Is the third time a charm? Or just repulsive? Amateur journalists James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles schooled the establishment media yet again with their release of a third video of ACORN employees, this time in Brooklyn, advising the clean-cut, Caucasian "pimp and prostitute" on how to evade the IRS and authorities in setting up their brothel of underage foreign girls.
Demanding a Justice Department probe of President Obama's pet voter-fraud-facilitating organization, Iowa congressman Steve King asked, "What would they not do?"
I have a few ideas:
Go into an ACORN office and ask for help setting up a group home for unwed, pregnant teenage girls, so they will not have to abort their babies.
Or, seek housing assistance for people who are in the US illegally after fleeing their Muslim homelands because their lives are threatened after converting to Christianity
Try to find a place for homosexuals to live while your non-profit organization works on making them straight.
In the second scenario, ACORN would probably tell you they can't be involved in any venture that may possibly break US law. For the other two, they would probably just tell you to f*ck off.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
I Wish it Were 9/12
Maybe I watched FNC's Timeline of Terror tonight because I'm the kind of person who likes to pick at a scab, and then pick at the new scab that formed because I picked the other one off, etc. Or maybe I want to remember what America was, could have been, and could still be if those of us who remember who we were on September 12 will fight for that country.
Eight years after 9/11, this nation is more polarized and farther from its roots than ever. I said this when eight was seven, and when it was six, and five, and even earlier. Tonight, watching those indelible scenes of buildings collapsing, I wept at the horror of that day and the evil which caused it. However, I grieved for America, for a nation which gained so much in those following days, yet seems to have lost it all, and then some.
If we don't change something, if we do not take this country back from those who intend to destroy it from within, those dead we honored today will have died in vain.
I wish it were 9/12. I wish every day of the last eight years had been 9/12.
Eight years after 9/11, this nation is more polarized and farther from its roots than ever. I said this when eight was seven, and when it was six, and five, and even earlier. Tonight, watching those indelible scenes of buildings collapsing, I wept at the horror of that day and the evil which caused it. However, I grieved for America, for a nation which gained so much in those following days, yet seems to have lost it all, and then some.
If we don't change something, if we do not take this country back from those who intend to destroy it from within, those dead we honored today will have died in vain.
I wish it were 9/12. I wish every day of the last eight years had been 9/12.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
President Has Close Call with Citizens Exercising Their Rights
I'm moving to Arizona.
Protesters in Phoenix "openly displayed firearms" outside a speech by Prevaricator-in-Chief Barack Obama.
Of course, this article fails to point out the obvious fact that, in many states the Obamessiah has already visited, many of the citizens who turned out to see the President hem, haw, and stumble may have had firearms hidden on their persons.
I don't know about you, but if someone near me has a gun, I want to know. And not just so I can ogle it. Allowing concealed carry but not open carry is pretty stupid if you think about it. The former allows those bent on violence to conceal their intentions until it's too late...which they would do anyway, regardless of the law. But open carry also informs the aforementioned miscreant of the number of people in the crowd who would be able to put a hole through his skull if he did try anything funny. I would think the Secret Service would welcome citizens' voluntary declaration of, "Yo! I'm armed!" instead of having to guess and assume.
From the picture of the rifle-carrying man, he looks as if he's ready for work alongside Dilbert. I wonder what Madam Barbara Boxer has to say about well-dressed, gun-toting citizens.
Protesters in Phoenix "openly displayed firearms" outside a speech by Prevaricator-in-Chief Barack Obama.
Of course, this article fails to point out the obvious fact that, in many states the Obamessiah has already visited, many of the citizens who turned out to see the President hem, haw, and stumble may have had firearms hidden on their persons.
I don't know about you, but if someone near me has a gun, I want to know. And not just so I can ogle it. Allowing concealed carry but not open carry is pretty stupid if you think about it. The former allows those bent on violence to conceal their intentions until it's too late...which they would do anyway, regardless of the law. But open carry also informs the aforementioned miscreant of the number of people in the crowd who would be able to put a hole through his skull if he did try anything funny. I would think the Secret Service would welcome citizens' voluntary declaration of, "Yo! I'm armed!" instead of having to guess and assume.
From the picture of the rifle-carrying man, he looks as if he's ready for work alongside Dilbert. I wonder what Madam Barbara Boxer has to say about well-dressed, gun-toting citizens.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
On the Flip Side: Worst Father Ever
Levi Johnston, absent father of Sarah Palin's grandson Tripp, gave a news conference in which he accused his former fiancee's mother of resigning the governorship of Alaska in order to pursue more lucrative avenues, and ventured that she's "not cut out for the job" of President.
Johnston, who is pursuing his own book and movie deals, should know better than anyone what it's like not to be "cut out" for a job which involves immense responsibility, maturity, and self-sacrifice. If anyone can speak to abandoning a position whose importance is near sacrosanct, it's Alaska's most famous deadbeat dad.
The hypocrisy is staggering. It would take a man who thinks it's acceptable for fully one half of a set of parents to leave one-hundred percent of the child-rearing to the other parent to claim that Sarah Palin owes more to the people of Alaska than a father does to his child, or that it's anywhere close to as morally repugnant for a politician to resign for more money than it is for a grown man capable of making adult decisions to choose to completely refuse to accept the consequences of any of those decisions.
When Sarah Palin leaves office, for whatever reason, Alaska will have another governor. Her grandson's father, however, resigned long ago with not a care as to who would fill his even greater vacancy.
Johnston, who is pursuing his own book and movie deals, should know better than anyone what it's like not to be "cut out" for a job which involves immense responsibility, maturity, and self-sacrifice. If anyone can speak to abandoning a position whose importance is near sacrosanct, it's Alaska's most famous deadbeat dad.
The hypocrisy is staggering. It would take a man who thinks it's acceptable for fully one half of a set of parents to leave one-hundred percent of the child-rearing to the other parent to claim that Sarah Palin owes more to the people of Alaska than a father does to his child, or that it's anywhere close to as morally repugnant for a politician to resign for more money than it is for a grown man capable of making adult decisions to choose to completely refuse to accept the consequences of any of those decisions.
When Sarah Palin leaves office, for whatever reason, Alaska will have another governor. Her grandson's father, however, resigned long ago with not a care as to who would fill his even greater vacancy.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sarah Palin: Mother of the Year
Good old Sarah
Since 2006, Sarah Palin made it her mission to save money for the citizens of Alaska. However, when vindictive and morally bankrupt bloggers, led by a national media which have completed abdicated their responsibilities, piled complaint after complaint on her with the design of hamstringing her administration, the cost became too high. Unable to save the taxpayers' money by remaining in office, she magnanimously bowed out.
My minister said on Sunday that sometimes it's most courageous to walk away from the fight. Smears from both the left and right have shown that this is true in Sarah's case.
So far, she has managed to unite America in that blowhards on both sides of the political spectrum have chided, scorned, and crucified her for the speculation that she left Alaska's highest office because she could no longer abide by the constant media attacks on her children.
I would be horrified by the woman who could.
Sarah Palin has been the victim of every double-standard the leftist media can disgorge from their festering arsenal of shameless deceptions because she doesn't simply preach family values and conservative principles. She actually lives them.
She already has a loftier title than "Governor of Alaska" and a higher calling. Her constituents caller her "Mom."
Since 2006, Sarah Palin made it her mission to save money for the citizens of Alaska. However, when vindictive and morally bankrupt bloggers, led by a national media which have completed abdicated their responsibilities, piled complaint after complaint on her with the design of hamstringing her administration, the cost became too high. Unable to save the taxpayers' money by remaining in office, she magnanimously bowed out.
My minister said on Sunday that sometimes it's most courageous to walk away from the fight. Smears from both the left and right have shown that this is true in Sarah's case.
So far, she has managed to unite America in that blowhards on both sides of the political spectrum have chided, scorned, and crucified her for the speculation that she left Alaska's highest office because she could no longer abide by the constant media attacks on her children.
I would be horrified by the woman who could.
Sarah Palin has been the victim of every double-standard the leftist media can disgorge from their festering arsenal of shameless deceptions because she doesn't simply preach family values and conservative principles. She actually lives them.
She already has a loftier title than "Governor of Alaska" and a higher calling. Her constituents caller her "Mom."
Monday, July 6, 2009
Notes on Christian Faith: Part I
Maybe Obama is right: This is not a Christian nation.
A good 75 or 85 percent of Americans may identify themselves as Christians, but how many are actually striving to live according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible? I've heard disturbing things this week, and not just from...you know, I was going to name a popular liberal talk show host, but, can you imagine--I have never heard of any!
But back to my first point, which is
You cannot be Christian if you are not willing to share you faith with others.
Have we all fallen for the progressive doctrine of "Thou shalt not trample another's beliefs" so fully that we now fear we are infringing on another person's rights if we make any mention of prayer, church, Jesus, or sin? Many of us call ourselves Christian and then kowtow to anyone who considers a "Choose Human Life" bumper sticker religious oppression. If you think that you have no moral right to share the good news of Christ's gift, then you are right. You have an obligation:
Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32-33.
And what of those who cry that your faith in Christ tramples their beliefs or lack thereof? I have thought of many intangible things that can be trampled: rights, desires, freedoms. But beliefs? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior, who alone can forgive sin and grant eternal life. This belief has been suppressed, marginalized, ridiculed, and even criminalized. But trampled? It's not possible. Anytime someone accuses you of trampling his beliefs, realize that he most likely means his prejudice, entitlement, or willful ignorance.
You cannot be Christian if you are not willing to hold up Christianity as the one true and right faith.
Worse than these closet Christians are the "worship and let worship" Christians. That is, those who are of the mentality that "I have my God, and you have your God, and it's all good."
Sorry, but it isn't. God the father of Jesus Christ is the only God, and if you consider him equal to every other, then why are you Christian? By adopting this egalitarian view of religion, you are saying that Christianity is no better than Buddhism or even atheism. Let me tell you, I have been anti-God, non-Christian-but-pro-God, and Christian, and being Christian definitely is best. Mark Twain said, "The man who can sleep in but doesn't has no advantage over the man who can't." Well, the man who considers his faith on par with every faith has no advantage over the man who has none.
If you wonder what right you have to invite others to your faith, you have the right that right gives you, as a life for Christ is the only right path.
It is better to be a Christian hypocrite than an non-Christian who can sin with impunity.
Of course, once you do share that you are saved by Christ and He is the only way to Heaven, non-Christians and even some misguided people who call themselves Christians clamor for every opportunity to point at your sins and crow "Hypocrite!" It's like we're the lepers of Biblical times, except the pointers are gleeful rather than horror-stricken. Everybody and his brother feels free to hold you up to public scorn for acting "non-Christian," even if they do this while setting fire to a home for terminally-ill children.
Chances are you will never be able to dissuade non-Christians' suspicions that you are sitting in judgment over them for being saved when they are not. You can, however, realize that it does not matter whether any mortal man believes or acknowledges that you are Christian. All that matters, of course, is what God believes. They cannot see your hear, but He can.
Of course, the saddest part thing about the hypocrisy-mongers is that many of them believe that only those who believe in sin can sin. That is, it's wrong for Christians to commit adultery, because the Bible forbids it, but atheists can have a harem! And it's not wrong, because they don't believe it's wrong! Yes, friend, you are a real sucker for signing up for this faith that has all these rules when you could be living it up where anything goes. To a lot of people, you can't go to hell if you refuse to acknowledge its existence. As before, there's not a lot you can do about this, except to explain that there is absolute right and wrong, and all sin is sin. Furthermore, being Christian does not mean you are good, but that you know that Jesus is, and that you need His help to be good.
God cannot be divorced from anything.
Someone, maybe even a fellow Christian, may ask you to "take God out of it," when you discuss politics, or sports, or dieting, or any other aspect of your life. How can you? You can't. God is life, and, if you are Christian, He rules every part of yours.
A good 75 or 85 percent of Americans may identify themselves as Christians, but how many are actually striving to live according to the principles taught by Jesus Christ in the Bible? I've heard disturbing things this week, and not just from...you know, I was going to name a popular liberal talk show host, but, can you imagine--I have never heard of any!
But back to my first point, which is
You cannot be Christian if you are not willing to share you faith with others.
Have we all fallen for the progressive doctrine of "Thou shalt not trample another's beliefs" so fully that we now fear we are infringing on another person's rights if we make any mention of prayer, church, Jesus, or sin? Many of us call ourselves Christian and then kowtow to anyone who considers a "Choose Human Life" bumper sticker religious oppression. If you think that you have no moral right to share the good news of Christ's gift, then you are right. You have an obligation:
Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Matthew 10:32-33.
And what of those who cry that your faith in Christ tramples their beliefs or lack thereof? I have thought of many intangible things that can be trampled: rights, desires, freedoms. But beliefs? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior, who alone can forgive sin and grant eternal life. This belief has been suppressed, marginalized, ridiculed, and even criminalized. But trampled? It's not possible. Anytime someone accuses you of trampling his beliefs, realize that he most likely means his prejudice, entitlement, or willful ignorance.
You cannot be Christian if you are not willing to hold up Christianity as the one true and right faith.
Worse than these closet Christians are the "worship and let worship" Christians. That is, those who are of the mentality that "I have my God, and you have your God, and it's all good."
Sorry, but it isn't. God the father of Jesus Christ is the only God, and if you consider him equal to every other, then why are you Christian? By adopting this egalitarian view of religion, you are saying that Christianity is no better than Buddhism or even atheism. Let me tell you, I have been anti-God, non-Christian-but-pro-God, and Christian, and being Christian definitely is best. Mark Twain said, "The man who can sleep in but doesn't has no advantage over the man who can't." Well, the man who considers his faith on par with every faith has no advantage over the man who has none.
If you wonder what right you have to invite others to your faith, you have the right that right gives you, as a life for Christ is the only right path.
It is better to be a Christian hypocrite than an non-Christian who can sin with impunity.
Of course, once you do share that you are saved by Christ and He is the only way to Heaven, non-Christians and even some misguided people who call themselves Christians clamor for every opportunity to point at your sins and crow "Hypocrite!" It's like we're the lepers of Biblical times, except the pointers are gleeful rather than horror-stricken. Everybody and his brother feels free to hold you up to public scorn for acting "non-Christian," even if they do this while setting fire to a home for terminally-ill children.
Chances are you will never be able to dissuade non-Christians' suspicions that you are sitting in judgment over them for being saved when they are not. You can, however, realize that it does not matter whether any mortal man believes or acknowledges that you are Christian. All that matters, of course, is what God believes. They cannot see your hear, but He can.
Of course, the saddest part thing about the hypocrisy-mongers is that many of them believe that only those who believe in sin can sin. That is, it's wrong for Christians to commit adultery, because the Bible forbids it, but atheists can have a harem! And it's not wrong, because they don't believe it's wrong! Yes, friend, you are a real sucker for signing up for this faith that has all these rules when you could be living it up where anything goes. To a lot of people, you can't go to hell if you refuse to acknowledge its existence. As before, there's not a lot you can do about this, except to explain that there is absolute right and wrong, and all sin is sin. Furthermore, being Christian does not mean you are good, but that you know that Jesus is, and that you need His help to be good.
God cannot be divorced from anything.
Someone, maybe even a fellow Christian, may ask you to "take God out of it," when you discuss politics, or sports, or dieting, or any other aspect of your life. How can you? You can't. God is life, and, if you are Christian, He rules every part of yours.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Madoff: I don't want just any prison
Headline from the Times of London: Bernard Madoff hires help to survive hard time.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy because the adjustment to prison is going to a real struggle for him? Because it's going to be somewhat stressful to go from imported Blue Hawaiian in heirloom china to generic coffee in a styrofoam cup? Because he lived in a penthouse with chauffeurs while robbing hundreds of their hard-earned life savings? The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal," not "Thou shalt not steal, unless you do it in a $5000 suit from some really swanky digs."
I'm guessing that if you were convicted of a crime and sentenced to twice the average lifespan of your species (75 times in Madoff's case, as the lifespan of a cockroach is about two years, providing it stays out of my basement), the corrections system would slap some cuffs on you and haul you off to whatever scumbag-holding facility they wished.
But not Madoff! After being sentenced to 150 years in federal prison, he hires a consultant to help him find the "best possible jail."
Are the rich different from the rest of us? Maybe. The rich and soulless, definitely.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for this guy because the adjustment to prison is going to a real struggle for him? Because it's going to be somewhat stressful to go from imported Blue Hawaiian in heirloom china to generic coffee in a styrofoam cup? Because he lived in a penthouse with chauffeurs while robbing hundreds of their hard-earned life savings? The Bible says "Thou shalt not steal," not "Thou shalt not steal, unless you do it in a $5000 suit from some really swanky digs."
I'm guessing that if you were convicted of a crime and sentenced to twice the average lifespan of your species (75 times in Madoff's case, as the lifespan of a cockroach is about two years, providing it stays out of my basement), the corrections system would slap some cuffs on you and haul you off to whatever scumbag-holding facility they wished.
But not Madoff! After being sentenced to 150 years in federal prison, he hires a consultant to help him find the "best possible jail."
Are the rich different from the rest of us? Maybe. The rich and soulless, definitely.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Increasing Extremism is Obama's Fault
As events in the nation's capital today show, extremism has become action in America. Anger has risen to the level at which desperation spawns unthinkable acts. It will only get worse, and the root cause is Obama.
The melting pot isn't boiling over because the President is black, but rather because he is a treasonous, black-supremacist socialist dictator. James von Brunn may have been delusional and dead-wrong about Jews destroying this country, but Americans who fear that this administration is eroding their Constitutional rights are absolutely correct. Freedom-loving, patriotic Americans are being squeezed into a tighter and tighter corner, and our Marxist president would do well to realize that the citizens who cling to guns and religion are not the same who will relinquish this country without a fight.
The melting pot isn't boiling over because the President is black, but rather because he is a treasonous, black-supremacist socialist dictator. James von Brunn may have been delusional and dead-wrong about Jews destroying this country, but Americans who fear that this administration is eroding their Constitutional rights are absolutely correct. Freedom-loving, patriotic Americans are being squeezed into a tighter and tighter corner, and our Marxist president would do well to realize that the citizens who cling to guns and religion are not the same who will relinquish this country without a fight.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Time to Turn the Cheek of Dissent
A major component of being a Christian conservative is the tendency to avoid confrontation, to take the high road upon encountering the shrill and hateful Left, to show grace and maturity by turning away from argument and controversy. However, this country has reached a point in which silence is not only acceptance, but agreement--we cannot afford to do this any longer.
I came to this conclusion when I realized there are a lot of evil people calling for Miss California Carrie Prejean's resignation, and a lot of consequences that adherents to Sharia Law would consider too harsh even to visit on infidels or adulteresses. Perhaps the Left's legendary shamelessness and the decay of the media can account for the fact that Miss Prejean has very few vocal supporters, even though her philosophy on gay marriage is shared by the majority of Americans and our current Marxist-puppet Affirmative-Action President.
If you can imagine, I'm not really knowledgeable about the national pageant circuit. I don't know if Miss Prejean received anything with her title besides the sash and, apparently, the revocation of her First Amendment rights. I supported her resignation because she has nothing more to gain from this agenda-driven organization, and her beauty and intelligence would better serve someplace where she is respected and welcomed.
However, such a resignation would be conceding that there are certain spheres of our society in which Christians simply don't belong, and we can't send this message. We can't let any American of any ideological background to believe there is any place where the word of God and His followers is unwelcome. We can't afford to lose any more of this country, either by allowing doors to be closed to us or by refraining from defending or even proclaiming or beliefs.
I'm not saying we have to wrestle with pigs. But we can no longer be afraid to enter the pigpen. That is, our prayers and our dissent must no longer be silent. We must say, "I disagree." We must begin more sentences with "I believe" and "I do not believe," and no longer allow attacks on values, on American's founding principles, on the Constitution, on God, to occur unanswered--even if that answer is only two words. "I disagree."
Raving Progressives are the money-changers in the temple of America's Christian tradition. Exposed to enough dissent, they will overturn their own tables.
I came to this conclusion when I realized there are a lot of evil people calling for Miss California Carrie Prejean's resignation, and a lot of consequences that adherents to Sharia Law would consider too harsh even to visit on infidels or adulteresses. Perhaps the Left's legendary shamelessness and the decay of the media can account for the fact that Miss Prejean has very few vocal supporters, even though her philosophy on gay marriage is shared by the majority of Americans and our current Marxist-puppet Affirmative-Action President.
If you can imagine, I'm not really knowledgeable about the national pageant circuit. I don't know if Miss Prejean received anything with her title besides the sash and, apparently, the revocation of her First Amendment rights. I supported her resignation because she has nothing more to gain from this agenda-driven organization, and her beauty and intelligence would better serve someplace where she is respected and welcomed.
However, such a resignation would be conceding that there are certain spheres of our society in which Christians simply don't belong, and we can't send this message. We can't let any American of any ideological background to believe there is any place where the word of God and His followers is unwelcome. We can't afford to lose any more of this country, either by allowing doors to be closed to us or by refraining from defending or even proclaiming or beliefs.
I'm not saying we have to wrestle with pigs. But we can no longer be afraid to enter the pigpen. That is, our prayers and our dissent must no longer be silent. We must say, "I disagree." We must begin more sentences with "I believe" and "I do not believe," and no longer allow attacks on values, on American's founding principles, on the Constitution, on God, to occur unanswered--even if that answer is only two words. "I disagree."
Raving Progressives are the money-changers in the temple of America's Christian tradition. Exposed to enough dissent, they will overturn their own tables.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
DHS: What Apology?
If anyone noticed my absence, it was due to my recent involvement in right-wing extremist activities such as expressing my displeasure with government and peaceably assembling with other God-fearing, gun-toting Americans. It's no wonder that Janet Napolitano considers Christian conservatives terrorists, as nothing is more terrifying to the Left than dissent.
Ms. Napolitano issued a shamefully impotent non-apology today..."To the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed."
Translation: "I'm sorry if you considered the report offensive, because it makes me look bad and then I have to go before all you terrorists offering fake apologies when I could be pretending to care about our porous borders."
Maybe it's because I was only 13 when Oklahoma City was bombed, but I had no idea until this week that Timothy McVeigh ever served in the military. If we're going to judge all veterans based on his derangement, how about we use O.J. Simpson as a model black man? Hitler was a vegetarian--let's put everyone who refuses to eat meat on a watch list.
This DHS report is stupid and inflammatory beyond words, and Secretary Napolitano's "apology" proves how little she understands nor respects our men and women in uniform. As an enemy of the United States, she should resign or be forced to do so.
Ms. Napolitano issued a shamefully impotent non-apology today..."To the extent veterans read it as an accusation ... an apology is owed."
Translation: "I'm sorry if you considered the report offensive, because it makes me look bad and then I have to go before all you terrorists offering fake apologies when I could be pretending to care about our porous borders."
Maybe it's because I was only 13 when Oklahoma City was bombed, but I had no idea until this week that Timothy McVeigh ever served in the military. If we're going to judge all veterans based on his derangement, how about we use O.J. Simpson as a model black man? Hitler was a vegetarian--let's put everyone who refuses to eat meat on a watch list.
This DHS report is stupid and inflammatory beyond words, and Secretary Napolitano's "apology" proves how little she understands nor respects our men and women in uniform. As an enemy of the United States, she should resign or be forced to do so.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
You Are Cordially Invited
I knew that the election of this country's first affirmative action President would be the beginning of the end, but I am shocked at how fast this end is coming.
Sure, if you have nothing (especially through no fault but your own), this Marxist administration will give you anything and everything. But God help you if threaten to come within spitting distance of prosperity. Then you become their enemy, deserving of public denunciation, threats, and a 90% tax rate. Why would you want to be rich in America anymore?
The members of our armed forces swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Why do we accept any less from those with the power to send our troops to war? And what can we do when that enemy occupies the Capitol, hoarding our money so that the portion that does not go to pay their six-figure salaries and lifetime pensions is handed to banks so that they can loan it to the very people who earned that money in the first place?
On April 15, I'm going to join a bunch of Americans who want, among other things, to remind our runaway Congress that we do not work for them; they work for us.
Feel free to join us.
Sure, if you have nothing (especially through no fault but your own), this Marxist administration will give you anything and everything. But God help you if threaten to come within spitting distance of prosperity. Then you become their enemy, deserving of public denunciation, threats, and a 90% tax rate. Why would you want to be rich in America anymore?
The members of our armed forces swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Why do we accept any less from those with the power to send our troops to war? And what can we do when that enemy occupies the Capitol, hoarding our money so that the portion that does not go to pay their six-figure salaries and lifetime pensions is handed to banks so that they can loan it to the very people who earned that money in the first place?
On April 15, I'm going to join a bunch of Americans who want, among other things, to remind our runaway Congress that we do not work for them; they work for us.
Feel free to join us.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Let Them Keep the Money
I'm outraged by all the outrage over AIG. On the surface, it looks pretty inflammatory: Execs run company into such a deplorable state that it receives obscene amounts in taxpayer funded bailout money and still receive a total of $165 million in bonuses. Who wouldn't be mad? However, it takes a hypocritical, vindictive Marxist to stay mad--specifically, a person like our President.
The Obama administration doesn't care about the money. It's not theirs; it's yours! They can always get more! No, they, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, feel threatened because AIG is operating against the left's most beloved dogma. The company is doing what Obama would never: giving the taxpayers' money back to the taxpayers.
Granted, the bailout funds never belonged to AIG in the first place. They came from you, me, that creepy guy who sits too close to you at the coffee shop... The $165 million was distributed among 418 executives, averaging a little over $390,000 per brain-dead suit. Despite their total lack of business acumen or ethics, AIG executives are both taxpayers and consumers. If Barney Frank doesn't get his way and scrawny dredlocked people wearing Che Guevara shirts don't lynch them with organic hemp, they will funnel these bonuses right back into the economy. Or into an offshore bank. The point is, tax money is going back to the taxpayers, even if those taxpayers are sleazebags. Anything besides let the government keep it, right?
And if you're angry that morally bankrupt rich people are getting even richer, first, there's plenty of room in Russia and Venezuela. Second, Greg Gutfeld is right: when the rich get poorer, we all suffer.
My next point is that the bonuses were promised to those executives by AIG. Though the government owns 80% of the company, the AIG leadership realize they're not Congress; they can't go breaking promises left and right and nobody will notice or confront them. No wonder the Obamessiah is outraged: "We can't have failed banks keeping promises to their employees when I've broken every single one of mine to the entire country!"
Let's talk about hypocrisy. Congress is outraged that AIG wasted money they didn't earn by giving it to people who arguably don't deserve it? "They ran this company into the ground! How dare they take another penny!" Hey, Nancy, Harry...replace "company" with "economy." Now you've got an idea of how this all looks to the average mortgage-paying, non-bailed-out citizen.
The Obama administration doesn't care about the money. It's not theirs; it's yours! They can always get more! No, they, and the Democrat-controlled Congress, feel threatened because AIG is operating against the left's most beloved dogma. The company is doing what Obama would never: giving the taxpayers' money back to the taxpayers.
Granted, the bailout funds never belonged to AIG in the first place. They came from you, me, that creepy guy who sits too close to you at the coffee shop... The $165 million was distributed among 418 executives, averaging a little over $390,000 per brain-dead suit. Despite their total lack of business acumen or ethics, AIG executives are both taxpayers and consumers. If Barney Frank doesn't get his way and scrawny dredlocked people wearing Che Guevara shirts don't lynch them with organic hemp, they will funnel these bonuses right back into the economy. Or into an offshore bank. The point is, tax money is going back to the taxpayers, even if those taxpayers are sleazebags. Anything besides let the government keep it, right?
And if you're angry that morally bankrupt rich people are getting even richer, first, there's plenty of room in Russia and Venezuela. Second, Greg Gutfeld is right: when the rich get poorer, we all suffer.
My next point is that the bonuses were promised to those executives by AIG. Though the government owns 80% of the company, the AIG leadership realize they're not Congress; they can't go breaking promises left and right and nobody will notice or confront them. No wonder the Obamessiah is outraged: "We can't have failed banks keeping promises to their employees when I've broken every single one of mine to the entire country!"
Let's talk about hypocrisy. Congress is outraged that AIG wasted money they didn't earn by giving it to people who arguably don't deserve it? "They ran this company into the ground! How dare they take another penny!" Hey, Nancy, Harry...replace "company" with "economy." Now you've got an idea of how this all looks to the average mortgage-paying, non-bailed-out citizen.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Making Frenemies: Obama's Foreign Policy
Things have been quiet here because I was moving (but they just keep finding me). Let's do some quick hits on items which have been in the news recently, at least from reputable journalistic organizations.
First, I can't decide whether Obama is far exceeding my expectations or vastly falling short of them. I expected a conceited, bumbling, Marxist...and got an extremely conceited, grossly incompetent (just ask Britain) radical socialist who has also broken every campaign promise within his first 50 days. Not to mention that his goals appear to be diametrically opposed: I'm going to cut wasteful government spending! Right after I sign an eight-billion dollar pork bill!
Boy, can you believe this Gordon Brown thing? Even Obama's critics (a growing group, no doubt) have to admit that he appeared the most intelligent and charming candidate in history. However, there was nothing intelligent, and especially nothing charming, about treating the visiting leader of America's greatest ally like a distant cousin you see only when he needs funds for his latest pyramid scheme and brings three large, amorous dogs with skin conditions. Like Glenn Beck, I think it would have been nice if the Obamas had presented the British Prime Minister with something that you can't buy yourself at Wal-Mart between picking up ammo and bait. You know, a one-of-a-kind, museum quality item not likely to be owned by trailer park residents or 12-year-olds. Nothing says "Thanks for supporting our nation through every war for the last two hundred years (including this one)" like the director's cut of "Psycho."
And they probably weren't even Blu-Ray.
Speaking of those unfit for their important jobs, California baby factory Nadya Suleman is going to get help (unfortunately, not that kind) caring for her litter from a non-profit nursing group. I don't think I'm alone when I say that this will bankrupt them. Also I wonder whether this or any group is volunteering to provide free childcare for a single mother with fourteen kids who had them one at a time.
Lastly, according to the London Times, one in seven Brits believes that women should be hit for dressing sexy in public. Maybe they'll enjoy those movies after all. While these survey respondents are obviously idiots, I do agree that there are cases in which women dressed like sluts should be clobbered--specifically, by me. Like if you have legs like railroad ties and you're wearing a skirt the size of a gum wrapper. Or if you have a halter top on over ribs that stick out farther than your chest and arms that look like chicken wings after the Hooters patrons are done with them. Both of these cases could be remedied with a good slap, or, if dark roots are involved, a punch in the mouth.
First, I can't decide whether Obama is far exceeding my expectations or vastly falling short of them. I expected a conceited, bumbling, Marxist...and got an extremely conceited, grossly incompetent (just ask Britain) radical socialist who has also broken every campaign promise within his first 50 days. Not to mention that his goals appear to be diametrically opposed: I'm going to cut wasteful government spending! Right after I sign an eight-billion dollar pork bill!
Boy, can you believe this Gordon Brown thing? Even Obama's critics (a growing group, no doubt) have to admit that he appeared the most intelligent and charming candidate in history. However, there was nothing intelligent, and especially nothing charming, about treating the visiting leader of America's greatest ally like a distant cousin you see only when he needs funds for his latest pyramid scheme and brings three large, amorous dogs with skin conditions. Like Glenn Beck, I think it would have been nice if the Obamas had presented the British Prime Minister with something that you can't buy yourself at Wal-Mart between picking up ammo and bait. You know, a one-of-a-kind, museum quality item not likely to be owned by trailer park residents or 12-year-olds. Nothing says "Thanks for supporting our nation through every war for the last two hundred years (including this one)" like the director's cut of "Psycho."
And they probably weren't even Blu-Ray.
Speaking of those unfit for their important jobs, California baby factory Nadya Suleman is going to get help (unfortunately, not that kind) caring for her litter from a non-profit nursing group. I don't think I'm alone when I say that this will bankrupt them. Also I wonder whether this or any group is volunteering to provide free childcare for a single mother with fourteen kids who had them one at a time.
Lastly, according to the London Times, one in seven Brits believes that women should be hit for dressing sexy in public. Maybe they'll enjoy those movies after all. While these survey respondents are obviously idiots, I do agree that there are cases in which women dressed like sluts should be clobbered--specifically, by me. Like if you have legs like railroad ties and you're wearing a skirt the size of a gum wrapper. Or if you have a halter top on over ribs that stick out farther than your chest and arms that look like chicken wings after the Hooters patrons are done with them. Both of these cases could be remedied with a good slap, or, if dark roots are involved, a punch in the mouth.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Race Relations are Changing, All Right
From Congressman James Clyburn's accusation that stimulus opponents are racist to President Obamarx's kid glove treatment from editorial cartoonists, we just can't get away from race. Specifically, we can't get away from those who dig for racism like the grave robbers of the 19th century, only their (the robbers') quarry was much less odious and much more productive.
As I understand the story, Obama cultists and reparations proponents--I'm aware that one of these groups may entirely encompass the other--have a problem with Obama being drawn as he looks. I guess the don't realize that cartooning isn't portraiture. Cartoonists aren't the best artists; the only way to make their subjects recognizable is to exaggerate prominent features. To be fair, anyone who voted for the most petulant, socialist, and obstructionist President in history must have had his head deep enough in the sand never to have noticed that Obama has ears like Albert Neuman and lips like Angelina Jolie. If it was racist to point that out, get me my pointy white hood.
Why is it acceptable to draw George W. Bush as a gibbering simp, and not to make Obama recognizable? Because he's black? As he's half white, I still wouldn't call him black. But treating someone different based on race is racist. Worse treatment due to race is racist. Better treatment, as is the case here, is also racist. Once again, this society's biggest issue with skin seems to be not its color, but its thickness.
On to Rep. Clyburn. What a freaking idiot. Isn't this the same cretin who objected to parasol-wielding girls wearing ruffled, hoop-skirted gowns in Obama's inaugural parade, because those costumes were reminiscent of antebellum Southern plantations? Never mind that most of the girls were black. Apparently the Rep has gallantly added race-baiting to his duties as a Democratic congressman, in addition to the party standards of setting earmarks, grabbing his ankles for unions, insulting our military, and just furthering political corruption as a whole.
Brainless mouths such as Clyburn actually foment more racism than they fight. How? Through the injustice of their claims. Many Americans never really think about race--it doesn't concern them; they don't judge anyone primarily by skin color. And they don't appreciate someone like James Clyburn putting them on the defensive with repugnant and baseless accusations. Injustice breeds anger, and anger breeds prejudice. People of other races look at a black man reducing their concerns about government spending and fiscal responsibility to a motive as troglodytic as bigotry alone, and they are angry. We'll never be colorblind enough for race-baiters like Clyburn--so why bother? The James Clyburns, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world portray black people as self-centered, vindictive, ungrateful whiners who demand special treatment and will never be satisfied. Would you reach out to a group like that, or even care what they think?
As I understand the story, Obama cultists and reparations proponents--I'm aware that one of these groups may entirely encompass the other--have a problem with Obama being drawn as he looks. I guess the don't realize that cartooning isn't portraiture. Cartoonists aren't the best artists; the only way to make their subjects recognizable is to exaggerate prominent features. To be fair, anyone who voted for the most petulant, socialist, and obstructionist President in history must have had his head deep enough in the sand never to have noticed that Obama has ears like Albert Neuman and lips like Angelina Jolie. If it was racist to point that out, get me my pointy white hood.
Why is it acceptable to draw George W. Bush as a gibbering simp, and not to make Obama recognizable? Because he's black? As he's half white, I still wouldn't call him black. But treating someone different based on race is racist. Worse treatment due to race is racist. Better treatment, as is the case here, is also racist. Once again, this society's biggest issue with skin seems to be not its color, but its thickness.
On to Rep. Clyburn. What a freaking idiot. Isn't this the same cretin who objected to parasol-wielding girls wearing ruffled, hoop-skirted gowns in Obama's inaugural parade, because those costumes were reminiscent of antebellum Southern plantations? Never mind that most of the girls were black. Apparently the Rep has gallantly added race-baiting to his duties as a Democratic congressman, in addition to the party standards of setting earmarks, grabbing his ankles for unions, insulting our military, and just furthering political corruption as a whole.
Brainless mouths such as Clyburn actually foment more racism than they fight. How? Through the injustice of their claims. Many Americans never really think about race--it doesn't concern them; they don't judge anyone primarily by skin color. And they don't appreciate someone like James Clyburn putting them on the defensive with repugnant and baseless accusations. Injustice breeds anger, and anger breeds prejudice. People of other races look at a black man reducing their concerns about government spending and fiscal responsibility to a motive as troglodytic as bigotry alone, and they are angry. We'll never be colorblind enough for race-baiters like Clyburn--so why bother? The James Clyburns, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of the world portray black people as self-centered, vindictive, ungrateful whiners who demand special treatment and will never be satisfied. Would you reach out to a group like that, or even care what they think?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Serious Good From a Frivolous Lawsuit?
If you're a regular reader of Hill of Hope, you probably need professional help, but you're also aware that we don't support people being offended, and we especially don't support offended people filing lawsuits.
However, I think Lucie J. Kim's suit against Miley Cyrus is a good idea, in fact one that's overdue.
Like Margaret Cho, I want why racism against Asians isn't taboo. Because we were never enslaved by wealthy white Americans? Because we don't tend to be illegal migrant workers? Because the government never stripped us of our ancestral lands and herded us onto reservations?
Because most Asian stereotypes are positive? Because, as a group, we don't tend to lack in education or in economic status, and we're not filling up prisons and producing two-thirds of our offspring out of wedlock?
It's partly our fault. It's true, that most Asian people don't really like to rock the boat--yellow is a little too mellow; we have no Jesse Jackson to seize upon any incident that may conceivably appear to display the tiniest bit of prejudice and harangue the perpetrators for outlandish reparations and outrageously servile acts of penitence.
I'm not saying that Ms. Cyrus deserves to lose $4 billion for her incredible idiocy, because I don't think that's what this is about. I don't think Ms. Kim or any Asian person in Los Angeles will see a penny, nor is any of them interested in a possible payout.
No, this is all about teaching Ms. Cyrus--and Hollywood and the rest of America--a lesson, which is that chink eyes need to go the way of blackface, because nobody, not even the "model minority," appreciates a racist gesture. The pop phenom may have thought she was just being "goofy," but she was rudely exploiting the insecurity of every little Asian girl (and some bigger Asian girls) who feels constantly snubbed by the cult of beauty and popularity. Who are the Asian pop stars? *Crickets* Who embodies the Hollywood ideal of Asian beauty? Sandra Oh, a woman who looks as if she was hit squarely in the face with a hot cast-iron frying pan. Asian athletes? Forget it. My sister once auditioned for a Shakespeare festival in a part of the country generally considered progressive, and was told that, while she was extremely talented, they couldn't give her a large role because of all of the "average-looking white people" who tried out.
So not only is discrimination against Asians very real, it's perfectly acceptable. Miley Cyrus has the opportunity to start effecting a change by first offering an honest apology for her ignorant and appalling behavior. That would be worth $4000 to me, and I'm sure one million other Asians would agree.
However, I think Lucie J. Kim's suit against Miley Cyrus is a good idea, in fact one that's overdue.
Like Margaret Cho, I want why racism against Asians isn't taboo. Because we were never enslaved by wealthy white Americans? Because we don't tend to be illegal migrant workers? Because the government never stripped us of our ancestral lands and herded us onto reservations?
Because most Asian stereotypes are positive? Because, as a group, we don't tend to lack in education or in economic status, and we're not filling up prisons and producing two-thirds of our offspring out of wedlock?
It's partly our fault. It's true, that most Asian people don't really like to rock the boat--yellow is a little too mellow; we have no Jesse Jackson to seize upon any incident that may conceivably appear to display the tiniest bit of prejudice and harangue the perpetrators for outlandish reparations and outrageously servile acts of penitence.
I'm not saying that Ms. Cyrus deserves to lose $4 billion for her incredible idiocy, because I don't think that's what this is about. I don't think Ms. Kim or any Asian person in Los Angeles will see a penny, nor is any of them interested in a possible payout.
No, this is all about teaching Ms. Cyrus--and Hollywood and the rest of America--a lesson, which is that chink eyes need to go the way of blackface, because nobody, not even the "model minority," appreciates a racist gesture. The pop phenom may have thought she was just being "goofy," but she was rudely exploiting the insecurity of every little Asian girl (and some bigger Asian girls) who feels constantly snubbed by the cult of beauty and popularity. Who are the Asian pop stars? *Crickets* Who embodies the Hollywood ideal of Asian beauty? Sandra Oh, a woman who looks as if she was hit squarely in the face with a hot cast-iron frying pan. Asian athletes? Forget it. My sister once auditioned for a Shakespeare festival in a part of the country generally considered progressive, and was told that, while she was extremely talented, they couldn't give her a large role because of all of the "average-looking white people" who tried out.
So not only is discrimination against Asians very real, it's perfectly acceptable. Miley Cyrus has the opportunity to start effecting a change by first offering an honest apology for her ignorant and appalling behavior. That would be worth $4000 to me, and I'm sure one million other Asians would agree.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Believe It or Not--It's in the Stimulus!
We here at Hill of Hope are performing a public service: wading through the stimulus bill like a retarded egret through molasses, so you won't have to--although we're sure you wade more like an inebriated flamingo. Yes, we are risking both productivity and sanity to look directly at all 434 pages of the January 27 version of this monstrous disaster, downloaded from the website of Alabama senator and true Republican Jeff Sessions.
First observation: Can you believe the size of this print? It's like in 10th grade composition when your assignment required 10 pages, so you triple-spaced it, widened your margins to three inches, and used Wide Latin in 24-point font. How much of your money could the government save if they only refrained from printing this behemoth? Not to mention the trees--where's the eco-denunciation from Al Gore? I guess he's too busy turning up the heat in that Hummer of a mansion.
Page 8: $198,000,000 (read: 198 million dollars) for the National School Lunch Program. I'm in favor of school lunches. Remember that square spongy pizza, dripping grease and topped with what looked like boogers? One of my favorites. I'm sure they don't serve anything like that anymore; the "pizza" in today's schools is probably some flaxseed crust topped with tomato skins and spinach, and kids just throw it away and go home so hungry that they scarf down an entire box of Ding-Dongs while deftly navigating past the parental controls to the Russian amateur porn. See, if you attempt to inject some logic into this three-ring debate, socialist Obamabots come back with accusations that you're in favor of poor children being too hungry to completely fill in the little bubbles on their standardized tests, which, at my last investigation, are only administered in public schools on days ending with "Y."
And I am aware that "socialist Obamabots," is redundant. But I want to know, President Marx and Comrade Pelosi, how do school nutrition programs create jobs and stimulate the economy?
Page 35: Hereafter, in this section, the term "nonambulatory disabled cattle" means cattle, other than cattle that are less than 5 months old or weigh less than 500 pounds, subject to inspection under section 3(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)) that cannot rise from a recumbent position or walk, including cattle with a broken appendage, severed tendon or ligament, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or a metabolic condition.
I'm not a legislator or meat inspector, so I didn't have the stomach to root around the outskirts of this depressingly hilarious paragraph to figure out why the hell it was in there. But you know that with a thorough definition of "nonambulatory disabled cattle," this bill is strictly focused on improving your economic outlook!
Unless you're a bovine of more than 500 pounds with a broken appendage or metabolic condition. Look out, Barney Frank!
First observation: Can you believe the size of this print? It's like in 10th grade composition when your assignment required 10 pages, so you triple-spaced it, widened your margins to three inches, and used Wide Latin in 24-point font. How much of your money could the government save if they only refrained from printing this behemoth? Not to mention the trees--where's the eco-denunciation from Al Gore? I guess he's too busy turning up the heat in that Hummer of a mansion.
Page 8: $198,000,000 (read: 198 million dollars) for the National School Lunch Program. I'm in favor of school lunches. Remember that square spongy pizza, dripping grease and topped with what looked like boogers? One of my favorites. I'm sure they don't serve anything like that anymore; the "pizza" in today's schools is probably some flaxseed crust topped with tomato skins and spinach, and kids just throw it away and go home so hungry that they scarf down an entire box of Ding-Dongs while deftly navigating past the parental controls to the Russian amateur porn. See, if you attempt to inject some logic into this three-ring debate, socialist Obamabots come back with accusations that you're in favor of poor children being too hungry to completely fill in the little bubbles on their standardized tests, which, at my last investigation, are only administered in public schools on days ending with "Y."
And I am aware that "socialist Obamabots," is redundant. But I want to know, President Marx and Comrade Pelosi, how do school nutrition programs create jobs and stimulate the economy?
Page 35: Hereafter, in this section, the term "nonambulatory disabled cattle" means cattle, other than cattle that are less than 5 months old or weigh less than 500 pounds, subject to inspection under section 3(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603(b)) that cannot rise from a recumbent position or walk, including cattle with a broken appendage, severed tendon or ligament, nerve paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or a metabolic condition.
I'm not a legislator or meat inspector, so I didn't have the stomach to root around the outskirts of this depressingly hilarious paragraph to figure out why the hell it was in there. But you know that with a thorough definition of "nonambulatory disabled cattle," this bill is strictly focused on improving your economic outlook!
Unless you're a bovine of more than 500 pounds with a broken appendage or metabolic condition. Look out, Barney Frank!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
And Why Don't I Get Paid for Blogging?
I really like the show CSI, but I really can't watch it anymore because it's become so realistically graphic. I mean, I can listen to it and glance at the screen every now and then, but I can't watch it anymore.
I also can't watch politicians speak. I couldn't do it with President Bush (the Younger). As effectively as he governed this country and protected us for seven years from jihadists, the man was a train wreck at speaking. But at least he spoke of American values and the respect he had for this country and its people...Comrade Obama's speeches are like a trainload of maggot-infested corpses colliding with a flaming garbage barge driven by a Holocaust-denying leper with diarrhea.
So of course I didn't actually see this shameless freeloader at Pres. Obamarx's Fort Meyers town meeting; I read about him on Rush Limbaugh's website. It's too bad we don't know this guy's name...we had Joe the Plumber; now we can have Bob the Whiner or Dan the Sponge. In deference to political correctness, though, sponges are not completely inert. All that seawater isn't going to filter itself.
Anyway, Joe the Jobless Wonder got laid off, or fired. He says he got laid off and then he says he got fired. He should be an Obama spokesperson, or at least a speechwriter. His unemployment benefits are less than a third of what he was making when he was gainfully employed--you know, a productive member of society? Remember that, Joe? Remember when you actually contributed something besides carbon dioxide, Cheeto crumbs, and blog fodder? I hope this guy was employed in some industry that doesn't require any logic or critical thinking skills whatsoever--like Ivy League graduate student, or, even better, tenured professor--because he asked the President, on live television, in front of most of his friends and neighbors, "How come when I lose my job, the government doesn't pay me what I was making when I got fired or laid off?"
Oh, gosh, I don't know, Joe. Maybe it's because...you're not working!! Does that make any sense to you?? Should I say it more slowly? You do not get paid as much for not working as you do for working because you're NOT WORKING.
Even the President who ran on a platform of giving everything to those who have and do nothing was taken aback by this amazing display of ignorance and shameless entitlement. Of course he couldn't tell the truth, which is that how America works, and why America works (at least until Obama's socialist agenda comes to fruition) is that work gets paid more than non-work; effort is rewarded over inertia. Nor could he tell the lies he believes, which is that everybody is entitled to everything, except those who worked for it. In Obama's SSA (Socialist States of America), earning is the same as stealing. We have a President who can't tell the truth about the way it is, nor about the way he wants it to be, because he is going to spend the rest of his first and only term in office campaigning. It's all he knows how to do.
I haven't said much about the orgy-of-spending bill because I don't have a lot of original ideas about it. I did have an insight today about those three repulsive turncoat RINOs. I respected Sens. Specter and Collins a lot for acting in a truly bipartisan manner and working on behalf of their employers, the taxpayers, to shave some fat from this outrageously bloated piece of pork. However, when they put lipstick on this pig, it became their pig, and damned if they're going to let anyone call it a pig. They are so proud of themselves for playing nicely with the other senators, and for their make-up job, that they're selling out their constituents for this delusion.
I also can't watch politicians speak. I couldn't do it with President Bush (the Younger). As effectively as he governed this country and protected us for seven years from jihadists, the man was a train wreck at speaking. But at least he spoke of American values and the respect he had for this country and its people...Comrade Obama's speeches are like a trainload of maggot-infested corpses colliding with a flaming garbage barge driven by a Holocaust-denying leper with diarrhea.
So of course I didn't actually see this shameless freeloader at Pres. Obamarx's Fort Meyers town meeting; I read about him on Rush Limbaugh's website. It's too bad we don't know this guy's name...we had Joe the Plumber; now we can have Bob the Whiner or Dan the Sponge. In deference to political correctness, though, sponges are not completely inert. All that seawater isn't going to filter itself.
Anyway, Joe the Jobless Wonder got laid off, or fired. He says he got laid off and then he says he got fired. He should be an Obama spokesperson, or at least a speechwriter. His unemployment benefits are less than a third of what he was making when he was gainfully employed--you know, a productive member of society? Remember that, Joe? Remember when you actually contributed something besides carbon dioxide, Cheeto crumbs, and blog fodder? I hope this guy was employed in some industry that doesn't require any logic or critical thinking skills whatsoever--like Ivy League graduate student, or, even better, tenured professor--because he asked the President, on live television, in front of most of his friends and neighbors, "How come when I lose my job, the government doesn't pay me what I was making when I got fired or laid off?"
Oh, gosh, I don't know, Joe. Maybe it's because...you're not working!! Does that make any sense to you?? Should I say it more slowly? You do not get paid as much for not working as you do for working because you're NOT WORKING.
Even the President who ran on a platform of giving everything to those who have and do nothing was taken aback by this amazing display of ignorance and shameless entitlement. Of course he couldn't tell the truth, which is that how America works, and why America works (at least until Obama's socialist agenda comes to fruition) is that work gets paid more than non-work; effort is rewarded over inertia. Nor could he tell the lies he believes, which is that everybody is entitled to everything, except those who worked for it. In Obama's SSA (Socialist States of America), earning is the same as stealing. We have a President who can't tell the truth about the way it is, nor about the way he wants it to be, because he is going to spend the rest of his first and only term in office campaigning. It's all he knows how to do.
I haven't said much about the orgy-of-spending bill because I don't have a lot of original ideas about it. I did have an insight today about those three repulsive turncoat RINOs. I respected Sens. Specter and Collins a lot for acting in a truly bipartisan manner and working on behalf of their employers, the taxpayers, to shave some fat from this outrageously bloated piece of pork. However, when they put lipstick on this pig, it became their pig, and damned if they're going to let anyone call it a pig. They are so proud of themselves for playing nicely with the other senators, and for their make-up job, that they're selling out their constituents for this delusion.
Friday, February 6, 2009
UPDATE: Sarah Jeglum, Patriot; ASUW Senate, Pinheads
We have a quasi-update to the story which is essentially responsible for spawning this blog. The December 6, 2008 entry in Hill of Hope, Censorship in Seattle, vehemently denounced the liberal intolerance rampant on campuses like that of the University of Washington and the disgraceful attempt of the Graduate and Professional Student Senate to extort a public apology from Sarah Jeglum, editor-in-chief of the UW's Daily for the unforgivable crime of providing a forum for holders of all viewpoints, not just those who bend over and grab their ankles for the gay community.
Unlike the love between lesbian activists this issue just will not die. Ms. Jeglum remained a paragon of journalistic professionalism and integrity when she addressed the student senate on January 28. The senate apparently convened to continue to whine the upending of their delicate sensibilities and wring their bony hemp-stained hands at the prospect of conservative tolerance going unpunished.
Senate member Igor Cherny, obviously a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, expressed his belief that "a forum was not provided for students who disagreed" with John Fay's original editorial. Apparently Mr. Cherny felt that a published counter-argument, a Facebook group, and protest covered by both major Seattle newspapers, in addition to the "eight pages of letters to The Daily published the following Friday," of which Ms. Jeglum reminded him, were not sufficient the redress this slap in the plucked and Botoxed face of the gay community.
According to their website, the UW GPSS is no longer demanding the resignations of the right-wing hate fanatics at The Daily, who have not learned their lessons and continue to publish opinions from all moral and philosophical backgrounds. They are, however, clinging to their demand of an apology the way a starving monkey grips a banana, or a radical terrorist-sympathizer Marxist president clings to legislation which promises, at best, the complete destruction of the American economy and utter betrayal of taxpaying citizens.
Future ACLU lawyer and GPSS President Jake Faleschini claims that the "opinion coupled with the graphic offended the University's principles of providing a safe learning environment for all students." This blogger suggests that Mr. Faleschini and others who are frightened by cartoons of sheep (they can only be college students) remain in the comforting bubble of academia until they develop the reason and maturity necessary to navigate the adult world, which is apt to include many differing viewpoints, and possibly cartoons of giraffes, crocodiles, and even ostriches. Perverts.
Unlike the love between lesbian activists this issue just will not die. Ms. Jeglum remained a paragon of journalistic professionalism and integrity when she addressed the student senate on January 28. The senate apparently convened to continue to whine the upending of their delicate sensibilities and wring their bony hemp-stained hands at the prospect of conservative tolerance going unpunished.
Senate member Igor Cherny, obviously a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, expressed his belief that "a forum was not provided for students who disagreed" with John Fay's original editorial. Apparently Mr. Cherny felt that a published counter-argument, a Facebook group, and protest covered by both major Seattle newspapers, in addition to the "eight pages of letters to The Daily published the following Friday," of which Ms. Jeglum reminded him, were not sufficient the redress this slap in the plucked and Botoxed face of the gay community.
According to their website, the UW GPSS is no longer demanding the resignations of the right-wing hate fanatics at The Daily, who have not learned their lessons and continue to publish opinions from all moral and philosophical backgrounds. They are, however, clinging to their demand of an apology the way a starving monkey grips a banana, or a radical terrorist-sympathizer Marxist president clings to legislation which promises, at best, the complete destruction of the American economy and utter betrayal of taxpaying citizens.
Future ACLU lawyer and GPSS President Jake Faleschini claims that the "opinion coupled with the graphic offended the University's principles of providing a safe learning environment for all students." This blogger suggests that Mr. Faleschini and others who are frightened by cartoons of sheep (they can only be college students) remain in the comforting bubble of academia until they develop the reason and maturity necessary to navigate the adult world, which is apt to include many differing viewpoints, and possibly cartoons of giraffes, crocodiles, and even ostriches. Perverts.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
I Guess I Won't Name My Son Reagan
Today we bring you a lighter topic: juvenile crime. According to a University of Pennsylvania study, boys with unusual names are more likely to become juvenile delinquents.
Cue Johnny Cash.
Of course this begs the question, what about girls? The researchers in this story studied only male juvenile delinquents; it would be interesting to know whether their results apply to girls. I would venture a guess, though, that girls with unusual names are more likely to engage in the female version of delinquency--that is, teen pregnancy.
Considering the cost to society of juvenile crime and single motherhood, this study practically demands that we immediately enact measures to deter parents from giving their offspring such names as Dawnderamus, Tanjaniqua, and Adolf Hitler. Perhaps there should be an additional tax exemption for every young John, James, Mary or Sarah, or we could fine people according to the PNIs of their children's monikers. "Percy? Okay, that's $300. Abednego? Um, hang on...say, you're not real attached to your second kidney, are you?"
Also, we should all wonder what's in a name like Barack.
Cue Johnny Cash.
Of course this begs the question, what about girls? The researchers in this story studied only male juvenile delinquents; it would be interesting to know whether their results apply to girls. I would venture a guess, though, that girls with unusual names are more likely to engage in the female version of delinquency--that is, teen pregnancy.
Considering the cost to society of juvenile crime and single motherhood, this study practically demands that we immediately enact measures to deter parents from giving their offspring such names as Dawnderamus, Tanjaniqua, and Adolf Hitler. Perhaps there should be an additional tax exemption for every young John, James, Mary or Sarah, or we could fine people according to the PNIs of their children's monikers. "Percy? Okay, that's $300. Abednego? Um, hang on...say, you're not real attached to your second kidney, are you?"
Also, we should all wonder what's in a name like Barack.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Suggested Reading, or Just Ogling
A friend (amazingly, I do have some) asked me what it's like to be a liberal. Obviously I have put away such childish ideologies, but I won't explain my conservative salvation here. Michael Medved's book Right Turns is an excellent read. I told my friend that it's very exciting being a liberal--there is no dearth of reasons to be angry, and liberals can feel productive simply being indignant about injustice without actually acting to improve any situation. No argument or idea needs to be constrained by logic or practicality; emotions and ideals rule. One needs never to examine a position or change a behavior, because everything is right and offense is a valid defense (that is, claiming offense automatically absolves one of responsibility, not matter how valid the critique). And one is morally and intellectually superior, as being liberal alone automatically proves. Liberal altruism is, of course, extremely selfish--their hearts bleed only so that they may show the wounds inflicted by such a cruel, oppressive, iniquitous society. The majority of liberals masturbate by patting themselves on the back.
I find that last sentence a bit edgy myself, more than fit for attribution to Ann Coulter. I'm ambivalent about wanting to be another Ann Coulter--she's witty and intelligent and obviously refuses to kowtow to the fascism that is political correctness. However, I was struck by one of her interviews regarding the media's flaying of Sarah Palin, when Ms. Coulter remarked that she hadn't seen such hostility toward a woman since, well, herself. As usual, she was right. Vocal, unapologetic conservative women like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Malkin are constant targets of vitriolic fury, often from self-proclaimed feminists who nevertheless believe that woman have no right to hold certain positions--equality be damned.
There is nothing the rabid Left hates more than a conservative woman, unless it's a beautiful conservative woman. Sarah Palin could still win beauty contests, and Ann Coulter looks stunning, as always, on the cover of her newest book--I need to find a copy and see if it says who designed her dress. Meanwhile, let's look (not directly) at the other side of the aisle--Arianna Huffington looks like someone stuck a pair of over-collagened lips on a glob of raw bread dough. Nancy Pelosi is obviously some eyebrow-less alien creature, and Hillary Clinton--oh, Hillary Clinton--she's more manly than Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy lumped together. (A physical situation which Sens. Kennedy and Reid would no doubt resist and Rep. Frank probably welcome.)
Beautiful Conservative Derangement Syndrome surely stems from a wrenching paradox created by feminists, who are in turn being destroyed by their own monster. Feminism, of course, eschews biology, rejecting and indicting the idea that men like beautiful women, and thus women wish to be physically attractive. Despite their best efforts, many of the feminists with which the left is infested remain women, and face the Sysiphean task of denouncing and condemning physical beauty while yearning for it like Clytie for Apollo. Of course, she turned into a sunflower. Whereas left-wing feminists simply turn into pasty husks in pantsuits.
I find that last sentence a bit edgy myself, more than fit for attribution to Ann Coulter. I'm ambivalent about wanting to be another Ann Coulter--she's witty and intelligent and obviously refuses to kowtow to the fascism that is political correctness. However, I was struck by one of her interviews regarding the media's flaying of Sarah Palin, when Ms. Coulter remarked that she hadn't seen such hostility toward a woman since, well, herself. As usual, she was right. Vocal, unapologetic conservative women like Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Malkin are constant targets of vitriolic fury, often from self-proclaimed feminists who nevertheless believe that woman have no right to hold certain positions--equality be damned.
There is nothing the rabid Left hates more than a conservative woman, unless it's a beautiful conservative woman. Sarah Palin could still win beauty contests, and Ann Coulter looks stunning, as always, on the cover of her newest book--I need to find a copy and see if it says who designed her dress. Meanwhile, let's look (not directly) at the other side of the aisle--Arianna Huffington looks like someone stuck a pair of over-collagened lips on a glob of raw bread dough. Nancy Pelosi is obviously some eyebrow-less alien creature, and Hillary Clinton--oh, Hillary Clinton--she's more manly than Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and Ted Kennedy lumped together. (A physical situation which Sens. Kennedy and Reid would no doubt resist and Rep. Frank probably welcome.)
Beautiful Conservative Derangement Syndrome surely stems from a wrenching paradox created by feminists, who are in turn being destroyed by their own monster. Feminism, of course, eschews biology, rejecting and indicting the idea that men like beautiful women, and thus women wish to be physically attractive. Despite their best efforts, many of the feminists with which the left is infested remain women, and face the Sysiphean task of denouncing and condemning physical beauty while yearning for it like Clytie for Apollo. Of course, she turned into a sunflower. Whereas left-wing feminists simply turn into pasty husks in pantsuits.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Age-Old Wisdom for the First 100 Days
We have nothing new to report today, but something old. A few warnings for the next four years:
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
Paul was prepared not only for the Obama ascension, but for the coming welfare state:
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'
"We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
"The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops."
2 Timothy 2:6
Under the Equalizer-in-Chief, the government will seize the crops of the hardworking farmer and give them to the idle busybody.
And another thing--why aren't they called Thessalonicans??
"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come. Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God."
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
Paul was prepared not only for the Obama ascension, but for the coming welfare state:
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'
"We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat."
2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
"The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops."
2 Timothy 2:6
Under the Equalizer-in-Chief, the government will seize the crops of the hardworking farmer and give them to the idle busybody.
And another thing--why aren't they called Thessalonicans??
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A Double-Standard's Day in Court
If you live in Canada and notice that the birds seem unusually well-fed in recent years, it's due to the huge can of worms opened by the True North's legalization of gay marriage. Gay marriage opponents in American, Sr. have often asked why, if gay marriage should be legal, is polygamy banned?
For British Columbia lawyer Blair Suffredine, the question is not rhetorical--so much so that he is demanding an answer in court. Suffredine's client, Winson Blackmore, is charged with the crime of polygamy, as he is alleged to have no fewer than 20 wives.
I know what you're all wondering--how can a man with 20 wives even afford a freaking lawyer?
But that's not important, nor is the question of whether Mr. Blackmore is even mentally competent to defend himself, as a man who would even want to have 20 wives is obviously insane, or on the brink of becoming so. Explain to me how 20 wives doesn't just mean 20 times the nagging.
Logically, Mr. Blackmore has an excellent case, as, historically and Biblically, polygamy possesses a legality and legitimacy that same-sex marriage has never had. While the Bible is unequivocal in forbidding any homosexual conduct, it permits (but does not encourage) plural marriage. Polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East (where, incidentally, sodomy continues to be punishable by death), and polyandry in central Asia. (In polyandry, a woman has more than one husband--now that's really insane).
At Hill of Hope, we will attempt to follow this case and see whether Canada will continue to criminalize a Biblically-sanctioned relationship between consenting adults while permitting Godless, immoral relationships between consenting adults.
For British Columbia lawyer Blair Suffredine, the question is not rhetorical--so much so that he is demanding an answer in court. Suffredine's client, Winson Blackmore, is charged with the crime of polygamy, as he is alleged to have no fewer than 20 wives.
I know what you're all wondering--how can a man with 20 wives even afford a freaking lawyer?
But that's not important, nor is the question of whether Mr. Blackmore is even mentally competent to defend himself, as a man who would even want to have 20 wives is obviously insane, or on the brink of becoming so. Explain to me how 20 wives doesn't just mean 20 times the nagging.
Logically, Mr. Blackmore has an excellent case, as, historically and Biblically, polygamy possesses a legality and legitimacy that same-sex marriage has never had. While the Bible is unequivocal in forbidding any homosexual conduct, it permits (but does not encourage) plural marriage. Polygamy is still practiced in the Middle East (where, incidentally, sodomy continues to be punishable by death), and polyandry in central Asia. (In polyandry, a woman has more than one husband--now that's really insane).
At Hill of Hope, we will attempt to follow this case and see whether Canada will continue to criminalize a Biblically-sanctioned relationship between consenting adults while permitting Godless, immoral relationships between consenting adults.
Monarchy in Massachusetts
Left-wing Princess Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, whose married name has been strangely absent from the media since she announced her aspiration to the senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton, has finally realized how she can best serve America: by staying the hell out of politics. In a show of selflessness not displayed by a Kennedy since, um...well, I can't think of any, but give me a break, okay? I was born during the Reagan administration. Anyway, in an extremely unprecedented move, Mrs. Schlossberg relinquished her self-claimed entitlement toward a position that she is grotesquely unqualified to hold. She may not deserve a high-profile government appointment, but she deserves the nation's thanks, and to scurry back into as much obscurity as she can retain considering her parentage.
Some realists have proposed, with appropriate trepidation, that Mrs. Schlossberg is actually interested in a juicier plum--the position soon to be vacated by her homicidal drunk of an uncle. However, as the state that elected Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank, Massachusetts' governance could actually be improved by gross incompetence and conceit. In fact, she would fit right in! She couldn't possibly make it any worse. And as the election of Obama shows, isn't that really all we expect of our government?
Some realists have proposed, with appropriate trepidation, that Mrs. Schlossberg is actually interested in a juicier plum--the position soon to be vacated by her homicidal drunk of an uncle. However, as the state that elected Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Barney Frank, Massachusetts' governance could actually be improved by gross incompetence and conceit. In fact, she would fit right in! She couldn't possibly make it any worse. And as the election of Obama shows, isn't that really all we expect of our government?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
The Racist Presidency, or, When Rhymes Attack
Remember the Dilbert cartoon in which Dogbert leads the company's new aerobics program, prefacing his first class with the statement that skeptics say the program will be a failure? The disastrous session that follows prompts Dilbert to remark that the skeptics are right, to which Dogbert responds, "We usually are."
Here at Hill of Hope, we instituted a media blackout on Inauguration Day, eschewing all news coverage of the Roman orgy of obscenely opulent coronation festivities. We admit we were delaying the inevitable. We also venture that, in considering whether Obama's ideals can be the spackle in the cracks of this nation's racial disparity, the skeptics are right.
Obama certainly has the kind of friends (Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright) which cause him to have no need of enemies. As shown by yesterday's prayer by the "Reverend" Joseph Lowery, Obama supporters are well on their way to being the most racially-divisive political cult ever.
Mr. Lowery obviously fancies himself some kind of poet (which is troubling enough in itself), asking the Almighty to
help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.
Oh, the irony--that the inauguration of the nation's first black president is marred by such inflammatory, blatantly racist sentiment. You really can't get more bigoted and divisive by praying for each race separately, and unequally.
So Mr. Lowery wants a day when blacks will not have to give back. I hope he means that he desires them to retain the freedom and opportunities they have won since the 1960s, achievements which allowed him to embarrass the President in front of the nation yesterday. However, I believe it would be in the best interest of this country, for people of all colors, if the black community did relinquish its appallingly high rate of illegitimate births and incarceration, which are also modern occurrences.
The undeniably racist part is, of course, that Mr. Lowery feels that blacks should "not be asked to give back." Who the f*** does he think he is--demanding special treatment for one group! Notice that he seems to have no problem with whites, "yellows," "browns," or "reds" being asked to give back. In a Christian society, everyone gives back. It's civilized. It's decent. It's human, and Mr. Lowery's prayer sets blacks outside the realm of humanity. Hello, KKK! Affirmative action is an insult wrapped in a handout.
Glenn Beck, CNN escapee and new Fox News commentator, wrote, "Even at the inauguration of a black president, we are being called racist." Obviously Mr. Lowery also feels that progress and unity are beyond the ability of white people, or he would not have prayed that "white will embrace what's right." As if skinheads have been hurling Molotov cocktails at the windows of the Presidential limousine.
The black-on-white racism of Obamabots--sometimes latent, sometimes blatant--is, however, old news. Here's some real news--I am offended. Yes!
The "yellow will be mellow"? Oh, you f***ing did NOT! I have news for you, pal--the yellow have had mellow out the freaking wazoo until now, and we have had it. It's modern heresy to generalize about any race, but Asian Americans are still labeled as agreeable, soft-spoken, and obedient--the "model minority," and we're supposed to welcome this simply because some consider it a positive stereotype?
I looked up mellow on dictionary.com, and, as an adjective, it can apply to fruit, wine, sound, color, light, and soil (soil?!). In terms of people, however mellow is defined as
pleasantly agreeable; free from tension, discord, etc.
or
affably relaxed; easygoing; genial.
Imagine if anyone--much less a speaker at a historic national event--prayed publicly for blacks to be agreeable, affable, easy-going or free from discord. Such speech would rightly be criticized as racist, and the culprit's ignorance and bigotry soundly vilified and condemned. Abolitionists and civil rights activists fought--and sometimes died--so that black people in America would not be required nor asked to be keep free from discord nor remain genial and relaxed.
Joseph Lowery--and I have no doubt that there are plenty like him now emboldened by Obama's ascension--is the worst kind of race-baiting hypocrite, a trafficker in bigotry and strife selling himself as a colorblind uniter.
F*** you, you racist bastard.
How's that for mellow?
Here at Hill of Hope, we instituted a media blackout on Inauguration Day, eschewing all news coverage of the Roman orgy of obscenely opulent coronation festivities. We admit we were delaying the inevitable. We also venture that, in considering whether Obama's ideals can be the spackle in the cracks of this nation's racial disparity, the skeptics are right.
Obama certainly has the kind of friends (Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright) which cause him to have no need of enemies. As shown by yesterday's prayer by the "Reverend" Joseph Lowery, Obama supporters are well on their way to being the most racially-divisive political cult ever.
Mr. Lowery obviously fancies himself some kind of poet (which is troubling enough in itself), asking the Almighty to
help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right.
Oh, the irony--that the inauguration of the nation's first black president is marred by such inflammatory, blatantly racist sentiment. You really can't get more bigoted and divisive by praying for each race separately, and unequally.
So Mr. Lowery wants a day when blacks will not have to give back. I hope he means that he desires them to retain the freedom and opportunities they have won since the 1960s, achievements which allowed him to embarrass the President in front of the nation yesterday. However, I believe it would be in the best interest of this country, for people of all colors, if the black community did relinquish its appallingly high rate of illegitimate births and incarceration, which are also modern occurrences.
The undeniably racist part is, of course, that Mr. Lowery feels that blacks should "not be asked to give back." Who the f*** does he think he is--demanding special treatment for one group! Notice that he seems to have no problem with whites, "yellows," "browns," or "reds" being asked to give back. In a Christian society, everyone gives back. It's civilized. It's decent. It's human, and Mr. Lowery's prayer sets blacks outside the realm of humanity. Hello, KKK! Affirmative action is an insult wrapped in a handout.
Glenn Beck, CNN escapee and new Fox News commentator, wrote, "Even at the inauguration of a black president, we are being called racist." Obviously Mr. Lowery also feels that progress and unity are beyond the ability of white people, or he would not have prayed that "white will embrace what's right." As if skinheads have been hurling Molotov cocktails at the windows of the Presidential limousine.
The black-on-white racism of Obamabots--sometimes latent, sometimes blatant--is, however, old news. Here's some real news--I am offended. Yes!
The "yellow will be mellow"? Oh, you f***ing did NOT! I have news for you, pal--the yellow have had mellow out the freaking wazoo until now, and we have had it. It's modern heresy to generalize about any race, but Asian Americans are still labeled as agreeable, soft-spoken, and obedient--the "model minority," and we're supposed to welcome this simply because some consider it a positive stereotype?
I looked up mellow on dictionary.com, and, as an adjective, it can apply to fruit, wine, sound, color, light, and soil (soil?!). In terms of people, however mellow is defined as
pleasantly agreeable; free from tension, discord, etc.
or
affably relaxed; easygoing; genial.
Imagine if anyone--much less a speaker at a historic national event--prayed publicly for blacks to be agreeable, affable, easy-going or free from discord. Such speech would rightly be criticized as racist, and the culprit's ignorance and bigotry soundly vilified and condemned. Abolitionists and civil rights activists fought--and sometimes died--so that black people in America would not be required nor asked to be keep free from discord nor remain genial and relaxed.
Joseph Lowery--and I have no doubt that there are plenty like him now emboldened by Obama's ascension--is the worst kind of race-baiting hypocrite, a trafficker in bigotry and strife selling himself as a colorblind uniter.
F*** you, you racist bastard.
How's that for mellow?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Media: Killing OK, as long as you're not racist about it.
I'm not really upset, nor surprised, that the media believe that uncouth language from warfighters is newsworthy or cause for alarm, so I didn't comment on the latest Prince Harry story when it broke. People who can't fathom that it could possibly be unwise and unsafe for all concerned for out-and-open homosexuals to serve in America's military no doubt feel a supreme sense of injustice on behalf of our enemies--not because our troops shoot and kill them and otherwise deprive them of basic human rights like guerrilla warfare, but because we call them names, and racially offensive ones, while doing it.
The original story didn't fire me up nearly as much as the reaction of The XX Factor, a left-wing feminazi blog just reeking of female body hair and RU-486. I imagine the blogger clad in unwashed denim overalls, the pasty skin above her one eyebrow flushed from the screeching tirade she just delivered at the Oppressor (man, to the rest of us) who dared to attempt to open the door for her on the way in, writing that, as repulsive as Prince Harry is, the press is even worse. According to the XX Factor, this is because they gave the little Nazi-sympathizer imperialistic potential rapist a pass on the anti-gay remarks he also uttered in the video.
The bitter whales at the XX-Factor called the Prince a paragon (or poster-child, or something) of Republicanism, despite the fact that he is not a member of Republican party, and, being British, probably will not be anytime soon. On behalf of American Republicans, I agree with the hags completely. Prince Harry served his country proudly and honorably. And those who seek to detract from this fact are exemplary liberals.
The original story didn't fire me up nearly as much as the reaction of The XX Factor, a left-wing feminazi blog just reeking of female body hair and RU-486. I imagine the blogger clad in unwashed denim overalls, the pasty skin above her one eyebrow flushed from the screeching tirade she just delivered at the Oppressor (man, to the rest of us) who dared to attempt to open the door for her on the way in, writing that, as repulsive as Prince Harry is, the press is even worse. According to the XX Factor, this is because they gave the little Nazi-sympathizer imperialistic potential rapist a pass on the anti-gay remarks he also uttered in the video.
The bitter whales at the XX-Factor called the Prince a paragon (or poster-child, or something) of Republicanism, despite the fact that he is not a member of Republican party, and, being British, probably will not be anytime soon. On behalf of American Republicans, I agree with the hags completely. Prince Harry served his country proudly and honorably. And those who seek to detract from this fact are exemplary liberals.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
On the Menu Tonight: Grilled Sea-Kitten Steaks
I bet I'm not alone in suspecting that PETA really isn't as interested in the plight of neglected and mistreated animals as they are in proving publicly, over and over, what kind of hypersensitive, intrusive wack-jobs they are. This is a short article, so I won't make you click on a link:
---
PETA: Spearfish school should be called Sea Kitten
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SPEARFISH, S.D. -- The activist animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked school officials to change the name of Spearfish High School to "Sea Kitten High School." The new name would "reflect the gentle nature of its current marine namesake," the organization said in a letter to Steve Morford, Spearfish High School principal.
PETA said the letter is part of a new Sea Kitten campaign aimed at children.
If children were taught to refer to fish as "sea kittens," reflecting that fish, like cats and dogs, are "individuals" that "do have friendships," fewer fish might be killed for food or sport, said Pulin Modi, a PETA spokesman.
"We want people to realize that more fish are killed each year than all animals combined," he said. "They don't have the sympathy of more popular animals like cats and dogs."
Morford said he did not want to share his feelings about PETA. "Obviously, it's nothing we're taking seriously," he said.
---
Principal Morford should be careful in being so dismissive of such radical and progressive demands, lest the hemp-wearing, lobster-fondling, vegan leadership resort to their next line of defense: shrill name-calling while stomping their bony, papyrus-sandal-clad feet.
I think PETA is actually only something. Let's start referring to fish--the same fish that supply tasty tuna, succulent salmon, and hearty halibut, as "sea kittens," and then Americans will start cooing as they cradle a slimy, flopping, glassy-eyed creature that looks like a giant intestinal parasite and take it home and buy a fluffy bed a jeweled collar for it, despite the fact that fish have no necks.
I also think it's fabulous that in a society with millions of homeless cats and dogs of the non-scaled, non-swimming kind, PETA finds it worthwhile to attempt to indoctrinate schoolchildren on the intelligence and sensitivity of animals you can flush.
In the same spirit, I think we should also go back to calling manatees "sea cows," because I bet they make a tasty burger.
---
PETA: Spearfish school should be called Sea Kitten
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SPEARFISH, S.D. -- The activist animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked school officials to change the name of Spearfish High School to "Sea Kitten High School." The new name would "reflect the gentle nature of its current marine namesake," the organization said in a letter to Steve Morford, Spearfish High School principal.
PETA said the letter is part of a new Sea Kitten campaign aimed at children.
If children were taught to refer to fish as "sea kittens," reflecting that fish, like cats and dogs, are "individuals" that "do have friendships," fewer fish might be killed for food or sport, said Pulin Modi, a PETA spokesman.
"We want people to realize that more fish are killed each year than all animals combined," he said. "They don't have the sympathy of more popular animals like cats and dogs."
Morford said he did not want to share his feelings about PETA. "Obviously, it's nothing we're taking seriously," he said.
---
Principal Morford should be careful in being so dismissive of such radical and progressive demands, lest the hemp-wearing, lobster-fondling, vegan leadership resort to their next line of defense: shrill name-calling while stomping their bony, papyrus-sandal-clad feet.
I think PETA is actually only something. Let's start referring to fish--the same fish that supply tasty tuna, succulent salmon, and hearty halibut, as "sea kittens," and then Americans will start cooing as they cradle a slimy, flopping, glassy-eyed creature that looks like a giant intestinal parasite and take it home and buy a fluffy bed a jeweled collar for it, despite the fact that fish have no necks.
I also think it's fabulous that in a society with millions of homeless cats and dogs of the non-scaled, non-swimming kind, PETA finds it worthwhile to attempt to indoctrinate schoolchildren on the intelligence and sensitivity of animals you can flush.
In the same spirit, I think we should also go back to calling manatees "sea cows," because I bet they make a tasty burger.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The PI Finally Gets it Right
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a prime example of biased left-wing media, or, as such is known locally "fair and honest reporting." However, columnist Robert L. Jamieson, Jr. recently resurrected journalism in the PI with his defense and justification of the recent fatal shooting of a University of Washington student by Seattle police.
As college students tend to possess an excess of education and a dearth of reason and Seattle is a mecca of socialist-anarchist progressive egocentric elitism, no doubt a disturbing percentage of Miles Murphy's neighbors feel that the police should have, without preconditions, negotiated with a military-uniformed man who greeted them with a loaded gun and refused to put it down. Maybe they should have considered Mr. Murphy's feelings and asked him nicely.
The kind of people who live in the PI's circulation area have a remarkably selective ability to empathize. Their hearts bleed for uneducated single welfare mothers who bear an additional two or three kids for taxpayers to feed and clothe and for captured terrorists whose living quarters are far nicer than those of most American soldiers. However, the majority of U district residents spare no thought for the police officers who were dispatched that night to protect them and face down gun-waving youths and make wrenching, split-second decisions so that you will not have to.
As college students tend to possess an excess of education and a dearth of reason and Seattle is a mecca of socialist-anarchist progressive egocentric elitism, no doubt a disturbing percentage of Miles Murphy's neighbors feel that the police should have, without preconditions, negotiated with a military-uniformed man who greeted them with a loaded gun and refused to put it down. Maybe they should have considered Mr. Murphy's feelings and asked him nicely.
The kind of people who live in the PI's circulation area have a remarkably selective ability to empathize. Their hearts bleed for uneducated single welfare mothers who bear an additional two or three kids for taxpayers to feed and clothe and for captured terrorists whose living quarters are far nicer than those of most American soldiers. However, the majority of U district residents spare no thought for the police officers who were dispatched that night to protect them and face down gun-waving youths and make wrenching, split-second decisions so that you will not have to.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Makes Sense to Me
Former NBA star turned sports commentator Charles Barkley was arrested for suspicion of DUI last week. His latest explanation is not only obvious but entirely excusable.
You were what? Well, then--by all means!
You were what? Well, then--by all means!
If Prisons are Resorts, Gitmo is Five-Star
I couldn't find anything to blog about over vacation. Everything in the world was going so well--nothing was irritating, appalling, or infuriating enough on which to comment.
So, I returned to work. What a surprise--I found this grotesquely perverse story on Guantanamo Bay.
I'm trying to decide whether the Loony Left completely lacks understanding of the terrorists imprisoned there, or understands them too well. These enemy combatants, of course, will employ any tactic toward the destruction of America, no matter how base or devoid of honor. Even in captivity, their aim is to debase and demoralize the free, democratic West. They play by no rules--but then, neither does the Left. Only the radical liberal traitors who bemoan an America that clubs babies, eats seals, and occasionally fails to recycle an aluminum can could believe that aspiring suicide bombers would be in any way traumatized by having no means to watch Entourage.
The moral relativists of the ACLU are also such narrow-minded elitists that they have no clue that, if given free reign in American society, the jihadists over whom they weep into their organic soy chai tea would behead them (the lawyers) first. Remember the crocodile and the frog? These terrorists are the crocodile, and any bleeding-heart blame-America-first types would do well to remember what they are--enemies of civil liberties. They hate freedom of or from religion. They hate any semblance of women's rights. And they really, really hate homosexuals.
Marijuana-dealing American citizens are eating baloney and wearing pink underwear, while unrepentant foreign mass-murderers have personal chefs and entertainment centers. Where's Joe Arpaio when you need him?
So, I returned to work. What a surprise--I found this grotesquely perverse story on Guantanamo Bay.
I'm trying to decide whether the Loony Left completely lacks understanding of the terrorists imprisoned there, or understands them too well. These enemy combatants, of course, will employ any tactic toward the destruction of America, no matter how base or devoid of honor. Even in captivity, their aim is to debase and demoralize the free, democratic West. They play by no rules--but then, neither does the Left. Only the radical liberal traitors who bemoan an America that clubs babies, eats seals, and occasionally fails to recycle an aluminum can could believe that aspiring suicide bombers would be in any way traumatized by having no means to watch Entourage.
The moral relativists of the ACLU are also such narrow-minded elitists that they have no clue that, if given free reign in American society, the jihadists over whom they weep into their organic soy chai tea would behead them (the lawyers) first. Remember the crocodile and the frog? These terrorists are the crocodile, and any bleeding-heart blame-America-first types would do well to remember what they are--enemies of civil liberties. They hate freedom of or from religion. They hate any semblance of women's rights. And they really, really hate homosexuals.
Marijuana-dealing American citizens are eating baloney and wearing pink underwear, while unrepentant foreign mass-murderers have personal chefs and entertainment centers. Where's Joe Arpaio when you need him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)