Friday, December 24, 2010

Why We Celebrate

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.

And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.

But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart.

And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
~ Luke 2:1-35

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Merry Christmas!

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

A Local Event

"And He shall reign forever and ever." ~ George Frideric Handel

I recently posted the following video on my Facebook page, and added that I would like to get one of these flash mob things going here locally.

While I procrastinated, someone else acted, and last night, right here in the Fredericksburg area, nine area choirs assembled in the food court at Spotsylvania's Towne Centre Mall and entertained weary Christmas shoppers with the most majestic piece of music ever composed:

According to our local newspaper, The Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, the "mob" had alerted the local Television stations and newspaper to their intentions, so I am a bit surprised that the videographer was apparently unprepared, because the video begins a couple of bars after the instrumental introduction of the piece.

Other than that, it plays well. I only wish I had known about it beforehand. I was off work when it started, and I could have been there, and I certainly would have participated.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

About The Secularization Of Christmas

Last year, I wrote this post about the secularization of Christmas. This year, I am adding a short addendum:

Our local Wal-Mart began playing Christmas music over the PA system before Thanksgiving this year, yet none of the songs played are of a religious nature. How can we celebrate Christmas with absolutely no mention at all of the reason we celebrate?

I know I risk sounding redundant by mentioning this again this year, but the problem is worsening.

Atheists and secularists are trying, with no small amount of success, to remove any connection with Jesus Christ from the traditional celebration of His birth.

I would like to point out that Christians don't object to other cultures and religions celebrating their holy days in the way they see fit. You never hear of Christian groups objecting to the celebration by other religions and cultures of Kwanzaa or Ramadan.

I have expressed consternation with the blatant attempts to stifle all connections of the Christmas holy day with Christianity before.

So. Although there is ample evidence to suggest Christmas is indeed being targeted by secularists and atheists, the significance of Christ's birth, life, death, and subsequent resurrection will not be erased.

In the end, they will all realize their folly, as God has promised us, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." ~ Philippians 2: 10-11

Sunday, December 05, 2010

Good Company

"When I was born I was so surprised I didn't talk for a year and a half." ~ Gracie Allen

Actually, in my case, I understand I didn't talk for about 4 years. I've been making up for it ever since.

Famous people born on this day, December 5th:

Martin Van Buren, George Armstrong Custer, Walt Disney, Strom Thurmond, Little Richard, Jim Messina, Morgan Brittany, Art Monk, Frankie Muniz.

Not so famous: Me

I've been perusing Facebook this morning. I have received several "Happy Birthday" messages from my Facebook friends.

Because of Facebook, I now have more friends than I've ever had at any given time during my 59 years on this planet.

I don't even know about 90% of them

Puts things in it's proper perspective now, doesn't it?

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

A Good Quote

"Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein

Tuesday, November 23, 2010


"A man meets with no more respect than he exacts." ~ William Hazlitt

It is so much fun to watch the Democrats go after their own! And especially fun when they attack Obama.

I don't know how to imbed the video in this story, but go here and watch the video.

It was simply a joke, and it was funny. The first commentator acknowledged that fact.

But then, apparently realizing how his remarks might be misconstrued as a defense of Carville, he quickly added a reminder that such jokes, when told about Obama, are in poor taste.

Well, naturally, the fawning Obama lapdogs over at CNN wouldn't want to offend their dear leader, now, would they? Their slobbering love affair with Obama continues despite the mountain of evidence that he is attempting to destroy our country.

Well, they say love is blind, but in the media's case, it's also deaf and dumb.

The second commentator made a very good point:

Where was all that feigned outrage when Liberals insulted President Bush at every turn? Every day, for 8 years, we had to endure the vitriol and disrespectful attacks on the President of the United States, and no one on the left had the cajones or the grace to say, "Wait a minute. We're supposed to respect the office of the Presidency".

Not once, in 8 years, did any leftist Liberal media spokesman offer even the most innocuous defense of the president.

Now, as the third commentator rightly pointed out, we're supposed to have respect for the office, even if we don't like the President himself.

That's truth about Liberals number 5 in spades: The only standards Liberals have are double standards.

But, I must say I agree with the third commentator.

We must respect the office of the president of the United States.

I believe the best way to respect the office of the President is to throw the current occupant (who demonstrates no respect for the office himself) out on his oversized ear.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

True Colors

"The smaller the mind the greater the conceit." ~ Aesop

I read this story earlier this week, and was struck by two observances:

1. From the way he responded to Pat Sajak's statement, as well as the arrogant tone he manifested as a sports reporter so many years ago, Keith Olberman has apparently always been a condescending elitist.

2. Even back then, Keith thought Federal legislation was the answer to everything with which he disagrees. He suggested that the "Icky shuffle" should be outlawed by an act of Congress.

Yes, I know it was a joke. But considering the first thing Liberals want to do in handling a problem is either throw money at it, or legislate it out of existence, I wonder if he really was kidding.

Watch this, and you'll see what I'm talking about:

Over the course of years, most people evolve into better educated, more intelligent beings. Keith Olberman has devolved.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Can We Focus?

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." ~ John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton

Now that the Republicans have won the majority in the House of Representatives, most Conservative pundits are celebrating what would seem to be a great victory. And, if a Republican victory is all the American people wanted, then there is indeed a reason to celebrate.

But, not so fast, my friends.

As Lord Acton observed, power has a way of staining the most spotless of reputations.

Many a fresh-faced idealistic political hopeful has lost his integrity when faced with difficult choices. There is always a certain amount of compromise in political negotiations. The trick is to stand strong for one's principles in the face of relentless opposition. Can they do that?

I don't know. I hope they can.

I know I seem cynical, but we've all seen this movie before and we know how it usually ends.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope this election was indeed the turning point in history that we all desire.

I hope and pray these new representatives can stave off temptation and stick to their guns. I hope they don't let the old beltway politics get to them.

I was born in Missouri, the show-me state.

I will be keeping a watchful eye on our new representatives, and will not fully relax until they show me they will not be corrupted by their new found power.

Let us celebrate, but let us be wary.

The old guard will not surrender easily.

Friday, October 22, 2010

I've Worked So Hard...

“I think we've had enough ‘hope’ and ‘change.’ At this point, I think the American people would settle for ‘competent.’” – Cal Thomas

I've worked so hard to boot these morons out of office. Hollywood film director David Zucker donated to Barbara Boxer's Senatorial campaign in the early 90's. Since 9/11, he has been voting Republican, but he still feels guilty about helping put Boxer in office.

In an attempt to offer an apology to the United States, and California for his mistake, he made this short video.

Call Me Senator from RightChange on Vimeo.

Please, if you love your country, help this video go viral by posting it on your blog and on your Facebook or other social networking site. We need to fire the Liberal elitists in Congress. And that includes Republican Liberal elitists.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Separate The Democrats From The Government

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof" ~ The Constitution of the United States

Joe Biden, campaigning in Nevada for Harry Reid, referenced the Republican candidate for Congress, Christine O'Donnel's recent question "Where in the Constitution is separation of Church and State?"

Then, pretending he didn't know to what O'Donnel was referring, he used that question to mock both O'Donnell and Nevada Senate Candidate Sharron Angle.

Biden is wrong. So is Chris (The bearded Marxist) Coons. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution. Both Biden and Coons, as well as millions of other Liberals and atheists(but I repeat myself), intentionally misinterpret and twist the words of the first amendment to advance their Godless, Liberal, bastardization of the Constitution.

Here is what the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States actually says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Would someone please explain to me how Liberals can get "Religion shall not be practiced in the United States unless the Government says it can" out of that?

The intention was to keep the Government from establishing a national religion like that of the Church of England, which was the official Government church in England at the time the Constitution was written. Part of the reason the founders declared independence from England was the refusal of the King of England to allow them to worship in the church of their choice.

These Godless, atheistic, Liberals conveniently focus on the first part of the establishment clause and forget the second part.

Congress is prohibited from creating some national official church. True. But they creators of the Constitution also expressly forbade Congress to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

We need to vote every one of these misinterpreters of the first amendment out of office in November.

Thursday, October 14, 2010


"I find your intolerance of my intolerance intolerable." ~ Me

Progressives (read Liberals) are continually accusing me (and others who share my political and social ideology) of being intolerant of their opinions, beliefs, and lifestyle choices.

The word, "Intolerant" is the opposite of the word, "tolerate".

I think those words are both overused and misapplied.

One of many definitions of the word, "tolerate" according to one of many different dictionaries (although all dictionaries define it pretty much the same)is this:

"1. to endure or resist the action of (as a drug or food) without serious side effects or discomfort: exhibit physiological tolerance for
2. to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction."

I don't agree with part of that definition. The part about contradiction. I insist one can contradict others opinions and beliefs without being intolerant of them. I often disagree with people, and/or contradict them, yet I continue to tolerate them.

Oftentimes, when a couple who have little in common stay married for 40-50 years, I say, "They don't love each other. They only tolerate each other." Of course, that's just my opinion. Sometimes, I'm sure I'm wrong.

There are really only two ways one can be truly intolerant of another person. You can remove yourself from their presence permanently, or, if that is not possible, you can kill them.

Otherwise, you tolerate them.

Example: I disagree with the popular notion that homosexuality is genetic. Because of that, many people would say I am intolerant of homosexuals.

That is simply not true.

I tolerate homosexuals because the only choices I have are those stated above, or tolerance. I can't avoid being in the presence of all homosexuals, and I can't kill them, Therefore, I choose to tolerate them.

Besides, I personally like those homosexuals I know. A guy (and I use the term loosely) I work with is flaming. There are many things about him I respect. I don't respect his lifestyle choice (and it is a choice), but I tolerate it. I have no choice.

I love my family. Yet, there are members of my family with whom I disagree on many issues. Sometimes vehemently. Liberals would say I am intolerant of those members of my family.

I cannot remove myself from their presence permanently, nor would I want to. Neither would I ever even consider killing them.

My only other choice is to tolerate them.

And so, I do.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Bullicide: The New "Crisis Du Jour"

"What a mistake to suppose that the passions are strongest in youth! The passions are not stronger, but the control over them is weaker! They are more easily excited, they are more violent and apparent; but they have less energy, less durability, less intense and concentrated power than in the maturer life." ~ Edward Bulwer-Lytton

This is a disturbing story on many levels, but I can't help wondering that there must be something more to it that the author isn't revealing:

"It was the fourth time in little more than two years that a bullied high school student in this small Cleveland suburb on Lake Erie died by his or her own hand - three suicides, one overdose of antidepressants. One was bullied for being gay, another for having a learning disability, another for being a boy who happened to like wearing pink."

Read the story. Why so many incidents of "bullicide" at one school? So many possible reasons leap out, one cannot arrive at any one all-encompassing conclusion.

On the surface, it would appear that bullying got out of hand.

But, bullying has been in existence since man was created. Cain bullied Able.

I was bullied in school. I never even considered taking my life. Just about everyone can attest to being bullied at some time with no lasting ill effects. Why, all of a sudden, is bullying so severe that students are driven to take their own lives?

Perhaps the problem isn't as new as we are led to believe.

What is happening here? Have some students become too sensitive while others have become less sensitive? Is this a result of too little control or too much? Is it a result of legislating God out of schools?

At least two of the students probably could have prevented most of the bullying they received:

1. "Eric Mohat was flamboyant and loud and preferred to wear pink most of the time. When he didn't get the lead soprano part in the choir his freshman year, he was indignant, his mother says.

He wore a stuffed animal strapped to his arm, a lemur named Georges that was given its own seat in class...

Mohat's family and friends say he wasn't gay, but people thought he was."

Well, he wore pink. He carried a stuffed animal around with him wherever he went. He wanted to sing soprano. If he wasn't gay, it certainly seems he wanted people to think he was.

I don't want to say he asked for it, but I think the evidence speaks for itself.

2. "[Meredith]Rezak was bright, outgoing and a well-liked player on the volleyball team. Shortly before her suicide, she had joined the school's Gay-Straight Alliance and told friends and family she thought she might be gay."

Why in the world does a high school even have a "Gay-Straight Alliance" in the first place? Students that age have no business having straight sex, let alone gay sex.

Shouldn't the homosexual activist's agenda to "naturalize" aberrant behavior share at least part of the blame?

She was also a good friend of Eric Mohat, the student who wore pink but "wasn't gay".

Perhaps her suicide wasn't the result of bullying at all. Perhaps it was, as the article suggests, because her family had "issues".

Perhaps America's current obsession with fostering and placating a victim-hood mentality creates a sort of longing in some students to make themselves the ultimate victim.

Also, as the article casually points out: There is "a national spate of high-profile suicides by gay teens and others, and during a time of national soul-searching about what can be done to stop it."

Macabre as it may seem, perhaps "bullicide" is becoming fashionable.

Perhaps the opening quote is the only explanation.

Who knows? I certainly don't.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Ch-Ch-Ch- Changes!

" Time may change me, but I can't trace time." ~ David Bowie

It is with great sadness that I have finally dropped Tugboat Cap'n's blog from my blogroll. I have, thus far, stubbornly refused to delete it in hopes he would someday write some more of his insightful commentary, but, alas, it appears he has abandoned blogger for good.

In it's place, I've added Breitbart and the Drudge Report. Yes, it's an inadequate substitution, but it will have to do for now.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

A Crisis Of Culture

"A somewhat more liberal and sympathetic examination of mankind will convince us that the cross is even older than the gibbet, that voluntary suffering was before and independent of compulsory; and in short that in most important matters a man has always been free to ruin himself if he chose." ~ G. K. Chesterton

I found this on Facebook. I have no idea whether it is a factual letter. I understand that the letter was written to the editor of a newspaper and not President Obama, but the sentiment contained therein remains accurate.

Pictured below is a young physician by the name of Dr. Roger Starner Jones. His short two-paragraph letter to the White House accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis".

It's worth a quick read:

Dear Mr. President:

During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"!

During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance.

It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.


Note from your humble friend and blogger:

I call this "Crisis of Culture" an "Entitlement Mentality", and coming as I do, from a substantially less elite background than your average physician, I have had considerably more experience observing this attitude, and it is much more pervasive than the good doctor could ever imagine. In fact, this "Crisis of Culture" extends well past health care, and permeates nearly every facet of the average welfare recipients life. They get, besides free health care, free education, free food, free transportation, etc, and it's all paid for by you. The American tax payer.

Of the hundreds of welfare recipients I have personally known, perhaps 1% or less have pulled themselves out of the welfare system by taking responsibility for themselves, and refusing to settle for the status quo.

Including yours truly.

It isn't easy, but with perseverance and hard work, it can be done.

The rest remain beholden to a Government which continues, through government hand-outs and entitlement programs, to keep the poor enslaved in economic chains. Unfortunately, these same slaves to the welfare system are the same people who continue to vote, year after year, election after election, for the very people who have oppressed them.

The cycle will not end until we educate the people and elect responsible, incorruptible, freedom-loving patriots to the positions of power in our government.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

My Ode To A Mouse

"The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley" ~ Robert Burns

Our vegetable garden has been neglected the last couple of months and was overgrown with weeds and prairie grass, which has long since choked out any life that once brought forth tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupe, squash, zucchini, green beans, and corn. And popcorn! Yes, we planted popcorn last spring. But, alas none grew. We just don't have the time or the energy to tend a garden.

So, today, I endeavored to take advantage of the pleasant Indian Summer-like conditions to mow the jungle we used to call a garden.

In so doing, I rousted a poor unsuspecting mouse from it's nest. As I watched the poor frightened little beastie scurrying to safety far from the mowers murderous blade, I was reminded of a poem written long ago by the Scottish Poet, Robert Burns, entitled, "Ode to a Mouse".

With apologies to Rabbie, I here present my own modern American English version of his masterpiece:

Small, frightened, timid beast,
O, what a panic is in your breast!
You don't need to run away so hastily
Scampering in such a hurry!
I would be loath to run and chase you,
With murdering lawn mower.

I'm truly sorry man's dominion
Has disturbed your social union,
And justifies that ill opinion
That makes you startle
At me, you poor, earth born companion
And fellow mortal!

I doubt not, sometimes, that you must steal;
What then? Poor mouse, you must live!
One single ear in twenty-four sheaves
Is a small request;
I will get a blessing with what is left,
And never miss it.

Your small house, too, in ruin!
It's feeble walls the winds are scattering!
And nothing now, to build a new one,
Of coarse green grass!
And bleak December's winds are coming,
Both bitter and keen!

You saw the fields laid bare and wasted,
And weary winter coming fast,
And cozy here, beneath the blast,
You thought to dwell,
Till crash! The cruel mower passed
Through your cell.

That small bit heap of leaves and stubble,
Has cost you many a weary nibble!
Now you are turned out, for all your trouble,
Without house or holding,
To endure the winter's icy drizzle,
And bitter frosty cold.

But Mouse, you are not alone,
In proving foresight may be in vain:
The best laid schemes of mice and men
Oft go awry,
And leaves us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!

Still you are blessed, compared with me!
The present only touches you:
But oh! I backward cast my eye,
On prospects dreary!
And forward, though I cannot see,
Yet guess and fear!

Saturday, September 11, 2010

Nine Short Years Later

"Nothing fixes a thing so intensely in the memory as the wish to forget it." ~ Michel de Montaigne

I didn't need to post the preceding video. The images of that fateful day are indelibly etched into Americas collective mind. And yet...

We never thought it would come to this.

Nine years ago today, on September 11, 2001, A group of fanatical Muslim terrorists attacked America, and the entire country came together in solidarity.

We mourned together. We prayed together. We comforted each other. We stood together in defiance against America's enemies. We vowed vengeance together.

Every United States Representative and Senator in Washington gathered together on the steps of the Capitol, stood side by side, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, and, together, sang "God Bless America".

We were a nation united.

And now. nine short years later, our nation is divided. We are divided over race. We are divided over religion. We are divided over ideology.

What the hell happened?

The religion whose adherents attacked us is now reviled by some, adored by others.

To be fair, most Muslims would have never attacked us. Most American Muslims are law abiding citizens, and wouldn't think of harming another individual.

This act of terrorism was carried out by a small group of fanatical extremists, certainly in no way representative of the whole of Islam.

So, just as there is no logical reason why all Muslims should be hated, there is no reason why all Muslims should be loved and respected.

But now, nine years later, we find, among the Liberals, an inexplicable and illogical love of all things Islam.

I fear this new found Liberal love affair with Islam is symptomatic of a phenomena author Shelby Steele labeled "White Guilt". While trying to be fair, some people are drifting too far in the other direction.

I liken this phenomena to the father who is asked to umpire his own son's little league baseball game. He wants to be fair to both teams, and not show favoritism to his son's team. Invariably, a situation will come up sometime during the game where he will have to make a close call, and he will rule in the opposing teams favor, sub-consciously, just to prevent any possibility of showing bias to his son's team.

Now, there is a whole new sub-culture of Liberal Americans who love all Muslims, regardless of their level of extreme fanaticism. All Muslims good. All Americans and Jews bad. Regardless of whether this is an accurate statement, it certainly appears to be their mindset.

At the same time, there is another sub-culture of Americans who hate all Muslims because of the fact that there still exist in this world, fanatical extremist Muslims who truly want to murder every non-Muslim on Earth. Their mindset appears to be, "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim".

Neither of these two extremes are accurate. The truth of Islam is somewhere in the middle.

But, America is nevertheless divided.

Nine short years ago, we never thought it ever would come to this.

Cross posted at American Descent

Saturday, August 28, 2010

On The "Ground Zero Mosque"

"Such evil deeds could religion prompt." ~ Lucretius

I've stayed out of the discussion about the Mosque at ground zero controversy for several reasons. Mostly, because there really isn't anything to say about it that hasn't been said already. And, it doesn't require a lengthy statement to state my opinion which is:

They have the right to build it there, but they shouldn't.

However, allow me to respond to the points made by the left in their attempts to justify their support of the Mosque by repeating, ad nauseum, some, but not all of the following points:

1. The Mosque won't be built right on Ground Zero, but is instead a couple of blocks away.

2. It really isn't a Mosque, per se, but an Islamic "cultural center". The Mosque is only a small part of the entire center.

3. They have a legal, first amendment right to build their Mosque wherever they want.

4. Their stated intent is to dissolve the antipathy between Islam and all other religions and to unite the community.

5. Not all Muslims are terrorists.

6. Americans are racist bigots for not wanting to allow the Muslims to build their Mosque near Ground Zero.

7. We need to be tolerant of other religions and cultures. Intolerance is anti-American.

8. It doesn't matter who is funding the project.

9. Americans who oppose the building of the Mosque only oppose it because they hate Obama. (I've actually heard this)

10. Some of the families of the victims of 9/11 support the project.

This is my response to those points:

1. It doesn't matter if the Mosque isn't right at ground Zero. The intent is clear. It is a "victory" Mosque. Make no mistake. Muslims, by and large, consider the attacks on the WTC a victory for Islam. If one does the necessary research, one will find it is standard operating procedure for Muslims to build Mosques upon the rubble of property taken in battle. I'm sure the Muslims probably wanted to build it right at Ground Zero, but were disallowed because it is now considered an historical site, so they got as close as they were allowed.

2. An Islamic cultural center is even more dangerous to Americans than merely a Mosque. A cultural center, especially one that promotes itself as multi-culturist, will attempt to convert all who make use of the facility to Islam, and by extension, some of the more impressionable converts may become terrorists, or at least, terrorist sympathizers themselves.

Think of your local Evangelical Church establishing programs for the youth in the community for the purpose of evangelism. It's the same concept.

Except, Christian community programs don't usually teach kids how to blow things up.

An Islamic Cultural center may breed terrorism. Any true Christian should oppose this cultural center on the basis that Islam is a Satanic religion intent on wiping Christianity out, if for no other reason.

3. This is true. But, just because they have the right to build it wherever they want, it doesn't mean they have to build it wherever they want.

4. If they are truly trying to "unite" the community as they claim, they would build it almost anywhere else (with the exception, of course, next to the Pentagon or in a certain field in Pennsylvania).

5. This is true also, but most terrorists are Muslims, with very few exceptions. And, regardless whether certain Muslims are terrorists themselves, the majority of them support terrorism, or refuse to condemn terrorist acts.

6. Some Americans are indeed bigots and racists, but they aren't the only Americans who oppose the project. Muslims are bigoted against Jews, Americans, women, and homosexuals, along with every other group in the world that represents any group except Muslims. In fact, there are Muslims that are even prejudiced against other Muslims who are not of the same sect of Islam. Muslims, as a rule, are much more bigoted than the majority of Americans. Why doesn't the left have a problem with that?

7. Intolerance is a door that swings both ways. Why is there no outrage over the intolerance exhibited by supporters of the Mosque? Why do they have no tolerance for my opinions? I've said this often: I find Liberal intolerance of my intolerance intolerable.

8. This is true, also. I see no reason why Conservatives would use this as an objection to the Mosque. Does anyone ever ask who funds Baptist Church buildings? How about Catholics? Mormons? Scientologists? It doesn't matter who funds the project. The better question is why they are funding the project. What is their motive?

9. No, we oppose it because it is highly insulting and insensitive to the memory of the victims of the WTC attacks in 2001. We don't oppose the project because Obama supports it. Obama's support of the project is yet another in a long list of reasons why we hate Obama.

10. So what? Families of the victims have every right to be supportive of the group that destroyed their lives. They also have the right to be wrong, misguided, and deluded.

It's called Liberty.

Giving tacit approval of a bad idea doesn't make it a good idea.

Bottom line: Muslims have the right to build their Mosque anywhere they want. But, if they are truly a "religion of peace", as the Liberals claim, why would they want to build it near Ground Zero unless they want to intentionally insult and offend America?

Cross posted at American Descent

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

My Favorite Line

"Anything so innocent and built like that just got to be named Lucille" ~ Dragline

I bought the DVD of "Cool Hand Luke" the other day. It is one of my all time favorite movies and has a wealth of really great lines. The following clip contains what I consider the best line of the movie:

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Patiently Waiting For November

"The word 'hope' comes up with Obama as often today as it did during his campaign, just in a different context." ~ John Hawkins

My wife and I have been considering a move to the Midwest.

The idea first started from a leisurely search on the internet, in which my curiosity about the value of our house in today's real estate market taught me that real estate prices in my hometown of Wichita are less than half that of similar properties here in the Fredericksburg area.

We learned houses there that are even larger and better than ours are selling for less than half what ours is worth. Initially, it seemed we could sell this house and buy one in the Wichita area for cash and have enough money left over to literally live comfortably for at least a year while I search for a job.

So, we had a real estate man visit our house to do an assessment of it's value, and give recommendations for enhancing it's saleability.

The results were disappointing. Real estate values in our area have plummeted in the last few years.

Curiously, that happened about the same time the Democrats took over Congress.

I blame them and Obama.

It seems we will have to wait until the real estate market improves before putting our house on the market. It is a buyers market right now, not a sellers market.

Of course, I knew that beforehand. I'm not that stupid. I just didn't know how bad it was.

I told my wife we should wait until November when the Republicans re-take the Congress and, consequently, the market improves.

Some might say it will take quite a bit longer for the market to improve even if the Republicans immediately begin to repair the damage done to the economy by the Obama regime's reckless economic policies, but I have my own theory.

Now, I'm far from an economic expert, so my theory may be dead wrong. And, if I'm wrong, I know some economic experts (such as resident Liberal, Jim) will no doubt enumerate the many reasons why. But regardless, here it is:

The stock market is driven by speculation. Economic experts, whose entire existence depends on their ability to analyze and predict the ups and downs of the economy, stake their jobs and their reputations on educated guesses about what the stock market will do tomorrow.

This is called speculation.

The real estate market is influenced by the stock market exactly the same way as all other aspects of the economy. If the stock market is down, the real estate market follows suit. The same applies if the stock market goes up.

The fluctuations of the stock market, and by extension, the real estate market, are directly influenced by the movers and shakers in the industry, through the process of speculation.

When the Republicans win the majority in November, I'm thinking the experts in the industry will speculate (and rightly so) that the Republicans will begin to reverse the failed economic policies of the Obama administration and the stock market will immediately jump up several notches on whatever scale the market is measured.

In the same way it dropped immediately after the Democrats took over as the majority party in 2006.

Coincidence? I think not.

The stock market will improve, and with it, the real estate market.

Thus, come this November, I'm hoping I'm correct and real estate prices will improve enough that the move we're considering will be worth the wait.

I'm waiting for November.

Monday, August 09, 2010

This Is Where Our Tax Money Goes

"Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth." ~ Rex Stout

I posted this video before as an introduction to Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie. In that post, we focused on Governor Christie's response to a complaint from a member of the New Jersey teachers union.

This time, I want to focus on what "disgruntled" teacher, Rita Wilson says.

Did you hear that?

She is complaining that she "only" makes $83,000 a year for less than a years work. She is also complaining that she is "only" paid for the 184 days a year that she does work (not counting her benefits package, pension, and paid vacation days). Apparently she is upset that the Governor has proposed that the teachers not take a raise for one year and to pay for a small part of their benefits in an effort to save the failing state economy.

Watching this obscenity, I have to admit the old Liberal in me allowed a little bit of the old class envy to emerge. I don't make half that much a year, and probably never will. And, I work a full forty hours a week, 52 weeks a year. I would be grateful to "only" earn $83,000.00 a year. I would also be grateful to "only" be paid for 184 days of work a year at that level of compensation.

So, it really makes me angry that this woman has the audacity to complain that the good people of New Jersey, many of whom make less than half what she makes in a year, are less than willing to sacrifice even more of their hard earned money to pay her grossly overpaid wages.

Especially since she probably doesn't deserve to earn even half that much.

Her attitude indicates she doesn't possess the brains or common sense to be teaching anyone, much less impressionable students. She may have a college education, but obviously, in her case, education doesn't equal intelligence.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I have a great deal of respect for those who earn a good living through the sweat of their own labor, and because they had the foresight and drive to earn their diplomas. If one does the work, one should be compensated accordingly. I have no problem with that.

I also realize that wealth is relative.

To me, a yearly salary of $83,000 is wealthy. To Bill Gates, for instance, $83,000 is chump change.

But this woman is a public school teacher. Believe me, if the level of the average public school student's education is any indication, not only does she not earn such a high salary, she should be paying the taxpayers back.

In any other occupation, one who so consistently failed to produce positive results would have been fired for gross incompetence.

Remember, the people pay her wages through their taxes which are extracted from their salary. They have no choice. They can't refuse. They can't choose to distribute their money to those who deserve much more.

To think that money is being forcefully taken from them to pay the exorbitant salary of one so ungrateful, makes me want to vomit.

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Homos Score 2 Big Victories

"All sects are different, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the same, because it comes from God." ~ Voltaire

Well, The Democrats and five turncoat Republicans have confirmed Lesbian Liberal activist lawyer Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court of the U.S. So now, opponents of Proposition 8 out there in breakfast cereal land* have another Liberal activist vote on the bench.

I suppose they will celebrate with another shameless, hedonistic, pornographic carrot-in-the-butt parade.

A Liberal activist judge has ruled that the voters of California unconstitutionally (how does one "unconstitutionally" vote?) voted against the oxymoronic same sex marriage with their overwhelming defeat of the proposal, and now the Senate has sealed the deal by confirming a sexual deviant to the highest court in the land.

Personally, I think its all over. The Supreme Court, with Kagan on board, will undoubtedly uphold the aforementioned liberal activist judge's ruling. Conservatives might as well pack up and look for another battle to fight.

Now, I will re-iterate how I personally feel about same sex marriage:

I don't care what the homos do. If they want to marry, let them. I don't see how any decision they make affects me either negatively or positively, provided they leave me and all other non-homos alone. They can float their boat in the port of their choosing.

I am, however, opposed to special rights for homosexuals, but the way I see it, allowing them to marry each other if they want to does not constitute special rights. If a man and a woman can marry, two men or two women should expect that same right, no matter how disgusting the mental picture it brings to mind.

I don't believe homosexuals should be afforded any rights just because they choose to be perverts. I believe they should be afforded the same rights as every other American citizen, and none extra.

Now, if they expect me to accept them as normal and natural, they can forget that. I don't accept them as normal human beings. I consider them abnormal sexual deviants.

I can respect them for their contributions to society, arts, and business. I can respect them for their intellect, their humor, and above all, as living human beings with basic human rights.

But I do not respect their perversion and their conscious choice to be deviant.

The damage is done. Elena Kagan has been confirmed. Only time will tell how adversely this will affect America in the years to come.

*California: Full of flakes, fruits, and nuts. Like a breakfast cereal.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

A Great Quote...

...if I do say so myself, and I do.

"Barack Hussein Obama has as much importance to Americans as the first person thrown out of the lifeboat."~ Me

Saturday, July 31, 2010

Obama Bows Again

Obama meets Chris Christie (R) Governor of New Jersey, and bows before the better man.

He has no humility, so why does Obama bow so often?

Chris Christie for president!

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Christie For President

"I could never be confused with Woodrow Wilson." ~ Governor Chris Christie

I know it's early, and I know lots of things can happen between now and the next presidential election, but one man is beginning to emerge as a "person of interest" to represent the Republican party in said election.

His name is Chris Christie.

Christie is the Governor of the state of New Jersey. I wonder how he managed to get so many of those foaming-at-the-mouth rabid Liberals to vote for him for Governor? Whatever he did, it worked.

And, I'll bet the Libs who apparently considered him no threat to their tax-and-spend Liberalism are now re-thinking their decision to vote for him.

If you've never heard of him so far, here is a sample of what Republicans may expect of a President Christie.

Here's more:

And, more:

More still:

Still more:

One more:

By 2012, I hope he decides he's ready.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

The Racist Tea Party

Alan Keyes. He must have been brainwashed by the evil tea party conspirators:

A racist spokesman:

This woman must be mad, insulting Martin Luther King!

A racist veteran, After fighting against Socialist regimes, he just might know a thing or two about Socialism. What do you want to bet he's against it?

Must be an "Uncle Tom"

Obviously doesn't understand Keynesian economics:


Pictured below is Kenneth Gladney (in the wheelchair). He was attacked and beaten at the St Louis Tea party by SEIU thugs. This is the man whom the NAACP refuses to defend, but, amazingly, has defended the actions of the thugs who attacked him. The attacks have been described as racially motivated. Keep in mind that the thugs who attacked him were NOT tea party attendees, but rather, protesting the tea partiers.

Furthermore, Mr. Gladney was selling pro-Obama buttons and stickers at the event. Something tells me he's not pro Obama anymore.

To be fair, there are no doubt, some nuts on the fringes of the tea party movement that may really be racists. After all, racism is in all of us to some degree. It is in our genes.

However, Democrats are the only ones who can claim, with a straight face, that they are not racist. In actuality, it is the Liberal Democrats that most exhibit racist behavior, as the NAACP has proven.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010


"There are two races of men in this world...the 'race' of the decent man and the 'race' of the indecent man." ~ Victor Frankl

Andrew Breitbart recently released a video of what appears to be a racist black woman boasting of racially discriminating against a white man, posted here:

Subsequent statements from both sides of the racial argument indicate that she was not quite as racist as we were initially led to believe.

But, what of her audience? Watch the speech. Her predominately black audience is nodding and murmuring in agreement with the part of the speech in which she tells of her conflicting thoughts on whether to help a white farmer, or do as little as possible for him. One NCAAP audience member is actually heard saying, "That's right!"

Are we to assume that her audience of predominately black NAACP members agree that discriminating against white men is wrong, as she eventually makes clear? Or, are they agreeing with discrimination against white men?

I think we are focusing too much on only a small part of this problem. This isn't about one woman who arguably may or may not be demonstrating a racist attitude.

This is about an attitude affecting entire races and cultures of people.

I have used this allegory before in comments at other blogs:

These racist attitudes are like cockroaches. When you walk into a darkened room, you see nothing out of the ordinary. But, when you turn on the lights, you may see a cockroach or two scurrying away and disappearing behind the baseboards to hide.

Please understand. Before you object to my metaphor, I am not comparing black people or white people or any other color of people to cockroaches.

I am comparing a racist attitude to cockroaches.

Whenever you hear a racist statement, or hear of a racist behavior from anyone of any race, whatever the degree of overtness, rest assured there are many more people who agree with the sentiment who are hiding behind the baseboards.

David Duke is not the only white person who has racist thoughts. King Samir Shabazz is not the only black man who has racist thoughts. Osama bin Laden is not the only Muslim who has racist thoughts.

All of us have, at one time or another, said or thought something about a person or persons of another race which could be considered racist. I know I have. And, I think if you readers are honest with yourselves, you would have to admit you have, too.

Let's be frank. Try as we might, we can't escape thinking racist thoughts. It is in our genes.

The audience attending Shirley Sherrod's speech may not consider themselves racist. Shirley Sherrod may not consider herself racist. And, they may not be overtly racist. But the underlying racist attitude is there. It is obvious in their responses and their acceptance of her speech.

As an aside, I would also like to point out that racism is not indigenous to only the white race.

Blacks can be equally as racist as whites.

There seems to be some unwritten rule that black people cannot be racist. That only whites can be considered racists.

When was the last time, excluding this recent video of Shirley Sherrod's speech and Conservative blog posts, that we heard of a black person being called a racist?

Even Conservative news reporters and talk show hosts don't call a black person racist. They call them "race baiters" or "race profiteers" or "racial dividers", etc. But rarely do they call racist black people racist.

Should we create some sort of "Racist Anonymous" organization to rid ourselves of this attitude? Should we implement a 12 step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous?

Should we not hold blacks who exhibit this racist attitude to account? If we should, we aren't. At least, not consistently. But we certainly hold white people to a higher standard of expectation, don't we?

And why not? For decades it's been hammered into white people that we are racists and we need to stop being racist. That hammering has not been directed towards blacks for the most part.

Our racist attitudes, whether we are black, white, or neutral, are hidden from view until exposed to the light of day by some public revelation, and then we hurriedly conceal them behind the baseboards of righteous indignation:

"Don't call me racist! Why, some of my best friends are____ (fill in the blank)!"

It is that attitude that we must, like cockroaches, eradicate. It is essential to the health and well-being of our Republic.

Just as cockroaches carry disease, a racist attitude carries with it a disease of the soul.

Martin Luther King's dream applies to all of us. Whites, Blacks, Neutrals. All races must begin to judge each other, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".

Once done, and only then, can we get the racial divide in this country behind us.

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Barack The Divider

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Barack Hussein Obama ran for President promising, among other lofty and unrealistic goals, that, if elected, he'd be a unifier. Rifts between parties would be closed. The division between races would be ended. The nation would come together.

From where I sit, now that he has attained the office, the exact opposite has happened. The gaps are wider now than they were before. There is perhaps nearly as much distance between opposing ideological and racial views now as there was in the days immediately preceding the Civil War.

Foremost among these gaps is the chasm that has existed between the races, particularly between blacks and whites. A chasm that, until recently was narrowing, is now expanding. Much of the progress this country has made in the last five decades in race relations has been reversed.

I am, like most Americans, an observer of current events, and it appears to these old eyes that the election of Obama as President has increased, rather than decreased, the animosity between the more extreme racists of all colors and nationalities.

Whether it is a policy of the new Obama regime to further separate the races as a means to a political end, or simply a consequence of the election of a black man in a Nation not yet ready to accept a black President remains to be seen.

I would venture to say it is both, although, Obama's administration appears to be encouraging racism from groups who support him against those who don't.

And, we are witnessing an increase of racist rhetoric and violence from representatives of so-called civil rights groups against the white population.

And, lets not forget the emergence of Hispanics as a growing vocal force with which to be reckoned.

Not that White racism doesn't still exist, of course. It does.

But, I am beginning to think people of color have become emboldened by the election of Obama to the Presidency, and are using their new found status as a "new majority" to wield a heavy hammer. Some black people appear to be exacting vengeance on White America for years of oppression and discrimination.

Indeed, some righteous indignation is justified, but shouldn't it be directed at those who have actually committed the offense rather than the whole white race in general?

I base this observation on the increased incidents of blatant racist behavior and rhetoric from certain more militant (and not so militant) factions of black and Hispanic organizations such as the formerly revered NAACP, the New Black Panther party, and others, including Hispanic groups such as La Raza, and Chicanos Por La Causa.

In the past, any group, white, black, or Hispanic, would have been publicly condemned by the press and fair-minded people alike if they had acted out in the way some of these groups have done since the election of Obama.


The unfounded and ridiculous charge that tea party attendees are racists, and neither Obama or the Liberal news outlets refute the charge.

The racially motivated beating of a black man at a tea party in St Louis by SEIU thugs, and Obama and the Leftist news media not only turn a blind eye to it, but, when it becomes obvious that the story is not going to just fade away, supports the NAACP's defense (not condemnation)of the attackers, rather than call for a censure of the once respected NAACP.

Just a thought:
Above: Kenneth Gladney was beaten at a tea party by SEIU thugs. The attack was described as racially motivated.

What a topsy-turvy world we live in when the NAACP actually supports and defends white thugs who beat up a black man, particularly a black man who was selling pro-Obama buttons and stickers at a tea party event! Where was the supposed intolerance of the tea partiers in this instance?

Whats wrong with this picture?

Obama's DOJ's inexplicable withdrawal of the lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party for intimidating prospective voters outside a Pennsylvania polling pace, and no significant coverage or outrage expressed by the government run media.

A black man calling for--in public--the murder of white babies, and again, little or no coverage or expressed indignation from the left leaning news media, or from the President himself. Does this indicate the President agrees with the sentiment?

The Obama regime itself brings suit against the state of Arizona alleging that the passage of Arizona's new illegal immigration law (which merely seeks to uphold existing Federal immigration law) is preemptive of Federal law (huh?) under the ridiculous presumption that it will encourage racial profiling. One doesn't have to look too far into this to recognize Obama's handiwork.

I don't like to play the "comparison" game, but we all know if these offenses were committed by white people against people of color, the outrage expressed by the media would know no bounds, yet, outrage is nearly non-existent, outside of FOX News.

In fact, if history is any indication, there would be riots and bloodshed in the streets across America.

I would submit that the apparent refusal of the President to defuse these culture clashes indicates a tacit approval of the racist actions and rhetoric of these race baiting organizations, and by doing so, we can expect more, much more, of the same in the future, unless this "unifier" starts uniting, as he promised.

If Obama would simply publicly condemn these racial offenses, perhaps we could take his claims of being a "unifier" a bit more seriously.