Duck Calls

The danger of factions – or the tyranny of the minority – this is something that James Madison also warned about in Federalist #10:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

That faction is not the LGBT community and their role in the attack on Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. Even though they represent only about 4% of the total adult population of the country and likely a very small percentage of the 9-10 million people who watch the show every week, the true faction is the cabal of “progressives” who use groups like the LGBT community, blacks, illegal immigrants, Muslims, feminists and other individual aggrieved groups to achieve political gains.

It is undeniable that these factions make up a large percentage of the Democrat political base…and interestingly enough, all have conflicting political interests. For example, there are no gay or feminist rights in Islam, blacks fear Hispanic immigration as they supplant blacks as the largest “minority” and according to a poll done by NPR, the socially conservative and religious black community opposes gay marriage by a margin of 62% to 38% – just shy of 2:1. Islam is certainly no fan of Judeo-Christian tradition.

Conflicts abound.

So Phil Robertson personally believes that homosexuality is wrong and even though he was very clear that he hates the sin and loves the sinner, he is still cast as a pariah.


Because there is political gain to be had by keeping the LGBT cabal angry – and the radical leadership of the LGBT “community” is determined to punish anyone who doesn’t enthusiastically promote a gay lifestyle, not just those who disagree…and the “progressives” are just fine and dandy with using them to leverage that into power.

How else can the constant and largely unpunished attacks (or if they are, it is with a wink and a nod) on Christianity and individuals like Sarah Palin be explained? Gay “activist” Dan Savage attacked Christian high-schoolers, Martin Bashir wants Sarah Palin to be force fed excrement, Ed Schultz attacks Christians on air and so on…

One day these minority groups should ask themselves this: “Have we really advanced due to our alliance with Democrats or are their “progressive” leaders merely using us as pawns or cannon fodder in their quest for power?”

If considered honestly, the answer should be revealing.

I have a distinctly libertarian streak where the LGBT community is concerned. I could care less what someone does, who they do or who they love. I’ve always believed that an individual’s relationship with God, or lack thereof, is between those two and subsequently none of my business. I do what I can to let folks know how God moves in my life and the joy I take in the prospect of everlasting life through Jesus Christ.

And actually, I do believe that my belief in God and the teachings of the Bible do make me better than others – because I adhere to a moral code that has withstood 2000 years of attacks and still tells me to love my neighbor as I love myself – but that does not mean that I have to approve of everything my neighbor does.

Believe or don’t, that is their business – I choose to because I believe that belief makes my life and the lives around me better – but when the judgment day comes, it is they who will answer to Him for their choices, not me. Love the person, hate the sin.

Christianity deserves a greater respect by A&E and Phil Robertson certainly deserves better treatment.

136 thoughts on “Duck Calls

  1. Excellent Post!

    I agree, at the end of our lives when we stand before God I don’t think we’ll be discussing anyone but the individual present.

    That said, I really liked our country much better when Free Speech was the law of the land and I went to @boycottAETV to tell them that.

    • Perfect. After forgetting about the RNL for years, the Duck Dynasty issue prompted me to check back in just because I KNEW that someone here would be clueless about how the case involves First Amendment.

      A&E has a right to employ the people it wants, and a First Amendment right to say what it wants (assuming it adheres to broadcast decency standards that frankly I’d do away with). Those who are offended (though I happen to think it not worth complaining about) have a First Amendment right to complain. But Papa Duck (or whatever his name is — I’ve never seen the show) has no First Amendment right to be on a TV show, and the First Amendment doesn’t require A&E (or anyone else) to “say” anything through the characters it employs.

        • Donny, you’re right that I was wrong, though I wasn’t intentionally lying — I simply made a mistake when commenting too quickly. What I meant to say was far less dramatic: “After forgetting about the RNL for weeks…” After all, any idiot might remember that I was a regular here up until just after the 2012 election, and commented sporadically after that. Even you noticed. 😉 Thanks for allowing me to make the correction.

          • Uhu Huh Right.

            “You can keep your Doctor If you want to Keep your Doctor”………. It’s the same old lying Crap from the Left Jimmy….same old Crap, because Lying ( and the inevitable excuses) is embedded within you you guys…it’s who and what you are to the Core.

              • Another fallacious assertion, James??? Say it isn’t so! No, wait, when you make a false statement you KNOW is false, that is a lie, not a fallacy. And since you KNOW I have admitted mistake on the RNL in the past, and since you just said we NEVER do that, then you just told a lie.

                Now, correct me if I am wrong (but I am not), but isn’t that what Augger and Don are saying: that you guys cannot exist without lying? Let me be the first to congratulate and commend you on affirming their assertions so quickly and clearly. Well done. 🙂

          • “Donny, you’re right that I was wrong, though I wasn’t intentionally lying — I simply made a mistake when commenting too quickly”

            More unmitigated bullshit.

            You sure have a way of making it instantly stink around here.

      • I never made the claim that it wasn’t A&E’s right to terminate. Speech has its consequences, especially when there is a public figure involved and possibly contract clauses covering such (I have no idea if there are or not but I would not be surprised). My point was to illustrate the hypocrisy in the responses and the disparity of interests of the aggrieved groups that seem to stick together in spite of those competing interests.

        I said that both Christianity and Robertson deserve more respect and better treatment, and I stand by that. Contract or no contract, he was not treated fairly and Robertson did NOT equate homosexuality with bestiality as is being reported. Ann Althouse wrote:

        He didn’t compare “being gay to bestiality.” He put homosexual conduct — not the status of being gay — into a category of sins that included “sleeping around with this woman and that woman” as well as bestiality. We don’t see the heterosexual men who enjoy multiple sex partners getting hotheaded over Phil Robertson. Why not? They’re not organized to make political demands at the moment, but they haven’t had to fight for the right to fornicate recently. So those who are organized and in the middle of a movement are taking Robertson’s bait (or answering his duck call or whatever). It’s “anti-gay.” The “bestiality” business is forefronted.

        This is the political game of the moment.

        And she is right – this is manufactured outrage that achieved its goal of silencing a Christian voice.

          • Good enough. I would have thought you could accept my agreement with your position gracefully but I guess I need to lower my already low expectations.

            • No Utah, it is not “good enough”. McPherson should not have been putting words into Trapped’s mouth. Trap never said A&E did not have the right to terminate the man or any other punitive punishment they should so choose. What he said was that he went to give them a piece of his mind about free speech.

              So now we are back to “Fuck you McPherson. Our rights are not dependent upon your permission or your perception of our need.”

              McPherson is a lemming with a weak ass argument. Nothing more, nothing less.

      • “Perfect. After forgetting about the RNL for years”

        Well there’s about a buttload of dishonest bullshit. Oh and McPherson … fuck you. Why? Because our rights are not dependent upon your perception of our needs, or our self determination. The man has every right to have said what he did, and I for one am glad he did say it.

        Oh yeah, and fuck you. 🙂

        • Well, as an amateur proctologist you’d be the shit expert, Auggie. And I never said Daddy Duck doesn’t have a right to say what he did — but he doesn’t have a legal right to expect A&E to carry it, or to employ him after he said it. Let Utah explain it to you. And Merry Christmas, dipshit.

          • Hey McPherson ….

            Go bullshit your retarded students. They love you apparently, and that’s how I know they are retarded.

            Oh yeah, and f**k you. 🙂

      • James,

        PERFECT! Because, as usual, you are WRONG! (but it is going to upset many “conservatives” to know why you are wrong).,

        1st — The founders not only did NOT have a problem with using the law to establish moral standards, they said it was impossible to maintain a free and self-governing society without doing so.

        2nd — Rights apply to real people and ONLY real people.

        3rd — Corporations are NOT real people. The Court has said they are, but the courts have been one of the primary sources of error in our system of government (read Jefferson, among others — he explained how this WOULD — not might — come to pass and so it has).

        4th — As PUBLICLY created entities, the founders said corporations are subject to the will of the people. They have and can have no rights unto themselves.

        5th — THEREFORE, a corporation cannot claim a “right” to free speech — especially if it is asserting superiority of its rights over those of a REAL person.

        This is natural law as the founders understood it. To be honest, were we still living according tot he Constitution our founders established, Phil would have a right to sue A&E for violation of his rights.

        Remember, no man can demand another surrender their Natural Rights, yet, a NON-person (A&E) is demanding that a REAL person do just that. And this is why our society is in decay: because we have turned reality on its head.

    • By the way, Trap, when was this mythical period “when Free Speech was the law of the land”? When the Founding Fathers were locking up those who disagreed with them? When anti-war pamphleteers were sent to jail during WWI? When the Fairness Doctrine was in effect? In fact, speech probably is more “free” now than ever.

      And no, I don’t expect you or any of your cohorts here to give a coherent answer — or even to thank me for giving the RNL a much-needed boost. 😉

  2. Pingback: Duck Calls | contentconservative

  3. Michael: I am in agreement with your post, but have to question some of your math. Although homosexual activists and their Progressive allies have been trying to convince the world otherwise, the most reliable numbers I’ve seen in recent years estimate their part of the US population at less than 2%, and likely less than 1%. It is particularly difficult to count homosexuals since many, if not most, are still not publicly “out” and see their sexual preference for what it is, a very personal choice. By the way, twenty years ago the same crowd was claiming they constituted 10% of the US population, so it appears they will try to look as large as other Americans are willing to accept.

    It is also not the case that all homosexuals are Progressives or even Democrats. Many are Conservatives or libertarians because they are bright enough to realize that Progressive economics don’t work and that individual freedom is central to libertarianism and important to Conservatives, while Progressives are ultimately about government control rather than individual freedom. Minorities, and homosexuals will always be a tiny minority in American society, always flourish in a freedom oriented environment. I also have to question whether homosexuals are a numerically significant group within the neo-Progressive coalition, since there just aren’t that many of them. Radical homosexual activists are loud and aggressive and like most activist-types they are often incapable of reasoned discussion, but most homosexuals in my experience are fine people who don’t particularly want to spend time talking about the sexual aspect of their lives any more than heterosexuals. And like you, Michael, I don’t think it’s my business to know what other people choose to do in their private lives. As long as people don’t feel a need to require my endorsement or support of their choices, my view is we should all live and let live.

    The travesty of A&E’s suspension of Phil Robertson has nothing to do with sex, homosexuality or religion. The network’s attempt to punish Mr. Robertson for expressing his personal views on his personal time violates everything that Americans regard as fair and reasonable. And the fact that at least 70% of Americans agree not just with his right to speak freely, but with what he said, does not bode well for the future of A&E as a viable business. The Robertsons will likely move their show to another, bigger and more successful network, Fox’s Mothership comes to mind, and A&E will go back to being a skip-over channel, if they survive at all. We all make our choices, and the network’s management has made their’s. They may have made a very bad business decision, but it was their’s to make. So will be the consequences. CDE

    • I am glad CDE spoke up about this. Because in fact the LARGEST reliable estimates I have seen place the number of Homosexuals at 3% to 4%, taking into account all cultures and countries. I think Charles numbers are closer to the truth However. As the 3 % number includes those who claim to be Bi-Sexual as well.

      Since Charles brought the general subject up…..I will add this . I think we all have to be reminded that a very short time ago their were “Gays” and the discussion surrounded male and female Gays. NOW it has “Morphed” into the PC – Victim Group LGBT. Along the way the Gay community has sourced other deviations into their Political Action Committees in order to give the appearance of Legitimacy. In order to create the impression that there are LARGE groups of “persecuted” people.

      We have to be careful of accepting their Definitions as once again it is the Progressives trying to own the Langusge….thus the Debate …thus the way you even Think and Talk about it in your own family and your own mind.

      When , one might ask, are the Pedophiles, or the Beastiality…or the Polygamists going to get “added” to the so-called “LGBT” list…………I would suggest that we all STOP using this term. And I applaud Chuck for starting his Post with the Truth of the matter, rather than Pandering to their demands that we use THEIR terms.

      • An UPDATE to my post about the made-up Political Action Committee called by the press LGBT.

        Now they are trying to enlist Blacks as part of their PAC. So that it becomes the LGBT-Blacks PAC. Dan Savage a gay (Sex advisor ??) talks with another Gay, Anderson Cooper, along with a Token Black man sitting next to them ( Who never gets to speak BTW). And this “generous” Dan Savage self identified as “As a GayMan” is telling everyone he’s not as offended by the Gay slurs as the racist remarks. blah-blah-blah. Bring in the race card…align with the Holder/Obama race division strategy….increase the “Victim” class…and all directed at Chritianity and against the Traditional Family. All the Usual suspects involved in the attack.

        Their Tactics are very obvious and their intensions are very clear…..for those with eyes to see and ears to hear !

    • Charles – I was referencing a 2011 study by Gary Gates at UCLA where he found a 3.5% number based on self identification – I rounded up to 4% for simplicity:

      Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. In total, the study suggests that approximately 9 million Americans – roughly the population of New Jersey – identify as LGBT.

      Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay); women are substantially more likely than men to identify as bisexual; estimates of those who report any lifetime same-sex sexual behavior and any same-sex sexual attraction are substantially higher than estimates of those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. There are also nearly 700,000 transgender individuals in the US. An estimated 19 million Americans (8.2%) report that they have engaged in same-sex sexual behavior and nearly 25.6 million Americans (11%) acknowledge at least some same-sex sexual attraction.

      • Michael: I’ll take a look at his methodology. This type of study is notoriously subject to errors due to sampling and various other types of bias. The basic issue is that most studies of this type find the results the sponsor wants to find, while providing the illusion of substantiation through quantitative “proof.” The result is a classic halo effect for a position that may or may not be actually true. What I find interesting is that the homosexual activist community, which in the 1980’s claimed that homosexuals and Lesbians comprised 10% of the US population has now reduced its claim to 3 – 4%. That means they are about the size of America’s Jewish population (2 – 3%, well-documented) and significantly lower than the heterosexual population is the US, which is at least 96% and may be as high as 99%, which is where I think things stand, based on several studies I’ve seen recently.

        Since I started this comment, I’ve done a little research and discovered that the sponsor of Gates “research” was The Williams Institute, which is one of numerous special interest institutes inside the UCLA School of Law… . The Institute appears to exist to push the LGBT agenda, along with other institutes set-up to push the myth of man-made global warming, Critical Legal Studies (another Progressive favorite) and other political rather than legal or demographic issues. Here is Gary Gates’ CV… , which presents the background of a homosexual activist rather than a real academic researcher. Gates holds his appointment as a “Williams Distinguished Scholar,” which for my non-academic friends means that he does not hold an academic appointment from either UCLA or the UCLA Law School, but rather from the somewhat murky Williams Institute. It is helpful to understand why the Williams Institute exist. Here is its Mission Statement… . Although the Williams Institute is housed within the UCLA Law School, its mission is basically LGBT advocacy and Gary Gates has neither a legal nor a demographic background. Gates has been prolific, turning out dozens of “studies” in the support of the homosexual agenda.

        When I looked closer at the way the parameters of the study were designed, it appears at least one of its goals was to maximize the estimate of American homosexuals by counting everyone but Barney Frank’s goat. Bi-sexuals are most often young people going through difficult times in resolving their sexual identities, but usually ended up as heterosexuals after college or graduate school. I counseled many folks in this category when I was a residence hall director during my grad school days, including talking a few off roofs when they were trying to commit suicide. Including bi-sexuals in Gates’ count reveals his actual agenda. Transexuals have nothing to do with homosexuality or Lesbianism, as they are people who suffer from a different condition that is still not well understood. Again, including transexuals does nothing but push up Gates’ likely bogus estimates. I will not take time to drill down further into the Williams’ studies validity, but it is obvious to me that Gary Gates was not a disinterested or neutral demographer and that based on the study’s design and its sponsor, I would expect that the results are biased toward an overestimation of the size of America’s homosexual and Lesbian populations.

        To conclude, homosexuals are massively over-represented in the entertainment business, which is probably why A&E and its parent Disney, are miscalculating the possible reaction to A&E’s legal but very stupid action. They also represent a much larger percentage of Americans in New York and Hollywood, which gives them the opportunity to use the media to push the agenda of the radical homosexual activists. I want to stress that the radical homosexual activists are noisy and unappealing people, but their actual numbers are miniscule. Homosexuals generally do not support the rads attacks on the traditional family or their demands for special treatment and privileges. In fact, many of the brightest homosexuals are libertarian or Conservative politically, because they understand that they benefit from our support for individual freedom and limited government interference in the lives of American citizens. So what we have here is a deliberate attempt to misrepresent Phil Robertson’s remarks about his religious beliefs, apparently to silence the DUCK DYNASTY’s influence on American public opinion and to smear the Robinsons’ openness about their Christian beliefs. A&E caved quickly, because they were already uncomfortable that their highest rated show advocated traditional family values and religious faith, both of which do not fit the bi-coastal agenda of “cool” people like Our Dear Leader. All very predictable. Cheers, CDE

        • CDE,

          I am well aware that this will be an aside, but it is tangentially related to the discussion.

          You give the numbers of gays as roughly equivalent to that of Jews in America. I can't help but notice that our media is largely dominated by members of these two groups: Jews and homosexuals. Any guess as to why this may be?

          Second, if the numbers are as small as they appear to be, why would they be considered "normal?" At what number does something fall — legitimately — into the category of deviant (in the statistical sense)? I looked it up real quick. 8.3% of Americans have some form of diabetes. This is about 2 TIMES as many as are gay. So, is diabetes now to be considered a "normal" condition? And, if so, why treat it? But we do. Do you see where I am going with this? Because that is how this issue was once treated, but is now being made ILLEGAL!

          Anyway, good comments, thanks.

          • Joe: I picked up on the similar percentages of homosexuals and Jews in analyzing Utah’s source for the estimate of the percentages of the US population in his original post, largely to provide a baseline for how many homosexuals there actually are in America today. I cannot fault Utah for using the Wilson Institute “study” since the actual sponsor of the research was cleverly concealed and made to look like the questionable study was actually endorsed by UCLA, which is a common tactic utilized to give a put-up piece an aura of academic gravitas. I only figured it out because my somewhat checkered past includes 20+ years as a professor, a dean and a provost in several American universities and so the clever ruse was evident to me while it would not have been to a non-academic. This type of deception is extremely common among Progressives and special interest groups like homosexual activists, environmental wackos, global warming advocates and similar groups. As you are no doubt aware, it was made public a few years ago that the “climatologists” at the most important global warming research center in the UK had been distorting their data for years, which made it easier for them to “forecast” ecological disasters. A common strategy is to appear to document an overly large support base for whatever the catastrophic cause of the day is. Having seen other, scientifically valid studies by actual demographers and social scientists, I think my estimate of a 1 – 2% (max) US homosexual population is probably a reasonable estimate.

            On the issue of Jewish and homosexual domination of the American media, my opinion is that while Jews and homosexuals are overrepresented in the American media, they do not dominate it per se. I’ll stress that this is my opinion based partially on the fact that one of my kids worked for a while at several broadcast and cable networks and another is a screenwriter for TV. While that’s a small sample, I’ve also done some reading on the subject and my conclusion is that Progressives dominate the American media and there have been many Jews and homosexuals within the Progressive Movement in recent years. Jewish involvement is diminishing somewhat because it has become clear that Barack Obama and other Progressives support Islamic Radicalism and really detest Israel and its supporters. After the Holocaust no American Jew will support anti-Semites like Obama over the long term. If anything, homosexuals and their supporters are more influential in the American media than in the past. Hence the horrendous reactions to Phil Robertson’s GQ interview in which Mr. Robertson quoted directly from Leviticus in the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah and from the Apostle Paul in the Christian New Testament. Mr. Robertson was engaging in a Christian practice called proof-texting, which is completely accepted in Christian Fundamentalist circles. So it was not actually Phil Robertson that the radical homosexual lobby was attacking, but rather the sacred texts of Judaism and Christianity, which many accept as the infallible Word of God. One wonders if the blow-dried airheads reading TelePromTers for the networks even understand that issue.

            Your question about the impact of the tiny size of the homosexual population in America is an interesting one. As you are probably aware, homosexuality was listed in the DSM as a psychological disorder until fairly recently. The DSM is the psychological classification manual for the American Psychiatric Association, whose full name is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Its removal from the manual resulted from political pressure from…the Radical Homosexual Lobby. Big surprise!!! So homosexual behavior was considered a psychological disorder into the 1970’s, if my memory serves me correctly. CDE

            • CDE,

              Yes, I know how authoritarians use statistics to manipulate public opinion. One of my degrees is in sociology, and I focused on the manipulation of people during my studies. I found you can get the answers you want on surveys just by the way you phrase and or ask the question (tone and inflection of voice). This is also when I learned that the “study” they used to attack second hand smoke was bogus, too. Same study said peanut butter and milk were more of a risk than second hand smoke, so why didn’t they go after those items? Because the correlation number for all three was VERY low, they just needed an excuse to go after smokers.

              As for homosexuality being in the DSM: yes, I knew that. However, trying to remind the Left of this, or that there was a VERY high “cure” rate when it was treated as a mental disorder, will draw denial and attack. They re-write and deny history and objective reality. For that reason, Liberalism, itself, seems to be a mental disorder.

        • CDE,

          Just saw your comment inclusive of the Link and Reference to the Williams institute. This is a GREAT reference !

          Thank you for making it available………… reading through the link it appears as it and the ensuing “agenda” are worthy of their own Post !!

          • Don: Thanks for your feedback. I was unaware of the Williams Institute or its charter and activities until I dug into Utah’s post a bit. As a recovering academic, it is unclear why a homosexual advocacy organization, which Williams clearly is, would be located within the UCLA Law School as it does not seem to be connected to the Law School’s mission. A related question is why the Law School faculty, the Law School’s Board of Visitors (or whatever they call their Board of Trustees) and the Regents of the University of California would all have approved this arrangement. It does not pass the “Smell Test,”but it would likely be very difficult to get access to the records involved, if there are any. There are many such advocacy organizations tucked away inside universities and enjoying tax free status, unlike the IRS harassment of Conservative groups like the TEA Party. Maybe we can work on a separate post over the holidays, as I may have some time. CDE

  4. Looks like we have a small group here with the Wizard of Oz syndrome (I don’t know if there was such a thing, but there is now!), where they cast a very large shadow, speak through a loudspeaker, deploy all sorts of special effects, and cast a much larger image of themselves than what actually exists. I third that libertarian streak and have no desire to tell people what to do with their personal lived. My contention with the issue here is that the cause for homosexuality seems a bit contradictory. Supporters and activists cast a very libertarian argument in the form of “what I do in private is my business, don’t judge my personal life” First of all, if one doesn’t believe that something is truly wrong, then why would one care if people cast judgement or not? Kinda rounds like somebody wants to have their cake and set it too, hmm? Secondly and more importantly, why do they want something so private legislated? Last time I checked, legislation was not private. For that matter, why do Pride events even exist? Doesn’t that all defeat the purpose of private? Just my meager two cents on the issue.

    • Many in the homosexual community are vehemently against the Traditional Family. They are trying to have it be seen as ABNORMAL….as being a forced institution by Christianity and by Legislation. You have to understand this. The Press and their (Socialist owners) are behind them. They are trying to socially engineer …Single Parent Families…surrogate Mothers…..Gay Parents….alternative definitions of the Family… all of these as being more NORMAL. Hillary Clinton’s …”It takes a Village to raise a Child” was part of this as well.

      I know this seems hard to grasp….but it is in fact what is going on. Common Core and what’s going on in our schools is a big part of it as well. So when you see the ”’*War on Christmas*……what you are seeing is the front lines of this attack on the nuclear Family…the Traditional family. Because the Core of the Christmas story starts with a Family…mother Child and Father…and others coming to worship and give loving support to them. And God chose to “Become” through the vehicle of the Traditional Family structure. Again….later Jesus talks lovingly about strong marriage committments. ( Joe would be best to give references here).

      So you see the *War on Christmas* isn’t really so much about a War on Religion…….there is no Press or Media or Department of Education edicts against anything BUT Christianity as you well know. It is about the War the Progressives/Socialists have on the very Definitions of (1) the Family and (2) the standard relationships between Men and Women.

    • Well, I for one never miss the annual allergy-pride parade!

      Never seen this show, but I read the interview. It was his first amendment right to speak his mind, and his opinion also falls in line with Christian views on homosexuality; as M. said love the sinner, not the sin. The network had every right to put him on hiatus; but I agree with Charles; dumb business move. I’m pretty sure this show is making the network a crapload of money (I see these bearded boys all over the internet.)

        • “Exactly right, Kells. Why are you so much smarter on this issue than some of the guys here?”

          I’m not convinced that I read anywhere here where anyone said that A&E did not have the right to place the man on indefinite hiatus (apparently after they finished shooting the next season), or that they did not have the right to do such a stupid thing.

          Just more of McPherson’s tsunami of bullshit.

            • Why do you fan the flames? You boys need a crackin! I believe it is high time that I introduce you all to my industrial-sized dungeon (yes, I had it upgraded…..gotta loan from the lottery winner.)

              Typically, if I’m out and about running errands and what not, I have Trapped as my standby. Her whips are illegal, so I believe you all should pray that I’m not at the Wal-Mart…..

              • Re : Trapped……Yeah well that’s not hard to do….EVERYTHING is illegal in California…… except bad taste, irresponsibility and Government theft.

              • “Why do you fan the flames? ”

                Because he’s a big fat nerd of a man who otherwise would be completely isolated, insular, and alone without us to spend a moment on. He craves this shit, because he cannot get proper attention at home.

                In other words, he’s got nothing else.

                • “he’s got nothing else”

                  Yeah, that’s why I spend so much time here compared to you, Auggie, you pitiful old would-be-anonymous “doctor.” Let’s see, how many wives have you had, and which girlfriend most recently dumped you? At least you have your guns to keep you warm. 😉

              • kells et al: As a comparative newcomer, but a very sharp observer, my conclusion is that James McPherson, with whom several of us appear to have prior relationships, is a classic agent provocateur. He doesn’t seem to have anything to contribute but he is effectively controlling the exchanges by prodding us like a frustrating classmate from kindergarten on Facebook. I suggest we bring that adventure to a prompt conclusion and focus on what I see as the most important aspect of the attempt to publically muzzle Phil Robertson and make an example of his “unacceptable” beliefs. The pattern of silencing unpopular speech and free thought is already ingrained in the cultures of America’s most esteemed universities in speech codes and draconian penalties for politically incorrect ideas. Our Dear Leader and his Progressive bullies are now attempting to introduce self censorship into the public square. These developments greatly concern me. Do they concern others? CDE

                • “a classic agent provocateur … effectively controlling the exchanges”

                  Which is all too easy here, of course. 😉

                  “I suggest we bring that adventure to a prompt conclusion…”

                  A good idea, of course, even if a bit late for “a prompt conclusion.” Others have suggested the same previously, but Auggie and Joe just can’t seem to help themselves. And once Texas and Dusty wake up, they’ll probably join in. Right boys?

                  • James: What I never appreciate here is when an interesting discussion degenerates into ad hominem attacks. I like the people on this blog and the quality of discussion is often excellent. I have no idea why you are making my friends so angry, but I have never experienced the level of animus you are attracting. I will appreciate your help in getting this thread back on track. Some important issues are involved and I enjoy the repartee that often develops from the interactions here. Please back down the insulting comments on your end, and I’ m asking my colleagues to do the same. Thanks, CDE

                    • “I have never experienced the level of animus you are attracting.”

                      Well, I suspect that’s because you usually agree with most of the guys here. I haven’t noticed “excellent” discussion here since well before the 2012 election, when Utah became convinced his guy was going to win and seemed to let that (and the resulting disappointment) color everything he wrote. And Augger has usually quickly resorted to name-calling and profanity — is that the “repartee” you enjoy?

                      But as you note, there’s a history among us, typically because I’m pointing out the things they get wrong. And I’m happy to let you and your friends take the thread where you like with your discussion, leaving you with this as both an illustration of my first comment and an effort to get things “back on track”:

                      Merry Christmas, Charles. You’re in a great city for it — my wife and I enjoy visiting the Big Apple about every other year.

                    • James: I hadn’t noticed you here since I began posting last summer, but yes, the exchanges on RNL are generally of higher quality than what I’ve found on Progressive and pro-Obama blogs, where it is sometimes entertaining to engage in the intellectual equivalent of a baby seal hunt. If you had been frequenting RNL on a more regular basis you would have noted that as a libertarian my views on many issues do not correlate with the generally American Conservative position of my RNL friends, but the differences are shared without acrimony, at least most of the time. If you do have a different take on economics and politics I would welcome your contributions, since unlike most Americans I do change my mind when I encounter better information or more convincing logic. Whatever you decide to do RNL-wise, please accept my wishes for a Merry Christmas!!! CDE

                    • Charles,

                      When McPherson first came here, his ideology was met with resistance just as yours was. From that point, your trajectories have taken vastly different paths. When faced with oppositional viewpoints, you have from the outset made every attempt to continue with civil discourse as if attempting to settle a dispute with an respected neighbor. Your academic counterpart however, has different ideas. His desire is to post abstract politics, which in his mind allows him to state whatever he wishes, regardless of how unreasonable it is. Now let’s examine this thread. Here are his first three responses:

                      “After forgetting about the RNL for years,”

                      Now McPherson is going to disagree, and attempt to play himself as the victim here, but his first seven words reveal an engineered statement with no other purpose than to incite … and it did so. It’s also demonstrates his willingness to begin “civil discourse” with a bald face lie. You have admin privs here Charles, just go search his posts by name.

                      The bastard got what he deserved in response, and now he’s all deeply wounded.

                      “After all, any idiot here”

                      Well now, we know what Professor Asshat Donk thinks about us, and yet somehow we are the villains in all this. He can go screw himself.

                      “why you’d be confused about someone admitting an error, since the folks who regularly post at the RNL never do so.”

                      More ad hominem attacks from Professor Asshat Donk, who when he offers them calls it ” pointing out the things they get wrong”. Well Charles, sorry to disappoint you, but these tactics have been McPherson’s modus operandi for quite some time, and as I have told him directly on more than one occasion … if that is the discourse he wants, then I am more than willing to respond in kind.

                      In fact, it’s generally fun since now he does infrequently visit us here. Thinking about it further, having this dolt come and start a pissing contest is a nice break from having to rise up to the level of conversation that you bring.

                      So yes Charles, classical conditioning works, and our conditioning here on the RNL is well observed. You really should go back through his posting history, Charles. You’d be amazed as his level of vitriol.

                    • “the exchanges on RNL are generally of higher quality than what I’ve found on Progressive and pro-Obama blogs”

                      I’d say you’re looking at the wrong blogs, but in fact it’s my experience that there are a lot of uncivil jackasses on most blogs (including those devoted to sports, music, books, movies, etc.) During one one-year period before the election, I had people on conservative blogs suggest that I should be shot, stabbed, lynched, beaten and raped. The RNL has focused on me (sometimes dishonestly) directly in at least 10 posts (, and another waged a brief campaign (including my contact info and that for my employers) to try to get me fired.

                      Since I actually use my own name I actually back up what I say with my own name, I obviously don’t get “wounded” by anonymous nitwits. I respect the fact that you also use your own name (and that Joe now does, a shift from when I began coming here). Joe and Utah go off the rails at times, but I think they’re sincere in their beliefs and actually try to make reasoned arguments much of the time. As for Augger, I’ve seen nothing to respect in terms of intellect or civility.

                      Merry Christmas to you, as well. I suspect I agree with you more often than with most of the guys here, though we’d probably often disagree. And if you ever really want to see my views on anything, feel free to check out my political blog (though I don’t write much there, anymore, either):

                    • CDE,

                      You are casting your pearls before the swine. You say you have come to respect the majority of those here on the RNL. Then you note the nearly unanimous reaction to Jame. I urge you to draw and trust the obvious conclusion from that, and note that you would be doing so using your own judgment based on the observations you have already listed. 🙂

                    • “there are a lot of uncivil jackasses on most blogs”

                      Here’s the first honest thing McPherson has offered in quite some time, and to help prove the point, I give you McPherson as the example of the uncivil jackass on this blog. His history speaks for itself.

                      And again, McPherson … if you are interested in intellectual and civil discourse, I invite you to come back to a thread and offer an opening statement that is genuinely given in the interest of intellectual and civil discourse. As your friend Greg found out, I will offer the same in return.

                      The choice is yours. Feel free to make it.

                    • A correction, Augger, just for Charles’ sake since he’s newer here: “When McPherson first came here,” it was because Kells posted something that I had written on my own blog here. The second comment (after one from Kells) was one from Utah, in which he misrepresented what I had said in my blog post.

                      A few days later, in one of several RNL posts featuring me (before I even knew that it had been posted), Joe called me a coward and a hypocrite (with capital letters and exclamation marks, naturally) because I hadn’t cleared a comment by him on my blog quickly enough. (As with most WordPress blogs, first-time commenters on my blog have to be cleared to cut down on spam.)

                      If you actually check, Augger, I expect you’ll find that my tone was considerably more civil than what I was greeted with here. Not that I’d expect you to admit it, of course. 🙂 Furthermore, as to “level of vitriol” — you’ve never seen me post a profanity here. You, on the other hand, tend to be the most profane person here. I don’t deny snarkiness or insults, though I doubt that I’ve given worse than I’ve received.

                      Regardless, fire away at will; As I wrote in the earlier post (thanks for getting me to check back): “Rest assured, I also haven’t been angered by anything directed at me. I wouldn’t have gone into journalism, academia, or blogging if I were thin-skinned.” That’s still true.

                    • “you’ve never seen me post a profanity here.”

                      I haven’t? You might want to check one of your last posts there chief. One day McPherson, you are going to have to get serious, and honest with yourself.

                    • “You might want to check one of your last posts there chief.”

                      Please clarify, Augger. I rarely swear, even when I golf (and my putting is worthy of profanity). 🙂 And I don’t remember doing so here. I don’t expect you to find the specific post, of course, though perhaps you could remind me of the word or phrase you think you remember me using. Thanks.


                      Anything else you care to lie about before we move on McPherson? – augs

                    • There you go McPherson. I placed it along with your comment directly above. Don’t worry though, it didn’t take long to find the first example.

                      Enjoy. 🙂

                    • Thanks, Augger. While I considered the word to be more an alternative for excrement than a profanity when I used it, you’re right — it’s not a word I would use in mixed company and therefore shouldn’t have done so. My apologies.

                      And now that I’ve had to correct myself twice in one post — perhaps confirming my wife’s concerns about impending Alzheimer’s (or perhaps simply confirming the old adage about absent-minded professors), I’ll take leave while wishing you a Merry Christmas.

                • Well said and Yes they concern most of us here !!

                  Augger has him well figured when he says “St James the Infirm “is merely looking for attention…..and your kindergarten anaolgy is quite apt.

                • They concern me, Charles. I’ve seen some pretty scary comments on blogs with regards to our rights. I believe the problem lies in the fact that they have been quite spoiled by a Christian capitalist nation. I do believe it would behoove them to broaden their horizons (by moving to N. Korea, Afghanistan, or Iran to name a few, and see if they have a different outlook.

                  • Kells: One need not visit the Hell-holes of Communist regimes, where by the way Westerners are given almost no access to the interior and no access to the prisons and forced labor camps, to gain an understanding of Collectivism. Western Europe tells the same dreadful story and it’s cheaper! Entire nations that were once at least partially free now have millions on the dole, with no understanding of individual responsibility, creativity or hard work. That is where Progressivism/Socialism leads. It is horrible to experience and very, very sad. That is what Our Dear Leader wants for America. Frightening! CDE

                    • I’m in a fierce debate with my son on the minimum wage, currently, so I feel your pain. I do believe Walter Williams describes it best. Oh, but I guess he was just a happy “cotton picker” alongside Mr. Robertson so his generation dun’t know much….

  5. Folks,

    What we have here — in its purest, most simplified form — is a denial of God and God’s law. The gays hate the family because God ordained the family as the smallest Godly unit of society. It is through the family that children are born and taught to be God-fearing and responsible members of society. Gays — by definition — do not and cannot reproduce (naturally). Oddly enough, this actually speaks AGAINST their ungodly claims of evolution and natural selection as natural selection CANNOT “evolve” a homosexual human species. That takes intervention outside of the physical laws which govern this universe. “Science” may be able to provide this outside intervention, but this would — again — be an affirmation that man is outside of and/or above this universe, which then points to God yet again. This whole war on anything Christian is nothing more than the children of this world waging war on those of God’s world.

    Now, as to these false assertions that homosexuality is not a choice. I am tiring of this lie. And it is a lie. I have mentioned it in the past. Before the homosexuals started this campaign, the AMA considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder, they had treatments for it and they were VERY successful. The rate was in the 90% range with less than 5% recidivism rates. “Science” would call that a cure. But there is better evidence than this. In the swingers’ community and among our youth, it is very common for females to be “expected” to partake in homosexual activities. In fact, for our youth, it is almost seen as a right of passage. I can list many additional examples such as this, but this is sufficient proof that homosexuality is a choice.

    Finally, if you pay attention to the courts, you will find the move to “legalize” polygamy and bestiality have already started, and legalized pedophilia is not far behind. I find it funny the gays actually object to these movements as they are ALL using the exact same argument the gays used to advance their campaign: that none of it is a choice, they were just born that way. Well, if the gays want people to accept their claims of having no choice, then they have no choice but to accept polygamy, bestiality and pedoph8ilia. Oh, and whether they like it or not, that places ALL of these on the same level — but not that of heterosexuality. That — strangely enough — is in line with BOTH God’s law and the story of evolution/natural selection.

    OK, haters, have at it. I can take it because I understand your intolerance is born of guilt — guilt in knowing that I am 100% correct. So let’s hear it. 🙂

      • Kells,

        Possibly, or they may be among those Christ said will claim to belong to Him yet are not His. It depends on whether or not they are justifying the continuation of the practice. We cannot continue in the PRACTICE of sin if we are saved. The indwelling Holy Spirit will not allow it, and neither should we — not if we have truly converted. Paul is VERY clear on this, as was Christ.

              • Kells,

                I hope you understand I am not doing anything more than Phil Robertson did. I am reading Scripture for what it actually says and then doing my best to take God at His word. But note: we must read and obey ALL of Scripture, not just the parts we like. This is also why I tried to pen my comment in the form of a suggestion: because I do not know nor care to judge your salvation. I only know of what Scriptures warns us against.

                  • They may not want to deal with him, but Glenn Beck already offered them free reign on his network. It may be God working greater things in spite of the likes of A&E and the PC tyrants of this world. We’ll have to wait and see.

                    [BTW: Kells, it is not just homosexuals. God warns all who call themselves by His name that it is not enough to just claim His name; we must live according to His commandments. Remember, Christ said, if we love Him, we will keep His commands. If we reject His commands and insist on living according to our own desires,… Scripture is not the al a cart buffet that people today seem to think it is. You either embrace all of it, or you are totally outside of it. And again, this is not ME saying this, it is CHRIST!]

                    • Joe: While I try to avoid theological discussions generally, I suggest that the book of James provides the best discussion of the relationship between faith and our life decisions. Jesus himself frequently stated that words are not nearly as important as deeds in doing God’s will. He frequently attacked the temple hierarchy and the Pharisee Party as being concerned with appearances rather than realities. Those sources have shaped my own beliefs and actions for a long time. “Not all who call me Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of God,” comes to mind. CDE

                    • CDE,

                      I am very aware of both James (just read it again last week) and what Christ said. But I am also aware that ALL said we are known by our works/deeds. If those deeds are disobedience, then Scripture — not me — says we are not His but Satan’s. Now, mind you, as I understand Scripture, we are talking about a deliberate and persistent disobedience. We all sin and we cannot stop that. But when we reject God’s word and replace it with our own: that is when we place ourselves in peril.

                      Now, that said, people seem to miss that Phil Robertson, myself and all who truly seek to do God’s will know and understand that it is not the individual we must reject, but the things they do. We love the sinner but we hate the sin. And sin is the disobedience of God’s will/law.

                      Scripture is so firm on this that it actually tells us to rebuke (correct) our brothers and sisters who disobey God’s law. We do this three times, and after the third time — if they still will not repent (which means to stop doing wrong) — we are told to put that person out of the fellowship. And again, this is not meant to attack the person but to hope that being put out of the fellowship with God’s people will at last bring them to repentance.

                      Yes, it IS about loving each other. But God demonstrates that — sometimes — tough love is still love, but acceptance and tolerance — especially in spiritual matters — is to do harm, not love.

                      BTW: Christ also said that the world will hate those who stand on His word. I happen to believe that is the reason Phil Robertson is being so vehemently attacked: because he is not faking his love for God.

                    • Joe: I didn’t think for a moment that you hadn’t read James. I was merely reflecting on the fact that I have found James and the teachings of Jesus to be the most helpful to my understanding of the relationship between faith and how I try to live my life. Sometimes Protestants have a tendency to regard intellectual assent as a “Get out of jail free card”, which to me is a mistake prompted by the frequent mistake Roman Catholics make by treating “Good Works,” by which they mean receipt of the Sacraments, as their get out of Purgatory card. The answer of course, is that both faith and a good life are critical to building a relationship with God. Glad I figured that one out!!! CDE

                    • CDE,

                      I have no problem agreeing with what you just said — none at all. In fact, had I been asked, I would have said much the same thing. We cannot work or reason our way into salvation. That comes from faith and faith alone, and even then, we must first be called by the Holy Spirit. And to this regard, I understand and agree: James is a huge help. However, I think many modern readers miss the harsher side of Christ — mostly because we have no idea of the culture in which He was living and teaching, nor how He would have been seen by the people of His time.

                      The “hippie” image of Christ (always mellow and happy, never harsh: that is a mythical creation meant to lead people astray). I am just trying to remind people — His people — that we must take all of Him or none of Him. Or wouldn’t you agree with this?

                    • You know, B., I really don’t know what you’re trying to get at here. I think you have an issue with the way I view homosexuals. My feelings of “the sin” differ greatly from yours. In the NT, Christ addresses the issue in Matthew 19:12. I believe this to be true, and I do not believe the pit of fire awaits my friends who were born this way. I believe God loves all of his creations. Personally, I think He Created homosexuals for a purpose. I don’t know. I do not know the mind of God.

                    • Kells,

                      Since you want me to address this verse of Scripture, OK. It does NOT say what you think it does. You are changing Christ’s words to suit your agenda.

                    • Kells and Joe,
                      Matthew 19: 12 use the term EUNUCHS.

                      Kells……This is a MIS-application and a mistake to equate the Term Eunuchs with Homosexuals. The Bible is very clear about “a man laying with a man”……and especially in Context of Jesus time, Eunuchs were NOT the same as Homosexuals. They were Non-sexual or A-sexual……and since it was a Man’s DUTY to marry in the Judaic world, He is giving exception to those men who DO NOT marry….. thus… ” it is not everyone who can accept what I have said”. Meaning those men who are not the Marrying kind . He is refering to Matt 7, 8 and 9 against DIVORCE. Yeshua is CLEARLY in these chapters saying Divorce is NOT acceptable. Because the Creator from the Beginning said what God has united ( Man and Wife : the two become one body)….what God has united man must not divide.

                    • Don,

                      Do NOT tell SBJ I did this, he may wind up on one of Augger’s ER tables, and then we might have to visit Augger in jail.

                      I made a mistake in my reply to Kells (typo in a search), so I redacted my original comment to her.

                      That said, you are correct in your response to her. She is equating two different things. Another dangerous mistake.

                    • Don,

                      Do NOT tell SBJ I did this, he may wind up on one of Augger’s ER tables, and then we might have to visit Augger in jail.

                      I made a mistake in my reply to Kells (typo in a search), so I redacted my original comment to her.

                      That said, you are correct in your response to her. She is equating two different things. Another dangerous mistake.

                    • You’re not addressing the scripture I referred to. My reference was Christ’s words. Your references are something I think completely eludes you. Jesus Christ is love in the human form. His words speak that. Where do you see him persecuting homosexuals? I’m sorry, but this just gets me so damn mad and upset.

                    • Um, Don, ring-a-ding-ding! There were homosexual eunuchs as Christ points out. He points to three in the verse, and for me, it is quite obvious. C’mon! Do you not know a bit of history as to the eunuchs? What were the castrati in the 15th century?

                    • Joe …. ;- ) .


                      He is NOT persecuting Homosexuals. The Passage you refer to is NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALS. Did you read my comment above?
                      And in the Above I should have said “He was referencing Chap 19….verses 7,8 and 9 in Chap 19 Verse 12……in order to be Clearer.

                      But Yeshua DID reference the OT. ( In other verses ) And he does not contradict what Moses and God said there. At least to my knowledge. Joe and Utah are much better “versed” in this area. But i believe the OT proscription against “two men laying together” was NOT contradicted by Jesus.

                    • Don,

                      This speaks directly to the issue at hand:

                      1 Timothy 1

                      New International Version (NIV)

                      1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

                      2 To Timothy my true son in the faith:

                      Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
                      Timothy Charged to Oppose False Teachers

                      3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer 4 or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. 5 The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.

                      8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

                      Kells and those who follow their own heart dismiss the Lord’s servants. They say that God is love, so everyone will be saved. They say that, if Christ didn’t say it, they reject it. The problem with that is, without the prophets, they cannot know Christ is the messiah. And without the disciples, they cannot know what Christ said. So, if the prophets and disciples are untrustworthy, their faith is dead.

                      Well, since some must hear it from Christ, there is this:

                      Luke 13:23-24 and 28,

                      “Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able … There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.”

                      Making our own doctrine rather than accepting and following Christ’s Gospel is a good way to keep from entering the narrow gate. That is what Paul is telling us in Timothy. But then, some would reject Paul because they do not like what he teaches. Sadly, Paul is only Christ’s hand-picked messenger to spread the Gospel to the gentiles. Rejecting Paul is to reject Christ.

                      READ THIS PAGE!

                    • That was not a great link, B. She pulls the same move as you by sweeping everything under the carpet. Eunuchs weren’t diverse in their sexuality? Please. That’s like tellin me a fat baby dun’t fart.

                    • Once again, Kells, you are insisting on placing YOUR will over that of God’s word. As I said to you before, you are arguing that, because God is love, people can worship Satan and they will be saved.

                      I have done what scripture requires of me and tried to show you the mistake in your understanding of doctrine. I’ll leave you be now, as you obviously do not want to see it. You will not hear from me on this or any matter dealing with Christ’s Gospel again (at least not directed to you).

                    • No Kells… are simply re-writting what you want a Eunuch to mean. In his time Eunuchs meant one thing and Homosexuals meant another. What Jesus refers to in the verse you reference are 3 versions of Eunuch males…..he is NOT talking about Homosexuals. No one became a Homosexual “for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven” for instance which is his third reference. Especially so since Homosexuality was forbidden by their Church . Jesus is NOT talking about homosexuals.

                      You sre twisting not only the meaning of what he said but what he said.

                    • Don,

                      Kells is just doing what Paul wrote to the saints NOT to do: she is re-writing Scripture to suit her desires. Given that Bible is very clear about homosexuality being a sin, to then say Christ changed all that is to make Him into a liar:

                      Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1

                      Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”

                      1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

                      Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

                      She may think we are attacking her, but this is — again — based in her misconceptions of what Scripture actually says. We are trying to correct her mistakes with brotherly love — as scripture tells us to do. But she is meeting that correction with anger and rejection. Scripture tells us this is a sign that the person we are trying to correct is not one of the saints. Therefore, it is at this point we are to dust off our feet and leave them to their errors. 😦

                    • Holy Crap! The term homosexual wasn’t even invented at that point in time! And I’m not trying to twist anything. I’m just interpreting what I read from the gospel; same as you boys. So if you think I’m somehow now counseling with Satan, then that is your problem as I know very well that I am not! God knows my heart, and you silly boys do not. I will not tolerate any more of this emotional abuse this evening. I hope you feel very proud of yourself, B. You, Don and I shall agree to disagree on this one.

                  • No Kells I cannot agree to disagree ….. now I am not accusing you of consorting with Satan.

                    But WRT to the Context of the times you are simply not correct. Eunuch was very specific to A-sexuality and thow there wasn’t a Term ( victim group) for homosexuality….scrpiture was VERY specific about what it was and was not. They were not confused as to the issue….as the Greeks were not etc.

                    You mentioned the Castrati …. you probably were aware that even sans les equipment most Castrsti nevertheless preferred the women Folk and had female lovers. So there is nothing to doubt this may have been true 2000 years before…..thus Jesus words ring clear once again as to meaning as it would have been assumed those Eunuchs preferred women too….but could not procreate and thus could not marry under Judaic law.

                    Matthew 19 : follows a VERY specific discussion about marriage and divorce….with Jesus even saying…” Now I say this to you: the man who divorces his wife-I AM NOT SPEAKING OF FORNICATION- and marries another, is guilty of adultery”. ( Capitalization mine for emphasis). So you see the context of even Jesus discussion is Marriage and Divorce….NOT sexual activity. and his reference to Eunuchs follows from THAT. Homosexuals are not even a part of the discussion… they wouldn’t or shouldn’t have been….because the central part of Marriage after the Joining of Man and Wife under God…was Children. Homosexuals were irrelevent to this.

                    To try and inject them into this 2000 year old discussion is just Us today parroting what the Gay community does today….inject their agenda into spheres which have nothing to do with them.

                    • Don,

                      I was not trying to associate her with Satan, either. It was merely an extreme example: hyperbole, as the Hebrews commonly used it to stress important points in Christ’s time. But Kells does not listen. She thinks I am trying to persecute her gay friends, and am telling her that, if she is a Christian, she must do the same. People miss that Phil Robertson said we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. Kells ignores the fact that I have said the same — many times.

                      They have ears, but they do not hear. If they were in the Spirit, those words would trouble them: not toward me, but inwardly. Sadly, all it does is make them angry with the messenger. Scripture speaks to this, too. It says that those who are in the darkness will react angrily toward the light because they do not understand the light. So, when they hear true and proper doctrine, they lash out. Again, this should bother a true saint.

                      But I will note this much. Whatever the outcome, I have seen discussions much like this one springing up all over the place since A&E “fired” Phil. All I can say to that is, whether he planned this or not, WELL DONE, PHIL!

                    • From what I understand, there is a pretty common consensus among biblical scholars and clergymen alike, that Matthew 19 is in fact dealing with the issues of marriage and divorce. Only since progressivism showed up on the scene and started mixing itself into the interpretation of Christian scripture, did homosexuality begin to work itself into the interpretation of that passage.

                      As for the issue of the eunuchs, there were a few different types of eunuchs in history, but only one type is referred to in scripture. What we have to remember about scripture is that the Hebrew people spent A LOT of time in captivity under various kingdoms. As a result, they were often exposed to various forms of cultures. Under the large Persian empire, those who had exposure to the King’s court, probably had some knowledge if the inner workings of the eunuch and harm system. Consequently, when eunuchs are written about by Old Testament authors, they are referring to the male servants who were castrated so that they could work in the Harem (as somebody mentioned earlier). Imagine if one of the harem was impregnated by somebody other than whichever king was in rule! Having servants who could procreate, work around what were probably some of the most beautiful women in the kingdom, could have been rather—problematic—for a king trying to preserve his line. It should also be noted that in at least one case, during the reign of Ahab, his queen Jezebel was so ruthless, that her eunuchs were often castrated not only for the prior reason mentioned, but for the psychological reason of imposing her dominance over the men of the kingdom (including her husband). Think about the psychology of a man losing his manhood to the hand of a woman. You could imagine the level of inferiority and defeat that they would have felt, in addition to giving them more of a submissive, “beta male” temperament.

                      As far as the other two types of eunuch, one was the popular “celibate” monk stereotype from the middle ages. The other was the sexually diverse type that started to regularly show up on the scene during the Renaissance. Technically, Kells is not wrong about sexually diverse eunuchs, but from the stand point of scripture, the sexually diverse eunuchs are not the correct eunuchs being referred to. From a point of brotherly love and correction, I believe Don and Joe are making the correct case.

  6. Katie Pavlich of TownHall notes:

    “The bottom line is this, Duck Dynasty and the Robertson’s have been sitting ducks for a long time. The show Duck Dynasty encompasses everything the left hates and wishes to destroy: the Second Amendment, traditional families, women in the home with the men as heads of the household, the American Dream, hunting, religion, success, entrepreneurship, being rewarded for hard-work, free speech etc.”

    As is often common with the perpetually aggrieved parties, the LGBT gang must generate and perpetuate rage against themselves because if they didn’t, people would forget how “aggrieved” they are and stop paying attention to them.

    Phil Robertson and his family are exactly the opposite – they think the attention that their show garners is nice, but they don’t need it to exist. They were there in West Monroe (that is pronounced Mon-RO) before the show and the notoriety and they will be there after. The best example is Phil declining Barbara Walters’ interview – fame whore Kim Kardashian would peel the skin off of both of her nipples with a plastic spork to sit for Babs – something that Phil saw as being of no value.

    The Robertsons are just plain folks who value what is rightfully valued in life – family, love and God.

    A+E can do whatever they want but I hope Phil never stops talking. He will come out the other side of this stronger and even more respected than he is now.

          • Michael/kells: I’ve watched several episodes with one of my kids who loves the series. Interestingly, that son is the least religious of my six kids, but he connects with the Robertsons. Hope springs eternal! CDE

      • kells: I tried to comment on your post about eunuchs and the castrati above, but was unable to do so. My understanding is that the castrati were young boys with beautiful soprano voices who the RC church castrated to preserve their ability to hit the high notes the clergy seemed to enjoy. So the castrati lost their ability to reproduce, but not their ability to enjoy sexual activity. I’ve never heard whether most preferred women or men, but I suspect that varied. The eunuchs were more creatures of the Near Eastern harems of the rulers, although they often rose to important positions because of their frequent presence in the ruler’s inner circle. Eunuchs had their reproductive capacities removed (how’s that for cleaning up a painful act), but part of their job was servicing the women in the harem since the ruler often could not handle the task on his own. Also, when the ruler did mate with a member of his harem, there was often a log-book entry to confirm the day and time, so that any child that got produced could be determined to be of the royal line. Using a eunuch as a surrogate kept the women from revolting, but avoided producing a bastard offspring. What a wacky situation!!! CDE

        • My point is that they referred to homosexuals as eunuchs in Christ’s time. They were not called homosexuals as the term hadn’t been used til the 19th century. Thus, my reference to Christ’s words on eunuchs in Mtthew 19:12. I realize there are a few ways you could interpret this verse, so I should be interested to hear yours, Charles.

    • Utah,

      So what we REALLY have here is a family that lives according to God’s law — the way our founders did — and they are wildly successful, stable and happy. And on the other side, we have a bunch of people trying to live according to their fantasies and desires and who have become miserable and envious in the process. So, rather than learn from this, those who want to live the way they think things should work are trying to destroy those who are demonstrating that things go well when you actually live the way we should. Is that about right?

      I hear an old fashioned Sesame Street song in here somewhere. Kells, a little help? 🙂

  7. I love/hate the fact that so many Americans think “Duck Dynasty” — or any other so-called “reality show” — isn’t largely scripted and then edited to tell a story. Even sadder is the fact that more people watch this show than watch or read anything that might be of use in governing their own lives. “Duck Dynasty” is more about the distraction that keeps the same old power structure in control than it is about anything real or moral — and I’d have thought that at least Joe would get that.

    • Actually, though I do not watch the show (but have seen it from time to time), I do follow what is reported about it. And while there is SOME truth to what you say, it is only a half truth (so again, another deception). It has been widely reported that Phil took a VERY hard line on the inclusion of God in this show. A&E tried to get them to edit that out — several times. Phil pointed out that the family does not need the money or fame, so A&E had to take it or leave it. That puts the lie to the distorted image you are trying to paint, James. In this sense, the faith of the Robinson family is very real and NOT “scripted.” That you have such trouble with this tells me a great deal more about you than the Robinson family. But then, I had already assumed what you just affirmed about yourself.

      • For someone who “doe not watch the show but has seen it from time to time” — whatever the hell that means — you seem to know a lot of the mythology about it. If A&E “needed” the family so much, Daddy Duck would still be there. But you have demonstrated that you know as much about how television is made as you do about most everything else.

        • James, for authoritarian fascists such as yourself, the “need” is not to have a successful show but to conform to the Party orthodoxy. This is what PC is all about. Of course, you know this, but you have to act as though you don’t because — as has been pointed out — deception is in your blood. It just comes so naturally to you that you don’t even realize you are doing it.

        • The Robertson family were already multi-millionaires before the show ever aired.

          If anything it was publicity for their Products…..and ,as Joe and Mr Roberstson has repeatedly said, Mr Robertson saw it as a vehicle to show Traditional Family values and Christian Faith.

        • James: You are a charmer! The issue here is not what Phil Robinson and his family believe, but rather the enormous pressure being brought to silence them and reduce their influence on millions of Americans. Punishing free thinking opponents has been a Progressive strategy since Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, but it runs completely contrary to the American spirit, as was most fully embodied in our Founders. Joe seems to share the Robertsons’ beliefs, while others may not, but the real issue is that every American has the freedom to speak his or her views in the public square, whether or not those beliefs are popular. In the Robertsons’ case their beliefs are very popular, as A&E and Disney will soon discover. One wonders how Disney’s shareholders will respond when the nationwide boycott of A&E moves upstream to Disney? Of course A&E had the legal authority to place Phil Robertson on leave, but that decision may soon bite the Disney organization in its ample and vulnerable behind. One can only hope! CDE

          • “James: You are a charmer!”


            “the enormous pressure being brought to silence them and reduce their influence on millions of Americans”

            I don’t know how “enormous” the pressure is, and frankly I agree with folks here that A&E should not have caved. But I do encourage people to complain when they strongly object to something they see in the media — whether those people agree or disagree with Phil. And Disney (which also owns that other Robertson’s network) has been boycotted previously by the religious right, which had no apparent effect. Still, I encourage the effort.

            • James: I think there is a building energy among average Americans that I have not seen before. The rejection of Our Dear Leader and his Progressive policies and lawless behavior is spreading among people who generally avoid politics and political discussion. Obamacare has hit many people very hard and the elitist behavior by A&E in firing Phil Robertson for voicing his family’s religious beliefs may be growing into a proxy for Middle America throwing off the hubris and anti-freedom control of the coastal elites, starting in Washington. While this may have been inevitable, the Obamites were rushing to secure their control over the lives of average Americans before it happened. The anger and resentment needed a spark, and now it has two metaphors for the un-American approach to governance that Mr. Obama and his cronies have pursued. The next two years may be very interesting, in the Chinese sense. CDE

              • Charles,

                The *islamofascist misogynist anti-christian* and the *Narcissist anti-american (cough-cough) professor* have gotten together for a their little “circle-JerK below. Ain’t it cute.

                You haven’t been party to the vile talk coming from these two in the recent past…… discusting comments about women, attacking Trapped as just one of many examples, accusing some posters here of child abuse, accusing me of discusting things with my employees…….ask the others, ask Joe, ask Augger if I am not correct. This is the History they bring with them.

                Every person here addressed the issue, or addendums to the issue such as the true numbers of gays and their political agenda…..which itself circles back to the PC firing of Robertson. I don’t need to go further with examples because I know your caliber of attention and intelligence. They attack and they lie….repeatedly. Everyone here knows that. And indeed St.James started out with such, right on cue. Subsequent comments by us were merely the acknowledgement of the fact.

                • Don: I’m sorry this very personal set of exchanges has taken us off task for a bit. I think the Robertson case is very important and I have enjoyed when we’ve actually got it into the discussion. Every blog has its conflicts and I’ve gone around on enough issues with the RNL crew to know the personal attacks are not the culture of the site. Thanks for the explanation. Regards, CDE

            • James, my visit to the swamp was similar to yours, but what this thread really reveals is the right-wing tacti of diversion. Dom Ameche’s obsession with your moment of hyperbole was a clear effort to NOT embrace the issue.

              To me, this situation is similar to Clear Channel corp’s decision not to play songs by the Dixie Chicks, because of a single political utterance at a concert. The company has that right, but it is unfortunate that in both situations the companies exercise their Constitutional right to, in effect, punish someone else for exercising theirs..At the time, President Bush defended the orchestrated right-wing jihad against the Dixie Chicks on 1st amendment grounds; can you imagine the tumult that would ensue if Obama were to do the same for A &E?

              • “Dom Ameche’s obsession with your moment of hyperbole was a clear effort to NOT embrace the issue.”

                True, and Augger’s profanity and name-calling were the same. Having made my point, however, I suppose it’s time to leave the boys to wallow in their self-pity as they ignore the content and point behind your excellent question. Thanks, and Merry Christmas.

              • Greg,

                While McPherson busies himself with positioning himself as the victim here, you and I can continue our previous agreement with civil discourse…

                I happen to agree with your juxtaposition of the Dixie Chicks with these Duck guys/gals. It is very unfortunate that Clear Channel and A&E decided to cast these people aside for stating their view points, and their view points are in fact protected by the Constitution, and yes … so are the view points of A&E and Clear Channel.

                I think in the case of the Duck guys … Robertsons I think the name … I believe that in the end, this is just more publicity for themselves, and their future endeavors. If they are as popular as everyone says, then rest assured you will simply see them on a different channel.

                • This is the sort of issue that crosses partisan lines, Augger, an demands a more considered perspective than whose ideas are more offensive to whom. Have a merry Christmas, Augger; I hope the ER isn’t too busy

                  • Thanks for the kind words, Greg. It’s very likely that the ER will be somewhat busy on Monday, and Tues as everyone wants grandma admitted so they do not have to deal with her. Weds will be pretty quiet, likely until the evening, and the rest of the weekend should take care of itself.

                    Merry Christmas to you, and yours Greg. Eat until it hurts, and remember if you need us, we are sitting right on 23rd Street. 🙂

                • augger: I’m having trouble commenting on some of the comments above, and I’m not sure why. It is obvious that the RNL history with Dr. McPherson has been rocky. Sometimes the chemistry is just not right for some people on some blogs. I’ve been on some Progressive sites where everything is about personal attacks. As a recovering academic I’m actually pretty good at those, but I derive no pleasure from those exchanges because they are too easy and the targets are intellectually defenseless. I suspect this is why they shift to ad hominem attacks, even though they have no idea who or what I actually am. I leave those sites once I understand what they are about, which is one of the advantages of the Internet. Its a place where individual freedom is as easy to achieve as a mouse click. I thoroughly enjoy the diversity on RNL, because it helps me refine my own thoughts. I’d love to entice an articulate Progressive to join in, but I have yet to find one. Merry Christmas, Chuck

                  • “I’m having trouble commenting on some of the comments above, and I’m not sure why. “

                    CDE, consider the following image:

                    If you notice the “(EDIT) REPLY” just to the right of the time stamp on your post, then look to the post from kellsbellsfrompc that follows. The “REPLY” is missing. Now I am not sure why it suddenly changes, but my theory is that it involves how she responded to your post (i.e., the “Notifications” box to the upper right of the forum between “New Post” and your avatar image). I am assuming you on the other hand, utilize the “Reply” hyperlink found within the body of the thread when responding.

                    If this is the case, what you will have to do, is to scroll upwards until you find the first post with a reply hyperlink, and then respond there. This is why I am careful to quote a person that I am responding to, as it helps maintain proper flow in an otherwise clunky arrangement.

                    You are correct. It is obvious the history here with McPherson … though he’ll have you believe his halo is intact. He’s been approached about elevating the dialog, but unlike Greg (melfamy), McPherson continues to serve as an instigator. This of course is fine with me as even though I have a short attention span, I do at least have a good time stooping to that level … if only for a moment. One has to find value in everyone, and his certainly was not in intelligent politics.

                    “I’d love to entice an articulate Progressive to join in, but I have yet to find one.”

                    Very difficult to find when they have so little that is correct to work with.

                    Merry Christmas, my friend.

          • CDE, is it ironic at all that those who punish free thinking, are the one’s who have staked a claim in the term “free thinking”? When we hear the term “free thinking” applied, it’s usually applied through a secular progressive context. The implication is that if you adhere to any kind of thought based in religious reasoning, then you are not a free thinker. Phil Robertson believes what Christian scripture says about homosexuality, therefor Phil Robertson is not a free thinker. Conversely, if I turn around and attack April Robertsons reasoning, then I’m a free thinker. I wonder, what exactly is the criterion for Fred thinking? Is it in my ability to conjure up spur of the moment theories? Is it in the consistency of my reasoning skill? Is t in the quality of my reasoning skill? Am I any less of a free thinker because I believe that God wrote the natural laws vs the natural laws simply coming into existence from nothing? Perhaps these are rhetorical dilemmas, but I know thus much, the modern standards for free thinking are based in absurdity.

            • fascisti: “War is peace, and slavery is freedom,” or something close to that, from Orwell’s 1984. I’ve often drawn a parallel between Marxists and their American offspring the Progressives, and the wonderful image from Dante’s INFERNO where Lucifer is suspended upside down in the deepest reaches of Hell. Everything he sees is upside down and distorted. That is how True Believer Progressives see the world everyday. Everything that we know about economics is wrong, and in its place they claim a jumbled version of Keynesian/Marxist theories are actually correct…except they’ve never worked anywhere at anytime. In both ANIMAL FARM and 1984, the government (the pigs in ANIMAL FARM) emphasizes the importance of “right thinking,” which of course means parroting the government’s truth rather than the actual reality available to the citizens own eyes. Which reminds me of one of the Marx Brothers’ great lines, which was delivered by Chico, “Who are you going to trust? Me or your own eyes?”

              There is no room for actual “free thinking” in a Progressive world, which is why all Collectivist societies completely lack the ability to innovate. Art, business, technology and other fields can only innovate when people are permitted to speak and think freely. In a Progressive government, “free thinking” is an illusion which actually means government sanctioned thinking. When the Soviet Union was imploding, I taught hundreds of very smart people from Russia, East Germany, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Viet Nam, China and other Communist countries how to compete in the new free market world they were entering. Again and again I encountered laughter when we talked about how to plan, set goals and implement them. It turned out that the East Germans explained the humor best. They told me they had always set goals under Communism, never very realistic goals, and at the end of the year they all agreed they had achieved them. That was why millions of people starved throughout the Communist world, even though the government claimed the harvest was always better than last years’. Reality is the thing that always poses difficulty for the “free thinking” Progressives…they can lie (and they do…see Barack Obama for the prototypical Progressive liar) but lying cannot produce actual food or a working website or a rational healthcare system. Pretending something works because it “should” work is a deadly distortion of the real world. And that is what the Obamites have been doing all along. Regards, CDE

  8. I have never watched the “Duck Dynasty” Show, but have learned as much reading the RNL today as I could have picked up watching the program. Also got some big laughs from augger, have to admit he does have a unique way of expressing his opinions. Hope you continue, augger, really makes my day! Don, we still running side by side.

    To bring up my old favorite: A&E has really stomped on the biggest bag of excrement ever left on the street! I can’t help but admire the genius manipulation of A&E/Disney, et al, by “The Big Duck” Phil Robertson. Those stupid amateurs at A&E/Disney, et al, will be crying big tears when this Golden Goose (Duck Dynasty) is no longer their product.

  9. Pingback: Conservative quackery and Santa Claus « James McPherson's Media & Politics Blog

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.