McNaughton Hates People of Color Because Jesus is Not White?

I often receive comments from people offended that I did not paint Jesus with darker skin, different colored eyes or the hair not the way they envision.  Here is an interesting conversation and my answer to Susan.

Susan said:  You do realize that Jesus was a Jew from the middle east and could not possibly have looked anthing like this painting, right?

McNaughton said:  The painting has an important message.  I don’t think it is the color of his skin.

Susan said:  I see…sounds like the message is I hate people of color.  I get it. 

Here is a link Susan shared from Popular Mechanics to show me the real way Jesus looked:

McNaughton response:  

How Do You Paint the Face of Christ?

When I first began to paint the Savior I felt completely inadequate for the task.  Many artists say that it is the most difficult subject to paint.  How do you paint someone who we believe is the God of the Universe and the most humble, loving, perfect man who ever lived?  There are many millions of people in this world that love the man they call Jesus.  They all have their own personal image of how they think He should look.

Where is an artist to start?  I decided I would begin by looking at all the different artist’s renditions since early Christianity until today.  His image has gone through much metamorphosis.  I read different historians talk about how Christ would have looked.  Each was convinced of their own conclusions.  Some people today claim to have had a personal witness, that they saw Him in a vision or dream and know exactly how He looks.  All these things were very remarkable and I would seriously consider each account.  It was interesting to me how each group of people would often paint Christ in a way that most resembled themselves.  Their comfort zone if you will.  Many people have come into my gallery and with absolute certainty say that He has brown eyes or blue eyes, dark skin or light skin, long hair or short hair.  Now I see why this is such a difficult subject to paint.

At this point I thought to myself, “OK, what does He really look like?”  So I started reading different studies from an anthropological point of view.  National Geographic had that interesting article about what Jesus really looked like.  Not too handsome, kind of gruff.  Perhaps He did look like that? 

One night I had a dream.  It was in the distant future.  I was at a great conference and all the artists who have ever lived who painted Jesus Christ were gathered together in one place.  Many of the well known masters were there.  I saw Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt as well as many modern painters of Christ.  I was there with all these great artists as we anticipated the arrival of the guest speaker.  It would be Jesus Himself and all attending expected Him to acknowledge who the truest artist was.  All were wondering who had painted Him with the most perfection and accuracy?  Who would be named by Christ Himself as the greatest of all?

As I sat in my chair a hush came over the room as someone entered and moved toward the podium.  I saw a man in white, but I could not see His face.  He stood at the podium and began to speak in a soft, loving voice that seemed to pierce my heart to the very core.  He said that there were many talented artists who were here and that He knew many were wondering in their hearts who was the greatest among us.  He then said, “The greatest among you is he whose art did most to save souls in the Kingdom of my Father.”

When I woke up I was thrilled with the dream and curious about the answer.  In my mind I felt the meaning of the dream was that it was not as important to Him how He looks in the painting as how it affects the viewer.  If it helps them to draw closer to Him, to strengthen their faith and come unto Christ-- it is a masterpiece.  As an artist I feel that it is more important to paint a face that evokes emotion and familiarity than it is to paint an anthropological version that would be difficult for the average person to recognize. 

Some day I hope to see Him and to look into His eyes.  I don’t care what color they will be or how long His hair is.  I will recognize Him by that overwhelming feeling of love and joy that can only come from standing in the presence of my Savior.


Electoral College? No School Like the Old School

Today I hear many liberals calling for an end to the Electoral College and to simply elect our president through a popular vote.  That may sound good on the surface, but there is a reason why the Founders set it up that way.

The Electoral College is not a good system as it is managed today.  It does not seem fair as certain states seem to carry all the power and voters feel that they throw their votes away as winner-takes-all voting rules decide the balance of the electoral votes.  So is the answer to make it a poplar vote instead?  No, bad idea.

As the founders originally designed it there should be a district vote in each state where electors are chosen and whose votes are counted toward the election of candidates and not a winner-take-all as it is today. In 1820 James Madison proposed a constitutional amendment that would require states to use the district method, writing that "The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket & the legislative election, as the only expedient for baffling the policy of the particular States which had set the example."

1824 was the tipping point election for presidential electoral systems, as twice as many states used the winner-take-all statewide method as used the state legislature method. The defeated Andrew Jackson joined James Madison's plea for a constitutional amendment requiring a uniform district election system, but to no avail. In every U.S. presidential election since, the statewide method has been predominant. 

The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to give power to the states in a Presidential election and balance the election process. The current winner takes all system gives power to the political parties and not the states as it was intended. It's all about balance of power and the checks and balances that protect our liberties. 

Even the election of Senators used to be from the states until they changed that with the 17th Amendment and see how the popular vote has led to the chaos we see today in Washington as Senators are more loyal to special interest groups than their own states by whom they used to be appointed. The Founders knew what they were doing when they designed the checks and balances of power.

Nope, as with other things, there is no school like the old school.


Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm

 Jan 29, 2013 12:00 AM EST 

This article expresses my feelings on Obama's gun grab and brings up some intersting points.  What do you think?      

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so. By David Mamet.
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.

For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”

All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.

Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.

As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.

President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”

But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?

It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”

The Founding Fathers, far from being ideologues, were not even politicians. They were an assortment of businessmen, writers, teachers, planters; men, in short, who knew something of the world, which is to say, of Human Nature. Their struggle to draft a set of rules acceptable to each other was based on the assumption that we human beings, in the mass, are no damned good—that we are biddable, easily confused, and that we may easily be motivated by a Politician, which is to say, a huckster, mounting a soapbox and inflaming our passions.

The Constitution’s drafters did not require a wag to teach them that power corrupts: they had experienced it in the person of King George. The American secession was announced by reference to his abuses of power: “He has obstructed the administration of Justice … he has made Judges dependant on his will alone … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass out people and to eat out their substance … imposed taxes upon us without our consent… [He has] fundamentally altered the forms of our government.”
Gun rights advocates
            rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Jan. 2013.
Who threatens American society most: law-abiding citizens or criminals? (Matt Rourke/AP)

This is a chillingly familiar set of grievances; and its recrudescence was foreseen by the Founders. They realized that King George was not an individual case, but the inevitable outcome of unfettered power; that any person or group with the power to tax, to form laws, and to enforce them by arms willdefault to dictatorship, absent the constant unflagging scrutiny of the governed, and their severe untempered insistence upon compliance with law.

The Founders recognized that Government is quite literally a necessary evil, that there must be opposition, between its various branches, and between political parties, for these are the only ways to temper the individual’s greed for power and the electorates’ desires for peace by submission to coercion or blandishment.

Healthy government, as that based upon our Constitution, is strife. It awakens anxiety, passion, fervor, and, indeed, hatred and chicanery, both in pursuit of private gain and of public good. Those who promise to relieve us of the burden through their personal or ideological excellence, those who claim to hold the Magic Beans, are simply confidence men. Their emergence is inevitable, and our individual opposition to and rejection of them, as they emerge, must be blunt and sure; if they are arrogant, willful, duplicitous, or simply wrong, they must be replaced, else they will consolidate power, and use the treasury to buy votes, and deprive us of our liberties. It was to guard us against this inevitable decay of government that the Constitution was written. Its purpose was and is not to enthrone a Government superior to an imperfect and confused electorate, but to protect us from such a government.

Many are opposed to private ownership of firearms, and their opposition comes under several heads. Their specific objections are answerable retail, but a wholesale response is that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. On a lower level of abstraction, there are more than 2 million instances a year of the armed citizen deterring or stopping armed criminals; a number four times that of all crimes involving firearms.

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot.

Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition.

But President Obama, it seems, does.

He has just passed a bill that extends to him and his family protection, around the clock and for life, by the Secret Service. He, evidently, feels that he is best qualified to determine his needs, and, of course, he is. As I am best qualified todetermine mine.

For it is, again, only the Marxists who assert that the government, which is to say the busy, corrupted, and hypocritical fools most elected officials are (have you ever had lunch with one?) should regulate gun ownership based on its assessment of needs.

Q. Who “needs” an assault rifle?

A. No one outside the military and the police. I concur.

An assault weapon is that which used to be called a “submachine gun.” That is, a handheld long gun that will fire continuously as long as the trigger is held down.

These have been illegal in private hands (barring those collectors who have passed the stringent scrutiny of the Federal Government) since 1934. Outside these few legal possessors, there are none in private hands. They may be found in the hands of criminals. But criminals, let us reflect, by definition, are those who will not abide by the laws. What purpose will passing more laws serve?

My grandmother came from Russian Poland, near the Polish city of Chelm. Chelm was celebrated, by the Ashkenazi Jews, as the place where the fools dwelt. And my grandmother loved to tell the traditional stories of Chelm.

Its residents, for example, once decided that there was no point in having the sun shine during the day, when it was light out—it would be better should it shine at night, when it was dark. Similarly, we modern Solons delight in passing gun laws that, in their entirety, amount to “making crime illegal.”

What possible purpose in declaring schools “gun-free zones”? Who bringing a gun, with evil intent, into a school would be deterred by the sign?

Ah, but perhaps one, legally carrying a gun, might bring it into the school.
Obama family
            attending Easter church service
If President Obama determines a need to defend his family, why can’t we defend our own? (Jonathan Ernst, Reuters/Landov)


We need more armed citizens in the schools.

Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?

Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards?

Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools? It could be done at the cost of a pistol (several hundred dollars), and a few hours of training (that’s all the security guards get). Why not offer teachers, administrators, custodians, a small extra stipend for completing a firearms-safety course and carrying a concealed weapon to school? The arguments to the contrary escape me.

Why do I specify concealed carry? As if the weapons are concealed, any potential malefactor must assume that anyone on the premises he means to disrupt may be armed—a deterrent of even attempted violence.

Yes, but we should check all applicants for firearms for a criminal record?

Anyone applying to purchase a handgun has, since 1968, filled out a form certifying he is not a fugitive from justice, a convicted criminal, or mentally deficient. These forms, tens and tens of millions of them, rest, conceivably, somewhere in the vast repository. How are they checked? Are they checked? By what agency, with what monies? The country is broke. Do we actually want another agency staffed by bureaucrats for whom there is no funding?

The police do not exist to protect the individual. They exist to cordon off the crime scene and attempt to apprehend the criminal. We individuals are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to self-defense. This right is not the Government’s to “award” us. They have never been granted it.

The so-called assault weapons ban is a hoax. It is a political appeal to the ignorant. The guns it supposedly banned have been illegal (as above) for 78 years. Did the ban make them “more” illegal? The ban addresses only theappearance of weapons, not their operation.

Will increased cosmetic measures make anyone safer? They, like all efforts at disarmament, will put the citizenry more at risk. Disarmament rests on the assumption that all people are good, and, basically, want the same things.

But if all people were basically good, why would we, increasingly, pass more and more elaborate laws?

The individual is not only best qualified to provide his own personal defense, he is the only one qualified to do so: and his right to do so is guaranteed by the Constitution.

President Obama seems to understand the Constitution as a “set of suggestions.” I cannot endorse his performance in office, but he wins my respect for taking those steps he deems necessary to ensure the safety of his family. Why would he want to prohibit me from doing the same?


How to Lower Gun Violence

This morning I was reading a blog entry on Glenn Beck's The Blaze when I ran across this blogger's words..  I thought it was rather interesting.  Here is the post: 
Rangerskippy said:
Want to see a liberals go speechless on gun control? Ask these questions.
Do you know that blacks make up 12.5% of the population, but do ½ of the nation’s murders?
Do you know that by lowering black murder rates to the same as whites, we would lower the national murder per capita rate by 40%, we would also have a murder rate as low as the lowest nations in Europe, and we would save thousands of black lives?
Would you like to save black lives? What do you suggest we do to lower black murder rates?
Do you know that 70% of our murders in the US are gang related? Other than having his DOJ give “assault weapons” to Mexican drug gangs, what is Obama doing to combat gang violence?
Do you know that that our violent crimes are intrinsically tied to liberal welfare programs? Do you suggest we start phasing out these programs, being they have not succeeded in lowing poverty rates, but have instead raised it.
Do you realize that for three decades, MTV has continuously portrayed the black man as a thuggish brute that has bitches and hoes, walks around adorned in gaudy gold jewelry, wearing clownish clothes three times to big, is a gangster, and has contributed to blacks glorifying a criminal lifestyle?
libs will not be able to answer my questions above, nor will they even want to admit to the truth of those statistics
Criminality is not genetic, nor has it ever been.
Skin color is benign and non-behavioral. People do not commit crimes because of the color of thier skin.
What we do know, is that democrat programs, welfare, multicultural education, MTV, violent rap….. have all contributed to a serious problem of violence and murder within the black communities in the US.
Because of the liberal mandated laws of political correctness, no one is supposed to speak of these facts, nor do liberals want anyone to try to solve these problems. It detracts from their agenda
Notice that over 500 people (mostly black) were murdered in Chicago, this year alone. The mass majority were killed via cheap or stolen hand guns. Less that 3% were killed with a rifle of any type, but Obama and the libs are clamoring for banning rifles. What does that tell us? It would seem to me that libs believe that rich white kids from Connecticut matter, but blacks from the South Side of Chicago do not, otherwise, Obama and crowd would be talking lowering murder rates, and not outlawing the least used weapon in crimes.
Contrary to popular belief, most AR owners, use them for sport. we shoot national match at Camp Perry, do 3-gun, Varmint shoots, and NRA high-power matches. They are to expensive for criminals.


Interesting Exchange of Ideas with Liberal about Gun Rights

In the debate as to whether the Second Amendment is indeed valid, here is an exchange I had today with a liberal on my Facebook:

Ron says:
My feeling on gun control is that it is not a right, and should be a privilege (like getting a license to drive, practice law, etc.). Yes, I know that most believe the 2nd Amendment provides a right, but my response would be twofold: first, it's open to interpretation when you include the statement regarding being a member of a militia (the "collective rights" interpretation); and second, the founding fathers (especially Jefferson) considered the Constitution to be a "living document" that should be amended as society's needs evolve. Jefferson wrote: ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times." (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution)

Nearly every country that has instituted strict gun laws has seen a dramatic decline in gun violence (the most notable exception being Brazil). A recent article by Ezra Klein provides interesting facts about guns and mass shootings in the U.S. ( see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/ ).

The time has come where society is ready to implement sensible gun control laws that will protect its citizens from the mindless slaughter that occurs every day due to guns.

McNaughton says:
All liberals believe that it is the government that grants rights.  In other words, it is the government that bestows “privileges” upon us.  It was this mind set that our Founding Fathers wanted to break away from in the New World.  What makes America unique is our insistence on the rights of the people.  At a time when the federal government is overreaching its bounds more than ever, you will never get the American populace to relinquish their firearms.  And this will guarantee that the American people shall not fall prey to tyrants.