Monday, December 31, 2007
And Americans seem to be leaning leftward on issues besides Iraq. A majority approve of universal health care, support for capital punishment is waning, and though voters rejected gay marriage in various state referendums in 2004, opposition to it is declining. All and all I fear the next several years, not just 2008, bode ill for right-wingers. But facing that bleak scenario has made me start thinking again about something that's been in the back of my mind for a while. How do we spread conservatism in America?
I think conservatives, religious and secular, have put too much emphasis on politics. Winning elections is important but it doesn't guarantee that people will adopt our values. We must convince people of the truth of conservatism rather than assuming that election victories will make converts out of them. We are in a culture war and our side is losing. I once heard someone say that this war won't be won by those who tell the truth but by those who tell the best stories. And therein lies our opportunity.
No, I'm not saying that we should tell a bunch of entertaining lies to sell our worldview. I AM saying that we must use the transmitters of culture to fight a culture war. What are the transmitters of culture? They are everything a people uses to teach their way of life to the next generation. Language, the family, churches, schools, entertainment, newspapers, even blogs are all transmitters of culture. And outside of the family the most powerful transmitter of culture is entertainment. Liberals have understood this for at least a generation and have brilliantly used entertainment to advance their cause. Conservatives, unfortunately, have been asleep at the wheel.
Weaving an idea, belief, or point of view into a compelling story is one of the best ways to "evangelize" it to the public. Conservatives do know this and have been calling liberals on this practice for years. I can remember conservative groups bemoaning the content of television way back in the '70's. We have been excellent in cursing the darkness. What we've failed miserably at is lighting candles.
It's time to stop wringing our hands over anti-Christian and anti-American movies, violent video games, and sexed up tv shows and start producing better entertainment. We need to criticize by creating, as Chuck Colson put it. Conservatives need to take the entertainment industry by storm and start creating the best books, movies, tv shows, music, and video games on the market. I call this "revolution" Operation Candelight or OC. But how would this revolution actually work? Let's use tv as an example.
There are lots of cops shows on tv. What if, on one of those shows, the detectives had to solve the murder of a pastor who was the victim of a hate crime perpetrated by a militant gay activist? Or how about a drama with a morally traditional character who's a good guy? Why not have a prolife teenager, portrayed sympathetically, show up on one of the night time teen soaps? I know, today's tv writers would never write such episodes. But that's where the talented, conservative OC revolutionaries would come in. They would write those tv episodes, and lots more.
They would write, produce, and direct movies that show conservatives and moral traditionalists in a positive light. They'd write novels that sympathetically depict another side to issues that have, for far too long, been seen only from the left-wing perspective. And they'd do the same for plays, music and even video games.
Imagine a film about a family being persecuted for homeschooling. Imagine a young adult novel about teens fighting communism in Hungary's 1956 uprising. Imagine a video game where the hero fights for freedom against the global caliphate. Imagine a hard rock song glorifying our troops' skill and bravery in the Battle of Fallujah. Imagine. Imagine. But none of these things will be delivered to us by those now dominating the entertainment industry. It will take talented and committed conservative artists to get our worldview into the public imagination. It will take Operation Candlelight.
To our shame and our culture's detriment we conservatives have left the arts and entertainment to the liberals for too long. We are as creative, artistic, and talented as the leftists now controlling the media. It's time we regained our confidence and showed it. We must take back what once belonged to us. Are you ready for the revolution?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Magnets in Batman
that lodge in tots' tummies.
that the kids think are yummy.
Thomas the Train
with lead paint that destroys.
These are a few
of the dangerous toys.
with that smile so beguiling.
Once in kid's mouths
quick for help you'll be dialing.
Easy Bake Ovens that burn and annoy.
These are a few
of the dangerous toys.
When the beads pop,
when the paint peels;
batteries go bad.
We hear of the recall
of dangerous toys
and realize that we've been had.
Chinese toy makers
keep cutting their corners.
For US exports
they ship past our borders.
Into the hands
of our own girls and boys.
Who can't tell the safe
from the dangerous toys.
Parents are tense
as the holidays beckon.
Will government watchdogs
help out, do you reckon?
Or will they fail
to detect and destroy
of dangerous toys?
When the beads pop,
when the paint peels;
batteries go bad.
We hear of the recall
of dangerous toys
and realize we've been had.
Isn't that funny? I laughed out loud when I first read it. I mean, it's so true. Every parent and every child has had to deal, in one way or another, with toys that disappoint, don't work or are downright dangerous. To put that universal experience to such a classic song was brilliant, in my book. I hope all of you enjoyed this little ditty as much as I did. Again, Merry Christmas and a Blessed New Year everybody!!
*Robert is my friend over at the blog Tired Of All The Liberal Rhetoric Out There; he is elwoodin in my link field. He's a guest columnist on my blog and I'm a guest columnist on his. My latest guest post is on Robert's blog now, if you want to have a look see.
Monday, December 17, 2007
I can't believe I found this!!
When I was a child I saw David Bowie and Bing Crosby sing a touching duet of "The Little Drummer Boy" on a Christmas show. I instantly fell in love with it. When I became an adult I'd hear the song on the radio during Christmas but I thought I'd never see the actual skit/duet again. Enter YouTube.
On a whim I decided to look up Bing and Bowie's number on the we've-got-everything video website and was thrilled when I found it. Watching it again almost made me cry. I'd forgotten how poignant Bowie's part in the duet is. And I'd forgotten what a good singer he really was. He fit perfectly with Crosby.
In fact, the contrast between these two singers who couldn't be more different is what gives this video its quiet power. Bing Crosby, the epitome of crooning traditionalism and David Bowie, a gender bending glam rocker, came together in mutual respect and created something that people still want to see over twenty years later. It's sort of parable of the goodwill Christmas is supposed to be about, don't you think?
Anyway, here's Bing Crosby and David Bowie singing "The Little Drummer Boy". I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sunday, December 09, 2007
What can I say?
If you've never heard the poem, "A Soldier's Silent Night", read by Father Ted Berndt with Mannheim Steamroller's poignant, instrumental version of Silent Night playing in the background, well here it is. And if this moving homage to America's fighting men doesn't bring tears to your eyes you've got a heart of pure stone.
Merry Christmas coast guarders, sailors, soldiers, airmen, and marines! You're loved and appreciated by more people, here and abroad, than you'll ever know. God Bless you, and thank you for fighting the good fight.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Thursday, December 06, 2007
I found out last night on The O'Reilly Factor that the two burglars shot and killed by American hero Joe Horne were illegal aliens. I was going to write a post about this but then I discovered that my favorite YouTube guy, Sgt. Freedom, had a video about illegal immigration.
I chose to use Sgt. Freedom's video because he tackles this problem with passion and bubba humor. And I don't know about you, but I could use some humor on an issue that makes me boiling mad. So here's Sgt. Freedom offering his unique insights on and solution to the illegal alien problem. Enjoy.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
I wish Blacks would get as upset about Blacks committing crime as they do about Whites shooting Blacks committing crime. As a Black person I'm fed up with the acceptance by many in my community of criminal behaviour by our males. I reject the prevalent belief that Black crime is the fault of White people and/or White society. The men who broke into Joe Horne's neighbor's home chose to do it. Whitey didn't make them. And now they've paid for their choice with their lives. Perhaps if there was less mourning for criminals by Blacks, and more disgust instead, fewer of our young men would choose lives of crime.
But even without the race angle many bleeding hearts would be outraged at Joe Horne's act. They already hate guns and no doubt view Mr. Horne as a gun-wielding vigilante. He had no right to make himself judge, jury, and executioner. While I agree that people can't be allowed to take the law into their own hands, I fiercely oppose the notion that crime should be a risk-free venture. Policemen, soldiers, and firemen all face risks inherent to their jobs, but criminals don't have to? Puh-leeze!!!
Criminals should realize that their "career" carries the very real risk of death. Thugs should know that they have no right to expect non-resistance from the normal folks they terrorize. The two creatures gunned down by Mr. Horne would still be alive if they'd chosen work over burglary. So the ultimate responsibility for their deaths lies with them, even if they were Black. And that's why I say Joe Horne is a hero.
Saturday, December 01, 2007
It Makes One Wonder Just Where Are We Going
I have been listening to the news lately and this post has nothing really to do with politics, or Democrats, or Republicans. I just want to ask everyone: just where is this country heading?
On the news here in Indiana, over the past few days, has been a story of a couple who beat their infant girl to death with a belt. And in the weeks preceeding her death they tortured her. Now here comes my question again. Just where are we going? What is wrong with our country when we have parents torturing their little children and then killing them with a belt?
The story went to trial today, with the parents going to court over this. It seems that Child Protective Services are the ones that really screwed up here. Months ago these two parents were hauled in for abuse on the little girl and the government took her away from them, only to give her back later. NOW SHE IS DEAD!!! I hope the parents get the most the law will give, with no chance of parole. Period! Killing that little girl was totally uncalled for.
What in the heck is the problem with this country?!
Growing up, I don't remember anything aobut parents killing their kids. Now I'm sure that it happened, but I doubt it happened with the intensity it is now. And the problem here people is that this horrible story of an infant's death isn't the only one. There was a story like it out of Georgia, too. I don't know the details on that one but I DO know that we have to get back to the moral and just America of the past and away from the PC crowd that is destroying this country.
We've got to stop believing the drive-by media and start listening to our common sense and our intelligence. We need to listen to our hearts 'cause if we don't this violence that we are seeing will only be the beginning. Our future will be a hell of violence. Mark my words on this, people. If you don't believe me look back over the past few decades and notice the increase of violence to the youngest and most vulnerable in our society. We have to stop it. We must turn to God, or our higher power. Everyone has one. We must look to our conscience and stop the bad we're doing to one another. And always remember, we need God's blessings now more than ever.
God Bless America!
God Bless our Troops with their mission
God Bless my Readers and Listeners
Hey friends. I hope you like Robert's post. It's a tragic subject but one we have to face and ask the question Robert asked. After all, the only people who will save our children and our country is us.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Sunday, November 25, 2007
My post is written in red just in case you have trouble finding it.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
*Happy Thanksgiving, Daddy! I can't believe this is my third holiday without you. I'd give anything to have you here. I love you and miss you so much. Rest in peace, my father and friend.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I oppose the very notion of "hate crimes". Hate crime laws are an attempt to punish people for what they (alledgely) think, not for what they do. They're Orwellian to the core. How do you know what someone was thinking at the moment of the crime? If perp and victim are of different races you could assume racism. But the victim could've just been the easiest target at the moment. And even if a perp deliberately targets a particular group of people it doesn't automatically mean he's acting out of hate. The group might just pose less of a threat to him. He might target illegal aliens, for instance, because they're less likely to call the police and NOT because they're illegal aliens. He might target the elderly because they can offer less physical resistance, NOT because he's got it in for old folks. We need to be VERY careful when we start criminalizing people's thoughts.
Another big problem with hate crime laws is the tougher sentences mandated for hate crimes. I've never understood how being mugged, raped, or murdered is worse when the criminal is a different race, gender, or sexual orientation from the victim. Even if a perp acts out of hate the victim is traumatized by the crime itself, not the thoughts behind it. A rape victim isn't comforted by knowing that she wasn't attacked because she was Black. However, a rape victim might be further traumatized by knowing that her attacker received a lesser sentence because he was an "ordinary" rapist rather than a hate rapist. And then there's murder.
Proponents of hate crime laws and the tougher sentences mandated by them are often the same people who oppose the death penalty. This is highly problematic. How can they insist that hate crimes be punished more severly than "ordinary" crimes yet oppose the severest punishment possible for hate murders? After all, the only way to punish hate murders more severly than "ordinary" murders is to give the death penalty for one and life without parole for the other. Death penalty opponents, naturally, won't support that. The only alternative is to give hate murderers life without parole but "ordinary" murderers less than that. The families of "ordinary" murder victims would NEVER stand for such a diminishing of their loved ones' lives. Life without parole is the lightest sentence for murder, any murder, that most people will accept. So the end result will be that hate murderers and "ordinary" murderers receive the same sentence. How illogical is that?
But hate crimes laws are inherently illogical. I believe they were never meant to protect minorities. Rather, their purpose is to make guilt ridden, self-hating, left-wing Whites feel good about themselves. By championing these laws (and a lot of other things) such Whites seek to separate themselves from and atone for what they see as the entirely criminal nature of their race's interaction with non-Whites. They're trying to tell the non-White world, "Whites have horribly oppressed you but I'm a different kind of White person. I'm really good. Look at what I'm doing for you." If liberal Whites want to assuage their unearned guilt then they should do so, but not at the expense of justice and common sense. A criminal act should get the same punishment regardless of the motive for it. No victim is worth more than another. Isn't that what equality really means?
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Americans won't spend their hard earned dollars to be told they, their country and their military are evil. I believe Hollywood knew that from the beginning. I believe that Americans were never the intended audience for movies like "Lions for Lambs" and the others. No, Hollywood made these films for a GLOBAL audience. Tinsel Town's liberals want to support the rest of the world's anti-US animosity . They want the America haters to be strengthened in they're conviction. They are apostles of anti-Americanism. And they're proud of it.
Of course, if you confronted the Hollywood Left about this they'd deny it. They'd act--act is the operative word--indignant at the very suggestion that they were deliberately helping America's enemies. They're just dissenting, they'd say. They're just asking thoughtful questions, they'd say. Yes, extremely negative images of America are being broadcasted all over the world. Yes, every jihadi will use those images to recruit more fanatics. But that was never they're intention, they'd insist. They love America; really, truly, you gotta believe they do.
Yeah, right. The only thing more insulting than the anti-American movies liberals make is their belief that the rest of Americans are dumb enough to believe their profession of patriotic love. Hey Hollywood, if you're so patriotic why not make a movie about Scott Southworth, an American soldier who adopted a handicapped Iraqi child? Or a movie about baby Mariam who received life saving surgery in the US thanks to our fighting men? Or a film about the Anbar Salvation Front, an Iraqi militia that allied itself with us to destroy Al Queda in Anbar province? Why not make any of those films, Hollywood? I mean, since you love America so much.
Nothing pro-American will ever be made by the Hollywood Left. They are on the side of our enemies. It's like George Orwell said, you can't hamper one side in a war without automatically helping the other side. Brian de Palma, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and the rest of the Tinsel Town traitors know that perfectly well. They take their job of aiding their side very seriously. They're playing hardball. It's time for the good guys to play hardball, too.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
C'mon Hill! You claim to be a strong woman. You insist that women receive equal rights and equal treatment. Apparently, though, you don't know what that means. Well, let me tell you. It means that if you dodge straightforward questions; if you have murky positions on important issues; if you choose to put yourself in the meat grinder that is presidential politics you have to take the hard blows that go with that. Do you think that the territory of politics should change because you're a woman? Isn't that the antithesis to the equality that feminism is supposed to be about?
I cannot imagine Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir whining about some boys' club ganging up on them. They were too busy acutally running their countries and winning wars. Margaret Thatcher took what was meant as an insult and turned it into a distinguished moniker, becoming known worldwide as The Iron Lady. If this latest episode is any indication you, Hillary, are no Iron Lady. So please, either shut up and play the game as is or take the advice of an old saying: if you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
I want to say that as a Black woman I think this incident is being blown out of proportion. Yes, Dog Chapman was full of anger when he said nigger on that phone call. He also used profanity. Why isn't he being raked over the coals for that?
Let's get something straight. Using a racial slur doesn't automatically make you a racist. I've used racial slurs myself, usually when someone of another race pisses me off. If a Hispanic driver grabs the parking space I was waiting for I've been known to say, "Damn wetback!" Does that mean I hate Hispanics? When I watched the movie "Jackass" I thought to myself, "Only white guys could be that stupid." Does that mean I hate Whites? No and no. Using racial slurs is often a crime of passion. No one should be instantly and permanently defined by that.
We live in a time when liberals are keen to prove their belief that America is irredeemably racist and that racism is peculiar to Whites. Dog's unfortunate utterance has given them ammunition to push that belief. The truth, though, is that Blacks say nigger way more than Whites and paid millions to do it. You can't buy a rap album that's not full of nigger this and nigger that. Blacks and liberal Whites are being profoundly hypocritical when they have a meltdown over a White guy saying nigger but give Blacks a pass for saying it.
If we really want nigger to be an unsayable word we've got to stop rewarding Blacks who use it in their "art". Millions of Whites listen to rap music. If they hear their favorite rap singers throwing nigger around like it was a compliment, what are they going to think? Certainly not that nigger is a bad word. It's like a parent telling his kids not to curse while constantly saying the "f" word in front of them. Talk about double messages!
I think Dog Chapman was just angry, like I was when that Hispanic guy stole my parking space. I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Maybe Dog really is a virulent racist and just hid it really well all these years. Maybe having a Black pastor was just a dishonest show. Maybe accepting his brother's Asian wife was just for the cameras. And maybe Dog just lied about his mother being Native American. Maybe, but I don't think so. You're still a good egg in my book, Dog.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Socialism as we understand it didn't exist in Jefferson's day but he obviously had an uncomfortable inkling it was coming. Sadly, it seems that we as a people have decided not to heed this Founder's warning.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
"Restoring America's image" sounds great but is just another front in liberals' war against Bush instead of the terrorists who want to kill us. The slogan derives from liberals' persistent delusion that terrorism is caused by the "imperialism" of the Bush administration, beginning with the Iraq War. If we would only surrender in Iraq and sell out the Israelis, liberals believe, the Arab/Muslim world would love us and global utopia would break out. That's the essence of their idea of "restoring America's image": undermine the Bush administration by agreeing with the America haters and appeasing our enemies.
Liberals have conveniently forgotten all the terrorist attacks against America that occurred before Bush was president. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 when Bill Clinton, Hillary's hubby, was president. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were also bombed during Clinton's presidency when, presumably, everybody loved America. Many other terrorists attacks were launched against this country in the pre-Bush era, going all the way back to the Iran hostage crisis under wimp-in-chief Jimmy Carter. But that's reality and the anti-Bush psychotics have simply willed reality out of their minds.
Let's be honest. Hillary Clinton and all the other liberals don't give a rat's ass about America's image. The call to restore our image is just a cover for their policy of rabid anti-Bush hatred and anti-Americanism. It's a cover for their sympathy for radical Islam. It's a cover for their defeatism. It's a cover for their internationalism. It's a cover for their socialism. If you vote for liberals this is what you'll get. You've been warned. Now do the right thing and side with those who care about our country's survival. The best image for America is that of a free, intact, sovereign nation. If you want to restore anything, restore that.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Sixty-five-year-old Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline, 61, became foster parents in 2001 and have successfully nurtured 28 troubled children since then. But Somerset County decided the Mathericks weren't fit to keep their latest foster child after they refused to sign a paper agreeing to teach the boy that homosexuality is good. Consequently, the 11-year-old has been taken from a loving home and placed in a county hostel. Vincent Matherick explained that he doesn't hate gays but felt he couldn't endorse behaviour that conflicted with the Word of God.
That didn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience, not to mention a child's happiness, are inconsequential compared to the lofty goal of normalizing homosexuality.
This is a shocking story. There's nothing more Orwellian than government officials entering people's homes and telling them what to teach their children. Granted, the Mathericks were foster parents who, like all foster parents, have to abide by state standards. But how does not approving of homosexuality suddenly make them unfit when they weren't unfit for the last six years? And you better believe that if the GAE Stalinists can get away with using the government to impose their views on foster parents they'll use the government to impose their views on natural parents. Mark my words. The day is coming in the West when parents will be assigned a social worker to make sure they're raising their children "correctly". And a large percentage of those social workers will be GAE.
For now, the Mathericks have been forced out of fostering for being politically incorrect. They've indicated that they might appeal the decision of the Somerset County Council. I pray they do and I pray they win. Children need a loving home like the one the Mathericks are ready and willing to provide more than they need an ideology. Sadly, Britain's GAE Stalinists think otherwise and children are paying the price.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I was driving my Mom to the store when Michael Medved's talk show came on. His guest was a representative of the "anti-war" group Code Pink (CP). Unfortunately, I don't remember the woman's name, but her words are unforgettable. This woman admitted that she and Code Pink, who were trying to close a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA, called our troops predators and traitors. That's right, predators and traitors. That's what the peace crowd thinks of our soldiers.
Michael Medved asked this sorry excuse for an American why she and CP would call our military such names. This woman claimed that the military recruiters were predators because they were going after Berkeley's "vulnerable youth", and that they were traitors because they'd betrayed the trust of said youth by not telling them the whole story about military service. I'm not sure what this woman meant by the "whole story". It's no secret that the military fights wars and that in war people get injured and killed. Young people who are or might be considering joining the armed forces already know that. So where's the betrayal of trust?
Of course, this isn't the first time liberals have shown their hatred for America's finest. "Anti-war" protestors in Oregon--I believe it was Oregon--burned an American soldier in effigy. Brian de Palma has made a movie protraying our troops in Iraq as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs. Cindy Sheehan referred to our boys, including her own son Casey, as murderers. Rosie O'Donnell insinuated that our troops are terrorists who've killed nearly a million Iraqis. Susan Sarandon and her lover Tim Robbins made similar accusations. And let's not forget the entire city of San Francisco which has banned ROTC from its schools, denied the USS Iowa the right to dock at its port, and prevented the Marines from filming a recruiting commercial there. But they support the troops, the peaceniks say. Don't you believe it!
Believe what these people say and do when they're on their home turf. Believe what they say and do when they're among like-minded folks who won't question them. Believe what they say and do when they're caught up in the sanctimonious moment of "marching for peace". But don't ever believe them when they say they love our troops. They hate our troops. Remember, they called them predators and traitors. You can't get more hateful than that. Believe me.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Liberals are libertines. Sexual freedom is their core principle. That, and not respect for women's rights, is the real motive for their love affair with abortion. An instant end to pregnancy gets women back into the all-important game of sleeping around--oops!--I mean hooking up. Likewise, passing out birth control to middle schoolers is not about protecting them from STDs and/or unplanned pregnancy; rather, it's about conditioning adults to accept the "fact" that kids, even quite young ones, can and do consent to sex.
Think about it. How can you give condoms or the Pill to children without tacitly admitting that said children can consent to the activity those items are for? You can't. And once you accept that children can consent to sex, the age of the people they're having sex with becomes irrelevant. After all, if an eleven-year-old can consent to sex with another eleven-year-old, why not with a 15-year-old? Or a 20-year-old? Or a 30-year-old?
I can easily imagine the day when an accused child molester will insist that little Suzy wanted it and use as proof the birth control pills she got from her friendly school nurse. The nurse not only knew that Suzy was sexually active, the molester's lawyer will argue, she condoned the 12-year-old's behaviour by giving her contraceptives, no questions asked. So, if his middle aged client is guilty of a crime, the school nurse is a clear accessory. I don't think you want to be the nurse who'll have to answer that charge.
Liberals will insist that the above scenario is just hysterical, right-wing propaganda against personal freedom. But liberals don't believe in freedom, not when it comes to sex. Then, liberals are pure, unadulterated libertines opposing ALL judgements and restrictions on sexuality. Everyone, including children, must be free to do as they please with their bodies. For liberals this is enlightened, progressive thinking. To the clear thinking masses it's cultural suicide, and it will not stand.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Nancy Pelosi wants the Armenian resolution because she wants to upset our relationship with Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is our staunch ally in the Iraq War, allowing supplies from fuel to water to reach our troops from its soil. If Turkey ends its military relationship with us over this resolution, as it has threatened to do, we'd have to reroute those supplies in ways that could be prohibitively expensive. And if you can't supply an army, it can't fight. Now you're getting the picture.
This whole resolution business is about ensuring defeat in the Iraq War and doing it in a way that normally only our enemies would try: by cutting off supplies to our troops. This makes me sick. In her effort to please her fanatically anti-Bush base, Pelosi is willing to sacrifice our boys. And then she tries to make her dirty work look clean by wrapping it up in specious concern for the memory of slaughtered Armenians. If I were Armenian I'd be outraged at such exploitation of the Armenian nation's greatest tragedy.
If Pelosi, or any other American, wants to oppose the Iraq War they certainly have the right to do so. But they should be patriotic about it and not try to cut our troops' legs out from under them. And they should have the decency not to use another people's tragedy to cover their pro-defeat shenanigans. But expecting patriotism and decency from Pelosi who, after all, hails from San Francisco, is like expecting rain in the Sahara. It ain't happenin'.
Monday, October 08, 2007
For a slightly more detailed view of Columbus Day see my post on my blog RA Folk Nation at http://rafolknation.blogspot.com/.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Whatever the reason Obama removed the flag pin, it was a big mistake to do it. He can talk all he wants to about showing his patriotism from the inside out, taking off the pin clearly reveals that Obama is uncomfortable with being American. It's like John Kerry claiming, in the '04 presidential campaign, to be a good Catholic while also insisting that he wouldn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Why not? If you're so religious, why would you be reluctant to show it? Likewise, if you're so patriotic, why would you be ashamed to flaunt it?
Of course, I understand that the wearing of symbols--flags, crosses, or whatever--can be a shallow and hypocritical ploy to get votes or win over public opinion, but it can also MEAN SOMETHING. It can reveal where someone's heart is truly at, where his allegiance truly lies.
Maybe Obama really is patriotic, but felt that would hurt his chances with the far-left crowd he apparently thinks he needs to win. So he dropped Old Glory to reassure that constituentcy that he's not TOO American. Or maybe the opposite is true. Maybe Obama is an anti-American American and dumped the flag because he was tired of not acting in sync with his true feelings.
I don't know what really motivated Obama to do what he did. I do know that his action won't help liberals repair their bad reputation on patriotism. Surely Obama knows that. I guess that was a price he was willing to pay to make whatever statement he was trying to make. All I can say is, "Thanks, Obama, for giving us conservatives the rope with which to hang you!"
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
I'd picked up this week's--October 8--issue of People and was casually flipping through its pages when I came across a review for the movie "The Kingdom". Now you know that liberals always insist that they support the troops and act indignant when their patriotism is questioned. But often their true feelings slip out in spite of themselves, and that's what happened in People.
I haven't seen "The Kingdom" (TK), but it must really be a good movie because People's movie reviewer Leah Rozen gave it three out of four stars. However, she mixed some revealing criticism in with the praise. While calling TK "a gripping action-thriller", "smart", and "exciting", Rozen also complained that the movie had "a hyperheroic Hollywood...ending" and that it "pander[ed] to [Americans'] most jingoistic instincts". What was it about "The Kingdom" that so upset Rozen? Apparently, the movie was too pro-American. That's right.
In "The Kingdom" the Americans, at least the FBI team that's sent to Saudi Arabia, are the good guys, and they kick terrorist ass in a way that had the audience cheering, Rozen admits. That was too much for her. She must've been in a tizzy about how to review the movie. Intellectual honesty apparently forced Rozen to give "The Kingdom" a good rating, but she threw in her disclaimers as a sop to her liberal reading audience. It was as if she were saying, "Ok guys, I have to admit that "The Kingdom" is a good movie, but I want you to know that I didn't fall for all its pro-American stuff."
Rozen's review revealed the corrupt version of "patriotism" that prevails among today's liberals. Routing for America is "hyperheroic". Cheering when America destroys her enemies is "jingoism". For liberals such things are BIG no-nos. Therefore, since they can't route FOR America the only option left is to route AGAINST America, which liberals do with relish. Whether it's Harry Reid declaring the Iraq War lost, Cindy Sheehan calling America evil, or Sean Penn cozying up to America-hating dictator Hugo Chavez, liberals have declared war on their own nation. They consider their self-hatred and investment in defeat as a "sophisticated" form of patriotism. Real patriotism--loving America, defending her, routing for her to win--is disavowed as racist, militarist, imperialist or, as Rozen put it, jingoist. The truth slipped out. And you thought People printed only fluff.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
How many times have gays and their liberal and feminist allies angrily marched against their fellow Americans who happen to be moral traditionalists? Americans who don't support gay marriage or gay adoptions, for instance, but who also would never and have never harmed a gay person even verbally, let alone executed one. Yet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of a country that DOES execute gays, is invited to speak at one of America's most prestigious universities, and the overwhelming majority of those who oppose him are Jews rightly outraged by Ahmadinejad's pledge to eradicate Israel.
Where was the campus gay alliance? Or the gay student union? Where were the campus' feminist groups? Where were the student Democrats? Where were all the liberal campus groups who would've been out in force if Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, or Condaleeza Rice had spoken at CU, assuming they would've been invited?
Apparently, liberals' hatred for Bush is so virulent, so irrational, that they're willing to make common cause with an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-woman Muslim fanatic just to embarrass the
president. And "make common cause with" is the only way I can describe liberals' deafening silence in the face of Mahmoud's hateful ramblings. This is a sad and sick state of affairs, indeed. Embracing the tyrant is more agreeable to liberals than admitting that the Right is right about Ahmadinejad, and the whole war on radical Islam, too.
I'm sure liberals will be incensed at my opinion. "We don't support tyrants!" they'll yell. "We haven't sold out our values!" they'll scream. "We're patriotic, too!" they'll throw in for good measure. I'm not buying it. If liberals want to prove they haven't sold their soul to the Muslim devil in exchange for a chance to jab Bush, they should start their protests now. They know how to do it. I'm waiting.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Hey you liberal, America hating, Hollywood scum! Here's a piece of REAL patriotism from an artist who gets it. You might want to look at this video before trying to pass off your troop-smearing movies as patriotic. And while you're at, check out Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series to educate yourselves on Hollywood's forgotten pro-American past.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
It was bad enough when Harvard allowed Iran's former president Ayatollah Khatami to speak there last year. Now Columbia University has invited current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad--I don't know if I spelled that right and I don't care--to speak on its campus. Just how low can liberals go?
Liberals are defending this outrage by playing the free speech card. If we don't allow Ahmadenijad to speak, they say, America will look hypocritical in the eyes of the world. Instead, we should give Iran's top Holocaust denier a prestigious platform for his venom and show him and the world what a tolerant nation we are. Gag me!!!
Iran and the rest of the world already know that America is a tolerant nation with freedom of speech for all. As I mentioned above, a former Iranian president spoke at Harvard just last year. The Iranians understand our freedoms; that's why they exploit them so well. Ahmadenijad will use his visit to Columbia University to portray himself as a reasonable man of peace. It will be a propaganda boon to him and his regime. The idea that dear Mahmoud will return to Iran a changed man after getting baptized in the light of America's freedom is ludicrous, yet liberals believe it passionately.
Why are liberals always so willing to embrace America's enemies? Why do they jump at the chance to give them a stage for their anti-American views? Why do they have such faith in their goodwill, yet are loathed to give the benefit of the doubt to their own leaders? The short answer is because liberals, too, hate America. In fact, that's the only answer.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
On this day in 2001 liberals weren't attacked. Conservatives weren't attacked. Christians weren't attacked. Atheists weren't attacked. Blacks weren't attacked. Whites weren't attacked. Men weren't attacked. Women weren't attacked. Straights weren't attacked. Gays weren't attacked. The poor weren't attacked. The rich weren't attacked. What happened on September 11, 2001 is that AMERICANS were attacked.
Nineteen Islamic terrorists targeted all Americans when they hijacked those planes and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The terrorists were telling us that they hated ALL of us. They didn't try to divide their victims by color, gender, class or any other category that, sadly, so many Americans are obsessed with. No, the nineteen Muslim murderers hijacked planes and destroyed them with no concern for which Americans were on them.
We must remember. REMEMBER!!!! On 9/11 we were attacked as a single nation. We must defeat, indeed, we can ONLY defeat the killers as a SINGLE nation! And it WAS Islamic killers who committed this horrendous act. The troglodytes spouting hateful, anti-American conspiracy theories are servants of our enemies. They are fifth columnists working for America's defeat. They must be defeated as thoroughly as the Islamic militants who still want to kill us.
On September 11, 2001 the worst happened to this country, and we responded with the best. Firemen rushed into buildings that people were running out of. People filled the churches to pray for strength and guidance. Firemen carried a gay chaplain out of the rubble with no concern that he was gay. Americans of every race, class, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin declared they were Americans first, and the other things second. The best poured out of us because, as Alexis de Tocqueville said over a hundred years ago, America is great because America is good.
America is good!!!! That's something else we must remember this tragic day. We did nothing to cause the terrorists to attack us. Our foreign policy isn't to blame. Our freedom isn't to blame.
Our support for Israel isn't to blame. The only things to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists and their religion. Remember that, my fellow Americans. Remember the horror. Remember the death. Remember the Fallen, who suffered unimaginable anguish as they perished. Remember America, remember. Then ask God to have mercy on our enemies, because we won't.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Substitute "Muslim" for "German" and this is what we should be saying in our war against jihad but, alas, political correctness has even more of a strangle hold on Americans now than it did in Patton's time.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Saturday, August 25, 2007
I didn't get my ideas from my family. My parents, grandparents and other relatives were, and still are, totally apolitical. By "apolitical" I don't mean that they didn't have opinions on things, only that they didn't wear those opinions on their sleeves. However, they made it known that they liked Democrats/liberals and didn't like Republicans/conservaties. They played the role written for them by liberals. And that probably was the beginning of my transformation from unthinking supporter of liberalism to thinking conservative.
As I said, my family had their opinions. My maternal grandmother made the biggest impression on me. She was devoutly pro-life and she instilled that belief into me. As I got older I found it increasingly difficult to square my pro-life belief with voting for the staunchly pro-choice Democratic party. My views on other issues, such as gay rights and gun control, also put me into conflict with the liberal-controlled Democrats. After voting for Democrats in several elections, I finally decided to be true to myself. Why, I asked myself, should I vote for a party that didn't represent my values? Because that's what good little Black folks were supposed to do? I wasn't playing that game anymore. I was an individual and I would vote my values, my beliefs, not my group affiliation. That was my first epiphany moment, and more were to come.
Andres Serrano gets the credit for my second epiphany moment. Serrano, for those who don't know, is the "artist" who, in 1989, put a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, photographed it, and titled the picture Piss Christ. The controversy over that blasphemous piece of "art" opened my eyes to liberals' hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry.
When Serrano's picture hit the public square conservatives were outraged. Their outrage was intensified when they learned that the photo was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Conservatives called for NEA funds to be cut for Serrano's work. Note, they didn't call for Piss Christ to be banned from view, only that the government not pay for it. At the time I thought that was a quintessentially liberal position. After all, liberals were the ones always calling for the separation of church and state. No public money, they insisted, should be used to promote or attack religion. I couldn't think of a grosser attack on religion than Piss Christ. Yet the loudest and most vehement supporters of Serrano were liberals. Talk about a wake up call.
I felt like my intelligence was being insulted by liberals during the Serrano controversy. Not only did they accuse Serrano's conservative critics of being censors, which was patently untrue, but some of them even denied that Piss Christ was anti-Christian. I couldn't believe it. If an artist had put a photo of Martin Luther King in a jar of urine, photographed it, then titled the photo Piss Blacks, liberals would've immediately recognized it as racist. And they would've gone ballistic if the NEA had funded the photo. But when hate was spewed out against Christians, liberals thought it deserving of government aid, or pretended it didn't exist. But I was supposed to vote for liberals because of my race. No way!
And speaking of race, the shameful Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill affair sealed my liberal-to-conservative transformation. When supposedly anti-racist liberals attacked Thomas, a Black Supreme Court nominee, with unbridled vengeance I knew liberalism was a fraud.
Clarence Thomas committed the worst crime a Black man can commit in the eyes of liberals: he dared to think for himself. A conservative, Thomas was nominated for the nation's highest court by Bush the Elder. Liberals tried everything to stop the nomination; when all their efforts had failed, Anita Hill conveniently emerged to accuse Thomas of sexual harrassment. A media circus ensued. Liberals and feminists gleefully declared Thomas guilty and demanded his nomination be withdrawn. Thomas was subjected to weeks of a humiliating investigation before Congress, where his character was assassinated and his reputation shredded. When it was all over justice prevailed and Thomas took his seat on the high court.
Clarence Thomas' ordeal showed me what liberals' really think. Supposedly anti-racist, they rejected Blacks' right to think independently. Supposedly committed to justice, they convicted Thomas on an accusation alone. Supposedly fair minded and against corruption, they never questioned the blatantly political timing of Anita Hill's accusation. Supposedly tolerant, they worked nonstop to prevent ideological diversity on the Supreme Court. They practiced everything they claimed to be against. Epiphany moment number three.
There were other "e-moments" on my way to becoming a conservative but these are the biggies. If one or more of these events hadn't happened I'd be middle-of-the-road today, if not outright liberal (scary thought). But fate saw fit to bring these episodes into my life to make me what I am and I'm grateful. I am proud to be a Black conservative. I wouldn't have it any other way!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
As unbelievable as it sounds, Geraldo took the same illegal-status-isn't-the-issue position on these horrific murders as he took on the DUI killing of two American teenage girls by an illegal alien in Virginia Beach, VA. earlier this year. I was dumbfounded. In spite of the visciousness of the Newark attacks, Geraldo still believes that America has an obligation to give safe haven to violently criminal IAs, especially if they're Latino. What world is this man living in?!
Obviously, black and white Americans dying at the hands of Hispanic IAs don't matter to Mr. Rivera. All that matters to him is that his racial kin escape all responsibility for their actions. If Latinos break into America like thieves in the night then, once here, use fake documents, steal Americans' identities, and kill Americans with guns or cars, it's all America's fault. Five dead American young people aren't enough to change Geraldo's mind. So I ask Mr. Rivera, "How many more non-Hispanic Americans have to die before you'll put your fellow citizens before your race? How many more, Geraldo? How many more?"
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
I know that Hispanics are the fastest growing minority and I understand the desire of the candidates to win over this voting block. But they should reach out to Hispanics the same way they reach out to other Americans, in English. The candidates aren't speaking Chinese to Chinese Americans, are they? They aren't reaching out to Cajun Americans in French. None of them are campaigning in New York's Little Odessa neighborhood waving signs written in Cyrillic letters. All other non-English speaking minorities are expected to participate in this nation's civic life in English. Why should the standard be different for Hispanics?
The language of America is English. It might not be "official", but it's reality. America began as a British colony and part of that heritage is the language we speak. If you don't want to speak English, don't come here. You definitely shouldn't come here and then demand that Americans disown their own culture, including their language, in order to accomodate you. No, you have to accomodate America. Enter America legally, assimilate into her culture, embrace her heritage, and learn English as fast as you can. Do this and you will be welcomed; don't do this and you will be deservedly resented. The choice is yours and in the meantime, no debates in Spanish!
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton (06/29/04).
"[W]e can't...just let business as usual go on and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Hillary Clinton (06/04/07).
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).
These three quotes alone expose the smarmy socialist heart of Hillary Clinton's "progressive" ideology. Taking things away from people? What things? What people, Hillary? How will you take the things away? What will you do to those people who don't want to give up their stuff? Shared prosperity? Don't you know, Hillary, that sharing is voluntary and not something ordered by the state? Anyone considering voting for Hillary Clinton for president should have these questions on his mind. But hold on, there's more.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx (1875).
"[T]he gap between those who are enjoying the fruits of the modern economy and those who aren't is growing wider." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).
"[T]he most advanced countries [have]...a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Karl Marx (1848). So that's where liberals get their love affair with taxes from!
"I believe we need a new progressive vision...I believe we can help more workers join unions to improve wages and conditions in our work places." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).
"The real fruit of [working people's] battles lies...in the ever-expanding union of the workers." Karl Marx (1848).
"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." Karl Marx (1858).
"...I'm obviously not talking just about or even primarily about geograph[y]...but about the network of relationships and values that do connect us and bind us together." Hillary Clinton (1996). Hmmm. Geography doesn't matter, only the "network of relationships and values that...bind us together." That explains perfectly why "progressives" are so in love with illegal aliens. It doesn't matter that they spit on our laws, we're bound to them by shared values and relationships. Gag me!
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx (1845).
"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." Hillary Clinton (04/06/93).
There you have it, folks. Hillary Clinton channeling Karl Marx. And you still want to vote for this woman?! God forbid!
Saturday, July 28, 2007
While Obama might have some good ideas--most politicians do--I'm scared of him. I fear he's totally possessed by the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, and that bodes ill for the safety and even survival of America and the entire Free World.
For those who don't know, Neville Chamberlain was Britain's Prime Minister in the '30's, when Hitler ruled Germany. Terrified of another war, Chamberlain, along with other European "leaders", negotiated with and appeased Hitler at every turn. No action was too dishonorable for Chamberlain to commit in the name of peace. His biggest claim to fame, or infamy, was his sell out of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938. He returned to England a hero, waving before the newsreel cameras the infamous "Peace of Paper" and proclaiming he had secured "Peace in our time". Less than a year later World War II broke out.
Fast forward to Obama, 2007.
During the YouTube debate Obama said that, if elected president, he would talk with the leaders of rogue nations and do so without conditions. Like his spiritual grandfather, Obama has an irrational faith in negotiation and the goodwill of tyrants. In an effort to clarify his remarks after receiving some criticism for them, Obama tried to make diplomacy seem like a bold strategy. He kept saying that we have nothing to fear from negotiation, implying that the Bush administration is cowardly for not talking to and dignifying dictators and terrorists.
Obama claimed that we shouldn't be afraid to tell "the worst dictators" that we don't like their values, human rights violations, or support for terrorists, but if they were willing to "go in a new direction" we should be willing to talk. How touching. Obama's going to trust leaders--and their terrorist sidekicks-- who oppress women, deny the Holocaust, call for the eradication of entire nations, demand conversion to their religion or else, and starve their people en masse. But he won't concede that president Bush has even a drop of decency. And that outlook is supposed to protect America? Yeah, right.
I can just see Obama--oops!--I mean Osama bin Laden and friends shaking at the thought of an Obama presidency. "Please Allah!" they'll pray in terror. "Save us from America's new leader! He's not like Bush. He wants to talk to us! He's going to tell us he doesn't like our values! Oh please, Allah, save us!"
And you want to elect Barack Obama commander-in-chief? Please!
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
I didn't know Sir Winston understood liberals so well.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Mexicans and other foreigners know it's illegal to enter America, or any other country, without permission. If they insist on violating the law and get injured or killed in the process, it's their fault. Period. It's like a homeowner shooting an intruder; the intruder is at fault because he shouldn't have been breaking into someone else's house to begin with. So it is with illegal aliens; they shouldn't be trying to break into America in the first place.
Of course, liberals won't see it that way. For them, the only villain is America. Just as they blame terrorism on America's foreign policy, they'll blame the increasing deaths among illegals on her "inhumane" enforcement of border security. That poor Mexicans wouldn't be dying in the desert or the river if they stayed home is totally lost on liberals. So is the culpability of the Mexican government which won't enact needed economic reforms and encourages it's poorest citizens to break American law. None of that matters to the Blame America First crowd.
But it matters to real patriots like me. I don't want people to die, but America must not sacrifice her sovereignty to save foreigners who spit on her laws. If the bleeding hearts really care about "innocent" illegals they should urge them to stay in their homelands and recreate America's system there. Then they'd have the jobs and prosperity they long for. But don't hold your breathe. Why work to create your own wealth when you can take someone else's? Just don't blame me when you're floating in the Rio Grande.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Left-wing and right-wing interests are vying to aid and abet illegal immigration for their own peculiar ends. Many left-wingers are desperate to make America majority non-white. They bizarrely believe that this will make America morally pure by minimizing the power and influence of the only group they recognize as sinful: white Christians. Massive legal and illegal immigration is the vehicle by which their non-white paradise will be realized. This loony, left-wing vision can and should be fought, and fought hard, but it will mostly be a war of words meant to change hearts and minds, not a fight of direct action. For that we must look to the illegal alien supporters on the right.
While left-wingers are vocal in their contempt for America's sovereignty, the anti-patriotism of some on the right is less obvious but it exists. The single reason for right-wing support of illegal immigration can be summed up in two words: cheap labor. Big business wants cheap labor and it lobbies congress to get it for them. This explains almost all of the support for the Senate's bill from Republicans. Big business thinks its profits come from hiring cheap labor and it pays politicians to keep the supply flowing. That's where you and I come in. Direct action to show big business just who's responsible for their profits will send a message not only to the CEOs but also to the politicians on their payroll.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against business. I'm a staunch capitalist, but that doesn't mean denying that business has a patriotic responsibility. In the pursuit of profit CEOs must never lose sight of the independence and welfare of their country. The problem is that many of our business elites have, in their hearts, ceased to be Americans and have become "post-Americans": citizens of the world for whom national loyalty is as outdated as leg warmers and mullets. These post-American captains of industry are vulnerable, though. Shut down the profit train and they'll squeal like the pigs commies say they are. It's time to make them squeal.
On the second weekend after the 4th of July we, the people, must not shop. We must not frequent any store, period. We must not go to the grocery store, the video store, the fashion boutique or the mall. If you told your child he could have his birthday party at MacDonald's that weekend, cancel it. This could be a good lesson to your child about the importance of acting on principle even when it hurts. If you're accustomed to ordering pizza on the weekend, try making your own. Prepare yourself for the protest by figuring out alternate ways of meeting your wants and needs. Like to rent videos? Check them out from the library instead. Burger King is a Friday night ritual at your house? Cook up some hamburger patties a few days ahead of time and then microwave them Friday for homemade "fast" food. Just can't get through the weekend without shopping? Go to garage sales or thrift stores. Garage sales are the quintessential acts of economic liberty and thrift stores are not owned by big business (plus, many of them are run by worthy charities such as crisis pregnancy centers and battered women's shelters). So you see, you can protest the business powers without too much change to your daily life.
But the big boys will change. When they're confronted with empty stores and empty cash registers they will know that it's the American consumer whom they disdain, and not the cheap illegal labor they employ, who delivers them their profits.. And to keep those profits safe the business big boys will be forced to deal with us. They will know that we are the constituency they need to fear, not the illegals and their enablers. And if, out of supreme arrogance, the big boys refuse to get it the first time, we the people will do it again. We are no longer willing to let our country's culture, language, history, heritage and sovereignty be assaulted from all sides. We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!!!!!! God bless America and God bless the people unleashed!!!
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
I work!!!!! I get up every morning at 7 o'clock, get to my job at 8, put in 7 to 8 hours taking care of other people's children, then drive home at 6 and hope my car doesn't die on me on the way. Hundreds of millions of Americans do the same thing every day of the week. We, not foreigners who break into our country like thieves in the night, are the backbone of this nation's economy. Yet we're constantly and deliberately dissed by the supporters of illegals who apparently think that trashing us and aggrandizing IAs establishes their anti-racist and compassion credentials.
I'm tired of all of this and I have an idea on what to do about it. I first wrote about this idea on my now-discontinued blog Planet RA! last year, but yesterday I heard a talk radio host saying much the same thing. My idea for sending a message to the arrogant powers-that-be is a general strike.
I don't mean the usual general strike where you don't go to work. That can come later if the politicians don't listen to us. Instead, I mean an economic strike. I want every true American to not shop in any store for an entire weekend. You read right: no shopping from Friday night to Sunday night. This economic strike will be the first salvo in an ongoing war if we, the people, are not heard and taken seriously. But why, you may ask, should we strike against businesses when the problem is with politicians? Answer: because most, if not all, of our politicians are beholden to business lobbyists who want cheap labor more than air.
The reason so many "conservative" Republicans support the senate's monstrous bill is because business owns them. They have to give business what it wants, the people be damned. And business believes that its profits come from hiring cheap labor. That's where you and I come in. By not buying a thing for one entire weekend we will send business the message that its profits depend on us buying their products and not on their employment of cheap labor. And if business gets that message, the politicians will, too.
Some might think that this is a bad idea because it will hurt Americans. No, it won't. This economic strike is not about destroying the businesses of fellow Americans. This is not a boycott. Rather, it's a short term, dramatic action designed to make the big shots in Washington listen to us. If they don't listen to us, then more prolonged actions will be needed, but those can be decided on if the need arises. Right now, we need an act that everyone can do without depending on activists to organize everything. It doesn't take an organizer to show people how to not shop. Just don't do it. Don't go out to eat; don't go to the grocery store; don't go to the video store; don't go to Walgreens. DON'T SHOP!!!!! When CEOs see empty stores and restaurants and start to hear their profits going down the drain they'll understand who're the legs on which they stand. It's me and it's you, not Jose from Tijuana.
I think a good weekend to do this strike is July 13-15, the second weekend after July 4. That will allow time for this plan to be spread around the country. Also, it'll let people prepare for the protest by doing things like cooking a lot of food up ahead of time so they'll have "fast" food for the protest weekend. People can also plan alternatives to the usual weekend entertainment, like checking out videos from the library instead of renting them from Blockbuster (or better yet, not watching tv at all).
For this protest to work, the American people have to actually do it. It's easy to blow off steam on talk radio or send your senator an e-mail, but to do something that may require sacrifice, however small, seems to be the American people's Achilles' heel. If we don't do this, or something else, the politicians will keep on listening to the special interest groups and ignoring us yokels and rednecks. We MUST do this! We MUST make them hear us! Our great nation's future depends on it.
God Bless America!
Sunday, June 17, 2007
I can't believe that this is my second Father's Day without you. I can't believe you've been gone for over two years. I miss you so much, Daddy. I miss your quiet presence in my life. I miss your sense of humor. I miss your unconditional acceptance of me. I miss the way you used to address me as "my dear" and how you were the only person in the family to call me by my middle name. I miss you and I'm sorry for not telling and showing you how much I loved you when you were alive.
Daddy, our family was horribly dysfunctional and I blamed you for it for much of my life. You dealt with that by retreating into your passion for jazz. As a child, and even into my adulthood, I saw your commiment to your music as utter selfishness. One of my deepest regrets now is that I didn't understand the joy you got from your music or come to appreciate your awesome talent until well into your senior years. By then we had only a few years left to get to know each other.
I understand now, Daddy, how important your music was to you. I know now that it was more than just a talent; it was your calling. Playing jazz was what you were meant to do with your life, and I'm so sorry that you didn't have the family support you needed and deserved. Neither your mother, your wife, nor your children stood by you and applauded you as you pursued your dream of becoming a successful jazz musician. Instead, you were berated, mocked, or just ignored. That must have been so painful to you, Daddy. No wonder you spent so much time away from home.
Daddy, I apologize to you from the bottom of my heart for all the pain I caused you when you were here. I apologize for not trying to understand you sooner. Daddy, I know you knew that I, along with my brother and sister, was brainwashed against you by Mom. It wasn't hard for her to do, since you were gone so much. Children naturally acquire the feelings and attitudes of the person who's with them the most. I think you realized that Daddy, and I've long thought that that was the reason why you didn't try harder to reach out to us kids even after we'd grown up. I think you felt guilty for not being there when we needed you and that the "benign" indifference with which we treated you for so long was deserved.
But it wasn't deserved! Mom may have turned us against you but once we were grown we had a duty to get to know you, to find out your point of view, your feelings, your wants, your needs. In short, we had a duty to recognize that you were a human being as well as our father. Shortly after you died Daddy, Mom told me that you once told her that you wanted to be needed. That broke my heart. When ever I think about it, I cry. I cry because, until that moment, Daddy, I'd never considered your needs. I made my decision to get to know you for myself, not for you. I wanted to see you through my own lens, not Mom's. It never entered my mind that you might need me to see you through YOUR lens, to know you on YOUR terms. When Mom told me what you'd said, I realized that even when I thought I was doing my best toward you I was still treating you like an object. Daddy, I am so, so sorry!
I did get to know you, though, Daddy, and that's a good thing. We didn't have a lot of good years together but I'm so grateful for the ones we had. I'm grateful for the time we spent together when I drove you to your job at the senior citizens' center. We talked a lot on those drives and my eyes were opened to your kindness and decency. I'm grateful I got to see you enjoy your first great-grandchild. I'm grateful I got to appreciate your wonderful musical talent. I'm even grateful for the time we spent together when you were in the hospital fighting cancer. In the end Daddy, I came to realize that, between you and Mom, you were the better person. Your kindness, gentleness, sincerity and, above all, your loving acceptance of people "as is" are qualities I wish I had in the quantity you did. You may not have been the best father, Daddy, but you were an awesome human being. I LOVE YOU!!!!! Happy Father's Day and rest in peace!
Your baby girl,
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
All over the country Venezuelans from all walks of life took to the streets to oppose dictatorship and demand democracy. According to the last news cast I watched, at least one protestor for freedom had been killed. This did not stop the protests, though. Sickened by their country's slide into socialist autocracy, Venezuelans are determined that Hugo Chavez hear their voices. They are loudly speaking truth to his communist power.
The only place there was silence about Chavez's dictatorial act was Hollywood. Never at a loss for words when it comes to trashing America, Tinseltown's communist sympathizing A-listers were tight-lipped on Hugo's latest move. Apparently not wanting to jeapordize his multi-million dollar movie deal with Hugo, Danny Glover couldn't be reached for comment on his friend's actions. Chevy "Socialism works" Chase didn't have time to explain if shutting down opposition media is what he meant by socialism working. Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, and Steven Spielberg were conveniently unavailable. Rosie O'Donnell was holed up in her multi-million dollar home writing nasty blogs against Elizabeth Hasselbeck, and Sean Penn was too busy blaming America for suicide bombings in Iraq to even notice what happened in Venezuela. If only the Maliki government had shut down an oppositon tv station! Then we could hear the Hollywood Left's make-your-flesh-crawl screeching that we know so well.
Hollywood liberals' deafening silence in the face of Chavez's blatant and indefensible act of tyranny actually speaks volumes about their true beliefs and values, and their utter disconnect from reality. Having spent the last six years trying to make a tyrant out of George W. Bush, they've completely lost the ability, even the desire, to recognize and condemn real tyrants. And they think that makes them intellectually brillant, not to mention morally superior. Meanwhile, the truly morally superior folks are marching against dictatorship in the streets of Venezuela. They have my heartfelt support and Hollywood has my heartfelt contempt.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
When it comes to illegal immigration I no longer trust any mainstream politician except for Tom Tancredo. All the rest have sold out America's sovereignty in order to please and appease illegal aliens (IAs) and their pseudo-American enablers and to establish their "anti-racist" credentials, which means way more to them than patriotism. They have, in fact, ceased to be Americans, revealing with every move they make that they are now post-Americans more committed to the world than to the USA. Blame America First is their guiding principle and they follow it religiously, making sure that only America, and never IAs themselves, are faulted for illegal immigration.
The complete and utter contempt these politicians show for the feelings and wishes of the Americans who elected them is staggering. I cannot grasp how they sleep at night. We, the American people, don't want foreign nationals breaking into our country like thieves in the night and then getting rewarded for it, period. We elected certain people to office to stop this invasion and instead they've joined it. Their ears are cocked only toward the anti-American, pro-IA special interest groups and are stone deaf to the American electorate, which has no special interest group looking out for it.
I can only pray that this latest immigration monstrosity will be shot down like the fraud that it is. I, and all real Americans, want America's borders defended, her culture protected, and her laws respected. That doesn't make us racist or heartless; it makes us patriotic, and it makes us sane.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
I was sickened when I saw this. How could those people just mill around while an elderly person was being carjacked and beaten in broad daylight? Sure, they might have feared for their own safety, but the definition of a hero is someone who helps someone else regardless of his own safety. Obviously, there are no heroes left in America anymore. The victim of this brutal crime is among the last of a nearly dead breed: the Greatest Generation that had grit and character and saved this country from fascism only to see, in their waning years, the complete moral collapse of the society they fought so bravely to defend. What a sad way to end their days.
Where have all the heroes gone? Like the old soldiers, they've faded away...or they've been beaten into oblivion by Gen X thugs too lazy and greedy to work for a living. And I fear for the future of America.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
What do I mean by "conspriracy"? Well, I asked myself, who benefits from this tragedy? Who benefits every time some devil in human form goes on a shooting rampage? Liberals, that's who. The only people who gain anything from horrors like the one at Virginia Tech are liberals who want a TOTAL ban on the private ownership of firearms.
This isn't a new idea for me. As I said above, I've had this idea in my mind for a long time. I thought about it when Columbine and other school shootings occurred in the '90's. I thought about it when the Long Island train killer slaughtered helpless passengers in the '80's. I thought about it when a nut job massacred diners in a Luby's restaurtant in Killeen, TX. I thought about it when another nut job shot down innocent customers at a MacDonald's in San Ysidro, CA. And most recently, I thought about it when that monster murdered those sweet Amish school girls in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. Every time a shooting happened I thought, liberals are loving this.
The left-wing gun grabbers know they can't win over the American people by openly declaring their intentions. Instead, they have to rely on a scared, angry, emotionally vulnerable public to
support their "sensible" gun restrictions. And what better way to make the public scared, angry, and emotionally vulnerable than by staging mass shootings at regular intervals? I know that sounds far-fetched, to say the least, but again I ask, who benefits from these killings?
Am I saying that left-wing activists commit these shootings or recruit others to do so? Not exactly, but I'm not not saying that, either. I just know these "random" acts of violence are quite handy for advancing one of liberals' favorite causes. And I know it's very convenient that the shooters almost always end up dead before the police can question them. If the killers were fanatical, gun-hating, liberal activists convinced that shooting dozens of innocent people served a greater good, or just violent criminals recruited by said activists, making sure they ended up dead would make it pretty hard to connect the dots, wouldn't it? Add to that a liberal, anti-gun media that wouldn't even begin to ask such questions, and you've got the perfect storm of a conspiracy.
So if anther "depressed loner" or "scorned lover" opens fire on innocent Americans, stop and think. The crime might not be what it seems. But don't expect the powers that be to tell you that. They've got too much to gain from people dying in the streets.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Rosie O'Donnell--did I spell her last name right? Hell, I don't care!--shouldn't be silenced, of course, no matter how dangerous and hateful she is. No, what Rosie needs is to go head to head with a real patriot, an American who believes that America (and all of Western civilization) is worth defending and who understands that today's true evil is in radical Islam, not George W. Bush.
Some people have suggested that Ann Coulter should go on "The View" to counter Tokyo Rosie. I understand that, but I think that a better opponent for ABC's resident terrorist sympathizer is author and radio talk show host Tammy Bruce.
Why Bruce? Because Bruce is a liberal. Like Rosie she is a pro-choice, feminist lesbian who disagrees with many of President Bush's ideas. Unlike Rosie, Tammy Bruce loves her country and hates its enemies. She is a thowback to the completely forgotten tradition of patriotic, pro-American liberalism. Bruce could tackle Rosie without anyone accusing her of being a hate-mongering conservative. If Coulter went on "The View" everything she said would be dismissed as the ravings of a mad Republican. Not so with Bruce; she has the credibility that Coulter doesn't have.
So I think all true patriots should contact ABC and demand that Tammy Bruce be booked on "The View" for one week. Let a real American give Ms. O'Donnell something she currently doesn't have: a real challenger.