Friday, June 27, 2014
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The Camel in the Tent
I really didn't want to talk about this. But it's there, impossible to ignore and stinking like a camel in an Army tent.
Yeah. This guy.
The wrongness of this whole situation is like python, wrapping itself around everything the US military stands for and squeezing the life out of it.
Let's start at the beginning.
Private Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post in Afghanistan in 2009. If you're going to dispute that, stop reading now and go watch Bill Maher because it's only going to get more intolerable for you. Most Americans, I presume, do not have the good fortune to be personally acquainted with a soldier who was at the particular outpost from which Bergdahl absconded, at the time that he did. I am. And I've known the little shit was a deserter for years.
But how are you supposed to know, if you don't know anyone who was personally thrown under the proverbial bus by this bluest of falcons?
Listen to Evan Buetow. Listen to Cody Full. These men and others who served with them have nothing to gain by coming forward with their stories. Fame? Attention? Yes, the attention of Obama regime brownshirts and the fame of being called lying psychopaths by these same propagandists. It's easy to see why they waited until Bergdahl's return to break their silence. Besides the NDAs. They had to.
The first strike against this story is Bergdahl's desertion. As Spc. Full testified in front of Congress, it was a shitty situation for every man at that outpost. But all the rest of them came home, albeit in boxes for a few of them. Bergdahl didn't even deploy along with the rest of his unit; for medical reasons he didn't arrive in Afghanistan until May of 2009. As he disappeared at the end of June, he could not even have been 2 months. He couldn't carry out his sworn duty for the gestation period of a cat.
The Obama presidency has been one unbroken series of scandals, hits to American dignity and credibility, and just plain ignorant clusterfucks. But at no time did the President and his advisors seem more out of touch with their constituency--you know, the people they're supposed to work for and represent--than when they treated Bergdahl's repatriation like some kind of hero's homecoming. They had the audacity to claim that he served with "honor and distinction." I'll give them the second one; Bergdahl has the distinction of being the only US serviceman to desert during wartime since the Korean War. There are a lot of men and women who served honorably in Afghanistan who gave the last full measure of devotion. How many of their families were invited to the White House Rose Garden to be petted by the President in front of his adoring media? This is why then men in Bergdahl's unit could not keep silent. Not only were his actions in Afghanistan dishonorable at best, Bergdahl broke military law, quite possibly aided the enemy in subsequent attacks on American forces, and forced the rest of his unit into a fruitless search during which six of them were killed. Obama could have allowed him to go quietly to Germany, ignoring him the way he (Bergdahl) ignored his oath and his creed. The media could have been allowed to forget this substandard soldier the way they forgot them men who died searching for him. But no, the least heroic person ("man" would be too generous) the US military deployed to Afghanistan received a hero's welcome. And, God bless them, real American heroes could not abide that. The soldiers who Bergdahl endangered with his midnight run have come forward not to dishonor him, but in defense of every American serviceman who remembered his oath.
"Blah, blah, blah, we don't leave Americans behind," the regime's mouthpiece said. Is that why Air Force One was the only military aircraft that took flight during the 7-hour siege of the American embassy in Benghazi?
The prisoners whom Obama traded for the deserter Bergdahl have been called the Taliban "war cabinet." Every single one was a ruthless terrorist with an insatiable hunger for infidel blood. I suppose the President wrought from them all an admission that they had been very, very bad and a promise never to do it again. No doubt these men will go on to kill, or train others to kill, more Americans. How many? How many died so they could be captured? In the regime's eyes, all of these lives are worth less than the freedom of one disgrace to the uniform.
This was the second strike.
The final misstep came when Obama's BFF Bob Bergdahl (or Baghdad Bob, as he is called here) addressed the nation not as a proud and relieved father, and not even as a patriotic American, but in the enemy tongue as a traitor just like his son. If he was elated, it was not as a result of the release of his almost-as-repulsive son, but the justice he perceived being done for the Mohammedan people America has so long oppressed and marginalized.
I say "final," because this was when I cracked, so to speak. Not cracked--boiled. Solidified. Lost any semblance of respect and trust I may still have had for this lawless and seditious administration after their steady erosion of American liberty and sovereignty over the last 5 years. I no longer care who knows that hate this President and his hideously ugly first lady and their whole coterie of elitist military-hating blame-America-first thugs and sycophants.
You awakened the wrath of the veterans, Mr. President. We will not forget this, nor will we let you forget.
Yeah. This guy.
The wrongness of this whole situation is like python, wrapping itself around everything the US military stands for and squeezing the life out of it.
Let's start at the beginning.
Private Bowe Bergdahl deserted his post in Afghanistan in 2009. If you're going to dispute that, stop reading now and go watch Bill Maher because it's only going to get more intolerable for you. Most Americans, I presume, do not have the good fortune to be personally acquainted with a soldier who was at the particular outpost from which Bergdahl absconded, at the time that he did. I am. And I've known the little shit was a deserter for years.
But how are you supposed to know, if you don't know anyone who was personally thrown under the proverbial bus by this bluest of falcons?
Listen to Evan Buetow. Listen to Cody Full. These men and others who served with them have nothing to gain by coming forward with their stories. Fame? Attention? Yes, the attention of Obama regime brownshirts and the fame of being called lying psychopaths by these same propagandists. It's easy to see why they waited until Bergdahl's return to break their silence. Besides the NDAs. They had to.
The first strike against this story is Bergdahl's desertion. As Spc. Full testified in front of Congress, it was a shitty situation for every man at that outpost. But all the rest of them came home, albeit in boxes for a few of them. Bergdahl didn't even deploy along with the rest of his unit; for medical reasons he didn't arrive in Afghanistan until May of 2009. As he disappeared at the end of June, he could not even have been 2 months. He couldn't carry out his sworn duty for the gestation period of a cat.
The Obama presidency has been one unbroken series of scandals, hits to American dignity and credibility, and just plain ignorant clusterfucks. But at no time did the President and his advisors seem more out of touch with their constituency--you know, the people they're supposed to work for and represent--than when they treated Bergdahl's repatriation like some kind of hero's homecoming. They had the audacity to claim that he served with "honor and distinction." I'll give them the second one; Bergdahl has the distinction of being the only US serviceman to desert during wartime since the Korean War. There are a lot of men and women who served honorably in Afghanistan who gave the last full measure of devotion. How many of their families were invited to the White House Rose Garden to be petted by the President in front of his adoring media? This is why then men in Bergdahl's unit could not keep silent. Not only were his actions in Afghanistan dishonorable at best, Bergdahl broke military law, quite possibly aided the enemy in subsequent attacks on American forces, and forced the rest of his unit into a fruitless search during which six of them were killed. Obama could have allowed him to go quietly to Germany, ignoring him the way he (Bergdahl) ignored his oath and his creed. The media could have been allowed to forget this substandard soldier the way they forgot them men who died searching for him. But no, the least heroic person ("man" would be too generous) the US military deployed to Afghanistan received a hero's welcome. And, God bless them, real American heroes could not abide that. The soldiers who Bergdahl endangered with his midnight run have come forward not to dishonor him, but in defense of every American serviceman who remembered his oath.
"Blah, blah, blah, we don't leave Americans behind," the regime's mouthpiece said. Is that why Air Force One was the only military aircraft that took flight during the 7-hour siege of the American embassy in Benghazi?
The prisoners whom Obama traded for the deserter Bergdahl have been called the Taliban "war cabinet." Every single one was a ruthless terrorist with an insatiable hunger for infidel blood. I suppose the President wrought from them all an admission that they had been very, very bad and a promise never to do it again. No doubt these men will go on to kill, or train others to kill, more Americans. How many? How many died so they could be captured? In the regime's eyes, all of these lives are worth less than the freedom of one disgrace to the uniform.
This was the second strike.
The final misstep came when Obama's BFF Bob Bergdahl (or Baghdad Bob, as he is called here) addressed the nation not as a proud and relieved father, and not even as a patriotic American, but in the enemy tongue as a traitor just like his son. If he was elated, it was not as a result of the release of his almost-as-repulsive son, but the justice he perceived being done for the Mohammedan people America has so long oppressed and marginalized.
I say "final," because this was when I cracked, so to speak. Not cracked--boiled. Solidified. Lost any semblance of respect and trust I may still have had for this lawless and seditious administration after their steady erosion of American liberty and sovereignty over the last 5 years. I no longer care who knows that hate this President and his hideously ugly first lady and their whole coterie of elitist military-hating blame-America-first thugs and sycophants.
You awakened the wrath of the veterans, Mr. President. We will not forget this, nor will we let you forget.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Atheist? No Constitution for you!
I figured out where I want to go to law school. At state school in the northwest part of the country that offers a course in advanced Constitutional law.
I've also been looking over sample questions for the LSAT. There are sections on reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and analytical reasoning. I find analytical reasoning the most difficult by far, because, in my opinion, there is a lot of presumption and inference.
It's not necessarily bad to presume. Mankind would never get anywhere if we didn't presume that agriculture is worthwhile, that disease is preventable, or that God exists, to name a few. Presumptions factor into the LSAT when a situation is described and a position given. The question, then, is, "Which of these premises, if true, supports the position?"
I got started thinking about premises, or principles, or core beliefs and values when I was thinking about the logical reasoning part of the LSAT. If logic is such an integral part of the legal process, I wondered, why do so many lawyers do such illogical things.
The answer, I believe, lies in our presumptions.
My atheist friend, God bless her heart, posted this picture on her Facebook feed not too long ago.
The conclusion made in this caption, of course, arises from the premise that the Government grants our Constitutional rights.
However, it doesn't.
The Constitution is does not belong to the government. It belongs to the People. In fact, the Constitution is and always has been an enemy of government, and a shield for citizens against government oppression.
The government doesn't grant rights; at best, it protects them. More often, though, government infringes on or deprives the People of their rights.
Where do rights come from, if not the Government?
You may remember these words from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. How about that? The framers of the Constitution that our basic rights--the ones that come with simply being human--are not the gift of government, but of God. Let's do a little thought experiment based on that premise. The rights to life, liberty, and happiness are granted by the Creator. Nothing and no one else has that power. Atheists do not believe in a Creator. Therefore, atheists freely put themselves in a position in which they can be said not to have those inalienable rights. So here's a little rule for them.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. How about that? The framers of the Constitution that our basic rights--the ones that come with simply being human--are not the gift of government, but of God. Let's do a little thought experiment based on that premise. The rights to life, liberty, and happiness are granted by the Creator. Nothing and no one else has that power. Atheists do not believe in a Creator. Therefore, atheists freely put themselves in a position in which they can be said not to have those inalienable rights. So here's a little rule for them.
Monday, September 14, 2009
How to Get Denied by ACORN
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)