Hey everyone! Sorry I've been away for a whole week. My writer's block still has a bit of a hold on me but I was going to write a post today if it killed me. I was going to write about the on going controversy over Barack Obama's pastor but I was sidetracked by a comment left on my post "Battle Hymn Of The Anti-Jihad!". I thought that post had seen it's last comment until I came across this pithy little missive while checking my e-mail: FUCK YOU FAT BITCH!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the exact quote friends, complete with all eleven--count 'em 11!--exclamation points. Clearly the author of this message, who didn't leave his/her/its name, had some strong feelings against anyone standing up to jihad. I strongly suspect he/she/it was either a Muslim or a liberal. Both groups vehemently oppose any criticism of or opposition to Islam. But why? Why does opposing Mohammed's religion usually elicit nasty rebukes like the one above?
Every since 9/11 I've been surprised, frightened, disappointed, and frusrated by the cowardice and even collaboration of so many Americans and Westerners in the face of violent Islam. After an intial outburst of patriotism and righteous anger immediately following September 11, most Americans have now retreated back into denial, self-condemnation, and self-doubt. As many as 30 per cent of us prefer to believe that the government had something to do with 9/11 rather than accept the fact that the attack was an act of war against us by Islam.
Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist, bigoted, and/or xenophobic. No matter what atrocities Muslim terrorists commit we're told by our cultural elites and opinion makers that Islam is a religion of peace. We're told that poverty, not religion, is the cause of Muslim terrorism despite the glaring fact that the teeming masses of non-Muslim poor aren't strapping bombs to themselves. We see the archbishop of Canterbury caving to Sharia law in Britain and universities in America doing the same. We see all this and still tell ourselves that everthing is ok.
We see Pim Fortuyn assassinated by an animal rights activists angry over Fortuyn's "scapegoating" of Muslims and we convince ourselves it happened because we aren't tolerant enough of Islam. We see Theo van Gogh, another Dutch critic of Islam, sliced and diced on the streets of Amersterdam and we draw the same delusional conclusion. Never mind that van Gogh also criticized Christianity and Judaism but wasn't murdered by a Christian or a Jew. We see other critics of Islam such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji, Salman Rushdie, and Kurt Westergaard going into hiding or living under armed guard to protect themselves from peaceful Muslims. We see "blasphemous" cartoons or a toy named Mohammed inciting more violent protests from "moderate" Muslims than the murder, by Muslims, of non-Muslim civilians.
We see all of the above and more, yet continue to tell ourselves that all is well. Muslims really don't mean us any harm and the ones that might can be easily appeased. We just have to show them more tolerance, let them build more mosques, let them continue immigrating to our lands, let them proselytize, change our foreign policy to reflect their grievances and, above all, ditch our racist notion of free speech which allows people to criticize Islam without penalty. If we do all this the sun will always shine, God will be in His heaven, and everything will be right with the world. Yeah, right.
We are commiting cultural suicide in the name of peace and tolerance. Our corrupt "anti-racism" and unprincipled pacifism have convinced us that we are the problem, that our white, Western, Christian civilization is the fount from which all racism, imperialism, colonialism and war springs. Islam, on the other hand, is deemed benign simply because its followers are overwhelmingly non-Western and non-white. Consequently, the demise of our civilization through Islamification is seen not only as a good thing but the hope of humanity. Sound farfetched? Maybe, but I can think of no other explanation that fits the fact of the West's spineless capitulation to violent Islam. If anyone has a better explanation I'd like to hear it, but I don't think you do.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
America's Peaceful Warrior
On this day two years ago a hero died and most Americans didn't notice. Like me, they had no idea that he even existed, yet he was one of the bravest participants in World War II. He was a conscientious objector who didn't want to be called or treated like a conscientious objector. Though he refused to carry a gun he desperately wanted to serve his country in the titanic struggle of that time. He wasn't willing to kill for his country, but he was more than willng to die for it. This hero was Army medic Desmond T. Doss, the first conscientious objector to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, America's highest military medal.
I first heard of Desmond Doss totally by accident. It was Memorial Day weekend '06, if memory serves, and I was channel surfing trying to find something to ease my boredom. I landed on the Christian tv station Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) and a movie caught my eye. I soon realized that the movie wasn't a movie at all but a documentary. Not in the mood for anything serious, I was going to change channels when something said don't. I put down the remote and soon became engrossed in the unlikely story of Desmond Doss, a pacifist who joined the United States Army.
Desmond Doss' story moved me deeply. Naturally, the sheer unlikeliness of a pacifist becoming a war hero drew me in, but it was Doss himself who touched my heart. As he told his story he revealed a gentleness, kindness, and humility that most people usually associate with the Amish. How could such a harmless soul win the Congressional Medal of Honor? Listen.
Desmond Doss was a devout Seventh Day Adventist who took the Ten Commandments, especially the sixth one, seriously. He resolved in childhood never to harm another human being. Yet when WWII broke out Doss was eager to serve his country, but the Army didn't want him. It had no need, it thought, of a soldier who wouldn't carry a gun. An effort was made to send him to a conscientious objectors' camp but Doss refused. He didn't consider himself a conscientious objector because he wanted to wear the uniform and serve his country, he just didn't want to kill anyone. So he kept trying to get into the Army until he was finally allowed to enlist and was assigned to the 77th Infantry Division as a medic. That's when his trouble started.
This was the hardest part of the documentary for me to watch. It almost made me cry. Once Desmond Doss was in the barracks with his fellow soldiers he was badly mistreated by them. He was cursed. He was taunted. He was ridiculed. He had boots thrown at him. His life was even threatened. All because he prayed every night, was a vegetarian, and refused to work on Saturday, the Adventists' sabbath. And because he wouldn't carry a gun. Listening to Desmond Doss recount this abuse in his humbly dignified way, free from all bitterness, sent chills down my spine. It made me understand what real strength he had and why he walked off the battlefields of the Pacific with two Bronze Stars, three Purple Hearts, and the nation's highest military honor. All without firing a shot.
Desmond Doss got to show his mean-spirited "brothers" just what he was made of when facing combat on Guam and in the Phillipines in 1944. Medic Doss braved enemy fire repeatedly to treat and rescue the wounded, many of them the same men who'd abused him. The soldiers who'd vehemently objected to serving with a devoutly Christian, vegetarian pacifist now gave him their deepest respect. And it soon got deeper.
On April 29, 1945 American forces won control of the Maeda Escarpment on Okinawa but on May 5 the Japaness lauched a fierce counterattack. The Americans were forced to retreat, leaving their wounded, and medic Doss, on the escarpment. While those wounded who could fought off the Japanese, Doss lowered soldier after soldier down the escarpment using a rope and a tree stump, saving at least 50 men. Doss continued his courageous and non-violent service to his country until he was injured by a grenade on May 21. Now it was his turn to be rescued. While being carried to safety, though, Doss slid off the stretcher so a more gravely wounded man could be moved first. When he was finally on his way to a hospital ship Desmond realized he'd lost the Bible his wife, Dorothy, had given him. Upon learning that the men in his battalion searched the battefield until Doss' Bible was found. They lovingly cleaned it as best they could, dried it, then mailed it to the man they'd once scorned but now loved and admired.
On October 12, 1945 Doss, who would spend the next 5 years in and out of the hospital due to his injuries and a bout with tuberculosis, was awared the Congressional Medal of Honor by President Truman. After his distingushed service to a nation that initially spurned his desire to serve, Doss lived out his life in the mountain community of Rising Fawn, GA. There he and Dorothy raised a son, Desmond, Jr., and Doss continued to help any who asked. In 1965 he formed the Civilian Defense Rescue Service for Walker county, GA. The CDRS proved it's mettle a year later when it helped rescue seven Boy Scouts and their leader who'd gotten lost in a cave. Desmond spent more consecutive hours searching the cave than anyone else.
Desmond Doss was a shining example of courage and conviction. After serving his country with nearly superhuman courage, surviving his wounds, raising a son, burying his first wife and marrying a second, and in everything remaining faithful to God, Desmond Doss, America's peaceful warrior, went home to his Maker on March 23, 2006.
Farewell gentle soldier, and thank you for your service and your faith.
If you want to learn more about Desmond Doss you can order the documentary "The Conscientious Objector" at http://www.desmonddoss.com/.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Writer's Block
I'm soooooo frustrated! I'm suffering a big attack of writer's block and it's making me soooooo mad! I want to write about how I think Barack Obama still has a big problem in spite of his somewhat successful speech yesterday, but the words won't come. Don't you hate it when that happens?
I want to write about how I believe Obama's real problem isn't race but his liberal ideology and that his speech was a calculated effort to distract the public's attention from that. Think about it. In his speech Obama essentially blamed his pastor's hate filled sermons on racism. While deploring and distancing himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's words Obama insisted that they had to be understood in the context of America's racist history. No one, he implied, can really blame a Black man of Wright's generation for being a tad bit upset with Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, the fact that Wright's anti-Americanism is par for the course for liberals, not Blacks, was obscured.
And Obama needs to obscure that fact because he's one of the most, if not the most, liberal politician in America today, certainly in this campaign. This man wants to be president of a country that his own ideology regards as inherently evil. Prominent exponents of Obama's ideology routinely denounce America in the most viscious terms. They declare our troops unwelcomed in their city and make movies portraying them as crazed rapists and murderers. They stand in the highest halls of power and accuse America of creating another Auschwitz at Gitmo. They compare the victims of 9/11 to Nazis and claim we deserved that attack. They cheer on our enemies in Iraq on their websites. They call America evil then play grieving mother to avoid criticism. And to top if off they expect us average Joes to be stupid enough to believe their venom springs from the deepest reservoir of patriotic love. Insulting!!!!
This is what liberalism is today. It is about hating America. It is about siding with our enemies under the guise of seeking peace. It is about blind animosity against our history, heritage, and culture. And that's the side of the political aisle Obama's on. In his speech Obama talks a good talk about change while using race to hide the fact that he's a strident leftist. Prudent Americans must not let him get away with that.
That's what I want to say. Hey, I just did!
I want to write about how I believe Obama's real problem isn't race but his liberal ideology and that his speech was a calculated effort to distract the public's attention from that. Think about it. In his speech Obama essentially blamed his pastor's hate filled sermons on racism. While deploring and distancing himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's words Obama insisted that they had to be understood in the context of America's racist history. No one, he implied, can really blame a Black man of Wright's generation for being a tad bit upset with Uncle Sam. Meanwhile, the fact that Wright's anti-Americanism is par for the course for liberals, not Blacks, was obscured.
And Obama needs to obscure that fact because he's one of the most, if not the most, liberal politician in America today, certainly in this campaign. This man wants to be president of a country that his own ideology regards as inherently evil. Prominent exponents of Obama's ideology routinely denounce America in the most viscious terms. They declare our troops unwelcomed in their city and make movies portraying them as crazed rapists and murderers. They stand in the highest halls of power and accuse America of creating another Auschwitz at Gitmo. They compare the victims of 9/11 to Nazis and claim we deserved that attack. They cheer on our enemies in Iraq on their websites. They call America evil then play grieving mother to avoid criticism. And to top if off they expect us average Joes to be stupid enough to believe their venom springs from the deepest reservoir of patriotic love. Insulting!!!!
This is what liberalism is today. It is about hating America. It is about siding with our enemies under the guise of seeking peace. It is about blind animosity against our history, heritage, and culture. And that's the side of the political aisle Obama's on. In his speech Obama talks a good talk about change while using race to hide the fact that he's a strident leftist. Prudent Americans must not let him get away with that.
That's what I want to say. Hey, I just did!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Battle Hymn Of The Anti-Jihad!!
I was going to post this yesterday to mark the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, but work and family took up my time. So I'm posting it today.
The song is called "Open Season" and the band is Stuck Mojo. Finally a band that gets it! No entertainment industry PC bull$h!t here. Stuck Mojo tells the truth, without fear and without apology. Give a listen as they rock for America and the rest of the Free World! And in case you don't get what they're saying I've included the lyrics to the song below.
Open Season, by Stuck Mojo (from the album Southern Born Killers).
I speak peace when peace is spoken. But I speak war when your hate is provoking. The season is open 24-7-365, man up yo' time to ride. No need to hide behind slogans of deceit, claiming that you're a religion of peace. We just don't believe you. We can clearly see through the madness that you're feeding your people. Jihad, the cry of your unholy war, using the willing, the weak, and poor. From birth drowing in propganda, rhetoric, and slander. All I can say is damn ya!
My forefathers fought and died for this here. I'm stronger than your war of fear. Are we clear? If you step in my hood, it's understood. It's open season.
I don't need a faith that's blind, where death and hate bring me peace of mind; with views that are stuck deep in the seventh century. So much sand in your eyes, too blind to see the venom that your leaders preach is the path to your own destruction, your own demise. You might say that I don't understand but your disgust for me is what I realize. Surprise! Your homicidal ways has got the whole world watching, whole world scoping. So if you bring it to my home base, best believe it. It's open season.
I see you, hell yeah I see you. Motherfvcker naw, I don't wanna be you. If you come to my place I'll drop more than just some bass. Yo, you'll get a taste of a sick motherfvcker from the Dirty. I ain't worrying, not a fvcking bit. I'm telescoping like Hubble. Yo! You in trouble. Yo! On the double. I'm wild with mine, bring that style with mine. Fvck with my family I'll end your life. Just the way it is; just the way it be. Do you understand? No matter if you're woman, or man, or child. My profile is crazy. That sh!t you do doesn't amaze me; I'm ready to blaze thee.
I don't give a damn what god you claim. I've seen the innocent that you've slain; on my street you're just fair game. Like a pig walk to your slaughter; the heat here is so much hotter. And my views won't teeter totter or fluctuate. Step to me you just met your fate. And I'll annihilate, with the skill of a Shogun assassin. Slicing and dicing precise with a passion, in any shape, form, or fashion. Bring it to my home, welcome to the danger zone. 'Cause your attitude's the reason the triggers keep squeezing. The hunt is on and it's open season.
It's Open Season!
In case I made a mistake in writing the lyrics down you can check them out at www.stuckmojomedia.com. Aside from a little profanity these words are flawless. All of you who understand what's at stake in this war, take them to heart. Pass this battle hymn along to everyone you know.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Mexican Students In FARC Camp
It's just been revealed that at least six Mexican nationals were in the FARC rebel camp attacked by Colombia last week. Five of the Mexicans were killed; the sixth, Lucia Morett, survived. Morett and one of the dead Mexicans, Juan Gonzalez del Castillo, were students at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (NAUM) and members of a radical, pro-FARC student group. Supposedly, that group had sent Morett and Gonzalez to study South America's oldest armed rebel movement but NAUM officials denied that. You can imagine what kind of "studying" Morett, Gonzalez and the other Mexicans were doing.
This is scary stuff, folks. Mexican radicals training--oops!--I mean studying with FARC terrorists and our southern border pourous as a sieve. How long before some of those "students" and their friends sneak into our country and begin causing havoc? The FARC is a Marxist terrorist group which bombs, murders, and kidnaps as a matter of course, and funds its operations through drug trafficing. There are reports that FARC has sought to buy sophisticated weapons from Lebanese terrorists and might've even been trying to get its hands on uranium. Mexicans who have been tutored by such ilk can't mean America any good.
Open borders fanatics, who insist on believing that all Mexicans sneaking into America are just good hearted poor folks looking for a job, need to get a reality check. Not all of the illegals are good hearted; not all are poor and not all are Mexican. Rather, what you have with the illegals is a witch's brew of drug trafficers, leftist revolutionaries, and international terrorists mixed in with the campesinos.
It's time to deal with illegal immigration once and for all. It's time to crackdown big time on businesses that employ illegals so the illegals will self-deport. It's time to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. It's time for Americans to boycott sanctuary cities: don't vacation in them, don't send your kids to college in them, don't hold your conventions in them, and don't relocate your business to them. And above all, it's time for Congress to stop bullshitting and build the damn fence--the REAL one--it promised us a year ago!
The Mexican students who were in the FARC camp are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are plenty more where they came from, and they don't want to sing Kumbaya with us. If our elected officials wait until a nuclear tragedy strikes America before they act then they should be gathered up and shot. They would have betrayed this country in the most horrid way and would deserve nothing less than execution. Strong words, but these are deadly times and nobody in Washington seems up to the task of leading us through them. Oh, where is Churchill when we need him! Come back, Winston, come back!!
This is scary stuff, folks. Mexican radicals training--oops!--I mean studying with FARC terrorists and our southern border pourous as a sieve. How long before some of those "students" and their friends sneak into our country and begin causing havoc? The FARC is a Marxist terrorist group which bombs, murders, and kidnaps as a matter of course, and funds its operations through drug trafficing. There are reports that FARC has sought to buy sophisticated weapons from Lebanese terrorists and might've even been trying to get its hands on uranium. Mexicans who have been tutored by such ilk can't mean America any good.
Open borders fanatics, who insist on believing that all Mexicans sneaking into America are just good hearted poor folks looking for a job, need to get a reality check. Not all of the illegals are good hearted; not all are poor and not all are Mexican. Rather, what you have with the illegals is a witch's brew of drug trafficers, leftist revolutionaries, and international terrorists mixed in with the campesinos.
It's time to deal with illegal immigration once and for all. It's time to crackdown big time on businesses that employ illegals so the illegals will self-deport. It's time to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities. It's time for Americans to boycott sanctuary cities: don't vacation in them, don't send your kids to college in them, don't hold your conventions in them, and don't relocate your business to them. And above all, it's time for Congress to stop bullshitting and build the damn fence--the REAL one--it promised us a year ago!
The Mexican students who were in the FARC camp are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are plenty more where they came from, and they don't want to sing Kumbaya with us. If our elected officials wait until a nuclear tragedy strikes America before they act then they should be gathered up and shot. They would have betrayed this country in the most horrid way and would deserve nothing less than execution. Strong words, but these are deadly times and nobody in Washington seems up to the task of leading us through them. Oh, where is Churchill when we need him! Come back, Winston, come back!!
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
That Damn Dog Incident
I'm sure everyone has seen and/or heard about the (possibly fake) video showing a Marine tossing a puppy over a cliff in Iraq. I first heard about this a couple of days ago while watching CNN. The Marines are investigating to see if the video is real and have condemned it whether it's real or not. Bravo to the Marines, but they are wasting their time. No amount of condemnation from the Corps will satisfy the crazed army of global America haters. And that's what pisses me off.
I've seen the puppy throwing video. It's disturbing, real or not; but the reaction to it from people around the world is even worse. The identity of the puppy tossing Marine has been revealed and not only has he received death threats but his family has, too. People have called for him to be tortured, thrown off a cliff, disfigured with acid, and otherwise treated VERY BADLY. "Anti-war" activists have seized upon this incident the way they seized upon the non-massacre at Haditha to smear our troops. One comment that stands out in my mind reads, "This is why people hate America". And of course Bush is to blame. Gag me!
Where was this outpouring of outrage when Nicholas Berg was beheaded? When Daniel Pearl was beheaded? When the London subway was bombed? When 3000 Americans were slaughtered on 9/11? A puppy apparently gets tossed to its death by an American soldier and the world goes bonkers but human beings get sliced and diced by Muslim crazies and it's greeted with a yawn. Killing a puppy justifies maniacal hatred of America but decapitations and suicide bombings don't justify hatred of Muslims. People, this is the upside down world we live in. This is the perversion political correctness has brought us.
If this video proves to be authentic then the Marine in it should be punished. But even if it's real we shouldn't apologize too much if at all. Our apologies and efforts to redress wrongs are NEVER appreciated by anyone, not even our friends. Instead they are seen as weaknesses and are used against us by our enemies. Our jihadist foes rejoice in our deaths and offer no repentance for slaugtering us like cattle. Therefore, we must stop our hand wringing over every little mistake we make and instead concentrate on obliterating the Islamofascists as thoroughly as we obliterated the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II. After all, destroying your nemesis is how you win wars and this is one war we can't afford to lose.
I've seen the puppy throwing video. It's disturbing, real or not; but the reaction to it from people around the world is even worse. The identity of the puppy tossing Marine has been revealed and not only has he received death threats but his family has, too. People have called for him to be tortured, thrown off a cliff, disfigured with acid, and otherwise treated VERY BADLY. "Anti-war" activists have seized upon this incident the way they seized upon the non-massacre at Haditha to smear our troops. One comment that stands out in my mind reads, "This is why people hate America". And of course Bush is to blame. Gag me!
Where was this outpouring of outrage when Nicholas Berg was beheaded? When Daniel Pearl was beheaded? When the London subway was bombed? When 3000 Americans were slaughtered on 9/11? A puppy apparently gets tossed to its death by an American soldier and the world goes bonkers but human beings get sliced and diced by Muslim crazies and it's greeted with a yawn. Killing a puppy justifies maniacal hatred of America but decapitations and suicide bombings don't justify hatred of Muslims. People, this is the upside down world we live in. This is the perversion political correctness has brought us.
If this video proves to be authentic then the Marine in it should be punished. But even if it's real we shouldn't apologize too much if at all. Our apologies and efforts to redress wrongs are NEVER appreciated by anyone, not even our friends. Instead they are seen as weaknesses and are used against us by our enemies. Our jihadist foes rejoice in our deaths and offer no repentance for slaugtering us like cattle. Therefore, we must stop our hand wringing over every little mistake we make and instead concentrate on obliterating the Islamofascists as thoroughly as we obliterated the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II. After all, destroying your nemesis is how you win wars and this is one war we can't afford to lose.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Help! I'm Feeling Sorry For Hillary!
I have to admit it. I'm feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton. No, I'm not feeling so bad that I'd vote for her--nothing could make me feel bad enough to do that!--but I do feel just a tad bit down that dear Hillary has to face her dream collapsing right before her eyes.
Remember, this woman started the presidential campaign convinced that she was the shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. She was cocky and confident that no one could touch her. Then, as if by magic, Barack Obama, a virtual nobody, swooped in and stole her thunder. Overnight Hillary saw herself lose 11 straight primaries and/or caucuses and found herself fighting for her political life, something she was totally unprepared for. What was she to do?!
Hillary wants power. She craves it the way a starving wolf craves meat. She endured and continues to endure a marriage to a wanton and callous womanizer in order to stay in the loop of political might (and you thought she stayed with Bill for his looks). Power and the desire for it is the air Hillary breathes, only now her oxygen supply is being drastically reduced by a Black man from Illinois. Her lead in the polls has vanished; even some of her friends among the Democratic delegates have switched to Obama. If Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio today she's finished. This woman, who stayed married to Bill Clinton to reach political gold, will be finished. C'mon, you gotta feel sorry for her. Just a little bit.
Remember, this woman started the presidential campaign convinced that she was the shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. She was cocky and confident that no one could touch her. Then, as if by magic, Barack Obama, a virtual nobody, swooped in and stole her thunder. Overnight Hillary saw herself lose 11 straight primaries and/or caucuses and found herself fighting for her political life, something she was totally unprepared for. What was she to do?!
Hillary wants power. She craves it the way a starving wolf craves meat. She endured and continues to endure a marriage to a wanton and callous womanizer in order to stay in the loop of political might (and you thought she stayed with Bill for his looks). Power and the desire for it is the air Hillary breathes, only now her oxygen supply is being drastically reduced by a Black man from Illinois. Her lead in the polls has vanished; even some of her friends among the Democratic delegates have switched to Obama. If Hillary doesn't win Texas and Ohio today she's finished. This woman, who stayed married to Bill Clinton to reach political gold, will be finished. C'mon, you gotta feel sorry for her. Just a little bit.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
What? The Oscars Were Sunday?
I just realized that the Oscars were Sunday. I don't know how I missed them...wait, yes I do. The irrelevance of the movies and people nominated for awards made Hollywood's exercise in self-congratulation a total no do for me. And I wasn't alone. The ratings for Sunday's award show were among the lowest, if not the lowest, in years. And that's just what Hollywood deserves.
Hollywood has emerged as America's staunchest enemy in the culture war. Formerly known for uplifting, quality movies celebrating America's traditional way of life, Hollywood today is controlled by leftist ideologues dedicated to destroying the values it once extolled. Chief among those values are faith and patriotism. The result is that movie attendance has steadily declined along with the quality and message of films.
Hollywood is increasingly making movies (and tv shows) for ideological rather than artistic or even monetary reasons. If you doubt that just recall the slew of "anti-war" films Tinseltown released this past fall. All of them were steeped in anti-American propaganda and they all flopped big time at the box office. But their creators were proud of those movies because they made a statement, Brian de Palma going so far as to say his vile "Redacted" would "stop the war". Yeah, right.
Hollywood's increasing preoccupation with producing left-wing propaganda, and its resulting slide into irrelevance, is a golden opportunity for talented conservative artists. They can and should seize the moment and fill the void with quality movies that speak our truth to the culture in the culture's language. It's time that we conservatives spoke for ourselves and stopped simply whining about how our enemies speak for and about us. As liberal Hollywood self-destructs we can pick up the pieces, then America will start watching the Oscars again.
Hollywood has emerged as America's staunchest enemy in the culture war. Formerly known for uplifting, quality movies celebrating America's traditional way of life, Hollywood today is controlled by leftist ideologues dedicated to destroying the values it once extolled. Chief among those values are faith and patriotism. The result is that movie attendance has steadily declined along with the quality and message of films.
Hollywood is increasingly making movies (and tv shows) for ideological rather than artistic or even monetary reasons. If you doubt that just recall the slew of "anti-war" films Tinseltown released this past fall. All of them were steeped in anti-American propaganda and they all flopped big time at the box office. But their creators were proud of those movies because they made a statement, Brian de Palma going so far as to say his vile "Redacted" would "stop the war". Yeah, right.
Hollywood's increasing preoccupation with producing left-wing propaganda, and its resulting slide into irrelevance, is a golden opportunity for talented conservative artists. They can and should seize the moment and fill the void with quality movies that speak our truth to the culture in the culture's language. It's time that we conservatives spoke for ourselves and stopped simply whining about how our enemies speak for and about us. As liberal Hollywood self-destructs we can pick up the pieces, then America will start watching the Oscars again.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Hope Rides Alone
This video was made by my blogging buddy Robert who blogs at Tired of All the Liberal Rhetoric Out There. In it Robert reads the eloquent letter written by a young American soldier, Eddie Jeffers, who later died in Iraq. This letter will bring tears to your eyes, especially the part where Eddie writes that Americans are now the enemy he and his buddies face. Americans like Cindy Sheehan who actively work for defeat in Iraq out of crazed hatred of Bush.
Eddie is generous towards these "Americans", insisting they don't know the impact of their words and actions against the war. But they DO know! They are totally conscious of the aid and comfort their "peace activism" gives to the terrorists and the demoralizing affect it has on our troops. That's what the activists want!
When you hear Eddie's letter you'll not only cry but burn with anger against the traitors among us. Traitors who spit on our troops literally and figuratively, burn them in effigy, and make vile movies portraying them as raping, murdering thugs. I hope that Eddie's poignant words will move you to resist the traitors and fifth columnists working to destroy our nation. You can start by spreading Eddie's message how ever you can. I am; join me.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Rallyin' 'Round McCain
I've been watching the news today which has been all about the New York Times' "expose" of John McCain's allegedly improper relationship with a lobbyist. This story is clearly a hit piece but, much to its chagrin, the New York Times may have handed John McCain just what he needed to rally conservatives to his candidacy.
The Times has always been exhibit A for conservatives' charge of a liberal bias in the media. This attack on McCain not only solidifies that view but also gives McCain more conservative street cred. In the process of condemning this blatant liberal smear conservatives are finding themselves defending McCain as a candidate. Yes, the New York Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nominee but did so, apparently, just to knock him down. Thus, that initial endorsement shouldn't cause conservatives to continue to shy away from McCain. Now that the Times is bashing the senator from Arizona it's time for even the most sceptical conservatives to give him another look. And here's another reason to support McCain: abortion.
For now the pro-life vote seems to be going primarily to Huckabee, but since he has virtually no chance of being nominated it's time for pro-lifers to switch to McCain. If conservatives care about this issue as much as we say we do there's no other choice. McCain's pro-life record is nearly pristine. Hillary and Obama are pro-choice fundamentalists, Obama going so far as to vote against the Born Alive Act which would've required doctors to save babies who survived abortions rather than letting them die. Obama claimed that saving the babies would put a "burden" on women.
And let's not forget Hillary's and Obama's promise of universal health care. This would almost certainly mean taxpayer funded abortion, even for minors. For me, that's almost as vile as the procedure itself. Under no circumstances will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion, especially that of a minor. Other conservative pro-lifers feel the same I'm sure. Yet many of them continue to back a sure loser in Huckabee or, like Ann Coulter, say they'll vote Democrat if McCain is the GOP nominee, not caring what impact that will have on the unborn.
We pro-lifers must rally around McCain. We and the conservatives outraged by the Times' tabloid journalism could give him the edge he needs to win. The defense of the nation as a whole and of the unborn in particular depend on a McCain victory. Hillary and Obama stand in opposition to both tasks. If we care about these causes as much as we say we do then McCain has to be our man, like it or not.
The Times has always been exhibit A for conservatives' charge of a liberal bias in the media. This attack on McCain not only solidifies that view but also gives McCain more conservative street cred. In the process of condemning this blatant liberal smear conservatives are finding themselves defending McCain as a candidate. Yes, the New York Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nominee but did so, apparently, just to knock him down. Thus, that initial endorsement shouldn't cause conservatives to continue to shy away from McCain. Now that the Times is bashing the senator from Arizona it's time for even the most sceptical conservatives to give him another look. And here's another reason to support McCain: abortion.
For now the pro-life vote seems to be going primarily to Huckabee, but since he has virtually no chance of being nominated it's time for pro-lifers to switch to McCain. If conservatives care about this issue as much as we say we do there's no other choice. McCain's pro-life record is nearly pristine. Hillary and Obama are pro-choice fundamentalists, Obama going so far as to vote against the Born Alive Act which would've required doctors to save babies who survived abortions rather than letting them die. Obama claimed that saving the babies would put a "burden" on women.
And let's not forget Hillary's and Obama's promise of universal health care. This would almost certainly mean taxpayer funded abortion, even for minors. For me, that's almost as vile as the procedure itself. Under no circumstances will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion, especially that of a minor. Other conservative pro-lifers feel the same I'm sure. Yet many of them continue to back a sure loser in Huckabee or, like Ann Coulter, say they'll vote Democrat if McCain is the GOP nominee, not caring what impact that will have on the unborn.
We pro-lifers must rally around McCain. We and the conservatives outraged by the Times' tabloid journalism could give him the edge he needs to win. The defense of the nation as a whole and of the unborn in particular depend on a McCain victory. Hillary and Obama stand in opposition to both tasks. If we care about these causes as much as we say we do then McCain has to be our man, like it or not.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Our Time In The Wilderness
We conservatives are in a funk. Many of us feel that no matter who wins the election in November we and our beliefs will be cast aside like used Dixie cups. President McCain would be more sympathetic to at least some of our concerns than President Hillary or President Obama, but most conservatives feel that even McCain won't give us a seat at the table. In fact, many of us hate and fear McCain as much as we do Hillary. So, what are our options? What are we to do? I'll offer a humble suggestion.
Even if McCain wins we conservatives will be put into what I'm calling a time in the wilderness. We will be out of power but that could be a blessing in disguise, if we use our wilderness years right. And how do we do that? First, we must stop our pity party. Our time in the wilderness will be fruitless if all we do is sulk, pout, and whine. Rather, we must use those years to regroup, reevaluate, and reflect. We must build on our successes and strengths but also face our failures, weaknesses, and mistakes with unflinching honesty. Our biggest mistake, I believe, was relying on political power alone to uphold and advance conservatism. We believed that if we could just elect the right people we'd convert the culture but we were wrong. And the faith we put in politics has cost us dearly. While we were consumed with winning elections our children became more and more steeped in an increasingly liberal, neo-pagan culture scarcely impacted by our political "victories".
Think about it. Reagan took office for the first time in 1980. The infants, toddlers, and preschoolers from then are the young voters swooning over Obama now. The children of the conservative "revolution" are today worshipping one of the most liberal presidential candidates in recent history. They are eager to accept surrender in war and socialism at home. These are our children! And we didn't see it coming. We didn't see the continuing liberalization of the culture and that culture's influence on our kids. We didn't see that that would bode ill for our cause. We failed and failed big time. This is one of the unpleasant things we must ponder during our wilderness stay.
We were blinded by might. We won all the elections but didn't realize we lost the culture and even, I think, our personal conviction to a degree. Much of our society's continued slide into liberalism during our "revolution" was fueled by us. Some where along the way we decided we didn't have to live out conservative values in our personal lives because Reagan was president and Gingrich was Speaker of the House and that solved everything. So it was ok to keep sending our children to anti-conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-American public schools. It was ok to keep consuming Hollywood's largely degenerate fare. It was ok to "forgive" immoral pastors and to keep attending their churches. Conservatives held the reins of political power; nothing else was needed.
Hopefully, during our stay in the wilderness, we conservatives will not just admit our error but plan bold strategies to overcome it. Hopefully we'll realize that to advance our philosophy we must have a cultural foundation as well as a political one. We must invade the turf--academia, media, Hollywood--controlled by our foes and use their weapons against them. We must speak our truth to the culture using our opponents' language. And we must stop handing our children over to the other side on the proverbial silver platter. This is what we must do during the wilderness time that is coming. And onced we're refreshed and renewed we'll win again!
Even if McCain wins we conservatives will be put into what I'm calling a time in the wilderness. We will be out of power but that could be a blessing in disguise, if we use our wilderness years right. And how do we do that? First, we must stop our pity party. Our time in the wilderness will be fruitless if all we do is sulk, pout, and whine. Rather, we must use those years to regroup, reevaluate, and reflect. We must build on our successes and strengths but also face our failures, weaknesses, and mistakes with unflinching honesty. Our biggest mistake, I believe, was relying on political power alone to uphold and advance conservatism. We believed that if we could just elect the right people we'd convert the culture but we were wrong. And the faith we put in politics has cost us dearly. While we were consumed with winning elections our children became more and more steeped in an increasingly liberal, neo-pagan culture scarcely impacted by our political "victories".
Think about it. Reagan took office for the first time in 1980. The infants, toddlers, and preschoolers from then are the young voters swooning over Obama now. The children of the conservative "revolution" are today worshipping one of the most liberal presidential candidates in recent history. They are eager to accept surrender in war and socialism at home. These are our children! And we didn't see it coming. We didn't see the continuing liberalization of the culture and that culture's influence on our kids. We didn't see that that would bode ill for our cause. We failed and failed big time. This is one of the unpleasant things we must ponder during our wilderness stay.
We were blinded by might. We won all the elections but didn't realize we lost the culture and even, I think, our personal conviction to a degree. Much of our society's continued slide into liberalism during our "revolution" was fueled by us. Some where along the way we decided we didn't have to live out conservative values in our personal lives because Reagan was president and Gingrich was Speaker of the House and that solved everything. So it was ok to keep sending our children to anti-conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-American public schools. It was ok to keep consuming Hollywood's largely degenerate fare. It was ok to "forgive" immoral pastors and to keep attending their churches. Conservatives held the reins of political power; nothing else was needed.
Hopefully, during our stay in the wilderness, we conservatives will not just admit our error but plan bold strategies to overcome it. Hopefully we'll realize that to advance our philosophy we must have a cultural foundation as well as a political one. We must invade the turf--academia, media, Hollywood--controlled by our foes and use their weapons against them. We must speak our truth to the culture using our opponents' language. And we must stop handing our children over to the other side on the proverbial silver platter. This is what we must do during the wilderness time that is coming. And onced we're refreshed and renewed we'll win again!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Shock And Horror
I am still in shock over the mass murder that took place yesterday on the campus of Northern Illinois University (NIU). I'm also angry. Why do people do such heinous things? And not just do them, but then kill themselves so they won't face justice. The NIU gunman, identified as a former student at the school, was a coward. He gunned down over 20 helpless, unarmed people then shot himself. I hope the bastard is burning in a hell so hot that even the devil himself couldn't stand it. May God have NO mercy on his soul!!!!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
A Question For Conservatives
Well, it's all but official. After winning the primaries that were held yesterday, McCain is a virtual shoo in for the Republican nomination and a lot of conservatives are pissed about it. Most of them who voted in yesterday's elections went for Huckabee, apparently believing he is the "real" conservative. Yet Huckabee's conservative credentials aren't 100%, just like McCain's.
On the issue of illegal immigration, for instance, Huckabee is problematic. Yes, he signed Numbers USA's "No Amnesty" pledge, but as Arkansas governor he gave in state college tuition to the children of illegals, saying famously that we shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And in a speech before Hispanic leaders Huckabee "joked" about Whites soon becoming a minority. And he believes in what I call atonement politics, saying that leniency toward illegals is America's atonement for slavery. Exactly how being indulgent to illegal Hispanics atones for the enslavement of Blacks he hasn't explained. Maybe Huckabee thinks one group of non-Whites is interchangeable with another.
With conservatives' anger at McCain's liberal position on illegal immigration you'd think they'd be just as outraged at Huckabee, but they're not. Could Huckabee's status as a former preacher be the reason? Most of the conservatives who've voted for him are Evangelicals. They propelled Huckabee to victory in Iowa and their low numbers in more secular states helped to ensure his defeat there. Perhaps, for these people, Huckabee's distasteful record on illegal immigration policy is palatable because it's wrapped in Christian garb. You know, the language of atonement.
Yes, Huckabee has some good ideas. I love his plan to abolish the IRS! But McCain has some good ideas, too. More importantly, he has a much better chance of winning against both Hillary and Obama than Huck does. Conservatives have no excuse for forgiving Huckabee's deviations from pure conservatism while crucifying McCain for his. I understand commitment to principle but, sadly, principle is compromised in virtually every election. Whatever side you're on you're never going to get everything you want in a candidate. Therefore, the question all voters face is, what will we get for our compromise? If conservatives vote for McCain the answer is a damn good chance for Republicans to keep the White House and for America to win in Iraq. If conservatives vote for Huckabee or, God forbid, Hillary or Obama, what they'll get for their compromise is socialism at home and surrender on all fronts abroad.
The right choice is clear to me.
On the issue of illegal immigration, for instance, Huckabee is problematic. Yes, he signed Numbers USA's "No Amnesty" pledge, but as Arkansas governor he gave in state college tuition to the children of illegals, saying famously that we shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And in a speech before Hispanic leaders Huckabee "joked" about Whites soon becoming a minority. And he believes in what I call atonement politics, saying that leniency toward illegals is America's atonement for slavery. Exactly how being indulgent to illegal Hispanics atones for the enslavement of Blacks he hasn't explained. Maybe Huckabee thinks one group of non-Whites is interchangeable with another.
With conservatives' anger at McCain's liberal position on illegal immigration you'd think they'd be just as outraged at Huckabee, but they're not. Could Huckabee's status as a former preacher be the reason? Most of the conservatives who've voted for him are Evangelicals. They propelled Huckabee to victory in Iowa and their low numbers in more secular states helped to ensure his defeat there. Perhaps, for these people, Huckabee's distasteful record on illegal immigration policy is palatable because it's wrapped in Christian garb. You know, the language of atonement.
Yes, Huckabee has some good ideas. I love his plan to abolish the IRS! But McCain has some good ideas, too. More importantly, he has a much better chance of winning against both Hillary and Obama than Huck does. Conservatives have no excuse for forgiving Huckabee's deviations from pure conservatism while crucifying McCain for his. I understand commitment to principle but, sadly, principle is compromised in virtually every election. Whatever side you're on you're never going to get everything you want in a candidate. Therefore, the question all voters face is, what will we get for our compromise? If conservatives vote for McCain the answer is a damn good chance for Republicans to keep the White House and for America to win in Iraq. If conservatives vote for Huckabee or, God forbid, Hillary or Obama, what they'll get for their compromise is socialism at home and surrender on all fronts abroad.
The right choice is clear to me.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Here We Go Yet Again!
It's happening again. Some offended homosexuals have filed a legal complaint to stop someone from disagreeing with their lifestyle.
This latest gay attack on freedom of religion and speech is occurring in New Mexico where Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to photograph a lesbian couple's "commitment ceremony". The couple then lodged a complaint with New Mexico's Human Rights Division which is now trying Mrs. Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, under the state's anti-discrimination laws. One of the things the lesbian plaintiffs want is an injunction permanently revoking Elane Photography's right not to photograph gay ceremonies. This is insane!
I've had enough with liberal gays attacking the freedoms of others, especially Christians, in pursuit of their agenda. Clearly, they want a world where any questioning of their views is illegal. That's Stalinism and we must not stand for it. Elaine Huguenin was perfectly within her rights to refuse to promote anything that conflicted with her religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion/conscience means.
Left-wing gays need to realize that Christians don't answer to them. They need to realize that they have no right to force every institution in society to parrot their party line. The notion that it's hate to disapprove of homosexuality and call it sin is opinion, not truth. No one is obligated to believe that opinion, let alone live their lives by it. Elaine Huguenin cannot be compelled to promote a cause with which she disagrees. Neither can any other American. There's still freedom of conscience in this country. Stalinist gays need to stop trying to take this freedom from others and concentrate on using it for themselves. They just might find that their cause will be better served for it.
This latest gay attack on freedom of religion and speech is occurring in New Mexico where Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to photograph a lesbian couple's "commitment ceremony". The couple then lodged a complaint with New Mexico's Human Rights Division which is now trying Mrs. Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, under the state's anti-discrimination laws. One of the things the lesbian plaintiffs want is an injunction permanently revoking Elane Photography's right not to photograph gay ceremonies. This is insane!
I've had enough with liberal gays attacking the freedoms of others, especially Christians, in pursuit of their agenda. Clearly, they want a world where any questioning of their views is illegal. That's Stalinism and we must not stand for it. Elaine Huguenin was perfectly within her rights to refuse to promote anything that conflicted with her religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion/conscience means.
Left-wing gays need to realize that Christians don't answer to them. They need to realize that they have no right to force every institution in society to parrot their party line. The notion that it's hate to disapprove of homosexuality and call it sin is opinion, not truth. No one is obligated to believe that opinion, let alone live their lives by it. Elaine Huguenin cannot be compelled to promote a cause with which she disagrees. Neither can any other American. There's still freedom of conscience in this country. Stalinist gays need to stop trying to take this freedom from others and concentrate on using it for themselves. They just might find that their cause will be better served for it.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Get A Grip! Part 2
Ok all you McCain haters, now that Romney's officially out of the race you're gonna have to put down your knives and support McCain. Face it, he's the only hope the Republicans have of keeping the White House. Even if you have to hold you nose to support the senator from Arizona you have to support him. The good of the nation depends on it.
Please don't give me that line that McCain's not a real conservative. We don't need him to be a "real" conservative, we just need him to be more conservative than his Democratic rivals. And what is a "real" conservative anyway? Someone who's strong on border security? Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill in the '80's. Guess he's not a "real" conservative, then. Is a "real" conservative someone who's tough on terrorism? Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the bombing of the Marines' barracks, and he traded arms for hostages after saying he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan rarely attended church while in office but Nancy, his wife, did consult astrologers, in violation of Biblical doctrine. So just how conservative was dear Ronny?
Yes, Reagan stood up to the tyranny of communism and won the Cold War. He also cut taxes and paved the way for the welfare reform that Bill Clinton reluctantly signed into law in the '90's. But, as I pointed out above, Reagan's conservative credentials weren't infallible. He did things that some people could use to call his conservatism into question. Would McCain trade arms for hostages? Would he cut and run from a fight after the first attack? I don't think so. Reagan did both, yet he's admired almost like a god by today's conservative faithful.
I say we should give McCain a chance. Some of his views are not to our liking but there's no telling how he might distinguish himself in the national and international crises that are sure to come. Who knows. Ten or twenty years after McCain's presidency conservatives might be worshipping him as the epitome of "real" conservatism, and forgetting all about his amnesty for illegal aliens. Just like they now do with Reagan.
Please don't give me that line that McCain's not a real conservative. We don't need him to be a "real" conservative, we just need him to be more conservative than his Democratic rivals. And what is a "real" conservative anyway? Someone who's strong on border security? Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill in the '80's. Guess he's not a "real" conservative, then. Is a "real" conservative someone who's tough on terrorism? Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the bombing of the Marines' barracks, and he traded arms for hostages after saying he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan rarely attended church while in office but Nancy, his wife, did consult astrologers, in violation of Biblical doctrine. So just how conservative was dear Ronny?
Yes, Reagan stood up to the tyranny of communism and won the Cold War. He also cut taxes and paved the way for the welfare reform that Bill Clinton reluctantly signed into law in the '90's. But, as I pointed out above, Reagan's conservative credentials weren't infallible. He did things that some people could use to call his conservatism into question. Would McCain trade arms for hostages? Would he cut and run from a fight after the first attack? I don't think so. Reagan did both, yet he's admired almost like a god by today's conservative faithful.
I say we should give McCain a chance. Some of his views are not to our liking but there's no telling how he might distinguish himself in the national and international crises that are sure to come. Who knows. Ten or twenty years after McCain's presidency conservatives might be worshipping him as the epitome of "real" conservatism, and forgetting all about his amnesty for illegal aliens. Just like they now do with Reagan.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Get A Grip!
Well, Super Tuesday has come and gone and, just as I expected, John McCain has emerged as the GOP front runner, winning more than half of the delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination. And also as I expected, conservatives are going crazy. I have tell my fellow right-wingers: Get a grip! I understand why so many of you are suspicious of McCain; he's not my first choice, either. But the fear and hatred of him is getting irrational. When Ann Coulter says she'll vote for Hillary--Hillary!--if McCain gets the nomination you know that conservatives are in danger of losing it--and I'm not talking about the election.
Yes, McCain's position on some key issues is big time wrong, but the American Conservative Union (ACU), the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization, gives McCain an 82% lifetime conservative voting rating. I admit that 82% isn't 100%, but it IS a tad bit higher than the 9% rating for Hillary, no matter what dear Ann says. Look people, McCain has been more consistently pro-life than Romney. He supports gun rights. He believes gay marriage should be decided by the states. He has opposed the expansion of hate crime laws. And, most importantly, he's a hawk on the war on terror. Does that make McCain perfect? No, but it does make him better than Hillary, Obama, or anyone else the Left has to offer.
There's an old saying that conservatives should heed in this uncertain time: Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If McCain is nominated he has a better chance of winning the presidency than Romney or Huckabee. And if Republicans keep the White House conservatives will have a greater chance of having their voices heard with sympathy than if the Dems take the White House. And that's good. We conservatives must not become our own worst enemies by demanding perfection or nothing. We just might end up with nothing.
Yes, McCain's position on some key issues is big time wrong, but the American Conservative Union (ACU), the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization, gives McCain an 82% lifetime conservative voting rating. I admit that 82% isn't 100%, but it IS a tad bit higher than the 9% rating for Hillary, no matter what dear Ann says. Look people, McCain has been more consistently pro-life than Romney. He supports gun rights. He believes gay marriage should be decided by the states. He has opposed the expansion of hate crime laws. And, most importantly, he's a hawk on the war on terror. Does that make McCain perfect? No, but it does make him better than Hillary, Obama, or anyone else the Left has to offer.
There's an old saying that conservatives should heed in this uncertain time: Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If McCain is nominated he has a better chance of winning the presidency than Romney or Huckabee. And if Republicans keep the White House conservatives will have a greater chance of having their voices heard with sympathy than if the Dems take the White House. And that's good. We conservatives must not become our own worst enemies by demanding perfection or nothing. We just might end up with nothing.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Black History Month
I hate Black History Month. I know; that's an inflammatory thing for a Black person to say, but it's true. I hate it. Why? Because it's so damned artificial and encourages a culture of grievance among Blacks.
Black History Month (BHM) was started by Dr. Carter G. Woodson for the positive and innocuous reason of educating Americans about the contribution of Blacks to this nation. That's great. But as a child I noticed that all I ever learned about Black Americans during BHM was how oppressed they were. In school and on tv everything centered on the Black struggle to overcome. There was very little teaching about Blacks' actual accomplishments except for the obligatory mentioning of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, the only Blacks who seemed to do something besides struggle to overcome.
And then, after weeks of being practically force fed stories of struggle and hardship--poof!--it was over. March first came and with it a return to "real" history which didn't include an obsession with Blacks. All during February I learned how evil segregation was but once February was over the school went right back to intellectual segregation. This is why I feel that Black History Month is artificial and encourages Blacks to have a perpetual chip on their shoulders.
If Blacks are full Americans and contributed to the development of this country the same as Whites, then their history should be taught the way it actually happened: as an integral part of American history. There should be no instructional apartheid, with a month for Blacks, another for women, yet another for Hispanics, and so forth. And what children learn about Blacks--and other minorities--should highlight their successes and accomplishments as much as their oppression. Children should be taught, for instance, that most Black families were intact, two parent households even at the height of segregation and racism. Therefore, Whites are not to blame for the current disintergration of the Black family.
Absolving Whites of responsibility for the individual and communal ills of Blacks won't be a popular move. Many Blacks like the sainthood that comes with being perpetual victims of Whites. And a lot of Whites take a masochist delight in doing never ending and totally unnecessary penance for the sins of their ancestors. So intergrating Black history into American history and scrapping Black History Month is sure to meet with strong resistance. But that's the only way to underscore both the progress Blacks have made in modern America and the achievements they made in spite of the racism of the past. The American Dream was and is reachable by Blacks who work for it. Understanding that is what learning Black history should really be about.
Black History Month (BHM) was started by Dr. Carter G. Woodson for the positive and innocuous reason of educating Americans about the contribution of Blacks to this nation. That's great. But as a child I noticed that all I ever learned about Black Americans during BHM was how oppressed they were. In school and on tv everything centered on the Black struggle to overcome. There was very little teaching about Blacks' actual accomplishments except for the obligatory mentioning of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, the only Blacks who seemed to do something besides struggle to overcome.
And then, after weeks of being practically force fed stories of struggle and hardship--poof!--it was over. March first came and with it a return to "real" history which didn't include an obsession with Blacks. All during February I learned how evil segregation was but once February was over the school went right back to intellectual segregation. This is why I feel that Black History Month is artificial and encourages Blacks to have a perpetual chip on their shoulders.
If Blacks are full Americans and contributed to the development of this country the same as Whites, then their history should be taught the way it actually happened: as an integral part of American history. There should be no instructional apartheid, with a month for Blacks, another for women, yet another for Hispanics, and so forth. And what children learn about Blacks--and other minorities--should highlight their successes and accomplishments as much as their oppression. Children should be taught, for instance, that most Black families were intact, two parent households even at the height of segregation and racism. Therefore, Whites are not to blame for the current disintergration of the Black family.
Absolving Whites of responsibility for the individual and communal ills of Blacks won't be a popular move. Many Blacks like the sainthood that comes with being perpetual victims of Whites. And a lot of Whites take a masochist delight in doing never ending and totally unnecessary penance for the sins of their ancestors. So intergrating Black history into American history and scrapping Black History Month is sure to meet with strong resistance. But that's the only way to underscore both the progress Blacks have made in modern America and the achievements they made in spite of the racism of the past. The American Dream was and is reachable by Blacks who work for it. Understanding that is what learning Black history should really be about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)