Something to Think About…

Considering the chaotic and splintered condition of our Nation and the broken nature of our Christian church, just about anything could happen.  The Nation and Christians has to do several things.  We need to walk Circumspectly paying close attention to everything around us, pray for discernment, strength and a national Christian revival.  We must join together with our real conservative leadership and get rid of the Shadow Government and Drain the Swamp.  We know, according to Bible prophecy, that we will suffer the period of a one world order and Christians will be under great persecution, however, only God knows the appointed time.  It is my studied opinion, that the time has not yet come, and for the Christian and the Nation to continue to move through life as a free Nation, we must crush liberalism’s plan for globalization.  Pray with me for revival, with the heart of 2nd Chron 7:14.

God Bless you.

R.S. Helms.

 

The following story is reblogged on Bob’s Opinion from AMAC, the Daily Torch, and authored by Robert Romano … Thank you all.

 

 

 

AT&T-Time Warner Merger – Mass Media Consolidation Could Lead the Way to One-Party Rule in The U.S.

Posted Thursday, June 14, 2018   |   By Collaborative Correspondent  

Time Warner ATT
Control the Media – Control the People

A vibrant and healthy democracy depends on the free marketplace of ideas.

Call it what you want. Viewpoint diversity. Access to alternative views.

In today’s media and information-driven society and culture, being able to find the opposing view on an issue, to compare the pros and cons of public policy matters or different products and services, is critical to how the American people make decisions about just about everything.

What to buy? Who to vote for? What to watch? Which music to listen to? What to wear? The plethora of choices we have today is owed entirely to the openness of the Internet and other media that facilitates and enables brand development.

But what if that process could become compromised or disrupted in a bid to control media? To control what messages were available to the public? This is the very real danger facing policymakers today in an environment increasingly moving towards mass media consolidation.

With federal judge Richard Leon’s approval of the $107 billion AT&T-Time Warner merger, allowing the two companies to combine, the floodgates are opening for content distributors like AT&T — which owns Directv — to also own much of content that plays on those platforms.

Now, Comcast is expected to bid against Disney to buy much of Fox’s media content properties.

So, what’s the problem? Besides the antitrust laws that are invoked by monopolization in any industry, mass media consolidation has meant fewer and fewer companies controlling almost all major media in the country.

A comprehensive Free Press 2018 study on major media ownership finds that just 21 corporations own all the television broadcast stations, 21 that own the radio broadcast stations, 13 that own pay television channels, 11 that own daily newspapers and 18 that own telecom and cable. That number keeps getting smaller every time there’s another merger.

A chapter on the topic in Censored 2006 by Bridget Thornton, Britt Walters and Lori Rouse, “Corporate Media is Corporate America” noted the massive overlap of individuals who sit on the boards at major media outlets and those of non-media corporations.

Then there is the dominance in tech by Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook and Twitter.

Rapidly, the number of separately owned options is dwindling.

Along with media consolidation, there is also a growing call for political consolidation in Washington, D.C. — and even one-party rule.

In April, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira that called for “Democratic One-Party Rule” in the U.S. as a means of reconciling the nation’s challenges and implementing the progressive agenda. You see, all that debate by Congress and disagreement over which direction to go in is getting in the way of that agenda, so democracy no longer functions the way they want it to. Today’s captains of the information industry are getting impatient. They want to see Utopia in their lifetimes.

It will be anything but.

But leaving that aside, forget about competitive elections, Leyden and Teixeira warn: “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.”

The resolution: “Democratic One-Party Rule.”

Dorsey’s comment was astonishing, writing briefly, “Great read.” Really? What about the part where the authors called for one-party rule? What about the part where they called it a civil war? No?

Just, “Great read,” as if having one political party control the most powerful country in the world to govern with no dissent as the climatic outcome of a civil war “without firing a shot” was just an after-thought for the billionaire.

Who needs alternate viewpoints when there’s media empires to consolidate and an undemocratic agenda to implement? Just hurry up and work it into the afternoon schedule. Dictatorship by close of business. Can we get that yesterday?

Twitter like other social media giants cast themselves as an open platform, a device for free speech basically and the marketplace of ideas. But what if big media doesn’t live up to that and starts censoring political content of one of the two major parties in a bid for absolute power?

Would that be “anti-competitive” enough for Judge Leon to say it might pose an antitrust issue under federal law?

That is why the AT&T-Time Warner merger today is so important for the media landscape of tomorrow, and why the Justice Department must appeal Judge Leon’s decision, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

It may not happen overnight, but we are witnessing the end of media. This is the age of medium. And if we are not careful, one day there may only be one-party rule, too. That will not lead to liberty and prosperity, but to tyranny.

From – Daily Torch – by Robert Romano

A Deep Concern …

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion … from AMAC Newsletter.

 

Nearly Four In Five College Departments Don’t Employ A Single Republican

 

columbia-university-college-768x500

 

To set foot on an American college campus, as anyone who’s spent a picosecond thereabout lately can tell you, is to step through a left-wing looking glass. But a jaw-dropping new study from the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reveals just how deep the rabbit hole goes: among tenure-track college professors at the nation’s top-ranked liberal arts schools, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by more than 10 to 1.
Rather than culling data from some voluntary survey, the report uncovers the political leanings of 8,688 elite academics by cross-referencing publicly available voter registration information with faculty lists from 51 colleges. At these schools, “78.2 percent of departments do not employ a single Republican.” And that’s just the topline.
The numbers below the fold, broken down by college and field of study, are even more alarming. Over at Wellesley College, perhaps best known for fostering pantsuited diplomats and disdain for the late Barbara Bush, there are 136 Democrat professors for every Republican. More than a third of the colleges assessed have ratios of at least 20-to-1.
At the low end of the spectrum are schools like the Naval Academy, where still more than twice as many Ds as Rs appear at the front of the lecture hall. Lopsided leanings are also evident in key disciplines, such as environmental studies (25-to-1), the humanities (32-to-1), and sociology (44-to-1).
Even If You’re Liberal, This Is Bad News
Look, it’s news to no one (except maybe the frequently confused Matt Yglesias) that the Left smothers conservative thought in academe. But at this magnitude, the consequences go far beyond who gets to wear tweed jackets with elbow patches. Each year, America’s universities ingest millions of bright but ideologically inchoate young people fumbling towards adulthood. Failing to expose them to an extensive menu of different ideas is a sure recipe for parochialism and intellectual indolence.
Even those who would welcome a unanimously liberal generation of Americans must recognize that a mind untested is as useful as a pencil unsharpened: it may be the tool you need, but good luck filling out your Scantron. The most valuable test of one’s worldview is to be confronted by an earnest exponent of a different or even contradictory one.
Moreover, consider the impact of straitjacketed thinking on academic inquiry. Despite being lavished with billions by American taxpayers, the social sciences are engulfed in a vexing replication crisis. Hundreds of findings once considered axiomatic have been impossible to reproduce, casting doubt on entire corpuses of published work in some disciplines.
Is this really all that gobsmacking, however, given the tool we use to appraise its validity? Peer review aims to ensure that academic evidence can be trusted by subjecting it to the rigorous scrutiny of reviewers with expertise comparable to the author. Yet as activists and politicians grasp ever more desperately at studies to lend scientific heft to their policy wish lists, academic research has become increasingly politicized. A panel drawn from a cohort of homogeneous thinkers cannot be expected to fairly assess evidence that has a political impact.
Look no further than the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a tool social psychologists developed that purports to measure unconscious prejudice. After being cited in more than 3,000 peer-reviewed papers by “psychologists [desiring] to help solve social problems,” and eagerly circulated by fellow travelers in the media, it was revealed that the test returns wildly unreliable results and has no impact on discriminatory behavior.
Despite failing to meet basic scientific standards, the IAT has been taken by more than 17 million people worldwide, featured in multimillion-dollar federal grants, and made the centerpiece of countless corporate diversity workshops. These academic blunders carry a price we will continue to pay until we recognize the limitations of peer review in an echo chamber.
This Means the ‘Consensus’ Is Tilted
The same applies to the notion of “scientific consensus,” commonly aired today in discussions about climate change. In 2014, noted demagogue John Oliver excoriated the media for daring to present viewers both sides of a political question by holding a “statistically representative” mock debate. To illustrate the percentage of scientists who agree on climate change, he trotted out 97 extras in white coats to shout down three climate skeptics.
To this profusion of unintentional irony, the NAS study adds another nugget: the 25-to-1 partisan ratio among environmental studies faculty means that out of professors who declare for a party, 96.2 percent are Democrats. By no means does this invalidate the conclusions of climate scientists. But policymakers should be aware that the oft-cited “consensus” is not necessarily a meeting of purely objective minds.
Let’s face it: the academy’s ability to perform credible peer review and proclaim scientific consensus will be hindered until it reclaims ideological pluralism. But how? The study argues that, “[t]he solution to viewpoint homogeneity may lie in establishing new colleges from the ground up” because reforming hidebound institutions “seems a very tall order.” Yet a vast new expansion, in the context of bloated federal outlays and overextended state budgets, seems even more improbable.
There is no choice but to reform existing universities, although it will take a Herculean effort from within to expand the institutional Overton window. These days, you can hardly walk through a quad without turning up some provost or vice chancellor underfoot, vowing to promote diversity. It’s past time for these administrators to show some mettle and apply that principle not just to race, sex, and creed, but to ideas also.
That means ceasing the assault on academic freedom and putting the kibosh on the heckler’s veto. Those interested in a truly plural discourse on campus should also think twice before reaching for the typical administrative pro-diversity playbook. Mandatory training seminars and hiring quotas are poor solutions, whomever they favor. Instead, we should take matters into our own hands.
Here’s How to Start
First, students and professors with divergent views must be bold enough to publicly voice them. The chilling effect of overwhelming viewpoint discrimination drives right-leaning prospective young academics into tight-lipped diffidence, if not different callings altogether. The magnetism of compelling mentors—visible evidence that conservatives indeed belong—is an indispensable counterweight that must be strengthened.
Meanwhile, freethinkers should join (or promote and support) nonpartisan organizations that defend viewpoint diversity and freedom of speech on campus, like the Heterodox Academy and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. The surveys, tools, and research that groups like these produce are materiel for the vanguard.
Finally, right-leaning professors should strive to play a larger role in peer review, though not a tendentious one. These panels should not become venues for ideological combat, but a variety of perspectives is a needed check on cognitive biases, to which even pedigreed scholars are susceptible.
It goes without saying that all this may come at a substantial individual cost, denominated in professional opportunities and even personal relationships. But it must be paid. Otherwise, partisan faculties will continue to gather momentum like heavy stones tumbling down a hillside. The few conservatives in academia must be willing to stand athwart these boulders yelling Stop, no matter the risk of being flattened. The integrity of the academy depends on it.
From – The Federalist – by William Estes

Just As It Is

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion

 

 

William Murchison
William Murchison

WILLIAM MURCHISON: Of the Baptists and the modern world

June 12, 2018

 

I live in amity with the Southern Baptists, whose general tolerance for my fellow “Whiskeypalians” I take kindly.

I wouldn’t dream of joining the media whoop-de-do over who among the Baptist faithful did what to whom, and when, and what to do now. You have read it all; I will not recount the imputations of Baptist sexism, patriarchy and the Lord knows what else.

There is a point, even so, to be made about life in an environment — this one — where religious standards of belief and behavior more frequently encounter scorn or indifference than support.

Without brushing off genuine concerns about particular attempts in Baptist ranks to downplay sexual aggression (all forms of sexual aggression are despicable, would you not say?) we need to look at the premises that make such aggressions possible and familiar.

Which are? Ah. Here we get down to brass tacks.

Leave the Rev. Dr. Paige Patterson out of this. The deterioration in male-female relationships over past decades has brought this thing to pass, and all the attendant misery and reproaches.

It is in part the churches’ fault. It is in part not the churches’ fault.

It is the fault, broadly speaking, of the modern supposition that the relationship of man and woman is for that particular man and that particular woman to figure out for themselves — never mind what Western culture and religion taught in the ages prior to Freud.

It will be noted, if one looks, that there was no #MeToo movement — no swelling demand for reckoning with male aggressors — until very recent months.

There was no such movement in the ’50s. There was no such movement in the ’40s. There was no such movement in the ’30s.

Which is a far cry from saying, “Gee, everybody sure was happy and content in them there old days!” It is more reasonable to say society lived by a different ethic than that which came to hold sway following World War II.

That is where the churches came in.

The male-female relationship, as the churches saw it, and tried to teach it, involved obligation. Personal expression was low on the totem pole as a cultural objective. There were limits.

These limits, under religious tutelage, society acknowledged. Sorrow and pain and cruelty, being elements of the human character, hung around the house and, often enough, broke out windows or set the place on fire.

But that wasn’t supposed to be the way of it. The way of it, according to the Christian principles America’s churches had been endowed with, was love; it was mutual forbearance; it was kindness toward, and respect for, others.

Personal, shall we say, “expression” — meaning, among other things, rape, humiliation, aggressive encounters with members of the opposite sex — ran counter to how the Good Book told it. There were limits. You needed to keep within those limits.

You didn’t, for instance, get a stranger drunk and carnal knowledge have of her — as rape statutes used delicately to phrase it. Families and social institutions of all kinds assumed responsibility for the observance of these necessary limits.

Until they didn’t. Until the churches, to put it another way, more or less gave up on proclaiming the value and worth of the old norms: acceding, in effect, to the modern clamor to let people do as they liked; adjusting the Christian message so as not to look old-fashioned and out of it.

The Rev. Joseph Fletcher, in “Situation Ethics,” stressed the need to avoid “stern, iron-bound do’s and don’ts,” along with “prescribed conduct and legalistic morality.”

Fletcher, was, well, um, I admit it, a fellow Whiskeypalian whom the Southern Baptists could accuse of helping fellow Christians, along with non-Christians, create a vast moral trash heap.

I ache for the Baptists at this juncture: victims of, as well as collaborators in, the moral confusion through which we lurch, yelling, denouncing, prosecuting, demonizing — everything but trying to remember what it was like back when the cultural rule of thumb was taken to be to love your neighbor as yourself.

William Murchison’s latest book is “The Cost of Liberty: The Life of John Dickinson.”

 

 

 

Apologetics: An Alternative for the Next Generation

This needs reposting. Once a week might do. A great post by Haden Clark, Haden uses “Nominal Faith” as “In name only,” I use it (In Name Only), for Liberal Theology, (Liberal Christianity) Christian in name only. Thank you Brother Haden for giving us a more understandable phrase.
Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion

Help Me Believe

It has been my observation that the next generation of Christians commonly finds themselves between a rock and a hard place. We’ll call the rock Nominal Christianity. We’ll allow the hard place to be Skepticism.

Nominal Christianity

Nominal means in name only. Nominal Christianity then is an inauthentic faith that is only associated with Christianity in name only. Nominal Christianity is in attendance most Sunday mornings if it wakes up on time, or wasn’t out too late the night before. Nominal Christianity never deals seriously with sin, hasn’t opened the Bible in years, hasn’t shared the gospel, well, probably ever, and almost certainly would never be a part of any intimate fellowship with other believers. Its faith is privatized and kept at arms length.

Unfortunately, this has been the model for many, if not most young Christians from what I can observe. It seems so common place that Nominal…

View original post 629 more words

Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion..

via Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control in America |

On Cue – Mitch McConnell Welcomes Legislation To Block President Trump Trade Policy…

Take time to read the whole article!  If you are on fixed income it will make you a tad angry, It’s time, way past time, that the swamp was drained and we get rid of these corrupt politician fat-cats … RINO and Socialists.

Reblogged on Bob’s Opinion.

via On Cue – Mitch McConnell Welcomes Legislation To Block President Trump Trade Policy…