A North Carolina restaurant owner got tired of seeing the experiences of his paying customers ruined by poorly-behaving children, so he banned them from his restaurant.
That’s right. A restaurant owner finally developed the nerve to do it. So, let’s hear a round of applause for the restaurant owner, Yoshi Nunez.
The restaurant, named Caruso’s, has banned children under the age of five from entering its doors. As you’d probably expect, this move has resulted in criticism from those who don’t understand why the rest of us would want peace and quiet while spending some quality time with our wives and suitors while eating a steak that cost several hours of wage.
That smug glow of righteousness that comes from virtue signalling about ageism is spouted by people that want to be sure that they can take their screaming children with them anywhere they go, be it to supermarkets, shopping centers, and even to restaurants where their undisciplined bags of ugly noise can deter the prospect of procreating for those of us who are better suited to it.
Predictably enough, once word got out that there was a restaurant that served as a haven from other people’s children, reservations for that restaurant went through the roof. While irresponsible parents may have taken to social media to complain, the rest of us have voted with our money and decided that a kid-free restaurant was just what was needed.
Of course, the many left-wing news websites that reported on this would likely be at a loss once they come to the realization that the restaurant owner that banned children was well within his rights as a business owner to decline service to potential customers for any or no reason. To understand why, remember that these same news websites had no problem with lambasting Christian bakery owners for not making gay wedding cakes in violation of the bakery owner’s religious convictions, in spite of the fact that nearly every other bakery one could have chosen instead is not principled when it comes to this kind of thing.
Of course, the pedophiles would likely be upset by this development, as it would mean one less dating option for them.
The observances of Good Friday and Easter Sunday were something that I was brought up on. However, there are those who would point to the Bible and say that these observances aren’t supported by scripture.
Is this really the case? I’ve been challenged with this idea, so I’ve decided to explore the Bible for myself to see what it says on the matter, allowing scripture to speak for itself. What I’m presenting here is what I’ve found as a result of my search.
The claims that Good Friday and Easter Sunday are invalid largely hinge on the words of Jesus Christ, when He issues a prophecy concerning his own entombment and resurrection. He says that He would be entombed for “three days and three nights” (Matthew 12:40). Some might look at this and interpret Him as saying that three days means 3 twelve hour periods, as the Bible sometimes uses the word “day” to refer to the 12 hour period of daylight, as we do in the modern vernacular. However, Jesus is being quite specific when He says “three days and three nights”. For His statement to be true, He had to have been entombed for three periods of night and three periods of day, 72 hours total.
There’s a lot at stake here. If anyone else made a mistaken prophecy concerning Him, that would be one thing. However, this would be the prophecy that He made about Himself. When Christ made a prophecy about Himself, He put His own legitimacy on the line!
With this in mind, let’s examine just how many days and nights can fit in the Good Friday Easter Sunday explanation for His entombment.
This can be quite troubling to those who discover it for the first time. Obviously, there is no reconciling the Good Friday Easter Sunday timeline with the words of Jesus Himself. Where there’s two conflicting accounts, they can’t both be true. So, who is right? Would it be most of the Christian world today with the Good Friday Easter Sunday timeline? Or would it be Jesus Christ Himself with His three days and three nights timeline? To find the answer to this question, we must explore the Bible.
There is another apparent contradiction in that one of the gospels tells us that the women purchased and prepared spices before the Sabbath (Luke 23:56), while another gospel tells us that the women purchased and prepared embalming spices after the Sabbath (Mark 16:1).
To those who first discover this apparent contradiction, this can be quite distressing. After all, if there is an internal contradiction within the Bible itself, then the accuracy of the Bible can be called into question. More than a few people’s faith may be hanging on the answer to this concern. Therefore, a satisfactory answer to it must be found.
Thankfully, there is an answer to this question, and it also satisfies the requirements of the three days and three nights prophecy that Jesus Himself issued.
A professing Christian can be forgiven for not being aware of the details with the Biblical Holy Days listed in Leviticus 23. After all, they are not usually exposed to teachings regarding these observances in Sunday school. As one reads about these Holy Days, which include Passover, Day of Atonement, and the Days of Unleavened Bread, it should become clear that there is more than one category of Sabbath. Relevant to this discussion, there are two:
- The weekly Sabbath
- High Day Sabbaths
The weekly Sabbath is the customary Sabbath that occurs one day of the week. Much of the Christian world observes something like it by observing Sundays, the first day of the week. The Biblical Sabbath occurs from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, the seventh day of the week, which would be the day observed by Christ Himself.
A High Day Sabbath would be a day of rest associated with a yearly observance, such as the Days of Unleavened Bread. A High Day Sabbath is distinct in that it does not necessarily occur on a particular day of the week. This should not be challenging to the modern imagination, considering that there are holidays that shift from one day of the week to another year by year.
When we understand this, we can understand that there need not be a contradiction between the gospels concerning when the women purchased and prepared spices. This can be satisfied when we consider that the act of purchasing and preparing spices occurred between two different Sabbaths, the first being a High Day, and the second being the weekly Sabbath.
Let’s see how this would play out:
As we can see, not only does this satisfy the claim that the women purchased and prepared spices before and after Sabbaths, it also satisfies Jesus Christ’s own prophecy concerning his entombment and resurrection: that he would be entombed for three days and three nights. This timeline shows the gospels in harmony with each other, and with Jesus Christ’s own prophecy.
However, this brings up another troubling question. Most churches today teach the Good Friday Easter Sunday explanation for the entombment and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Why would they do this if it cannot be reconciled with what Jesus Himself said?
The answer is somewhat complex, and involves the strong pull of tradition, peer pressure, and simple ignorance regarding the backgrounds of Jesus and His disciples.
When reading the Bible, it’s easy to be caught up in the narrative, understanding the significance of the events taking place, but overlooking certain details that may have far reaching implications. While easy to overlook, those details may be very important, even to the point of distinguishing true Christianity from false religion. The Bible was written in a manner that is very deliberate. There is no instance where an important detail is left out, or something unnecessary was accidentally added. This is especially important considering that true Christians care whether they get it right. That’s where those details really come into play. They might end up being our way of telling who is who in the world of religion.
There is a lot more to this subject that can be explored. I think that for most people, the above provides plenty of food for thought until they determine to look into matters some more.
There is a short story that I grew up with that I imagine isn’t being passed along among today’s millennials. Therefore, I’ve decided to share it so that its message isn’t lost among a generation that needs it.
This is the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
There was a boy whose job it was to tend the sheep. His job was pretty simple: he was to keep an eye on the sheep, and if a wolf were to come along, he was to run into town making as much noise as he could, so the townsfolk would rush in and protect the sheep.
The boy had only one job to do, and as long as he didn’t screw it up, things would go just fine.
One day, the boy was bored, so he hatched a plan to cause a little excitement. He ran into town crying “Wolf! Wolf!” As he did so, the townsfolk ran to the fields as fast as they could, intent on protecting the sheep.
However, when they came, they didn’t find any wolf. They only found the boy, laughing hysterically at the commotion that he caused. The townsfolk returned home.
The boy had such fun, that he decided to try the same thing the next day. He ran into town crying “Wolf! Wolf!” Just as the day before, the villagers rushed in, but only found the boy laughing it up about having caused a ruckus. As before, the townsfolk returned home.
The next day, a wolf actually did appear, and prowled around the sheep. Immediately, the boy leaped into action. He ran into town and cried “Wolf! Wolf!” as was his job to do.
However, the townsfolk didn’t respond.
So the boy ran around, screaming louder, “WOLF! WOLF!” However, the townsfolk ignored him. They remembered him as the boy who lied to them before, and they were determined not to fall for his schemes again.
The boy ran around screaming “Wolf! Wolf!” until he was exhausted. When it was nearly evening, he gave up and returned to his field. By the time he did, the wolf had already taken away all of the sheep. Because the boy lied and failed in his duty, he was left without a single sheep.
Remind you of anyone?
Those stories about Scrooges and Grinches pretty much lied to you. You know, the ones that make those who don’t celebrate Christmas out to be some cranky, miserable people who want to take fun away from everyone else. The fact of the matter is, I don’t celebrate Christmas, and I’m happier for not celebrating it.
I know that it’s hard to picture, but a person doesn’t need Christmas to be happy. In fact, giving up Christmas is quite liberating.
I’ll go over a few of the reasons why I’m happier for not celebrating Christmas. Be aware that there are reasons beyond those listed.
1. You can’t put Jesus back into a day that He was never a part of.
Think about the symbols associated with Christmas for a moment. What do decorated trees, hanging mistletoe, Yule logs, and numerous other symbols associated with Christmas have to do with the birth of Jesus Christ? The answer is: nothing. Have you ever wondered why millions of Christians observe the birth of Jesus with a bunch of symbols that make no sense?
It’s no secret that Jesus wasn’t born on December 25, as many theologians are becoming increasingly aware. The significance of that date for ancient solstice observances in paganism is very well known. Those solstice observances incorporated some very familiar symbols into their worship: decorated trees, mistletoe, Yule logs, and so on.
The Bible explicitly warns in many places to not include elements of different worship systems in the worship of the true God. This includes solstice observances, and numerous trappings associated with them. Yet, many Christians unwittingly do this as part of their Christmas observance every year!
While some would attempt to reason away attempting to worship in the way that they feel like, I’m happier for avoiding things that are explicitly commanded against, and in so doing, I avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with attempting to reason away said things.
2. I can have cookies and candy any time of the year, anyway.
Some might attempt to say, “But we have cookies. Don’t you want cookies?” If I wanted cookies, I’d go out and buy them, just like anyone else.
“But what about candy? Don’t you want candy?” Am I a child, that someone can tempt me to violate my sensibilities with candy? Again, I can just get candy for myself, if I wanted to. Besides, I prefer my candy without pagan solstice mysticism. I can have candy and cookies and chocolate any time of the year, no need to wait for a solstice observance as a pretext. I’m a grown man; I can get candy any time I want to.
In fact, just the other day, I went out and got jelly beans and candy bars. And they were tasty. None of it was Christmas candy, so no violation of my conscience, there.
3. Using “family” as a pretext doesn’t work, either.
I know that there are those who would say that they celebrate Christmas because of family. But the fact is, a person has their family the entire year. Has the same person been ignoring their family the rest of the year, and only visited them because they felt obligated to because of Christmas?
Obligation has more to do with duty than love. If a person really cared for their family, they’d check up on them more often. A person doesn’t need Christmas to do that.
If I wanted to spend time with family, I do that any time of the year, and they’d know that I’m sincere and not just doing it because of some solstice observance.
4. My checking account doesn’t suffer for it.
Let’s not kid ourselves, here. Christmas is primarily a commercial observance. Marketing is what popularized it among non-Catholics. Its proponents focused on the gift-giving aspect of it after the drunken revelry aspect proved to be a liability (so much so that the observance was actually banned by Continental Congress once upon a time).
There was money in it, so it’s not like the retail industry was going to do anything to discourage it. In fact, some guys were running around, taking care of all the marketing for them. The suckers took care of the rest.
Fast forward to today, and people are spending themselves broke on things like iPhones and video games with no guarantee that the intended recipient won’t find some reason to be disappointed with them, anyway. In some cases, a person racks up credit card debt that lasts for months to satisfy their ungrateful children’s demands for expensive toys.
I don’t spend myself into debt on Christmas presents, so I have much less stress over how to pay the bills for the next few months.
5. The “day after” disappointment is something I don’t have to deal with.
I remember going to work the day after Christmas, and the two guys I worked with didn’t look so jolly. Just days earlier, they were singing Christmas tunes while they worked, and were generally in a euphoric state. But the day afterwards, they didn’t seem as thrilled.
I was curious, so I asked them what was bothering them. One of them straight up told me that it was because Christmas was over, and they were disappointed.
No surprise there. There was no possible way that the observance could have lived up to all the hype that was built around it.
As for me, I didn’t have any reason to be disappointed. I didn’t invest huge piles of money into any solstice observance, and I didn’t have to put piles of decorations away. What’s more, the hoopla was done until the next year. Not that I was going to buy into any of it on that year, either.
So, that’s a list of five reasons why I’m happier for not celebrating Christmas. I know that some of you probably won’t take it so well, but maybe some of you can think of a few reasons to add. Personally, I think it’s validating to stand up for what I believe in, and stay away from what I don’t. There are too many people that don’t relate to that, and that’s really quite sad. Following the crowd isn’t easier, it sets one’s self up for exploitation.
Can a person really vote by text? If it’s about voting in the upcoming presidential election, then the answer is no.
But that’s not stopping ads such as the one in the photo above from making rounds on social media outlets such as Twitter. The fake ads were apparently made by conservative Twitter users, who proceeded to share them as legitimate, perhaps so left-wing bloggers can take it at face value and re-tweet it.
Traditional media outlets have discovered that this is going on, and they went ballistic. One example would be this article on The Washington Post.
Twitter typically doesn’t intervene unless what is posted is illegal, and lying about the process of voting is not illegal. However, Twitter eventually intervened anyway, which I think just about anyone could have seen coming. You know, what with leftists making up a huge chunk of their Safety Council.
It’s easy to see why the left-leaning media didn’t like this very much. It’s not just the fact that it’s right-wing shenanigans, which they’d jump all over to try to convince you to change your vote to Democrat. Generally, politicians and the politically-involved tend to see the majority of the population as morons. So when they saw this hoax pop up, they suspected that people could fall for it. Personally, in the case of liberals, I see these concerns as much more well-founded.
I know that the image of the typical left-leaner as presented in the media is as some coastal technocrats that are connected and abreast of the trends of the digital age, while those on the right are portrayed as southern yokels who are too heavily invested in traditional values to come to the present age. However, when you spend some time on the ground, you see that this isn’t really the case. From my own experience, the typical left-leaners are low-income city-dwellers who believe that they are actively being suppressed, and that the odds are against them. They typically vote Democrat because they receive government assistance of some kind, and are convinced that if Republicans got their way, their benefits would be taken away from them, and they would be left to starve. This is in contrast to the typical conservative, who are usually skilled workers who see the world as unfair, but love the free market because it still offers a positive correlation between the effort that one puts forward, and the reward they get for it.
Fake ads like the one shown above, which has also been produced in Spanish, are perfect for pulling one over on the left-leaning. Many of them would see something like voting by text as something that could reasonably be implemented in the year 2016. They might even see the use of material such as the official logo for the Clinton campaign, as well as the disclaimer, and think it’s legit. So they’d fire their text messages off on their cheap pay-as-you-go Obamaphones while thinking that they’re bringing about change (by voting for the establishment candidate, go figure), and Election Day can come and go and they’d be none the wiser.
The fact that a similar ad was produced in Spanish is especially insidious. We know that the reason why immigrants (legal or otherwise) vote Democrat is because Democrats are generally weaker on immigration. We know that the reason why Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote is that illegal immigrants would mostly vote Democrat, and these days, when elections are usually tight, even a slight shift in one party’s favor can win that party the election. That Democrats desire to secure the votes of immigrants doesn’t have to do with sharing their values (because they don’t), they see them as a resource to exploit for political advantage.
The problem is, illegal immigrants don’t understand the American election process very well. This isn’t surprising, considering that Americans don’t understand the election process very well. So when someone new to America sees an official-looking ad say (in their own language) that they can vote for a candidate by text, they are likely to take it at face value, and not bother to register or vote or even show up on election day, and they’d be likely to pass this false information on to their friends and family.
The internet has proven to be a double-edged sword. While it’s true that it can be used to send information instantaneously around the world, the same could happen with false information, and that false information can get quite a bit of traction. It’s tempting to save time by taking someone else’s word for it so one can get back to wasting it with some vapid Facebook game. However, if a person doesn’t do their research, they’re going to be much easier for someone else to take advantage of.
When Donald Trump stated his belief that the US presidential election was rigged, it was treated by media outlets and the Democratic party as an unprecedented challenge to democracy itself.
But was Donald Trump the first person to ever challenge the results of a presidential election?
How quickly people forget. The results of the US presidential election has been challenged, and it was actually very recent. In the year 2004, George Bush won reelection. By a landslide. That did not sit well with left-leaners. While John Kerry himself shortly afterwards conceded the election, there were diehards who would not accept an extension of the Bush presidency, including Larry Chin of FromTheWilderness.com and Bob Fitrakis of the ironically-named FreePress.org. If Donald Trump can be called unpatriotic for challenging an election system he believes is rigged, certainly the same could be said of bloggers who were leftists back when leftism was fashionable.
But, the challenge wasn’t issued by John Kerry himself, so it’s not like he was being a poor sport. So then, was there a previous presidential candidate who directly challenged the results of the presidential election?
Yes there was. Does the name “Al Gore” ring a bell?
Yeah, that guy. Not only did he challenge the results of the election in the state of Florida, he brought the issue to the Supreme Court, which then gave the election to Bush. Gore made a spectacle of the American electoral process, which resulted in America being mocked abroad for our difficulties in selecting a leader. At that time, Floridians who claimed that the ballots were confusing sided with Kerry. I’ll let you consider whether you want to count the votes of those who don’t understand how to cast them.
Leftists, I get it. You don’t like admitting that your favorite guys lost to Bush, the guy who’s portrayed as a chimp in political comics and has no apparent knack for public speaking. That’s embarrassing. This might have something to do with the fact that neither one of them became the frontrunners for their party again.
However, when Donald Trump accuses Hillary Clinton and the DNC of cheating, leftists trip over themselves to make him out to be a threat to democracy, not remembering what they themselves once said back when Bush campaigned and won.
Personally, I liked it better when Donald Trump said it. Not that he’s providing much in the way of evidence to back up his claim, nor do I know for sure what kind of information he has access to.
However, Trump did bring something against Clinton that I wouldn’t put past her. She was the one who staged an event where she hugged a child after collapsing at a 9/11 memorial event as though she were okay, then claimed to have been diagnosed with pneumonia just days prior (This is irresponsible, because pneumonia is the single highest infectious cause of death in children worldwide. Saying that she lied wouldn’t be much of a defense.). Hillary Clinton is the one who hired a child actor to feed a scripted anti-Trump question to her at an event.
And, worst of all, after Hillary Clinton was asked to turn over emails as part of an investigation, she then deleted them and proceeded to have her old Blackberrys smashed with hammers. It was bad enough that she used a private email server when she should have known that that was illegal. She couldn’t have claimed ignorance when she deleted the emails that she was ordered to turn over. Isn’t tampering with evidence in an investigation called “obstruction of justice”? At the very least, she knowingly defied a court order. How did she avoid getting arrested?
And, in any case, how was conspiring against Bernie Sanders to deny him the Democratic nomination any less detrimental to the electoral process?