Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Munchkins rejoiced over the death of their enemy. And they were totally unashamed and unapologetic about it, and therein lies the lesson. We should be the same way about the defeat, destruction, and/or death of OUR enemies, from the Reds to the sand Nazis. Every time we blow al-Qaeda operatives to hell we should dance in the streets. Every time Israel scores against Hamas scum we should dance in the streets. When our great troops overthrew the mad tyrant Saddam Husein we should've danced in the streets. When our great troops kicked jihadi ass in Fallujah we should've danced in the streets. When our enemies are destroyed; when our enemies are defeated; when our enemies are scattered before us, WE SHOULD DANCE IN THE STREETS!!!!
Such sentiment is anathema to the PC whipped, left-wing, "peace" crowd. For those people, to achieve victory over our enemies, to kill them and be happy about it, is THE unforgivable sin. And it has nothing to do with hating war. The "peace" crowd is opposed to and appalled by victory, and any celebration thereof, because they are against America not war. This crowd subscribes to a worldview that casts America as uniquely guilty and, consequently, undeserving of the moral right to be right. That's why America winning is so repugnant to them. These people need to be tread under by tanks just like our enemies, because that is exactly what they are.
It's time to kick the "peace" crowd to the curb and follow the example of the adorable Munchkins. They raised their sweet, innocent voices in praise of their enemy's demise and so should we. And this was no quick, painless death they were celebrating. The wicked witch of the east was CRUSHED to death. Yet a joyous cry went out in Munchkinland: Ding! Dong! The witch is dead!
Winning is nothing to be ashamed of. Good SHOULD triumph over evil, and America is the good guy here. We're right; they're wrong. We win; they lose. We kill; they die. And then we CELEBRATE. Just like the Munchkins.
Friday, December 19, 2008
What really riles me about the libtard voters is how they want Obama to be accepted and respected as president when they gave neither acceptance nor respect to Bush. Why, I ask, should I respect Obama? Because he's the president elect? Well, Bush is the president yet both the American and international Left has given him nothing but disdain, to put it mildly, for eight years. But now that their god is about to take office they suddenly believe in respecting the president. Their hypocrisy is shameless. Jerks!
Alan Colmes, of Fox's "Hannity and Colmes" show, is one of the better known loony left hypocrites. Colmes has been just shocked that some conservatives seem eager to tar Obama with scandal in this onging Blagojevich affair. Why, Colmes has whined, don't conservatives give Jesus--oops!--I mean Obama the benefit of the doubt? Why do they seem so eager to drag the Messiah before Pontius Pilate? Colmes is such a liberal diehard that I'm sure he sees no inconsistency in his moaning over the "unfairness" being heaped on li'l ol' Obama. He just doesn't get that conservatives are treating Obama exactly the same way that Colmes and the rest of the Left has treated and continues to treat George W. Bush. In Colmes' universe criticizing and disrespecting the president is ok ONLY when the critics are liberals and the president is conservative/Republican. But when conservatives criticize or disrespect a liberal president well, that's just downright mean. Hey Alan, get a grip!
For the last eight years liberals preached and practiced political and ideological hatred with a vengeance. They trashed George W. Bush mercilessly, gave moral support to our enemies, and slandered our troops from the highest halls of power. In doing this, they showed not the slightest interest in truth, fairness, decorum, or the good of the nation. All they cared about was creating a state of despair that they hoped would propel them back into domestic power. And now that domestic power is theirs they want civility to reign. I don't think so!!!!
Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, once talked about chickens coming home to roost. Well, Obama and his libtard devotees must now contend with the chickens of partisan animosity landing right on their doorstep. So far they've shown little stomach for catching the kind of vitriol they so liberally--pun intended--threw out. It just strengthens my conviction that "liberal" is another name for "coward". If American left-wingers can't run with the big dogs they need to stay under the porch and leave the country in the hands of real men. And while real men might not be Bush and Co., they sure as hell ain't Obama and his wimpy worshippers.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
*I live with my Mom because she had some health problems, but she's now doing great so I'll be moving on soon; this fighting over things like an internet connection is for the birds!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I was sitting in my car at the library, having gotten an unexpected day off from work. I was waiting for the library to open. Other people were standing in front of the library's doors and I heard snippets of their conversation. New York...closed down...attack. What the heck was going on? I turned on my car radio and was stunned by what I heard. I couldn't believe it. As soon as the library opened I made a bee line for the computers and promptly pulled up Yahoo! News. What I'd heard on my car radio was true. America was under attack. Again, I couldn't believe it. I suddenly understood what the Greatest Generation felt like on December 7th, 1941. My generation, and the ones immediately below it, were suddenly, terrifyingly faced with our own Pearl Harbor. Sadly, in the weeks, months and years since September 11, 2001 we have not lived up to the gallantry and heroism of the Pearl Harbor generation.
After Japan's attack on our base in Hawaii the nation responded not only with outrage but with a steely determination to utterly defeat our enemy. Men eagerly enlisted in the armed forces and boys as young as 12 lied about their age to enlist, too. Hollywood actors such as Clark Gable and Jimmy Stewart left their lives of wealth and comfort to become warriors for their native land. Stateside Hollywood celebrities enthusiastically supported the war effort with unapologetically pro-American and anti-enemy movies and documentaries.
Elsewhere on the homefront people bought millions of dollars worth of war bonds to finance America's war machine. Americans endured rationing and grew victory gardens so our fighting men would have the resources they needed to stay strong. Women who never expected to work outside the home took jobs in factories to make the bombs and bullets, tanks and planes, ships and rifles needed for victory. And there was no doubt in anyone's mind that victory was the ONLY option in that war and that America was entitled to it. How different from America today!
Today, we are a nation plagued by fifth columnists convinced of our wickedness and committed to our defeat. Yes, there was an outburst of truly inspiring and heady patriotism immediately after the dastardly deeds on 9/11, but it lasted only a year at most. Even in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy the traitor contigent within our country brazenly showed off. Only a few days after the horror Jeremiah Wright, presidential candidate Barack Obama's pastor, was shouting "God damn America!" from his pulpit. And Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the left-wing magazine The Nation, forbid her daughter to fly Old Glory outside her bedroom window, saying the flag stood for fascism.
Some liberals, to be fair, did join real Americans in a show of patriotism and righteous rage. They proudly flew the flag from their homes and vehicles and clearly understood who the enemy was. But that was just a reaction to the shock of 9/11; it was not an expression of their true selves. As soon as the shock wore off those flag waving progressives quickly snapped out of what, for them, was temporary insanity and reverted to their hate America nature.
The further we've gotten from the events of that horrific day in 2001 the bolder the traitor contigent has become. Ask a progressive whom they hate and 9 out of 10 will say George W. Bush, not Osama ben Laden. The man who orchestrated the slaughter of 3000 of their fellow countrymen barely registers on most liberals' radar screens. But the man who's protected us from Osama and those like him is hated with a virulence and irrationality resembling the Nazis' hatred for the Jews. Just as the Nazis blamed the Jews for every evil under the sun, so leftists blame Bush the same way. It would be hilarious if the haters weren't deadly serious.
To bolster their disconnected-from-reality hatred of Bush and America, the traitor contingent invented the 9/11 conspiracy industry. Now their hatred could be made to seem lucid by claiming that 9/11 was an inside job, perpetrated by a cosmically evil president bent on destruction of the Constitution and world domination. This is something straight out of the Islamofascists' handbook. Again, it would be funny if it weren't so serious. And there's more.
Not content to stew in their hatred for America, liberals are compelled to work for this country's defeat. They expose our tactics against the terrorists in their newspapers, claiming that Americans have a right to know what's going on. They oppose every anti-terror measure proposed or enacted by the Bush administration. And they push for the release of terrorists from Gitmo so they can fight us again. Liberals claim that they're doing this to protect America. They say that if Americans would oppose the Bush administration and release terrorists the world will love us and terrorism will cease. Yeah, right. The real reason liberals have worked tirelessly to undermine the war on terror is because they don't believe America is worth defending.
Progressives are wedded to a pernicious narrative that casts America as uniquely guilty and therefore deserving of any violent blowback that occurs. The terrorists are just reacting to the injustices we've inflicted on them. We have no right to fight back because their violence is really our fault. This is the self-hating reasoning that liberals are captive to. This, not a genuine revulsion against war, is the real motive behind their "anti-war" activism. And this is why our reation to 9/11 pales in comparison to our reaction to Pearl Harbor. There were liberals in America on December 7th, 1941 but they were not corrupted by the treasonous ideology that grips the left today.
As we remember the horror of September 11, 2001 we must understand that we're now fighting two wars, one foreign and one domestic. We must beware of the internal enemy who would serve our nation on a silver platter to our external foes. The fifth columnists may look like us, talk like us, dress like us, and even pray like us, but they are not for us; they are not on our side. On this day of all days we must grasp that unpleasant fact and deal with it. Our nation and our lives depend on it.
God bless America and God bless Victory!
Monday, September 08, 2008
I'm a pro-life woman. I hold this view deeply. I've never participated in any pro-life protest nor have I joined any pro-life organization, but my pro-life belief definitely influences how I vote. In fact, being pro-life was a deciding factor in me switching my allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican party. Millions of other women believe as I do and I resent the way we are dismissed by feminists, liberals, and all others who claim to speak for women.
Feminists always portray anyone who's pro-life as being against women's rights. What, then, must they think of pro-life women? Do they think we're too stupid to know what's in our best interests? Do they think we're benighted relics who'll soon go the way of the dinosaurs? Do they think we're brainwashed by men or religion? Whatever feminists think of pro-life women it's certain they don't respect us, else they wouldn't act like we don't exist. It's as if they believe that ignoring us will invalidate our existence and our beliefs. It won't.
Sarah Palin's pro-life views will definitely be used against her in this election. She'll be condemned as anti-woman even though she's a woman herself. Being a woman won't protect Sarah from attacks from abortion devotees outraged by what they see as gender treason. We distaff pro-lifers are a strong folk, though. We can withstand the vitriol of feminists who babble on about "sisterhood" while rigorously excluding us from their liberals-only sorority. We won't let their hatred stop us. We will continue our struggle against the legalized murder of "inconvenient" life. We will support our Sarah. We will not falter, we will not fail and, come November, we will not lose.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Picking Palin as his running mate deprived McCain of his chief weapon against Obama, namely, his inexperience. True, Palin is not running for president like Obama but given McCain's age the possibility of her becoming president is fairly high, making her inexperience a legitimate issue for the Obama campaign and the nation at large. It's rather incomprehensible to me why the McCain camp would give away it's strongest argument against Obama.
On the upside, Palin is a true conservative and a poster child for traditional family values. Her decision to have her youngest child, who was born with Down's Syndrome, reflects her pro-life commitment. Palin is a proud member of the NRA and favors drilling in ANWR. She opposes same sex marriage and has been willing to buck her party's establishment when necessary. All this will almost certainly help McCain with the Republican party's conservative base, which has been wary of the Arizona senator from the beginning of his campaign. Also, Palin's 70% approval rating as governor could bring some much needed shine to the tarnished Republican brand.
The fact that Palin is a woman will probably also help McCain. The Obama camp, and the MSM which supports it, will have to walk a fine line when criticizing Palin so as not to appear sexist. This is important because many of Hilary Clinton's supporters believe she lost to Obama due to sexism, and they're still angry about it. If Obama comes down too hard on Palin it could confirm the Clintonistas' suspicions and push them into McCain's corner, if only out of spite. So if McCain was crazy to pick Sarah Palin for his VP he might have been crazy like a fox. We'll find out November 4.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
To get to Hammer Folk Woman just click on the link under the "Seane-Anna-gans" title. And so you know, the word Hesperia that's in the post is one of the words I use for Western civilization. It's from the Greek hesperos meaning western. And Hammer Folk? That term is from Charles Martel who was nicknamed The Hammer for the way he ferociously defended France and Christendom from Muslim invaders in the 8th century. The Hammer Folk, then, are those in the West who are as committed to the defense of our civilization against Islamic invasion as Charles Martel was.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The conflict started nearly a week ago when Georgia dispatched troops to try and retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The result was a devastating counterattack from Russia, not South Ossetia. Georgia, crippled by the Russian assault, called for a cease fire which Russia agreed to then promptly violated today. There is speculation that the real reason for the Russian offensive is not to help the South Ossetians but to topple Georgia's pro-American government. And where are the peace activists?
Some might say that Georgia provoked Russia's invasion by trying to retake South Ossetia. I don't buy that. Georgia sent it's military ONLY into land it considers its own, however much the Ossetians might dispute that claim. The Georgians NEVER entered Russia. Therefore the Russians had no right to invade Georgia proper in order to aid South Ossetia. All they had to do was drive the Georgians out of the province; they had no just cause to set one toe in Georgia itself. And then the Russians brazenly violated the cease fire by encroaching on the Georgian city of Gori. Again I ask, where are the peace activists?
Where are those people who vehemently opposed the Iraq War before even one US soldier had entered that country? Where are the people who loudly and sanctimoniously proclaimed their revulsion to war? Where are the people who raucously displayed their virulent hatred of George W. Bush? Why aren't they now marching in the streets against Russia and Putin?
By invading Georgia Russia has committed a brazen act of imperialism. It's trying to redominate the countries it lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For years Russia has been outraged by Georgia's closeness to the West, especially America, and it's efforts to join NATO. The current fighting is Russia's attempt to punish Georgia for the crime of building democracy and acting like the sovereign nation that it is.
So, Russia invades an independent country in order to destroy its democracy and sovereignty and the peace activists say nothing. America invades an independent country in order to topple a murderous tyrant and the peaceniks have a tantrum. There's something wrong with that.
As I said above, there is speculation that Russia's goal is to overthrow Georgia's pro-American president--and send a warning to the US. I suspect that objective is one reason why the notoriously anti-American peaceniks aren't objecting to Russia's aggression. Any violence is ok with them if it's targeted, however indirectly, against America. Another possible reason for the silence is Russia's control over Europe's energy supply. Western Europe, particularly Germany and Italy, gets much of its gas and oil from Russia. Ticking off the slavic bear might have unpleasant consequences for Europeans this winter. So the shameful silence from the peace lovers is a combination of anti-Americanism and cowardly self-interest.
I'm praying to God that He will deliver tiny Georgia from the Russian giant. I'm not praying for peace. I'm convinced that the so-called struggle for peace is in truth warfare by other means. And since that's the case I pray for deliverance; I pray for victory. Victory for Georgia! And God damn the peace lovers.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
When Barack Obama took his I'm-the-Messiah tour through Europe he gave a speech before the Victory Column in Berlin. Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck derided Obama's choice of venue because, he felt, it was too closely associated with the Nazis and their battle cry of "Sieg heil!", or "Hail victory!". While I share Beck's disdain for Obama's rock star jaunt through the Old Continent, I totally disagree with his discomfort with the Victory Column location and with the cry "Hail victory!"
Yes, I get the Nazi thing. And no, I'm not a Nazi. But neither am I someone who blindly rejects things simply because of their untoward association. The hard truth is that the Nazis were right to yell, "Seig heil!". And we'd be just as right to yell it, too.
What is the alternative to "Hail victory!"? What should we cry instead? Hail defeat? Hail slavery--or humiliation, occupation, or genocide--which usually follows defeat? The truth is that victory is good. It is good for nations to win. When conflict befalls a nation victory should be sought with all the urgency, resolution and singlemindness of a wolf pursuing a wounded deer. Defeat should never be an option.
Unfortunately, defeat is not only an option, it is an eagerly sought objective for a dangerously large segment of the Western world, including America. Gripped by an incomprehensible self-hatred and a corrupt "anti-racism" that insists non-Whites can do no wrong, Western progressives have sided with their civilization's worst enemy. From pop stars openly hoping for a Muslim victory to an Israeli PM declaring his country was "tired of winning", progressives purvey the poison of defeatism from every available venue.
To these woefully misguided people pursuing victory, or simply naming the enemy, is "warmongering". Peace, they think, can be had only by ensuring the West's defeat, thereby showing the enemy our good intentions. If we show the foe that we mean him no harm, the theory goes, he'll abandon his aggression and become a reasonable, well-behaved member of the international community. Progressives--and irrational pacifists--followed this theory during Hitler's rise to power, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, and now during the War on Terror. That this theory has been a monumentally tragic failure in practice doesn't deter each new generation of progressives from having an almost religious devotion to it.
Working for the West's defeat is not a noble show of peacemaking. It is, rather, a crass display of cowardice, useful idiocy, and betrayal of the West's highest principles. Peace and the survival of Western civilization can be secured only by resolutely and totally crushing the enemy. The West needs another leader who will bluntly tell us, "Victory at all cost...for without victory there is no survival". Without victory there is no survival.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Forget sky high gas prices. Forget the refusal of Dems to let America drill for her own oil. Forget the war on terrorism. Forget mounting foreclosures. No, the one thing America must do is apologize for something that ended over 100 years ago. Without that mea culpa the country can't go on! Gimme a break!
Let me tell you atonement crazy, guilt ridden, libtard weirdos something. I wasn't a slave. My parents weren't slaves. My grandparents weren't slaves. My great-grandparents weren't slaves. My great-great-grandparents weren't slaves. To get to anyone in my family who MIGHT have been a slave you have to go back FIVE generations. I DON'T NEED YOUR F--KING APOLOGY!!!!
Representatives, Senators, get on with the nation's business, and that business is NOT apologizing for slavery. America was NOT the only country in the history of mankind to practice slavery, and Blacks are NOT the only people to ever be held as slaves. Slavery is a HUMAN sin, not a sin only of Whites, Christians, and/or Americans. If Blacks really cared about getting an apology for slavery, if it really meant something to them, why aren't they demanding one from the Arabs, who traded in African slaves for over a thousand years? Too bad no one in the House had the cajones to bring up that bit of inconvenient history.
This whole apologizing-for-slavery con is just that, a con, a way to stoke the fire of White guilt which is one of the engines driving the left's lust for big government. Making and keeping Whites feeling guilty works for the left because such Whites become so obsessed with assuaging their guilt that they forget about everything else. They'll support, excuse, ignore, justify, rationalize, and/or vote for ANYTHING in order to do penance for their (imagined) racial sins. What's right for the country takes a back seat to their desperate need to prove they're good Whites.
Well, I don't need any White person proving anything to me. If you treat me right you're kosher in my book. If you don't, you're an a**hole. Even if you're Black. Now go and do what's right for America...and put your racial manners textbook in the trash where it belongs.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
He Ventured Forth To Bring Light To The World
And it came to pass, in the eight year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness. The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical White person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.
When he was twelve years old they found him in the temple in the City of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and said among themselves: "Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and minds to the audacity of hope?"
In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.
And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth--for the first time--to bring light unto all the world.
He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples of the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harbored the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.
And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms held aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.
From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it. And lo, in Mesopotamia a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armor that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of light.
And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.
From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowd of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered "Hosana" and waved palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.
In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and the Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.
As word spread througout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids, Obamacons and McCainiacs, Cameroonians and Blairites.
And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell, and the great warming was over. The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for. And there were other wonderful signs.
In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interests rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again. Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.
And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of the New York Times.
Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel, vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length. But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.
And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the frankfurters and blessed them and told the disciples to feed the multitudes. And when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.
Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the seventh day he walked across the Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor, Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One. And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole host of the heavenly choir, cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and singing: "Yes, We Can."
Friday, July 18, 2008
What I liked about Andrew Klavan was that he echoed an issue that weighs on my own heart; an issue that I feel too many conservatives still don't fully grasp the significance of. Klavan said that conservatives have lost the culture and that we have no one to blame but ourselves. He said the Left dominates the entertainment industry--publishing as well as Hollywood--because conservatives surrendered it to them without a fight. Oh, we complain loudly and righteously about the corruption coming out of Hollyweird, but we don't counter it with anything better. And we are often the people watching the stuff. Glenn Beck concurred, pointing out that the most popular tv show among professedly Christian women is "Desperate Housewives".
Klavan, who's worked with some big names in Hollywood, wrote his novel to try and change things. He said conservatives must start creating high quality art and entertainment that winsomely conveys our point of view. That's something I've been saying for a while; that's why I feel vindicated. I was beginning to think I was alone in my opinon. Most other conservatives are dogmatically committed to politics as the sole means of advancing our cause. They refuse to acknowledge that while we were winning elections and running the country the culture became more and more liberal. That's because liberals control the culture. Klavan understands that and is working to beat the liberals at their own game. I'm cheering for him, and I thank him for vindicating me.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
I was shocked and deeply saddened when I saw the headline on my computer screen. I thought Mr. Snow was winning his battle with cancer. The last time I saw him on tv he was upbeat and confident. He looked tired and older than his 53 years but he was cheerful and full of life. Now, only a few months later, he is gone.
I'm sure the fanatic, heartless, left-wing blogosphere will savage Mr. Snow in death as they did him in life. Snow was the target of some viscious posts on the Daily Kos and other liberal websites. His cancer diagnosis was celebrated and liberal bloggers gleefully wished for his death. And he wasn't the only conservative to be so treated by the "compassionate" left. It's time for decent people on all sides to reject such rabid hatred and remember that, no matter how strongly we may disagree with those on the other side they, too, are human beings whose suffering is no cause for celebration.
Robert Anthony "Tony" Snow was a bold, unapologetic conservative who served his country and his profession well. When faced with the worst that life can give you he responded with the best. He was always upbeat, always positive, always optimistic. And he will be sorely missed. Robert Anthony "Tony" Snow: June 1, 1955-July 12, 2008. Rest in peace and goodbye.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
And what's this idea that endorsing faith-based social programs is "talking down" to Blacks? Aren't Blacks supposed to be some of the most religious people in America? Why, then, would they have a kneejerk objection to church-based charities receiving some government funding? I mean, I can understand how some people might think that government money might have too many strings attached and could, consequently, hinder the Church's job of promoting the Gospel. That's a legitimate concern. But to say that Obama is talking down to Blacks by praising Bush's faith-based initiatives is downright delusional.
Jackson, the illegitimate daddy, was also upset with Obama "lecturing" Blacks on morality. Blacks faced more serious problems, Jackson opined, than paternal irresponsibility. Black men who father children and then walk away are just a symptom of the real problems facing Blacks, Jackson believes. This is a classic liberal view. Minorities behaving badly are not responsible for their actions but, rather, are victims of unjust "structures" forced on them by our racist, capitalist society. This view doesn't just provide an easy out for Jackson personally; it is the guiding principle of the entire leftist, civil rights establishment. And Jackson's attack on Obama shows just how intolerant of dissent that establishment is.
I am no Obama supporter. I'm a conservative who believes that Obama is a strident liberal now trying to pass himself off as a moderate. I believe his Father's Day speech on the need for paternal responsibility was part of that strategy. Still, Jackson's attack on Obama was terribly unfair. There IS an urgent need for more paternal responsibility in the Black community, which has an appalling illegitimacy rate. And liberal orthodoxy has no solution for that. Jackson and others like him should abandon their liberalism and return to preaching Biblical morality and values. Then a moral renewal could engulf the Black community and solve its most intractable problems. But then Jesse Jackson and gang would be out of a job, so we know that won't happen. Oh well, it was nice to dream about, if only for a second. And the abandon Black babies continue to cry.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The ruling is the result of the Court reviewing Washington D.C.'s extreme handgun law which made it impossible for D.C. citizens to own a handgun legally. As is the case with all gun control laws, D.C.'s criminals had no problem getting handguns or any other kind of firearms. The capital has, and has had for a long time, one of the highest murder rates in the country. In fact, the lawsuit that ultimately came before the Court was filed by D.C. resident Dick Heller after the city denied his application to keep a handgun in his home for protection. "I'm thrilled I am now able to defend myself and my household in my home," Heller exclaimed upon hearing the ruling. Amen brother!
While affirming an individual's right to bear arms this ruling doesn't mean that all restrictions on gun ownership are now unconstitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, stated that their decision in no way "cast[s] doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, or [on] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms [into] sensitive places such as schools or government buildings." I suspect gun control advocates won't find that reassurring. Too bad.
Today the Supreme Court got one right, which is an all-too-rare occurrence. And it not only got the law right, it also got a worldview right. By striking down D.C's handgun ban and affirming the people's right to keep arms for personal protection, the Court was unmistakeably repudiating the loony left view that inanimate objects, e.g. guns, and not people cause crime. As mentioned above, Washington D.C.'s handgun ban did nothing to reduce crime. That's because crime originates in the hearts and minds of human beings, not in the objects they use to carry it out.
Blaming lifeless, will-less, tools for the anti-social ends to which they are put is the mother of all cop outs. Liberals cling to it, I believe, because it allows them to retain their utopian view of human nature. Being largely unChristian, liberals deny man's innate capacity for evil and instead blame evil on a corrupt environment. If that environment includes guns, this thinking goes, violent crime is the result. Remove the gun and, supposedly, the urge to commit crime vanishes as well. Crazy, I know. And five of the nine Supreme Court Justices know that, too. Thank God, and long live the Second Amendment!
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Finally, some common sense from a politician!
In this video Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) gives the House a hilarious but spot on tongue lashing over its plan to force Americans to replace all of our incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent light bulbs. Mercury containing fluorescent light bulbs made in China, the country that gave us contaminated pet food and dangerous toys.
Rep. Poe does a terrific job exposing the utter stupidity of Congress' light bulb switching plan. And check out Tom Tancredo in the background. His reaction alone is worth the 5 minutes it takes to watch this video. So pull up a chair, relax, and watch in amazement as, for once, common sense comes to Washington.
(And when you're done here check out the miniature belly dancer on my blog Hammer Folk Woman. See what kind of "family values" THEY teach their kids.)
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
One of the ads was premised on a shameless distortion of John McCain's statement about America being in Iraq for 100 years. In the ad a hip young mother has her cute baby boy, Alex, on her lap. She talks lovingly about the baby for a minute then gets gravely serious when she tells McCain that he "can't have [Alex]" to send to Iraq. Come on!
McCain has explained what he meant by being in Iraq for 100 years. He was talking about America having a military presence there, similar to the ones we have in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. He was NOT talking about fighting in Iraq for a 100 years. MoveOn.org and the rest of the left knows that, yet they continue to engage in rank dishonesty in order to smear McCain and instill fear of Republicans in American voters. As bad as the Alex ad was, though, the second one was worse.
Ad number two was a stark revelation of how liberals really view Republicans/conservatives. In this ad the left's hatred toward the right was laid bare for all to see. The ad consisted of a series of people telling why they wanted to vote Republican. One was a soldier saying he wanted to vote Republican so he could stay in Iraq forever. Another was a toy gun wielding little boy who said he wanted to vote Republican so he could invade Iran. But the really offensive parts of this ad were the pastor and the white guy.
The pastor, sounding quite wicked, said he wanted to vote Republican because women had no right to make decisions about their own lives, ever. Of course, this was a reference to abortion. This part of the ad was premised on the notion that only Republicans are pro-life; it totally ignored the existence of pro-life Democrats. Yet there ARE pro-life Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid being the most prominent example. But according to MoveOn.org's ad, being pro-life is a misogynist, Republican position. This reveals the progressives' disturbing attitude toward pro-life Dems: they shouldn't exist. What exactly should be done with pro-life Dems the ad doesn't say, but by portraying support for the unborn as a strictly Republican cause it's pretty clear that progressives don't want them in the party. Despite Reid's election as leader of Senate Democrats I suspect that pro-life Dems will soon feel a cold wind blowing. Can you say purge?
The white guy was next. What he had to say was the most offensive to me personally. The white guy said he wanted to vote Republican because he didn't want a cure for AIDS or breast cancer. Why not? Because the victims of those diseases were "just gays and women". I almost hit the tv when I heard that. My mother and grandmother both had breast cancer. Granny died after a heroic five year battle; Mama, thankfully, is a survivor. For some sanctimonious, far-left jerk to say that, because I vote Republican, I don't want a cure for the disease that killed my beloved grandmother is obscene beyond words.
This politicizing of compassion is one of the left's most despicable characteristics, and I'm not falling for it. I want a cure for breast cancer, but not because it primarily strikes women. I want a cure for AIDS, but not because it primarily strikes gays. Rather, I want a cure for these and all other deadly diseases because they strike people, and cause horrible suffering to my fellow man. Why should I want a cure for breast cancer more urgently than I want a cure for abdominal cancer, which killed my father? Is my father's death less tragic, less of a loss, because he was a man? Is heart disease, the number one killer in America, less worthy of a cure than AIDS simply because its victims aren't overwhelmingly gay? I think not.
The left-wing loons who made the ads described above just showed how much contempt for truth and the intelligence of the American people they really have. That's all their ads accomplished. John McCain has no intention of waging war in Iraq for 100 years; pro-lifers come in both Democrat and Republican flavors, and the desire to see mankind freed from the clutches of deadly illnesses transcends ideology. Americans know this. That many "progressives" apparently don't is frightening indeed. God help us.
Friday, June 06, 2008
D-Day was the day America committed her finest young men to the task of defeating her enemy in Europe once and for all.
D-Day was the day the American eagle chose to continue to be an eagle and not a sitting duck.
D-Day was the day America realized that you defeat your enemies by fighting them with grim determination, not by deserting the battlefield in the middle of the fight.
D-Day was and remains the day that epitomizes everything that today's liberals despise: patriotism, steely resolve, and copious bravery.
June 6, 2008 marks the 64th anniversary of the day that was a baptism of fire for hundreds of thousands of American and other Allied troops and secured victory in Europe. Please take the time to remember those young men whose courage and sacrifice on that momentous day ensured the preservation of our free and precious way of life. Please join me in saying a heartfelt "Thank you!" to all those fine young men. God bless them and God bless America.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
The sad and frightening truth is that Michael Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Brian de Palma, Michael Moore, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill and their ilk have infected every corner of American society. From the pulpit, in films, in classrooms, and in our streets these vermin systematically tear down our pride in our nation and ourselves and seek to infect us with a debilitating self-hatred. They rush to believe and disseminate the worst about America. They spit on our vets and military recruiters; they call our soldiers baby killers and portray them as raping, murdering thugs. They burn Old Glory but proudly carry the flags of our enemies through our streets. They teach our children that our president is another Hitler. They endlessly berate America for slavery but never praise her for ending it. Indeed, they won't recognize any of this nation's positive accomplishments , yet they have the audacity to call themselves patriots!
These left-wing malcontents are no patriots. They are fifth columnists embarked on a campaign of psychological sabotage meant to destroy our will to fight and thereby ensure victory for our enemies. They are ideological termites eating America from within. They are a political autoimmune disease attacking the very "body" that protects them. And they MUST BE STOPPED!!!!
When you join our armed forces you recite an oath that recognizes the existence of enemies "foreign and domestic". America has domestic enemies, and they are no less deadly than her foreign enemies. Consequently, our internal foes should meet the same end as our external ones. The time for debate has passed. The liberal fifth columnists won't be dissuaded by words; they are too entrenched and too dedicated for persuasion to work. A national cleansing has to take place. It's time for the radicals, for the bombers and the shooters and the kidnappers and the killers, to get a taste of their own medicine.
Don't frag an officer like the "peace" activists advised; rather, frag a "peace" activist. Frag a fifth columnist. Frag a traitor. Wait until after the election, so there won't be any negative blowback for the patriotic candidate, then take your pick. Personally, I think Michael Pfleger would be a good one to start with. But that's just my opinion. Whoever is first, I'll serenade his and all other "cleansings" with the immortal words of Queen: And another one gone, and another one gone, and another one bites the dust! Oh yeah!!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
First, there was his infamous 20 year friendship with America hater Jeremiah Wright. Then came an endorsement from the New Black Panther Party, followed by the revelation of his schmoozing with unrepentant, left-wing terrorist Bill Ayers. Later, the Palestinian terror group Hamas voiced it's support for an Obama presidency. And now a pro-Obama phone bank in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. You read that right. In almost every primary a group of Palestinians has called Americans urging them to vote for the big O. What's Obama to do?
Of course, no candidate can control who will endorse him. I'm sure there are violent extremists of one sort or another phone banking for Hillary Clinton and John McCain, too. Still, Obama's track record of attracting disagreeable people to his cause should raise some eyebrows, don't cha think? I mean, the fact that people who hate and kill Americans believe they have something to gain from an Obama victory is telling, is it not? Just what do they know about the senator from Illinois that we don't? Talk about things that make you go, hmmmmm.
Friday, May 16, 2008
I'm sick of this! From gay marriage to illegal immigration we, the American people, are being spat on by judges and/or elected officials who think their job is to impose their "enlightened" views on us. The issue really isn't gay marriage, illegal immigration, or other things. The issue is the perversion of the American way of government by liberals who are committed only to their agenda, not to the political rules or moral heritage of our Republic.
Throughout America's history there have been people who wanted to change things. The movements against slavery and for women's suffrage are prime examples of that. And that's fine. If you want to change something in this country you're perfectly free to try, but there are rules to follow. If you want to repeal or add a law you lobby the legislature, and if you don't get your way you don't then get the courts to impose your change for you. That, however, has been the strategy of liberals, on both the state and federal levels, ever since Roe v. Wade. And it's kept this country in a state of constant ideological conflict.
Take Roe v. Wade for instance. It was the unconstitutional way the law was imposed, and not just revulsion against abortion, that has fanned the flames of the abortion controversy. If the fight over abortion was returned to the states like capital punishment was it would be a much less bitter and divisive issue. It's the same with gay marriage. In state after state gay marriage activists have failed to persuade most people to their point of view. But rather than redouble their efforts to change the public's mind they opt for the Left's usual tactic in the face of defeat: using the courts to impose their agenda.
It's amazing to me that liberals don't understand how much ill will this strategy has earned them. Many people who might be willing to accept gay marriage if it's voted in fairly are turned off by the courts shoving it, or anything else, down their throats. Liberals don't care. They are committed to "enlightening" us lunch pail folks, from the top down if need be. It's for our own good, don't cha know. This paternalistic attitude is one reason why I oppose liberalism.
I believe in persuading people to a point of view. I believe the legislature makes laws and the judiciary interprets them. I believe the Constitution is a "living" document only when it's amended the way the Founding Fathers intended. I DON'T believe in perverting our system in order to impose laws, policies, ideas, or values on the people when the people have already declared they don't want them. Sorry, liberals, but not everyone thinks your views are progressive; in fact, many of us find them downright corrupt, and forcing them on us after we've said "No!" only alienates us more. So, the California Supreme Court's decision may be a hollow victory for gays and their allies. The people of California have seen their will treated with total contempt. When they speak again it won't be pretty for the Left. I can't wait.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
I've long felt that this quote from Rose Kennedy was an elegant testimony to the profound power, for good or ill, of motherhood. Please, mothers, use it for good. Happy Mothers' Day to all the moms out there who are shaping eternity for the rest of us.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Universal Health Care Explained
by Terry Leasure, aka Roadie
"There's no such thing as a free lunch." One of many old sayings that have proven to be very accurate. This concept can be applied to many things in life, but none quite as important as life itself and, to a lesser extent, health care. As I watch the presidential candidates try to out-liberal each other on the "health care crisis" I can do little else than shake my head in disgust.
First of all, there is no "health care crisis". Yeah, I said it. Is health care expensive? Yes. Does that constitute a crisis? No. Cars are expensive. College is expensive. Coffee, cable, and blue jeans are expensive, but we don't refer to them as crises. A health care crisis is when there are no doctors to be found. Or when hospitals shut down. Ironically, this will be the result of the liberals' plan for universal health care. Let me explain.
Health care is a service, an important service, but a service nonetheless. It could also be considered a product. For this reason I can use the following analogy. Think of our health care system as the fast food business. Because we have the power to eat at McDonald's or Wendy's, Burger King has to make sure they make a better burger and offer better service than the other two. Arby's has to make sure it offers something even better by virtue of the Beef & Cheddar. Then Subway steps in and offers an even better deal than any of the others. This is called "competition", the end result of which is constantly improving quality, constantly expanding options, and competitive prices for the consumer.
Now, what if the government stepped in and offered free cheeseburgers for everyone? At first, everyone would rejoice. Then we'd notice a few changes. First, we'd notice McDonald's stores closing down, followed by Wendy's and Arby's. After all, no one is buying their products any more. Then we would notice a persistence drop in the quality of our government issued burgers. After all, why does the government need to worry about quality control when they are the only game in town? Menu options? Think again. Extra mayo? Not a chance. Fries? Don't even think about it.
You see, now the people we rely on to make our burgers are government employees. You know, like the friendly folks down at the DMV or the IRS. As long as they don't stick out in the crowd their job is safe. Now that the government has taken the profit out of the food business why bother with ten years of cheeseburger college just to punch a clock for Uncle Sam? Where's the incentive? Who wants to be a burger chef now? Certainly not the cream of the culinary crop. In fact, few people jump at the chance to do the job at all now that the money is taken out of the equation. This leads to burger shortages due to lack of production. Yet the demand increases due to the fact that the burgers are free now, and everyone wants one whether they need it or not.
To get your "free" burger you are put on a waiting list. Six weeks later, you have the cheeseburger you were promised. It is issued to you at a government facility and it resembles exactly what you would think a government issued cheeseburger would look like. If they forget the cheese just fill out the appropriate forms and someone will review your case in six to eight weeks.
Oh, you don't like cheeseburgers? You wanted a Big Mac, or a hoagie? Too bad.
Remember folks, it's one thing to sacrifice the quality and expediency of a cheeseburger for its cost, but what about your child's heart surgery? Do you want free health care or good health care for your child? You can't have both.
Bravo and amen, Roadie!
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Dr. Benjamin Carson was born in Detroit, Michigan in 1951, when in-your-face racism still stalked America. His father left the family when Carson was young so he and his brother Curtis were raised by their mother, Sonya. Sonya sometimes worked three jobs to support her sons. Rebellious, hot tempered Benjamin was on his way to becoming the stereotypical Black male failure until his mother stepped in.
Seeing the bleak future facing her troubled son, Mama Carson limited tv time for both Benjamin and Curtis and required them to read and write a report on two library books every week. The boys had to turn in the reports to their mother. That was the beginning of Dr. Carson's salvation. For years he'd hated and done poorly in school. Then one day his teacher asked his class a question about rocks. Carson was the only child who knew the answer, an answer he'd learned from the books his mom had made him read.
Suddenly, Benjamin Carson realized that he COULD LEARN! And with that realization came a thirst for knowledge that propelled him through middle school, high school, and university and eventually landed him in that operating room separating those little twins. And what really makes this story amazing is that Benjamin's mother, who'd required him and his brother to turn in book reports to her, had only a third grade education and COULD NOT READ. The book reports had been for her sons' benefit, not hers. By making them read books and write about them Sonya Carson was making her boys learn AND making them love to learn. She was also teaching them the discipline they'd need to be successful in all of life, not just school.
Dr. Carson, who survived a bout with cancer in the '90's, continues to distinguish himself in medicine and has also become a successful speaker and author. He especially seeks to inspire young people to achieve their intellectual potential and develop high character. To that end Dr. Carson created a "creed" which he calls Think Big. Follow this "creed" and you stand a good chance of being a successful and moral human being. Here it is*:
T is for Talent. God has given you intellectual talent. Develop it and think of the careers where it will be useful.
H is for Honesty. Live an honest life and you won't have to worry about skeletons coming out of your closet at the worst time.
I is for Insight. Learn from the experience of people who've already gone where you want to go.
N is for Nice. Be nice to others and they will be nice to you.
K is for Knowledge. Knowledge makes you a valuable and needed person whom others will pay to keep.
B is for Books. Books, not television, are where you get knowledge.
I is for In-Depth Learning. Learn for the sake of learning, not just to impress people.
G is for God. Never get too big for your Creator.
This is the stuff Rev. Wright should be teaching in his church, not that the-government-is-out-to-get-you junk. All of us has a choice. We can choose to Think Big and become an inspirational success like Dr. Benjamin Carson, or we can think small and become a loud mouth high priest of the cult of grievance like Rev. Wright. I choose to Think Big. I choose to be an anti-Wright. What's your choice?
*This is a paraphrase from the info on the website http://www.achievement.org/.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The first reason Medved offered for Obama's comfort with Wright is that he shares the man's crackpot worldview and is just hiding it. Obama's left-wing voting record lends credence to this speculation.
The second reason Medved offered for Obama's committment to Rev. Wright and his church is that it was a shrewd political move. Having been raised out of state Obama needed some political street cred to make it in Illinois and Chicago which could then propel him to national success. Joining Rev. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ was the way to get that street cred. Obama knew about Wright's beliefs but calculated that they wouldn't be a problem because the country would never find out about them. He was wrong.
The third reason Medved offered for Obama missing his pastor's radicalism is that he was just too stupid to notice it.
There you have it folks. Crackpot, politician, or fool. The most plausible reasons for how Obama could attend a church for 20 years and not know about the pastor's off the chart radical theology. None of these reasons bode well for the senator from Illinois. Reasons one and three, if true, would end Obama's candidacy immediately. Patriotic and clear thinking Americans of all races won't vote for a racist, America hating radical. They won't vote for a fool, either. Reason two, though, could be the most problematic for Obama because it undermines his campaign's theme of change. If Obama sat in Rev. Wright's church just to advance himself politically then he's no different from virtually every other politician. His strong denounciation of Wright, coming only after his rhetoric began to significantly hurt his campaign, also marks Obama as just another politician willing to do anything to get elected. So much for change.
Personally, I think reasons one and three both explain Obama's closeness with Rev. Wright and TUCC. Political expediency is the main reason but I suspect there was and still is more than a little agreement between Obama and his spiritual mentor. You can't know someone for 20 years and consider him family without being comfortable with his whole persona. Yes you can disagree with your family and friends, but a fundamental disagreement on issuses like race and politics often means people go their separate ways or maintain only a distant relationship. If you overlook your relatives' or friends' beliefs it's probably because you find them to be within the realm of acceptability. I believe Obama found and finds Rev. Wright's beliefs to be within the realm of acceptability, and that's why Obama is NOT in the realm of my acceptability. I, and all of America, deserves better.
Monday, April 28, 2008
I saw on The Glenn Beck Show a few days ago that some restaurants are starting to hurt from the rising cost of food and fuel. Fewer people are eating out for purely economic reasons; this is forcing restaurants to try things like serving less toast, serving smaller pieces of cake, and charging for formerly free extras like extra packets of ketchup. If this keeps up restaurants will take a hit to their bottom line more painful than one weekend protest can inflict. So even if people aren't avoiding restaurants specifically to protest illegal immigration they're still avoiding them and that could be a very good thing for us.
And here's another idea to register your disgust with illegal immigration and our government's failure to do anything about it. Cinco de Mayo is on a Monday this year. If you have children send them to school in patriotic clothes. Deck them out in the stars and stripes. Make it known that you believe in American nationalism, not Mexican nationalism in America. A couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the Absolut ad showing the southwest as part of Mexico again, it was revealed that nearly 60% of Mexican nationals believe that the American southwest belongs to Mexico and that they are entitled to go there illegally. For them the border doesn't exist. But it does exist for me and for you. And we need to let the powers that be know that.
Patriotic Americans must get over our fear of defending our nation. We must get over our fear of being called racist, xenophobic, and/or fascist. Defending our country's sovereignty is none of that. Boycotting restaurants for one weekend and upholding American nationalism over Mexican nationalism is our declaration that America and her borders, language, and culture are worth defending and preserving. This is OUR country; come this weekend we need to act like it.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
It seems that Obama's former pastor is as big a hypocrite as Jimmy Swaggart. While preaching Black liberation theology and denouncing "middle classism", the dear reverend is quite happy to retire to a tony house in an overwhelmingly White gated community. I guess he couldn't find a Black neighborhood good enough for him. Apparently, it's ok to live with rich White people so long as you trash them in your sermons, thereby showing that your heart is still with the homies in da 'hood.
Ok, I'll be fair to Rev. Wright. This house isn't technically his; it's being built for him by his church, Trinity United Church of Christ. But still, this is the man whose "gospel" is that America is irredeemably racist and Blacks suffer great oppression here. Indeed, all Black folk's problems are the fault of Whites. Rev. Wright preaches this belief in spite of the glaring fact that his own life contradicts it. But why let a little thing like truth get in the way of the lucrative trade of race hustling? Obama's pastor will enjoy every inch of his home's 10,000 square feet. He'll enjoy every stroke on the golf course with his new, pale neighbors. And I'm sure he'll enjoy that $10 million dollar line of credit. Ahhhhh! Oppression never felt so good!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Since we just marked five years in Iraq I thought it would be appropriate to address the American Soldier.
To the Soldier:
Whatever reason inspired you to serve our country I just want to say, "Thank you". Thank you for being brave, for voluteering to serve our country. Thank you to your family whose sacrifices are what make it possibe for you to serve. Thank you for cherishing freedom and protecting me and those I love.
I can not begin to imagine what it must be like to be away from your family and friends, or what life must be like when you leave all that you know and love behind. I do not know you personally but I admire you for what you do and I am so very thankful.
To the family whose child did not return home, my heart breaks for you and I am forever grateful for the sacrifice you made. I will not forget them or you. To the mothers, fathers, wives, husbands, and children who serve our country, I can not imagine what it must be like to be apart from those you hold so dear to your heart. Please return home safely.
I salute you and I thank you.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Dems have been trying hard to get religion ever since they lost the presidential election in 2004. Before then, the Democratic party had been staunchly secular. It was the party of choice for most unchurched voters, polls showed, as it supported a host of liberal causes rooted in a rejection of traditional, Judeo-Christian values. The defeat in '04, attributed to the overwhelming support "values voters" gave Republicans, forced the Dems to rediscover their collective soul. God became acceptable to them again...to a point.
While wanting to make inroads into the (conservative) faith community Democrats, especially liberal ones, didn't want to get too touchy feely with the divine. Rather than actually changing their fundamentally secular worldview Dems sought to convince the faithful that it was compatible with their God-centered one. And to a large extent they've succeeded. In the '06 midterm elections the Democrats received a larger than expected share of the White, evangelical vote and they stand to do the same in '08. The trick has been to get people of faith to "broaden" their concern from their usual hot button issues, i.e. abortion or gay marriage, to include such things as protecting the environment and caring for the poor.
I find this strategy insulting. It assumes that religious conservatives were backward, one dimensional voters until shown the way by enlightened liberals. Of course, this is garbage. Conservative people of faith have been concerned about a wide range of issues, especially helping the poor, for many years; they just haven't been inclined to view government as the solution. That's why the issues they actually voted on were rather narrowly defined. It had nothing to do with being narrow minded, ignorant, or uncaring. Religious conservatives don't need to be "enlightened" by anyone.
Still, the Dems' success in convincing a portion of the conservative faithful to rethink their political allegiance can't be denied, and tonight's forum is an attempt to solidify those gains. Will it work? Will Hillary and Obama be successful? I'm not sure. As disappointed and even disillusioned many people of faith are with the Republicans they also know that the Democrats haven't exactly been their friends. Hillary and Obama will have to walk a fine line trying to woo a lot of still skeptical "values voters" while reassuring their secular base they haven't gotten too cozy with the faithful. Watching the Dems trying to stay on that tightrope during the entire election season is going to be very funny.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
First of all, if Roe v. Wade is overturned it would NOT mean the end of legal abortion. It would only mean that abortion would become a state issue, decided by the states as they see fit. Considering that legal abortion has been the norm for over a generation I seriously doubt if any state would outlaw it entirely. I do see at least some states putting more severe restrictions on the practice, though.
But even if abortion was outlawed in all fifty states it wouldn't mean the end of women's rights. The idea that it would is one of the pro-choice movement's most successful weapons against pro-lifers. When we march against Roe or against abortion in general we are routinely, even hysterically, accused of marching against women's rights. The fact that women are the backbone of the pro-life movement doesn't deter the accusation. But women's rights are bigger than abortion nonetheless. The accusation is false, and I'll tell you why.
The simple truth is that abortion has been legal in times and places where the rights of women were few or nonexistent. In colonial America, for instance, abortion was legal so long as it was performed before "quickening", the time when the mother could feel her baby move. The practice was common but this didn't translate into a high legal or social status for women. Society defined marriage and motherhood as their primary roles in life (anathema to feminists). They were not educated as much as men, if at all, and when married became legal dependents of their husbands. They had no legal right to their own children who went to the father in the event of a divorce. Clearly, the rights of women in colonial America left much to be desired in spite of legal abortion. And the same is true elsewhere in the world.
The Japanese legalized abortion in 1948, a full 25 years before it was legalized in America. Few feminists, however, would consider post-war Japan a hotbed of women's liberation. The same is true of India, which legalized prenatal infanticide one year after the US did. Far from protecting women, legal abortion is used to eliminate them. As many as 50 million females are reported to be missing from India's population, a holocaust due almost entirely to abortion. Rather than going through pregnancy only to end up with a worthless girl, many Indian women use ultrasound to find out their babies' sex and then abort their daughters.
A similar situation arose in China after that country instituted it's one-child policy. The practice got so bad that the Chinese government was forced to amend the policy and allow parents whose first child was a daughter to legally try for another one, hopefully a boy. But this only created another problem. Chinese women who wanted two children began aborting their male babies because the birth of a daughter ensured them the right to have another child. At first glance the abortion of boys in favor of girls seems like a pro-female act, but it's not. The reason Chinese women whose first child is female are allowed to try for another one is because sons are considered vital to the family whereas daughters are not. If the first child is a boy there's no reason to try for another one. Abortion fails to protect women again.
There are other examples I could site but I think you get the picture. Legal abortion does NOTHING to protect, enhance, or promote women's rights. Things such as the right to vote, own land, get custody of children, enter the professions, or go to school are not dependent on the "right" to abortion. The early American feminists were committed to suffrage, not abortion. Many of them, including Susan B. Anthony, were staunchly against the practice. Indeed, they saw the outlawing of abortion, which began in America in the mid 19th century, as progressive reform.
We pro-lifers, then, shouldn't be intimidated by the charge that we're against women's rights. It's a baseless accusation which reveals the ignorance of those who make it. Rather, we should hold our heads up high and continue in the long and proud tradition of fighting for the weakest among us, no matter what Joy Behar says.
Friday, April 04, 2008
I propose that on the first weekend in May, Cinco de Mayo weekend, all patriotic Americans should "boycott" every restaurant in this country. Why do that? To send a message to businesses, which usually support illegal immigration, that their profits don't come from the illegal labor they employ but from the American worker/consumer buying their products. Nothing angers me more than hearing some libtard politician, activist, or economist claiming that illegal aliens are the backbone of America's economy. An anti-illegal immigration bill was recently defeated in Idaho because of economic fears.
Whenever I hear talk like that I feel personally insulted, as should you. Illegals make up barely 5% of the American workforce; the other 95% is made up of you and me. WE are the backbone of this nation's economic might. WE are the engine pulling this nation's economic train. Yet our contribution, our sweat and effort, is callously ignored by businesses--and politicians and activists--more concerned with profits and image than truth. If you listen to their propaganda you'd swear that illegal aliens are the only people in America who work. Well, if they're going to ignore our labor I say we ignore their cash registers.
Many industries choose to rely heavily on illegal labor but the restaurant industry is one of the most visible and easily targeted. Everyone knows where restaurants are and who's working there. In many eateries the illegal labor is blatanly obvious. If we, the totally dissed American worker/consumer, stop spending our money on them their income will come to a screeching halt. Facing a whole weekend of empty tables and dimished receipts will force restaurants and other businesses to realize just who's buttering their bread. Hopefully, that will translate to a very different stance on the illegal immigration problem.
Participating in this collective action won't be hard. All you'll have to do is not eat out for three days (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). If you think this'll be a problem for you start planning for it now. For instance, cook up and freeze some extra food now so you'll have "fast" food then. If you've scheduled little Johnny's birthday party at McDonalds for that weekend cancel it. Get creative and whip up an awesome party for him at home. Not only will this probably save you some money but Johnny will get a great lesson in the need to sacrifice for what you believe in.
It's not enough to whine and complain about illegal immigration. We have to DO something about it. We have to put our money where our mouths are. This "boycott" is a simple thing but it could have a big effect if enough people do it. I'm writing this post to get the word out to my friends in the blogosphere. Hopefully, you will then spread the word to your friends, who'll spread the word to their friends, till it's gone around the country. Those of you who are members of forums and/or Yahoo! groups can get the word out there, too. I've already done that. But however we spread the word it must be spread. This won't work unless we all work together. Are you with me?
Monday, March 31, 2008
I can't believe this is still on YouTube! I guess YT has more balls than LiveLeak. Anyway, I knew I had to get this video on my blogs before YT also caves to the threats of the peaceful Muslims.
I send my shout out to Geert Wilders, the maker of this film. He's one Dutchman who has the immense courage to tell it like it is. May God bless him and keep him!
The second part of Geert Wilders courageous film. I wish it was in one piece like the version on www.antimullah.com is, but at least we can still see it. I just hope we will learn from it.
God bless Geert Wilders!
God save the Netherlands!
God save America!
God save the West!
Hey friends! On this date 44 years ago the world was made a little brighter by the addition of yours truly to its population. I almost arrived in a car as my Mom decided to wait a tad bit too long before hightailing it to the hospital. But, to everyone's relief, I made my appearance in the appropriate place and weighed in at (approximately) 6.5 lbs, my Mom's youngest but biggest child. I wowed the nursery with my good looks and every nurse on the floor wanted to name me. Unfortunately, my Mom put her brand of choice on me and I've had to make do with nicknames and contend with constant mispronounciations and misspellings ever since. Well, I guess Mom did her best, and she did shower me with all the necessities of life so I gotta love her...but not my name!
I've got friends here in the blogosphere but, as you can see from my previous post, not everyone is thrilled that I exist. To all those who are perturbed by my presence I say, tough shit! I'm here, I'm conservative, and I'm gonna keep on telling it like it is. Get used to it! If you don't like what I have to say take your sorry liberal self somewhere else. And if you try to cross me watch out. I'm slow to anger but if you rile me up I'll KICK YOUR ASS!!!!
Have a nice day! :)
The name my Mom gave me and the one I hate isn't Seane-Anna. Seane-Anna is my blog name I created from my nickname and a mispronounciation of my first name, the one my Mom gave me. I love my blog moniker; I hate the brand on my birth certificate. Sorry Mom!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
That's the exact quote friends, complete with all eleven--count 'em 11!--exclamation points. Clearly the author of this message, who didn't leave his/her/its name, had some strong feelings against anyone standing up to jihad. I strongly suspect he/she/it was either a Muslim or a liberal. Both groups vehemently oppose any criticism of or opposition to Islam. But why? Why does opposing Mohammed's religion usually elicit nasty rebukes like the one above?
Every since 9/11 I've been surprised, frightened, disappointed, and frusrated by the cowardice and even collaboration of so many Americans and Westerners in the face of violent Islam. After an intial outburst of patriotism and righteous anger immediately following September 11, most Americans have now retreated back into denial, self-condemnation, and self-doubt. As many as 30 per cent of us prefer to believe that the government had something to do with 9/11 rather than accept the fact that the attack was an act of war against us by Islam.
Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist, bigoted, and/or xenophobic. No matter what atrocities Muslim terrorists commit we're told by our cultural elites and opinion makers that Islam is a religion of peace. We're told that poverty, not religion, is the cause of Muslim terrorism despite the glaring fact that the teeming masses of non-Muslim poor aren't strapping bombs to themselves. We see the archbishop of Canterbury caving to Sharia law in Britain and universities in America doing the same. We see all this and still tell ourselves that everthing is ok.
We see Pim Fortuyn assassinated by an animal rights activists angry over Fortuyn's "scapegoating" of Muslims and we convince ourselves it happened because we aren't tolerant enough of Islam. We see Theo van Gogh, another Dutch critic of Islam, sliced and diced on the streets of Amersterdam and we draw the same delusional conclusion. Never mind that van Gogh also criticized Christianity and Judaism but wasn't murdered by a Christian or a Jew. We see other critics of Islam such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Salman Rushdie, and Kurt Westergaard going into hiding or living under armed guard to protect themselves from peaceful Muslims. We see "blasphemous" cartoons or a toy named Mohammed inciting more violent protests from "moderate" Muslims than the murder, by Muslims, of non-Muslim civilians.
We see all of the above and more, yet continue to tell ourselves that all is well. Muslims really don't mean us any harm and the ones that might can be easily appeased. We just have to show them more tolerance, let them build more mosques, let them continue immigrating to our lands, let them proselytize, change our foreign policy to reflect their grievances and, above all, ditch our racist notion of free speech which allows people to criticize Islam without penalty. If we do all this the sun will always shine, God will be in His heaven, and everything will be right with the world. Yeah, right.
We are commiting cultural suicide in the name of peace and tolerance. Our corrupt "anti-racism" and unprincipled pacifism have convinced us that we are the problem, that our white, Western, Christian civilization is the fount from which all racism, imperialism, colonialism and war springs. Islam, on the other hand, is deemed benign simply because its followers are overwhelmingly non-Western and non-white. Consequently, the demise of our civilization through Islamification is seen not only as a good thing but the hope of humanity. Sound farfetched? Maybe, but I can think of no other explanation that fits the fact of the West's spineless capitulation to violent Islam. If anyone has a better explanation I'd like to hear it, but I don't think you do.