Tag Archives: liberals

Leftist Power-lust Trumps All: Our Descent into Madness

Once again, the various events and challenges of life have taken from my ranting time, but God knows there’s been no shortage of things to rant about during that time.

Over the past eight months or so, I watched, at first with bemusement, the left’s increasingly deranged and demented hysteria following the election of Donald J. Trump to President of the United States.  But now there is nothing funny about the deepening madness as the increasingly violent rhetoric and behavior on the left, has led, unsurprisingly, to a bloody assassination attempt (oh, sorry – I was forgetting there for a second that crazed leftist maniacs don’t kill people; guns kill people!  Mea maxima frickin’ culpa), and the largest political coup / witch-hunt in American history threatens to tear about what thin shreds remain of our Republic.

I don’t have time to follow every depressing and sordid twist and turn of this ongoing perverse political saga – that I’ll leave to others – but it is an travesty and outrage on so many different levels.   The same folks who disregarded the actual letter of the law to clear Her Cackling Highness Hillary of her obvious blatant violation of the Espionage Act, and had no problem whatever with Benghazi, Fast & Furious, or use of the IRS to target political opponents – or the prior administration’s illegal spying on political opponents (too bad they weren’t equally vigilant about Russia’s activities) – keep desperately searching for something, anything, to nail Trump on so they can impeach him.  As Joseph Stalin infamously said, “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

I’ll start by saying that – as you may have surmised by last year’s posts from during the GOP primaries – I was never exactly a fan of Mr. Trump.  I supported Ted Cruz.  But my issues with Trump, besides his dubious honesty and constant flip-flopping, boil down to him essentially being on yet another big-government big-spending liberal.  But, all LSD-induced lefty hysteria to the contrary, he’s far from the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler.  (To be fair, so was Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama, though he was a soft-Marxist petty banana republic-style thug, which was bad enough.)

Still, for all his faults, Trump remains far preferable to Her Cackling Highness Hillary Rodham Clinton, who would have completed her predecessor’s packing of the courts (including the SCOTUS) with leftist activists, thereby destroying any conservative prospects in our lifetime.  I still thank God that she lost.

I’ve seen Trump’s politics referred to as “extreme right,” which is absurd.  In fact, overall Mr. Trump is the most left-wing Republican president we’ve had in a long time.  (Unsurprising, given that until recently he identified as a liberal Democrat.)  Despite all the left’s screams about “homophobia” and “reproductive rights,” he’s shown no concrete evidence of being a genuine social conservative, and his proposals for trade policies are not that different from Comrade Bernie’s.  That Trump is considered a dangerous ultra-conservative fanatic shows just how far down the rabbit-hole of radical leftist insanity the Democratic Party has gone.

I must say, though, that I’m touched at the sudden concern some of my friends on the left are suddenly expressing concerning  constitutional limits on executive power.  In fact, I’d actually find it heartening if it were at all sincere.  I’ve heard this concern about Trump’s alleged violation of the Constitution from folks who less than a year ago were deriding and pooh-poohing conservative concerns over government over-stepping constitutional limits.  Then, you see, the U.S. Constitution was simply a quaint and oppressive old paper written up by some Evil Dead White Slave-holding Males, completely irrelevant to our Complex Modern Times, and best completely disregarded, lest it stand in the way of our Dear Leaders paving the path to socialist utopia.  But, now, with a Republican in the White House, it suddenly matters again.  (Not that these folks could tell you anything about what the Constitution actually says, other than a vague notion that it somehow demands abortion and gay marriage.)

No, the Constitution matters no more the left than any other laws, to be twisted when convenient to attack and destroy political opponents, and disregarded completely with regards to one’s own “team.”  They really aren’t outraged at Trump because he’s particularly conservative or dictatorial, but simply because he stood in the way of Queen Hillary’s Destined Ascent to the Throne, which they believed her entitled to.  And if a real conservative (say, Cruz), rather than Trump, had beaten Hillary, the reaction would likely be even more vicious, ugly, and deranged.

Hopefully, the ugliness of the current situation will awaken all conservatives to the true nature of the left.  They are the enemy, plain and and simple.  Like the Terminator, they cannot be reasoned, bought or bargained with.  Endless compromise will get us nowhere.  Their goal is absolute power, and they seek to destroy everybody and anybody who stands in their way, and they will stop at nothing to achieve this end.  We need to stop playing their games and fight back – hard – lest we lose this fight forever.  (A good place to start is by supporting the Article V Convention of States.  Texas is in, y’all!)

And the sooner Catholics realize (as in fact Popes repeatedly warned us in times past) that the political Left is not our friend and ally, but our evil and ruthless enemy, the better.   But sadly, many pious souls will not until they inevitably come for them.  Too many have been seduced by the lies and false promises of socialism.  Until then we can expect our bishops to do nothing more than issue endless blandly “non-partisan” statements combining nice sentiments about the value of human life and family with calls for open borders and and an ever-bigger, gun-grabbing welfare state.  And so-called “orthodox Catholic” bloggers and pundits such a will continue to actively support politicians such as Clinton and Sanders, while making statements like Mark Shea’s idiotic claim that his “Catholic Pro-life conscience” compelled  him to support Hillary Clinton.  That’s right, the woman who said religious beliefs opposed to “reproductive healthcare” (aka abortion) “need to be changed.”  God help us.

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Day That Lives in Infamy

Tomorrow, as you’re probably aware, we commemorate the 41st anniversary of the abominable Supreme Court decision Roe vs. Wade which (absurdly) declared killing one’s unborn child a “Constitutional Right,” and in effect made abortion-on-demand the law of the land.   The Bishops have declared this a day of prayer and fasting.  (And no, again, the Pope has not told Catholics to shut up about abortion, all liberal lies to the contrary.)

People (including now , sadly, many “Catholics”) try to pigeonhole or dismiss the abortion issue and the right to life as simply another “rightwing” political issue, invented by conservative Republican politicians to divide the country – or something.  However, the right to life should not be a “conservative” or a “liberal” issue, but is in fact a fundamental human value, which should transcend politics.

The right to life is the most fundamental human right the law can guarantee; without the right to life, all other human rights are rendered void.  If the law does nothing to protect the lives of innocent human beings at their most vulnerable, it is worthless.

And, yes, unborn babies (or “fetuses” or “embryos,” or whatever you want to call them) are in fact human beings from conception.  From conception the human embryo/fetus/child is a living being, genetically and biologically distinct from both parents.  And it is human; it does not change at some point from a non-human species.  Yes, the human being in its very early stages of life is undeveloped compared to more mature stages, but so is a newborn infant, or a toddler, compared to an adult.

Growth and development is a continuous, gradual process from conception to adulthood.  This is confirmed by modern biology.  While pro-aborts love to accuse pro-lifers of wishing to impose unscientific religious dogmas on everyone, it is the idea that a human baby suddenly, magically, changes from dead to living, or from non-human to human at birth or some other point that is superstitious and unscientific.

It used to be that advocates of legal abortion typically denied that an unborn child is a human being, calling it a mere “clump of tissue” and such.  But ultrasounds and other modern technology are helping expose that lie.

However, there’s a truly disturbing trend of more and more people who are willing to admit that the unborn child is in fact a human being, but say that it’s okay to kill it anyway.

These folks, following the godless philosophies of Dr. Peter Singer and his ilk, seek to separate the concept of legal “personhood” from an individual being a human being.  According to Singer, not all human beings are “persons,” and “personhood” should be based on various extrinsic factors such as cognitive development and such.  (Using such standards, most liberals should be excluded from “personhood,” but I digress.)

Of course, once we base legal personhood and the right to life on anything other than the fact of being a human being, the standards of “personhood” become ultimately completely arbitrary.  Thus, Singer uses the fact that there is little real difference between an unborn fetus and a newborn infant, to argue not that abortion should be illegal, but for legalizing infanticide.  According to Singer, killing the severely disabled is also acceptable.  In this brave new world, courts and panels of “experts” determine who is and is not a legally-protected “person” – and there’s always room to move the lines.

Ultimately, the fight over abortion is between those who believe human life is itself intrinsically sacred, against those who see human life as in itself worth, and only given worth to others on subjective extrinsic criteria.

Some people (pro-abortion liberals, as well as some “conservatives”) accuse pro-life conservatives such as myself of hypocrisy.  How can we claim to be for small limited constitutional government, while at the same time support the power of the government to take away the individual’s choice to have an abortion?

The truth is that the Roe v. Wade decision was hardly a victory for limited, constitutional government, but trampled the rights of states and the peoples, granted god-like powers to the federal judiciary, and made hash of the Constitution.  Before Roe, per the Tenth Amendment, laws concerning abortion belonged to the individual states.  Roe v. Wade took this power from the respective states and granted it to the federal government, smashing any state restrictions on abortion.  The SCOTUS justices justified their decision by citing unstated “rights” supposedly hiding deep in the dark “emanations of the penumbra” (literally, “emissions from a shadow”) of the fourteenth and other amendments.

Thus, in one blow, on no solid basis in the Constitution whatever, killing the unborn child was declared a universal “constitutional right,” and the Supreme Court granted itself the power to declare which human beings are and are not legal “persons” having a right to live.

Legal protection of the life of all innocent human beings (including the unborn) is simple justice.  Every law puts some restriction on human choice (or rather puts legal consequences on certain choices).  No one talks about being “pro-choice” in matters such as theft or rape (or the murder of persons already born).  So unless you’re an absolute anarchist, “pro-choice” arguments are utterly bogus.

Ironically, many liberals and leftists arguing that an all-powerful “right to choose” trumps the baby’s right to life, oppose the right to choose in countless other areas.  I’ve argued with many a liberal who adamantly argues for the right to choose to kill an unborn child, while equally adamantly arguing against the right of individuals to choose certain health insurance plans, or weapons for personal defense (to use just two examples.)  For the liberal, many things in fact trump absolute human choice, but human life itself is not one of them.

“Pro-choice” was never anything more than a dishonest and sophistical propaganda slogan.

And speaking of abortion, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture beat me to this one last week, but his piece, “Pope Decries Abortion; Sun Expected To Rise in East,” confirms some points I’ve been making here regarding the shallowness of the “mainstream” media in reporting on Pope Francis and abortion.  Apparently, according to the AP, the only reason the Vicar of Christ could possibly have for upholding the Church’s two-millennia-old teachings against abortion is to throw a bone to us disgruntled conservatives.  Sigh.

Yes kids, the Pope is Catholic, and abortion is still very, very bad.

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

Cold, Hard Facts & the Hot Air of Lefty Moralism

Here, I am, sitting here freezing my royal right-wing rear end off in sunny Texas, reading about the heroic rescue mission of the rescue mission of the Russian ship Akademik Shokalskiy, which had been trapped in unusually heavy ice off the Antarctic coast.   The ship was on an “eco-tourism” mission, led by an Australian “climate-change professor,” to explore the effects of global warming.  The irony of this incident, while largely ignored by the “mainstream” media (newsflashes generally said nothing of the purpose of the ship’s voyage), was quickly picked up by conservative media, sparking more of the usual quarrelling over “global warming.”

At the same time, much of the U.S. is in the grip of an exceptional cold front, and last summer, a satellite measured the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth

It’s true that individual cold fronts and satellite temperature recordings don’t in themselves disprove the existence of man-made global warming (though, as others have pointed out, imagine the massive media hoopla that would result if that satellite had recorded, rather than the coldest temp, the hottest temperature ever on earth!).

However , the common leftist creed of imminent secular apocalypse –in which our only hope for salvation lies in massive government taxation, spending, and regulation– is looking nowadays increasingly less like proven, scientific fact, and more like ideologically-driven hysterical hot air.

After all, not long ago, Al Gore and other climate-change evangelists solemnly assured us that polar ice would soon be completely gone, and after centuries of fluctuations, global temperature would perpetually sky-rocket ever-upward, per the infamous “hockey-stick” graph.

Some scientists believe that, due to natural fluctuations in the solar activity, the earth is set to enter a period of cooling, perhaps even another ice age.  Don’t get me wrong; I’m no climate change Denier (the ultimate modern heresy, next to “homophobia”).  Climate change is very real – centuries ago, glaciers extended clear into Ohio.  However, the climate appears to be affected by many unpredictable factors, of which man-made “greenhouse gasses” may be only a comparatively small component.

For a long time, folks on the left used the allegedly dire threat of global warming as a means of claiming the moral high ground.  See, according to the lefties, if I was really, truly pro-life (instead of a phony right-wing wannabe), I would put aside my childish obsession with abortion, and focus instead on the graver evil of Global Warming, which, unless massive government action was taken NOW, would kill nearly everyone on the planet.

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

We pro-lifers (so they told us) were faced with a thorny and fiendish moral dilemma straight out of a Chris Nolan Bat-flick.  Unless we supported  the blatantly pro-abortion liberal politicians who alone could save us, BILLIONS WOULD DIE from the ravages of Man-made Global Warming . . . and WE would be morally responsible!

But, hey, much as it sucks, better for the government to increase its support of the slaughter of the unborn than to allow everyone to roast like marshmallows from conservative-caused global warming (CCGW).

See, not only was I an idiot for clinging to my guns and religion and failing to jump aboard the Hope’n’Change bandwagon, but leftists even insinuated that I was a horrible parent and outright monster, willing to sacrifice the future of my own children (and all life on earth) for the sake of right-wing ideology and the Evil Oil Barons (maniacal laugh, maniacal laugh).

(Call me a heartless cynic, but I remain of the belief that the weather will be just the same whether Elephants or Jackasses are elected to high office.  Enviro measures such as cap’n’trade will only increase energy prices, hurting the poor most, and push yet more polluting industry to unregulated places like China.)

The other great moral claim of the Left (especially the Catholic Left) was, of course, Obamacare.  If we were “truly pro-life” (in the beautiful Seamless Garment tradition), we must support Obama and socialized medicine, or else millions of poor folks would die in the streets.

All us right-wingers were really mean cold-hearted bastards for opposing it.

(Those righteous and dutiful defenders of the Almighty Welfare State, the U.S. Bishops, were shocked –shocked! – when the law enforcing the socialized medicine they had so piously pushed for turned around to bite them in their collective holy ass by forcing businesses and organizations to buy insurance plans covering contraception and abortifacients.   I don’t think it paranoia to surmise that coverage of surgical abortions will be next.)

Of course, Obamacare has already proven itself be just as much of a fraud as the “global warming” racket will no doubt prove to be, and now only the most die-hard lefties and Obamaites still support it.  The only ones to gain from either are the politicians and bureaucrats running the ever-more-rapidly growing Leviathon state.

It’s past time men of good will, especially Catholics, wise up and stop falling for such stupendous statist scams.

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

The Duck Commander vs. Liberal “Tolerance”

As everyone knows by now, A&E banned Duck Dynasty patriarch and Duck Commander inventor Phil Robertson from filming for making some comments in a GQ interview that the network deemed too intolerant to be tolerated.  I’ll admit, I don’t watch the show (I watch hardly any TV), but from what I’ve heard, Duck Dynasty appears to be a decent and wholesome show which has made millions of fans “happy, happy, happy.”

The show’s wild popularity actually gave me a glimmer of hope for this country, especially as the Robertson clan seem to be a compendium of everything the forces of political correctness would have us despise and hate: white Southern rednecks, gun-owners and enthusiastic killers of innocent birds, successful businessmen in the “capitalist” system, and (worst of all!) devout born-again Christians.

Given that Mr. Robertson has made no secret of his Christian Faith, his beliefs regarding the immorality of homosexuality should hardly come as a shock.  What he stated was essentially the same as what the Church teaches on this matter:  that homosexual activity – along with other sins such as adultery and drunkenness – is sinful and wrong, citing Corinthians.  Yeah, he made an indelicate remark about vaginas being preferable to anuses, but since when were liberals prudes?

He didn’t say anything actually hateful, or make any call for violence, but said, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus — whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?

Maybe not quite as elegantly worded as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but still a sound summation of basic Christian moral theology – and no more hateful of homosexual persons than it is of folks with a fondness for the sauce.

As far as I’m aware, no drunks have yet expressed outrage over the Duck Commander’s shocking anti-drunkard bigotry.

The problem is, apparently for A&E, simply personally holding Christian moral beliefs found in the Bible is reason enough for punishment.  (The remarks in question were not even made on the show, or in connection with it.)

Of course, as a private company, A&E is free to decide who will and won’t be on its programs, and I’m sure Phil will probably be able to get along okay without A&E or Duck Dynasty.  (And if A&E wants to lose its main cash cow for the sake of political correctness,  surely someone else will be willing to buy – that is, if they’re not all complete slaves to pc idiocy.)

But the central issues here are much bigger than A&E and Duck Dynasty, and reflect a truly troubling trend in our country.  Our supposedly tolerant “liberal” society is becoming increasingly intolerant of any views contrary to its dominant ideology.  People have lost their jobs for blogging on their own time with the view that homosexuality is sinful.  A few months ago Fox Sports fired football analyst Craig James for opposing “gay marriage” (again, while off the job).

Progressives who preach ad nauseum about “tolerance” and “diversity” in fact support neither.

All opinions and beliefs are tolerated – so long as they agree with the cultural left ideology.  No dissent will be tolerated.

As usual, the left’s hypocrisy here is staggering.  I’d bet the bank that if, instead of being Christian, Mr. Robertson adhered to a more politically correct religion such as Islam, and had been fired for citing unpopular teachings from the Qur’an, the same bleeding hearts calling for his blood would instead be rushing to defend his civil liberties against the Islamophobic bigots.

When liberal celebs and media personalities make truly hateful remarks against Christians or conservatives, their jobs are never in danger, and it’s typically smiled on as edgy and cool, if not “daring.”  If Christians complain, they’re told to quit whining and grow a thicker skin.

Hell, even anti-gay slurs can be tolerated, so long as the person making them is sufficiently liberal (such as Alec Baldwin).

Sixty years later, liberals continue to remind us of the horrors of Hollywood blacklisting during the “Red scare” of the ‘50s.  But it’s all cool now that Christians rather than Commies are blacklisted.

Demanding, as many on the left now do, that opposing views be censored and suppressed (as one “liberal” commenter said, “bigoted religion has no place in modern America”) is in fact contrary to the most fundamental principles of a free and liberal (in the true sense of the word) society.

Sadly it appears that for the most part only conservatives and Christians who agree with Robertson’s comments are defending him against A&E.  I’ve seen almost no statements along the lines of “I’m a liberal and don’t like what Phil said, but A&E was wrong to punish him for his religious beliefs.”

Fortunately, the backlash against A&E appears strong and healthy (as was the backlash against the homo Chick-fil-A boycott), and hopefully will help draw attention to the issue of true freedom of practice of religion for all Americans.

Stand with Phil and boycott A&E!  (And don’t forget to keep eating mor chiken!)

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

JFK and other Right-wing Extremists

The reason the government is in deficit is because you have more than 4 million people unemployed, and because the last 5 years you have had rather a sluggish growth, much slower than any other Western country. I am in favor of a tax cut because I am concerned that if we don’t get the tax cut that we are going to have an increase in unemployment and that we may move into a period of economic downturn. . . .  I think this tax cut can give the stimulus to our economy over the next 2 or 3 years. I think it will provide for greater national wealth. I think it will reduce unemployment. I think it will strengthen our gold position. So I think that the proposal we made is responsible and in the best interests of the country.

Obviously, I’m quoting some unhinged right wing-nut here.  You know, some poor  idiot who actually believes in that supply-side voodoo economics nonsense that almost destroyed our country back in the Dark Ages of the Reagan years.

After all, everyone knows that, rather than being created by the hard work and ingenuity of people in the private sector, the wealth of our country is created by being shat out the backsides of our all-wise and benevolent politicians, to be justly spread around by federal government bureaucrats.

Well, actually that quote was from liberal icon President John F. Kennedy, in an interview in 1963, just months before he was shot dead by the Communist-supporter Lee Harvey Oswald, fifty years before Friday.  (Thanks, Neil Cavuto, for source.)

(No, I don’t buy the conspiracy theories, which stem in part, I believe, from an inability of many liberals to accept that a leftist was actually responsible for that vile deed.)

I’m quoting JFK here not to worship or canonize the man.  (Unfortunately, one of President Kennedy’s most enduring legacies was his assurance that his Catholic Faith would have no impact on his actions in office – an attitude shared by countless American “Catholics” today.  Even among most Catholics, it seems that separation of church and state has devolved into separation of any moral principles from politics and law, a practice which has led not to freedom, but simply to immoral—and increasingly despotic—government.)

Nor am I trying to make him out to be some kind of conservative hero.  Rather, I’m using him to illustrate just how far the Democratic Party has plunged over the past fifty years.

For many years now, “liberal” Democrats routinely denounce and ridicule any call for tax-cuts, or any reduction or check on the runaway growth of the federal Leviathon.

And even the allegedly “conservative” Republican establishment is determined to squash any “extremist” trouble-makers – anyone who might actually be serious about trying to hold government to constitutional limitations.

Though I don’t follow such things closely, I’m seeing more and more in the media these days warning of the dire threat to our nation supposedly posed by the “extremists” who allegedly are taking over the GOP – and of the threat of “polarization.”  (See my earlier post, “Through Polarized Lenses.”)

“Extremist,” of course, is their preferred term for constitutional conservatives.

Such vacuous name-calling, of course, is a perfect way to avoid any kind of substantial discussion or debate on the issues.  Rather than discuss what is in fact right or wrong for our country, any dissent from the prevailing agenda of the ruling class in Washington is denounced off-hand with the label “extremism.”  Let’s not get bogged down in discussion of constitutional law or actual policies.  All you need to know is that “extremists” are bad because they’re “extreme,” and “moderates” are good, because they’re, well, “moderate.”

We no longer judge politicians or policies by any standard of right and wrong, or adherence to rule of our nation’s law (the Constitution), but instead by their alleged distance from some undefined “center.”

Personally, I think they should resurrect the old Soviet-era word, “deviationist.”  It’s at least more accurate, as what they mean by “extremists” are those who deviate from the agenda of The Party.

Of course, I personally happen to find limited government abiding by the rule of constitutional law to be quite moderate and sensible, and the unlimited power of a government unrestrained by rule of law to be “extreme” and dangerous.  But never mind me.  I’m a troglodyte nutjob extremist.

Happy Thanksgiving, y’all!

(Yeah kids, that’s “Thanks-Giving,” as in giving thanks to God.  You bleedin’ hearts can put that in your pipes and smoke it.)

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

Lies, Damned Lies, and Golden Opportunities

(Blogger’s note:  This material was originally intended for last week, but due to my schedule lately, I did not have time to finish it then.  My sincere apologies for this being overdue.)

Oh how the mighty have fallen!  The man who not so long ago was so widely hailed as our new Secular Messiah, and Savior of the World, keeps revealing himself to be more and more pathetic with every day, proving himself to be, in the words of Clint Eastwood (because, as I’ve said before, the words of Hollywood actors are of infinite importance), “the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on the American people.”

First there was his incredibly shameless, and artless, lying about his lying about Obamacare.

“Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really like that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law was passed.”

(Italics added.)  Of course, Dear Leader had never once said that last part before.   (Ha, ha!  Fooled ya suckas!”)

That one, in my humble opinion, beats out Slick Willie’s classic “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is,’ is.”

Then there was his half-assed, insincere “apology” for the debacle he had forced upon the nation, followed by his trying to wriggle out by saying insurance companies can offer their old plans (which had to be scrapped in order to comply with the new legislation) – thus, in typical Obama fashion trying to avoid responsibility for the damage, and putting the blame back on those Evil Insurance Companies.

You’d think now would be the perfect time for “conservative” Republicans to attack Obama and the Dems with all they got.  But instead, the GOP establishment (after doing virtually nothing to stop this disaster), wants to sit back and let it Obamacare “implode of its own weight.”

In the meantime, Washington and their media cronies are spending all their ammo on Ted Cruz and the Tea Party, frantically scrambling to dig up any dirt they can.  (OMG!  Cruz liked to drink in college!  And he was . . . get this!  . . . ambitious!  So unlike humble “choom room” Barry.)

We’re supposed to fear the sinister ambitions of those rare politicians who dare suggest the government actually follow constitutional limits, while at the same time putting our faith and trust in politicians (of either party) who constantly and shamelessly expand the power of unlimited, lawless government.  It’s all for our own good, of course.

 

,Now is a golden opportunity to fight for the principles of freedom and limited constitutional government, against this spectacular failure of the federal leviathan.   Men follow courage of conviction.  Nobody follows spineless compromise, or those who stand for nothing.  Yeah, it mucked up history, but “conservatives” would do well to sit down and watch Mel Gibson’s Braveheart, and ponder its lessons

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