Archives For Political Theology

Mike Pence’s gentlemen’s applause for Kamala Harris’ selection as Joe Biden’s number two takes into account the fact that Harris would be the first female Vice-President, and potentially the first female President, in U.S. history.

There are three recent events, however, which highlight why Harris may not be the best choice for such an “historic” and “unprecedented” win.

The Shifty Cross-Examination of ACB:

Kamala Harris’s cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court Judge nominee, during the Senate Judiciary Committees hearings on Barrett’s suitability for the lifelong role raised a red flag.

Following a list of Democrat led bizarre lines of questioning, Harris committed the fallacy of equivocation. Harris covertly tried to connect Barrett’s position on facts about Covid-19 and lung-cancer, with hotly contested conjecture about “apocalyptic Climate Change.”

As The Daily Wire’s, Andrew Klavan reported, Harris was trying to pin on Barrett the label “climate denier” in order to discredit her in the same way, anyone versed in broadly noted, historical fact, a holocaust denier. Harris didn’t succeed, and ACB caught the trap, and pushed back, before Harris could push her into it.

The Infamous Fly on Pence’s Head:

When MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow asked Harris if she’d noticed the fly on Pence’s head, Harris responded in the affirmative. When Maddow asked Harris if she was tempted to move the fly on, Harris smiled, feigned laugh, then cracked a joke (pun) about ‘flying away’ from the subject.

If Harris knew there was a fly on Pence’s head, and Pence didn’t, why didn’t Harris do something about it? Even if the fly was only there for 2 minutes.

Why didn’t those in charge, such as the producers, boom operators, camera controllers etc. act on it in between shots?

It’s not a big issue, and I’ll be the first to admit, the borderline pettiness of even raising the point, but professionals knowing, and doing nothing about such as small event for a V.I.P raises as many questions about their professionalism, and opinion of Pence, as it does Kamala Harris’ character.

The Iran Deal:

In 2018, Harris issued a statement claiming that Trump pulling American out of the Obama administration’s 2015 “Iran nuclear deal”[i]  had violated the deal, jeopardizing U.S national security and isolating the Americans from their closest allies.”

Harris said, that this ‘nuclear deal is not perfect, but it is certainly the best existing tool we have to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and avoid a disastrous military conflict in the Middle East.’

While being truthful about the “not perfect” part, Harris was not completely honest about the Obama deal being the only way to stop Iran gaining a nuclear weapon.

The Iran deal only restricted Iran from enriching uranium for a short period of time.

As reported by Aljazeera in May of 2019, ‘the restrictions on Iran’s centrifuges would be lifted after the eighth year, and 15 years onwards, restrictions on its uranium enrichment and stockpile size would expire. Some critics believe it would be possible for Iran to go back on the nuclear path around the mid-2020s. Iran also negotiated the eventual lifting of an embargo on the import and export of conventional arms and ballistic missiles…’

This was also highlighted in part by Trump’s rebus sic stantibus reasonings for pulling out of Obama’s six nation contract with Iran.

The U.S. President sought to renegotiate restrictions, including ‘more intrusive weapons inspections and, what would effectively, be a permanent ban on ‘Iran enriching uranium.’ Trump, according to Aljazeera was open to a new deal, saying “‘the Iran deal must either be renegotiated or terminated.”

Trump called the deal “one-sided”, “poorly negotiated” and an “embarrassment.”

He cited Israel intelligence documents showing that Iran already had a long history of pursuing Nuclear weapons, saying ‘this disastrous deal gave this regime – and it’s a regime of great terror – many billions of dollars, some of it in actual cash – a great embarrassment to me as a citizen and to all citizens of the United States. A constructive deal could easily have been struck at the time, but it wasn’t. At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.’

Not that Trump’s haters noted it with any fanfare, but the President’s May 2018 announcement included the promise to “stand with the long-suffering Iranian people” and that his administration would “work with allies to find a real, comprehensive, and lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat.”

Trump’s speech concluded with criticism of the Islamist Iranian regime, and the acknowledgement that “the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land, and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to God.”

While Harris berated Trump for questioning the deal, she’s also on record admitting that the Iran deal “isn’t prefect”, but has proudly stated that if she were elected President she’d rejoin Americans to the flawed contract.

To add, during the Pence/Harris debate, Harris inadvertently admitted just how precarious the original deal was. Saying that Trump “walking away” from the flawed contract put the United States “in a position where it was less safe, because they [Iran] are building up what might end up being a significant nuclear arsenal.” (Transcript)

Trump pulled the United States out in May, 2018 for these very reasons. If Iran are building a significant nuclear arsenal, as Harris surmises (in an attempt to discredit the current administration) it’s not a stretch to say that Iran has been doing it long before 2018.

The Iran Nuclear deal was a costly band-aid misapplied, in the spirit of appeasement, to the wrong kind of wound.

It wasn’t going to stop Iran’s Regime from pursuing what they’ve been pursuing for decades: the ability to “wipe Israel off the map, and erase all enemies of Allah.”

There’s also the fact that Iran’s Islamist leaders are under no obligation to remain true to the agreement.

Under the guidance of the Quranic ‘taqiyya’, lying to the infidel is an acceptable practice if it ‘advances Islam. In some cases, by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.’ For example: Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”  (ROP)

Harris’ use of equivocation in her cross-examination of Amy Coney Barrett. Harris’ falsehoods, and discourteous inaction on Pence’s behalf during the debate, and the stereotypical mean-girl responses to it. Along with her shaky, flip-flop – it’s good, but also bad – naïve positioning on the Iran deal, give good reasons to question whether Harris is the better choice, over-against Mike Pence, for the potential role of President of the United States.


References:

[i] Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) originally signed by China, France, Russia, the UK, the United States and Germany.

First published on Caldron Pool, 18th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Truth Exchange’s (TruthXchange) layman-friendly, academic discussion between its director, Dr. Peter Jones, and Australia’s Dr. Stephen Chavura is a worthwhile look at the surreptitious cognitive devices, and distortions, being used to undermine healthy tradition in Western societies.

The hour-long podcast, entitled ‘The Great Awokening: Being Woke in a Post-secular society’, is a “Wokeness 101” crash course. Discussing the jargon, and ideological foundations of Leftist constructs such as “white fragility”, “systemic racism”, who are the Frankfurt school, John Dewey’s possible connection to that Marxist movement, and its progeny: Cultural Marxism.

Jones outlined how the absence of well-defined terms automatically negate terms like ‘systemic racism’ because its founded on subjective ambiguity.

This “vagueness” was bolstered by “questionable examples” which are also used to prop up generalizations.

In order to prove the existence of systemic racism – the belief that “all institutions are solely programmed to benefit white people” – advocates have to use melanin as a measuring stick in order to give their argument the appearance of credibility.

This vagueness necessitates the art of embellishment, and the overlooking of irony.

Jones argued that “being called systemic racism based on white melanin is extremely simplistic” because skin colour is “crazy criterion.” Define whiteness.

Without a proper definition for systemic, there can be no intellectually honest justification for labelling a person, place or thing, as being proof of the existence of “white systemic racism.” Using melanin to judge an entire group of people as evil, for instance, is by definition racist.

For example, ‘white systemic racism’ asserts that racism is a sin condition that only plagues those born with white melanin.

Jones (rightly in my opinion) labelled this a product of “post-modern hermeneutics.” There is “no such thing as truth” means that destructive untruths can be given free reign. Evidence can be manufactured and made to look a certain way, as long as those with the power have control of the language and/or narrative.

Such as the abuse of language which calls abortion “healthcare”, and the once celebrated [violent] intellectual practice of revisionism (deconstructing, and remaking history, people, places and things in our own image, through a preferred subjective ideological lens).

For Jones this is the applied “theory of language as a use of power.”

Linking in Cultural Marxism, Chavura stated that Cultural Marxism, though it’s dismissed by critics as a “term invented by the Right”, “was an undeniable school of thought taking Marxist categories of oppressed and oppressor beyond the economic realm and applying to it other forms of oppression: gender, race, sexuality.”

Chavura added that we shouldn’t use the term Cultural Marxism without qualification and caution, but “anyone who says that C.M isn’t a thing, doesn’t really understand that this particular mindset, was, and is, very common in universities. Particularly from the 1960s onwards.”

The fruit of which we’re witnessing at work in society today with domestic attempts at overturning, and undermining Biblical Christianity and Western Civilization.

Disagreeing with Jones’ comment about a detachment of Cultural Marxism from Marxism proper, Chavura noted that it’s important not to “downplay the relationship. Cultural Marxism”, he affirmed, “comes out of Marxism.

This relationship is clearly present in Black Lives Matter’s hatred for capitalism. The economic dichotomy of Marx lives on in “Woke Theory” and the BLM movement, “promoting victimization” along with the noticeable “absence of forgiveness” and mercy.

In general, I found little to dislike or with which to disagree.

I wasn’t aware of the connection Jones makes between John Dewey, Marxism, and the Frankfurt movement.

In addition, I don’t share Stephen’s current pessimism about America. Underestimating the ability, capacity and faith of the American people, goes hand in hand with the historical caveats against invading Russia from the West during winter.

However, Chavura’s cautious optimism (self-described “pessimistic optimism”) does raise important critical questions. While he ‘believes in the resolve of Americans’ and (correctly) holds the view that the current contemporary context is, or is birthing a “Kairos Moment” for the Christian Church, he’s also a realist. Aware that ‘sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.’

I would add onto this discussion the crisis of Critical Race Theory. As well as the culture of suspicion spread by the Intersectionality rubric, which forces onto society an us vs. them ‘cognitive distortion.’ (Jonathon Haidt)

The: “you are what they say you are. You will do, think, speak, as they tell you to, or else!”

If, as Chavura has said, ‘the Middle-Class is being weaponized’, I don’t think it’ll be a weapon of mass destruction.  

I don’t think the Middle-Class are fully capable of being turned into one.

If the Middle-Class is weaponized, it’ll be the weaponization of Middle-Class youth. Whose parents have long abdicated responsibility for what their children are learning.

If Cultural Marxism continues to march, recruit, and mobilize jackboots without challenge, the Middle Class are in for a great culture shock, as their youth seek to act out their indoctrination. Triggered into action by reflexes long conditioned through exposure to carefully positioned Marxists, manipulative propaganda, and the mass distortion of political education.


First published on Caldron Pool, 16th October 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

Australia Council for the Arts has rescinded public funding for Melbourne Artist, Casey Jenkins, after it was revealed that Jenkins planned to use the funding for a ‘performance art project where Jenkins would inseminate (impregnate) herself with donated semen live on social media.’

The Sydney Morning Herald said a legal review of Jenkin’s planned performance was carried out by the council, after Sky News presenter, Peta Credlin voiced a general concern about the potential abuse of Australian tax payer funds.

Credlin singled out Jenkins’ self-insemination for its blatant lack of any real contribution or relevance to the Australian tax paying public, Credlin also said that the Jenkins example “was the tip of the ice burg in the sheer abuse of tax payer grants for obscure projects.”

On her August 18th show [37:28-42:04 timestamp] talking with the IPA’s Bella d’Abrera, Credlin said that she “wasn’t opposed to funding the arts”, but that the live art industry is struggling, and posited: “surely, there other organizations, far more deserving of our support?”

Citing data from an audit carried out by  d’Abrera of publicly funded “art” projects, Credlin stated that funding vague projects carried out under the banner of art, seemed to be an unethical misuse of taxes. Arguing, that under the shadow of the Covid-19 recession, “the last thing we need is good money being thrown after bad!”

Bella d’Abrera told Credlin that the newish National Interest criteria applied to publicly funded art projects is failing. Mentioning that the Jenkins “Immaculate” performance “art” project was also “offensive to tax paying Catholics, who, in essence, would be paying for Jenkins to insult them.”

In a piece for the IPA, d’Abrera listed five examples of where the Government’s Covid ‘Resilience Fund’ for the arts was being ‘siphoned off to pay for an array of nonsensical – risible projects’:

  1. $10,000 to Sydney-based artist Julie Vulcan for ‘performance instillations’ called ‘DarkBody’, to connect her audience to the ‘daily activities of an intricate ecology; the essence of ‘on-goingness within a multi-species world.’
  2. $2000 to ‘another Sydney based artist, Giselle Stanborough, to create multi-platform artwork to raise questions ‘about the colonisation of our social activities by large corporations and the way social media and dating apps are changing our intimate relationships.’
  3. $10,000 to ‘Mudgee -based feminist weaver, Kelly Leonard to makes giants scarves and stitched texts which she places in various bush locations to ‘deliver messages’ about coal mining and climate change.’
  4. $10,000 to artist, Claire Bridge, whose ‘work responds to issues of ancestral transmissions, gendered violence, intergenerational trauma and the confluence of these concerns with the environment and queer ecologies.’
  5. $10,000 to Tasmanian artist Willoh S. Weiland, whose concern is for ‘creating epic ideas and destroying the white male patriarchy’.

D’Abera called the funding abuse ‘both wrong and immoral.’ Arguing that ‘small businesses are suffering, 1 million Australians are unemployed, and approximately 1.7 million jobs are at risk of being lost over the next three months due to the lockdown restrictions which remain in place across Australia.’ Noting also that some of the artists receiving funding ‘weren’t even in Australia.’

Not without irony, Casey Jenkins’ responded to the council’s decision calling it a ‘saga, weird and not making any sense.’ (SMH)

Taking aim at Scott Morrison, Jenkins alleged that ‘in follow-up discussions about the funding, a senior Australia Council member’ laid the blame on Australia having a ‘very conservative Prime Minister.’

Jenkins accused the council of kowtowing to ethical concerns about how children are conceived. Stating that the council was ‘projecting into this a dystopian future where there is a child who’s going to have the power to sue their parents because they don’t like how they were conceived.’ Saying “it’s bizarre on so many levels. I’m in a mind-boggling, weird zone.”

The Australia Council said that ‘it had no record’ of a senior member blaming Morrison’s conservative views, and that their ‘decision was “based on potential legal risk, rather than ethical considerations”. (ibid)

This doesn’t dismiss the social engineering, ‘Truman Show’ artistic and ethical questions Jenkins’ project raises.

Chief among them is whether a woman impregnating herself live on social media is to be legitimately considered art, or rightly rejected as dehumanizing, voyeuristic, man-hating exhibitionism.

Does public funding now, mean public funding should Jenkins’ decide that her next project is to livestream the abortion of the child she conceived in public?

American Humanities Professor Gene Veith’s criterion for the best art is,

 ‘Art that addresses the entire mind, thereby engaging the faculty of intelligence. Fine art deserves close attention.’’

The best art isn’t joyless.

It’s not a soul sucking extension of an empty existential abyss staring back at us.

The best artists engage in wonder, and invites us to wonder with them.

The best art forces us to reflect on what exists within and without. The seen, the unseen and the hidden. It points us to the transcendent – that which exists outside of, and beyond ourselves; inspires, picks up and carries forward.

Entertainment is a secondary aim. Protest only a third, and exhibitionism, if it has any place in art at all, is always and forever last.

Much of what we’re sold as art is – as Veith calls it – anti-art. The same goes for much of the “art” that Credlin and d’Abrera say tax payers are being forced to fund.

In addition, female criticism of a female artist cannot be projected onto the patriarchy, Scott Morrison or Church-going “iconoclastic fanatics”, as though any rescinding of funds for anti-art was the “shadow banning of art” by a “tyrannical” conservative Government.

What’s important to note here is that Jenkins wasn’t cancelled, the abuse of tax payer funds was.

References:

[i] Veith, G.E. 1991. State of The Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe, Crossway

First published on Caldron Pool, 12th October 2020

Photo by Anna Kolosyuk on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020

William Barr has hit out at the collective mindset, and organized myths which permeate what the mainstream media now call journalism.

Commenting on filtered coverage concerning the Black Lives Matter™ protests, and riots in Kenosha, Seattle and Portland, Barr criticized the MSM for co-operating together in passing down to the public a coordinated narrative.

In exclusive comments made to Townhall.com Barr said,

“I think there are a handful of reporters in the mainstream media that still have journalistic integrity, and there are some, but the overwhelming majority don’t have it anymore…The national mainstream media – has dropped any pretense of professional objectivity and are political actors, highly partisan who try to shape what they’re reporting to achieve a political purpose and support a political narrative that has nothing to do with the truth.”

This was preceded by Barr calling the largely Leftist run and operated media a “collection of liars.”

“They’re basically a collection of liars. Most of the mainstream media. They’re a collection of liars and they know exactly what they’re doing. A perfect example of that were the riots. Right on the street it was clear as day what was going on, anyone observing it, reporters observing it, it could not have escaped their attention that this was orchestrated violence by a hardened group of street fighting radicals…”

Exhibit (B) was the orchestrated narrative echoed by major news organizations claiming that riots in all three cities were “peaceful protests” vs. the high casualty rate among police officers.

Exhibit (A) was the (now infamous) chyron (worded graphic) CNN used in front of footage of a burning building, stating that the protests were ‘fiery but mostly peaceful.’

Barr, who is the current Attorney General; head of the DOJ (America’s Department of Justice), said, that the mainstream media [“national media”] are ‘not really interested so much in what really happened but in pursuing a preformed narrative that suits some kind of ideological agenda. That’s what it’s all become.”

This is Barr’s strongest condemnation of the media to date. His remarks coincide with the DOJ’s official investigation into the rioting, governing bodies, and financial backers.

Townhall stated that ‘the organizing behind the rioting in cities across the country is under investigation and federal law enforcement agencies are working to identify the individuals behind the chaos.’

The chief provoketors, Barr said, were likely to be ‘Antifa and Antifa like groups.’

Barr is without a doubt one of THE unsung heroes of the Trump Presidency. He’s no novice.

Last year he refused to issue un-redacted version of the much-hyped Mueller report for the sake of objective reasoning. Expressing concern for how the report might be mishandled, if placed in the wrong hands, such as activists posing as journalists, and concern for the legality of internal spying carried out by the previous administration on the current one.

It’s no wonder that news about Barr continues to go under-reported.


First published on Caldron Pool, 30th September 2020

©Rod Lampard, 2020

Hillsong Church has been hit with a barrage of criticism after an employee “accidently” used the official Hillsong Twitter account to ridicule Donald Trump’s performance in the first Presidential debate of the 2020 US election.

According to the Herald Sun an ‘unnamed staffer allegedly logged into the official Hillsong Twitter account, rather than their own personal one.’ The Tweet read: ‘Can’t someone just mute Trump’s microphone!! He is coming across as such a bully. No respect for him sorry.’

The “gaffe” was quickly deleted, with Hillsong posting an apology soon after, saying, “Earlier today a staff member accidentally posted on this account personal comments about the US presidential debate, that were meant for a personal account. Hillsong does not comment on partisan politics & apologizes. These comments do not represent the views of Hillsong Church.”

ChristianPost listed a series of criticisms for the original post, starting with Greg Locke, Pastor at Global Vision Bible Church in Tennessee. Who said, ‘Dear @Hillsong, that was deleted very quickly. Careful. I sat beside @brianhoustontv at the RNC acceptance speech at the White House. Your boss secretly likes Trump.’

The Post also highlighted how problematic the “gaffe” could be for Hillsong. Brian Houston has visited the White House, applauded Trump’s initiatives regarding the preservation of religious freedom, and is part of a group of Christian leaders active in lending Donald Trump prayer support.

Criticisms of the “gaffe” was met with a similar amount of fiery criticism for the apology. Candace Cameron Bure (Hallmark/Full House/Fuller House) simply remarked, “Oooof”.  While a list of other Twitter users took the apology as an opportunity to throw more anti-Christian abuse Hillsong’s way.

The loudest condemnation came from those attempting to conflate Houston with Hillsong. They labelled the apology hypocritical. Pointing out that Houston’s support for Scott Morrison, and Donald Trump negated the Churches’ claim to distance itself from political dichotomies by “not commenting on partisan politics.”

This is despite the “gaffe, mistake, accident” – whatever – suggesting that Houston’s personal views don’t necessarily represent the views of Hillsong as a whole. The false equivalence seems to have blocked the obvious irony.

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the high visibility of the Church, sins of some of its leaders, and the massive success of its music arm in recent years has brought Hillsong under a microscope.

The consequence of such close quarters’ scrutiny is that any unintentional faux pas by, or connected to the “mega-Church”, are rapidly churned out for maximum attention in order to either undermine, discredit or cancel them. And not just Hillsong, but Christianity in general.

It’s Hillsong. Just like Trump. They’re influential, but not exactly THE authority when it comes to Christian theological truths, or the conduit by which all Christians make their decisions.

It’s also almost guaranteed that most of the people acting all dismayed at the recent US election Presidential debate were just as equally entertained by it. Such is our spectator culture.

Perhaps the problem with leaders is a problem closer to home?


In this sense the debate and reactions to it are a mirror. What we condemn in others, we must first address within ourselves. For instance, eye-to-eye respect will always trump plankeye, and eye-for-an-eye relationships.

As atheist, author and ex-Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali quipped: “Everyone is talking about and asking about last night’s debate. I don’t want to make light of this because it is not funny. But where in the world do people in their seventies behave like stick-your-tongue-out preschoolers on national TV while vying for the highest office?”

The election debate highlighted the fact that the future of America, and by default her allies, will be decided by the choice between a career politician and a citizen President.

Trump doesn’t need the Presidency, Biden does. Trump’s income doesn’t ride on him being President, Biden’s does. Which of these is more likely to be the public servant Americans need? All the evidence shows that it isn’t Joe Biden.

If anything positive can be drawn from the debate moderator’s obvious favoritism, it’s that Trump was inadvertently painted as the underdog.

If the plan was to save Biden midway through, or gang up on Trump, and bait him for soundbites, it’s backfired spectacularly.


First published on Caldron Pool, 1st October 2020 

©Rod Lampard, 2020

The Little Hoover Commission’s yearlong enquiry into forest management of Sierra Nevada presented to the Californian Democrat government in 2018 gave a list of 9 recommendations.

These included recommendations for improved collaboration between, individual, local, tribal, state, and federal governments on better forestry management; as well as better cooperation between the logging and environmentalist industries.

The report also recommended that fuel load reductions be carried out on what it called ‘long-neglected forests.’ Arguing that ‘dead-wood’ materials be ‘recycled into chipboard or biofuel (biomass electricity).’

Noting that ‘California’s forests were shaped by fire’ the report advocated ‘moving from fire suppression to using fire as a tool.’

Adding that the expansion of property development ‘in or near forests, meant that prescribed fire could not be returned everywhere, but wherever possible, prescribed fire [back-burning] should be used to treat forests…[effectively] removing the buildup of forest fuels, [and therefore] further decreasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires.’    

The LHC report named bad policy, drought, and the ‘pervasive Bark Beetle’ as key factors that drove California towards devastation.

Stating that the devastation was arrived at ‘through the interplay of forest management policies that created overgrown and overcrowded forests, a historic drought and bark beetles pervasive in the state’s forests.’

It then warned that if appropriate action wasn’t taken soon, ‘the problem will only worsen. [Consequently], Californians risk losing the priceless benefits provided by forests.’

The report did cite “climate change” as a factor to be considered in the overall dryness of forests, arguing that it’s 9 recommendations would help fight “climate change” by reducing the high concentration of carbon released by seasonal [sometimes] catastrophic wildfires. (Catalyst, 2020)

The 2017-2018 report noted that improvements have been made such as the establishment of the Obama era ‘Good Neighbor Authority’ (Est. 2014), which provided a ‘mechanism for states to perform work of Federal land.’ However, it concluded that more needed to be done.

Northern California’s ‘The Mercury News’ reported in August this year that the 2020 wildfires, which began in late August, are met by the Trump administration’s ‘Great American Outdoors Act’ where extra funding could be used to help pay for the ‘thinning costs associated with improved forest management.’

Trump also approved funds for disaster relief – but did so with the strong assertion that general, non-disaster relief, federal funding will be stopped if the Californian Democrat Government’s (read environmental red tape isn’t cut ) and forest management policies aren’t significantly reformed. (USA Today & The Mercury, 2020)

60% of California’s forest land is owned by State and Federal governments, with the majority owned by the Federal tier. 40% is owned by landholders (including Native Americans).

While the 2017-2018 LHC report’s recommendations give solid reasoning for Trump’s assertions, the responsibility for forest management is often put back on Washington bureaucrats.

Under an expansion of collaboration, the Obama era Good Neighbor Bill, and Trump’s Great American Outdoors act, blame for mismanagement will be harder to shift.

Looking beyond the political tit-for-tat, the LHC concluded that the sheer size of the task was the biggest issue standing against any application of its recommendations.

But as Jon Miltimore, quipped in the Catalyst, perhaps the biggest problem with equipping landowners with responsible legislation that will allow them to use fire as a tool for better forestry management, and wildfire prevention, is getting bureaucrats ‘to relinquish control. Something politicians have a hard time doing, especially in the Golden State.’

This is backed up by former California legislator, Chuck DeVore’s in Forbes who stated that,

‘some 61% of California lawmakers were government staffers, community or labor union organizers…about 10% of California’s working age population works for federal, state or local government but 56% of majority Democrats are professional politicians, former political staffers, or bureaucrats. Only 10% of Democrats representing the people of California in the legislature were business owners, doctors, or farmers before being elected. With their life experience tilted towards big government, it’s no wonder California lawmakers’ default to making sweeping claims about problems, proposing larger government as the solution, while ignoring proven common-sense measures that truly address real problems such as wildfires.’ (2018)

On a quick comparison between Republican run Texas, and Democrat run California there’s a few noteworthy distinctions.

First, Texas is not a bureaucratic behemoth. Second, according to DeVore, where ‘61% of California’s lawmakers are career politicians, 75% of Texas lawmakers come from business, medicine or farming.’ Third, ‘95% of Texas’ land mass is privately owned with a high value placed on land stewardship.’ (NRI) Fourth, Texas has 62.4 million acres of forest, California, 33 million. Fifth, Texas gets hit by wildfires. Nothing to the extremes seen in California.

Miltimore seems to be in agreement with DeVore, who concluded that

‘As California burns, California’s lawmakers are proposing laws to criminalize the distribution of plastic straws, raise taxes, re-regulate the internet, and generally make it difficult to run a business while their legislative counterparts in Texas simply labor to make the state a better place to live. California’s legislative approach fosters fires while Texas’ fosters freedom.’

The LHC’s 2018 report compiling 9 recommendations asserts that decades of forest mismanagement in California is the leading contributor to catastrophic wildfires. This report, its prescriptions and its warnings were handed down to the Democrat run Government in 2018. Using the 2020 wildfires as a political tool to push for bigger government and fear of “apocalyptic climate change” is disingenuous.

To restate Miltimore, ‘the wildfires are a reminder of an unpleasant reality: governments are poor stewards of the environment.’

It’s ironic, and a little bit too convenient, that any government screaming at us to “believe the science” re: “apocalyptic climate change”, would largely ignore warnings from a scientific enquiry. Then do its best to shift blame onto someone else or “apocalyptic climate change”, when a preventable catastrophe occurs.

The lesson? The state who provides more individual freedom and responsibility to its citizens, manages its resources better than the state whose management of its resources pushes out the citizen in favor of increasing red tape, and bigger government run programs.

Sometimes the Government just needs to get out of the way of the governed.

 


First published on Caldron Pool 8th October 2020.

Photo by Michael Held on Unsplash

©Rod Lampard, 2020.

LGBTQAAI+ activists have attempted to decimate a twenty-three-year-old’s animation business, after Emily Arunt, a Regent University student, declined to ‘compromise two commissioned pieces with a transgender flag, and promotion for the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement.

As a result, Arunt was blacklisted following activists, and those within the animation community falsely accusing her of harboring “transphobic and homophobic” views.

Twitter’s typical juvenile drivel used Arunt’s Twitter and YouTube handles, ‘Lupus Vulpes’, to incite a hate pile-on trend under the hashtag #lupisvulpes, with users stealing designs. Then taking to social media with reworked images mocking her artwork with symbolic LGBTQAAI+ propaganda icons attached to it.

One Twitter user called for the “#lupisvulpes community to be petty…”, with another arguing “if you continue to support transphobic and homophobic artist just because their art is good, YOU are part of the problem.”

CBN news reported that the celebrated artist saw the ‘Animation community quickly turn on her with what’s known as an “official callout” which ‘led to a six-page online document complete with links to screenshots and social media posts detailing her so-called crimes.’

In late August, refusing to “people-please”, Arunt refuted the claims, stood on the Gospel, and answered her false accusers in a five-minute YouTube video stating,

‘”I love each and every one of you,” she said, “even those that hate me and viciously attack me now. I don’t hold it against you, because I know those who attack likely have suffered attacks in the past and must be hurting deeply inside to be doing this to me. I’m also praying for you, because I want you to find joy in your life… If I need to apologize for anything,” Arunt continued, “it’s that I’m sorry I didn’t share more openly with you how much God cares about you.” (Decision Magazine)

Writing on her Facebook page, Chapter Two Creations, Arunt also thanked those who’ve supported her, saying that she was ‘completely blown away by the overwhelming kindness, encouragement and words of wisdom.’

Arunt’s work which has so far paid for her way through college, is now in doubt.

According to Decision Magazine, though Arunt believes that her reputation is tarnished in the animation community and her business is “destroyed,” she also believes that God brought her to this, and that He will bring her through it.

Those injected with the venomous doctrine of intersectionality may have struck again, but Arunt’s response, though costly, encourages another sober-minded, Christian way forward for those faced with cancellation, or the denial of trade. Simply because they refused to plead fealty via an ersatz Hitler oath or take the mark.


First published on Caldron Pool, 14th October 2020.

©Rod Lampard, 2020