Category Pop Culture

Entries 115 Total

Bourgeois Negroes

Feb 2, 12 3:52 PM

I hope the title of this post is as repulsive to you as it was to me when I heard it. Watch the video that it comes from. (LANGUAGE WARNING – not safe for work or kids!)

memphis-talk-radio-host-humiliates-black-gop-candidate

The host is Thaddeus Matthews, and he is outrageously disrespectful. It’s difficult to say how to answer this guy, but I’m gonna give it a stab.

Matthews is interviewing Charlotte Bergman, a black Republican. The very first thing he does is get confrontational about her “membership” with the Tea Party. He kicks things off by getting snippy over her answer – and she’s right, there is no membership in the Tea Party. There is no solid organization for the Tea Party nor any national leadership; it’s a genuine, grassroots organization that is tired of big government spending. Tea Partiers are tired of both Republicans AND Democrats and their spending.

Very quickly, you see that the video was posted by Matthews – who actually believes that Charlotte Bergman is “bought and paid for” by racist white people. Text shots literally say that he believes the Tea Party to be a racist organization and all of the black people involved with conservative politics (which he constantly refers to as the Tea Party, because he is too small-minded to separate the two) to be sellouts, token blacks, and puppets of Fox News.

One incredible illustration claims that conservative black people have betrayed the black community. The very next shot is a text scroll that actually claims that these people draw a salary for running for political office – and that salary is supposedly paid for by racist whites who hate Obama because he is black.

He never once asked an honest question. Not once. He asked her if she was a token of the white community, then when she refused to answer the question the way he wanted he yelled at her to shut up and “stop being stupid.” He demands to know what she’s done for the black community…and then, for the first time, calls her a “bourgeois negro.”

Who is the racist here?

What I fail to understand is, shortly after that, he asks her – a Republican candidate – if she supports Barack Obama. He continues to demand to know what she’s done for a specific black community in Memphis despite the fact that she’s running for office. She’s not in office yet, she can’t do anything until she’s in office! By halfway through his rant, he’s screaming at her about “throwing money” at the inner city issues.

That’s when he starts on his “people problem” rant. He tells her that she needs to change the minds of the people and goes off about Republicans who want to throw money at the issue (which he takes forever to get to – he’s talking about inner city crime rates). That’s when he says we need a program that deals with “the consciousness of people” who want to “rob and murder in the black community” and he again calls her a bourgeois negro.

Since that seems to be his whole point, I’ll bite. What kind of programs are you talking about, Matthews? Exactly how would you enact a program that deals with the consciousness of people? What would that look like, how would it sound? Are you talking about re-education camps, maybe? There is no law in a free society that is capable of re-programming people’s consciousness. You’re talking about changing the culture, and the law cannot do that.

So let’s talk about the culture you reference. Mr. Matthews, do you know the statistics on crime rates? By the way you talk about it, I’m guessing you have an idea. While blacks don’t even comprise one-quarter of the population of the United States, a black man is statistically speaking seven times more likely to commit a violent crime than a white man – and more than 85% of violent crimes committed by black men are committed AGAINST other black men. I’d ask why you think that is, but you go on to tell me later on when you slam the Constitution, basically saying it doesn’t apply to you because when it was first written, black people were property.

Then, you toss her out, refuse to shake her hand because you don’t want her “whiteness to rub off” on you, and you yell at her as she’s leaving, telling her not to stop to talk to people.

Mr. Matthews, your attitude, belligerence and demeanor tell us everything we need to know about what’s wrong with the black community. It is people like YOU.

You, who will verbally abuse a woman half your size, berate and belittle her, tell her she’s stupid and then throw her out because you don’t agree with her. You, who demand that the government do something to help you rather than pulling yourself up out of your situation. You, who insist that the government is responsible for changing a culture that you have helped create. You, who rather than calling out those who help perpetuate the culture you’re lamenting, will celebrate rap artists and their violent and misogynistic lyrics and blame anyone but yourself for the consequences.

Would you call out the members of the New Black Panther Party, whose leader King Samir Shabazz called on followers once to kill “crackers” and their babies? Of course you wouldn’t. You probably believe Shabazz is right and he’s empowering black people to rise up. You’ll call me a racist, however, because I’m white and I don’t like Barack Obama. I didn’t have much respect for white leftists Al Gore or Bill Clinton, either, but that doesn’t matter much. To you, the only reason I could possibly have to dislike Obama is if I’m a racist, truth be damned.

You, Mr. Matthews, are indicative of the biggest problem in your own community. You expect everyone else to fix you. I’ll tell you what I tell alcoholics and drug addicts that I deal with professionally: you have to want to change yourself before anything will get better. It may suck at first, but it starts with YOU. Once you change yourself, you can talk about changing the world around you. The same thing can be applied to your “culture”.

Leave a Comment

Put It In Context, Part 2

Jan 26, 12 5:45 PM

(Before anyone asks, yes, I will address the repartee between Gov. Jan Brewer and President Obama – just not right now. I’m giving Obama the opportunity to respond.)

As I mentioned in the last post, I have been accused of doing nothing but complaining about the mean things that liberals say. Also, as I mentioned, the person who made that accusation has never read anything I’ve written calling out those on the right that I disagree with (that would include George W. Bush and Joe Arpaio). So, without further ado, here is the promised outing.

Meet Jeffrey Don Davis.

In Todd Starnes’ report on the incident at Shawano High School in Wisconsin, there were three or four out of a few hundred who posted genuinely hateful comments. This guy led the pack. He was good enough to make his profile picture available to the public on Facebook. He apparently went to technical school at Texas State Technical College and studied computer networking. He also apparently has no idea that Sarah Palin vetoed a very popular bill as soon as she took office in Alaska – the bill that would have stripped same-sex partners of state employees of any and all benefits. I say that because he has her listed as one of the people who inspire him. He lists several other people who wouldn’t agree with what he does. Here is a sampling of his drivel:

“Joe Distefano But it’s ok for a perverted hate pig like you to express your hatred of decent people who do not want to be exposed to your disgusting behavior. As for expressing our beliefs in GOD, GOD himself judged homosexuals and found them to be severly lacking.”

“Dawn Dickinson I have news for you Dawg, some sex change bulld*ke does not a man make.”

“Joe Distefano I speak my anti-pervert opinions in public and the only demeted ****** who ever dared to criticize me spent the night in the hospital. Opposition to sexual perversion (including homosexuality) in public is nothing more than good taste and common decency.”

“Joe Distefano Yes homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia, bestiality, incest, coprophagia, necrophilia, etc. Actually I had a pervert call me a bigot for opposing homosexuality, I spit in his face, he swung at me and I kicked the **** out of him. Once again you POS, anytime you want to see a bigot, just look in the mirror.”

“Joe Distefano Once again idiot, don’t try speaking for your betters, you have more than enough trouble speaking for yourself. Jesus’ father, GOD sentence homoNazis to death.”

“Jeff Taylor I”ll bet you’re mighty macho when another ****** takes your boyfriend to the bathhouse and leaves you in your mother’s basement.”

“Chris Green I take your word that you’re a faggy-behind-a-keyboard.”

“Jeff Taylor If you want to hit on that pervert, buttboy, take it somewhere that decent people don’t have to see it. In typical fag fashion you give up and accuse me of being a fag too. At least your STDs still allow you to think enough that you realize that decent people consider accusations of homosexuality to be insulting.”

“Chad Jonathan Walls As compared to your peach fuzz? Do you keep those cats around to lick cream off your face or do you keep them around to molest. After all, homosexuality is a perversion just like bestiality.”

“Jeff Taylor Go **** yourself instead of the little boys your chase after you demented stool sample.”

“Conrad Shull while an animal like you seeks to put your filthy hands in the pants of little boys. NAMBLA is a homosexual org.”

“The truly intolerant bigots infesting America are homoNazis. I don’t ask for their tolerance. They will tolerate my opinion whether they want to or not and that’s a rule that I personally enforce.”

“Michael Fitzpatrick I don’t ask old faqqots like you to tolerate me. You will tolerate me whether you like it or not.”

THAT, liberals, is hatred. You cannot reason with a person who will threaten you like this. Most of the others engaged me in honest, civil conversation – they asked questions that weren’t staged as thinly-veiled challenges and respected my right to disagree, as I respected theirs. But when you behave like this, whether you’re a religious nutcase on par with Fred Phelps or you’re a liberal claiming that you don’t have to tolerate what you classify as hatred (usually things far milder than this guy and the two who agreed with him), you invalidate your own argument. You make yourself a hypocrite with what Mr. Davis said just as surely as you would by saying, “you anti-gay collaborators need to remember what was done to the Nazi collaborators – they had their heads shaved, their throats slit, and their bodies hung from lampposts.”

In short, here is my belief: Jesus never touched on homosexuality. He did, however, tell us how we should behave. Nowhere in scripture did He give us any command to be belligerent, get in people’s faces, spit on people, judge them, hate them, or spark a fight and later claim you were defending yourself.

I don’t issue threats. I don’t need to. All I will say is that the bible also does tell us to be wise, and while we are to love mercy, we are also to obey justice. If you do wrong and I catch you, I will act appropriately. It is reprehensible that you would try to claim that your religion gives you the right to behave as if there are no rules. You’re an embarrassment to conservatives and the biggest single reason why I find it so difficult to talk to liberals.

Comments (5)

Put It In Context, Part I

Jan 24, 12 4:23 AM

Recently, in the comments of the vlog I posted where I called out gay liberals for their blissful ignorance, one user said that it was somehow one-sided to “only call out liberals who say mean things.” Of course, this was a user with whom I had never had a discussion before and he had no idea that I have, in fact, called out the people on the right who have uneducated ideas about what homosexuality is about; he was commenting on a single video and had no idea what my beliefs were, but he assumed and, naturally, he never admitted he might well be wrong.

This is going to be one of those Come-To-Jesus posts where we sit down and have a good talk about the religious view of homosexuality and the place of both in society.

It starts with a story out of Wisconsin. The Hawks Post, the student newspaper at Shawano High School, published an op-ed mashup between two students of opposing viewpoints. That is perfectly normal for a high school newspaper. What isn’t normal, however, is the subject matter: gay marriage. Even more abnormal was the fact that the student who wrote the dissenting opinion did so from a completely religious perspective, something that doesn’t really jibe with the continued assault on the rights of religious students to express their beliefs.

According to the Green Bay Press Gazette, that student wrote, “If one is a practicing Christian, Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is (a) detestable act and sin which makes adopting wrong for homosexuals because you would be raising the child in a sin-filled environment. A child adopted into homosexuality will get confused because everyone else will have two different-gendered parents that can give them the correct amount of motherly nurturing and fatherly structure. In a Christian society, allowing homosexual couples to adopt is an abomination.”

Pretty harsh. Scripturally inaccurate, for sure, but I’ll address that later. First I want to point out a few other things. The article was seen by a 13-year-old student whose parents are a gay couple, one of several in that school district who lead very balanced, healthy homes. When he asked his fathers about it they were both stunned and upset; they talked to the superintendent of the district, who also expressed shock at the article. Almost immediately, the district issued an apology and called the article a form of bullying. One of the fathers was quoted in the article I linked above saying that the printing of that article in a school paper “sets us back 20 or 30 years” and claimed that it could lead to bullying of gay students at the school.

I have a few things to add to this debate before I get into anything else.

1. This debate has no place in a public high school newspaper. Period. It never should have been done. The reason I say this is that it was an op-ed mashup; when you give one student the green light to write in support of any gay rights, you open the door for other students with deeply-held religious beliefs about this subject to insist that their opinion be printed as well. They are going to find ways to express their beliefs, but when you give those beliefs space in a school-sponsored publication you might as well be giving those views some form of validity. It should have been left alone.

2. Once the damage was done, the worst thing the district could possibly have done was attack the dissenting student. Believe me, that is exactly what they did when they apologized and called him a bully. That student doesn’t understand why his views are so reviled, and he is going home to a family and a church body that is affirming what he wrote as a courageous stand. Everything you say against him is, to them, persecution; you are validating everything they’re teaching him.

3. Far be it from me to criticize a parent, since I am not one myself…I am, however, an aunt, and I also remember quite well what it was like when my mother would pound on my principal’s desk about the things they were teaching that she didn’t like. It was embarrassing because it made me a target of the real bullies in school who didn’t claim any religion at all. If you push too hard, you’re setting your own kids apart more than anyone else is. Plus, if you get upset about it, they will, too – turn it into a learning experience, and do it peacefully. You might make more friends than you thought you could.

Todd Starnes of Fox News reported on it as well, and if you read the comments you’ll see some pretty intense back-and-forth from some genuinely intellectual people and other folks who…well, aren’t quite that well educated. If they were going to let one student write about the subject, then it was only fair that they let a dissenting opinion in, and since they made that decision they should be standing by it. Instead, the district has behaved in the worst way possible.

I’m going to say what they are not going to let anyone else say…while this student has his right to his opinion, he is wrong.

Jesus never, not once, addressed homosexuality. Never in any of His sermons, prayers or responses to the religious leaders did He ever say one word about homosexuality. The only place where it is called an abomination is in Leviticus 20 (which this student did cite) – the very same ceremonial law that also called for the death penalty for adulterers, children who disrespect their parents, idolaters, soothsayers (what we know today as astrologers), and married couples who have sex during the wife’s menstrual cycle (no, I’m not joking). That ceremonial law takes up nearly the whole of Leviticus, and the ceremonial law was exactly what Jesus meant when He said He had come to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). The ceremonial law and the moral law were very distinct and separate. Jesus’ sacrifice – His torture, death on the cross, and resurrection – was the atonement for sin that the ceremonial law called for according to scripture. The biggest reason for the ceremonial law was to set Israel apart completely from other nations, and because Christ is the way to salvation now, the ceremonial law is moot for us.

Nowhere is that point so clearly made than in Galatians 2:15-16: “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” In the very next chapter Paul reminds the Galatians that if you only cite part of the law but do not keep it all, you call a curse on yourself. I would caution religious conservatives who like to point out those scriptures – you’re taking scripture out of context.

My next post will be a little different. I will be dropping names, pictures and direct quotes from a couple of genuine hatemongers.

Comments (3)

Dr. King Would Have Said…

Jan 17, 12 4:34 AM

“Faith is taking the first step even when you can’t see the whole staircase.”

Growing up, I remember a lot of emphasis being put on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in school. They never taught us what Memorial Day or Veterans Day were about; I had to learn that at home. By the 80′s, after the passage of the Vietnam era, public schools had already turned very liberal and didn’t teach respect for our troops nearly as much as they taught worship of activists.

As an adult, though, I do see the importance of remembering Dr. King. I see it in a different light now because I know more about what he believed and taught. It wasn’t just about “I Have a Dream” or even about “How Long? Not Long.” It was about reaching equal status as human beings regardless of color or creed – and reaching it in a spirit of respect. That was the underlying message in every speech he delivered, every march he led, every sermon he preached and every soul he touched. It is overwhelmingly sad that so many have since twisted his teachings into something unrecognizable.

“Forgiveness is not an occasional act, it is a constant attitude.”

Early in his days as an activist, Dr. King’s home was bombed over the Montgomery Bus Boycott. I never learned that in school – I had to learn it on my own. His response wasn’t anger. It wasn’t a demand for fellow black people to target white people with similar attacks. He hardly reacted at all. His greatest response – it was far classier than mine would have been – was to simply keep the movement going. That was just the beginning.

He insisted that they march and protest, but that every movement be nonviolent. He encouraged black people to refuse to move to the back of the bus or take their restaurant order outside, yet he taught those who refused to obey Jim Crow laws not to fight back when kicked off of their lunch stool or arrested for refusing to give up their seat to a white man on a bus. Even when police responded to their peaceful protests with water cannons, rubber bullets and dogs, Dr. King still refused to fight in the traditional sense. He went to jail. And when divisions arose over his strict policy of nonviolence, he requested that movements stop until everyone had cooled down.

“An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”

Dr. King’s message spoke volumes. His theme of earning respect by first showing it even to those who hated them advanced the rights of black Americans in ways that nobody up to that point had dreamed was possible. His strategy worked: when the first attempt to march from Selma to Montgomery ended in extensive police brutality against the protesters, news footage drew outrage across the country. Dr. King, however, called the very white men who threatened him (and, on occasion, did harm him) his brothers.

That was the remarkable thing about him: he was so hopeful for equality that he didn’t even entertain the notion of black America getting even or taking the upper hand. All he wanted, all he was willing to accept, was equality. He was not willing to be so much as rude or condescending, much less deliberately shocking. His ultimate goal was for people to get to a point where we saw right through skin color to the human being that inhabited that skin.

“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”

The night before he was assassinated, Dr. King gave a sermon at the Church of God in Christ in Memphis. During his sermon he said this: “I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. So I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man.” I choked up when I read that he had requested that, at his funeral, no mention be made of his awards or accolades.

Here we had a man so dedicated to peace and equality that he wasn’t even willing to defend himself when he was physically attacked. He wasn’t perfect, but he was dedicated and he set an amazing example – don’t accuse, don’t insult, but instead show love. Even such proteges as Jesse Jackson have lost the lessons that Dr. King left us.

Even worse, the same gay community who believes that Dr. King would have stood up for gay rights in America had he been alive today completely ignores his message.

“Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”

If Dr. King were here today, he would weep for all of the anger there is now in liberal circles. Black, White, Hispanic, GLBT – all of these groups claim King’s legacy as part of their cause yet they either forget or deliberately ignore what he really taught. He taught that sacrifice and dignity in suffering were the moral high ground and would speak louder than anger and hatred, but that very important piece of his message is never observed anymore. Lately there’s been a lot of liberal hatred leveled at myself and other gay conservatives simply because we’re conservatives. We’re trying to have an intelligent conversation, yet we’re being shouted down by the same people who say Dr. King would have marched with them.

I’m not Dr. King. I’m not willing to allow anyone to do me harm simply because they don’t like my politics. In this day and age, I believe it sends the wrong message. I would rather pursue peace, however, and would do what I could to avoid violence. Tolerance is not possible as long as you excuse your own hatred by saying, “well, you’re a bigot, so I don’t have to tolerate you!” You’ll never be tolerated, much less accepted, as long as that is your game. I promise that Dr. King never would have approved.

Dr. King would have wept as well at the pervading attitude among many black Americans today that mere disagreement equals racism, not to mention the fact that freedom coupled with welfare has resulted in multiple generations of entire families doing nothing to build their communities up.

“Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

Comments (2)

Self-Loathing Closet Case!

Jan 14, 12 7:12 PM

Ethan Sabo, a gay conservative who hails from my home state, posted a video after being blasted yet again by gay liberals. He let ‘em have it. Click here and watch.

Once you’ve watched what he had to say, here’s my response – standing in solidarity.

Comments (6)

More Leftist Hate Speech

Jan 14, 12 2:43 AM

“For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know.” -Theodore Roosevelt

Dana Loesch, editor for bigjournalism.com and host of The Dana Show, took to her show to give her two cents about the story about US Marines caught on camera urinating on dead Taliban fighters. Basically what she said was what I did when I first heard about it: yes, it was wrong, but it’s absolutely silly to turn it into a travesty when we’re dealing with an enemy that outlawed music, enforced severe penalties under extreme religious law, and after also outlawing competitive sports converted a soccer field into an execution stage where women and children were routinely lashed or executed for crimes as outrageous as being caught out in public without a male relative to escort them – or not wearing a burqa that completely concealed every inch of skin.

The vitriol that poured out of the left at Dana was incredible. We’ve all seen some serious hate speech from liberals, but this was pretty bad. Here are some of the messages sent to her on Twitter (LANGUAGE WARNING):

@anti_feminist: Ok,no more mainstream conservative pro war loving media for me tonight.fuck #cnn and piss on @DLoesch with acid. #fuckthecowardlytroops also

@anti_feminist: “@DLoesch: Email: “You … will be raped and mutilated repeatedly, and you will be skinned alive.” #newtone” |IF ONLY! That id pay to see!

@anti_feminist: “@RT_America: CNN contributor @DLoesch wants to pee on dead Afghans too [VIDEO] http://on.rt.com/c749mr” |ONE NASTY STINKIN CUNT! DIE BITCH!

(there were so many similar Tweets from the same guy – his name is supposedly Joseph Hunter – that I can’t list them all here.)

@Sorrowmachine: @DLoesch … How did your soul become so rotten? No one could ever love you… evil makes you ugly.

@MrMeano: @DLoesch I want to take a shit on you, since you’re obviously into it.

@SavageDem: I’d happily drop trou and urinate on @DLoesch.

@cassie_51: @DLoesch Fu*cking Pig!!!!How dare you traitor!!! (This was the only one I could see who apologized, BTW.)

Then came Keith Olbermann. Oh, Keith…we all know how he is.

@KeithOlbermann: In short, we have to be better than Taliban. If not, we become…well, @DLoesch

Dana replied:

@DLoesch: So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? http://bit.ly/zEhJob So ridiculous.

Keith retorted:

@KeithOlbermann: Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse.

THEN, some other guy interjected:

@HateRickScott: @DLoesch Perhaps you need to be throat fucked into submission by the Taliban and then have them piss all over you? I’m not sure, you cunt.

Another user suggested that the FCC fine her for her comments (not within the FCC’s purview, not by a longshot). Then, there was this gem, which ran a close second to the one I just gave you:

@StealthJihad: @DLoesch You better not ever let me see you out. I’ll rub cat sh*t in your face.

My, my…all this tolerance is so heartwarming.

Comments (3)

Ignoring Evil

Dec 29, 11 5:50 PM

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke

I’m not a huge fan of Kelly Clarkson, although I believe she has an incredibly powerful voice and is remarkably gifted. After all of the back-and-forth between myself and several Ron Paul supporters, though, I was surprised to see this on her Twitter feed, retweeted by someone I follow:

I love Ron Paul. I liked him a lot during the last republican nomination and no one gave him a chance. If he wins the nomination for the Republican party in 2012 he’s got my vote. Too bad he probably won’t.

Now I’m going to tell you what I believe to be the most insidious problem with Paul and those who support him. It’s not the racist and homophobic statements from his newsletters in the 1990′s (a ghostwriter made several comments in more than one of his newsletters that were outrageously racist and homophobic, and at the time Paul defended them – it wasn’t until 2008 that he denied them, and he has thus far refused to clarify the disparity between then and now). It’s not even his wishy-washy “sure, I’ll stand with the twoofers…oops, shouldn’t have done that!” two-step. It’s not even his belief that we shouldn’t have gone to war with either Iraq or Afghanistan, or his outrageous claim that 70% of the troops support him. All of those things get under my skin in a hurry, but the worst is unbelievable to me.

Ron Paul believes that we should never enact sanctions or refuse to trade with any nation. He believes we should open up all trade with all nations, including Iran, the Palestinians, and Cuba.

Think about that for just a moment. There are a number of things he has said in the past that I can agree with. I have no use for the UN. NAFTA was a spectacularly poor idea from the outset – I don’t think that even looked good on paper. We have far too many government programs and organizations that run afoul of the Constitution in every sense. I believe that abortion is wrong and the federal government needs to get its grubby fingers out of education. But when he starts talking about doing business with nations whose human rights records are unspeakably horrific, I can’t listen.

His reason – and that of his followers – is that people should be free to choose their own path. People should be allowed to make their own choices, and it’s not up to us to decide who is right and who is wrong. Okay…if that is your stance, then why do we have prisons? Why do we send people to jail for things like robbery, rape and murder? Why put them away and strip them of their civil liberties? Who are we to decide who is right and who is wrong?

Paul would openly do business with countries headed by despots who will blow nearly a cool million just on cognac while their people starve and go blind with diseases that are easily and inexpensively avoided in civilized nations. He would open up trade routes with dictators who order torture and imprisonment for political dissidents – including 8-year-old boys, as Saddam did when a young boy playing in his classroom accidentally knocked a picture of Saddam off of a wall. He would restart trade with depraved “leaders” who run their nations under Sharia and allow the beating, starvation, stoning, hanging and/or beheading of any person accused of engaging in homosexual relationships.

Paul and his believers seem to think that if we back off and play nice, the rest of the world will leave us alone. Not true. And if we actually believe that negotiating trade with countries that commit unbelievable crimes is going to persuade them to clean up their act, we are deluded at best. I don’t think we should be doing business with China, but we’re doing a hell of a lot of it and they even own billions of dollars in US debt (that’s a whole blog post in and of itself). That, to me, ranks right up there with giving the entire world a peek at our nuclear arsenal.

During the 1930′s, the Japanese attacked China during the second Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese had already forced China to give up Korea and Taiwan; how they wanted the mainland. During the second war, the Japanese committed atrocities that could not be ignored. While the Japanese bombed Chongqing and raped Nanking, other nations refused to give aid to China because they felt the Chinese were going to lose and they didn’t want to piss off the Japanese. America, however, did give aid to China, and we refused to trade with Japan – parituclarly for oil, which Japan started to run out of quite rapidly. That was why Japan bombed us at Pearl Harbor. It was a classic, “I’m going to assault you until you give me what I want” sort of action.

If a mugger hits you and pulls a knife or a gun, most people today would simply give him what he wants to make him go away and tell the police later. What they don’t know is that when you do that, it’s unlikely that the mugger will be caught. It’s almost guaranteed that they will keep doing it until someone finally does fight back and they go to jail. In the same way, if we hadn’t fought back against Japan, they would have kept killing us until we did give them what they were after. Also during WWII, Hitler signed a treaty with the Soviet Union – but years later, once Hitler had taken over nearly the whole of mainland Europe and he had enough power to do it, he turned on his ally and tried to take over Russia.

You cannot try to appease a monster and hope that he won’t come after you when he gets hungry again. It always backfires. THAT is what I believe is the most frightening aspect of Paul’s political beliefs. If we ignore the evil acts of others, we might as well be complicit in them.

Comments (12)

It’s My Life

Dec 22, 11 7:11 PM

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~ C.S. Lewis

Very few people outside the gay community know the truth behind the famous Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick. I dare say that very few inside the gay community know what really happened – in fact, I’d guess most don’t even know what the case was about at all. Way back in 1982, homosexuality was still very taboo, and when an Atlanta police officer saw Michael Hardwick throw a beer bottle away in a trash can outside a gay bar he got involved. Drinking in public (meaning outside of a bar or home) is still illegal in many places; the cop who saw him throw the bottle away immediately cited him for drinking in public. He originally wrote “Wednesday” as the court date but later scratched it out and wrote “Tuesday” – so when Tuesday rolled around and Hardwick hadn’t appeared, the cop immediately went to serve an arrest warrant at his home. He wasn’t there, and when he found out there was a warrant out for his arrest he instantly went to the court to pay the ticket and quash the warrant. The court clerk claimed that the warrant hadn’t even been processed yet. The cop, however, went again the very next day to arrest him (with no warrant) and saw a guest sleeping off a hangover on his couch. He was arrested for sodomy.

What resulted was Bowers v. Hardwick. The decision was that homosexual sex between consenting adults was considered a morally bankrupt act and could not be protected by any law governing privacy rights. 21 years later, it was overturned.

In September of 1998, after my family had moved to Phoenix, a Harris County Sheriff’s deputy entered an apartment in Houston with his gun drawn and arrested John Lawrence and Tyron Garner. A neighbor who had a previous relationship with Garner, Robert Eubanks, had called in a false report that there was a man with a gun “going crazy” in the apartment. The deputy entered an unlocked door to find the two engaged in sex. The pair were charged with sodomy. Eubanks, when the lie was discovered, served a pittance – 15 days in jail. Lawrence and Garner ended up more than $1000 out of pocket for bail and fines. After substantive disappointments in Texas courts, the case went to the US Supreme Court, where in 2003 it was decided in a 6-3 decision to overturn Bowers – they determined that sodomy laws flew in the face of equal rights protections in the Constitution. It’s worth noting that Sandra Day-O’Connor wrote an opinion for the majority; she had also voted with the majority in Bowers. She reversed her own decision.

I told you that story to tell you this one.

The Democrats today under President Obama would have us all believe that bigger government and limited individual liberties are the only thing that will make this country stable. They tell us that they know better – we just need to quietly agree and do what they say. You can’t make your own decisions. You can’t determine whether to buy incandescent light bulbs or CFL’s; we’ll make that decision for you. You don’t get a choice in which appliances you have in your home; there are laws that say your refrigerator, washer/dryer, microwave and toilet must all meet certain energy and water standards. You are required to purchase health insurance now, regardless of the cost, and if you don’t you’ll pay a hefty tax penalty that you couldn’t afford in the first place (and when you don’t pay it, you’ll find your wages being garnished).

Congress is supposed to serve the people, yet the people have no say in whether they get a raise. There are term limits for the presidency but not for the Senate or House of Representatives, leaving the door open for politicians to make a career out of their “service”. The same lawmakers who continually vote themselves raises tell us that we have no right to make sure that those who are voting are legally eligible. We shouldn’t have to show ID at a polling place to put a person in office who might not be honest. We don’t get a say in whether the laws of this nation are upheld, and if we try to assert one, we are branded racists.

The reality is that this is still America, and we still have a say whether the liberals want us to or not. They are currently pushing Ron Paul and Mitt Romney through their puppets in the MSM in an effort to fracture the conservative movement. Obama has set up an administration full of radicals who want to see this country give up its freedom and embrace communism so that the ruling class – wealthy liberals who use their own brand of morality as a weapon – can take over power once and for all. Then we really won’t have a say.

I will stop breathing before I allow that to happen to my country. I will die on my feet before I live on my knees. Our founding fathers would have been the first to admit that they weren’t perfect. There were some things they didn’t get right, but many others that they understood perfectly, and were they to see the liberties that we have given up they would rouse a new revolution on the spot.

The quote I opened this missive with was added to an article written by Kelly Grayson, a man well-known to the EMS community all over the world. Grayson wrote an article about three paramedics in Florida who have recently been fired for something they did at home, on their own time. The medics had, for years, been employed by a private EMS company called EVAC, who had no rules about smoking at all. Volutia County decided to take over EMS services, however, and their rules were now in effect: all uniformed public safety employees – including police, fire and EMS – were barred from smoking of any kind, including tobacco. Those employees (only uniformed employees are affected, everyone else is allowed) are held to a different standard and are now required to pass a nicotine blood test. Three veteran paramedics failed the test and lost their jobs.

So this is for those in power who think I can’t make my own choices. If you’re itching for a fight, shut up and bring it – I will not slowly boil to death like a frog in a pan. I am officially pissed. You will not take my freedoms one at a time, because I have long noticed it and now the pendulum is about to swing the other way. (I’m sure that uber-liberal Jon Bon Jovi would be mortified that I would use his anthem to raise my middle finger to the ruling class, but I think it’s appropriate.)

Comments (4)

You Don’t Like Ron Paul? WARMONGER!

Dec 20, 11 3:37 AM

Since writing my missive about why I cannot stand Ron Paul, I’ve been engaged by a group of drooling lunatics who have all called me the same thing:

WARMONGER.

They’ve called me other things, too…sick, brainless, idiot, moron, delusional. I’ve been told that I need to get help. Not one of them has produced a shred of evidence to support most of their claims. They cite op-ed websites that ignore evidence and fail to ask certain questions. The most irritating part of all is when some of these people wave the “gay rights” issue under my nose, claiming that Paul is all for gay rights (actually, he isn’t, and claiming he is is absolutely insulting).

I’ve had an ongoing back-and-forth with Twitter Paulian @hortulanus94 about why I believe Paul is dangerous, and the guy has insulted me at every turn. After he called me a warmonger several times, I asked him to define the term. This was what he said: “Warmngering is an obsession and fascination with war that is excused by false reasons that the government makes up for gains.”

They come across as outrageously self-righteous. It is unfortunate that they are so ignorant.

Paul and his followers (including semi-famous conscientious objector Aidan Delgado, who was caught telling lies to the NY Times and later called on it) claim that we are where we’re at because of “blowback”. Blowback is intelligence parlance that basically defines unintended repercussions befalling the citizenry of a nation engaged in covert operations. They claim that the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis was blowback from the 1953 CIA operation that deposed Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddegh; on that alone, I call BS. Mosaddegh was actually quite Westernized – he was educated in France and Switzerland. He was very much like the Shah who replaced him. It was the influence of Western culture – not blowback from the 1953 coup – that deposed the Shah. The Shahs and the Ayatollahs had clashed for nearly a century before the 1977 uprising, and every time they went at loggerheads it was the Ayatollahs and their followers screaming that Western culture was destroying traditional Islamic culture (Sharia). That uprising was a long time coming. Sorry, guys…Paul doesn’t know his history, and neither do you.

The next thing they point out is Iraq. In 1979, we became buddies with Saddam Hussein because he stood against Iran. We were allied with the dictator all the way up until 1990, when he invaded Kuwait. The Saudi king approached the US with a request: help us drive him back into his own country. They only had one condition, and that was that we not kill Saddam. We supported his war against Iran. Then, when he took it too far, we said enough is enough – go home and stay there. We didn’t occupy Iraq. We made him sign terms of surrender, but all of the terms were limited to weapons of mass destruction (which we know he had), militarization and no-fly zones. He was allowed to remain in control of his own country. When he refused for eight full years to allow inspectors into the country to prove he didn’t have WMD’s (and made multiple overtures that he did have them), we again said enough is enough. We took him out of power, helped the Iraqi people rebuild their country, and we let his own people try, convict and execute him.

The only place where blowback can possibly exist is Afghanistan. Even that is a stretch. During the late 1980′s, Texas congressman Charlie Wilson pushed for a covert operation that armed and funded the mujahideen in Afghanistan. They had been fighting a losing battle to push the Soviets out of their country, and were paying an extremely high price. Finally, armed to the teeth and trained, they were able to reclaim their country and the Soviets went home. Rather than meddle in their affairs, we left and allowed them to run their own country. What rose up was the Taliban. This was where Osama Bin Laden was trained in the way of war. Then, when his home country refused his offer for help and instead asked us to send Saddam packing, Osama got his knickers in a twist. He hated the Western world anyway – now he had a reason to strike back. (Again I remind you that we’re talking about a guy who believed that drinking chilled water, eating with your left hand, and enjoying any form of music was a sin punishable by death.)

Muslim jihadists believe it is their destiny to rule the world. Most recently, Europe has seen a surge of protesting by enraged Muslims who literally call for the slaughter of those who merely insult Islam. This belief and everything that is going on now goes all the way back to the founding of America. Shortly after we wrapped up the Revolutionary War, pirates from the Sharia-led “Barbary States” (comprised of most of the nations ruled by the Ottoman Empire) began attacking American merchant ships and coastal towns and hamlets demanding that we pay a regular tribute. If no tribute was paid, hostages would be taken. Our leadership paid tribute for years, with the amount steadily rising annually. Thomas Jefferson led a steady dissent to paying tribute; during his work negotiating with the envoy of the Pasha of Tripoli, he wrote this to John Jay: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”

As soon as Jefferson became president, he stopped paying tribute. The Pasha immediately declared war. After a year or two of bickering, the Pasha captured the USS Philadelphia and anchored her in the bay to use against US ships; war became official at this point, whereupon the first US Marines stormed the ship and burned it so the Pasha couldn’t use it.

History goes back quite a long way. Much further than what the Paulians like to quote. They have so little depth to their argument that I can’t even get my feet wet with them. The final insult is this video. Click on it and watch. I had already seen it when the aforementioned Twitter user sent it to me – and he keeps sending it to me as if watching it again might somehow change my mind.

It angered me from the very first time I saw it. Why? The part where Aidan Delgado says, “if Americans actually listened to the veterans that they claim to respect so much, their attitude would change. But Americans want to honor the veterans in a very cursory way – you know, putting a yellow sticker on their car, having a little parade or a welcome back…” That opening line absolutely infuriated me. My little brother has fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Several of my cousins have gone. MANY of my friends have gone. Two of my friends were killed in action. A handful came back in pieces – limbs missing, shrapnel still in their bodies. Each and every one of them believed in their mission. They became frustrated with a media disinterested in the truth, a public that was being badly misled, and a Congress that sent them to war with rules of engagement that tied their hands behind their proverbial backs.

All of them have enough class to keep their frustration to themselves. Not one of them wanted to go to war – NOT A SINGLE ONE. They went because they believed that it had to be done so that 9/11 would not happen again. None of us is obsessed with war or fighting. There is no romantic view of it to be found among my family and friends. It is degrading and insulting to hear Paulians say what they say.

Another point that Paul and his zombie legions like to spit out is that “71% of all active-military campaign donations have gone to Ron Paul! Listen to the troops!” This is also bullshit, and I’m about to give you two reasons why.

1. The data compiled only lists donors who chose to disclose their employer. That is not a requirement for making a political donation. A number of active-duty military won’t disclose that they’re military.

2. The boast basically claims that 71% of the current troop force is fully behind Paul. This is an outright lie, one on the level with liberals in a way that should be embarrassing. A pretty sizable portion of our troops don’t give a single dime to political campaigns at all, many of them because they can’t afford it, others because they just don’t want to get involved on that level.

When I pointed out to my Twitter stalker that not a single one of my military relatives or friends agreed with Paul on his outrageously isolationist beliefs, this was his response: “Since 1979 blowback has had it’s consequences. It does exist. It doesn’t matter what your soldier friends say.” In other words, “listen to the troops! Not those ones, THESE ones!”

Comments (13)

Blame It On The Mexicans

Dec 16, 11 1:22 AM

Tuesday night, in between calls, I watched a portion of the Joy Behar Show. Whoopi Goldberg was her guest, and they got onto the topic of Newt Gingrich’s idea that students in public schools could potentially be tasked with cleaning the facilities, freeing schools from having to pay high costs for janitorial staff (granted, it’s an idea that would never take off, but Newt did float it during an interview) and teaching kids the importance of hard work. Behar and Goldberg immediately called it racist. When I first heard it, I struggled to understand how they could have gotten to that point. Then the discussion progressed.

What was said next made me want to pitch my Gatorade at the TV. They literally said that when we in the Tea Party talk about illegal immigrants, we’re not talking about illegals who are French, Italian or Irish – we are talking about Mexicans. That’s it. We only want the Mexicans out. Why? Because, you know, we’re racists.

I am sick to death of that accusation. Where is your proof? What evidence do you have? Do you have any of us on video talking about how much we hate certain races? Do you have articles written? Emails? Recorded phone calls? What in the hell do you have that can prove that we are racists? As a matter of fact, I said on this very blog a few years ago that there were an estimated 12,000 Irish nationals currently residing in the US illegally, and I wanted them out – even with Bertie Ahern calling on then-president Bush to give them amnesty. I am Irish and German by heritage. I speak a little of the languages spoken in both of those countries. I do not give a damn what color your skin is, if you are in my country illegally, I want you out. Period.

If you’re looking for evidence in my life, you’re not going to find it. Two of my best friends in the wide world are from Mexico, and one of them is currently working her way through the naturalization process. They would not consider themselves politically conservative, but they are every bit as vehement about curbing illegal immigration in this country as I am. I went to see their wedding in Los Angeles and I joked that the State of California must have an aversion to putting up speed limit signs – to which one of them immediately replied, “no, they can’t afford to put them up because they’ve blown all of their money on the friggin’ illegals!”

There is nothing racist about wanting to see the law enforced. Just having a baby in this country should not give them automatic citizenship. We do not need to roll out the red carpet and let everyone who wants to live in America come here. It is lazy, insulting and intellectually dishonest to call a person a racist for merely wanting America to be the sovereign nation that we are.

Of course, Behar and Goldberg aren’t the only ones who have said those things. Rosie O’Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Janeane Garofalo, Chris Matthews and a host of others have said the exact same thing. Not one of them has a shred of evidence that we’re racists. I recently heard Bill Whittle of PJTV give a speech about being in the Tea Party, and he touched on this very subject. He made a very good point: they only call us racists because they know it bothers us. He also said the fact that it bothers us should prove the truth, but these people are unwilling to see it. This is a form of bullying you’ll never hear anyone call out because they honestly believe that we deserve it. Teach tolerance!

So now we’ve gone from Tea Partiers being across-the-board racists to just hating the Mexicans. Tell me something…when you frequently say that they’re here to do the jobs that Americans won’t do, what kind of statement do you think that is? It’s not anti-American. It is, at its core, very racist. What these people are saying through that simple remark is that the Mexicans crossing our Southern border to do low-paying manual labor are uneducated and unskilled and all that they’re good for are the jobs that we don’t want.

What flabbergasts me is that the illegal rights groups parrot the sentiment.

Comments (2)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 179 other followers