If She Were Muslim

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

I think this is very unfair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He's at it again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a Palinista But...

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

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

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

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

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

So Glad She Adopted White*

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

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

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

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

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

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

*At least, little Eloise Joni looks white.

Food For Thought

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

Answer: Haiti

Learn a little history and think about it.

I'm An American!

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

I'm American
by Stuck Mojo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Robert.

D-Day Remembered

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

D-Day in Color



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



French couple welcoming American troops with wine.



French civilians having a friendly photo op with American troops.



Captured German soldiers.



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


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

Quotable Quotes: In Memoriam

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

Happy Memorial Day
God bless the Fallen

In Memoriam

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


Gone Too Soon
In Memory of the Fallen

A Small Taste Of Obamacare

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

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

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

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

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

I really wish he didn't.

Celebrate Good Times, Come On!

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



And the children shall lead...



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



Long may she wave!



USA! USA!



Victory!



What getting bin Laden was all about.

The Rat Is Dead!

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kingdom Builders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Trump For President?

Donald Trump wants to run for president. I wasn't keen on the idea of either a Trump candidacy or presidency. Then I watched The Donald's interview on The O'Reilly Factor last week and now I'm sort of liking the idea of President Trump.

What got me warming to the idea of Trump as America's Chief Executive was his largely forthright answers to Bill O'Reilly's questions. In particular, I was astonished that, without hesitation, Trump declared himself pro-life and anti-gay marriage. I'd always viewed Trump as a (stereo)typically liberal New Yorker. The reality that he takes the same position as I do on abortion and marriage was a refreshing discovery. And there were other refreshing discoveries to come.

In his interview, Trump revealed he's against illegal immigration and would militarize the border to halt it. He wants to deal decisively with China, saying he'd slap a 25% tariff on Chinese goods coming to America if China didn't stop manipulating its currency. Trump opposes the Ground Zero mosque, and his notion of what we should do in Iraq is really novel. Basically, he said we should take over the second largest Iraqi oil field and stay there. Trump said America needed to do what other countries do and keep what she conquers. There was no disdain toward or skepticism of American power in The Donald. President Trump won't go around apologizing for America and bowing to foreign leaders. All I can say to that is, yeah!

Did The Donald say--or not say--anything in his interview that gave me pause? Yes. Trump equivocated on Obamacare. He didn't say he opposed it, although he implied that other solutions, like individuals and businesses being able to buy health insurance across state lines, would work better than Obamacare. And Trump talked tough on Iran not getting a nuke but avoided saying how he'd stop that from happening. While I'm all for Iran not going nuclear, talking tough about it is useless. We've had that from politicians for years. What's needed is a bold plan including, perhaps, military action, and the will to carry it out. Trump's tough talk implied that he'd use force to stop Iran from going nuclear. If that's the case, I wish he'd been as forthright about it as he was on other things.

Oh, and Trump expressed some belief in the "birther" controversy which, I feel, could hurt his credibility among many voters.

Despite the few reservations I've listed here, I think I can take Donald Trump seriously as a candidate and even as president. I like that he's a Washington outsider. I like that he's a businessman who can tell the politicians how to really create jobs. And I'm thrilled with his unapologetically conservative position on two of the social issues most important to me. Yep, I think I can support a White House run by The Donald.

President Trump. It's sounding good.

"Sucker Punch" Rocks!

Hey friends! As most of you know, last Thursday was my birthday. To celebrate I took myself out to dinner and a movie. I'd done that two weeks prior to celebrate my birthday and saw Red Riding Hood, which was a disappointment. Not terrible, just not worth the full price I had to pay. So I decided to try the movies again, hoping to find one that was really good, and I did! It's called Sucker Punch.

Sucker Punch is great! How great? So great enough that I didn't mind haivng to pay full price for it; I'd pay full price to see it again, and I plan on buying it when it comes out on dvd. That's how great Sucker Punch is. That's how much I liked it!

Sucker Punch is cool, original, exciting, decked with great special effects, and suprisingly warm and thought-provoking. It has a moving twist at the end and, to top it off, a killer soundtrack! I won't say anymore as I'm not a skilled movie reviewer. I just wanted to do a post on how much I liked this film. If you want to have a blast at the movies this weekend, go see Sucker Punch. You won't be disappointed!

Here's a preview of Sucker Punch's awesome soundtrack. It's a video of the remake of Jefferson Airplane's classic, White Rabbit. I know, classics aren't supposed to be messed with, but leave it to Sucker Punch to get remake right. So here's White Rabbit, Sucker Punch style.

Happy Birthday To Me!

Today's my birthday. Woohoo! I'm 47 today. Wow! That's half a century! Kinda makes me feel old saying it that way, so I guess I'd better stop. Hee, hee. Seriously, this birthday is extra special because it's my first birthday as a cancer survivor. I am so grateful to see another birthday. I know that things could've so easily gone the other way. So I am very, very thankful. Thank you, God!

I didn't do anything really special for my birthday. I took myself out to dinner and a movie a couple of weeks ago and I'm going to do the same tomorrow. Actually, that is pretty special considering how tight my finances are right now. The movie I went to see on the 18th was "Red Riding Hood". It was just ok but it had a kick ass song in it. The song is called "The Wolf" and it's by Fever Ray, a band I've never heard of before. I'm including a video of the song on my birthday post. It was played during a celebration scene in the movie. I wish that scene was part of the video. Instead, all there is is a picture of Red. But it's the song, not images, I want you to focus on. So pull up a chair, relax, and enjoy!

"The Wolf", by Fever Ray



Told ya it kicked ass!

How To Handle A Liberal

Who knew we'd get a lesson in handlling self-righteous, bullying liberals from a young boy in Australia. Thank you, Casey Heynes!

Does Obama Want Gaddafi To Win?

Does Obama want Moammar Gaddafi to win the civil war raging in Libya? I'm pondering this question in light of the president's skittishness about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya.

Gaddafi's forces are crushing what had been a largely successful rebellion against his rule. The loyalists have superior equipment all around but one of their biggest strengths over the rebels is their air power. If that power could be grounded the rebels stand a chance of winning. A rebel victory would be good not only because it would free the Libyan people from a brutal dictator but also for a reason specific to America.

Moammar Gaddafi is a mass murderer of Americans. Before 9/11 and Al Quaeda Gadaffi had killed more Americans than any other terrorist. In 1986 he ordered the Berlin discotheque bombing which killed three US servicemen. And in 1988 Gaddafi masterminded the infamous bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland which killed nearly 200 hundred American civilians. If Gaddfi is overthrown he can be snatched by the US and put on trial for the Americans he slaughtered. That's the American reason why the no-fly zone must be imposed. It'll increase the likelihood of Gadaffi's fall and the chance of America snagging the butcher of Lockerbie. And I'm wondering if that's what Obama wants to avoid.

Barack Obama is a far-Left guy. Yes, he's done some good things in the War on Terror, but he's skeptical of American power and leadership, preferring to defer to the "world community". In fact, that is the "official" reason, articulated by Hillary Clinton, for his administration's reluctance to act first on the no-fly zone. There must be an international consensus on any action against Libya, Hillary Clinton said; America must not take the lead. With the "world community" in charge there's a greater chance that Gaddafi will crush the rebellion and stay in power, making moot any question of America apprehending Gaddafi. I believe that's the outcome Obama's hoping for.

Snagging Gaddafi and putting him on trial just doesn't mesh with Obama's worldview. In fact, being the far-Left guy that he is, it's safe to say that that would be a nightmare scenario for him. Obama would much prefer an end game that jibes with his progressive, "America the Bad" paradigm. So, does Obama want Gaddafi to win? In a word, yes. That would relieve him, at least partially, of the job of defending and avenging Americans, something he never really wanted to do. And he can save face by blameing his inaction on the "world community" which, in his paradigm, takes precedence over the needs of America. You see, in spirit Obama truly is a citizen of the world, just as he said in his Berlin speech in 2008. And those of you who voted for him thought you were electing an American. Silly you.

$3.29 A Gallon Gas?!?!

I can't believe this.

Yesterday evening on the way home from work gas was $3.18 at my favorite discount filling station. On my way to work at 5:30 this morning gas was $3.29 at the same filling station. Pardon my French, but, "WTF?!?!".

Yes, I know the Libyan crisis is partially responsible for the latest hike in prices at the pump, but gas has been rising for some time. When is all hell going to break loose over this? I mean, when gas prices were soaring just a few years ago the country was pissed off (pardon my French again). The price of gas was all anybody could talk about. That subject seemed to lead every news hour on tv. People eagerly supported exploiting America's domestic energy resources and "Drill, baby, drill!" was chanted across the nation. But now? Nothing. And I think I know why.

When gas prices were rising a few years ago Bush was still president. It was in liberals' political interest to hype skyrocketing gas prices--and anything else wrong in the country--then. They believed it would help them win in '08. The liberals got a boost from many ordinary Americans who were also fed up with Bush and expressed it in anger over the gas prices. Ordinary folks were truly upset about the pain at the pumps but liberals were engaging in manufactured outrage to achieve political ends. And it worked. Republican John McCain was defeated in the presidential election. Liberals got their man into the White House; now criticism and dissent were supposed to stop.

Liberals' guiding principle on Barack Obama's presidency is that he's not responsible for anything bad that happens on his watch. I beg to differ. Paying almost $4 for a gallon of gas is just as painful under a Black Democratic president as it was under a White Republican president. Again, I know that unrest in the Middle East is partially to blame for sticker shock at the pump, but only partially. Obama is to blame, too. He doesn't get a pass just because he's Black and liberal. Racial equality means people are treated the same, regardless of race. Right? So, if Bush was responsible for everything bad that occurred during his presidency, then so is Obama. And believe me, paying $3.29 a gallon for gas is bad. Very bad. Even under the Messiah.