not sure.”

Q. And what did he say?

A. He goes, “Come on. You have to remember.” And I told him I didn’t.

Q. Did he say anything after that?

A. Yes. He goes, ‘Would you want me to go in through your back?” And I went, “No.”

…

Q. What happened after he says, “Do you want me to – “ was it go through the back?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened then?

A. I think he said something like right after I said I was not on the pill, right before he said, “Oh, I won’t come inside of you then.” And I just went – and he goes – and then he put me – wait. Then he lifted up my legs farther and he went in through my anus.

Q. When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?

A. He put his penis in my butt.

Q. Did he say anything at that time?

A. No.

Q. Did you resist at that time?

A. A little bit, but not really because – (pause)

Q. Because what?

A. Because I was afraid of him.

I must be pointed out that Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to statutory rape. In the above, we see that his victim told him “No” and to stop at every step of the way. And as we all know, “No means no.”

Unless you’re a famous Hollywood director.

Of course, that could move into a “he said, she said” type of event. Perhaps she did come on to him. But that ignores and important fact.

She was thirteen.

Some Polanski defenders have said she looked old for her age. At the time, the age of consent in California was 16 (it’s now 18). Suppose that his victim actually did look like she was 16. Polanski was 44 years old at the time. If you’re 44 years old and you’re having to wonder if the person you’re having sex with might be underage, that ought to be giving you warning bells.

In any case, since this unfortunate “event” occurred, Polanski has been forced to live in “exile” in France. And while that generally would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, his exile included multi-million dollar homes, a wife, children, an Oscar award, fame, and recognition for making slightly better crappy movies than the other crappy movies out there. The only real tragedy is that Polanski couldn’t pick up his Oscar in LA…

Sickening.

At root, this simple fact cannot be lost: Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. This is not in doubt—he admitted it. I don’t care if he found the cure for cancer instead of just making more money for Hollywood schlubs, he ought to be punished for his crime.

The fact that Leftists are making him into a victim shows just how morally incompetent they are.