Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!

I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.

Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.

If you can't believe this, you're not alone.

Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.

Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.

No Palin Candidacy

Sarah Palin announced a few days ago that she's not running for president this time around. Some of her fans were, I heard, a bit disappointed but I think Ms. Palin called this one right.

I like Sarah Palin a lot. I admire her unapologetic Christian faith. I admire her intrepidity in the face of withering leftist criticism. I agree with her positions on most of the major issues (pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-amnesty, commitment to fiscal responsibility, etc.). I believe she's much, much smarter than her detractors give her credit for. Still, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president of the United States. Having strong faith, intelligence, courage, and principled, conservative stands on the issues doesn't necessarily add up to the experience necessary to govern the world's only superpower.

Sarah Palin can be of great help to the Republican party and the conservative movement, but not as a candidate. She can, I feel, better serve the cause behind the scenes acting as a "king maker", if you will; rallying the base, and lending a folksy, down-to-earth dimension to critiquing the Obama administration. Apparently, Ms. Palin sees things the same way and made the right decision for the Republican party, conservatism, her family, and herself.

Good on you, Sarah.

What Do You Mean, Banned?

I guess this must be Banned Books Week. When I went to Half Price Bookstore yesterday the Banned Books display was up. The usual books were there, like Huckleberry Finn and Brave New World, plus a several books that were unfamiliar to me. And there was Harry Potter, among the latest and most popular "banned" books. The one book I didn't see on the display was the Bible, the most banned book in history. Interesting omission, which got me to thinking. Do we use the term "banned" too loosely and too selectively? I think we do.

Off and on over the years I've heard about pitch battles between concerned parents and school officials over what kind of books should be available to public school children. Such battles usually involved shrill accusations of book banning and censorship, especially if the parents were conservative. But the charge of censorship never rang true to me.

If a book is removed from, say, an elementary school library but is still available in junior and senior high school libraries, public libraries, and bookstores, then that book really isn't banned. Removing a book from a certain audience but not from society as a whole isn't censorship, and if it is then we must ask why all the efforts to remove the Bible and other religious expression from the entire public square are rarely condemned as acts of censorship. It seems to me that the cry of "Book banning!" or "Censorship!" often doesn't reflect a principled commitment to free expression but is, rather, a weapon in the Left's war to discredit and extinguish conservative ideas and values. If the public can be convinced that conservatives are intolerant censors the easier it will be to, irony of ironies, censor them!

I don't think that everyone on the Left plays the censorship card as a means to suppress conservatives. I believe there are good people on both sides of the political aisle who sincerely oppose censorship and support freedom of expression as matters of principle. Such people need to lead the way in the fight to preserve our speech and press liberties. Then, freedom of expression will be defended for all and we won't waste time and effort fighting for "banned" books you can get at any library or bookstore.

If you can check it out or buy it without fear of the law, then it's not banned. Let's save Banned Books week for material that can get you jailed, or worse, if you have it. You know, like the Bible.

If A Republican Said This...

...he'd be pilloried, condemned, denounced, and maybe even burned in effigy. But if a liberal says it, he gets a pass. What is "it"? Take a look.

While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.

Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.

Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.

Remember What Happened

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks which struck America on September 11, 2001. Those attacks--two on the World Trade Center, one on the Pentagon, and one aimed for the White House that crashed in Pennsylvania--were the worst attacks on Americans ever. More of our national brethren were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. It was a monumental tragedy.

Look at the picture above. It's the tragically iconic "Falling Man" photo. This is what 9/11 is all about. This is what happened that day. Human beings, whose only crime was to go to work, forced to make a tortuous choice: burn to death, or jump from windows more than 1000 feet above ground. Two hundred chose to jump. Over 2000 others at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burned to death, suffocated, or were pulverized by falling debris. And in Pennsylvania, 40 American souls perished when their plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed after the passengers heroically tried to take it back from the terrorist filth who'd hijacked it. This is what happened on 9/11. This is what we must remember.

The attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the hijacking of Flight 93 were NOT the work of the US government. They weren't a so-called Black Ops operation. They weren't engineered by Jews. The World Trade Center towers weren't blown up from the inside. The Pentagon wasn't hit by a missile. Islamic terrorists committed the atrocities of 9/11. Muslims, acting on their religion's command to wage jihad, or holy war, on "infidels", hijacked passenger planes and used them as bombs to kill thousands of innocent people. That is what happened on 9/11. That is what we must remember.

The attacks on 9/11 were, together, an act of war, not a crime. The proper response to them was--and remains--to wage war on the jihadis who perpetrated the atrocity and remain committed to our destruction to this day. That is what we must remember.

9/11 wasn't just about horror, tragedy, and death. It was a day of heroism, patriotism, and extraordinary courage. It was a day when Americans were united like we'd never been since World War II. On that day, people risked their lives to save strangers, and gave their lives to save their country from further assault. On that day, and in the days after, it didn't matter what race, religion, class, or gender you were. On that day, there were no Republicans or Democrats, no conservatives or liberals. On 9/11 we were all Americans. Period. That, too, is what we must remember.

Look at the picture above once again. Look at it and let it stir up in you all the emotions, in all their intensity, that you felt that awful day. Feel the rage, fear, horror, shock, and grief, but also feel the courage, the patriotism, the brotherhood, the can-do spirit, the determination to save and be saved. Feel the best of America that burst forth that day, and make a resolution to live that spirit in your every day life as much as you can. For it was that spirit, more than our buildings, that the terrorists really wanted to destroy.

So, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, let us remember our lost loved ones and the brave first responders who sacrificed their lives so others could live. And let us resolve that while our buildings may have been broken, our hearts never will be. The terrorists will never win because the American spirit will never be quenched. That is what 9/11 is all about. That is what we must remember.

God bless America.

Waste Not, Want Not

I did something at work a couple of days ago that got me to thinking. What did I do? I got some paper out of my supervisor's trash can, took it home and used it for printer paper. How did I come to do that, and why?

I was helping my supervisor on her side of the warehouse. On the way to put up some product, I walked past her trash can and noticed some paper in there. I knew that paper was clean because I'd just seen it on my super's desk a few minutes before, so I reached in and got it. The paper was printed on only one side so it immediately occurred to me that I could use it for my own printing needs. And that's what I did. When I got home that day I put the paper in my printer and used it to print out a few pictures from the net. Although the paper I "recycled" from my job seemed to be of a lesser weight than what I buy, it worked fine. And that got me to thinking, what about all the paper that I missed? What should be done about wasting all that perfectly usable "trash"?

Paper isn't the only thing that's wasted at my job. I work in a warehouse so we use lots of wooden pallets. Sometimes pieces of these pallets break off and, of course, we throw them away. What a waste. I'm not sure what those pieces of wood could be used for but I'm sure they're good for something. Maybe they could be used by people who do woodworking as a hobby. I bet those pallet slats could be turned into very useful and beautiful things by some talented hobbyists. Sadly, we'll never get to know because the broken pallet slats are thrown away.

When I saw that paper in my supervisor's trash can, I thought about ALL the unnecessary waste that's piling up all over the warehouse, our country, and even the world. I wondered what can be done about it, and I think the answer lies in changing our understanding of what "resources" are and rediscovering the Biblical concept of stewardship.

I suspect most Americans and other wealthy Westerners think of resources as only the raw materials taken from nature. We don't think of the things made from those raw materials as resources, but they are. A piece of paper printed on only one side is a resource; it can be used again. A wood slat broken off a pallet is a resource; it can be used again. The cardboard rolls that packing tape is wrapped around are resources; they can be used for other purposes once the tape is gone. We've got to change the way we think about resources. Using something for its stated purpose is not the same thing as using it up. It makes no sense to toss out things that are totally reusable.

We live in economically and environmentally challenging times. Everything that we can save and reuse means less money going out of our personal, business, and national pockets and less damaging mining of the earth for raw materials. That's what Biblical stewardship is, wisely using and REusing the resources God has given us. The sage old maxim, "Waste not, want not", is a succinct expression of Biblical stewardship. We are suffering economically because we abandoned that principle and instead tried to build lasting wealth and economic security on extravagant consumption. It didn't work. So why not give Scripture's advice another try? Our forefathers did, and they created the richest nation the world has ever seen. Let's be their true heirs and start once again to diligently apply the Godly principles that undergirded their success. After all, if we "waste not", what do we have to lose?

If She Were Muslim

In recent weeks, Republican presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann has come under fire from the Left for her beliefs about homosexuality and the role of women in marriage. Liberals are very upset that Ms. Bachmann accepts the Bible's teaching that homosexuality is a sin and that wives should be submissive to their husbands. They are fearful that the Tea Party favorite might try to impose her beliefs on the whole country if she should become president. So liberals have been asking Michelle Bachmann to explain herself.

I think this is very unfair.

I understand that to liberals, and even some conservatives, Michelle Bachmann's beliefs are threatening. But why are they threatening? Is it the nature of the beliefs themselves that liberals are fearful of, or is it the fact that they are rooted in Christianity that has liberals so upset? I believe it's the latter. If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim things would be very different.

Muslim societies have a history of treating gays and women in ways that liberals claim to find abhorrent. However, since leftists have made Muslims collectively a member of the "coalition of the oppressed", their criticism of Mohammed's followers is restrained. Liberals portray peaceful Christian opponents of gay marriage as rabid bigots yet turn a blind eye to the actual execution of gays by Muslim regimes. Liberals eagerly blame the Bible for sexism, yet are deafeningly silent when Muslims commit honor killings, imprison rape victims, or practice a casual misogyny. It is, liberals seem to believe, their multiculturalist duty to defend or rationalize ALL actions by Muslims.

If Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim leftists would never question her beliefs. They would never ask her to explain herself. They would never imply that President Bachmann would impose her beliefs on others, and they would never nervously speculate that her presidency could violate the separation of church and state. No, if Michelle Bachmann were a Muslim, liberals would be defending her moral disapproval of homosexuality and her pro-submission view of marriage as valid parts of her culture. Any criticism of her would be denounced as Islamophobic fearmongering.

But Michelle Bachmann is not a Muslim, she's a Christian, so it's open season on her. She can be questioned, and her beliefs probed, however extensively liberals choose, and not one will yell, "Christophobe!".

I don't know if I'll vote for Michelle Bachmann in the primary, but she's earned my respect for helping, albeit unwittingly, to expose the hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry of the Left. Ms. Bachmann has a right to her beliefs. She has a right to act in the public square according to her religiously informed conscience. If a Muslim doing that doesn't terrify liberals, a Christian doing that shouldn't scare them, either. After all, that's only fair. And why would liberals be scared of a little fairness?

Mr. Buffet, Why Don't You Just Pay More?

He's at it again.

On Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor it was revealed that billionaire businessman Warren Buffet has written an op/ed piece once again calling for rich Americans to be taxed more. It's been asked before and I'll ask it again. If Warren Buffet wants Uncle Sam to have more of his money, why doesn't he just give it to him? There's nothing preventing Buffet from giving the government as much of his personal wealth as he chooses. So why does he persist in his campaign for more governmental confiscation of private income?

I think Mr. Buffet wants people to think his campaign is about a patriotic desire to bring America back to fiscal solvency. Yes, the US has an ASTRONOMICAL debt problem, but taxing the rich more won't solve it. There simply aren't enough of them and they don't have the amount of money needed to put even a dent in America's deficit. Warren Buffet is smart enough to know that and that brings us to what I believe is the second reason for Buffet's tax-the-rich campaign: "social justice".

The Left's economic creed is that the rich are avoiding income taxes and the government must rectify this injustice by seizing the rich's assets and redistributing them to the less fortunate. Sounds nice, but it's just not true. Wealthy Americans not only pay income taxes, they bear the brunt of the federal tax burden, with the top 1% paying about 40% of federal income taxes. The rich are paying they're fair share, contrary to the class warfare rhetoric of the Left. If Buffet and others like him really want to increase revenue for the federal government while also promoting tax "fairness", they should go after the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes. It's those people, NOT the rich, who are the real federal income tax freeloaders.

Imagine the revenue that would pour into Uncle Sam's coffers if the freeloading half of Americans was made to pay up. And wouldn't it be the height of fairness to make millions of people who take from the system contribute to the system? Warren Buffet would do his country a better service by supporting legislation taking away the lucky ones' free ride. After all, why should I, a lower-income person, have my money taken from me in order to support those who add nothing to the pot? Where's the social justice in that?

I think Warren Buffet suffers from "embarrassment of riches" syndrome. I believe he feels tremendous guilt not only for being successful but for enjoying his success. The mere thought of government confiscating his money assuages that guilt. Furthermore, I believe Buffet has projected his guilt onto his fellow rich, which is why he's pushing so hard for higher taxes on all the wealthy rather than simply asking for more charitable giving. Freely giving one's money away doesn't stigmatize it the way having it seized like contraband does. And being stigmatized is part of the rich's punishment for being rich.

So why doesn't Warren Buffet just give the government more, maybe even all, of his money in order to help the country? Because helping the country isn't really the endgame here. The endgame is to convince himself that he really is a good person in spite of enjoying all the perks his filthy lucre can buy. And I think that's a very sad goal, indeed.

I'm a Palinista But...

...I don't think Sarah should run for president.

In fact, if Sarah Palin ran for president I think it would be a disaster not only for her personally and professionally, but also for the Republican party. Why would I say that if I like Sarah Palin? Because, as much as I like her, I don't think Mrs. Palin has the experience to be president. Yes, I know that Sarah Palin has held executive elective office twice, once as mayor and once as governor. I know that in those positions she did reasonably well. However, I just don't think that being the mayor of a small town or the governor of a sparsely populated state provides anyone with the experience needed to lead a nation, especially a super power. And that's especially true when you bail out of your elected duties just halfway in, as Sarah Palin did when she quit the governorship of Alaska for reasons I still don't understand.

Sarah Palin may have had genuinely good reasons for abdicating her job as Alaska's chief executive, but stepping down still doesn't look good on her resume. It makes one legitimately ask if Sarah Palin lacks not only the experience but also the fortitude to govern. Being president of the United States can be an extraordinarily difficult job, as the current occupant of the White House can attest. Regaredless of their political leanings, we need someone at the helm who's not going to pick up their marbles and go home when the going gets tough. I don't believe Sarah Palin is that person, at least not now.

I'm not saying Sarah Palin doesn't have inner strength. She and her family have been the objects of rabid hatred and vicious personal attacks ever since John McCain chose her as his running mate in the '08 presidential elections. For the most part, Mrs. Palin has handled those attacks with a grace that stems only from a strength born of deep faith. However, having the strength to endure and overcome personal trials doesn't necessarily mean Sarah Palin has the strength needed to persevere in the high pressure cauldron of national leadership.

I am a conservative socially and fiscally. Sarah Palin is a conservative socially and fiscally. I agree with most of Sarah Palin's positions on the vital issues facing America today. I'd love to see her as president. However, I just don't believe she's ready now. Maybe, after she's had time to gain more political experience, she'll be ready to run for the nation's highest office in 2016. Until then, I think Sarah Palin's most effective role is as a "kingmaker" for conservative/Republican candidates. I believe that she can energize the conservative base the way few others can, and that can only be a positive for conservative candidates. So, for the foreseeable future, Sarah Palin should focus her energies there. Who knows? By being a kingmaker for others, she could end up becoming more powerful than she would've ever been sitting in the White House.

So Glad She Adopted White*

Look at the picture to the left. Look at the beaming mother and her precious newborn baby. That's actress Denise Richards, Charlie Sheen's ex, and her newly adopted daughter, Eloise Joni.

When I first heard that Ms. Richards had adopted a child I was happy for her but, I must admit, happiness wasn't the first thing that came to my mind. My first thought was, "Oh no! Another white celeb adopting a black baby!". But, as you can see from the picture, Denise Richards' adopted daughter is white and I'm greatly relieved.

Don't misunderstand me. I don't oppose transracial adoption; in fact, I support it and have thought of doing it myself. I firmly believe it's better for a child to have parents of a different race than no parents at all. However, over the last few years it seems that white celebrities adopting black children has become a trendy "politico-fashion" statement. That's what I find troubling. But it wasn't always like this.

White celebrities have been adopting black children for a long time. Steven Spielberg, Tom Cruise, and Michelle Pfeiffer did it almost 20 years ago, before it was cool. Hugh Jackman and his wife also quietly adopted a black son. No one made much fuss about those transracial adoptions, but now it's become this trendy, politically correct thing.

Angelina Jolie, with her high profile life and multiracial family, seems to be the one who sparked, however unwittingly, the transformation of cross racial adoption from loving act to social statement. After she adopted her daughter, Zahara, from Ethiopia, it seemed everybody in Hollywood suddenly had to have a black baby, especially from Africa. Madonna got two kids from Malawi. Mary Louise Parker adopted a daughter from an undisclosed African nation. Last year Sandra Bullock adopted an African-American son and this year Mariska Hargitay brought home an African-American baby girl, making her the newest member of the I've-got-a-black-baby club. Everybody was adopting black. So I think I can be forgiven for assuming that Denise Richards was trying to keep up with the Joneses. I'm glad I was wrong.

I believe that Angelina Jolie, Madonna, and the other "black baby moms" sincerely love their black children. I don't believe, though, that love was the only motive they had for adopting them. I believe they were trying to make a statement. The fact that Denise Richards' new daughter is a white, American baby makes it easier to believe she adopted SOLELY out of love and not some PC need to prove her racial tolerance or assuage guilt over being "privileged". And love, not making some socio-political statement, is the only reason anyone should have for adopting a child. So good for Denise Richards, and her little Eloise Joni. May they enjoy all the happiness and blessings that life has to give.

*At least, little Eloise Joni looks white.

Food For Thought

Question: What do you get when you kill all the white people?

Answer: Haiti

Learn a little history and think about it.

I'm An American!

Tomorrow is July 4th, the birthday of the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Rather than write about my feelings for this land, I've decided to treat all of you to a musical tribute to my awesome America, courtesy of the rock band Stuck Mojo. Below is the video to their song, "I'm American". This is hard rockin', in-yo'-face, patriotic rock, the kind of music I wish epitomized the rock world. Sadly, it doesn't, but with an example like Stuck Mojo maybe up and coming rockers will realize that you don't have to be an Obama loving, blame-America-first, liberal to authentically rock out. So grab your flag, pull up a chair, and get ready to rock your love for the good ol' USA and your gratitude to God for making you American. You're an American!

I'm American
by Stuck Mojo

"You'll Never Make A Difference If You Quit"

Hi everyone! It's been a long time since I've put a new post on SB. I did a D-Day post in June, and that's the only post I ended up doing that month. I just wasn't in the mood for blogging, and to a certain extent, I'm still not.

When I started this blog, which began as PoorGrrl Zone--'memba that name?--it was going to be a personal diary, over time it turned into my outlet for political commentary. Gradually, I came to feel that blogging about my opinions and beliefs could "make a difference"; that became my primary motive for blogging. But also over time, I came to feel that I was failing.

I'm a conservative socially and fiscally, with emphasis on the social part. I'm a traditionalist. I believe in the traditional, Bible-based, moral and familial values that have undergirded Western civilization for over 2000 years. I believe in them because I believe they come from God, are intrinsically good because of their source, and are the reason that America rose to greatness. I believe that the collapse of the moral order will be the end of the nation. Now, I'm also dedicated to fiscal conservatism. We must get our financial house in order, for debt can and will destroy us as surely as moral decay. Still, if I had to choose which battle to fight first, it would be for the restoration and preservation of the "old paths". And that's why I feel increasingly alone.

As I look out across this land of mind, I see my people moving further and further away from the values that made America great. Promiscuity, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, abortion, casual divorce, unbelief, greed, shirking personal responsibility, these things, and more, have all become accepted as normal. Nobody bats a proverbial eye at them; in fact, it's now virtually required to defend them lest you be guilty of "bigotry" or "intolerance". Even people who call themselves conservative are defending these things. Clearly, I and other socially conservative bloggers are NOT making a difference. I'd become discouraged enough to seriously consider quitting blogging.

I recently talked to Robert, a cyber friend who blogs at Wise Conservatism, about my discouragement and he told me something that changed my perspective. Robert, whose outlook is more positive than mine, acknowledged that we conservatives still have a lot of work to do, but he told me that, "You'll never make a difference if you quit." Did you get that? You'll never make a difference if you quit. The truth of it really hit me, and gave me both the resolve and the hope to keep blogging. Maybe I won't make the difference that I'd wanted. Maybe I'll only reach a handful of people with the truth and necessity of (social) conservatism. But maybe that handful will go on to reach hundreds, or thousands, or millions more. But it won't happen if I quit, which is the one thing the Left wants all conservatives to do. So I will keep blogging; I will keep posting. I may make only a small difference but, to paraphrase Robert, if I quit I won't make a difference at all.

Thank you, Robert.

D-Day Remembered

I apologize for writing on D-Day a day late. In truth, there's not much I can say about that herculean invasion, launched against monumental odds, which marked the beginning of the end of the "thousand year Reich". Others have written and/or spoken much more eloquently than I ever could on the glory, heroism, and sacrifice of the largest amphibious invasion in the history of the world. Still, I want to offer at least a small remembrance of the day that ensured I would live in a free nation. Just today I happen to find on Yahoo! a few color pictures--apparently first published in Life magazine--of events before, during, and after D-Day. I find these photos to be both fascinating and moving. There are only five* of them and they don't depict any D-Day scenes most of us are familiar with, which is why I like them. So, a day late, I humbly submit these color pictures of D-Day, the day that the Reich's fate was sealed and freedom was secured. As you peruse them I hope you stand in awe of the superhuman courage of the Allied (mostly American) troops and then ask God to help us be worthy of their sacrifice.

D-Day in Color



May, 1944: American Army engineers eating lunch atop a box of ammunition stockpiled for the invasion.



French couple welcoming American troops with wine.



French civilians having a friendly photo op with American troops.



Captured German soldiers.



American Army chaplain giving Last Rites to a wounded soldier. Behind the glory and the heroism, this is what D-Day was really about.


*There were actually six pictures on Yahoo! but the sixth one had no people in it, only a destroyed building, so I chose not to post it.

Quotable Quotes: In Memoriam

"Only two people have ever volunteered to die for you. One is Jesus Christ, and the other is the American Soldier." Unknown.

Happy Memorial Day
God bless the Fallen

In Memoriam

The following is the official video to Michael Jackson's song "Gone to Soon", a tribute to Ryan White, the young 1980's AIDS patient who helped to humanize those infected with HIV and who passed away in 1990. This video may seem inappropriate for a Memorial Day post but when I was listening to the song with my Mom it occurred to me that those who have fallen in battle are also "gone too soon", especially to their families. As photos of Ryan White appear in the video, the loved ones of the Fallen will see their son or daughter, father or mother, husband or wife, brother or sister and they will grieve for the one who was taken from them too soon. So this video is quite appropriate to post on Memorial Day as we, as a nation, remember all our great defenders who are "gone too soon". God bless them all.


Gone Too Soon
In Memory of the Fallen

A Small Taste Of Obamacare

I'm opposed to Obamacare but I always kind of thought it wouldn't impinge on me personally for a few years. I know, that's a naive thought but I did think it...until today. Today I got what I think is a small taste of Obamacare.

Today at work we learned that some changes are taking place in our company health benefits. To put it simply, our health insurance is getting more expensive. Our premiums are going up, new surcharges will apply under certain conditions and, worst of all to me, the co-pay system has been abolished. Instead, we will have to pay the contract cost for doctor's visits and procedures until our deductible is paid. After that we will pay 20% of the cost of visits and procedures. Like I said, our health care is getting more expensive. Didn't Obama promise Americans just the opposite?

The costly changes that my company is making to its health benefits is an example of the unintended(?) consequences of government intervention in health care and the free market. Two Obamacare policies appear to be driving my company's health benefits shake up. Those policies are the requirements for health insurance companies to provide free preventative care and to let parents carry their children on their health plans until those children are 26 years old (and there are no restrictions on these adult kids; they can be married and have kids of their own and still be eligible for their parents' health coverage).

On the surface these policies seem compassionate. What's wrong with free preventative care? What's wrong with letting parents keep their twenty-something kids on their health insurance plan? What's wrong is that somebody has to pay for these "reforms". "Free" preventative care is free only to the patient; it still costs money to the doctors, clinics, and hospitals who deliver that care, and that costs money to the insurance company. Likewise, forcing insurers to take on droves of new customers will raise their cost of doing business. How will insurance companies pay for these new expenses? By passing them onto consumers in the form of higher premiums, new charges, and/or reduced services. Nothing very compassionate about that.

The Founding Fathers were right not to make social welfare the responsibility of the federal government. In almost every instance, government "help" winds up creating more problems than it solves. In the case of Obamacare, federal "compassion" means that my co-workers and I will end up a bit poorer and possibly a bit less healthy. And all because Barak Obama cares.

I really wish he didn't.

Celebrate Good Times, Come On!

I was just over at my friend Angel's blog and saw the wonderful photographs she'd posted of Americans celebrating the death of archterrorist and American killer Osama bin Laden. I was really moved by those pictures and decided to post a few here. Go to Angel's blog, Woman Honor Thyself, to see the rest of the pictures, I'm sure you'll be as moved as I was. Here are Americans doing what patriots do when their nation defeats its enemy: CELEBRATE!!!!



And the children shall lead...



Raise the flag up to the sky! How many of them can we make die?!



Long may she wave!



USA! USA!



Victory!



What getting bin Laden was all about.

The Rat Is Dead!

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it's that you can kill anyone." Michael Corleone in The Godfather, Part 2


I learned last night, along with the rest of the country and the world, that Osama bin Laden, mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America, was killed by American special forces in a stunningly successful raid on his compound in Pakistan. Osama bin Laden is dead. Repeat, the rat who engineered the slaughter of 3000 American men, women, and children is DEAD!!!! This is a glorious day for America! Here's how things went down.

American intelligence received a tip back in August that bin Laden might be holed up in a Pakistani compound. Over the next several months US intelligence agents painstakingly gathered more information to make sure that bin Laden really was in that compound. Finally, the rat's presence in Pakistan was confirmed and Sunday the president green lighted a commando raid to capture or kill him. The Navy SEALS killed him, shooting bin Laden in the face. The last thing this murderer of Americans saw before he died was an American pointing a gun in his face. SWEET! And after his execution, the world's chief Muslim terrorist was buried at sea. Osama bin Laden sleeps with the fishes. Again, SWEET!!!!

The killing of bin Laden is a huge victory in our war against radical Islam, and it show cased the bravery and professionalism of America's armed forces. The credit for getting Osama goes entirely to our great military. Every American should feel immense pride in our special forces. This very dangerous raid was conducted without one American casualty. It was a flawless operation. Almost.

I do have one problem with the Osama operation, and that is Osama's burial at sea so soon after his demise. I'm very upset that the US military gave bin Laden a Muslim burial, complete with a body washing and a Muslim service, on board a US aircraft carrier before dumping his body at sea. Specifically, I'm upset that this burial was done, in part, to show--ugh!--sensitivity to Muslims. This sensitivity thing was also the reason Obama ordered a commando raid on Osama's compound instead of bombing the place. He felt a commando raid would make it easier to avoid civilian casualties. Again, ugh!

Why are we addicted to the delusion that we can earn radical Muslims' goodwill? Why do we continue this malignant obsession with trying to curry favor with Muslims? When are we going to admit it doesn't work, not even with "moderate" Muslims? We change our tactics, putting our own troops in increased danger, in order to protect Muslim civilians; we strive to show respect for Islamic law; we assert repeatedly that we're not at war with Islam yet, Muslims still hate and condemn us. Our deferment to Islamic burial customs didn't prevent the likes of Hamas, a major Egyptian imam, and Pakistan's ex-president, Musharraf, from condemning our killing of Osama. When will we face facts?

We will never win over Muslims, radical or "moderate", so we should stop trying. We should do what's necessary to defend ourselves, paying no regard to Muslim sensibilities. A respecful burial, in line with the customs of his faith, was uncalled for and something bin Laden was totally unworthy of. We shamed ourselves by giving him that honor and by continuing to believe the false promise of political correctness. Still, the burial is the only fault I can find with the demise of one of the dirtiest human beings on the planet. On Sunday, May 1, America got her man. We brought a mass murderer of our people to justice, Navy SEALs justice. The rat is finally dead. Good riddance and God bless America.

The Kingdom Builders

I read a great little Christian magazine called No Greater Joy, published by No Greater Joy Ministries, which is run by the Pearl family. NGJ magazine is my second favorite Christian magazine, the first being SALT Magazine. NGJ has insightful articles that make you think about what's going on not only in the church, but in the world, too. In the March-April issue there's an article by Michael Pearl that gives an excellent analysis of what motivates progressives. I've decided to reprint the article here on Sinistra's Bane. The article is titled, "Making Sense of It", which I think is non-descript and a bit lame. I'm calling this post "The Kingdom Builders", from a passage in the article, because I feel it better reflects the quasi-religious vision of progressives. They really do want to build a kingdom. Michael Pearl's article explains how and why. Read, learn, and understand. (I've highlighted in bold those parts of the article I found particularly illuminating.)

Making Sense of It, by Michael Pearl, first published in the March-April, 2011 issue of No Greater Joy magazine.

Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal uotpia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions.

The average American knows our country is being driven to extinction, and it's demise is not far away. We cannot make sense of the decisions politicians make. "Stupid" comes to mind, but stupid is without pattern or purpose.

We see men and women who are highly intelligent and very well informed in political science, economics, business, and in history making decisions that are contrary to the best interests of the country and of the poor they claim to represent. And then there is the anti-Christian bias in the media, the courts, Hollywood, and in the public schools and the universities. Why? What is so threatening about the Bible and those who believe it?

The Constitution is held in as much contempt as the Bible. What is so menacing about a document that guarantees individual libery of conscience and action, free speech, free association, and ownership and management of one's property? The way the politicians are legislating and the courts are ruling, you would think faith and the founding Fathers are the most sinister evils ever to stand in the way of positive genetic mutations.

"Woe unto them that call evil good and good evil; That put darkness for light and light for darkness; That put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."! (Isaiah 5:20)

For many years I observed the political theatre and wondered at the motivation of the American left. Lately I have come to understand that progressives are motivated by a conviction of their own righteousness. They attack Christianity and the Constitution of the United States because they stand in the way of their universal utopia. They want to save us from ourselves and our delusions. [Progressives] think they are more enlightened than the rest of us and believe their understanding requires them to take charge of the helm, even if they have to kill the captain and throw some of the crew overboard.

Human salvation is thought to be in the collective. [Progressives] seek the redemption and restitution of mankind in a way that assures our survival as a race. It is the Tower of Babel all over again. The kingdom builders get into politics, education, entertainment, rewriting history, and especially into the news media because that is where people are molded to a worldview that will cause them to be willing participants, or at least passive supporters in the New World Order.

The utopitarians are trying to establish what God has already promised to institute, a kingdom of peace and happiness in a paradise where all share in the bounty of a renewed earth. They too want that kingdom, but since there is no god to determine man's destiny, it is up to them to institute this kingdom. [Progressives] abort babies to prevent increased population from placing further stress on an already overtaxed planet. They must purge society of any religion that looks to the sweet by and by, for it prevents men from getting serious about the here and now. They are anti-American because the United States supports a divided world where American exceptionalism prevents us from entering into commune with the have-nots of the Third World. They must save every butterfly and lizard nearing extinction because they don't have a God that will create more.

If they had ten commandments they would read something like this:

1. Thou shalt have no other god above thy fellow man.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any absolutes that cannot be ignored for the sake of the common good.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of any religion in vain, for they are all created equal.
4. Observe the holy days of all religions with equal fervor.
5. Honor the state as your father and nature as your mother, that your days may be long upon mother earth.
6. Thou shalt not kill, even in self defense.
7. Thou shalt not call consensual sex adultery or sodomy.
8. Thou shalt not steal from the poor by accumulating to thyself wealth more than they neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not bear witness against thy government.
10. Thou shalt not covet the power that belongs to the elite.

The progressive/socialist has an anthropological world view that parallels theological doctrine. They believe in the fall of man and in depravity. Man, in oneness with mother nature, living in blissful harmony in a communal paradise of unbounded sexual license and village simplicity, fell into a selfish world of materialism and consumption, damaging mother earth.

In their confused anthropology, man is both evil and good. He is good as long as he is true to himself, following his own light and living his personal truth, not being judged by any outward standard. He is evil in that he is selfish and judgmental and therefore destructive to the collective good.

[Progressives] believe in temptation. Man is tempted by the lure of independent action. He is tempted to judge his actions and the actions of others on grounds of a supposed absolute good existing outside of human nature and independent of the material world.

To the progressives original sin is inherited by children from their parents who teach religion as a pie in the sky, sweet by and by, do it or be damned doctrine, inflicting crippling guilt.

[Progressives] believe in salvation. Their new birth is forgiving oneself and acquiescing to one's passions as normal, rejecting guilt as a foreign, dark force intruding upon their otherwise liberated souls.

[Progressives] believe heaven and hell are here now. Heaven is the new world order--the socialist's New Jerusalem, the utopia, where there will be no more war, or pollution, or bigotry, or hunger. Hell is fossil fuels belching out deadly gasses upon fragile Mother Nature, pollution caused by captialism. False doctrine is unbending religion that segments people. Demons are rich business owners and judgmental religious bigots.

Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians are crusaders for salvation. To understand these kingdom builders you must recognize that they are motivated by what they consider righteousness. They think the masses, especially the political right, are evil or, at the very least, out of touch and need to be pushed into the right path. You are self-destructive and they want to commit you for your own good, thus saving mother earth, the only eternal life the human race will ever know. Surely the survival of this planet is more important than the luxury of liberty. They know that if you are not with them you are against them, and they are willing to sacrifice the few to save the many.

To make sense of the present hour:
Why are our politicians, supported by the news media and Hollywood, seemingly trying to break our country economically. It is obvious that they are deliberately legislating so as to bring about high energy and food prices. With the certain increase in population and the limited resources on this planet, they want to create a worldwide commune where population is kept in check and resources are equally shared.

But they also know that this "sharing" will never come about through legislation. It will take a revolution where shortage is the enemy, not politicians. [Progressives] need crises so they are creating the biggest crisis this world has ever known. Why? Because the creation of a new world necessitates destroying the old one. They know we must fall and suffer before we will be willing to rise in a world with less liberty and more expensive goods and services.

No one will accept legislation that results in a 75% cut in wages and a great reduction in his consumption of goods and services unless he first loses everything and lives in abject poverty for a while; then he will be grateful to a government that puts him in a three hour food line and allows him to live in a two room apartment that has electricity for five hours every day. During times of stress and deprivation he will gladly receive a mark upon his hand or his forehead by which he can buy food for his family.

My final word:
Don't look to politicians to save you. Jesus will bring in the kingdom and He will be the Kings of kings and the Lord of lords, bringing in everlasting righteousness. Until then, pray for those in authority so we can live a quiet and peaceful life until God tires of men trying to take the kingdom by force. That is His job and He will do it soon enough.


There it is, friends. One of the best critiques of "Liberal Socialists/Utopitarians" I've read in a while. I hope, friends, that you find it as informative and illuminating as I did. Knowing what the progressives are all about, what their motives are, will help us defeat them and their innocuous sounding agenda. And defeat them we must, to keep the America we've always known and loved. So arm yourselves with the truths in this articles and zealously fight the good fight. Nothing less than our liberty and our lives are at stake.