Well, it's been going on for weeks now, liberals' well-timed outrage over Rush Limbaugh's insult of Sandra Fluke who, as a result, has become the darling of the Left. Liberals have declared that a full blown war is now being waged on women by Republicans because eeeevil Rush--who, of course, is the unofficial leader of the Republican Party--called a liberal woman a slut. Oh, the horror!
Don't get me wrong. I believe it was wrong for Rush to call Ms. Fluke a slut. However, it was also wrong for Ed Schultz to call Laura Ingraham a slut, and for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt–yes, I did write the word–yet, when that and other nasty, misogynist slurs were thrown at conservative women by liberal talking heads, no one on the Left had a nervous breakdown and declared that a “war on women” had been unleashed. That tells me that all the outrage being dumped on Rush by liberals now is 100% FAKE. They’re simply using this trumped up “attack” on the nation’s females to try and shut Rush down BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LIKE OPPOSING SPEECH. That's what this is really all about: shutting down opposing speech.
The Left wants no opposition to their agenda. Freedom of speech? The right to protest? Liberals don't believe those are rights. Rather, they regard them as tactics in political warfare, tactics that are legitimate only when used by the Left to advance its agenda. When speech doesn't advance the goals of the Left, leftists want it stopped. Claiming that they're fighting runaway misogyny is just a cover for the real goal of suppressing opposing views. That's what's really going on here, and we conservatives must make that clear.
And as for the original contraceptive issue which started "slutgate" in the first place? It’s not about government giving women free birth control. Rather, it’s about the government mandating that a) insurance companies must provide free contraceptives in their policies, and b) private companies must provide such insurance policies to their employees, EVEN IF THE PRIVATE COMPANY IS RUN BY A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION THAT OPPOSES CONTRACEPTIVES. It’s that mandate, and the complete disregarding of religious freedom, that conservatives are vehemently opposed to. If a private company chooses, of its own free will, to provide its employees with insurance that covers birth control, fine. But the federal government is overstepping its bounds to order them to do so. That is a HUGE power grab that we conservatives have no intention of letting the federal government get away with, no matter how many times we're accused of waging a "war on women".
And as for Sandra Fluke and all those who think like her? Well, not wanting to pay for her own contraceptives may not make a woman a slut, but I have to ask. If you don't want to pay for your own contraceptives, are you really responsible enough to be having sex in the first place? I'm just asking.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Saturday, March 03, 2012
Monique And The Magical Mystery Fuel
While driving home from Bible study tonight I was listening to talk radio. The show that was on--sorry, I didn't catch the name--was addressing the Obama administration's policy not to bring down gas prices. The show's host was positing the idea that Obama wants higher gas prices as a way to gin up support for green energy investments, which Obama believes in fervently. A woman named Monique called into the show to weigh in on the discussion. Monique opined that Obama is looking for the magical mystery fuel to replace oil and he believes he can compel its invention by making it financially painful for Americans to drive. When I heard what Monique said I burst out laughing. "Magical mystery fuel". LOVE IT! And she was so right! That IS what Obama devoutly believes in, a magical mystery fuel to deliver us from the evil of fossil fuels. And he IS arrogant enough to believe he can force it to materialize by allowing more and more pain at the pump.
Barak Obama has a messiah complex. He does not believe he was elected president to discharge the chief executive's constitutionally mandated duties and to do the will of the people. No, he believes he was elected to impose on us religion-and-gun clinging people his superior, secular progressive vision of the Good Society. Obama knows that alternative energy is better for us so he feels justified in compelling compliance with his "green energy" policies and objectives. Moniuqe nailed it. The magical mystery fuel is Obama's Holy Grail, and he's willing to permit increasing hardship on millions of Americans to get it. But hey, it's for our own good, even though we're too unsophisticated to get that. But the Anointed One is looking out for us. I'll try to remember that next time I'm pumping $4 a gallon gas.
Barak Obama has a messiah complex. He does not believe he was elected president to discharge the chief executive's constitutionally mandated duties and to do the will of the people. No, he believes he was elected to impose on us religion-and-gun clinging people his superior, secular progressive vision of the Good Society. Obama knows that alternative energy is better for us so he feels justified in compelling compliance with his "green energy" policies and objectives. Moniuqe nailed it. The magical mystery fuel is Obama's Holy Grail, and he's willing to permit increasing hardship on millions of Americans to get it. But hey, it's for our own good, even though we're too unsophisticated to get that. But the Anointed One is looking out for us. I'll try to remember that next time I'm pumping $4 a gallon gas.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
State, Stay In Your Place!
On last night's episode of The O'Reilly Factor I learned of an outrageous act going on in California. In four of its counties, the state of California, using taxpayer money, is actually mailing condoms to kids as young as 12! You read that right. California is sending kids condoms, along with lubricant and pamphlets on avoiding pregnancy and STDs. How nice! And these neat little packages are being mailed in plain envelopes so as not to attract attention from pesky, nosy parents. This is government corruption and overreach on steroids!
Children belong to their parents. It is the sacred right and duty of parents to teach children morality and values. Consequently, parents have the right to know everything about their children's lives so they can guide them into making the right decisions. The state has NO right whatsoever to intefere with parents' rights and duties. Yes, some parents will fail in their responsibility, and that is the usual excuse used by progressive types to justify the government helping children evade parental oversight. The state must step in, they say, because some parents can't be trusted to do their job. But the failure of some parents to do their job does not justify government on any level overruling the rights and authority of all parents.
Yes, teen pregnancy and STD infection are disturbing. But state intrusion into the family isn't the solution. Not only does this shatter the cohesion of the family, but it undermines the general safety of children. As stated above, California is mailing condoms to children as young as 12, apparently without bothering to ascertain the age of these children's sex partners. That means that the state of California believes that 12-year-olds can consent to sex. How will that affect the enforcement of age-of-consent laws? It destroys the state's credibility to claim, on one hand, that 12-year-olds can't consent to sex while, on the other hand, giving them the means to do just that.
If the state wants to help stop teen pregnancy and STD infection it should flood the airwaves with public service announcements warning of the consequences of unprotected sex and give parents the correct information to discuss with their children. That is the limited role the state should have: dispensing information which parents then use according to their values. Some parents are very liberal and see nothing wrong with their (very young) teen children being sexually active. Such parents will, no doubt, give the go ahead for their kids to use birth control. Traditionalist parents wouldn't make that choice. But what ever choice parents make, the key is that they, and not the government, are in charge of their children.
We should not have government interfering with the sacred relationship between parent and child. Raising children is the job of parents, not the state. Unless abuse is happening, parents must be free to bring up their children as they see fit, even if they make choices the we-know-better progressives don't like. That is the essence of freedom, and the last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.
Children belong to their parents. It is the sacred right and duty of parents to teach children morality and values. Consequently, parents have the right to know everything about their children's lives so they can guide them into making the right decisions. The state has NO right whatsoever to intefere with parents' rights and duties. Yes, some parents will fail in their responsibility, and that is the usual excuse used by progressive types to justify the government helping children evade parental oversight. The state must step in, they say, because some parents can't be trusted to do their job. But the failure of some parents to do their job does not justify government on any level overruling the rights and authority of all parents.
Yes, teen pregnancy and STD infection are disturbing. But state intrusion into the family isn't the solution. Not only does this shatter the cohesion of the family, but it undermines the general safety of children. As stated above, California is mailing condoms to children as young as 12, apparently without bothering to ascertain the age of these children's sex partners. That means that the state of California believes that 12-year-olds can consent to sex. How will that affect the enforcement of age-of-consent laws? It destroys the state's credibility to claim, on one hand, that 12-year-olds can't consent to sex while, on the other hand, giving them the means to do just that.
If the state wants to help stop teen pregnancy and STD infection it should flood the airwaves with public service announcements warning of the consequences of unprotected sex and give parents the correct information to discuss with their children. That is the limited role the state should have: dispensing information which parents then use according to their values. Some parents are very liberal and see nothing wrong with their (very young) teen children being sexually active. Such parents will, no doubt, give the go ahead for their kids to use birth control. Traditionalist parents wouldn't make that choice. But what ever choice parents make, the key is that they, and not the government, are in charge of their children.
We should not have government interfering with the sacred relationship between parent and child. Raising children is the job of parents, not the state. Unless abuse is happening, parents must be free to bring up their children as they see fit, even if they make choices the we-know-better progressives don't like. That is the essence of freedom, and the last time I checked, freedom was a good thing.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
As Athens Burns...
...Americans need to wake up.
The nation of Greece is facing imminent financial collapse and her people would rather riot in the streets than face the fact that their government can no longer support them. Americans need to wake up because we have a president who's determined to turn our country into the kind of welfare state that's bankrupted Greece.
America is an exceptional nation but she's not above the laws of math. If she continues to spend with reckless abandon she will financially implode just like Greece. America has a president fanatically devoted to the false belief that we can tax and spend our way to a just society. We can't. We can only tax and spend our way into more debt, dependency, and enslavement--yes, enslavement--to the foreign countries that are financing our debt.
Americans need to wake up.
Greece isn't the only European welfare state facing financial ruin. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy are also having problems. Yet, Obama and the Democrats continue to see European welfare statism as the example America should follow, the model she should copy. And a huge swath of the American people agrees.
Millions of Americans believe that the government's job is to take care of them. "Entitlementism" is their religion. They don't want to hear that the government is broke. They just want the freebies they've been taught all their lives are rightfully theirs. If they have any concerns about the debt at all, they believe it can be solved by taxing the eeeeevil rich. But in general, they're in deep denial about America's financial danger. These are the people who will riot in America's streets if this nation financially implodes as Greece has done. It's the natural result of "entitlementism".
Athens is burning. America is heading down the same path that's produced the rioting in the Greek capital. America is at a crossroads. The upcoming presidential election will put this nation on the path to more and more welfare statism or the path back to economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, limited government and the consequent prosperity. The choice is stark, and it can't be based on "what's in it for me?". Rather, the choice must be made out of committment to the well-being of the nation both now and in the future. Athens is burning. That's telling us something, if we have the ears to hear.
Americans, WAKE UP!
The nation of Greece is facing imminent financial collapse and her people would rather riot in the streets than face the fact that their government can no longer support them. Americans need to wake up because we have a president who's determined to turn our country into the kind of welfare state that's bankrupted Greece.
America is an exceptional nation but she's not above the laws of math. If she continues to spend with reckless abandon she will financially implode just like Greece. America has a president fanatically devoted to the false belief that we can tax and spend our way to a just society. We can't. We can only tax and spend our way into more debt, dependency, and enslavement--yes, enslavement--to the foreign countries that are financing our debt.
Americans need to wake up.
Greece isn't the only European welfare state facing financial ruin. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy are also having problems. Yet, Obama and the Democrats continue to see European welfare statism as the example America should follow, the model she should copy. And a huge swath of the American people agrees.
Millions of Americans believe that the government's job is to take care of them. "Entitlementism" is their religion. They don't want to hear that the government is broke. They just want the freebies they've been taught all their lives are rightfully theirs. If they have any concerns about the debt at all, they believe it can be solved by taxing the eeeeevil rich. But in general, they're in deep denial about America's financial danger. These are the people who will riot in America's streets if this nation financially implodes as Greece has done. It's the natural result of "entitlementism".
Athens is burning. America is heading down the same path that's produced the rioting in the Greek capital. America is at a crossroads. The upcoming presidential election will put this nation on the path to more and more welfare statism or the path back to economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, limited government and the consequent prosperity. The choice is stark, and it can't be based on "what's in it for me?". Rather, the choice must be made out of committment to the well-being of the nation both now and in the future. Athens is burning. That's telling us something, if we have the ears to hear.
Americans, WAKE UP!
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The God of Change
While listening to The Michael Medved Show the other day Medved played a soundbite from famous actor Robert Redford. Redford opined--and I'm paraphrasing--that change was good, accepting change was open-minded, and opposing change was narrow-minded. He was implying that liberals are enlightened for embracing change and conservatives are backwards for not.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Since I heard Redford's remark I've been pondering it, and I think he did hit on a key difference between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals are infatuated with change. You could even say they worship it. This can be seen in Obama's campaign slogan of "Hope and Change". Liberals adore Obama in large part because he promised to "fundamentally transform", i.e. change, America. Liberals accept, as a matter of faith, that change is always good and progressive, therefore they look at conservatives as knuckle-dragging Neanderthals for so often opposing change. But that is where conservatives differ from liberals.
Conservative, in fact, do NOT oppose change, certainly not change in and of itself. But unlike liberals, we don't worship change and don't adhere to the dogma that change is always good. A faithful and loving husband who starts cheating on and abusing his wife has certainly changed, but not for the better. Conservative keep that example, or a variation of it, in mind when people began talking about changing things, especially changing what Ann Coulter called the "load bearing walls" of moral values.
When change is proposed conservatives usually respond skeptically. We ask probing questions about the motives of the proponents of change. We ask probing questions about the possible unintended consequences of the proposed change and, if seeing no benefit from the change that justifies risking the unintended consequences, we will usually oppose the change. That doesn't mean, however, that we oppose solving the problem(s) the change was meant to address. On the contrary, after rejecting the originally proposed change, we'll often offer our own version, one that is usually less sweeping in scope than the original.
Conservatives aren't bigoted or narrow-minded. Our skepticism about change is rooted in the healthy and venerable desire to preserve what's best in our civilization, for the good of all. So, conservatives accept change, but only after thoroughly vetting it, or at least trying very hard to. We don't mindlessly embrace change out of the false belief that all change is good. Unlike as with liberals, change is not our god. Maybe one day Robert Redford will understand that.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Shocker
Shocked.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
That's how I felt Saturday night when I heard that Newt Gingrich had won the GOP South Carolina primary. Like most people I'd assumed that a Romney victory in South Carolina was a foregone conclusion. Gingrich, whose campaign rebounded from a near collapse early last year, was starting to slip again in the polls. The momentum was clearly with Romney, with Rick Santorum and Ron Paul nipping at his heels. Or so went the narrative.
Then came Newt.
Not only did the former House Speaker win, he won by a landslide. Like I said, I was shocked, but in hindsight I probably shouldn't have been. Even though Gingrich lost badly in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, he performed very well in the two debates leading up to the South Carolina vote. In particular, Newt's fearless challenge of CNN's John King in the second debate wowed conservatives and was almost certainly THE thing that pushed Newt over the top.
Whether by accident or design, Gingrich touched a huge nerve with his face off against King. Conservatives have endured media bias for decades and were just waiting for someone to tell the media elites where to go. Newt did that, and conservatives repaid him with victory. Of course, his win in South Carolina doesn't mean that Gingrich is a shoo in for the GOP presidential nomination. Politics is a very unpredictable game, and voters can be fickle. Still, Newt's victory in South Carolina has given everyone something to think about and, if you're a conservative, something to cheer about.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
It's All About Power
A few days ago Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gave a struggling Black woman, Ruth Williams, some money to help her out. Romney's kind gesture was immediately denounced by some on the Left as racist. Huh? How is giving a woman of color some help, one human being to another, racist? It isn't, but one particular criticism of Romney revealed the real problem his critics have with his act.
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
When appearing on MSNBC's show Now with Alex Wagner African-American columnist Joy-Ann Reid blasted Romney's charitable act as playing "into that conservative meme that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we'll just give them charity." (Emphasis added)
Did you get that? The real problem with Romney's gesture is that it epitomizes charity and contradicts the liberal idea of dependence on government as the only solution to poverty. Often, liberals will defend social progras as being charity, yet Ms. Reid clearly drew a distinction between the two. I believe her view is the true liberal one and explains why liberals give less to charity than conservatives do.
Liberals don't want any competition with government programs because dependence on government is the basis for their political power. Liberals create dependency on social programs, then promote themselves as the "caring" people who will protect said programs, then get votes from those whom they've made dependent. See the circle? The more people that can be made dependent on government handouts, the more power liberals attain. It's all about power, not compassion for the needy.
It's all about power. Remember that the next time a liberal scolds you for "hating the poor".
Saturday, January 07, 2012
Rick Santorum, The Greatest Threat To Black People!
A few nights ago I heard on The O'Reilly Factor about presidential candidate Rick Santorum's remark about not wanting to give Black people more welfare money. My sister also e-mailed a video of Santorum saying his very unpc statement. She titled the e-mail "What a bigot!" Rick Santorum a bigot? Not!
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Santorum didn't say he wanted to withold welfare money from Blacks because he hated them so much he wanted them to starve en masse, although you'd think that's what he said judging by the nervous breakdown some people are having over his statement. Rather, Santorum said, and I'm paraphrasing a bit, that, instead of government handouts he wanted Blacks to have the opportunity to earn money and that could happen only when manufacturing jobs returned to America. In other words, Santorum's statement was about jobs not race. But even if Santorum's remark had been about race, so what?
The liberal outrage over Rick Santorum's opinion is completely misdirected and politically motivated. It's not, I submit, motivated by genuine concern about Blacks. You want to know what liberals should really be mad about? Burning an old woman to death. That's what Jerome Isaac, a Black man, did to 73-year-old Deloris Gillespie, also Black. This horrific murder took place in December of last year and shocked New Yorkers.
A day after the killing Isaac, reeking with gasoline, turned himself in to police and said he killed Gillespie because she owed him $2000 for work he'd done for her. He set a defenseless woman ablaze over money. No respect for the elderly. No respect for human life, period. And that's just one instance of the Black-on-Black savagery that rages in this country 24/7, 365 days a year. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the greatest threat to Blacks is a white, conservative, Republican politician saying the right thing in the wrong way. Go figure. And we can expect more of this politically motivated race baiting as the presidential campaign heats up. Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's gonna be a bumpy night.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, friends! I pray 2012 will be a blessed and prosperous year for all of you and for our great nation. Let's make that happen. Amen!
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Merry Christmas!
To all my sweet blogging friends: Merry Christmas, a blessed New Year, and peace to all men of good will! God bless you all!
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Southern Pride
I saw this on Yahoo! News a few days ago.
Byron Thomas, a Black University of South Carolina Beaufort student who'd been forced to remove a Confederate battle flag (CBF) he'd hung on his dorm room window, was told Thursday (Dec. 2) by University officials that he could display the flag after all. Thomas had put up the banner as a show of Southern pride but was told by USCB's housing office to remove it after several students complained. The University reversed it's decision on advice from its legal counsel, which apparently suggested that the forced removal of the flag violated Thomas' free speech rights. Thomas has said that he might not put his Confederate flag back up due to his parents' disapproval. However, he says he stands firm on his belief that the Confederate battle flag represents pride and that his generation should help make that the primary meaning of the banner.
When I read this story I felt a feeling of validation. I wasn't the only Black person who liked the Confederate battle flag! Like Byron Thomas, I like the CBF. Initially, I fancied this symbol of the South for purely aesthetic reasons. I like the combination of colors, lines, and stars and I love the St. Andrew's cross--the so-called "X"--that crisscrosses the flag. Later, as my cultural consciousness evolved, I came to respect it as a symbol of Southern pride.
Yes, I'm well aware of the Confederate battle flag's association with racism and slavery. But racism and slavery thrived in America under many different flags, including our national banner, Old Glory. In their marches, white racist groups often prominently display Old Glory right along with the CBF. According to the logic of the Confederate battle flag's opponents, that makes Old Glory a hateful symbol of slavery and racism, too. However, most opponents of the Confederate battle flag don't condemn displays of Old Glory as racist. Like most other Americans, they understand that Old Glory symbolizes America in its entirety and don't define it by one or two particularly nasty negatives. I think the same courtesy can and should be extended to the Confederate battle flag. And I think that's what Byron Thomas was doing, in his own way.
I respect Byron Thomas for taking a very unpopular and misunderstood stand. He's right that his generation must redeem the Confederate battle flag from its dark associations and restore it to the symbol of pride it really is. The South, like America generally, is about much more than slavery and racism. And the symbols of the South are, too. So, I say to Byron Thomas, put your Confederate battle flag back in your dorm room window. Let your fellow students see your pride in your heritage. Blacks are Southerners, too, and we shouldn't be ashamed nor afraid to show it. You go, Byron!
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Remember Pearl Harbor
"December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy..."
And it has.
On this day 70 years ago, 2,403 American sailors and civilians were killed, and America was plunged into WWII, by the early morning Japanese sneak attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan's intent was to cripple America's naval power and ability to challenge Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Instead, Japan awakened a sleeping giant. The very next day, December 8, the US Congress declared war on Japan one hour after President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous "Date of Infamy" speech to Congress and the nation. From that moment on, the American people mobilized their "righteous might" as never before and committed themselves to "absolute victory" over Japan. That victory was achieved on August 9, 1945, with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Six days later, on August 15, Japan officially surrendered to the United States and the War in the Pacific was over.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor. Let us remember and mourn the American lives that were taken by Japanese treachery that Sunday morning seven decades ago, and let us honor the fighting spirit that propelled our great nation to total victory over a relentless and savage foe. Remember Pearl Harbor. REMEMBER.
And it has.
On this day 70 years ago, 2,403 American sailors and civilians were killed, and America was plunged into WWII, by the early morning Japanese sneak attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan's intent was to cripple America's naval power and ability to challenge Japanese expansion in the Pacific. Instead, Japan awakened a sleeping giant. The very next day, December 8, the US Congress declared war on Japan one hour after President Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous "Date of Infamy" speech to Congress and the nation. From that moment on, the American people mobilized their "righteous might" as never before and committed themselves to "absolute victory" over Japan. That victory was achieved on August 9, 1945, with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. Six days later, on August 15, Japan officially surrendered to the United States and the War in the Pacific was over.
Let us remember Pearl Harbor. Let us remember and mourn the American lives that were taken by Japanese treachery that Sunday morning seven decades ago, and let us honor the fighting spirit that propelled our great nation to total victory over a relentless and savage foe. Remember Pearl Harbor. REMEMBER.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
A Belated Happy Thanksgiving
I just wanted to wish everyone a belated happy Thanksgiving. I hope your holiday was blessed and bountiful. Mine very much was.
Duggar Number 20!
The Duggar clan is expanding...again. Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar, the patriarch and matriarch of America's most famous extra large family, have announced they are expecting their 20th--yes, 20th!--child. The news was revealed in last week's People magazine.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
For those who don't know--and who doesn't know?--the Duggars are, as stated above, America's most well known huge family. Michelle and Jim-Bob are the face of being "quiverful", the doctrine, believed in by some conservative Christians, that the faithful should reject birth control and let God decide the size of their families.
Jim-Bob, Michelle, and their children first came to prominence in 2004 when the documentary 14 Kids and Pregnant Again! first aired on the Discovery Channel. As the title says, the Duggars had "only" 14 children then, with an expecting Michelle giving birth to baby number 15 on the show. That first documentary propelled the humble Duggar clan to fame, inspired several sequels, and culminated in the Duggars having their own reality show, 19 Kids and Counting*, on TLC. All this media exposure has made the Duggars the recipients of mostly friendly attention and curiosity, but they have been the objects of criticism.
Jim-Bob and Michelle have been attacked as environmentally unfriendly for having so many children. They've been accused of depriving their brood of the individual attention children need. They've been called ignorant, sexist, a drain on society, and even homophobic. Jim-Bob and Michelle were particulary scrutinized in 2009 when their 19th child, Josie, was born several weeks premature and suffered health problems. Critics opined that Josie's problematic birth should be a sign to the Duggars that it was time to curb their fertility. Of course, that didn't happen. Duggar number 20 is on the way.
I question the "quiverful" doctrine but I don't condemn the Duggars for believing it. I don't think I could have 20 children, but I don't condemn the Duggars for doing so. I do, however, question the motives of their critics. Frankly, I believe most of them are secular progressives (SPs) who just don't like white, conservative Christians. Their complaints about the Duggars supposedly depriving their children of attention or endangering the environment are just covers for their bigotry. The Duggars and others like them are an existential threat to secular progressives' efforts to establish an irreligious, libertine, multicultural, nanny state; that's why they hate them. And that's why I thank God for the Duggars. Through their family they are increasing and strengthening the cultural traditionalists who can reverse the moral decline of American society and save the nation. Duggar number 20 is another arrow for the war, and I say, yes!
*The title of the show changes as each new child arrives. It will be 20 Kids and Counting soon.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Happy Veterans' Day
I'm keeping it short and sweet for Veteran's Day. I wish a heartfelt thank you to all our servicemen and women who fought to keep me and America free. The US Armed Forces is the greatest force for good the world has ever known. Thank you, thank you for your service! And God bless you all!
Thursday, November 03, 2011
Clarence Thomas Redux
It seems that liberals just can't handle the existence of a Black Republican. Tearing down such a creature, especially if he is a popular presidential hopeful, is job 1 for them and that's what they're doing now to Herman Cain with this sexual harassment story. It's Clarence Thomas all over again.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Let me be clear. I oppose sexual harassment. If Cain is really guilty of this he should, at the very least, resign immediately from the presidential campaign. At the most he should receive whatever legal penalties, including jail time, that the law demands. That being said, I don't believe for a second that liberals manufactured this controversy to highlight the problem of sexual harassment. This is about destroying a Black man who doesn't think or vote the way liberals believe Blacks should. And Herman Cain isn't the first one. Remember Clarence Thomas? For those who don't, let me remind you.
Clarence Thomas, a Black conservative, was nominated for the Supreme Court by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, and liberals were not happy about it. They immediately committed to derailing Thomas' confirmation. Republicans, however, had the votes to confirm Thomas and were on the verge of doing so when explosive allegations of sexual harassment were made against him by Anita Hill, an attorney who'd worked with Thomas.
The timing of Hill's accusations was totally political and was meant to do one thing: stop Clarence Thomas from being put on the Supreme Court. A media circus followed as Hill gave lurid testimony of Thomas' alleged harassment at his confirmation hearings. Liberal groups, politicians, and Hollywood actors all rallied behind Anita Hill, but to no avail. With firm support from Republicans Clarence Thomas' nomination was successfully confirmed and he became the second African-American to sit on the nation's highest court.
At the time of Clarence Thomas' ordeal, my political views weren't as firmly set as they are now--I was still voting for Democrats, yikes!--but I knew that the attacks on him were punishment for his conservative beliefs. And I hated that. I was still a Democrat then but I never thought that I or any other Black person had to be a Democrat simply because of our race. In my own mind I took it for granted that Blacks could and should choose their political affiliation based on their values and conscience, not on their skin color. I mean, Whites were accorded that freedom, didn't equality mean that Blacks should have that freedom, too? Liberals didn't think so then and they don't think so now.
No one has all the information regarding these allegations against Herman Cain. As I said above, if he turns out to be guilty he should suffer the full consequences. But even if Cain is guilty he isn't being exposed to ensure justice for his victims. Liberals want to destroy Herman Cain personally and professionally for the same reason they wanted to destroy Clarence Thomas, i.e., as punishment for thinking independently, leaving the Democrat plantation and thereby threatening liberals' power. It won't work, though, just like it didn't work on Thomas. Even if Cain ends up not being the Republican nominee for president it won't be because of these left-wing attacks. Liberals won't stop Blacks from thinking for themselves and leaving the liberal plantation as a result. Freedom is empowering and no amount of intimidation can suppress it for good. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Just ask Herman Cain.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
With A Friend Like This
While watching The O'Reilly Factor last I learned an interesting fact. David Duke is supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests. That's right. The far right-wing, white nationalist, and erstwhile KKK member, likes the left-wing, anti-capitalist movement.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Duke's support for the OWS protests isn't surprising when you consider his anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitic sentiment has been part of this leftist protest movement almost from the beginning. In fact, when the protest first started and the protesters were shouting against bankers I immediately became suspicious of the movement. Why? Because "bankers" is and long has been a code word for Jews. My suspicions were confirmed when Fox News featured "Occupiers" denouncing "Zionist Jewish bankers" and accusing Jews of being behind most white collar crimes. But the anti-Semitic strain within the Occupy Wall Street crowd probably isn't the only reason David Duke supports it. Anti-capitalism is probably also playing a part.
Not fully known to most people is the fact that Naziism was a form of socialism and that today's neo-Nazis, including white nationalists like Duke, continue Naziism's anti-capitalist tilt. Neo-Nazis/white nationalists often criticize captitalism in terms very similar to those employed by the Left. Also, anti-Semitism is an added motivation for their anti-capitalist feelings since they tend to believe that the "international bankers" supposedly trying to dominate the world are all Jews. As a white nationalist David Duke almost certainly shares that belief. So, anti-Semiticism and anti-capitalism are most likely driving Duke's sympathy for the OWS protests. And maybe that's why the mainstream media has been pretty quiet about OWS's new friend.
The MSM is dominated by liberals who want big government to fix the "economic inequality" they believe is rampant in America. Since the Occupy Wall Street movement claims that as its aim the mainstream media has been reporting on it very sympathetically. If David Duke had endorsed the Tea Party protests in any way the liberal media would've jumped on that as irrefutable proof that the Tea Party was racist and extremist. But since the mainstream media supports the OWS's anti-capitalist cause, it sees little problem with the movement getting support from the likes of Mr. Duke. So long as you hate capitalism and want a socialistic redistribution of wealth, you're ok with liberals. That's why the Occupy Wall Street protesters can have a friend like David Duke without liberals batting a proverbial eye.
Anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, anti-police, and now befriended by a right-wing extremist with no outrage from the mainstream media. That tells you all you need to know about Occupy Wall Street and the MSM. Thank God we have the Tea Party to really stand up for the 99%.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Beat Obama With A Cain
A friend sent me this video by e-mail. This is great! The music is a little slow and a little more bluesy than I usually like, but the message in this song is spot on. And it's funny, too. So give a look and a listen to this little political ditty. Our side definitely needs more protest art like this. Enjoy!
Monday, October 17, 2011
"We, the People"
Here's something all patriotic Americans should see. It's a video by a 12-year-old singer named Emily Keener. Emily appeared on Mike Huckabee's show on Saturday, Oct. 15 to sing this song, "We the People", which she wrote herself. Emily wrote the song for Constituting America's "We the People" contest and won Best Song in the middle school division. This song is quite beautiful and mature for such a young songwriter*. It gives hope to patriots like myself that not all young artists want to ape the libertine, socialist tripe that makes up so much of popular "entertainment". Emily Keener shows that there are talented kids out there who want use their artistic gifts for good. We patriots need to make sure we support such patriotic young artists like Emily. So give a listen to this song and buy her cd. You won't be sorry.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
*The only "negative" about this version of the song is that the tempo is a bit too slow for my taste. The live version Emily performed on Huckabee's show was a bit faster. Also, her singing could be a bit louder. But she is only 12. I'm sure Emily will only improve with age.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Cheering A Black Man...Raaaaaaacist!
I'm watching Mike Huckabee's show on Fox News and he's talking to Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain about his 9-9-9 tax plan, among other things. When Huckabee announced that Cain was coming up on the show his mostly white studio audience broke out in cheers. You would've thought that Herman Cain was a rock star. And you'd think that a white, conservative crowd bursting into spontaneous enthusiasm for a black candidate would show that (white) conservatives are NOT racist, and you'd be wrong.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Liberals have concocted a narrative that conservatives are racist. Period. Liberals believe this narrative so devoutly that they can't comprehend the world without it. Hence, they are now claiming that support for Herman Cain by white conservatives proves that conservatives are racist. That's right. If you're white, conservative, and you support a black candidate for president, that proves you're racist. This is what hardcore liberals like Janeane Garofalo, Cornel West, Tavis Smiley, and others are saying or implying.
If you can't believe this, you're not alone.
Anti-communist novelist George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe adhering to two contradictory ideas simultaneously. That is what's on display here. What can be more contradictory than the idea that white people supporting a black man is proof that they're racist? Yet liberals make this claim with the proverbial straight face, totally uncomprehending that it utterly discredits them in the eyes of thinking, intellectually honest people.
Liberals are the losers here, though they don't know it. Herman Cain will continue to be a rising star in the conservative sky so long as his ideas resonate with conservatives. For that's what Herman Cain is being judged on, his ideas, not his race, and America is better for it. Cheering for a black man is proof of putting content of character above skin color, the very thing Martin Luther King wanted. Well, it's here. Conservatives are doing it. Get used to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)