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.