Shocked.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!
A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, friends! I pray 2012 will be a blessed and prosperous year for all of you and for our great nation. Let's make that happen. Amen!
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Merry Christmas!
To all my sweet blogging friends: Merry Christmas, a blessed New Year, and peace to all men of good will! God bless you all!
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Southern Pride
I saw this on Yahoo! News a few days ago.
Byron Thomas, a Black University of South Carolina Beaufort student who'd been forced to remove a Confederate battle flag (CBF) he'd hung on his dorm room window, was told Thursday (Dec. 2) by University officials that he could display the flag after all. Thomas had put up the banner as a show of Southern pride but was told by USCB's housing office to remove it after several students complained. The University reversed it's decision on advice from its legal counsel, which apparently suggested that the forced removal of the flag violated Thomas' free speech rights. Thomas has said that he might not put his Confederate flag back up due to his parents' disapproval. However, he says he stands firm on his belief that the Confederate battle flag represents pride and that his generation should help make that the primary meaning of the banner.
When I read this story I felt a feeling of validation. I wasn't the only Black person who liked the Confederate battle flag! Like Byron Thomas, I like the CBF. Initially, I fancied this symbol of the South for purely aesthetic reasons. I like the combination of colors, lines, and stars and I love the St. Andrew's cross--the so-called "X"--that crisscrosses the flag. Later, as my cultural consciousness evolved, I came to respect it as a symbol of Southern pride.
Yes, I'm well aware of the Confederate battle flag's association with racism and slavery. But racism and slavery thrived in America under many different flags, including our national banner, Old Glory. In their marches, white racist groups often prominently display Old Glory right along with the CBF. According to the logic of the Confederate battle flag's opponents, that makes Old Glory a hateful symbol of slavery and racism, too. However, most opponents of the Confederate battle flag don't condemn displays of Old Glory as racist. Like most other Americans, they understand that Old Glory symbolizes America in its entirety and don't define it by one or two particularly nasty negatives. I think the same courtesy can and should be extended to the Confederate battle flag. And I think that's what Byron Thomas was doing, in his own way.
I respect Byron Thomas for taking a very unpopular and misunderstood stand. He's right that his generation must redeem the Confederate battle flag from its dark associations and restore it to the symbol of pride it really is. The South, like America generally, is about much more than slavery and racism. And the symbols of the South are, too. So, I say to Byron Thomas, put your Confederate battle flag back in your dorm room window. Let your fellow students see your pride in your heritage. Blacks are Southerners, too, and we shouldn't be ashamed nor afraid to show it. You go, Byron!
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Remember Pearl Harbor
"December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy..."
And it has.
On this day 70 years ago, 2,403 American sailors and civilians were killed, and America was plunged into WWII, by the early morning Japanese sneak attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan's intent was to cripple America's naval power and ability to challenge Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Instead, Japan awakened a sleeping giant. The very next day, December 8, the US Congress declared war on Japan one hour after President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous "Date of Infamy" speech to Congress and the nation. From that moment on, the American people mobilized their "righteous might" as never before and committed themselves to "absolute victory" over Japan. That victory was achieved on August 9, 1945, with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Six days later, on August 15, Japan officially surrendered to the United States and the War in the Pacific was over.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor. Let us remember and mourn the American lives that were taken by Japanese treachery that Sunday morning seven decades ago, and let us honor the fighting spirit that propelled our great nation to total victory over a relentless and savage foe. Remember Pearl Harbor. REMEMBER.
And it has.
On this day 70 years ago, 2,403 American sailors and civilians were killed, and America was plunged into WWII, by the early morning Japanese sneak attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan's intent was to cripple America's naval power and ability to challenge Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Instead, Japan awakened a sleeping giant. The very next day, December 8, the US Congress declared war on Japan one hour after President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous "Date of Infamy" speech to Congress and the nation. From that moment on, the American people mobilized their "righteous might" as never before and committed themselves to "absolute victory" over Japan. That victory was achieved on August 9, 1945, with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Six days later, on August 15, Japan officially surrendered to the United States and the War in the Pacific was over.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor. Let us remember and mourn the American lives that were taken by Japanese treachery that Sunday morning seven decades ago, and let us honor the fighting spirit that propelled our great nation to total victory over a relentless and savage foe. Remember Pearl Harbor. REMEMBER.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Belated Happy Thanksgiving
I just wanted to wish everyone a belated happy Thanksgiving. I hope your holiday was blessed and bountiful. Mine very much was.
Duggar Number 20!
The Duggar clan is expanding...again. Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, the patriarch and matriarch of America's most famous extra large family, have announced they are expecting their 20th--yes, 20th!--child. The news was revealed in last week's People magazine.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Happy Veterans' Day
I'm keeping it short and sweet for Veteran's Day. I wish a heartfelt thank you to all our servicemen and women who fought to keep me and America free. The US Armed Forces is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Thank you, thank you for your service! And God bless you all!
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Clarence Thomas Redux
It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
With A Friend Like This
While watching The O'Reilly Factor last I learned an interesting fact. David Duke is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests. That's right. The far right-wing, white nationalist, and erstwhile KKK member, likes the left-wing, anti-capitalist movement.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Beat Obama With A Cain
A friend sent me this video by e-mail. This is great! The music is a little slow and a little more bluesy than I usually like, but the message in this song is spot on. And it's funny, too. So give a look and a listen to this little political ditty. Our side definitely needs more protest art like this. Enjoy!
Monday, October 17, 2011
"We, the People"
Here's something all patriotic Americans should see. It's a video by a 12-year-old singer named Emily Keener. Emily appeared on Mike Huckabee's show on Saturday, Oct. 15 to sing this song, "We the People", which she wrote herself. Emily wrote the song for Constituting America's "We the People" contest and won Best Song in the middle school division. This song is quite beautiful and mature for such a young songwriter*. It gives hope to patriots like myself that not all young artists want to ape the libertine, socialist tripe that makes up so much of popular "entertainment". Emily Keener shows that there are talented kids out there who want use their artistic gifts for good. We patriots need to make sure we support such patriotic young artists like Emily. So give a listen to this song and buy her cd. You won't be sorry.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, October 10, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
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.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)