Do Facebook Posts Change Hearts & Minds?

Every now and then I get an email or an instant message scolding me for using Facebook to address serious social issues such as abortion. The content of such messages is always the same. First, the sender claims that no one ever changed his mind because of such a post. Next, the sender claims that such posts are actually counter-productive because they cause people offense, which makes them move away from the position you are actually advocating. A recent message I received seems to put the lie to both of those claims. Accordingly, I submit the following for your consideration:

I met you in the summer years ago when I attended Summit Ministries (www.Summit.org). I’ve wanted to send you a message for a while now, but have been hesitant to do so. In short, I would like to thank you. I was a freshman in college when I went to Summit, and it was one of the most impactful two weeks of my life. However, the year that followed was a dark one. I attended one of the biggest party schools in my state, and was soon consumed by that lifestyle; it quickly spiraled downhill from there. I ended up walking away completely from my faith to chase after all sorts of worldly pleasures. About a year later, I found out I was pregnant. I was 19 years old and very much alone at the time. Shame and guilt consumed me, and the negative, condemning, judgmental reactions of some close friends who were a part of my small group only served to make me run farther away from the church. I was scared to death, hurting, and alone. I had an abortion when I was 15 weeks pregnant. It went against everything I had believed in, but I felt at the time that it was my only option. Afterwards, I coped by drinking heavily and developed a severe alcohol problem, as well as an eating disorder. I was sexually assaulted by a close friend, and was in a very toxic, abusive relationship for far longer than I’d like to admit. I was hurting, broken, bitter, and resentful. During this time, I began to see some of your Facebook posts, since we’ve been connected on here for quite some time. Initially, your posts and articles upset me, as I was very defensive and guarded about my abortion and attempted to justify it to others and myself. But in my heart, the points you made hit a nerve and resonated with me deeply and I knew that you were right. Your posts made me think and question what I really believed. It may sound strange, but that made all the difference for me, and was a key factor in my decision to come back to church and give Christianity another shot. It’s been a long road and I am still dealing with the repercussions of that choice, but today my walk with Jesus is stronger and more beautiful than I ever could have imagined. I am involved in a great church, and have had many opportunities to share my story with others. Thank you for being so vocal and standing up for what you believe. Thank you for being so passionately pro-life. Thank you for the work that you do. I can’t tell you enough how much I appreciate it.

I hope everyone who just read that kind note would now acknowledge two things:

First, the claim that no one ever changed his mind because of a Facebook post is more than just empirically false. It is a psychological mechanism that people use to assuage their guilt for failing to stand up for the truth.

Second, the claim that causing people offense by simply speaking the truth is “counterproductive” and makes them “move away from the position you are actually advocating” is both reckless and untrue. Sometimes causing offense or discomfort is the beginning of a deep spiritual awakening.

There is a huge space between condemning people, which is wrong, and making people comfortable with our silence, which is also wrong. Within that huge space we need to speak the truth boldly. Otherwise, the enemy will continue to gain ground and create an illusion of consensus that his lies are actually true.

These are tough times and many people are wondering when the Second Coming will occur. We don’t know exactly when that will happen. All we know is that it won’t be until after the Gospel is spread to all four corners of the Earth.

So what was that you were saying about the futility of speaking the truth?

Sending Out An SOS

A group of concerned students in the UNC system has decided to March on Raleigh to demand changes in the wake of several recent incidents in the UNC system. Calling themselves the Stressed Out Students, or SOS, the group is seeking to expand on a number of student’s rights initiatives, which have already been implemented in the United Kingdom. They are hoping that the recent inauguration of Governor Roy Cooper will help their movement gain political momentum. Some incidents that led to formation of the new group include the following:

-Several freshmen math and science students at N.C. State reported being told that their answers were “wrong” in front of other students.
-On the day following the presidential election the counseling services center at UNC-Asheville was undermanned causing some students to have to wait nearly one hour to obtain counseling for post election depression.
-UNC-Chapel Hill has experienced budget cuts and has been forced to replace Orgasm Awareness Week with Orgasm Awareness Day.
-The Women’s Centers on several campuses have run out of condoms and sex toys causing numerous students to have to purchase their own in off campus stores that refuse to accept their UNC meal cards.
-The Appalachian State University library has refused to comply with requests for expanded trigger warnings to protect students from controversial novels by authors like William Faulkner, Mark Twain, and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
-A “Jesus is the Only Way” post made online by a Christian organization offended students at UNC-Wilmington. A subsequent request by “Students for Tolerance and Diversity” to ban all Christian groups was ignored by the UNC central administration.

As a result of these incidents, SOS is demanding the creation of new Stressed Out Students Centers on all seventeen campuses. According to the proposal, some of the SOS centers would be housed within already existing Student Activity Centers thus saving taxpayers money. For example, plans for a new SOS Center at UNCW include the following:

-Remove Chick-fil-A and replace it with a petting zoo for students overwhelmed by their exams and the prospect of encountering diverse opinions.
-Convert the already existing bookstore into a depository for stuffed animals. Students would be able to fondle the furry animals in times of stress and then return them to the front desk without using their student charge cards.
-Provide comic books and stress balls on all tables, chairs and couches in the student lounge area outside the LGBTQIA Office.

The proposal is broad and is sure to be controversial. However, the initial reaction from Governor Roy Cooper seems positive. When reach by an AP reporter, he said the following:

“I like the idea of SOS centers a lot. As Attorney General, I fought hard to limit free speech in the UNC system. I spent seven years in court trying to limit the free speech rights of professors who comment on controversial issues in columns and on social media. I also fought hard to restrict the rights of Christian student groups wanting to share the Gospel on campuses like N.C. State. I admit that I failed on both counts. The result is that students are still hearing a lot of ideas that don’t conform to their worldview. And they are stressed out. I share some of the blame for that and I plan to do something about it.”

When asked what he would do about the prospect of opposition to the SOS Centers from both the state legislature and the Board of Governors, Cooper simply stated, “To hell with them. I’ll just ram them through with a series of executive orders.”

When probed about the legality of using these executive orders, Cooper’s legal counsel declined to comment. For more on this developing story, please stay tuned and keep reading Rightly Offended.

UNCW Prof Pens Fantasies About Sex With Handicapped and Dead Women: Feminists Give Him a Pass

Author’s Note: This column was previously published on www.ClashDaily.com. It contains graphic and disturbing content. Unfortunately, the person responsible for the disturbing content is teaching at a public university at taxpayer expense. In fact, he may be teaching your children or grandchildren. Because I agree with Justice Brandeis’ assertion that sunlight is often the most powerful disinfectants, I felt compelled to write about it and now repost it.

Times are hard in academia. With so few jobs and so many brilliant minds competing for them, it’s important to publish early and often before even thinking about applying for a tenure track academic position. Alessandro Porco knew that as well as anyone. So before he applied for a position as an assistant professor in the English Department at UNC-Wilmington, he made sure to publish a collection of some of his best poetry under title Augustine in Carthage: And Other Poems. Porco’s writing provides a pretty good overview of the kind of material that will help an aspiring English professor stand out among other applicants at UNCW.

For the record, I’ve read Augustine in Carthage in its entirety. It was the worst half hour I ever spent without my Glock 23. In fact, I was in the Starbucks just up the road from a topless bar called Pure Gold. But I felt like I was actually in a topless bar when I read the first poem in Porco’s collection. In that poem, Allesandro finds himself in the “Club Super Sexe” having drinks and writing poetry about his experiences. He writes about getting a lap dance from one stripper who starts “Gyrating her country hips atop (his) stoic d***.” It was all down hill from there.

As I read more of Porco’s poetry, I realized that he really wasn’t writing in a topless bar. He was actually writing in a topless and bottomless bar. In fact, he wrote that every “tw*t was bald” in Club Sexe. Porco must not have liked the cleanly shaven strippers because, according to his poetic account, he goes to a different bar where people can get their “testicles tickled” and their “perineums rubbed.”

But Professor Porco doesn’t just pick bars where one can get sexual favors for money. He picks bars where one can also find good conversation. In fact, Porco recounts one conversation he had in a strip bar with a war veteran who told Professor Porco he liked to “f*** (his) wife with a strap-on dildo.”

In the same poem, Professor Porco talks about his “upholstered d*** drawn with the heroic elasticity of Plastic Man.” For some reason, ladies and gentlemen, it appears that the professor likes to write about having his penis pulled out and exposed in a bar. He continues, writing, “my ding dong did settle in a seat at the table of sad M. Hilver for a last nightcap.” Ok, so the professor is sitting at a table with another man in a strip bar with his penis pulled out. Nothing could possibly go wrong here.

Fortunately, Professor Porco next speaks of his “comic-western d***” coiled around Hilver’s neck and “choking out one last breath.” I say “fortunately” because this is the first point in Porco’s poetic collection where it becomes clear that he is not always writing about his actual sexual experiences, but instead about sexual fantasies. In other words, he didn’t actually kill anyone with his penis. That will be very reassuring to readers of this column before my little book review is finished. But I’m getting somewhat ahead of myself.

Porco includes a total of 17 rambling poems in his Augustine in Carthage collection. But they are all extremely academic and educational. For example, Professor Porco informs us that “Graduate students at SUNY Buffalo give awful blowjobs; they’ve no sense of rhythm.” But Porco has great rhythm – poetic rhythm, that is. How else would he subtlety blend a line like “Hey go f*** yourself” into the middle of one of his poems?

Byron and Keats, move over. I’ve discovered Alessandro Porco!

As great as this poetry is, and as much of a genius as Alessandro Porco is, some of his work really stands head and shoulders above the rest. I believe that “We So Seldom Look on Nantucket” is his finest poem. Here are some samples:

“I once had a vision at Lourdes
-Not of Mary, but of Traci Lords;
It fits that Jes*s
Rimes with ‘oh, Jes*s!’
Cuz I saw Traci Blowing the L*rd.”

You can’t be a poetic genius unless you blaspheme the name of Jesus. Well, maybe you can be a genius but you can’t count on landing a job teaching English at UNCW unless you insult Jesus. So now his success in finding work at UNCW makes a little more sense to those who cannot appreciate his raw intellect.

Say what you want about Alessandro Porco but he’s no ordinary pervert. He is actually a very creative one. For example, here’s a stanza he writes about having sex with a handicapped woman:

“There once was a Princess amputee,
Arms to her elbows, legs to her knees;
Just a head and a stump
‘Twas my duty to hump;
She: ‘My thanks, kind Knight, for your perversity.’”

Well, at least Professor Porco knows he’s a pervert. But he’s capable of taking things to a whole new level in a department of cutting edge postmodern eloquence. You might want to keep young children from reading the following stanza, which is more suitable for a college audience:

“I met an old whore at Nantucket;
As we humped she kicked the bucket;
But I stayed the course
And skunked in her corpse;
We so seldom look on Nantucket!”

This isn’t to suggest that Professor Porco actually had sex with a dead woman. It sounds like it’s just a sexual fantasy. And that’s not disturbing at all for parents of UNCW students, is it? We’re all adults here — unless, of course, someone is preaching the Gospel on university property.

To be dead serious for a moment, the fact that a man can write a poem fantasizing about fornicating with a corpse and not be disqualified from the profession of molding young minds is quite illuminating. It shows that intellectual rigor mortis has truly set in within the halls of academe.

Hopefully, Meryl Streep will come to the defense of any handicapped women who were offended by Professor Porco’s comments about his “duty to hump” a woman without arms and legs. We already know where the feminists in the English Department stand.

Cosmo, Porco, and Me

Earlier this month my life was changed dramatically. In fact, I am no longer the man I used to be. I’ve finally hit the big time and made it into Cosmopolitan magazine. The editors finally took a break from running their special series on ten ways to pleasure a man using peanut butter in order to run an article decrying me for my alleged misogyny.

I have to admit that after appearing in such a widely circulated magazine I feel pretty honored. But because I am a humble person (more humble than anyone I know) I must admit that I do not deserve the honor of being the first UNC-Wilmington professor featured in Cosmo. That honor should have gone to English professor Alessandro Porco.

Professor Porco has been the author of some deeply moving poetry with titles including “Ménage à Bush twins” and “Did I Shave My Nuts For This?” Porco once described his first book as “an ode to an adult-film star affectionately referred to as ‘the anal queen.’”

For his second book, Porco penned Augustine in Carthage, and Other Poems. Here’s a brief excerpt from one of the poems:

“Who would say No to a gang-bang?
Who would say No to Prof. Poon-Tang?
Who would say No to my scholarly toungin?
Thank you fathers for your daughters.”

It seems to me that Professor Porco sees women as nothing more than sex objects whose main purpose in life should be to provide sexual pleasure for men. So why did Cosmo give Porco as pass and go after me instead? The answer is twofold.

First of all, Cosmo shares Porco’s view of women. In fact, the very next article that went up on their website (right after the one attacking me) was so sexually explicit it could have been written by Professor Porco himself. The article actually gave women tips on how they could perform oral sex on their man for longer periods of time without experiencing jaw ache. I can almost hear Helen Reddy chiming in now …

I am woman,
Hear me roar!
Pleasuring my man,
For longer than before!

Second, and more importantly, Cosmo shares Porco’s politics. Porco is a leftist and so are the writers at Cosmo. Does anyone remember the reporter who said she would gladly perform oral sex on Bill Clinton just for keeping abortion legal?

Look no further than this. I am a pro-life speaker. I am fighting hard to make abortion illegal. And that is why Cosmo hates Mike Adams. Abortion is seen as a necessity for women who view themselves as being sex objects whose very existence revolves around providing men with endless sexual pleasure without consequences.

Through all of the madness following their hit piece, I was heartened when a young Cosmo reader wrote saying that she went to my Facebook page after reading about me. She had this to say:

“The point of this message is to inform you that you got me thinking. Nowadays, Americans can get so up in arms over some of the smallest things–I’m sure you are receiving quite a bit of hate mail. I believe that in today’s America, we are somewhat desensitized to many concepts and arguments. Personally, not many things I read resonate with me anymore. But after developing my own opinion on you, your posts, and even the Cosmopolitan article, I found myself compelled to express to you that you had an impact on me in the way that you made me really stop and think about something. I thank you for that.”

That’s the way it should be. So, fathers, please protect your daughters from the likes of Professor Porco. But also protect your daughters from Cosmo. Raise her up to think more of herself than simply being a sex toy born to pleasure her “man.”

That’s all for today. I’ll have more or Professor Porco in the next installment later this week.

Pavlovitz’ Dog

John Pavlovitz earns a living as a “fully affirming” pastor. That means he actually makes money by visiting churches and teaching pastors how to lead their congregations astray by rejecting Biblical teaching and encouraging sexual sins. These sins include, but are not limited to, homosexual sodomy. Personally, I find that aspect of his teaching boring and unworthy of extended commentary. He’s no longer following Jesus. He’s following Rob Bell and he is leading people straight to hell (no rhyme intended). There’s nothing new to see here so let’s move on to more important issues.

In stark contrast with the exceedingly boring and overplayed rationalizations for his professional gay affirmation, Pavlovitz’ views on abortion and pro-lifers are somewhat interesting. By “interesting” I mean that they are so twisted as to be entertaining at times. Some of them are actually somewhat original. In this day of cut-and-paste and talking point blog post progressivism that’s really saying something. I find the originality refreshing. As a pro-life speaker I am always looking for new and innovative approaches from people on the other side of the issue.

By way of confession, I had never heard of John Pavlovitz until my friend Scott Klusendorf posted on social media his short rebuttal to a Pavlovitz piece called “White Conservative Christian Friend: I Wish You Really Were Pro Life.” I then decided to read the original article in its entirety. It was even more of a vicious attack on pro-lifers than I had expected. So I decided to write an extended column-style rebuttal. You are reading that column now.

You will find Pavlovitz’ remarks indented and italicized below. Between each paragraph are my non-indented, non-italicized responses. I hope you find them useful the next time your well-reasoned pro-life views come under a vicious assault from a pro-abortion-choice advocate posing as a legitimate spokesman for God:

You tell me that you’re voting for Donald Trump for one reason: because you’re pro-life. Despite everything you’ve seen and know about this man (much of which you openly lament), you say that you just can’t support someone who doesn’t share your burden, and that you’re voting solely this issue.

As a preliminary matter, please note that I am writing this rebuttal prior to the November presidential election, although this piece will not be published until after the election is over. I am not voting for Donald Trump, as are the people to whom Pavlovitz is writing. Nor am I voting for Clinton. Unlike Pavlovitz, I do not have a dog in the hunt this time around.

Life, you say is the ultimate deal breaker for you. I wish that were true.

This short two-sentence paragraph reveals the main thesis of Pavlovitz’ piece, which can be summarized roughly as follows: Conservative Christians are claiming to support Trump reluctantly because of their love for the unborn while, in reality, masking more sinister motives.

This is merely the beginning of the contradictions in his piece. Pavlovitz’ will imply that single-issue voting is wrong. But he will also assert that Trump supporters are not really doing it. Pavlovitz explains why he thinks the targets of his column are lying:

I actually don’t believe you’re pro-life, I believe you’re anti-abortion, which is a far more selective and convenient defense of Humanity. From where I’m standing it seems as though “Life” for you, comprises a very narrow demographic—one that bears a striking resemblance to you. The unborn are easy to advocate for because you can idealize them into something palatable to you, something benign and comfortable, something in your own image.

This paragraph is problematic for two reasons. First, it raises the false dichotomy between being pro-life and anti-abortion. Imagine an abolitionist living in Mississippi in the 1850s being attacked by one of his opponents with the accusation that he is merely anti-slavery but not actually pro freedom. Why would someone make such an attack? Think about that as you continue to read. The answer will become obvious before long. Hint: It’s politically motivated.

The second problem presented in this paragraph is a little more perplexing. Pavlovitz seems to be asserting that it is easy to be anti-abortion (as opposed to truly pro-life) because the unborn “bears a striking resemblance” to the pro-lifer. It would be more accurate to say that the pro-life position recognizes that there are differences between the born and unborn but that those differences do not justify killing the unborn. In contrast, the pro-abortion-choice advocate uses differences in appearance such as size and level of development in order to justify killing the unborn.

In other words, it would be more accurate to say that pro-lifers defend the unborn despite the fact that they don’t resemble them whereas pro-choicers advocate against the unborn in part because of arbitrary differences in physical appearance.

Finally, as a point of clarification, the pro-life position is not that the unborn are valuable because they reflect our image. It is our position that they are valuable because they bear the image of God. Pavlovitz remarks are already confused but soon devolve into complete incoherence:

You see, it’s not that you’re really pro-life, you’re pro-straight, white, Christian fetuses. I can tell by how often your heavy burden for the sanctity of life evaporates upon delivery. In so many cases this compassion really has a nine-month expiration date, as if life begins at conception but ends upon leaving the birth canal. The completion of that third trimester is actually the shelf life of your passionate regard for much of the living.

It is difficult to know where to begin addressing such emotionally laden incoherence. However, some initial questions pop into my mind immediately. For example, is Pavlovitz suggesting that there is a way to identify gay fetuses so we can make an abortion exception for them? Similarly, is there really such a thing as a Christian fetus? Perhaps it is best to cast those initial questions aside and select two of the more identifiable slanders against the pro-life movement, which emerge in the above paragraph.

First, we must deal with the race card. The accusation that pro-lifers are racist is difficult to fathom. Blacks make up only one-eighth of the population but are the victims of one-third of all abortions. Planned Parenthood’s founders were clearly racist – even before the organization began focusing on abortion. Today, the organization’s current practices clearly eliminate blacks in the womb at disproportionate rates. They have offices set up in every poor black neighborhood in America. In other words, the racial slander against pro-lifers simply does not comport with history or with current practice.

Second, we must deal with the accusation that pro-lifers abandon babies as soon as they are born. That careless slander is easily demonstrated to be false. In point of fact, there are now approximately three crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for every abortion clinic in America. These CPCs help pregnant women with medical expenses and other expenses both before and after birth.

There is also a philosophical problem with Pavlovitz’ ad hominem accusation of “inconsistency.” Even if pro-lifers were inconsistent our alleged inconsistencies would not negate the humanity of the unborn and therefore justify their dismemberment. But the point is mute. We are not inconsistent as a movement. We are caring, generous, and proactive even in the face of slanderous attacks by “fully affirming” pastors.

Because if that life you say you so treasure, one day converts to Islam, you label it dangerous, you see it as a threat, you applaud suggestions of its expulsion, you deny it open worship.

This paragraph is clearly a statement against Trump’s anti-Muslim sentiments. I agree with Pavlovitz’ sentiment, here. In fact, that is one reason I refused to support Trump or even to meet with him when I was invited to Trump Towers in the later stages of the campaign. But the accusation that Muslims would be denied open worship is unfounded. Trump’s policies on Muslim immigration are problematic. But he doesn’t oppose freedom of worship for anyone. Nor do his pro-life supporters. Pavlovitz’ squanders an opportunity here and devolves into more careless slander. It gets worse:

If that life eventually comes out as LGBTQ, you condemn its soul, harass it in your workplace and church, try to prevent its marriage, tell it where and when it can use a public bathroom. You bully it and drive it to suicide.

This is not mere rhetoric. This is a sign of psychosis. It is difficult to read such a paragraph and conclude that John Pavlovitz has the requisite mental stability to deliver the word of God. It becomes evident that this blog post was not written to a narrow group of people – white, conservative Christians who are voting for Trump. It is a screed against all conservative Christians – people against whom Pavlovitz bears a deeply pathological grudge. Nonetheless, a new sub-thesis has emerged from Pavlovitz’ writing: In order to be pro-life you have to by pro-gay marriage and in favor of transgendered bathrooms. To do otherwise would be bullying, which would lead to suicide thus negating your claims to be truly pro-life.

The “fully affirming” pastor is now on a roll. So let’s keep going:

If that life has brown skin and wears baggy pants and gets gunned down during a traffic stop, you not only have little grief over its loss, but readily blame it for its own execution.

Translation: In order to be truly pro-life you have to support Black Lives Matter.

If that life is strapped to a prison gurney and pumped full of drugs that will cease its lungs from expanding while its terrified mind comprehends it all, you celebrate the occasion as justice being served—after a last meal you resent having to pay for.

Translation: In order to be truly pro-life you have to be anti-death penalty – because there really is no difference between an unborn child and a convicted murderer.

If that life has to endure its formative years in overcrowded, grossly underfunded public schools, you tell it to “pull itself up by its own bootstraps”, while nestled in the cloistered, privileged gated community of a Suburbia where bootstraps come with a birth certificate.

Translation: In order to be truly pro life you have to be a socialist who supports income and wealth redistribution.

If that life has working parents who can’t make a living wage, you label it a lazy, unproductive drain on society always looking for handouts and trying to work the system to its advantage.

Translation: Pro lifers are heartless mean-spirited bastards.

If that life needs healthcare because its undeveloped heart can barely beat on its own, you’re suddenly empty of empathy and low on generosity—unless it can pull its own weight and pay the premiums.

Translation: In order to be truly pro-life you have to support socialized medicine.

If that life doesn’t eat enough fruits and vegetables because it lives in urban areas where such things are scarce and financially prohibitive, you ridicule its obesity and sickness as signs of cultural overindulgence and gluttony.

Translation: Pro-lifers are heartless mean-spirited skinny bastards who hate fat people.

If that life is sexually assaulted you want to blame it for its promiscuity and immodesty, and wonder why it didn’t just keep its legs closed and why it can’t just move on and why it is so easily offended by “locker room banter.”

Translation: Pro-lifers are also pro-rape.

If that life is one day sent overseas to defend liberties here; separated from spouses, children, and parents and placed directly in harm’s way, you’re far more cavalier exposing its vulnerability and far less concerned about whether or not it is sacred.

Translation: Here is where Pavlovitz and I have some commonality. Neither one of us has any idea of what Pavlovitz just said!

If that life doesn’t reside in the continental US or speak English and comes here fleeing oppression, poverty, and war you’ll never understand, you ask it to go back and “go through the proper channels”, instead of the barely sea-worthy makeshift raft or the stinking, stifling storage container it nearly died in trying to get here.

Pavlovitz is entirely correct here. People do paddle their way to America in leaky boats. They usually do so in order to escape communist countries (e.g., Cuba, Vietnam). And that’s a good reason why we should fight his efforts to turn America into a communist nation.

I wish you were pro-life, my friend—I really do.

I can’t believe he’s still claiming we are his friends. With friends as full of it as Pavlovitz, who needs enemas?

I wish all human beings mattered as much to you as caucasian embryos do. I wish that once these diverse babies are thrust out into a violent, difficult, painful world; many enduring disadvantages, obstacles, and trials you will likely never experience—that you actually gave more of a damn about them.

In other words, pro-lifers are just going to be mean to these little black babies when they are born. So the solution is simple for Pavlovitz: Vote for the candidate who will keep it legal to kill them in the womb, who will defend abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and who will put a pro-abortion organization founded by racists in every single black neighborhood in America.

Now that’s a loving and fully affirming pastor!

Because if you did, Life would be far bigger to you.

Actually, Pastor Pavlovitz, life would be bigger if we had not executed 56 million of our own citizens. But that’s no tragedy for the utopian. It’s only a statistic.

You would want to do more than prevent abortions.
As vigorously, passionately, and loudly…
You’d want to prevent hunger and poverty.
You’d want to prevent illiteracy and child mortality and forced prostitution.
You’d want to prevent racism and bigotry and homophobia.
You’d want kids in the “bad neighborhood” to have great schools and teachers just like your kids have there in the “good neighborhood.”
You’d want to support single parents and the terminally ill and the mentally ill by helping them carry their oversized burden.
You’d want religious freedom even for people who aren’t Christian.
You’d want LGBTQ people to live and work and worship and love as they desire.
You’d want people of color not to have to fear law enforcement and not to be disproportionately incarcerated.
You’d want fewer guns in the hands of kids and criminals and those with mental illness.
You’d want to prevent violence and workplace termination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
You’d want a living wage for all people who work hard, and healthcare for their children that won’t have to replace their daily meals.

These might also be deal breakers for you.

In other words, Pavlovitz will claim he is pro-life while supporting the legality of murdering innocent children in the womb. And he will call your pro-life, too – just as soon as you support every single plank of the so-called progressive platform.

Pavlovitz’ entire essay is pathologically self-centered. Understandably, he must do something about the cognitive dissonance that flows from calling oneself pro-life while supporting the Planned Parenthood killing machine. His solution is to point to others as if to say, “I might be inconsistent … but they are more consistent than I am.”

Pavlovitz’ smug moral superiority comes from a recognition that his defense of presidential candidates who endorse systematic child murder cannot be squared with Christianity. That is why the closing lines of his column could just as well have been written by Stuart Smalley staring into a mirror and endlessly repeating, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and dog gone it, people like me!”

He concludes:

I am a person of Life. That is what my faith calls me to be.
I don’t celebrate when a woman terminates a pregnancy (I honestly don’t know anyone who does), but my advocacy for life also goes well beyond the womb, and includes a far more diverse swath of Humanity than only those who look, speak, or worship the way I do. It includes immigrants and Muslims and Atheists and my enemies.
I wish we were partners in that wider affirmation of the living, because that would be cause of celebration and reason for hope and a visible sign of America’s greatness.
I am pro-all life because it is all sacred; not only when its heart begins beating, but as it beats and when it struggles to beat and up until it ceases to beat.
I defend all life equally. I celebrate it all fully. I protect it all passionately.
I really wish you did too.

No, you’re not a person of life, John Pavlovitz. You’re a sanctimonious hypocrite who endorses candidates fighting for the unrestricted slaughter of innocent children trapped inside their mother’s womb.

And you really wish we did too.

Wells Fargo Values

Dear Wells Fargo Customer Service:

I recently received your form-letter apology in which you expressed regret over systematic corruption within your organization, which you now claim is not a reflection of “Wells Fargo values.” I really only have two things to say in response to your letter. The first thing I want to say is “I told you so.” If I really am, as you stated, one of your “valued customers,” I hope you will keep reading this letter and take my suggestions more seriously than you have in the past.

If you will recall, I wrote to you several months ago complaining about the declining moral climate at Wells Fargo. I’ve written about your company publicly since then and you have also received numerous letters from readers of my column. In fact, you dismissed our concerns out of hand. Now your arrogance and smug moral superiority is coming back to haunt you. You are paying a price in rapidly declining public confidence.

In addition to reminding you that you were warned, I also want to respond at length to your assertion that the recent controversies at Wells Fargo are not a reflection of your so-called values. That is simply demonstrably (and laughably) false. In fact, “Wells Fargo values” are the but-for cause of your recent troubles. Let me elaborate using five incidents that demonstrate the nature of Wells Fargo’s true agenda.

1. Earlier this year, in February, when I was attempting to cash a check in line at Wells Fargo, one of your tellers tried to recruit me to wear purple on anti-bullying day as a show of solidarity with the LGBT community.

2. In April, Wells Fargo decided to light up its Charlotte headquarters with the colors of the transgendered flag. This was timed in order to protest HB2 and further inject Wells Fargo into the realm of aggressive LGBT activism.

3. In June, you began to offer a customized credit card option, which you advertised on the home screen of your ATM machines in Colorado where I live in the summers. The specific card you used as a customized example was rainbow-colored and emblazoned with the word “PRIDE.” This meant that every time I went to make a withdrawal the first thing of which I was reminded was your unending obsession with homosexuality.

4. In July, I learned that you were boycotting the GOP convention – apparently because your company considered Donald Trump to be too offensive and divisive. Nonetheless, you continued to make appearances at gay pride parades. Although the GOP was too offensive for you, you did not mind marching together with the kind of men who wear assless chaps and do pelvic thrusts on public streets in front of women and children.

5. In August, a wealthy Christian businesswoman and regular reader of my column wrote to tell you she was closing her accounts with you due to your obsession with the celebration of the gay lifestyle. You responded by effectively telling her to take her business elsewhere because you are “committed” to the LGBT community.

Putting this all together we can now talk about how best to characterize your “values.” I am placing the word “values” in scare quotes because these incidents do not reflect a core set of objective values. They reflect a worldview known as postmodernism, which rejects the idea of moral objectivity altogether.

Put simply, the postmodernist does not really believe in objective truth. Instead, he sees the word “truth” as nothing more than a manifestation of an ongoing power struggle waged over the control of social narratives. Therefore, instead of seeing truth in objective terms, the postmodernist often sees “truth” a function of oppression whereby the majority suppresses minority narratives.

This explains why the postmodernist always sides with the victim de jour in our nation’s ongoing cultural wars. One day it means siding with radical feminists, the next day it means siding with militant black separatists, the next with the LGBT community, and so on.

The obvious problem is that without any attachment to objective truth there really is nowhere to draw the line. That is why Wells Fargo had no difficulty crossing the line from defending adults who wish to engage in consensual sodomy to defending those who wish to mutilate their own genitalia. Let me make the bottom line as simple as I possibly can and put it in bold letters so you cannot easily ignore it:

Once you have decided that it is morally permissible to encourage people to surgically alter their genitals and fraudulently pass themselves off as members of the opposite sex in order to pursue their basest sexual fantasies there really are no more boundaries.

So if you work for Wells Fargo why would you not open fraudulent accounts in order to obtain commissions with the intent of closing the accounts before anyone notices?

Who says that’s wrong in any objective sense of the term?

Isn’t it just another example of the powerful management class at Wells Fargo trying to impose a dominant narrative on the powerless workers?

Unless you have good answers to the above questions your “Wells Fargo values” having nothing to do with right and wrong. They are nothing more than unbridled hedonism. That is why I was so amused just one hour ago when I logged on to YouTube to watch a video that was preceded by a Wells Fargo apology advertisement. The ad opened by claiming that Wells Fargo is taking steps to “make things right.”

In reality, Wells Fargo is still lying to cover its true motives in order to keep things left. That is why it is time for you to go ahead and declare moral bankruptcy.

You aren’t fooling anyone anymore.

Choosing My Words Carefully

Author’s Note: The following letter is not intended to be an attack on the BSU at CSUB. However, it is intended to be an attack on Black Lives Matter.

Dear California State University – Bakersfield Black Student Union:

Recently, I had the opportunity to speak at your beautiful campus, which is located in the southern portion of the San Joachin Valley. As a fan of Merle Haggard and Buck Owens, I was glad to finally visit the town responsible for producing some great country legends as well as that unmistakable Bakersfield country sound. I am thankful that Dwight Yoakam turned me on to that style of music a couple of decades ago. But that’s not why I am writing to you today.

While I was impressed overall with the hospitality of the Bakersfield residents, I was somewhat concerned when I heard of your objections to the title of my speech about abortion. I chose the title “All Lives Matter: Abortion and the Case for Human Equality” for a reason. I believe that philosophical arguments for abortion actually undermine human equality. Your assessment of the propriety of the title of my speech should have been made only after hearing what I had to say. But none of you were present for the speech.

It has also come to my attention that you submitted four recommendations for how my title could be reworded in order to avoid offending Black Lives Matter (BLM). I never imagined that after living in this country for over half a century kids less than half my age would be choosing my words for me. In the process of choosing my own words, I never considered the prospect of offending BLM. Having seen them assault speakers on the basis of race and take to the streets chanting “Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon” I could not care less whether I offend them. To be frank, they come across as uneducated racists with little concern for the feelings of others. In fact, many of them appear to be sociopaths.

However, since you took the time to provide me with some recommendations I thought I would return the favor. Please take the time to read the following recommendations, which I am giving to you to pass on to BLM. These are my modest proposals for how BLM can rename its organization in order to be less offensive to thinking Americans like myself.

  1. Slack Lives Matter. BLM could not exist as an organization without the help of uneducated social justice warriors (SJWs). These people are so slack that they never check a fact. They go through life not realizing that blacks commit close to half of the violence in America but make up only one-quarter of the victims of police shootings. Nor do they realize that blacks are responsible for a whopping 42% of the shootings of police officers. If you are so slack that you don’t check facts you will end up wasting your life protesting things you don’t understand. Living a slack life does matter.
  2. Shacked Lives Matter. Illegitimacy rates have skyrocketed in recent decades. And this matters more than anything. It matters if a man gets a woman pregnant and decides to shack up with her for a little while and move on – as opposed to marrying her and actually raising the child. If the child is male, the consequences of the father’s absence are particularly severe. Put simply, there is a clear and inverse relationship between time spent interacting with dad and time spent interacting with the police. Presently, there is only one racial group in America for which fatherlessness is the rule rather than the exception. To be specific, the black community is now experiencing a whopping 72% illegitimacy rate. This simply must be dealt with now and without relying on the government. In fact, government cannot be part of the solution because it is the root of the problem.
  3. Black Lies Matter. It is not just the racism that undermines the credibility of BLM. It is also the lies. These lies also affect those who are not on board with BLM. In other words, there has been collateral damage. When propaganda gets out and police are afraid of going into black communities, who do you think suffers? It is not white people. It is black people. The lies drive out the police. The absence of police emboldens the black criminal who is now being supervised by no one. Dad is not around. The cops are not around. Now he has a free hand to commit crime. Unsurprisingly, his victims are almost always other blacks.
  4. Black Dreams Shattered. There have been around 5000 black people lynched at the hands of the KKK. That is the grand total throughout American history. In contrast, in this year alone there will be an average of over 7000 black babies aborted per week in America. It is high time that black America identified the real enemy. Hint: It rhymes with Banned Parenthood.

In sum, apologizing to and for BLM will never solve the problems of black Americans. In fact, nothing will get better until that racist organization pulls its head out of its collective ass and starts addressing real problems within its own community. My words may sound harsh but I have little patience for hypocritical racists. Nor do I have patience for those who defend racists.

Note that in my opening I did not address you by your preferred name “African American Student Union.” This is not Africa and you are not Africans. This is America and you need to act like Americans. You should know that Americans don’t tell other Americans what words to use in order to keep from offending people.  You choose your words and I will choose mine.

If you don’t like the words I choose then do the right thing and respond with better speech, not with censorship. Free speech is the ultimate pro-choice position. And I am always in favor of choice as long as it doesn’t harm an innocent human being.

Sincerely,

Mike S. Adams