Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Belated Happy Thanksgiving
I just wanted to wish everyone a belated happy Thanksgiving. I hope your holiday was blessed and bountiful. Mine very much was.
Duggar Number 20!
The Duggar clan is expanding...again. Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, the patriarch and matriarch of America's most famous extra large family, have announced they are expecting their 20th--yes, 20th!--child. The news was revealed in last week's People magazine.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Happy Veterans' Day
I'm keeping it short and sweet for Veteran's Day. I wish a heartfelt thank you to all our servicemen and women who fought to keep me and America free. The US Armed Forces is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Thank you, thank you for your service! And God bless you all!
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Clarence Thomas Redux
It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
With A Friend Like This
While watching The O'Reilly Factor last I learned an interesting fact. David Duke is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests. That's right. The far right-wing, white nationalist, and erstwhile KKK member, likes the left-wing, anti-capitalist movement.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Beat Obama With A Cain
A friend sent me this video by e-mail. This is great! The music is a little slow and a little more bluesy than I usually like, but the message in this song is spot on. And it's funny, too. So give a look and a listen to this little political ditty. Our side definitely needs more protest art like this. Enjoy!
Monday, October 17, 2011
"We, the People"
Here's something all patriotic Americans should see. It's a video by a 12-year-old singer named Emily Keener. Emily appeared on Mike Huckabee's show on Saturday, Oct. 15 to sing this song, "We the People", which she wrote herself. Emily wrote the song for Constituting America's "We the People" contest and won Best Song in the middle school division. This song is quite beautiful and mature for such a young songwriter*. It gives hope to patriots like myself that not all young artists want to ape the libertine, socialist tripe that makes up so much of popular "entertainment". Emily Keener shows that there are talented kids out there who want use their artistic gifts for good. We patriots need to make sure we support such patriotic young artists like Emily. So give a listen to this song and buy her cd. You won't be sorry.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!
I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Monday, October 10, 2011
No Palin Candidacy
Sarah Palin announced a few days ago that she's not running for president this time around. Some of her fans were, I heard, a bit disappointed but I think Ms. Palin called this one right.
I like Sarah Palin a lot. I admire her unapologetic Christian faith. I admire her intrepidity in the face of withering leftist criticism. I agree with her positions on most of the major issues (pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-amnesty, commitment to fiscal responsibility, etc.). I believe she's much, much smarter than her detractors give her credit for. Still, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president of the United States. Having strong faith, intelligence, courage, and principled, conservative stands on the issues doesn't necessarily add up to the experience necessary to govern the world's only superpower.
Sarah Palin can be of great help to the Republican party and the conservative movement, but not as a candidate. She can, I feel, better serve the cause behind the scenes acting as a "king maker", if you will; rallying the base, and lending a folksy, down-to-earth dimension to critiquing the Obama administration. Apparently, Ms. Palin sees things the same way and made the right decision for the Republican party, conservatism, her family, and herself.
Good on you, Sarah.
I like Sarah Palin a lot. I admire her unapologetic Christian faith. I admire her intrepidity in the face of withering leftist criticism. I agree with her positions on most of the major issues (pro-life, pro-gun rights, anti-amnesty, commitment to fiscal responsibility, etc.). I believe she's much, much smarter than her detractors give her credit for. Still, Sarah Palin isn't ready to be president of the United States. Having strong faith, intelligence, courage, and principled, conservative stands on the issues doesn't necessarily add up to the experience necessary to govern the world's only superpower.
Sarah Palin can be of great help to the Republican party and the conservative movement, but not as a candidate. She can, I feel, better serve the cause behind the scenes acting as a "king maker", if you will; rallying the base, and lending a folksy, down-to-earth dimension to critiquing the Obama administration. Apparently, Ms. Palin sees things the same way and made the right decision for the Republican party, conservatism, her family, and herself.
Good on you, Sarah.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
What Do You Mean, Banned?
I guess this must be Banned Books Week. When I went to Half Price Bookstore yesterday the Banned Books display was up. The usual books were there, like Huckleberry Finn and Brave New World, plus a several books that were unfamiliar to me. And there was Harry Potter, among the latest and most popular "banned" books. The one book I didn't see on the display was the Bible, the most banned book in history. Interesting omission, which got me to thinking. Do we use the term "banned" too loosely and too selectively? I think we do.
Off and on over the years I've heard about pitch battles between concerned parents and school officials over what kind of books should be available to public school children. Such battles usually involved shrill accusations of book banning and censorship, especially if the parents were conservative. But the charge of censorship never rang true to me.
If a book is removed from, say, an elementary school library but is still available in junior and senior high school libraries, public libraries, and bookstores, then that book really isn't banned. Removing a book from a certain audience but not from society as a whole isn't censorship, and if it is then we must ask why all the efforts to remove the Bible and other religious expression from the entire public square are rarely condemned as acts of censorship. It seems to me that the cry of "Book banning!" or "Censorship!" often doesn't reflect a principled commitment to free expression but is, rather, a weapon in the Left's war to discredit and extinguish conservative ideas and values. If the public can be convinced that conservatives are intolerant censors the easier it will be to, irony of ironies, censor them!
I don't think that everyone on the Left plays the censorship card as a means to suppress conservatives. I believe there are good people on both sides of the political aisle who sincerely oppose censorship and support freedom of expression as matters of principle. Such people need to lead the way in the fight to preserve our speech and press liberties. Then, freedom of expression will be defended for all and we won't waste time and effort fighting for "banned" books you can get at any library or bookstore.
If you can check it out or buy it without fear of the law, then it's not banned. Let's save Banned Books week for material that can get you jailed, or worse, if you have it. You know, like the Bible.
Off and on over the years I've heard about pitch battles between concerned parents and school officials over what kind of books should be available to public school children. Such battles usually involved shrill accusations of book banning and censorship, especially if the parents were conservative. But the charge of censorship never rang true to me.
If a book is removed from, say, an elementary school library but is still available in junior and senior high school libraries, public libraries, and bookstores, then that book really isn't banned. Removing a book from a certain audience but not from society as a whole isn't censorship, and if it is then we must ask why all the efforts to remove the Bible and other religious expression from the entire public square are rarely condemned as acts of censorship. It seems to me that the cry of "Book banning!" or "Censorship!" often doesn't reflect a principled commitment to free expression but is, rather, a weapon in the Left's war to discredit and extinguish conservative ideas and values. If the public can be convinced that conservatives are intolerant censors the easier it will be to, irony of ironies, censor them!
I don't think that everyone on the Left plays the censorship card as a means to suppress conservatives. I believe there are good people on both sides of the political aisle who sincerely oppose censorship and support freedom of expression as matters of principle. Such people need to lead the way in the fight to preserve our speech and press liberties. Then, freedom of expression will be defended for all and we won't waste time and effort fighting for "banned" books you can get at any library or bookstore.
If you can check it out or buy it without fear of the law, then it's not banned. Let's save Banned Books week for material that can get you jailed, or worse, if you have it. You know, like the Bible.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
If A Republican Said This...
...he'd be pilloried, condemned, denounced, and maybe even burned in effigy. But if a liberal says it, he gets a pass. What is "it"? Take a look.
While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.
Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.
Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.
While trying to explain the Democrats' loss of Anthony Weiner's 9th Congressional District seat in this week's special election, NY Representative Henry Waxman opined that Jews vote Republican "to protect their wealth." What?! Can you say, "anti-Semitic stereotype"? I knew you could. If a Republican said such a thing he'd be roundly and shrilly condemned as a rabid anti-Semite, particularly if he were in any way affiliated with the Tea Party. But a liberal Democrat can play on foul, age-old prejudices and the bigotry hunters just shrug.
Some might argue that Waxman's statement isn't anti-Semitic because Waxman himself is Jewish, but that just makes what he said all the more offensive. As a Jew Waxman had to have known the negative concepts of Jews he'd be conjuring up with his remark. Jews vote Republican to protect their wealth? Waxman might as well have shouted, "Those damn greedy Jews!". I mean, that is pretty much what he did say.
Now, to be fair to Waxman, the Congressman also claimed that "misunderstanding of Obama's [Middle East policies]" helped the heavily Jewish 9th District go Republican. No duh. I'd say Obama virtually selling out Israel was the reason 9th District Jews elected Republican Bob Turner. Trying to protect their wealth? How about trying to protect their lives by voting for the party that staunchly supports the survival of Israel and, hence, of Jews generally? Congressman Waxman, and all Democrats, need to wise up. The policies of their messiah lost the 9th District and will lose the nation in 2012. The Democrats need to face that hard truth and stop dredging up racist stereotypes to explain their defeat. Jews support those who support their survival. It's that simple. Congressman Waxman, of all people, should know that. Now, I think, he does.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Remember What Happened
Today marks the 10th anniversary of the horrific terrorist attacks which struck America on September 11, 2001. Those attacks--two on the World Trade Center, one on the Pentagon, and one aimed for the White House that crashed in Pennsylvania--were the worst attacks on Americans ever. More of our national brethren were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor. It was a monumental tragedy.
Look at the picture above. It's the tragically iconic "Falling Man" photo. This is what 9/11 is all about. This is what happened that day. Human beings, whose only crime was to go to work, forced to make a tortuous choice: burn to death, or jump from windows more than 1000 feet above ground. Two hundred chose to jump. Over 2000 others at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon burned to death, suffocated, or were pulverized by falling debris. And in Pennsylvania, 40 American souls perished when their plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed after the passengers heroically tried to take it back from the terrorist filth who'd hijacked it. This is what happened on 9/11. This is what we must remember.
The attacks on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and the hijacking of Flight 93 were NOT the work of the US government. They weren't a so-called Black Ops operation. They weren't engineered by Jews. The World Trade Center towers weren't blown up from the inside. The Pentagon wasn't hit by a missile. Islamic terrorists committed the atrocities of 9/11. Muslims, acting on their religion's command to wage jihad, or holy war, on "infidels", hijacked passenger planes and used them as bombs to kill thousands of innocent people. That is what happened on 9/11. That is what we must remember.
The attacks on 9/11 were, together, an act of war, not a crime. The proper response to them was--and remains--to wage war on the jihadis who perpetrated the atrocity and remain committed to our destruction to this day. That is what we must remember.
9/11 wasn't just about horror, tragedy, and death. It was a day of heroism, patriotism, and extraordinary courage. It was a day when Americans were united like we'd never been since World War II. On that day, people risked their lives to save strangers, and gave their lives to save their country from further assault. On that day, and in the days after, it didn't matter what race, religion, class, or gender you were. On that day, there were no Republicans or Democrats, no conservatives or liberals. On 9/11 we were all Americans. Period. That, too, is what we must remember.
Look at the picture above once again. Look at it and let it stir up in you all the emotions, in all their intensity, that you felt that awful day. Feel the rage, fear, horror, shock, and grief, but also feel the courage, the patriotism, the brotherhood, the can-do spirit, the determination to save and be saved. Feel the best of America that burst forth that day, and make a resolution to live that spirit in your every day life as much as you can. For it was that spirit, more than our buildings, that the terrorists really wanted to destroy.
So, on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, let us remember our lost loved ones and the brave first responders who sacrificed their lives so others could live. And let us resolve that while our buildings may have been broken, our hearts never will be. The terrorists will never win because the American spirit will never be quenched. That is what 9/11 is all about. That is what we must remember.
God bless America.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Waste Not, Want Not
I did something at work a couple of days ago that got me to thinking. What did I do? I got some paper out of my supervisor's trash can, took it home and used it for printer paper. How did I come to do that, and why?
I was helping my supervisor on her side of the warehouse. On the way to put up some product, I walked past her trash can and noticed some paper in there. I knew that paper was clean because I'd just seen it on my super's desk a few minutes before, so I reached in and got it. The paper was printed on only one side so it immediately occurred to me that I could use it for my own printing needs. And that's what I did. When I got home that day I put the paper in my printer and used it to print out a few pictures from the net. Although the paper I "recycled" from my job seemed to be of a lesser weight than what I buy, it worked fine. And that got me to thinking, what about all the paper that I missed? What should be done about wasting all that perfectly usable "trash"?
Paper isn't the only thing that's wasted at my job. I work in a warehouse so we use lots of wooden pallets. Sometimes pieces of these pallets break off and, of course, we throw them away. What a waste. I'm not sure what those pieces of wood could be used for but I'm sure they're good for something. Maybe they could be used by people who do woodworking as a hobby. I bet those pallet slats could be turned into very useful and beautiful things by some talented hobbyists. Sadly, we'll never get to know because the broken pallet slats are thrown away.
When I saw that paper in my supervisor's trash can, I thought about ALL the unnecessary waste that's piling up all over the warehouse, our country, and even the world. I wondered what can be done about it, and I think the answer lies in changing our understanding of what "resources" are and rediscovering the Biblical concept of stewardship.
I suspect most Americans and other wealthy Westerners think of resources as only the raw materials taken from nature. We don't think of the things made from those raw materials as resources, but they are. A piece of paper printed on only one side is a resource; it can be used again. A wood slat broken off a pallet is a resource; it can be used again. The cardboard rolls that packing tape is wrapped around are resources; they can be used for other purposes once the tape is gone. We've got to change the way we think about resources. Using something for its stated purpose is not the same thing as using it up. It makes no sense to toss out things that are totally reusable.
We live in economically and environmentally challenging times. Everything that we can save and reuse means less money going out of our personal, business, and national pockets and less damaging mining of the earth for raw materials. That's what Biblical stewardship is, wisely using and REusing the resources God has given us. The sage old maxim, "Waste not, want not", is a succinct expression of Biblical stewardship. We are suffering economically because we abandoned that principle and instead tried to build lasting wealth and economic security on extravagant consumption. It didn't work. So why not give Scripture's advice another try? Our forefathers did, and they created the richest nation the world has ever seen. Let's be their true heirs and start once again to diligently apply the Godly principles that undergirded their success. After all, if we "waste not", what do we have to lose?
I was helping my supervisor on her side of the warehouse. On the way to put up some product, I walked past her trash can and noticed some paper in there. I knew that paper was clean because I'd just seen it on my super's desk a few minutes before, so I reached in and got it. The paper was printed on only one side so it immediately occurred to me that I could use it for my own printing needs. And that's what I did. When I got home that day I put the paper in my printer and used it to print out a few pictures from the net. Although the paper I "recycled" from my job seemed to be of a lesser weight than what I buy, it worked fine. And that got me to thinking, what about all the paper that I missed? What should be done about wasting all that perfectly usable "trash"?
Paper isn't the only thing that's wasted at my job. I work in a warehouse so we use lots of wooden pallets. Sometimes pieces of these pallets break off and, of course, we throw them away. What a waste. I'm not sure what those pieces of wood could be used for but I'm sure they're good for something. Maybe they could be used by people who do woodworking as a hobby. I bet those pallet slats could be turned into very useful and beautiful things by some talented hobbyists. Sadly, we'll never get to know because the broken pallet slats are thrown away.
When I saw that paper in my supervisor's trash can, I thought about ALL the unnecessary waste that's piling up all over the warehouse, our country, and even the world. I wondered what can be done about it, and I think the answer lies in changing our understanding of what "resources" are and rediscovering the Biblical concept of stewardship.
I suspect most Americans and other wealthy Westerners think of resources as only the raw materials taken from nature. We don't think of the things made from those raw materials as resources, but they are. A piece of paper printed on only one side is a resource; it can be used again. A wood slat broken off a pallet is a resource; it can be used again. The cardboard rolls that packing tape is wrapped around are resources; they can be used for other purposes once the tape is gone. We've got to change the way we think about resources. Using something for its stated purpose is not the same thing as using it up. It makes no sense to toss out things that are totally reusable.
We live in economically and environmentally challenging times. Everything that we can save and reuse means less money going out of our personal, business, and national pockets and less damaging mining of the earth for raw materials. That's what Biblical stewardship is, wisely using and REusing the resources God has given us. The sage old maxim, "Waste not, want not", is a succinct expression of Biblical stewardship. We are suffering economically because we abandoned that principle and instead tried to build lasting wealth and economic security on extravagant consumption. It didn't work. So why not give Scripture's advice another try? Our forefathers did, and they created the richest nation the world has ever seen. Let's be their true heirs and start once again to diligently apply the Godly principles that undergirded their success. After all, if we "waste not", what do we have to lose?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, August 07, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
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.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
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.
Answer: Haiti
Learn a little history and think about it.
Sunday, July 03, 2011
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)