Tuesday, May 26, 2009

How Far Have We Fallen?

Imagine the early days of the American republic, say just post-Revolutionary War. You’re among those who are charged with creating the system of government that will form the basis of law and custom for the new nation. Where do you start?

Besides a thorough review for comparative purposes of the plusses and minuses of the various types of governmental systems that had already been tried, e.g. democracy (ancient Greece), emperor worship (Rome), monarchy (medieval England), anarchy followed by autocracy (French Revolution), and theocracy (pick your Muslim nation), it seems reasonable that you’d list the values that are meaningful to you and your fellows. That would enable you to design a system of government which enables those values to flourish.

What are the values that were important to the early Americans? Here are a few:
1. Freedom to practice one’s religion without interference, and freedom from having a “state” religion imposed upon you.
2. Freedom of speech, providing you don’t cause material harm to others through libel or slander.
3. Freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.
4. Freedom of the press.
5. The right to acquire and hold private property.
6. The right to bear arms to protect you, your family, and your property.
7. The right to pursue your own choice of economic gain, provided it doesn’t cause unfair harm to others.
8. An expectation that your government will protect the sovereignty of your nation, which includes defending its borders and its dignity.
9. An expectation that those whom you elect to govern you will adhere to the tenets and limitations of the governing documents which form the law of the land.
10. An expectation that your children will be kept reasonably safe from predators.

Are those values still relevant?

I suggest that they are for about two-thirds of the country and are definitely not for the remaining third.

For example, take freedom of religion. Our elected-by-the-sheeple leader, who calls himself a Christian for public consumption and then acts in a completely opposite manner much of the time, has stated that America is not a Christian nation, that we are a melting pot of religions. Yet this statement is denied by 62% (Barna poll, March 2009) of the American population, who claim to be Christians. Moreover, Obama says he will sign a bill which has passed the House and is pending in the Senate that denies the right of Christians and Jews (and presumably Muslims) to advocate against homosexuality for moral reasons. Calling such language “hate speech,” the bill would impose penalties up to and including prison time for pastors who preach Deuteronomy and the Book of Romans from the pulpit. A 24-year veteran teacher in Mount Vernon, Ohio was fired for having a Bible on his desk (AFA Journal, June ’09, page 6). The religion of the Bible and the Torah is not tolerated in any public arena in modern America. So much for “freedom of religion.”

Freedom of speech is similarly under fire. Talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative, has been shown by the use of PPM’s (portable people meters, which scientifically and unerringly measure the radio stations and time listening to each station among volunteers who wear the devices) to be far more popular than the Obama administration likes. Therefore he has directed his Federal Communications Commission to sue Arbitron, the company which measures radio usage. The old “kill the messenger” mentality is alive and well among Marxist liberals. Furthermore, talk radio, which embarrasses liberals by telling the truth, is the subject of an intense witchhunt by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They want to kill talk radio by requiring “equal time” for liberal views to be presented. That’s like telling Macy’s that they have to dedicate half their floor space to Muslim burquas and veils. Just as America has only about 1% Muslims and Macy’s would soon go out of business with such a ridiculous offering, very few people listen to the blather that liberals spew over their (largely failed) radio waves. Talk radio would quickly become unprofitable and cease to exist if forced to broadcast Marxist political theory.

The right to life is….well, it has simply disappeared. Any mother can legally murder her pre-born child. In several states, a doctor can take the life of an elderly or infirm person. There is so little understanding of Who we are insulting here. Most Americans consider the idea that God creates each child in His image and likeness to be so much laughable biblical nonsense. Our society casts nearly four thousand of its most vulnerable citizens into the fires of Mollech every single day. How can we even use the word “moral” with a straight face any more?

Freedom of the press has become a laughingstock. Few print media are conservative (“Human Events” being an exception); most are screamingly liberal. Television is much the same, with only Fox News seriously claiming any degree of objectivity. Proof is Obama’s recent statement on the Tonight Show that his bowling prowess was “like the Special Olympics.” The reaction of the media to this incredibly crass, tasteless, and insulting gaffe? Dead silence. (You don’t call the Messiah to account, don’t you know!) Imagine if George Bush had made such a statement! Pelosi and Reed would have commissioned a special Congressional counsel to consider impeachment, and the media would have bemoaned the incident over and over for months, like a cow chewing her cud. A conservative cannot obtain a teaching position in most American colleges and universities because the “tolerance” crowd (which is hugely intolerant of any opinion that doesn’t conform with their own) doesn’t allow such heresy an audience.

The right to acquire and hold private property is now in serious jeopardy. The Supreme Court (Kelo vs. City of New London, CT, 2005) ruled by a 5-4 majority (all four conservative judges vigorously objecting) that government has the right to seize your property for uses it considers more appropriate. Liberals, who consider themselves just so much smarter and more sophisticated than the unwashed masses whom they govern, will likely employ this legal precedent aggressively in the future.

Microsoft is an example of the death of the right to pursue your choice of economic gain. Liberals don’t like corporate monopolies, so they determine reasons to find them guilty of some crime or another. Yo, liberals! This is America, land of the bright, talented, self-interested entrepreneur who can knock Microsoft off its rear just as Bill Gates wiped out his competitors years ago. Leave corporate America alone! The market always self-corrects if liberals will keep their foolish hands off it.

Value number eight is protection of America’s sovereignty. Obama has shamelessly groveled before foreign tinpots, apologizing for America’s “mistakes.” He and the previous President, George Bush, largely abandoned their responsibility to secure our borders. Both Bush and Obama are in favor of subjecting American law and sovereignty to an international body governing all nations. This is leadership? This is responsibility? Liberals think it is. The Founding Fathers would have such men shot and then hanged in the public square.

Value number nine is an expectation that the documents that form the government will be respected. Liberals see the Constitution as “evolving” and “dynamic,” meaning that it has no meaning. They appoint judges who are not subject to the will or election of the people and who presume to impose their private opinions upon the nation without respect to law. The Founding Fathers never intended for the third branch of government to make law. That concept is complete anathema to the principle of the separation and balance of powers.

Finally, as to value number ten, all that needs to be said is that the pending “hate speech” bill gives special protection to predophiles, those who would grab your child off the street and steal his or her virginity through a savage sex act. Yes, that act will still be illegal, but the official sanctioning of it will be enshrined in the law of the land.

What nation can survive such degradation? How far have we fallen from the noble, shining ideals of the founders? I shudder to think of how our Lord currently views this nation He so abundantly blessed at its founding.

Friday, May 15, 2009

A Bumbling, Clueless Amateur

When the wild-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth, mesmerized sheeple stared with tingling love at the self-styled (and media-annointed) 'Messiah' this past summer, cooing "Obaaaaahhhma! Obaaaaaahhma!", did they realize how devoid of anything resembling real-world experience this guy really is? Did they have a clue that he would not appoint to his cabinet even one person who had ever had a real job or met a payroll? Did they even consider that high-sounding rhetoric is no substitute for actual knowledge?

Apparently not.

But Obama has not disappointed, I'll give him that. He told us he would govern as a socialist and he has proceeded at breakneck speed to do just that. Besides apologizing to the world for our capitalistic economic system, which has made the USA the envy of the world, and groveling to every puffed-up, tinpot piece of dictatorial garbage out there, Messiah slammed through bailout after bailout after bailout. His proposed budget is four times any previous administration's. Obama's stated reason for this tsunami of taxpayer-funded spending was clear: "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle (of failing businesses)." Barak uttered this infamous quote not long into his administration, thus signaling that he would soon be taking ownership and control of the banking industry and the auto industry.

Never mind that the present economic crisis was caused by the Clinton administration insisting that banks lend mortgage money to no-hopers who would never have a hope of paying it back. That little fact is way too embarrassing to remember, so we'll just spin it away, okay? (Go away, little fact! Take your ugly face to outer space, never to be mentioned again!)

But gee, sheeple! There seems to be a problem in Obama nirvana. It's now quite inescapable, despite the media's swooning love affair with His Shining Brightness. Your guy doesn't know everything after all! I know, I know, that's just some right-wing extremist talking, and what do we know anyway, we who insist upon dealing in facts. Well, consider this quote from Lord Obama the Merciful himself, delivered just today. According to Bloomberg News Service, His Amazingness revealed the following nugget of raw truth:

"President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending 'unsustainable,' warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries. 'We can’t keep on just borrowing from China,' Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. 'We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children’s future with more and more debt.'

What incredible insight, Your Stupendousness! Of course, Rush and Sean and Laura and Bill and Glenn have been saying that EVERY DAY since your inauguration! But the sheeple will allow you to claim it as your own, so go ahead. Copyright it.

So now the sheeple have something new to consider. Obamamaniacs, here's a question for you to mull over: how will His Incredible Insightfulness blame all this profligate spending, which threatens your children and grandchildren to certain poverty, on the Bush administration? Think hard, children. You can spin this one if you really try.

My friends, I'll make a prediction, and you heard it here first: within a year, you'll see far less Obama bumper stickers than you see now. In their place will be faded paint and scratch marks. Hint: don't ask the car owner where the bumper sticker went. You might encounter a rather sullen and angry response.

Monday, May 11, 2009

These Democrats are Truly Evil

Suppose you were a Democrat politician (I know, I know, you’d rather be a spotted toad, but just pretend for a minute, okay?) who was attempting to determine which special interest groups you’d like to protect with ‘hate crimes’ legislation. Whom would you choose?

The fact that ‘hate crime’ is a nonsense term is beside the point. Any crime is by definition not within the allowable bounds of behavior and is therefore punishable. Hate crimes are really ‘thought crimes,’ in that when one smacks a member of a class protected by special legislation, he or she is thought to be loathing the victim and is therefore liable for more punishment than if the victim is not so favored. One simply does not assault the dignity of a protected species, don’t you know. Either way, the bruise is the same. Only in one case is the insult counted.

So you list the classes of people you want to favor with your pandering legislation. Let’s see…okay, racial groups would be reasonable. According to the hate crimes notion, it’s a bad thing to be racially prejudiced when you beat up a black or Latino or Asian person. Better that you should respect him as an individual while you pound him into pulp. So, yes, racial groups make the list.

How about handicapped persons? To assault a mentally challenged person simply because he doesn’t quite get it when you ridicule him is reprehensible, but are you necessarily ‘hating’ him at the time? Or are you just a bottom-dwelling slimebag? Anyway, handicaps make the list.

Now…hmmm. Okay, sexual orientation. Let’s consider that. Smacking a homosexual simply because he’s chosen that lifestyle is unacceptable; everyone agrees with that. But is it necessarily ‘hate’ that motivates a redneck who pops a homo in the face? Or, again, is the perpetrator just a jerk who would cheerfully smack an elderly woman for her wallet, all the while not ‘hating’ her at all? But never mind. Homosexuals get the special protection.

Ethnicity. Country of origin. Yes, that’s a good one. Whacking a Pakistani is just so darned hateful, don’t you know. (Or is it just because you’re a slime…Never mind.) So ethnicity makes the list.

Religion is a good one. Never smack a Mormon or a Hindu or a Zoroastrian. You could likely get away with slapping a Christian because they’re so pushy with their evangelism and all and therefore deserve a good licking. So, yes, religion makes the list.

Oh, of course! Women! Can’t be hating women when we paste them in the nose, now, can we? Okay, women get the special designation.

Gee, when one reviews the list, it appears that only straight white males can be beaten without the added penalty of ‘hate.’ How did that happen? (Oh, yeah, they’re not a special interest group that can be pandered to for votes. But we won’t let that little cat out of the bag, will we?)

Oh, wait. Oh, my, my! We forgot a group. How could one forget….

My friends, I kid you not. Pedophiles !! Men (and rarely, women) who are so twisted and sick and selfish that they will attempt to have sex in one manner or another with children!

The Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives recently ensured that a Hate Crimes bill passed by a vote of 249-175 even knowing that all 547 identified forms of sexual deviancy would be designated as a special class deemed “hateable.” Democrat Alcee Hastings, a former federal district judge who was impeached, thrown out of office, and then elected against a white challenger in an overwhelmingly black district of Florida, stated on the House floor that this bill will “guarantee that all Americans, regardless of (see above categories) and all ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ need not live in fear because of who they are.”

Did you get that? If the bill passes the Senate, which Ted Kennedy has vowed that it will, and is signed into law by Obama, here’s what could happen: you’re a mother who witnesses a grown man exposing himself to your seven-year-old daughter. You storm up and smack the disgusting vermin across the face with your purse and grab up your daughter to protect her from this sociopathic degenerate. The police capture him, and yes, he is charged…with a misdemeanor. Meanwhile, you are charged with a felony for violating a federal hate crime!

The Dems needn’t have protected pedophiles with this odious piece of compost. But they certainly did. They knew full well what they were doing. Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment stating “The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia.” It was voted down along strict party lines. Every Democrat in the House voted against it.

What could possibly motivate a person to vote for such a sickening bill? I can only guess. It must be one of two reasons, or perhaps both:

a. The Democrats are so in debt to the sexual deviancy crowd, including homosexuals, transsexuals, pedophiles, animal bondage fetishists, and cross-dressers, that they simply vote in lockstep whenever legislation favoring these groups appears.

b. The Democrats are evil. Truly, truly sick and evil.

Nothing else can account for their behavior.

Please bear this in mind the next time you hear of a child being raped.