Supreme Injustice

I intended to rant on this subject much earlier, but unfortunately have been incapacitated by severe burns, but now I’ll go ahead and finish it, as this still burns me up. . . .

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued yet another abortion of justice, striking down Texas’s state laws requiring abortion clinics to be subject to the same medical and sanitary restrictions as hospitals (and preventing the existence of Kermit Gosnell-style horror shows) in a 5-3 decision.  These laws had significantly lowered the rate of abortions in the Lone Star State.  This was a terrible loss, not just for the unborn of Texas, but for states’ rights and federalism.

This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that for the political Left, and its judicial puppets, the “right” to kill unborn children is regarded as ultimate and supreme, trumping and triumphing over all else.

It, of course, builds on the unholy precedent of Roe v. Wade, which first enshrined baby-killing as a sacred and inviolable “right.”  But this decision takes this evil principle even further; not only is murder in the womb a “right,” but virtually no restrictions or regulations on the killing are to be allowed.

Of course, if the SCOTUS actually followed our Constitution (yeah, okay, you can stop laughing now), we would have neither Roe nor this decision, as nowhere in the Constitution is a right to abortion ever mentioned (all silly “emanations of the penumbra” bullcrap to the contrary).   Neither, of course, is the federal government given an enumerated power of deciding state abortion laws or regulations.  (In many places, taco shops and tattoo parlors are subject to more government regulation than abortion mills.)  Once again, the all-powerful Men in Black simply piss all over the laws of both God and man in service of the almighty leftist idol of “reproductive rights” (aka unrestricted baby-killing).

Ironically, many of the same liberals/leftists celebrating the SCOTUS’s striking down all restrictions on the “right” to abortion (nowhere mentioned in the Constitution) at the same time loudly demand all kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

And bizarrely, following the SCOTUS decision, I saw a number of self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” turn their righteous ire, not on the Supreme Court justices who made this abomination of a decision, but instead on the Texas state legislature which made the restrictions on abortion mills, decrying their “devious” and “underhanded” methods.  This was accompanied by much pious finger-wagging lecturing over how “the ends don’t justify the means.”  Thus, the SCOTUS was right to strike them down.  But this is just more nonsense.  There is certainly nothing inherently immoral about the means of toughening standards on abortion clinics to try to bypass pro-abortion court rulings.  Nor, contrary to their shrill accusations, is there any actual “deception” involved.

This seems part of a disturbing trend I’ve noticed within the pro-life movement.  It seems there are more and more people who proclaim themselves “pro-life” and opposed to abortion, yet appear obsessed with attacking other pro-lifers (especially those more politically conservative than themselves), while passively bowing to the pro-abortion left at every chance.

Even though this 5-3 decision would have stood even had Scalia remained alive or replaced by a similar constitutionalist, this should focus conservatives, particularly religious conservatives, on the absolute necessity of defeating Hillary.  Under a Supreme Court, and most federal courts, solidly dominated by leftist justices and judges, things will only get worse, much worse.  While I’m no fan of Mr. Trump, he’s at least provided a list of solid constitutionalist judges he promises to nominate from for Supreme Court Justices.  Can I trust him to keep his word?  I honestly don’t know.  But I know I absolutely can 100% trust Hillary Clinton to nominate leftist activists who will scrap what little’s left of constitutional rule of law, and destroy any semblance of religious liberty.

You’d think Catholics and pro-lifers would wake up and develop a sense of urgency about this.  Yet, instead we have holy folks such as popular “pro-life” left-wing apologist Mark Shea (oh, sorry, Mr. Shea prefers to call himself a “Catholic apologist”) urging Catholics in swing states to vote for Hillary Clinton.  (Ironic coming from a man who spent much his career denouncing voting for “the lesser evil.”)

Nor, I’m afraid, can we look to much in the way of leadership from the U.S. Bishops and their bureaucratic mouthpieces.  They continue to play the charade of rightly preaching against the evils of abortion and euthanasia, while at the same time proclaiming virtually every contentious political issue to be a “life issue,” and insist that we must take the left-wing stance on the rest of these issues (immigration, “gun control,” environmental regulation, etc.) in order to be “truly pro-life.”  This sends the courageous, clear-as-mud message to us saps in the pews to vote however the hell we want, especially if it’s for a left-winger.

Catholic pro-lifers can keep playing these stupid games and losing, or we can take a stand and fight.  Time’s running out.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jihad, Guns, and Gays

Predictably, a shitstorm of Biblical proportions has arisen following the horrific mass-murder in a gay nightclub in Orlando last Sunday by a Jihadist Muslim who claimed allegiance with ISIS.  And shamefully, but just as predictably, the vulturine Left – including Obama and Hillary Clinton – has opportunistically exploited this slaughter, in their usual fashion, to attack second amendment rights and Christians, while ignoring the real threat of radical Islam.

Before I continue, I’ll just state that while, yes, the club’s patrons were engaging in a sinful, immoral lifestyle, that in no way excuses or lessens the evil of the murder, and this should be a solemn time of prayer and mourning, rather than self-righteous condemnation.  But neither should we react as some, acting as though the victims were holy martyrs for a noble cause, as so many are doing.  And I don’t believe the slaughter would be any bit less horrific had it taken place in, say, a school or a Wal-Mart rather than a gay club.  Using this tragedy to promote LGB-Whatever politics is as shameful as any other political exploitation, but of course the Left knows no shame.

While our Dear Leader still cannot bring himself to so much as utter the words “radical Islam,” he, Hillary, and the rest of the Jackass Party rogues gallery are once more seeking to punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.  And the NRA-endorsed Donald Trump is talking of further restrictions on gun rights, reverting, as on abortion, to his liberal true colors.


In dealing with Islamic terrorism and violence in general, the Left typically takes two lines, neither of them truthful.  The first is to deny (a la Obama) that such acts of murder and terror, or that groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda, actually have anything to do with Islam (which, after all, as no less an Islamic scholar than George W. Bush has assured us, is a Religion of Peace).

Of course that is nothing but pc hogwash.  I see no point, as a Catholic who believes Islam to be a false religion, to get into debates about whether violent Jihadists or more peaceful groups represent “true Islam.”  All the violent “extremist” views are supported by some Muslim clerics, and have backing in the Qu’ran , and, from the beginning, the history of Islam is far from peaceful.

But, whether you believe it represents “true Islam” or not, the fact is that the jihadist terrorists, whether formal members of terror cells or internet-inspired “lone wolves,” are in fact motivated by a religiously-based ideology.  Many on the secular Left cannot understand this, and insist that the “real cause” of Islamic terrorism must be something else – laying the blame on entirely on U.S. foreign policy (even though many attacks are in countries such as France), poverty and income inequality (even though the data says that most Islamic terrorists are not poor), and even that liberal catch-all demon, Climate Change.  (You see, gas from your SUV makes the Middle East more hot and dry, so the people there go mad and blow shit up.)  In short, nothing about Islamic terrorism that wouldn’t be fixed by a Bernie Sanders presidency.

But the claim that Islamic terror is primarily motivated by economic factors (which will be fixed, of course, by more socialism), rather than religious ideology, has no basis in reality.  There’s a reason the Orlando killer shot up a gay night club, rather than a corporate headquarters or SUV factory.

The other route is to acknowledge that Islam has a violent branch, but also to claim that it’s no worse in that respect than any other major religion, particularly Christianity.  This line of pc is typified by a presentation to West Point cadets a few years ago equating “extreme” Islam with evangelical Christianity, the Catholic Church, and Orthodox Judaism.

It’s not just militant atheists or secularists that use this line of talk; even the Pope has attacked generic “religious fundamentalism,” rather than radical Islam, following the Paris “Charlie Hebdo” attacks.

Of course, this is quickly dispelled as nonsense by the facts; there simply aren’t any significant numbers of conservative Christians or Jews blowing up buildings, murdering, and raping in the name of their faith.  (And frequently cited groups like the IRA are more political than religious.)  Take the most devout, hard-core conservative Traditionalist Catholic you can find (maybe at my FSSP parish). Start a gay club, or draw a blasphemous cartoon of Jesus, and he might start a novena of prayer and fasting for the salvation of your immortal soul.  His Islamic counterpart will load up his Sig Sauer, or load up his truck full of pipe bombs.

After the Orlando attacks, many on the left went one step further and actually blamed Christians, rather than radical Islam, for the killings.  We’re told that an “environment of hate” caused by anti-gay Christians was responsible.  Even liberal Catholic bishops have used this line, exploiting the killings to condemn Catholics who actually agree with Church teaching that homosexual activity is sinful.  (What about the “environment of hate” towards orthodox Catholics/Christians?)  And I’ve seen Catholics express guilt that “Christians like themselves” made the murder possible.  The reality is that Christians or Christianity had nothing whatever to do with it.

Please.  It’s time we wake up, stop being cowed by pc guilt-tripping, stand up for truth, call a spade a spade, and identify the real enemy: radical Islam.  We must not allow the left to continue to exploit evil acts of terror to advance its own rotten agenda, and chip away at our own liberties.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reflections from the Wrong Side of History

(Note:  I was too busy to complete this rant when the bathroom battle began last month, but as several states, including Texas, are suing the DOJ, figured it’s still relevant.  Anyways, here it goes . . .)

I learned few weeks ago that I was, throughout my life, a victim of horrific oppression, comparable to that experienced by blacks in the days of Jim Crow, perhaps even to slavery.  See, I had been forced by the cruel forces that dominate our society to use segregated bathrooms, locker-rooms, and showers.  This was just as bad as the days of “colored only” drinking fountains, and “Negroes” being forced to sit at the back of the bus.  Or so such luminaries as Nancy Pelosi and Loretta Lynch inform me.  Thank God (is it still okay to say that?) that we finally have those heroic white knights (or is that racist? Sexist?) in the Obama DOJ to save us all from that horrific oppression, and usher in a bright new era of Tolerance and Equality.  Now, boys in public schools will no longer face forced segregation into that bathroom marked with the little stickman, but now finally have the freedom to pee, poop, and shower as equals with the ladies.  What red-blooded American boy could object to that?

Still, much progress remains to be made, as alas such backwards segregation of facilities remains at my place of work and gym.  (My triumphant strolling into the ladies’ gym locker room didn’t go over so well.  Those hateful bigots!)  Though no doubt that will all change after a Hillary SCOTUS appointment, when using the facilities of one’s choice is finally, decisively declared by the highest court in our land to be a “constitutional right.”  (Look it up; it’s right there in the Constitution, in the emanations of the penumbra, right between the right to abortion and right to gay marriage.)

But seriously, folks. . . . Please tell me this is all bad joke.  Even ten years ago, this would sound like far-fetched satire, rather than actual news.  Given the record of the leftist cesspool that is the Obama administration, I can’t exactly say I’m shocked, but let’s just say it exceeded my expectations here.

And leaving aside one’s beliefs on so-called “transgendered” issues, and the problems that will invariably arise when “biological’ men are allowed into locker rooms and such, no questions asked, the question remains: since when was it the job of the federal government (much less the executive branch) to dictate school bathroom policies?

But, of course, nobody asks such questions anymore, or at least nobody but us right wingnut wacko-birds.  Screw the tenth amendment!  Screw enumerated powers!  All that’s required now is that the all-powerful federal government is (in the words of Pelosi) “on the Right Side of History.”  And, of course, it’s the prerogative of that same all-powerful federal government to determine what is and is not on “the Right Side of History.”  (Though they must really mean, of course, “Left Side of History.”)  And woe unto you if you’re determined to be on the Wrong Side of History.

Somehow, tyrannical dictatorial governments are always on the Right Side of History.  Just ask Lenin.  Forward, Comrades!

And Lynch had the gall to invoke our country’s “founding ideals” to justify the administration’s latest blatant unconstitutional overreach.  And I had mistakenly thought the American Founding Fathers were fighting tyranny to establish representative, limited, constitutional government.  But, apparently they were really fighting for the right to use the ladies’ privy.  Who woulda thunk it?

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Big Sports vs. Religious Liberty

Every day it seems, we descend further into madness.  And I’m not even referring at the moment to the presidential race.  Last week, Republican Georgia governor Nathan Deal, in typical spineless Republican manner, folded under pressure from big corporations including Disney and Apple, and vetoed a bill that would ensure religious liberty as guaranteed by the first amendment by, among other things, ensuring that ministers would not be forced to officiate “gay marriages” against their will.  In North Carolina, there is a lawsuit against another bill that would protect private business owners against such things as being forced to cater “gay weddings” or allow gender-confused dudes to use the ladies’ room.   The NBA has declared that unless that bill is vetoed, the All-star Game will not be played in Charlotte.

I don’t get ESPN, but it is on regularly at the break room at my place of work, and the channel seems to every day be less and less about sports, and more and more about pushing left-wing political propaganda.  It has heavily covered  the above-mentioned brouhaha concerning the NBA’s proposed boycott of North Carolina, siding with the NBA as if they were making a stand of great heroism and courage, as well as running sob stories about the alleged horrible plight of “transsexual” athletes in schools around the country – such as the epic struggles of strapping young “biologically male” jocks fighting for the “right” to play on the girls team and use the girls’ locker room.  (Sign me up, dude!)

I’m really not sure why the issue of “transgender” bathrooms and such is of such pressing importance to the NBA.  Are there really that many pro basketball players demanding to use the ladies’ locker rooms?

At the same time, ESPN is also heavily covering the epic struggle of heroic litigators against the Big, Bad Corporate NFL regarding the concussion issue.  (And in case you miss the larger political context, the commentators explain that in denying the danger of concussions from playing pro football, the NFL is exactly the same as the evil “climate-change deniers.”)  However, with regard to LGB-alphabet-soup issues, we’re supposed to root for the Big Heroic Corporate NBA against some tiny Christian-owned bakeries and such.  Now, Goliath’s the good guy, and David the villain.

The left (including ESPN) is always screaming about the power of Big Evil Corporations, and their undue influence on government.  However when the Big Corporations are pressuring and influencing government for socially “progressive” causes, this influence is applauded and celebrated.  And increasingly, large corporations push leftist social causes, helping win the favor of leftist politicians in our crony-capitalist system.


The enforcement of politically-correct social causes such as those mentioned by law on the national level is likely to happen if Hillary wins the presidency, and the packing of federal courts—and the Supreme Court—with leftist activists continues.  Basic freedom of religious practice will become a thing of the past.  (Though such judicial activism may prove unnecessary if Republican governors continue to act so spinelessly.)

One more reason Republicans and conservatives need to get their heads out of their arses and rally behind Ted Cruz before it’s too late.  And that loser Kasich should have gotten out of the race long ago.  He’s only helping Trump—and Hillary.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The GOP’s Self-imposed Dilemma (And the Obvious Answer)

As we near the final leg of the primaries, the GOP faces some choices.  Some would even call them tough (though personally I don’t).

The Grand Ol’ Party could let things continue on their current trajectory, and nominate the vulgar, narcissistic assclown and “reality TV” star Donald Trump, a man who displays little more concern for constitutional limits on executive power than our current Dear Leader, and who opportunistically changes his political philosophy more frequently than underwear.  (This is also the man who spent his career buying and donating big bucks to every leftist Dem and establishment politician, while claiming he’s the only one who can fight corruption in Washington.)

Trump’s nomination, if we trust the polls, would most likely result in the election of the far viler  Hillary Rodham Clinton, and consequently the final destruction of what little is left of constitutional rule of law in America, as she continues packing all the federal courts, including the SCOTUS, with leftist activists.

Or (okay, maybe I’m fantasizing here), the Republicans could actually do the right thing.  That is, the two-bit losers Rubio and Kasich immediately get the hell out of the way, as conservatives have repeatedly urged them to do, and throw their hearty support to Ted Cruz, the only real conservative left in the race, whom polls also show handily beats The Donald in a one-on-one race, and who would also beat Clinton.  Disaster would be averted, and we’d have our first actual conservative president since Reagan.  Sounds like a win-win to me.

(It’s a bit amusing watching establishment-leaning “conservative” mouthpieces, such as the folks at National Review, suddenly, belatedly come to the realization that Cruz is the only man capable of trumping Trump, after spending nearly  a full year trashing, deriding, and dismissing him.  We conservatives heard ad-nauseum from GOP toadies about how we needed to wise up and stop supporting Cruz, and instead get behind someone “electable” like Jeb or Christie or Rubio.  Because, you know, people would actually vote for them—dammit!– if only more people would vote for them!)

(And, yes, that’s Marco Rubio, the great Catholic Savior in the Church of Universal Amnesty – lately reduced to playing Second Clown in the Trump Circus, as the two bozos merrily swapped goofy insults and pies-in-the-face and quarreled over the size of their respective johnsons.)

As I said, if Rubio or Kasich actually had any intention of saving our republic and defeating Trump and Hillary, they’d drop out (as of two weeks ago), and get behind Cruz.  But, they have no such intention.  Rubio, following Mitt Romney, is hoping to win Florida and urging Ohio voters to vote for Kasich.  (What politician in his right mind urges people to vote for a rival candidate?)  Obviously, Trump has a much better chance of being beaten by Cruz running one-on-one against him, than in a four-way race.

But the Republican Establishment bosses, and their puppets Rubio and Kasich, are salivating at the prospect of a brokered convention, where they hope that they, rather than the voters, can choose the nominee.  Don’t be fooled by their sudden newfound “respect” for Cruz.   They want Cruz as Prez even less than they want Trump.  They hope to be able to push the delegates to choose an “electable” nominee such as Rubio – or maybe even someone air-dropped in like Romney (you know, the guy who saved us all from Obama back in ‘12).

Of course, even a kindergartner could see that essentially giving the finger to 80% of Republican voters is a sure-fire losing strategy.  As if all those already fed-up voters who support Trump or Cruz will peacefully accept having their vote rejected by the party bosses and happily vote for whomever the Establishment spoonfeeds to them.  (For the record, being a dirty pragmatist sell-out, I’d personally vote for almost anyone to avert the trainwreck of a Hillary presidency, but I know many other, more pure, souls who would absolutely not.)

Either the GOP bosses are so utterly and insanely set in their delusions of grandeur that they actually believe they can pull this on the American people, or else they prefer the reign of Hillary and the death of our constitutional republic to the horrifying prospect of an “outsider” in the White House and the loss of their own position of comfort and power.

God help us all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Antonin Scalia, RIP, and the Fate of the Constitutional Republic (Or, What’s Really at Stake this Election)

Well. I’ve finally got back to ranting and raving (online, that is) with Silly Season 2016 already in full swing.

This month saw the unfortunate passing of the great Antonin Scalia, a judicial giant and true constitutionalist the like of which we may never see again in our lifetime.  May he rest in peace.

While we pray God may rest him in heaven, unfortunately his death leaves those of us Americans left here on earth in a truly perilous situation.  If the Republicans in Congress fail to block any Obama appointees, it may well put the final nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.

Melodramatic?  Hyperbolic?  I don’t think so when you consider the facts.  There are now only two constitutionalists on the U.S. Supreme Court, Thomas and Alito (the Republican nominees Kennedy and Roberts have proven shameful traitors to our constitution).   And, of course, it’s a given that any and all Obama nominees will be left-wing activists who don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution or the intent of the framers.  With an Obama-appointed justice, the court will become nothing more than a rubber stamp for whatever pieces of unconstitutional Marxist despotism he or any future leftist president might cook up.  And no doubt such a court would take judicial activism to new heights (or, rather, depths) of “creative” judicial tyranny.

And this is in addition to Obama packing the federal courts with leftist activists.  (About 40% of current federal judges are Obama appointees.)

The nomination of Supreme Court justices and federal judges is probably the biggest reason this presidential election matters.  And it’s an issue much of the media would have us ignore, preferring to focus on trivialities and nonsense.

Obviously, it goes without saying that if either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Comrade Sanders wins the presidency, we’re all screwed royally.

But what about the Republican side?  Much as I dig his combative un-pc New York style, and even his goofy hair (toupee?), front-runner Donald Trump is no conservative.  Prior to deciding to run as a GOP candidate for Prez, he’s been liberal on neary every issue, and today is often vague on his actual positions.  When he does mention specifics, he too often takes a corporatist statist stance, as with his support of “eminent domain.”  His campaign reminds me of Obama ’08 in that they’re both mostly cult of personality coupled with incredibly vacuous but catchy slogans (“Hope and Change!” “Make America Great Again!”)   While breathing fire all over Ted Cruz and other conservatives, he’s quick to tout how eager he is to “get along” and “make deals” with the liberal Dems in Congress.  Sounds a bit too much like the Establishment Republicans he’s supposed to be against.

Trump has criticized Scalia, and once said his ultra-liberal judge sister would make an excellent Supreme Court justice.  Doesn’t sound like a guy it’s safe to gamble on this year.

No better is GOP Establishment puppet and two-faced weasel Marco Rubio.  This is the man who lied to voters that he would oppose amnesty for illegals, before authoring much of the notorious “Gang of 8” bill, and now lies about his past position, while having the audacity to call Ted Cruz a liar for pointing this out.  His record as a senator is otherwise thin and spotty.  Despite not being present at the voted to defund abortion giant Planned Parenthood, he’s apparently being hailed in certain Catholic circles as a political messiah of sorts.  I have even been accused by some pious souls of “putting my politics ahead of my faith” for supporting Cruz over Rubio.  (Sadly, for many Catholics, belief in an open-borders welfare state has become a chief article of faith, even the chief article of faith.  In NewChurch, things such as the infallibility of Scriptures or “traditional” sexual morality may be open to dispute, but question amnesty or our government’s spending on “social” programs, and it’s anathema sit!)

This leaves Ted Cruz –love him or hate him–as the only actual conservative in the race.  He’s also one of the few U.S. senators who actually kept his promises to voters after going to Washington, and who’s record has been consistently conservative.  No, this isn’t a campaign ad, and I’m not going to promote Cruz as some messiah.  (We should know better than to look for saviors in politicians or government, anyway.)  He’s just the guy running who’s least likely to screw over the country.   Any conservatives voting for Trump or Rubio will have only themselves to blame if we get the shaft.  Frankly, I think there’s way too much on the line this year to gamble here.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Confederacy vs. the PC Confederacy of Dunces

(Note:  This rant was originally going to be published earlier, but got sidetracked with the whole “gay marriage” thing.)

Since that sick, cowardly, vile, racist little piece of excrement shot up an historic black church in Charleston over a week ago, controversy (and not a little bit of hysteria) rages on concerning the Confederate battle flag, which he had posed with in some pictures posted online.

As is usual with high-profile vile murders these days, before the bodies were even cold, the left began politicizing it, including Dear Leader, who predictably used it to pitch government “gun control,” blamed the “dark part of our history,” making the absurd and patently false claim that such violence “does not happen in other advanced countries.”

As usual, blame everyone and everything but the murderer himself.

But the real drama centered around the Confederate battle flag, and the Racist South in general, which somehow became seen by the left, and even by some so-called “conservatives” as the real  villain behind the murders.

When the Republican South Carolina governor Nikki Haley called for the battle flag to be removed from the state courthouse, she was widely applauded, as if she had made some kind of heroic decision.

But that action was hardly enough in the eyes the politically correct mob.  People began screaming for the flag to be removed from private property that was visible to the public.  Walmart and Amazon (the latter company not known to avoid selling “offensive” items) began removing all merchandise bearing the flag from their inventory.  No more Dukes of Hazzard!

In the debate over the flag, I saw and heard a lot of ignorant ranting, from both liberals, and some “conservatives” comparing the Confederacy to the Nazis, and the flag to the Nazi swastika.

The old Yankee charge was also brought up quite a bit that the Confederates were all vile traitors to their country, and thus deserving of no memory but contempt and shame.

But back then, people in the States, at least in the Southern States, sincerely saw their “country” as being their home state, rather than the federal Union, and it was to their state that they owed their patriotic loyalty, which they saw as a sacred thing.  Most Southerners regarded fighting against their home state as traitorous and dishonorable.  The Union was a creation of the various States, rather than the other way around, and Southerners (as well as many Yankees) believed states should be free to secede if they wished.

Both Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. “Stonewall”  Jackson (to use the examples of the two most famous and celebrated Confederate generals) fought for the Confederacy out of profound loyalty to their home state, rather than to perpetuate slavery, and both tended to side with the Union, until federal troops were sent in to invade South Carolina.  This tipped Virginia and other “border states” into joining the Confederacy, against what was seen as unjust federal aggression.

The war was also not primarily about slavery, but over the issue of whether states had the right to secede from the Unions.  Freeing of the slaves was originally not even a Union objective.  The Emancipation Proclamation occurred late in the war (and only applied to slaves in Confederate states.)

The Southern states did not seek to overthrow the federal government, but to secede and be independent from Washington and the federal government (just as the American colonies sought independence from the British Crown, rather than to overthrow the king in England).

Jackson prayed fervently with others for war to be avoided, and before the war, Lee said if he could, he would personally buy the freedom of every slave if it could prevent war.

Lee and Jackson would have both been appalled at the abuse of the flag in the Charleston murders.

The history of the war and the Confederacy is complex and nuanced, rather than the simplistic cartoon version of history preached by the politically correct.  For many Southerners, the flag is a symbol of honor and Southern pride, rather than racism or slavery.  Officially banning the flag as a symbol of racial hatred is actually a victory for the hateful crazies to allow them to define the flag’s meaning.

The hysterical politically correct frenzy to remove all traces of the battle flag, and other signs of the heritage of the old South, of course, does absolutely nothing to stop or prevent racism or hateful acts of violence.  It’s not as if that loser would not have committed those murders had only the flag not been flying at the courthouse.

And forcibly removing anything that people claim offends them raises a troubling precedent.

I’d personally be curious to know how many liberals screaming for the Confederate flag to be banned from public also oppose legislation that would protect the American flag from burning or other desecration.

The Confederate flag offends some people, so it needs to be removed from public view, but pee on a crucifix, and it’s “art” and “free speech” that must be funded with public tax dollars.

America may be weaker than ever before in modern history, our real liberties decreasing, while we borrow and spend at a frantic pace, laying a massive, unpayable debt on our young and future generations.  But, hell, the gays can “marry,” and we’ve gotten rid of the Confederate flag, so everything’s swell!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Another) Day that Will Live in Infamy

(Blogger’s note:  Originally I was going to write a rant this weekend concerning the politicization of the recent vile murder in Charleston, and the ensuing brouhaha over the Confederate flag.  But today’s news is of far more serious consequence to the country, so I’ll put that one off for now, and write on today’s travesty.)

Well, the U.S. Supreme Court did it again, and in a major way.  Once more, the Supreme Court made a ruling on the case Obergefell  v. Hodges, that not only spit in the face of Christians, natural law, and millennia of human tradition, but also was a blatant rape of the U.S. Constitution, whose job the Supreme Court justices is to uphold.  This decision to make homosexual “marriage” the law of the land was hot on the heels of another SCOTUS decision upholding the unlawful monstrosity of Obamacare (the majority opinion being written by that two-faced piece of filth John Roberts, who at least took the right side on the “gay marriage” case).

(But I must give credit to Alito and Thomas for fighting the good fight in their brilliant dissent.)

If the Supreme Court was actually doing its job of interpreting the Constitution, this case would be thrown out.  In the Constitution, the powers belonging to the federal government are limited and enumerated, and the power to define marriage is nowhere granted to federal courts.  Barring an amendment of the Constitution, such matters are left to the states and the people.

And before you bleeding hearts start lecturing me on “precedent,” I’m well aware that the SCOTUS now has a long history of rulings that rewrite the law to force a left-wing social or political agenda down the nation’s throat, rather than legitimately interpret what the Constitution actually says.

And that’s exactly the problem.  (I hold the old-fashioned, troglodytic view that the job of the Court is to uphold and interpret what the law actually says, rather than force a political agenda. And you can go shove your emanations up your penumbra.)

And any Christian who believes the line that today’s ruling will have no effect on religious liberty is deluding himself.  We’ll see more Christian bakers, florists, photographers, etc. being forced against their will to cater to homosexual “weddings” or lose their business.  And of course, kids in all public schools will be forced to learn about same-sex “marriage” as a legitimate option.  Churches that refuse to perform or lend facilities to “gay marriage” will likely face lawsuits and lose their tax-exempt status.  The goal of the militant homosexual lobby was never just tolerance, but elimination of any resistance.

This, of course, was immediately followed by jubilant celebration everywhere in the “mainstream media” (which I’ve made a point to largely avoid, though I do see the headlines), and by corporations, such as Google, Android, and others touting their support on Google’s Chrome homepage.

Our media and corporate elite apparently see sexual perversion, sodomy, and genital mutilation as unqualified goods to be universally celebrated; as if it were utterly unthinkable that any of us could possibly have any problem with it (except, of course, for us few right-wing bigoted troglodytes).  “Gay marriage” is to be universally celebrated like it’s the U.S. team winning an Olympic gold medal.  And Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner is an American hero!  (Or is that heroine?  But don’t call our troops “heroes,” because that can get politically complicated.  Don’t want to offend terrorists, do we?)

Hell, even flippin’ WordPress, which I’m publishing on, now has that goddamn rainbow flag at the top of their edit page.

While making a cash withdrawal at a Chase ATM, I was first greeted by a cheerful on-screen invitation from the good folks at Chase to join them in celebrating National GLBTQ-whatever-the-hell-the-current-alphabet-soup-is Month.  As if this was as nice and uncontroversial as, say, wishing customers a happy Father’s Day.  (Of course, for today’s left, I suppose the entire idea of fatherhood is indeed greatly problematic.  Not like, say, a man getting himself castrated and mutilated and calling himself a woman, which is happy and healthy, and worthy of universal celebration.)

But if a bank, or similar institution serving the public, wishes customers a “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter” during the appropriate seasons, that’s out-of-bounds, and calling for lawsuits, or at least major controversy.

Welcome to the twisted, through-the-looking-glass world of 21st century “progressive” America.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Jihad Comes to Texas

Last week, Islamic Jihad came to the Lone Star state (sort of) when two would-be Jihadists armed with AK-47s, pistols, and over 100 rounds of ammo attacked the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, TX, which was hosting a “Draw the Prophet” art exhibit organized by Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative.  (The center was the site of January’s “Stand with the Prophet” event which I had mentioned in my previous rant “Standing Against the Prophet.”)   Unfortunately for the “Prophet” and his “religion of peace,” the attempted at Jihad came to a quick end when the gunmen were shot dead by a hero cop with a Glock pisto.  Despite the two Jihadist wannabes being the only fatalities, the Islamic State (which claimed credit for the attack) bizarrely declared it a “victory for Islam.”  (Guess those guys still got their 72 virgins, so score one for them.)

Members of the Left (once known for being an advocate of absolute free speech, especially when the speech offends religious sensibilities) were for the most part either silent, or placed all the blame on Geller and her group for indulging in “hate speech” and needlessly provoking Muslims.   Some even claimed that the exhibit as “hate speech” (aka speech leftists don’t like) was not in fact protected by the first amendment.

That’s quite a different tune than that sung by the left concerning speech or artistic expression offensive to Christians.  In such cases, it is not “hate speech,” but free speech that must be allowed, and even tax-subsidized.  Remember the controversy over Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” back in the late ‘80s?  Any opposition to funding that little piece of artsy blasphemy with tax dollars was strongly decried by liberals as un-American censorship, and a sure path to fascism.   Would many liberals be so adamant about supportive of publicly funding a “Piss Mohammed”?

Why the double standard?  Well, of course, there’s the obvious (though un-pc) difference that pissing off (figuratively or literally) Muslims involves a real risk of getting gunned down or blown up, while pissing off Christians does not.  It might at most result in an upset letter to the editor.  (All ridiculous pc claims that Islam is no more violent than Christianity to the contrary.)

Ironically, it’s typically expression offensive to Christians that liberals praise as “bold,” while insulting Islam is slammed as hateful bullying and bigotry.  But try to argue with a bleedin’ heart on this point, and they’ll typically start spouting incoherent babble about “Christian White Privilege” and such.

While this failed attempt at Jihad in Texas may not amount to much, the harsh reality is that in other parts of the world, followers of the “Religion of Peace” continue to murder, rape, and oppress Christians on a major scale.  Once upon a time, Popes called Christian men to crusade to defend innocent Christians against Muslim aggression.  Today, many Church leaders, like their secular liberal politician counterparts, are strangely quiet.  Apparently, more politically correct first world concerns, like “climate change” and finding ways to make “gays” feel more welcome in church, are more pressing priorities.

While some “liberals” may try to argue that Muslims and other “oppressed minorities” somehow have a right not to be publicly offended, the religious liberties of Christians as well as Muslims are falling under ever greater threat.  Legal experts say that if the Supreme Court declares “gay marriage” to be a “constitutional right,” as many say is inevitable (despite the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage whatever, and nowhere grants the federal government the power to define marriage), churches and religious institutions opposed to homosexual “marriage” may lose their tax exempt status, and face lawsuits.  Believe it or not, once upon a time, the job of the Supreme Court was actually interpret and uphold the Constitution, rather than dictate the demands of social liberalism to the masses.

And Democratic presidential Anointed One Hillary has stated that “religious beliefs” that oppose “reproductive rights,” including abortion, “must change.”

Of course, such measures will be supported and applauded by many bleeding heart “Catholics.”  Can’t let issues such as human life get in the way of “social justice,” aka leftist socialism.  God help us all.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Imposing Immorality

A lot has already been said about the recent uproar by “gay rights” activists and liberals in general over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and Governor Mike Pence’s subsequent spineless folding in typical Republican fashion.  Protesters even forced a local pizza parlor to close because the owner said in an interview that she would not cater “gay weddings.”  (Though the news is that the shop has now re-opened.)

(I tried to keep Holy Week at least somewhat holy, and thus held off on commenting on the ungodly cesspool of current politics, but I thought I’d share a few thoughts.)

At this point no one can still harbor the foolish and naïve notion that the political-cultural left has anything whatever to do with freedom, tolerance, or diversity.

Talk about, for instance, any proposed laws even restricting abortion, and liberals will howl like rabid banshees about how we must never “impose our morality” on others by law.  This is typically followed a lecture on the evils of “theocracy,” with grim warnings about how parental consent laws or whatever are just one slippery step away from beheading infidels and burning heretics at the stake.  (Personally, I prefer my heretics just well done.)

However, as illustrated by the hullabaloo in Indiana, the same secularist bleeding hearts are more than ready to impose their own “morality” on those who disagree with politically-correct orthodoxy on issues such as “gay marriage.”  (Or, rather, to force others against their will to cooperate in immorality.)

As I pointed out earlier regarding similar issues in Texas, choosing not to cater or a homosexual “wedding” is not about discrimination against individuals, but about not catering a particular type of event that is contrary to Christian morality.

Forcing persons in private business to cater or support events contrary to their beliefs against their will not only violates the free exercise of religion guaranteed in the First Amendment, but the basic right to freedom of association, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.  (Deroy Murdock makes this point eloquently in a National Review article, giving a wide variety of potential non-religious examples where this principle would apply.  Should a feminist be forced to do photography for a strip club?  A black musician play at a KKK event?  Etc.)

Prior to the passing of the Indiana statute, there was never any actual issue of discrimination.  Gays have no problem finding bakers and such to cater their “weddings.”  The hysterics of the likes of Al Sharpton notwithstanding, who scream that unless Christian bakers are forced by law to bake gay wedding cakes, the return of Jim Crow is imminent.  (You know, back when gays were forced to sit in the back of the bus.)  Hell, it will probably set us back to the days of slavery, when gays were put in chains and forced to pick cotton from dawn to dusk in the hot Southern sun, to the tune of the slave-driver’s whip.  (Though I hear some of them liked the whole whips and chains thing.)

(If I were black I’d be absolutely disgusted at the comparison of “gay rights” issues to slavery and segregation.  Hell, I’m not black, and I’m still disgusted.  But that’s another rant.)

But the very thought of a few bakers, wedding photographers, or caterers out there who don’t conform with pc orthodoxy on “gay marriage” so enrages the bleeding heart fascists that they are willing to force people at gunpoint to conform and comply.

Freedom of religion and of association be damned.

For the left, “gay rights” has become an all-important all-trumping sacred cause, which they pursue with the fanaticism of religious crusaders (or perhaps Jihadists?).

Perhaps most disappointing is that Catholic response to this blatant assault on religious freedom seems largely lacking.  Though that is hardly surprising, given the weak and tepid response to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.  And the sad truth is that most of the bleeding heart social-justice “Catholics,” who salivate like Pavlov’s dogs at any statist activism claiming to be on behalf of The Oppressed, and who piously obey every dictate of political correctness, side with “gay rights” against the teachings of their Church.

For many, the issue of a few gay wedding cakes and such may seem too trivial and petty to be worth  bothering with.  And by itself, perhaps it is.  But wars are won or lost by many small battles, and freedoms once taken for granted in this country are being steadily and relentlessly chipped away piece by piece.  If (as expected) the Supreme Court (absurdly) declares “gay marriage” to be a “constitutional right,” things will only get much worse.  How long before we wake up?

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,