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.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)