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!

Advertisements
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 , , , , , , , , , ,

Cruz Control

It’s been fun watching the stir following Ted Cruz’s announcement last week of his presidential bid.  For this Neanderthal knuckle-dragger,at least, it’s refreshing to see an actual principled, consistent constitutional conservative in a presidential race, after a 25+ year drought.  Win or lose, we’ll at least have actual conservatism on the table.

I think Cruz deserves conservative support, if for no other reason than to watch all the hilariously incoherent and hysterical howling, gibbering, and foaming at the mouth from so many on both the Left and the GOP Establishment.  That means Senator Cruz must at least be doing something right.

Most of the “criticism” (that word’s a charitable stretch) is mind-boggling in its shear vacuous lack of anything approaching substance.  It ranges all the way from childish name-calling (such as Donny Deustch calling him “slimy” and “scary” – Yeah?  So’s your mom!) to “friendly” criticism from establishment “conservatives” like National Review’s Charles Cooke complaining that he sounds like a “vacuum cleaner salesman.”

Apparently, for the inside-the-beltway crowd, politicians should stick to selling the same old tax-and-spend.

(Oh yeah, and the libs are also having hissy fits calling Cruz a global warming “denier” and a “creationist.”  Throw the Deviationist in the gulag!  For the left, whether you uphold the Constitution is irrelevant to running for high office, just so long as you toe the Party Line on “Science.”)

And it’s ironic that the lefty idols Barry and Hillary wallow in way over their eyeballs in every kind of slime and scandal, but Ted Cruz is the “slimy” one.   (Sorry, I forgot for a second that petty rules of morality and the law are utterly irrelevant regarding political messiahs,who have a nation to Fundamentally Transform.)

Of course, the brood of vipers in Washington and their media toadies are riled up because Cruz won’t play by their rules, and none of them give a damn about principle, just so long as a Clinton or a Bush is at the helm.

Tagged ,

(Prison) Wall of Denial

Here’s a little update to my last post, “War on Dissenters.”  No less an eminent figure than Al Gore himself, high priest of the Church of Climatology, also said, at a speech at the South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival down in Austin, that  “climate change deniers” (whatever that means, exactly) need to be “punished.”  Though apparently, unlike others I mentioned calling for prison time, he didn’t specify exactly how this punishment should take place.  Perhaps all “Deniers” (meaning, from what I gather, anyone who opposes more punitive “environmental” government regulations on business and agriculture) would be shipped off to a Climate-Denier Gulag somewhere.  Not sure where it would be; I hear, due to global warming, Siberia is getting too warm to be effectively punitive, like it was in the good old days of the USSR.

Believe it or not, once upon a time, liberals actually used to support free speech!

Gore also praised Pope Francis (“How about that Pope!”) for being on board the statist “climate change” bandwagon.  I don’t know about you, but I have so much more confidence in the Pope, knowing he has Al Gore’s approval.

Of course, it’s not clear how long free speech will last on Al Gore’s great invention, the Internet, after the Democrat members of the FCC (evidently on the orders of Dear Leader) voted last month to put more regulation on the internet under Title II rules.  No doubt, it’s only a matter of time before Big Brother starts finding ways to “regulate” and punish dissenters and “deniers” on teh interwebz.  So enjoy my denial and dissent while you still can, folks!

 

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

The War on Dissenters

Every time you hear talk denouncing a “war” on something not an actual military enemy, get your shovel ready, because what invariably follows is an avalanche of nonsensical bullshit designed to drown out all rational thought and any opposition whatever to the lefty Party Line.

You might recall all the ridiculous hysteria from the Left in 2010 over the alleged “Republican War on Women.”  Dare suggest that maybe people should pay for their own damn contraceptives, and you’re a horrible misogynistic monster who hates all women, and no doubt supports full legalization of rape.

(Expect this nonsensical rhetoric to return with a vengeance once Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Jackass Party’s next Anointed One, takes the presidential nomination.)

Well the cover of the latest issue of National Geographic magazine warns us of a “War on Science.”   Apparently, an Army of Darkness made up of Global Warming Deniers, Creationists, anti-vaccine folks, and others, have their big guns set on the guys in the white coats, ready to blow them off the face of the earth and plunge us all back into the Dark Ages .  (Clearly a much bigger national security threat than, say, ISIS, who are after all, only victims of Capitalist-induced poverty, in need of better jobs from the government.)

National Geographic still provides quality geographic and nature stories and photography, but lately its editor’s leftist ideological slant has come to rival that of the dope-suckers at Rolling Stone.

Of course, when “liberals” whine about a “war” on something, what they really mean is that (oh the horror!) there are people out there who disagree with them on something.   That thought is in itself absolutely intolerable to the bleeding hearts.

Take the global warming (or “climate change” if you prefer) issue.  Everyone must support the Party Line that a) not only is the earth currently in a warming trend (an increase of 1.5° F over the past couple centuries), but b) that this is mostly caused by humans burning CO2 and other “greenhouse gasses,” and c) will lead to climatic catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, and (this is the important part!) d) that draconian government measures will save us from the Climate Apocalypse.

Cast even the slightest doubt on any parts of this and you’re a hopelessly ignorant and/or evil “Denier,” which, in nice progressive circles, places you on the scale of scumbaggery somewhere between a child molester and a Nazi Party member.  “Deniers” and other heretics in this secular religion of Climate Apocalypse and the Almighty State as Savior must be punished by denying research funds, academic tenure, and even – according to a rising chorus of leftists from Bobby Kennedy Jr. to popular bloggers —  actual prison time!  That’s right; throw all dissenters behind bars!  And some still deny the enthusiasm for Soviet-style totalitarianism on the American Left.  And they call us conservatives fascists.  Can’t make this stuff up, folks.

There are actually plenty of serious scientists who don’t buy the man-made climate apocalypse scenario, and, no, most of them are not political right-wingers nor on the payroll of Big Oil.

Science was traditionally built on the method of subjecting all hypotheses to rigorous testing before arriving at any known conclusion, rather than on some democratic “consensus,” but now all evidence which contradictions politically correct conclusions are to be dismissed off-hand and vigorously suppressed by those holding the “consensus” view.  (You might recall that geocentrism was once the majority scientific consensus.)  “Scientific” fundamentalism at its finest,

Regarding the creation/evolution debate, not only must you believe in the biological evolution of species, but you must not deviate from strictly materialist Darwinist dogma, which insists that the whole process, and the origins of life itself, came about through nothing but pure, dumb, directionless chance.  (It’s simply not true that intelligent design theory is simply a code word for literalist six-day young-earth creationism.  The biologists who proposed intelligent design actually believe in evolution; they just don’t believe that mere dumb luck can account for all its workings.)

It’s similar regarding the origins of the universe itself.   Belief in a divine Creator who is the source of all being is to be dismissed as superstitious nonsense unworthy of belief by rational, scientific persons. But the equally unscientific but far more hip and fashionable (yet much more unbelievable, imho) belief that the entire universe simply pooped itself into existence uncaused out of nothing is to be lauded as “Reason” and “Science.”

Somehow this has become a major political issue with the bleeding hearts.  I even heard one say that belief in evolution was his most important criteria for judging politicians.

Personally, I hold the no doubt backwards and unscientific view what politicians think about evolution is completely irrelevant to anything, and that it is not the place of the federal government to dictate to schools and teachers what they must teach.

But that’s really at the core of the entire issue – today’s secularist “liberals” see indoctrination of the masses in an atheistic ideology as a duty of the Almighty State.  You know, like they did in enlightened lands like the USSR.

After all, belief in a transcendent God is dangerously subversive to the belief in an all-good, all-powerful State that is central to leftist ideology.

But it’s not just global warming and evolution.  In debates on every social issue from abortion to “gay marriage,” liberals reverently invoke the name of “Science” like that of some mighty pagan deity.  Of course, the god “Science” seems to always predictably favor the left-wing stance.

Properly speaking, of course, the physical sciences cannot themselves determine the morality – the rightness or wrongness–  of any human action.  That’s the job of moral philosophy or theology, which of course is immediately dismissed as “unscientific.”

 

With this widespread growth of materialist atheism and loss of Christian Faith in the Western world, along with the rise in horrific violence and persecution of Christians by radical Muslims elsewhere, you’d think the Vicar of Christ would have plenty to talk about.

But, we’re informed on good authority that Pope Francis is instead busy writing an encyclical on the horrors of Climate Change, something which (whether you agree or not), everyone’s already heard about ad nauseum from secular sources from Al Gore to NPR to National Geographic.

But, heck, maybe he’ll once again get his smilin’ face on the cover of the Rolling Stone.  Or maybe even the National Geographic.

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

Fools and Knaves

Well,  John Boehner and the House “leadership,” after giving only the most pathetic pretense of a fight, caved in and voted to pass a DHF bill that includes full funding for Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for illegal aliens.  Surprise, surprise.

Dear Leader and the American Totalitarian Party (aka the Democrats) got everything they wanted.  As did the amnesty-loving Chamber of Commerce fat cats who bankroll the Stupid Party.  In the meantime, America and constitutional rule of law once again got screwed royally.   Including we poor dumb conservative schmucks who actually gave the Republicans their majority in Congress, in the faint, and now obviously vain and foolish, hope that they’d actually do something to stand against the tyrannical piece of excrement occupying the oval office.

Is Boehner then a coward, a fool, a knave, or all of the above?  I’ll let you, Gentle Reader, be the judge.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Murder, Mayhem, and Madness

You could practically see the gleeful salivating eager anticipation on the faces of liberals a week or so ago, when the news came out of the despicable and senseless murder of three young Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  A “hate crime”!  Against Muslims!  And just after Dear Leader had, no doubt prophetically, warned all us trigger-happy Christian types against the coming bloody “backlash” against Muslims, shaming us with tales of Christian violence from a thousand years ago at a prayer breakfast!  (I suppose bashing long-dead Christians is as close as a dedicated leftist gets to prayer.)

(Btw, regarding the prayer breakfast comments, I’d recommend learning from Dr. Thomas Madden,  who dispels many popular myths on these subjects.  Unlike Obama and various liberal pundits, Dr. Madden is an actual historian and expert on the topic.)

On a message board I was on, a bleeding heart breathlessly announced the news of the Chapel Hill murders, immediately followed by speculative babble about the likely root causes of this crime, namely “ Christian Privilege,” particularly White/Straight/Male/Christian Privilege.  Those damn Straight Christian White Guys again!  This was (quite predictably) followed bya pc diatribe about Christian intolerance against Muslims, gays, and anybody else who’s “different.”

Of course, most of the excitement died down quickly when it was revealed that the killer was in fact a self-described “anti-theist” atheist, as well as a political liberal who was a fan of lefty organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and various bleeding heart causes like “gay rights,” who committed the murders apparently out of rage over a parking incident.

Whatever his deep dark murky inner motivations for the murder were (and I don’t purport to know them), they clearly had nothing to do with Christianity.

(But he was, in fact, a White Guy.)

I mention that not to score cheap points against atheists and liberals.  Much as I disagree with atheism and the left, the truth is that most atheists and bleeding hearts don’t run around gunning innocent people down.  (They’re usually too busy whining on teh interwebz about “White Christian Privilege” and whatnot.)

But let’s face it, if the murderer had instead been shown to be a self-professed Christian, or been a political conservative (as they doubtlessly had hoped), the media would have a field day, and still be berating us conservative tea-bagging Christian types for the murderous hatred we had fostered, and how the blood was on all our hands.

For the past few decades, it seems the left has desperately attempted to politicize every senseless murder that makes news headlines, with conservatives always being somehow to blame.  (Could the killer be a Tea-Partier?!)  If nothing else, there’s always the predicable-as-clockwork cries of how the murder illustrates the dire need for more restriction of second amendment rights.

This is tied to the ongoing desperate attempt to paint conservative Christians as a hateful, violence-prone bunch (much like ISIS, only nastier).  Never mind the fact that extremely few murders or acts of terror are actually committed by committed Christians or conservatives.

Hating Islam can sometimes be acceptable in politically correct liberal circles, but only when this hatred is balanced by an equal hatred of Christianity (which, after all is the real enemy).   Like with the killer in Chapel Hill who hates all “theists,” Christian and Muslim alike.   Islamic terrorism is commonly used as a club to beat Christians with – “See what happens when people believe in a God?!”  Ironically, those same folks who insist on lumping all “theists” together become very perturbed when it’s pointed out that folks such as Stalin or Mao or that dude in Chapel Hill were in fact atheists.  (“But Real Atheists™ are peaceful!”)

Meanwhile, down here in Texas, the killer of  “American Sniper” Chris Kyle his friend Chad Littlefield was convicted of murder.  I’m glad and thankful that those true American heros received justice, and that the jury didn’t buy the defense’s ridiculous “insanity defense” bullcrap.  Getting yourself high as a kite before going to the gun range may make you an idiot, but it doesn’t make you innocent of murder.    (And I thought smoking weed, much like atheism, was supposed to bring peace’n’luv to the world and make it a better place for us all.  Oh well.)

But in the case of that creep in Chapel Hill, I just might buy the insanity defense.  Anyone that leftist has got to be completely nucking futs in my book.

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

Liberal “Tolerance” Strikes! (Round II)

An “Equal Rights” ordinance in the Dallas suburb of Plano passed in December has created ongoing controversy , with citizens of the town signing petitions for a recall of the ordinance (I couldn’t find what the current status of this situation is, though if the petitions are verified a repeal could be put before the city council) .  This ordinance expanded an earlier ordinance barring “discrimination in places of public accommodation, employment practices, housing transactions and city contracting practices” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”  Churches and religious freedom groups have led opposition to the ordinance

Sounds reasonable enough, right?  Before I’m accused of being a heatless homophobe (well, I am, but that’s beside the point), let me say this.  If this was about someone being denied a burger and a beer at a bar/restaurant simply because he was gay, then there might be a genuine issue, but that’s not what this is about.  The reality is that similar ordinances in other cities have led to such things as bakery owners threatened with jail time for refusing to bake “gay wedding” cakes.

The ordinance also sparked concern about private establishments being forced by law to allow “transgendered” persons to share bathrooms and such with persons of the opposite “biological” sex.  In other words, Big Bob must be allowed to share a restroom with your daughter if he declares himself a woman in a man’s body; unless the owner wants to pay a hefty fine.  And if any of you ladies have any issue with that, well, you’re just hateful bigots.

The problem is not people being denied service because of their sexual preferences, but about business owners being forced by government to provide products with a message that violates their sincere moral/religious beliefs.

Those bleeding hearts who think such ordinances are a great idea, or even morally necessary, should ponder the following scenarios.

Should a bakery be forced to bake cakes with a blatantly racist or anti-Semitic message?  Or should a business be forced to cater KKK or neo-Nazi meetings?

My point isn’t that a “gay marriage” is the same as Nazism, but about where does one draw the line when forcing private business owners to provide products or cater events that violate their sincere moral or religious beliefs?

Much as one might find the hateful and racist messages or groups I mentioned appalling, refusing to cater to them would still in fact be discrimination against certain types of customer demands, just as refusing to bake a gay wedding cake would be.

Let’s be honest; the real issue here isn’t that GLBTQs – whatever the current alphabet soup is – being unable to find businesses that will cater to them.  In any town or city of any size, I’m sure there is no shortage of businesses happy to cater to the demands of homosexual customers.  Wherever there’s a demand, supply will exist to fulfill it and profit from it . That’s the beauty of the free market.  If one baker doesn’t want to bake you a gay cake, another will be happy to bake it for you instead.

The ordinance makes about as much sense as forcing Christian bookstores to sell porn or copies of The Satanic Bible.  (Okay, I should probably shut up now  lest I give the liberals ideas.)

Of course, these local skirmishes will be all but forgotten in the shadow of the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on “gay marriage,” which liberals confidently assure us will result in all states being forced to recognize “gay marriage,” whether the people of those states want it or not.  (If they are right, it will be yet another example of SCOTUS granting the federal government powers found nowhere in the Constitution, but that’s a whole other rant.)

It should be obvious to everybody now that the “gay rights” movement is no longer about tolerance (if that was ever truly the goal).  Tolerance is about simply leaving other folks alone, whether we agree with their actions or not.  Now, we must all be forced by law to give approval and support to sexually deviant behavior.  And non-compliance will not be tolerated.

 

Update:  Shortly after this rant was published, the mayor turned down the petitions on the ground that they were bogus or not sufficiently documented, or something.  I don’t know all the facts on this, but I think we can generally trust our public officials – to lie to us.)

Tagged , , , ,