Marshall Art's

It's So Hard To Be Humble...

2012-02-12T23:04:00.001-06:00

...when I'm perfect in every way.

I like to show off. I like to take the risk of failing to complete the tricky play, to make the instantaneous grab of hot shot screaming between 2nd and 3rd, to carry a difficult split when the money's on the table. I like to sing lead and be the guy in the middle of the stage. I like to wear the nice threads while walking with my beautiful wife. And you know why? Because it's damn funny.

Yeah. Funny. It cracks me up to pretend that I am that pro-athlete doing what so many pro-athletes do routinely as if so many others aren't equally capable, if not more so. It's funny to think that I have just made someone look stupid by doing what he obviously thought I was not able to do, and what even I wasn't sure I could do. Loads of fun. Showing off is a gas.

Does this imply incredible pride and conceit to you? Does this smack of some vile lack of humility? Who cares? All those grand stages of pick-up sports and bar bands are so incredibly insignificant diversions. Part of the fun is the IN YOUR FACE/DIG ME aspect of doing it.

But guess what. I have fun when I fail to impress. Just participating is what it's all about for me. I've sung where it seemed absolutely no one in the crowd gave a flyin' rat's ass that there was a live band even present. But I still got to sing. I've played a variety of sports where I've not made the big play, not logged that turkey in the final frame to win the game, and even taken shots from a fighter who was clearly superior and making ME look stupid. I've enjoyed every minute. It's just a gas.

That's been the bottom line. Just having a good time regardless of the outcome and being prepared to be shown up.

I was on a bowling team one year that was amongst my most enjoyable years bowling. Everyone on the team was capable of doing damage and we competed more against each other than we did as a team against others. We didn't even think of the other team as our money was wagered against each other and it was the most fun taking each others' money over taking the money in the league pots (though that was indeed a serious goal). And when you took the other dude's money, you mocked him mercilessly. We had a blast and if we didn't win it all that year (I don't think we did), we were definitely in contention.

Humble wasn't a factor. Didn't need to be. Our averages were posted and it was clear who the best was.

Humble. Humility.

The subject of humility comes up a lot around here and was the subject of a blog post not too long ago. It is apparently considered by some to be lacking in humility to be confident in what one knows about Scripture. The line is that we are fallible and capable of being wrong on anything. While this is true, we being imperfect beings and all, it simply does not mean that we can't be totally right on specific things, especially if those things are directly revealed.

"Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Pretty clear that. Can I not be confident and convicted in the knowledge that adultery is always sinful and not to be practiced? Is there any way in which I might be understanding this commandment improperly? I can't think of any, can you? So, knowing what the term "adultery" means, and knowing that it is clearly prohibited, am I acting in a manner lacking in humility to insist the behavior is sinful? Am I speaking for God?

Well, as a bit of a sidebar, any expression of what Scripture teaches us to another is to be speaking for God. So what? It is suggested by some (or one in particular) that to insist that one is confident in what Scripture teaches is to somehow speak as if one IS God, or equal to Him to the extent that one's "understanding" is equal to His Will. Again. So what? Are we not supposed to reflect His Teachings and His Will in the manner in which we live our lives?

The pitch is that what one person believes to be the Will of God might be different than the understanding of another person. Still once more, so what? This only means that one of the two is wrong or at least that one of the two is further from the truth than the other. But if both believe and are convicted in his belief, is it prideful to state the case as such? Does one lack humility in preaching what one believes to be the truth?

No. Not that I don't think so, but that my answer is "NO" in no uncertain terms. Stating that 2+2=4 and refusing to accept any alternative possibility is NOT a sign that one lacks humility. To state at the same time that the other guy who believes it isn't always the case is more than just wrong is also not a sign that one lacks humility. What it does show is two possibilities:

1. The one stating the fact cares enough about the wrong person to encourage a change of opinion.

2. The one stating the fact cares enough about anyone in the sphere of the wrong person's influence to continue to speak out against the fallacy the wrong person insists on preaching.

(There's also a third, that the one stating the fact thinks the other guy is a complete idiot or liar or both.)

Neither (and even the third) indicate a lack of humility on the part of the person defending the fact. Not in the least.

Indeed, to submit to God's authority and His mandates as clearly revealed in Scripture is a sign of humility of the type Jesus modeled for us. He was totally subservient to His Will. He was not acting pridefully when He cast out the money changers. He was not acting pridefully when he accused the Pharisees of being hypocrites and vipers. He was not being false or prideful when He taught that we be humble, like He is. In that sense, defending God's Will is not lacking in humility at all, but being humble in the manner that Jesus modeled in that we are exposing ourselves to heat from those who disagree with us for His sake. Our "suffering" at taking that heat is to put God before our own comfort.

"Agree to disagree" is not humility. It is milquetoast. I do not dismiss the possibility that I might have some notions of Biblical understanding wrong. Of course I can be wrong. But only when I am so proven to be. To "agree to disagree" gives tacit permission for the other person to carry on as if that person was not wrong. Why would any sane person agree to that? "Oh yeah. Let's agree to disagree. You go ahead and believe setting yourself on fire won't hurt." Am I serving that person to agree to allow such a destructive belief to go unchallenged? Is that humility, or cowardice?

Another person in the same discussion brought up this weird crap about learning new things that open him up to a better understanding of God. This after a post that mentions 1 Cor 13:12, as if a perfect understanding of God Himself is the point. I am already quite humble before the Lord. I could not be more unworthy of His Love. How much more need I know to make this more true? How much would it make a difference to know exactly how unworthy I am? He is Everything. I am nothing. There's not a whole lot more one needs to know.

Yet though His exact nature is unknowable to a living person, though His exact ways and thoughts are beyond us, He did not leave us with no clear understanding of how we are to live on this earth. He did not leave us without any "clues" as to what constitutes righteous behavior and what is sinful. What we need to know is crystal.

In that discussion, to get to a more clear explanation of a convoluted point being made, I offered this: "I saw a chair today and realized how little I understand God." It was an attempt to get this dude to explain his earlier comments that were no clearer than this. He went on to talk about how just seeing the chair from one angle doesn't tell us all we can know about the chair. Seeing it from the other side tells us something different, but then we cannot see the first view anymore, and, we cannot tell how comfortable it might be or if it can support our weight. He is humbled by such lack of knowledge apparently. I would simply sit in the damned chair. Even without doing so, I still know that it is indeed a chair and it is made for sitting.

In any case, that part of the discussion did not provide anything useful except to allow him to wax poetic (he hates when I say this) about that which did not enlighten in the least. I sought the connection between his "examples" and how they humble him more than merely acknowledging the vast chasm between who we are and who He is. But it has something very much in common with the poster and his thoughts on "humility". Both serve to dismiss what is clearly revealed for whatever reasons they wish to preserve and before which they insist on humbling themselves.

FYI

2012-01-27T09:55:00.000-06:00

Just a note about the comments not viewable. I don't know why that is exactly, but if you click on the post title, it will enable you to select "newer/newest" comments, though once in the comments section, the same problem happens. I was in the back office and probably clicked on something when going back to comment moderation. OR, Blogger is just lame.

Agenda Lies Update

2012-01-22T02:36:00.000-06:00

The title of this post refer to the original, introductory Agenda Lies post, wherein I discussed the lie that there is no homosexual agenda. It seems that when I decide to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for awhile, something comes up that trumps that decision.

In this case, an email newsletter from Illinois Family Institute led to this site, and I just had to post on it. I'd like you, gentle reader, to note two things: first, look at the sub-title of the site. It appears that the homos that run this site are not aware that there is no homosexual agenda. They didn't get the memo from HomoCentral that no homosexual is to mention an agenda of any kind.

But it gets worse! The second thing of note is the text of the linked piece itself. Apparently these guys don't realize they are not supposed to actually say that they want to indoctrinate kids! What could they have possibly been doing to miss the edict against expressing this publicly? And check this out:

"Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school."

This quote is important because I've often been told by enablers who visit here that our (that is, those of us who support REAL marriage and Scriptural notions of human sexuality) days are numbered and soon all the world will embrace the notion of homosexuality as normal and healthy as normal and healthy heterosexuality. They say the the world is changing and seeing things their way. But the quote demonstrates what my response has always been to such a claim, that any trend in favor of their depravity is the natural result of good men doing nothing. Each generation becomes more and more immoral because of the actions of the immoral among us now, and the lack of virtuous people standing against the agenda for immorality.

Is this site indicative of the general homosexual population? I have no idea. But I would wager it is so. One thing is certain: an agenda exists and always has existed. The site to which I've linked is only one piece of evidence, but it does show that which is not the least bit surprising.

I had been working on a different Agenda Lies piece, but I'm going to let it lie for now. I don't really want my blog to be totally focused on homosexual lies, but sometimes they just crop up and need to be addressed by someone. However, this blog will always tell the truth to counter those lies and stands ready to do so at the drop of a hat.

Agenda Lies 4: "Uglyass"

2012-01-08T03:08:00.002-06:00

The title refers to a comment made at another blog when a parallel was suggested by a commenter between homosexuals and the incestuous. Note that I used the term "parallel" rather than "comparison". This is very important considering the sensitive nature of the homosexual activists and their enablers. You see, any "comparison" between homosexuals and anything not sweetness and light is derided as hateful and bigoted. Laurie Higgins, with Illinois Family Institute, notes this in a recent piece speaking on the heat Cardinal Francis George received by daring to suggest similarities between the "gay liberation" movement and the KKK. Oh, the horror. At the end of her column, she concludes in this manner:

"The reality is any comparison of homosexuality to any behavior of which society still has permission to disapprove will generate bilious howls of outrage and nastiness from homosexual activists. The closest analogue to homosexuality is not race or skin color. The closest analogue is polyamory or adult consensual incest. Try using those, especially the latter, and witness the torrent of non-rational, ad hominem-infused, fire-breathing that ensues from homosexual activists."

And we who visited Dan's blog recently had another taste of this very tactic. It is from there the "uglyass" comment came.

I say all this to set up this installment of Agenda Lies. The lie is that there is something vastly different between the argument for same-sex unions and the argument for adult consentual incestuous unions. The lie is that one is perfectly fine and the other a manifestation of some mental disorder. One healthy, the other not.

Of course, all Dan does is to assume the best of his favored class and compares it to the worst of that which he does not favor. He assumes that because he claims most incestuous affairs are oppressive, usually rapes I guess, that to imagine a person having a committed, loving and monogamous relationship with a sibling or parent is not possible. Or that it is mentally disordered. Funny. There's far more "disordered" about sexual attraction between two of the same gender than a male and female of the same family as far as I'm concerned.

And as far as I'm concerned, incest is just wrong. Sure, most people would be turned off by the thought of hooking up with a parent or sibling. But that's a cultural thing, and one that is from the same source as the cultural revulsion toward homosexual behavior: Scripture.

Yes, I know. Biologically bad things can happen should a dude hook up with his mother, daughter or sister. But that's only a risk if both carry similar defective traits, like hereditary things. If all parties are perfectly healthy, the child that might result from their union won't automatically suffer from defects.

However, as I recall, having children isn't necessarily the point of marriage, if the new age secular bozos are to be believed. So assume children aren't in the cards. One or both parties has strategic snips made by medical professionals and that issue is now in the "non" category.

The attraction itself can't be "weird". What is more weird than one dude pining after another dude? But one dude hot for his hot sister is weird? Imagine a 16 yr old Angelina Voight giving up her baby boy for adoption, never to again have contact with him. Then, in 2012, a 20 yr old young man has a nasty crush on Angelina Jolie. The fact that he is her son (without knowing it) would not likely play any part in his attraction, nor would it hinder his crush. And considering just how hot she is, had she not given up the kid at all, but raised him herself, what makes anyone think he would not appreciate her hotness just because he's her son? Enough to "want" her? Who knows? But what if he did and she reciprocated? They are both adults. Who's to say that they should be denied simply because of their biological relationship? On what basis?

Sure, people don't generally think of their family members as good looking (not counting parental bias), and generally come to agree, if that is the case, begrudgingly at first. But if it is plain to one person that his/her sibling or parent is a stud/babe, are they "disordered" for admitting it? Of course not. (Only uncomfortable) Hot is hot.

But we're to take the position that such unions are wrong (and they would be), but homosexual unions are not. And we're to take the position that such unions are SO wrong, that to dare draw any parallels or comparisons to homosexual unions is itself heinous, evil, "uglyass". On what basis?

Such unions cannot be less healthy than homosexual unions. (Keep in mind that unlike Dan, I am comparing in as much a one-to-one manner as I can. All subjects are physically healthy before entering their respective unions and none are capable of producing children. This is just about "people in love".) We can pretend that all unions of either group are platonic, but then, who would we be kidding? In this day and age? No one. So we must consider how they would express their "love" for each other and that, of course, is through sexual contact. And if acting in the least risky manner possible while still engaging in sexual contact, the incestuous would not risk at all, considering their sexual equipment would be used according to the owner's manual. They would not have to use any body part in a manner against its purpose or intent in order to engage in sexual contact. The homosexual cannot say the same thing without limiting themselves severely to handshakes and tongue wrestling.

But then, it's not really a question of healthy sexual practices at all, or whether one group's desires (homosexuals) more obviously constitutes some mental disorder. It's about the definition of marriage and who qualifies. Clearly the homosexuals do not as the definition requires one man and one woman. Clearly the incestuous do not, because the definition requires one man and one woman who are not close relations. And of course, the polygamous do not because of the numbers involved. But in each of these groups are those who feel as if their desires are true, natural and deserving of the same rights and privileges the state and culture bestows upon one man and one woman. In that manner, each of the three groups are exactly identical and the distaste Dan and those like him have for the incestuous is as irrelevant as what Dan and those like him find irrelevant about the opinions of honest people who find homosexual relationships distasteful, sinful, abnormal.

And for Dan and others like him to regard the incestuous as disordered is as hateful and bigoted as he accuses honest people of being for their understanding of the abnormal attractions and sinful desires of homosexuals who insist on pursuing their agenda (that doesn't exist). There is simply no difference between the homosexual and the incestuous except for the specifics of what floats their boats. Support the demands of one, and you must support the demands of the other. And then you must support the demands of any other who insists their "love" is equally worthy. And then "marriage" will be totally meaningless.

Accomplishments?

2012-01-08T02:32:00.000-06:00

I've recently engaged in two separate discussions upon which the notion of Obama's "accomplishments" was touched. I've come across two articles that also deal with his "accomplishments". They are both from one of my liberal visitors' favorite sites, American Thinker. Let us see if they will address the points being made by either, or, in their usual dismissive and cowardly manner, pretend that AT is simply too biased to even give a cursory look. Odds favor the latter.

In the first piece, we can easily note that each statistic is a link to its source for the article. The sources (provided since the lefties likely won't take the time) are greatly varied; from CNN, LA Times, NY Times, The Heritage Foundation, and several others. No in depth analysis if given by the author, but only a comparison of before Barry took over to now, with a suggestion that further support of Obama makes no sense, which is easy to see. Of special interest is the title of the author Neil Snyder's book, which is priceless: "If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot" With a title like that, I'd buy it just to display it on my bookshelf.

An important consideration that always bears repeating, since the left insists on pretending it isn't relevant, is that one must also take into consideration the years from 2006 forward as that is when the Dems won control of Congress and had all sorts of opportunities to begin improving things. Guess who was a part of that wasted time. Barry O'Bummer!

This second article isn't just about Obama, but the Democratic party in general. Right now, Obama IS the Democratic party and is supported fairly unanimously by the Democratic boobs in Congress, even though they voted down his budget.

Anyway, though the author doesn't cite any sources or provide any links, as a CDL holder, I've heard about some of what is discussed in the article from employers and customers in the shipping industry. Plus, all mentioned is easy enough to track on line if anyone wants to dress up the moves in which Obama has played a roll.

Barely's defenders like to bring up this talk of "accomplishments". OK. He's accomplished a few things. But shouldn't "accomplishments" improve things and benefit the nation? And if any of his "accomplishments" have indeed improved things and/or benefited the nation, should there not be some evidence of these improvements and benefits?

Some will say that he needs another four years before we can see them. None of these people would have dreamed of giving a Republican another term for that purpose. In fact, they would have screamed for a replacement, and they do whenever a Republican is in office. The question is, upon what basis do we gamble? The thinnest of arguments, that things would have been worse had he not acted? I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me because there is no way to measure what might have been, especially since I don't believe it would have been worse. I counter that argument by saying that his greatest accomplishment is that things aren't worse than they are. It's not for lack of trying.

Had To Steal This!!!

2012-01-06T02:06:00.000-06:00

I stole this from a dude on my Facebook friends list. It's just too good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colonoscopies are no joke. But a physician claimed that the following are actual comments made by his patients (predominately male) while he was performing their colonoscopies:

1. Take it easy Doc. You‚re boldly going where no man has gone before.
2. Find Amelia Earhart yet?
3. Can you hear me NOW?
4. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
5. You know, in Arkansas, we're now legally married.
6. Any sign of the trapped miners, Chief?
7. You put your left hand in, you take your left hand out...
8. Hey! Now I know how a Muppet feels!
9. If your hand doesn't fit, you must quit!
10. Hey Doc, let me know if you find my dignity.
11. You used to be an executive at Enron, didn't you?
And the best one of all:
12. Could you write a note for my wife saying that my head is not up there?

Happy New Year Anway.

2012-01-01T01:51:00.000-06:00

A New Year is come and our hopes for better with it. The hope seems more desperate than usual. We have one more year of this administration and then what? No contender seems to stand out above the rest. The best from a conservative perspective are not leading the pack. And some poll numbers put one who is the worst of the bunch to appear to have a chance. Not happy with the front runners at all, but I can't see any of them being worse than the Loser-in-Chief they seek to usurp (with the possible exception of Ron Paul).

One would think it should be a slam dunk to have Obama expelled come November. So many people still out of work, with the percentages of out-of-work young and out-of-work minorities being especially high. Yet these are the people who voted for Barry in the first place. The rest of his supporters, the other fantasy-land dwellers who voted for an empty suit without any idea of who the guy was, will likely continue to support him as they believe he's actually made things better.

But hope exists because it must. To give up hope is to allow things to get worse. We can't let that happen as it is quite bad enough as it is.

So I'll continue to hope for the best. I'll continue to pray for God's influence to bring more people around.

Not much of a New Year's post. Can't help it.

2011-12-24T09:53:00.001-06:00

Merry Christmas!

This is the official Christmas post in which I send a most sincere wish for a Merry and Blessed Holiday Season to all who visit here. Remember He who was born to us this day, even if He might not really have been born on this exact date. I don't really care about that debate. I don't really care if the date was chosen to help transition pagans to Christianity. What I care about most is that...

"...I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round--apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that--as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys."

That seems to be the one truth that connects us all on this Day of Days, regardless of whether one is Christian or Jew, believer or non, and I can't help but think that might please Him. In one way or another, there is Joy to the World, the Herald Angels will sing, and Merry Gentlemen rest without dismay. Thus, I'm totally with Fred...

"...I believe it HAS done me good, and WILL do me good; and I say, God bless it!"

A Chance to Breathe

2011-12-23T02:19:00.002-06:00

I am in my second month of a new job. It has consumed my time as I often do twelve hours or more per day. This past week has slowed a bit due to the upcoming holidays, but overall I have a difficult time paying attention to what's going on in the world. More to the point, I have a difficult time getting into any one issue deeply enough to then do a post about it. That's life. I have a chance to recover from my long period of no better than part-time work in a way that my job of the previous nine months did not provide. So, it's basically work, sleep, work and then take care of personal issues on that part of the weekend through which I'm not sleeping.

Fortunately, I am now entering a four-day weekend, as this company regards Christmas Eve as a holiday also. Thus, we are given Friday off for Christmas Eve being on Saturday, and Monday off for Christmas being on Sunday. Pretty cool. Unfortunately, they also have a policy of a ninety day probationary period during which candidates for employment do not receive holiday pay. All told, I'll be out a week's pay having begun this gig on Nov. 7.

But, I'll take the time off. Always. The best part about being unemployed was the free time. I just love free time. Ever notice that with free time you can work if you want to, but if you have a job all you can do is work? Doesn't seem right.

Another downside to this gig is that I'm on a flex schedule. That's like being on call. Pretty much every day I get a call and have to be at work within two hours. The drive is forty-five minutes. I'm usually sleeping when the call comes in. Because the start time changes, I have no regular sleep pattern developing. I sometimes wake up in four or five hours for no apparent reason and will feel relatively rested. Then, if it seems like it's too early, I'll go back to sleep and when I get up to go to work, feel tired all day long. It's exhausting. And when you're pulling doubles 117 miles at five in the bloody AM, you don't want to be nodding.

Anyways, I've got this four day weekend, and then I'll work four shortened days and have a three day weekend and the work will supposedly be kinda slow for about a month or so. Yet, I'll be making more than my previous job paid. I'm not sure if I want to stay with this company for long. I may have no choice in the matter, but I'm still quite open to other opportunities, should they arise. In the meantime, I'm finally making average dough again, and the hours I'm getting mean I'm bringing home more than I've brought home before. So I've got that going for me.

But for now I have the holiday break and hope I can enjoy them AND recharge as well. Posting might still be lean (though I visit other blogs---it's easier right now), but I've got an idea for posts that will carry me, so stay tuned.

2011-11-25T22:40:00.000-06:00

The following was intended as an addendum to the last comment (comment 115 at this writing) of the previous blog post. I feel it is better as a post of its own in order to set a guideline for future posts that focus on really any issue, but specifically on the issue discussed in that previous thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more thing: It seems to me that in a discussion such as this, where the subject is whether or not a particular behavior is truly sinful or not, it is rather presumptuous to insist that one side adhere to the etiquette policies implemented by the other while the issue of sinfulness is yet unresolved between the two sides.

By that I mean that the two sides continue to hold opposing points of view. My position is that homosexual behavior, regardless of the context in which it takes place, is always sinful and forbidden by God, not to mention deviant and abnormal behavior regardless of God's existence. This is a fact and one that is easily established and confirmed by an honest and objective review of all available data.

Those who believe otherwise demand that those like myself adhere to their rules of engagement in discussing the subject, as well as in planning legislation that affects all. Simply on their insistence, we are to regard those who engage in this behavior in a particular manner that is sacrosanct, such as which words we use in reference to them. This is childishly selfish and a true example of one side forcing their morality on the other. It assumes that their position is correct and that mine is not, so therefor, I must act and speak in a manner that meets with their approval, "tolerance" being a one-way street, the direction of which is dictated by them. I must use their definitions, I must abide their standards of morality, I must consider their sensitivities without any reciprocal regard whatsoever.

Note that nowhere in any of my posts or comments do I say anything derogatory about homosexuals in general, much less any specific individuals unless, again, one takes the attitude of those described above, that any opposing viewpoint is by definition derogatory and hateful, ugly bias.

So, henceforth, rather than waste time chastising me for that which is not the least bit criminal, and worse, for shamefully trying to shame others into compliance on such a shameful proposition, I would encourage such people as Dan to take their false piety, hypocritical sense of graciousness and weak and unsupportable interpretations of Scripture elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem debating any issue. I have no problem with anyone putting forth an opinion. I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me at any time. What I do have a problem with is anyone seeking to dictate terms of engagement here as if theirs is the last word on manners and etiquette. Am I to adjust for every visitor to this blog? Assuming it's even possible, it ain't gonna happen. Indeed, it doesn't happen by those who so insist I do.

Taking the Baton---Kinda

2011-11-17T04:53:00.000-06:00

I involved myself in a couple of discussions over at Stan's blog (Winging It) and came up again against Dan, who doesn't always get his comment published over there. In two different posts, I posted a comment that drew a response from Dan. Not believing it certain that Stan would publish Dan's responses, Dan decided to post them on the previous post at this blog. Since I've activated comment moderation, they've been staged until now.

What I've decided to do, since there are now two, is to post Dan's comments in the comments section under this post. To get the full effect of the conversation that led to these comments, interested readers can find the earlier of the two here. I will handle this one first. Then, the second one comes from here, and you'll find Dan's comment will suggest he's got his undies in a bunch. Reading the links will help understand if the comments don't make sense by themselves. Plus, Stan's perspectives are worth a read anyway. In any case, enjoy.

My Veteran's Day Post

2011-11-11T23:00:00.001-06:00

While there are still a couple of hours left of Veteran's Day, I've decided to write something. So here it is.

I wasn't going to write anything. It's not that I don't share the general sentiment most rational people hold regarding thankfulness for the risks taken and sacrifices made by those of our fellow citizens who serve in the military. Of course I do. But somehow a blog post seems cheap.

This is not to say that I have any issues with others who post something to honor soldiers, sailors and pilots. I've read, over the years, many fine tributes that humble. But nothing humbles more than the military man himself, merely by his presence, for his presence represents so much.

Part of what such people represent is the fact that I never served. It is among the few true regrets I have thus far in my life. Now at an age when I don't believe I could even get a waiver, nor pass a physical in a manner that meets their standards (at least I hope those standards are still that high), I have an appreciation for what serving and having served represents.

I shouldn't say I never appreciated those things. Indeed, I always had respect for the military. When I was in high school, Viet Nam was still a major concern for teens approaching draft age. Personally, I was not down with all the facts of the war being far too busy getting faced and enjoying the residual vibes of the Woodstock generation. I didn't understand what was going on, and though I was not among those worms that "loathed" the military or thought your average Marine was a savage scumbag awaiting his own My Lai opportunity, I was impacted by the distorted tales of Viet Nam and the conflict there and, in particular, what it meant for the average draftee. Too many uncertainties made it clear that I hadn't enough info to simply await my number being called as if was today's Lotto.

As it turned out, the year I came of age was the year the draft ended. I was spared the anxiety of learning that Uncle Sam wanted me. Within the next couple of years, one friend joined the Navy and another the Air Force. I was still engaged in the serious business of good times and personal pleasure and could not see the upside of enlisting. Strangely, I actually had a problem with the idea of doing so for personal gain. It somehow seemed wrong to enlist without serving my country as the main reason. And since we were no longer fighting in View Nam at this point, I didn't feel I'd be really serving anyway, just playing soldier. I wasn't really a big picture guy back then.

Now, and ever since 9/11 specifically, I feel I have very little right to make any kind of public showing of "SALUTING OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN THE MILITARY!!!!!!" I don't feel worthy. This feeling hit home a year ago and returned again this morning when I read the paper. There on the front page was a story of a girl from my church who lost her young husband in Afghanistan. It happened on 11/10/10 and I remembered going to the funeral. More than ever I felt that I had no right to bitch and moan. This kid gave his life. What have I done that measures up to that?

Yeah. I'm grateful. Absolutely. And definitely humbled and not a little bit ashamed for letting others do what I should have done, and certainly could have done, even though there was no fighting going on at the time. Sure, it's easy to say now, and I don't much care who does or does not find my words credible. But it's how I feel. I owe. Who doesn't?

Had To Do It

2011-11-03T15:25:00.002-05:00

I regret to inform all of you that I have activated comment moderation here at Marshall Art's. I fought the urge to do so for as long as I could, feeling that it was a bit of drag to post a comment and not see it published immediately. At least it is for me.

I'm sure you can all guess the reason, who it was that provoked this move. Yes. It was the sorry little troll-boy, Parklife, who has visited with the single purpose of exposing himself for the jackass he apparently is. His comments, for lack of a better word, have continued to be no more than a collection of baseless accusations, unsubstantiated opinions and horribly unfunny attempts at cleverness.

It was so sad to see and the worst part of it was his unjustified belief that he was somehow making any kind of point, together with how self-satisfied he seemed to be with making a fool of himself. This clinical idiot never gets the reality of his impotence, and his lame shots have all the impact of a bad smell, like a fading fart that lingers in a closed room. There's nothing really there, but that smell annoys.

His last published example of stupidity afforded me the opportunity to truly describe to him his vast shortcomings, which should give any person of average intelligence some guidance in what constitutes a comment of substance. I've no doubt my efforts were wasted, as I've offered this advice many times in the past. He is devoid of clues.

He submitted two attempts since I've activated comment moderation. Naturally, I've deleted them and he won't again have the satisfaction of having his drivel show up for even the brief time it has taken me to notice and then delete them. I have the feeling that he may never make another attempt as a result. Thus, moderation is unnecessary, but of course, deactivating it will likely draw him to comment again and back and forth I would go. Not going to happen.

What will happen however, though I'm certain he will not take full advantage of it, is that I will continue to welcome an actual serious, mature and thoughtful comment on whatever issue provokes one. I continue to be interested in what drives his nasty opinions if he would only have taken the risk we all do when expressing ourselves honestly and comprehensively. He was too cowardly for that.

Say a prayer for Parkie. He is among those who are truly in need of one. Or a hundred.

UPDATE--UPDATE--UPDATE

It's been over a week and there's been no sign of Parkie. This move to activate comment moderation has served to drive him off. It is now proven that he had no desire to engage in meaningful discussion, but to only mock. Too bad he sucked at it so badly. Can't imagine any legitimate comments would have been any better, but we'll never know. That is, unless he feels the urge, in which case his comment would be posted like any other. To hold one's breath is not advised.

Site Added

2011-10-30T00:40:00.000-05:00

This is to announce the addition of a new site under the "Right Ones" heading. It's called "Sifting Reality" and it's a great blog. Check it out.

Poor Girl

2011-10-26T14:19:00.000-05:00

I just saw that "Chaz" Bono was voted off of Dancing With The Stars. I don't watch the show, so I don't know if she was any good. The few times curiosity has compelled me to check out YouTube clips of performances, I have been struck by how "un-natural" the celebrities seem regardless of the steps and moves they've mastered. (By comparison, I offer Steve Martin in "Pennies From Heaven". He made himself a dancer.) At the same time, I'm impressed that they've done as well as they have.

But this isn't really about the show. It's about "Chaz". She stated, after being bounced, that she was glad she had the opportunity to show the world a different kind of man. Like that's what the world needs. There's only one Man we need to emulate and one needn't be a man to do so.

Unfortunately, she isn't a man. She's a woman who went through incredible effort to appear to be a man, so that she can pretend to be a man, because she has the emotional/psychological dysfunction of thinking she is a man. She's not. She never was and never will be. It's a most elaborate disguise and nothing more.

Her mother, the idiotic Cher, of course supports her 100%. But not really. Is it really support for a parent to sit back while the child does something so goofy? Wouldn't it be a better sign of support if she urged and provided counseling to deal with the dysfunction? Libs today wouldn't agree, but that's why we are suffering from the moral decline now ongoing.

People like Chastity Bono need our prayers. They need so much more, but that's the best WE can do.

More On The "Staffer"

2011-10-13T02:26:00.006-05:00

In this installment, I’d like to focus on the, uh, “less than conservative” statements Lofren makes throughout his diatribe. Some of them were covered last time, and it is difficult to really know where to begin, considering just how many there are to find. But by highlighting them, one can easily see why I am suspicious of assuming this guy is a real conservative, as opposed to some guy just working for Republicans. Here we go:

”Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.”

The key phrase used above is “onerous voter ID requirements”. Apparently, having an ID when voting is what is onerous to goofballs like Lofgren. But the Wisconsin law merely limits the requirements to a few forms of ID, while still considering one or two more. Presently, it requires forms of ID such as state driver’s license, state ID, military ID. I’m sorry. But anyone not carrying at least one of these into a polling place not only needs to be prevented from voting, but publicly ridiculed by all those who understand the gravity of the situation.

But to the left, this simple, common sense requirement is a slap in the face to every lazy, half-assed creature that doesn’t have the self-respect to comport himself like a responsible citizen when going to perform a most important civic duty. Boo-freakin’-hoo.

As to the devious and diabolical conspiracy of GOP chicanery, it’s not difficult to research a few details of the proposed DMV closings to find there’s no one that will be denied access to getting an ID well before the next election takes place (see Bloomberg Businessweek for 7/22/11---I couldn't get the link to work). They don’t happen every two days, ya know. If one can’t get an ID within two years before the next election, they simply don’t care. And only a lib would suggest the cost of a state ID is a burden. All this Lofgren calls a “legislative assault” which is ”moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens.” Apparently, to Lofgren, like as to libs, enforcing standards is an assault on those who would prefer no standards whatsoever. This isn’t the talk of a conservative.

His true colors begin to show more brilliantly when he goes on to say this:

”But domestically, they don't want those people voting.”

OH, NO, MIKEY! DON’T GO THERE!!! But he does…

”You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base.”

No wonder the lefties are eating this stuff up! I wonder if Lofgren is aware, unlike the other lefties, that racial minorities, immigrants, muslims, homosexuals and even intellectuals are often called upon to show legal IDs for any one of hundreds of possible encounters in everyday life. They could all use those same legal IDs to vote! Isn’t that swell?

But of course the concern isn’t for the voting rights of any of those people. Uh, uh. This is a typical lefty use of the B&I card. The bigotry and intolerance card. Because it is easier to cast aspersions than it is to defend the notion that a responsible adult can’t obtain a legal picture ID for the purpose of proving his identity before punching a ballot. But Lofren’s not done with unsubstantiated accusations:

”This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.”

First of all, what accounted for the extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of GW Bush? There is no hatred for Obama that is common amongst the right-wing. This is a common lib lie. There is plenty in his policies and positions to hate, but that is not the same as hating the man. We just want him to be an ex-president at the earliest possible date so as to end the push for those damaging and incompetent policies and positions. BUT, that this low-life would joke that the main GOP objection to Obama is his color is probably the one main piece of evidence that this guy is not a conservative or a Republican. This crap screams out for names to substantiate the charge. HE apparently has a problem with the color of the president. But if this turd has any knowledge of any Republican of note wishing to unseat Obama purely on racial grounds, it demands Lofgren get a spine and call the guy out. Until he does, I’m calling this guy a lying liberal.
Here’s a final lie for today’s review of Lofgren’s drivel, and it’s one that Ronny really likes:

”Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.”

This is a massive overstatement of the truth. While the right has its share of “out there” people, the base is pretty sharp as to what’s going on in the world and in our government. Most of the groups he listed in the above quote are really the same people. I have been bold in stating that what difference there is between a center-left individual and a total fascist is only a matter of degrees, where within those extremes we find the socialist and communist. And certainly we don’t normally find secular humanists and feminists anywhere right of center, with but a few exceptions if at all.

As to what this guy means by “ragheads” is anyone’s guess, but if he is implying that the right has concerns about islamofascism, they are indeed warranted and anyone not parking his head up his own hindquarters is well aware of the threat.

And the push by homosexuals and radical feminists has already harmed the culture and will continue to do so. This, too, is a legitimate and measurable threat, though of a different kind. Lefties won’t see it. It’s not that they can’t, they just refuse out of abject stupidity and moral bankruptcy.

As to holding up blacks as a source of our woes, it is clear that we are solidly opposed to the liberal and socialist types of “black leaders” who have done little to benefit the black community or the culture at large, but continue to annoy with their nonsense.

Thus far, we can plainly see that this Lofgren dude is no more than another liberal regardless of whatever job he worked during the past thirty years. He’s touched on all the same stupid accusations that have been debated here since the blog’s inception. But I’ve been way too detailed in my shredding of this character’s idiocy. With the next and final installment, I’ll get right to his final three highlighted points. This dude is no conservative.

Still Bored

2011-10-06T13:42:00.001-05:00

I am still quite amazed at the support for the Democratic Party by the majority of the black community. How big that majority is these days I have no idea, but it is still regarded as common knowledge that such a majority exists. The question is still, "Why?".

It is said, by some, that the GOP doesn't care about minorities. This is a blatant misconception, if not an outright lie. But as Andrew Klavan suggests in a recent discussion with Bill Whittle on PJTV, the right-wing is at a disadvantage. With the difference between the two ideologies being that one promises to do everything (the wacky left), and the other doesn't (the righteous right), it isn't hard to understand why one might be tempted to support the party making all the promises to do everything. After all, it's so much easier when someone else will do all the heavy lifting.

But the truth, as any honest person can plainly see, is that the right does not suggest it will do nothing, per se. It merely suggests that it will not interfere with each individual's attempts to find success. For those who are "self-starters", this is ideal and in fact, it is an ideal by which this country rose to greatness in the world.

But if one is raised to believe no effort is required, or that there is no possibility of success without the help or intervention of others, then it is easy to see why so many who are in need might be swayed by the promises made by those who are not in a position to keep them. But the promises are not kept yet the support continues.

As I did in the last post on this topic, I draw on black speakers for insights into this phenomena. I offer Thomas Sowell and Star Parker. These two are among the voices to whom black community should be listening. Best of all, the message they send is equally valid to all people regardless of race, as is true of the basic conservative philosophy, where dividing people along racial lines has never been common or even desired.

A COOL Electric Car?

2011-10-03T13:30:00.000-05:00

This article shows a new Tesla electric car that is supposed to out perform a Porsche. The body design is better than decent, and if the performance is as advertised, perhaps what we've been waiting for has arrived. Unfortunately, at $50K, it won't show up in my garage any time soon.

Even more of a concern to me, and I've not yet seen this addressed at all, is how long such a vehicle maintains it's advertised performance before the charge runs down. To be sure, I'm only comparing this to electric devices with which I'm familiar, and it isn't uncommon for those to begin to lose power as it, well, loses power. With the typical internal combustion vehicle, it'll run the same way regardless of how much fuel is in the tank, as long as fuel IS in the tank.

But do electric cars run in this manner? That is, at the end of the day, will this Tesla still do 0-60 in under 5 seconds, or will it take 30 seconds to reach 45mph because it doesn't have the charge necessary to get to 60? I simply don't know as I have not heard this addressed. Maybe someone knows how this is supposed to work. If this is simply not an issue with these cars, then we may be seeing the dawn of a new era.

Another question is, how did this company find financing to create this vehicle? Are they gov't funded or private? There is a demand for such cars, and knowing that, venture capitalists would only need to see a good plan to kick in. I really hope this was done privately. And I really hope the cars will perform as advertised, as well as with the same expectations we now take for granted of our current vehicles.

Republican Staffer? Sure.

2011-10-01T22:42:00.000-05:00

As I visit the lefty blogs on my blogroll every now and then, I am often distracted from posting here, so involved as I might get with whatever topic is at hand, and having little time at the start. But once in a while such a visit provides a topic for me upon which to opine. Such is the case with today’s topic. I checked out “A Conscious Outpost” and found Ron all a twitter over an essay entitled “Goodbye To All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left The Cult” by some guy named, Mike Lofgren, a so-called congressional budget staffer for the GOP. I haven’t been able to find anything that spells out what his duties were exactly, and that could mean that he got coffee and donuts for those doing the real work, handed out towels in the bathroom or did some serious filing. Who knows? Perhaps someone can find that out. All I found on Google was a plethora of lib sites equally impressed with his essay as was Ron.

But as I read the piece, very little of what he wrote, sounded like a conservative wrote it. That’s not to say that a conservative couldn’t be fed up with the Republican Party. Indeed, most are. But the gripes sound so very…lib-like. So could this “Republican staffer” have actually been a liberal, or a supporter of Democrat policy?

Like a lib, I saw a lot of accusations, but very little in the way of documentation and evidence. Certainly no arguments as to why what he saw as problems were actually problems, or even real events.

But let’s look at a few, if I can hold it to that.

”Both parties are captives to corporate loot.”

This is a common charge, and a favorite of Ron’s. But like Ron, he really gives no solid examples of a party or politician really being controlled by any corporate entity or lobbyist. This is not to say that such examples can’t be found, as there have been stories of such catering to donor interests. It’s just that he doesn’t provide any.

But of course, the GOP is the worse of the two, which he then fails to truly demonstrate outside of charges that are almost cliché.

”But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.”

It would be nice if he would give an example of lunacy by any of them. Frankly, each of the GOP candidates have said one thing or another that I’d prefer to see clarified. But “lunacy”? Such rhetoric demands explanation.

”…but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”

Excuse me, but as I saw events unfold, it was the an artificial crisis being put forth to justify raising of the debt limit. Remember? Social security payments, soldiers pay, and other such things could not be guaranteed should that fateful date arrive without raising the limit in order to meet our obligations. The opposition party, the Republicans, insisted that no such crisis was at hand, that we could meet our obligations for at least several months and beyond with cuts to spending. The “crisis” was manufactured by the left.

”Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.”

Funny how when the prez ain’t getting’ his way, it’s the right who are holding anyone hostage. What of their inflexibility?

”Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster.”

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation, and just about everything else the left is pushing is worthy of a forceful blockade. This whining about what may be no more than elected representatives looking out for the best interests of their constituents and the country leads to a common lefty gripe that shows up in Lofgren’s footnotes.

”But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country.”

I can’t speak for McConnell, but by insuring Obama is not re-elected, one can improve one’s chances of solving all those issues. The fear, and a legitimate fear at that, is that by a second Obama term, those problems will surely worsen. Obama is seen as the biggest impediment to improving that national situation. So, focusing on removing the biggest impediment is indeed the adult option.

Get a load of this:

” A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.”

This is hardly representative of honest reporting. Such anecdotal evidence adds little to the credibility of the author and screams for names in order to prove the allegation. As it stands, it is patent crap. He calls it a cynical tactic, but not as cynical as suggesting it happened at all, or that the tactic is actually one that is actually employed. It has all the tone of your basic conspiracy theory. A few lines later he says this:

” These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard."”

…apparently forgetting that he said this:

”Both parties are captives to corporate loot.”
Pot, meet kettle.

This is getting lengthy and I’ve barely scratched the surface. I’ll have to hit this in at least one more post. But read the piece and you’ll see what I mean about Lofgren’s likely true political leanings.

Damn Bearss!

2011-09-18T18:02:00.002-05:00

What a drag! After a fine showing in Week 1 against the Falcons, da Bearss drop one to the Saints. And they did so in just the manner I feared: O-line collapses. Cutler got hammered big time, as he did all last year. He was sacked, I think, six times, but was hit about 800 times. The death watch is on again. Will he survive another year without protection? A second starting lineman went down with an injury and that, as well as Cutler's questionable leadership skills does not bode well for the season. We've got the Pack next week and I know they're droolin' with anticipation as I type. In the meantime, all other division teams won, and da Bullss might not be seen for quite a while. Jeez! Cubs sucked all year. Sox tanked in the end. Chicago sports is very depressing right now.

I'm Bored With This Card

2011-09-03T15:47:00.002-05:00

Every now and then, I come upon several articles and/or posts that are all touching on the same subject. This compels me to post on the subject. Recent events in the news have also had that effect, so I today I offer the following:

US Congressman Andre Carson, a Democrat from Indiana, recently stated that members of the Tea Party would love to see black Americans hanging on a tree.

US Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Democrat from California, recently state that as far as she's concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.

Ed Schultz, MSNBC blowhard, purposely chopped a speech by Rick Perry in order to use Perry's "black cloud" comment to accuse him of racism. Al Sharpton, another MSNBC braindead commentator and professional race-baiter, was said to have referred to that portion of the Perry speech in the same manner and with the same deceitful purpose as Schultz.

And not so long ago, we recall the group of people, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, making their way through a crowd of Tea Party people, and later saying they were victims of racial epithets hurled their way. Of course, even after Andrew Breitbart offered big bucks to anyone with proof of this, no proof was found.

*sigh*

The sad part is that this stuff is not new, has been going on for, like, ever, and there seems little reason to believe the left will dispense with such nonsense. Alphonzo Rachel has his own round up in the video below (but I don't know why it won't show the whole screen--should anyone have a tip, email me and I'll adjust it accordingly---in the meantime, you'll get his point just fine):

The real question is, why do black Americans fall for this? You can hear the supporters in the audience just diggin' the rhetoric. But it doesn't make any sense. As Zo indicates, these people speaking in this manner are the very same people who are responsible for the suffering of the black population in the first place. They are continually supported by the black community without that community ever benefiting by giving that support. The worst part is how stupid most of these black "leaders" are. Does anyone remember how in July of '03, US Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, stated that "All racial groups should be represented." in the naming of hurricanes. Really? Is this something that troubles the black community? If so, does it trouble them more than having an idiot like Lee, Waters, or Carson represent them?

It's enough to make one wonder if black people really do need the government to take care of them! If it's really true, and I'd like to believe it isn't, then perhaps the government should make sure they understand a few simple truths, such as which party has really been deserving of their support. This article, by Robert Rohlfing, posted at IntellectualConservative.com, should help to inform them.

There was supposed to be a change once Barry O'Babble was elected. The change to which I refer had to do with the whole racism issue. Here was an almost black guy elected to the most important position in the world, President of these United States of America, and it would show once and for all that we are truly united. But it hasn't worked out that way. People like those mentioned above, and even Obummer himself, have continued to play that race card. As this article, by Doug Edelman, and also posted at IntellectualConservative.com (because really, not all conservatives can be called intellectuals, but there are NO intellectual liberals, or they'd be conservative) illustrates nicely, to oppose Barry is to be a racist. No matter how stupid his policies or proposals might be, only racism is the reason he is opposed at all.

It seems clear that whatever racial divide still exists in this country is maintained by those who claim they want to see it bridged. Why those who seek true equality would continue to support such people defies explanation.

A Post For Parkie the Troll

2011-08-31T03:19:00.002-05:00

These days when people ask someone, "How was your vacation?" the common response is so often, "Too short."

Well, Parkie's been posting comments again after an absence that has indeed been WAY too short. Naturally, he's been posting the usual pathetic, pitiful and woefully non-clever comments so typical for him and why we must continue to keep him in our prayers, and naturally I've been deleting them. BUT!! THIS comment, posted at the thread below the last was just so incredibly perfect in illustrating how far gone he is that I reprint it here in it's entirety:

""we hate"

Most honest comment of the year from MA..."

Ed Schultz would be proud, nay, envious for just how out of context the quote was and how Parkie used it to imply something completely false, as in, he's a freaking liar.

Maybe he thinks he's being funny. That would be sad and another example of the pathetic, pitiful and non-clever nature of the poor boy (or girl, as the case may be).

In the future, should anyone have the unfortunate experience of actually reading his drivel before I've had a chance to delete it, my advice would be to cut and paste it into your comment and respond that way. I'm gonna continue deleting his worthless drool until he decides to put on his big-boy pants and actually risk by posting a comment of substance that attempts to put seriously his own thoughts (such as they may be) on whatever topic is being discussed. I don't expect he has it in him, so don't hold your breath. The poor little troll.

Agenda Lies 3: No Slippery Slopes

2011-08-23T14:32:00.001-05:00

I really hadn't intended on doing only Agenda Lies posts, but this came up on a local radio show, and I couldn't let it go without comment.

Those who push the "agenda that doesn't exist" have long insisted that concerns about a slippery slope are an overblown concern without merit. Rick Santorum, not so many years ago, got all sorts of heat for daring to suggest a relationship between homosexuality and other sexual sins and misbehaviors, that tolerating one leads to tolerating all. "Complete hysterical nonsense!" they cried, implying that only disordered homophobia could cause anyone to suggest such a thing.

Yet, what Santorum and others like him have so easily seen is coming to pass. We already have witnessed the beginnings of the push to legitimize polygamous marriages. As predicted (as if a special supernatural gift of prophecy was required to do so), the exact same arguments are being used to make the case that loving, committed varying numbers of people should be allowed to have their unions recognized and sanctioned by the state. How dare anyone judge them wrongly? How dare anyone try to force their religion down their throats?

Yeah.

Right.

Now we have the above linked article describing something very familiar, but far more onerous than what has already come to pass. Just as we saw back in the early '70s, where pressure from homosexual activists led to removal of homosexuality from the APA's list of mental disorders, we now have pressure from child molesters working to do the same for pedophilia. Can bestiality be far behind? It's becoming less and less unreasonable to suppose that it isn't.

You'll note in the linked article that it all sounds so very familiar. The story is true. Only the deviancy has been changed to protect the "rights" of a different set of perverts.

How did we come to this? It's not hard to understand. It's the result of a complete abdication of resolve in upholding traditional standards of morality and virtue. It is not uncommon, even among conservatives, to hear that we need to set aside concern for social matters in our politics. Seems pretty damned clear that we've been doing exactly that for far too long. Did homosexuals cause this? No. Of course not. But the activists pushing the agenda that doesn't exist is a distinctly combustible log on the fire of moral decline in our nation, begun with the "free love" jokers of the 1960s and the Hugh Hefners that encouraged it. The door between a virtuous nation and a totally depraved one was never cast-iron. It was never more than a screen door with no lock. And those jokers and Hefners ripped it off its hinges and cast it aside in some self-gratifying but false notion of personal freedom.

And now children are at risk. Recently, two fellow bloggers spoke on the notion of "slippery slopes" and whether that term is accurate in how it is used. One suggested it is really a cliff off of which we have voluntarily jumped. Doesn't matter. The decline is speedy either way. And another Agenda Lie is exposed.

Agenda Lies 2: Hatred and Bigotry

2011-08-14T00:40:00.002-05:00

As I tried to put across in the inaugural post on the lies of the agenda that doesn't exist, there are many levels of lies and dishonesty that are utilized by proponents of the agenda. Some are blatant and others are not so much. Today's lie is supported by pointing to fringe groups such as the Fred Phelps crowd, who incorrectly insist that "God hates fags". Of course, this is as untrue and as much of a distortion of Biblical teaching as anything the activists and their enablers say to promote their sinful cause. God loves us all and desires that none of us should perish. Unfortunately, many of us will.

But the activists use "hate" and "bigotry" to demonize those of us who stand firmly with the truth of the Bible and God's intention for human sexuality and do not mitigate the sinfulness of behaviors He prohibits, even when we ourselves succumb to temptations. We understand that there is absolutely no support for the ridiculous and laughable contention that Scripture only prohibits "some forms" of homosexuality and shake our heads at the completely transparent childishness of the notion.

To the activists, being unwilling to tolerate lame arguments regarding the "normalcy" and/or the moral quality of the behavior is rank bigotry, as if acknowledging reality is itself sinful. I mean, imagine being called a bigot because you acknowledge that someone who feels compelled to eat mud is abnormal. Imagine being called a hater because you acknowledge someone who stole your car has committed a sin.

But this is the level of dishonesty they must employ to gain the victimhood status on which they rely to muster sympathy for their cause. Rather than rely on facts that support their contention that their behavior is as normal as heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other) and as morally equal to heterosexual relations (between a man and woman married to each other), because they can't, they take the deceitful road of demonizing the righteous side of the debate as haters and bigots out to get them.

The fact of the matter is this: intolerance of bad behavior is a virtue, not a sin. To deny the immorality of behavior that God prohibits is not really a choice faith allows. But it isn't anywhere near the same as how one feels about the person who engages in the prohibited behavior. Should we hate a liar? No. But we can hate that he lies. Should we hate the thief? No. But we can hate that he steals. Do we hate the homosexual? Not at all. But we hate how the activist will lie in order to persuade the culture that their desire and willingness to engage in deviancy should be accepted as normal and equal to normal sexual behavior that is not immoral (that is, that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other).

What's more, it seems fairly obvious that the activists and their enablers are demonstrating quite a bit of hatred and bigotry toward those who disagree with them.

Debt Ceiling Victory?

2011-08-03T14:27:00.000-05:00

There have been all kinds of reports and analyses regarding this debt ceiling deal. The right-wing is divided over this agreement. Hard core conservatives are saying nothing was done and others on the right claim victory.

I can see both sides. If we consider the message of the last mid-term elections, this deal was a total failure. Runaway spending and liberal fiscal policy (if you can call it a policy) was the major reason so many Tea Party candidates did so well and the shift in the House to a Republican majority took place. This deal does very little (if anything) that should sit well with supporters of those candidates. And when you put that together with the fact that this "crisis" was totally manufactured by Barry O & Co., so that they could institute even more burdensome and economically destructive policies upon this country, it's hard not to agree with the elements of the hard-core conservatives. Especially since I count myself among them.

But the other side of the right-wing does have a point that must be accepted as true. The deal, and the debate that led to it, has indeed shifted the overall discussion in Washington from how and where to raise taxes (the left now calls it "raising revenues" so as to deceive---typical) to a focus on spending cuts, where it should have been for a long, long time. This is a good thing and a small but significant first step toward fiscal sanity and the important work of fixing our debt situation.

But it is ONLY a small step and alone accomplishes nothing whatsoever. From this point, the efforts must be doubled to get busy eliminating all that is completely unnecessary in terms of federal responsibility, which of course would include this disaster of a health care plan known as "Obamacare".

As anyone with a lick of sense and internet access can see, our issue isn't revenues, except as they have been obstructed by Obama's lame moves. The Bush tax cuts, like all similar tax cuts by three previous presidents have shown, raise revenues and are more stimulating to the economy than anything the left has offered, or have the brains to imagine. As Marco Rubio has stated so well, our problem isn't taxes, but tax payers. We need more of them and too many people are still out of work, or working for far less than they used to, and it is from people working where revenues come.

Put that together with sensible spending cuts and the result is prosperity once again. It might involve some pain, but we're in pain now as it is. An increase in pain in order to soon be pain-free is a worthy endeavor.

More Than Words

2011-07-18T00:36:00.000-05:00

Getting back to that Barry Rosner column, I could almost use it for the next Agenda Lies installment, due to the underlying falseness that forms its premise. That falseness can be found in his words here:

"But never, seemingly, is there an actual discussion about the words themselves and why they are hurtful.

The focus is always on the act, the criticism and the contrition."

That falseness is in believing the focus does NOT belong on the act, or that words used in that act are of any true significance. It is indeed the act of name-calling where the real sin is committed, not in the name used to inflict the harm. One gets the sense that had Ozzie Guillen called the writer a horse's ass, not only would there have been no story, but not one sports writer would opine on the distress experienced by horses everywhere.

No. Rozner's column is simply a not-so-veiled defense of deviant sexual behavior and the people who engage in it. He starts from the unsupportable position that states that homosexual behavior is morally benign or morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a man and a woman married to each other. To him, as to other self-deceived people, it is not wrong.

OK. Let's suppose for a moment that it is not wrong. If that's the case, then what's the problem? As I said in the previous post, if someone calls me a "polack", I can't and don't take offense because I don't find being Polish to be anything to regret in the least. If I'm called a "Jesus freak", the same applies.

AH! they will respond. But you haven't been subject to the same evil persecution as homosexuals have! Really? There was a time when polack jokes were all the rage. Along with it came the condescension that would follow being caught in the act of making the average human mistake. "What a polack!"

Not good enough? Doesn't compare to physical attacks suffered by some homosexuals? Perhaps not. But Christians in many parts of the Middle East are still attacked and killed because of their beliefs. I haven't been attacked physically, but I'm attacked often on this here blog for expressing traditional and orthodox (not what Alan, Dan, Geoffrey and Feodor regard as orthodox, but ACTUAL orthodoxy) opinions. That makes me a victim in the same way most homosexuals are victims these days. A victim of mere name calling. I can't tell you how much sleep I've lost over such attacks. OK, I can tell you: none.

But that's all really besides the point. The point is that what Guillen has done is shown a great lack of self-control and poor judgement. And that would be poor judgement in publicly calling another person ANYTHING that isn't both a truthful description as well as pertinent to whatever discussion was ongoing at the time.

I don't think Guillen really had the writer's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a faggot. I don't think Kobe Bryant had the referee's orientation in mind when Kobe called him a fag. I don't think Joakim Noah had the fan's sexual orientation in mind when he called him a fag. I doubt any of these guys is even aware of the sexual orientation of any of their "victims".

Rozner sees these situations as opportunities lost for not using them to begin public edification on the horrors of using "anti-gay" slurs. But again, if the behavior is not wrong, then those engaging in it aren't wrong in their engagements, and using the term can't be offensive. Go ahead. Call me handsome in a manner meant to disparage me. See how offended I get. Call me a Jesus freak or a polack. I know the terms are meant to be negative and hurtful, but they aren't if I see nothing wrong with being handsome, Christian or Polish. What I do feel is confusion and a level of pity for the one calling me those names. It's like trying to kill me with a rub-down and a warm bath. It just won't hurt me. Nor can it.

What bothers those like Rozner is that people still understand that homosexual behavior is wrong and abnormal. They don't like people to believe that. And they want people to STOP believing that regardless of whether that belief is truthful or not.

This pants wetting over the use of homosexual related slurs is not much different than the manner in which bullying is being addressed these days. The attention is neither on the bullying or the name-calling, but rather who is being bullied and what slurs are being hurled about. Bullying and harrassments in schools have been going on since there have been schools, but the bullying of homosexual kids (or those believed to be homosexual, or kids who think they're homosexuals, or kids who are told by adults who should know better that it is OK to accept their homosexual urges as normal). Athletes and coaches have been yelling at refs, fans and sports writers since there have been sports, but somehow it's not that they lose their self-control that's the issue, but how their lack of self-control manifests itself.

Why is this? It's simple. Because those who are so corrupted as to believe that homosexual behavior is something worthy of defense are doing what they demand the rest of us never so much as dare think of doing. They are trying to force their morality down the throat of America.

I guess if Barry Rozner believes that homosexual behavior is worthy of defense, his column is one he had to write. But here's the real reason why one shouldn't hurl "anti-gay" slurs at people: if the person isn't a homosexual, you're making a horrible slanderous remark. It's like calling someone a thief if he's never stolen anything in his life. It's like calling an honest person a liar. It's like calling a hard working guy lazy. However, if you call a person a thief because he steals things, you're simply stating a fact, whether you use the actual word "thief" or any slang alternative. There's nothing wrong with stating the obvious.

It's Only Words, and Words Are All I Have...

2011-07-14T14:13:00.003-05:00

This article can easily be used for another Agenda Lies post. Lies are at the heart of the position espoused by Barry Rozner. But instead I have a different point to make.

And I believe I've made it before in some past post. That would be the old "sticks and stones" issue. Why would anyone get so bent out of shape over being called things? The only rational reason revolves around the implications the epithet provokes.

Imagine if you are a thief. To be widely known as a thief would put a serious cramp in your business as to be known as a thief would make you an object of constant scrutiny as well as to be considered one that cannot be trusted. To be regarded as a thief unjustly, however, brings about the same conditions. No one wants to be regarded as a thief whether one is or isn't an actual thief. Why is that?

Because being a thief is a bad thing. If someone was to regard me as a thief, I would be hurt because the fact is that I am not. It would hurt in the sense that it was untrue and I would be suffering that scrutiny without legitimate cause.

There are other words that imply the same thing. "Robber", or "burglar" also mean that one so labeled helps himself to the possessions of others without consent of the owners. "Klepper" is another, although it is derived from the psychological condition of one who steals for no reason. I wonder if kleptomaniacs are offended to be called a klepper or if they hear someone using the term as an epithet toward another.

Part of the point I am trying to make has to do with the word being hurled my way and whether or not it is accurate of me in any way, and whether if it is accurate, if it is something of which I would be proud, or at least not something by which I could find offense.

If I am called a polack, I can't be offended because I am of Polish decent. Though the term is supposedly a slur, what it means is not a great deal different from merely calling me Polish. Neither do I find to be offensive because to be Polish is not something I can help, nor does it have anything to do with the quality of my character. (Of course, I am an American first and foremost as far as nationality goes--the origins of my ancestors is entirely irrelevant.)

Imagine if you were actually perfect. Would there be any alternative word for that which could be hurtful? Being perfect is, well, perfect and perfection is that unattainable something to which most people aspire as closely as humanly possible. What would being marginalized for being perfect mean? Would it be a slight against you, or would it mean an issue for those who shun you? Obviously, the latter. Those who shun you have the issue for not being able to bear the thought that you are automatically "better" in everything. Not "better" or more worthy as a person, but better in terms of ability.

So where's the problem with being called any slur? Is the slur just a slang term for an otherwise accurate label?

Some nitwits who visit here have chastised me as a homophobe for my use of the contraction "homo". Boo-hoo. I am neither irrationally afraid of either mankind in general or homosexuals, whichever the mean by the term. They will call me "bigot" for my use of the term. But obviously, I am no bigot simply for using a contraction.

But it is hurtful, they will say? Why would or should it be if there is nothing wrong with being a homo? What the hell is wrong with them for taking offense at being something they proclaim to be morally benign?

I can be referred to as a "Bible-thumper" or a "Jesus freak" or a "fundie" and be marginalized as a result. That's OK. There are plenty of like-minded people with whom I can associate, as well as more rational "non-religious" people who can deal with our differences. And politically, I've been called an "asshole Republican" and I merely consider the source.

Recently, there has been legislation proposed, and I think adopted, by some states and possibly on the federal level, that would alter legal documents and laws that use the term "mentally retarded" or any of its forms. I bring this up because it is also irrational to me. It used to be an acceptable term, but because it's been used as an epithet, it is no longer acceptable. What seems to be lost on those well intentioned supporters of such changes is that whatever term or word is used to replace that which has become an epithet, the replacement will be used in the exact same manner in due course. The term was meant to attack those who have shown a lack of intelligence by their actions or mistakes regardless of their true level of intelligence. For the mentally retarded, to called a retard is merely a statement of fact. Change it to "challenged" and what do you think will happen? Do something stupid and someone will eventually call you "mentally challenged".

The real issue here is two-fold.

1) For the pitcher, it doesn't matter what words one uses to attack another person. The issue is the attack itself. The attitude that one is trying to insult and hurt another is the sin, not the method or word used.

2) For the catcher, this also has two components of note.
a) If the label is accurate or not, why let it hurt? Why give it the power intended by the pitcher? Get a spine.
b) If the label is accurate or not, what difference if it is a slang term or not?

Agenda Lies

2011-07-05T13:14:00.003-05:00

Welcome to a new feature here at Marshall Art's. This is something I've been wanting to begin for some time, but just couldn't decide on the format. I vacillated between a variety of options. It was after I saw this video that I decided to just jump in and do it. As you can see by clicking the link, the video is entitled "Name the poison". Another way to say this is, "call evil by its name". It's what is so desperately needed in this country these days, lest we suffer the consequences that befall those where good men have done nothing. (The video itself does not relate to this new feature, but is worth a visit, as is the blog that posted it.)

So here it is and I intend to present as the Spirit so moves me the lies that are put forth to sway public opinion toward a far greater moral decline than our nation as thus far suffered. They will be presented in no particular order regarding importance or potential for damage, as I believe them to be equal in their insidious effects. Blatant lies or slight twists of the facts. There's no difference.

Some lies are sincerely held as truths, though claims of sincerity also raise suspicion. Some of these lies are simply what some so desperately want to believe that they then lie to themselves about just how sincerely they believe them.

So the agenda to which I refer in the title is that of the homosexual agenda. Therein lies the first lie I will cover in this series: "There is no agenda."

I could point to the book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's" by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, but the liars will pretend that the opinions of two homosexuals does not an agenda make. But it's not as if they are the be all and end all of the agenda and the movement that seeks to implement it.

It's really far simpler than that. Every homosexual wishes their desires and behaviors would be tolerated and accepted as normal and equal to heterosexual behaviors. THAT constitutes an agenda.

Of course that would not include those homosexuals who do NOT put their urges above reason and righteousness. Not all men allow their desires to consume them to the point of demanding others accept them. I have no doubt some homosexuals insist on rising above letting their desires rule their sense of right and wrong. We call such people "MEN", or "MATURE ADULTS".

But to insist there is no agenda is an outright and obvious lie. It doesn't matter if a particular homosexual spends no time actively pursuing the goals of the agenda. But to pretend an agenda doesn't exist, or that that same particular homosexual dares to insist one doesn't exist is a lie. The danger of this lie is in the attitude it hopes to encourage. It is the same as saying there is no real danger of Islamofascism to our way of life. The level of danger and how that impact might be felt at any given moment is irrelevant. But as more people begin to believe that there is no danger, that there is no agenda, the easier it is for that danger/agenda to metastasize and become commonplace in our culture, to infect it and lower our standards of behavior and morality.

End the War?

2011-06-06T13:29:00.003-05:00

Recently, there was a report about a host of "world leaders" who came together to call for an end to the "War On Drugs" because of what a failure it supposedly has been. There are those who feel that since efforts to lower drug use have failed (despite reports of fewer people using--not saying they're accurate, only that they exist), well we should just throw in the towel and not waste the money fighting this losing battle. Mostly left-wingers support this move.

At the same time, there are those on the right who speak disparagingly about the "War On Poverty". They feel the money spent on this struggle is also a waste.

There are other such wars, such as wars on "obesity" and "illiteracy". In each case, there are those who feel that we are losing or that we are wasting the money. In short, they want to quit. Give up. Wave the white flag.

The pattern here is evident in real war. Since Viet Nam (though the attitude has always existed to some extent throughout history), there are those for whom the costs of engagement rise to a level of great discomfort.

How did this happen? At what point did our national spine weaken so badly that no struggle is worth the effort to overcome? Was it the same time rules of engagement have changed so much as to make any effort almost futile?

Let's set aside real war and speak of those metaphorical wars mentioned first. Take the war on drugs. Without getting into whether or not any or all drugs should be legalized or de-criminalized, how should we respond to any call to end such a "war"? Seems to me that such calls are misguided. The drugs in question are illegal. They cause harm. The people who manufacture and market them cause even greater harm. The industry syphons money from the economy and puts it in the hands of very bad people, leaving behind fewer dollars to fix the problems caused by the use of the drugs. Ending the war will only alter the dynamic slightly. The bad guys will still engage in illegal activity in order to earn their living. That's what they do. The drug users will still use drugs, but do it more openly and likely more often. In short, there will be no tangible improvement of life in the country due to withdrawing our forces from the battlefield.

But the attitude that's behind this call is what is most troubling. QUIT! That's what is being suggested. Quit because it's hard! People are going to do drugs anyway, they say. There's nothing we can do about it.

Well. Here's another war that's hard! The "War On Crime". We've been waging this war for centuries. It has not abated. Let's call it a draw and go home. People will engage in criminal acts anyway. What's the use? We could use that money spent on law enforcement elsewhere.

Obviously, just as in real wars, the trouble is not the cause, but how we go about fighting. Generally speaking, recreational drugs are harmful, dangerous and a threat to the well being of our citizenry, especially children. The war must go on until victory is achieved. For victory is the only exit strategy worth mentioning. How to we measure victory? Just as in real war, when the enemy is defeated, totally, unconditionally and with extreme prejudice.

Pride in Weakness

2011-06-04T14:03:00.003-05:00

As some of you may know, June is the month our idiot-in-chief designated "Gay Pride Month". It's the one month of the year when the sexually confused and/or corrupted can celebrate their giving in to their deviant desires.

The rest of us are supposed to celebrate "diversity" and whatever contributions such people have made to society. Aside from adding to the general moral decline by forcing their perversion on the culture, demanding that good people pretend along with them that how they choose to get their sexual jollies should be viewed as morally benign and equal to that which takes place within the context of a real marriage, I don't see how their proclivities matter in any other contributions any of them may have made. Ellen DeGeneres is funny regardless of the fact that she is a lesbian. Her "coming out" is only an unnecessary distraction and frankly, I never needed to know it.

Few did. Those struggling with their own urges have not been served well by her coming out, or by any other celebrity doing so, as they now have a bad role model held up as a good one, so that they feel validated by giving in as well. It's no different than a favorite movie star being exposed as a smoker, or a favorite athlete know to cuss, or a rock star doing drugs or groupies. The fans will follow suit either in practice or approval. Those who already feel compelled toward such behaviors will feel there is no social objection to their own jump in the swamp.

So maybe we need a month to celebrate other bad behaviors as well. After all, liars have impacted our culture, haven't they? (Think liberals) So many lie as if compelled to. They were likely born that way. Greedy people have built empires that employ millions and the power hungry have held public office. Do they not also count toward our "rich diversity", as if diversity is a plus?

My state, the Pathetic People's Republic of Illinois, just passed a civil union law. Happy homos and lesbos have lined up to get their faux-marriage certified by the state because you know, there was no other possible way in which to change hospital policies and inheritance laws. Gov. Quinn knows how to celebrate Sexual Pervsion Pride Month.

So get out there and decorate your homes with rainbow banners and adorn you GLBT Tree with ornaments of the season. The United States of America now celebrates deviancy every year. What a country!

Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead!

2011-05-09T02:09:00.002-05:00

In the Wizard of Oz, the Munchkins rejoiced when Dorothy's house fell on the Wicked Witch. Their suffering was ended, so they they were jubilant. Last week we got the news that Osama bin Laden took one in the head, and there was great rejoicing outside the White House, with chants of "USA! USA! USA!" as if the US Water Polo Team just beat Lithuania.

As a result of this celebration, all sorts of analysis has been going on, as this AP story illustrates. Such reflection suggests there is something wrong with whooping it up after a scumbag like bin Laden gets his. Dennis Prager ran a clip of some goofy psychologist worrying about the signals it sends to children. Prager, being a sharp dude, rightly understands that children are relieved when monsters are destroyed. The fact is, so are adults. There is a marked difference in the comfort level of people in general to find a really bad person was executed as opposed to merely locked up, where, despite the level of probability, a chance at escape or release exists. Sure, a cretin might be locked in a maximum security prison, but that just doesn't feel the same as the cretin being dead and totally unable to cause any further harm. Ever.

So is it wrong to celebrate? Hell no. The death of bin Laden insures his evil intent will never again manifest. It's the ultimate closure for the survivors of his horrors and for those who fear what he might do next. By now, he's shark poop being fed upon by lower life forms at the bottom of the sea. What a perfect ending for one so evil.

But is that attitude unChristian? Well, of course, no one should celebrate the death of another. Back when John Wayne Gacy finally was put to death for his heinous crimes, a Chicago talk radio host (unfortunately a right-winger) wanted to host a party outside the prison where he would meet his end. That's wrong.

But at the same time, justice being served is worthy of celebration. It's not such bastards being put to death that should provoke rejoicing, but what their deaths mean that deserves rejoicing. Justice served and evil stopped. Fear alleviated and a message sent. Those are good things. The worse the criminal, the greater the celebration. So hoist one and throw the glass to the hearth! The witch is dead!

More Hypocrisy

2011-04-27T14:02:00.002-05:00

As this article illustrates nicely, hypocrisy is routine amongst supporters of abnormal sexual practice. Note the nasty things the author of the Gawker piece says about those with whom he disagrees.

Now, I understand the urge to mock those with different views. I'm not beyond that myself. But when the mockery comes from those who criticize those who mock them, it's hypocrisy. Worse, the mockery they lament is framed as hatred and bigotry, the worst thing in the world, and even God is guilty if what some Christians say is true about the Biblical prohibition against all forms and manifestations of their favored sexual practices.

At the same time, what choice to they have? They have no legitimate defense of their position. Pretending the other side is evil, stupid or backward and mocking them for it is about all they can do, short of acknowledging their problem and/or ignoring the truth.

Hypocrisy at its best

2011-04-20T13:31:00.002-05:00

As this Americans for Truth article points out, groups like GLAAD aren't all that concerned about hate speech and bigotry after all.

After a recent incident on the court, wherein Kobe Bryant hurled a slur at a ref after the ref made a call with which Kobe disagreed, the skies darkened, the earth shook, and GLAAD and other pro-homo activists shrieked in dismay that Kobe would dare utter an eptithet they consider to be THE WORST THING IN THE WORLD!!!! How dare he? He needs a beating and severe psychological re-formatting!

So the Lakers and church groups (most likely liberally-leaning church groups) and GLAAD has gotten together to fight against such awful things.

Yet, as we see from the linked article, they don't much care about hate speech and bigotry really. What they care about is their idea of hate speech and bigotry, that anything that is opposed to their agenda be considered hateful and bigoted. It isn't hate speech that bothers them, but to whom the speech is directed and from whom it is spoken.

This is a typically leftist situation. At another blog I visit, I'm often warned against incivility, but recently compadres of the host have been given carte blanche to open fire upon me. (Don't worry---I can take it---no one there is clever enough in the art of insult to do more than make fools of themselves by attempting any)

GLAAD honoring such a scumbag as they have proves the point I'm making here. Because the left, and homo-enabling outfits like GLAAD, have decided that homosexuality is normal and equal morally to heterosexuality, they spend a lot of effort trying to convince the world that the least opposition to their cause is tantamount to hate. When such sad and pathetic people can successfully demonize those who are the right side of the issue being debated, it scares off the weaker among us from standing for truth and honesty, and makes their lame arguments and evidences easier to swallow. Well, not so much easier, but people have pretend it doesn't taste so bad.

Well, some of us know their nonsense is poisonous to our culture and are not content to simply let them take control of the debate without a fight. Their position is based on lies and lies must be opposed.

Continue to fight. Continue to pray for their repentence. Continue to provide avenues to address their condition so that they may learn to deal with their temptations like adults are supposed to. They're still people despite how corrupted they are and they need help.

How Many???

2011-04-08T14:19:00.002-05:00

From the recent issue if National Review that arrived today

"An ABC/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage. But don't believe it. For one thing, respondents seem to tell interviewers that they favor same-sex marriage because they think it's what they are supposed to say. Their answers are more negative when voting or responding to robo-calls. The question was also flawed: "Do you think it should be legal or illegal for gay and lesbian couples to get married?" Of course nobody is proposing to throw same-sex couples in jail for getting a friendly Unitarian minister to hold a ceremony for them, or for calling themselves married is social settings. We do not think that this behavior should be "illegal" or, to use another misleading word bandied about in this debate, "banned". What we oppose is official recognition of these unions, since such recognition would undermine the core purpose of marriage law, which is to link procreation to stable households. The poll is not evidence that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. It is, however, evidence that its supporters have succeeded in setting the terms of debate."

...or as I like to say, they've succeeding in using their dishonesty to influence public opinion. Not a surprise since there is little that is honest that is used to support the agenda that doesn't exist.

Poor Doggy!

2011-04-02T04:16:00.002-05:00

Recently on Facebook, a plea was posted on behalf of an abused dog. This animal was found in a dumpster at the bottom of some building's garbage chute. It was suffering from lack of nourishment and barely alive. The person who had posted this sad story had begun a petition seeking justice for the animal through some action against the abuser, should he be found. Naturally, it was expected that readers sign the petition. The Facebook friend that posted this story was not the originator of the story, but was only passing it along. She says she is an animal activist and expressed her dismay and disgust at the animal's condition, as well as toward the person responsible.

Then things got a little dicey.

I offered my comment that I could not in good conscience sign the petition. Despite the fact that I oppose animal abuse, I do not believe the perpetrators of such behavior should be treated like they beat the crap out of another human being. Indeed, such behavior, as awful as it is for the animal, should provoke some level of concern, if not compassion, for the abuser. Such a person is obviously in need of help. But the person who started the petition wants revenge on behalf of the dog.

To me that's sick. It's just as sick as the person who did the abusing. It's a twisted and corrupted sense of compassion.

It's not an uncommon sentiment...it even showed up in a Lethal Weapon movie (I think the third one). Riggs is confronted with a snarling guard dog and is encouraged to shoot it. He won't, saying in not so many words, "Naw...I love dogs. It's people I hate." Funny stuff (sorta), but in reality a terrible attitude even if only mildly held.

The usual scenario: A burning building. You look up and see two windows and in each is a face hoping for rescue. In the left, a sorrowful and desperate puppy with it's sad, puppy eyes (which it has because it's a freakin' puppy) and in the other, homosexual cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer, who abused animals in his youth before turning to meatier victims. There's only time to save one, by golly! Who do you save? The answer is clear and simple: Dahmer. The poor little puppy dies. To let Dahmer burn is unconscionable. In fact, it's tantamount to murder. Not so if the puppy dies. Not even close.

Later in the conversation, I referred to a public service announcement with Sarah Mc-somebody (I can't remember how to spell her last name) begging for support for abused and neglected cats and dogs. I indicated my belief that the producers go out of their way to insure the animals look as pathetic as possible. I took a little heat for that, too. But in fact, I believe the same is done when seeking donations for ANY cause, even hungry kids. Here's the thing: While there are hungry kids, and abused kids, and aborted kids, I couldn't care less about the plight of animals. I don't think my God would like it.

Animals are great. I love 'em. Have one myself. Have had animals in my house for the last twenty-five years or more. But they're animals. Nothing more. Their deaths were sad due to the impact on my wife and kids. It's easy to get a new one. Do I miss any of 'em? A bit. But no sleep was ever lost. I'm tired right now, in fact.

Animals are a resource. They're like oil, gold, water. They're here for our personal use. They're fun, often a pain, but can be a friend and an emergency meal when things are really bad (except for whippets).

What they aren't is people. They should not be regarded as such. No. They should not be abused for any reason, except for grilling or making coats. But barring that, they should not be tortured for pleasure or if kept for any reason, neglected. Pets do deserve to be taken care of if one chooses to have one. I do not much care for the idea of getting a pet and then giving it away when one gets tired of having one. (Well, except for maybe the first time---but only once. Then, don't ever get another.)

But let's not get carried away. Keep it in perspective. They are, after all, only animals.

Well, Call Me Pappy!!

2011-02-26T07:44:00.002-06:00

Woke about fifteen minutes ago to the ringing phone, followed by giddy voices from down the hall. Turns out at 7:02AM, a six pound six ounce eighteen inch granddaughter arrived for the wife! She's still doing the granny dance as I type. The child's name is yet to be determined and remains a deep concern considering some that have been bandied about, but we have hopes that nothing Star Wars related will prevail.

So apparently the kid couldn't wait its appointed time, which was about two weeks hence. This only adds to Mom's joy. She was about ready to reach in and pull the child out herself. Only five hours of labor.

Happiness and joy abound as mother and child are healthy. God's blessings to them now and onward. Glorious day!

Choose Life

2011-02-17T11:47:00.001-06:00

A great speech that too many won't hear, and that too many others will hear and ignore.

NEW ADDITIONS TO "RIGHT ONES" LIST

2011-01-30T14:18:00.003-06:00

Please direct your attention to the "Right Ones" blogroll list. There you will find a new addition called, "Not A Drive-By Blog". The host of this site contacted me after reading some of my posts and asked if I'd check out his blog and then perhaps link to it. I have done both. He's new, conservative (which is nice) and so far, seems to be mainly political. A look at his profile will show he's just a regular guy with the desire to express his opinions on what's going on and he does so in a concise and even tone. I encourage all to give him a visit and check him out over the next few weeks to see how he does. He invites comments and guest posting, which you don't see every day, so that's kinda unique. Check it out.

ALSO:

I almost forgot! I've added "Tug's Blog" to the list as well. Tugboatcapn has been out of the loop for a little while and fortunately decided to return to the Land of Blog. He's commented here a time or two and also gave me personal insights into the trucking world, so I would be remiss if I did not also alert readers to his commentary as well.

WE THE TERM LIMITS

2011-01-25T21:13:00.004-06:00

Barney Frank, Harry Reid, Barack Obama. The mere mention of names like these is all the argument one should need for term limits. Who could argue against term limits when these names are brought up?

Me.

I recently received a few emails that were, for the most part, a list of proposals most of which I could easily support. Among these were:

* Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
* Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%
* Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
* Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

...as well as a few others. These all sound great and I have no issue with any of them. It would belong past due to enact them immediately.

But along with these fine suggestions was the call for term limits for Congressional members. I can't get behind this one. Sure. I'd like to see Barney Frank out of politics. Harry Reid, too. There's a host of senators and congressmen who have long ago worn out their welcome and whose continued presence does little to serve the best interests of the United States of America.

But here's the thing: somebody wanted them. They didn't get re-elected by accident (though in some cases it can be argued some won by fraud). But if these poor choices were termed out, so too would be those who are good in their roles as representatives of the people.

Now, I don't know with any certainty just who in the House or Senate are absolute crooks, saints or something in between. I can't say who entered with the right attitude and before the end of their first term became corrupted to a degree that affects his votes on whatever. I can't say just who entered with the intention of fattening their own bank accounts, seeing public service as a sure-fire way to financial freedom rather than as a rare privilege to serve the public interest.

But hey! THAT'S part of the problem. The reason we have so many losers in Congress is due to our own lack of interest in our own interests. If we as a self-governing people took the time, or at least SOME time, to pay attention, the losers could not keep their sweet gigs. Look again at that list above and tell me who would have voted for people who would exempt themselves from the laws they pass on the rest of us? If you knew that up front, would you even dare tell others of your support for them?

So the issue is not that these buffoons are left to run wild for term after term without hindrance. The issue is why have we let them? Where were we? We were going about our business under the assumption that all would work out because we elected people about whom we knew little to nothing.

"They're all crooks, anyway!" it is said. Nonsense and a cop-out spewed by the lazy who have just enough energy to whine and complain when things go south. (Indeed, this is spoken mostly by those who whine and complain and never vote in the first place. Their nerve in daring to utter a word on the subject entitles them to the greatest scorn for making the bed in which we all toss and turn.)

WE THE PEOPLE are all the term limits we need or should have. It is our responsibility as citizens to stay abreast of the actions and behaviors of our elected officials. If we can't know with certainty the character of a given candidate, we can surely know how he voted on proposals and bills and bounce him out at the next possible election. But if a guy keeps making all the right moves, I want him to stay as long as he is moved to serve.

Some like to say that our founders envisioned a citizen politician who would serve his term and then return home to live under the laws he helped pass. But if they meant for that to be the rule, then they would have instituted it as such. I can't help but think that they, too, left room for he who served well, offered to serve again and was the chosen one of the people. Some actually sacrifice better gigs in the private sector to serve their country. If they continue to do so well and honorably, why would I want to force them out?

There's also the problem of what term limits would solve. I can't see that it would solve anything but cause the problems to which I alluded above. The same dynamic would exist. People would have even less incentive to pay attention figuring that their stupid selection would only destroy so much until he is termed out. Term limits would NOT induce the electorate to be more responsible in selecting leaders and representatives. The only thing term limits would do would be to throw out the good with the bad. How does that help?

If there's any downside to my position, it is one that already exists. Our ability to persuade those with whom we disagree. It is a well known fact that among the left leaning portion of our society there exists some of the most stupid, self-centered and fantasy-land inhabitants one could imagine. They have too much sway over the well-meaning but poorly informed balance of their population. It's difficult to get them to see the world as it is, so they vote according to what they think it ought to be. It obviously doesn't work that way. One must be grounded in reality and vote according to how best to navigate the world as it is for the benefit of the most people. The right wing understands this but has failed to spread this understanding to our left leaning friends. That's why a Barney Frank can serve for as long as he has. But if we term Barney out, will his constituents then see clearly? Not likely. They'll only vote for Barney Frank II, then III, then IV.

WE THE PEOPLE are the only term limits we need or should have. That's the way it was meant to be. Let's not abdicate our responsibilities for convenience. If someone sucks, vote him out and get others to vote him out as well. If someone serves well, support him for another term.

UPDATE!!!

Regarding the email itself (there were actually two, both pretty much the same), it should be noted that much of it is not entirely true. My focus always fell on the call for term limits, which I strongly oppose. To the rest of the emails I gave little attention, and what little attention I paid it met with no disagreement. How could it? It all sounds so good. But so much that floats around the world wide web is faulty, so I checked out a few things.

*Congress has been paying into Social Security since 1984.
*Congress passed an amendment in '89 allowing for automatic pay increases unless lawmakers specifically vote to reject it. They have rejected it before. (I would change this to NO automatic pay increase ever, but that's how it works now.)
*The Congress Accountability Act of 1994 mandates that Congress abide by any law they pass.

These a but a few. The point aligns with what I have been saying about term limits. If we pay attention, if we do OUR due diligence as much as we can, these kinds of things can't be put over on us any more than bad politicians be put over on us. It's what self-governance is all about.

It's Official!!!!

2011-01-19T22:29:00.002-06:00

I got word today that all hurdles have been, uh, hurdled, and the full time gig of which I spoke has been officially offered and subsequently accepted by yours truly. I then walked into the office of my lovely boss (she really is lovely) and tendered my resignation from the woefully poor paying part-time position that only slowed the rate of retirement fund raiding that took place before I got the gig. My new job, which will begin on the 3rd of February, will provide an income beyond that of any previous job of my past.

Debt elimination (reduction isn't good enough) and savings replenishment is the order of the day. The car will last for now, especially since I can afford repairs that may arise. Will resist unnecessary projects of great expense and focus only on hole-in-the-roof type necessities. The one extravagance that will have any priority is a sparkler for the fetching Mrs. Marshall Art. At such time as I have confidence that I'm in like Flynn with the gig, hopefully within the first month, we shall retire to the nearest "Jewelries Are Us" store and pick out something suitable.

Once the fiduciary ship has been righted, I will be pleased to again contribute to causes near and dear on a more regular basis. This pleases to no end.

So, happy days are here again it seems and I can't wait to get started. It is my hope that this will be the last job I ever have before I retire.

God is good.

Some Positive News---for a change.

2011-01-08T18:37:00.002-06:00

Two items for which I am grateful.

1. My computer is fixed. It had a virus. All my files survived, but my unnecessarily long list of favorites did not. That's OK. I can deal with that just fine, even allowing for those few items I was really hoping to use when the computer got fixed. It was quite a drag using the back-up computer upstairs, as it is incredibly slow compared to that which I had become accustomed. I was given a laptop to use, but that also crashed coincidentally.

But now all is well again and that means posting again. I've had some ideas, but throughout the holiday season (beginning around Thanksgiving), I haven't had much spirit for doing so. With the computer fixed, I'm a bit more up for it.

2. This one I wasn't going to mention until it became official, but it's the best bit of circumstances that's come my way in a while. It appears that my job search has come to an end. A company for whom I interviewed recently ended up hiring someone who worked for a competitor of theirs. I was told that if something opened up in December or January I'd be called. I wasn't sure if it was actually and legitimately likely, or if it was just a consolation speech. A few days ago the contact called and asked if I was still interested. Needless to say...

At this point, it's really a matter of the job being mine to lose. I have to do another road test in a straight truck (I'm driving a B-class vehicle now, part time), then a physical, and then depending on whether or not my current employee really needs two weeks notice, I should be gainfully employed full-time by the end of this month. My wife is so happy. Even better, there will be more than forty hours per week far more often than not, so I'll be taking home far more than the job that laid me off two years ago. So I'll be able to recover from that woeful event more quickly and return once more to life as we once knew it. Praise God for this wonderful turn of events, and may He protect me from anything that might blow this opportunity. WOO_HOO!

Merry Christmas!!!

2010-12-24T17:04:00.000-06:00

I'll just leave it there!

Happy Thanksgiving!

2010-11-24T16:31:00.002-06:00

To all who visit, whether you comment or simply read, the Happiest of Thanksgivings. Let your stomachs be satisfied, your hearts be touched with love from the gathering of family and friends and your souls Blessed with God's Grace. Thanks be to God.

Just Because

2010-11-10T22:56:00.001-06:00

Show Me The Money!!!

2010-11-06T12:14:00.004-05:00

I've been wanting to post something regarding the midterm election results but haven't yet settled on an angle. But as I scanned a few blogs and sites to see what other people are saying, I came upon a few comments at one of the lib sites on my blogroll that seems to be a big concern there. These comments revolve around money in politics and corporate influence and who's really running the show.

Now, my opinion is that if we are indeed being controlled by "big money" or some cabal of super wealthy industrialists/capitalists who pull the strings behind the scenes, making decisions as to who will sit in the White House and such, we are still responsible for this situation. We ultimately control everything by being engaged in the process or delegating that responsibility by our abdication of that control we possess. And I don't care how much money a few rich dudes have, they simply cannot control 300 million Americans in revolt. If they want to stay wealthy and in power, they can't piss us off.

That's the macro. The micro is that what these mythical figures want or don't want is not likely going to affect the destiny of the average American with the ambition to accumulate wealth of his own. There are far too many success stories for the contrary to be true. But they do provide convenient fall guys for those looking for someone to blame for their failure to succeed in this endeavor.

So, as one nutty commenter at this particular liberal blog whined about the stupidity of the electorate, very much as I had after the 2008 elections but without the substantive supporting evidence, the subject of money's influence seemed to be a part of their explanation for the sea change of this midterm. I decided to look for some stats regarding the source and destination of money in politics. In doing so, I came upon OpenSecrets.org, a veritable cornucopia of such stats, info and articles on the subject.

Some of the info I found to be what I would expect. For example, most union money goes to Dems. This is no surprise. What I did find surprising is how often one finds sectors of industry giving equally to both parties.

But what I am most interested in learning, and rarely find without massive media focus when some situation is exposed for all to see, is just when and how the money is influencing anything. I may find that at OpenSecrets as I continue to peruse, but I don't think it's so easy to assume money's influence. That is, which came first, the money or the proposal? Did the money really bribe a politician, or did the politician's positions attract the money?

For example, in 2008, the site shows that the biggest recipient of donations from the American Federation of State, City and Municipal Employees was Barry and Hillary. Are they trying to persuade these two to work in favor of this federation, or does the federation donate because Barry and Hillary already work in a manner favorable to organizations like theirs? This isn't always clear but I suspect it is the latter. And thus, I don't have a problem with it. MY political donations ALWAYS go to those politicians that already mirror my own positions and interests. Why should it be a problem for groups of people to do the same? Indeed, without really trying, many large organizations, be they interest groups or corporations, are reflective of someone's position on one or more issues, even though that someone isn't a part of that org. or corp.

Most puzzling are those contributors that are shown to "on the fence" and give equal or near equal amounts to both parties. I would guess that they are trying to either influence everyone to their personal point of view or are just looking to support the political process.

But for those who worry about money in politics, I think there is no issue here unless it can be determined that a politician is plainly guilty of accepting money to enrich himself by supporting legislation he would otherwise not support on principle alone. Is it really money influencing politics if there are politicians who already favor the opinion of the contributor? The influence of money argument suggests that it is more common that politicians only get in the game for money for themselves and that they don't care about anything but money and power and that it is always the other party where this occurs. That just doesn't sound reasonable to me. Even if that were true, one would have to side with the prevailing attitudes to attract the votes to get to the money and power. I'm neither that cynical or conspiratorial.

Then, of course, are those who complain that they cannot compete with the big money, that it isn't fair for a single donor to contribute so much when we common folk haven't the funds to match. But this is a weak argument. If the position on a given issue is strong and properly articulated, if enough people support that position, how can money make a difference? A billion dollars of contributions doesn't vote. People vote. It still comes down to people being responsible for paying attention throughout the time between elections. It's not numbers of dollars that matters, it's numbers of informed voters. That will trump the influence of money every time.

What's Really Important

2010-10-01T19:46:00.005-05:00

In my last post, where I dealt with an apology from IL Senate candidate Steve Raushenberger for referring to homosexual marriage as "abnormal", little Parklife pooh-poohed my comments as a 2.4 on the "unfortunate-postings-richter" scale due to current coverage of the Tyler Clementi suicide. Oh, yeah. And the post was "homophobic" too, of course. Idiocy. I can just imagine his outrage had I posted the Ellen Degeneres call for a stop to bullying, which I was hoping to do. AOL or Yahoo had the vid and now neither does and I don't feel like searching for it. It's not necessary.

I was not surprised that Degeneres would weep over the death of this kid, or the other two or three she mentioned who also took their lives after being harrassed in one way or another. It is indeed sad, unfortunate, horrible, tragic and any number of other somber and negative adjectives one could think to apply to such an event. Of the few things in this life that can really get me going emotionally, the death of a kid is tops.

But, though I won't go so far as to say that Degeneres' concerns are motivated solely to promote the agenda homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, I have to object to the implication that there is something more devastating, more tragic, that a bullied homosexual kid would take his own life than any other bullied kid. I mean, why focus only on homosexual kids and not all kids who are bullied? But she calls this sad event a wake-up call to a phenomena that is epidemic. I don't believe it is.

This isn't the first time I've touched on this topic. It's come up in discussions of the infiltration into schools by homosexual activist groups posing as folks concerned about bullying, but only dealing with bullied homosexuals, while they really seek to further the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist.

Bullying by kids against other kids is as old as human existence. I'll bet it's older than the oldest profession. Kids are mean bastards. They really are. They are guided to be something better if they have half-way decent parents, but left to their own, well, I wouldn't want to leave them to their own devices. Lord of The Flies, anyone?

Kids who are bullies will bully for any reason that presents itself, and in lieu of such a presentation, will create one to serve the purpose. Kids who are bullies think bullying is fun. They get a kick out of it, and like adult bullies, they are charged up by the feeling of power they get from running roughshod over a helpless victim. The reason to bully is irrelevant to them. The victim might be fat, short, a different race, might have a big nose or wear thick glasses, might be the teacher's pet or be a goody-two-shoes or yes, might be as queer as a three dollar bill in one way or another. But what is common among these unfortunates is that they are all weaker in some way, or appear to be or are when they find themselves within the circle of the bully and his lackies.

So the bullies go for it. They do what they do and if the kid is a homo, that's just an excuse for the bully to express his personal brand of malevolence. But is the homo more likely to get bullied? I don't know if we can make that judgement. According to FBI hate crimes stats for 2008, 7780 single bias incidents revealed that 51.3% were motivated by race. Of that number, only 1200 were anti-homo events, which is a bit less than 15.5%. Ellen says it's a growing issue, but we're told that kids these days don't have as much a problem with homosexuality. I'm confused. 15% of the total hate crimes doesn't sound like an epidemic. 77% of school kids claim to have been bullied. If 15% of those are homosexuals, what of the other 85?

I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of child homosexuals killing themselves. But even to claim that they are killing themselves in greater numbers would require some evidence (as if the reason for kids killing themselves matters in the first place). I've found that half of the kids who consider themselves Goths have considered suicide seriously. (Or perhaps it was half the Goths have done so. I don't recall for sure and it's besides the point.) Depression among teens is commonplace and a major factor in all teen suicides, be they homos or not. The real issue here is that kids consider suicide at all. The reason for it is irrelevant.

So, notice the two major irrelvancies. The reason to bully and the reason to kill one's self. The reasons for either are of no concern to any rational and truly caring person. I don't care why a bully bullies. I just want him to stop. And I don't care why any kid wants to off himself. I just want him to go on living.

If you're going to say that you are concerned about bullying, then deal with the agressive tendencies of the bullies. Come down hard on every incident and make that one of those "zero tolerance" thingies that are all the rage in schools these days. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for bullying. Bullies need help. Some need incarceration. Left unchecked, they're more likely to go on to do worse things.

If you're going to say that you are concerned about the victims of bullying, then show concern for them all equally without favoring the homosexuals as being in greater need of protection. That's absolute crap and an assault on the dignity and value of all those other kids who are suffering just as badly at being bullied and harrassed for a different reason.

And if you say you are concerned about teen suicides, don't pretend that homosexuals are checking out in greater numbers. From what I've read, it's up across the board and the reason is the least important aspect. The choice of suicide as a viable option for anyone is reason to be concerned, and those who preside over kids should take pains to learn about the warning signs.

Finally, if the Ellens of the world want to insist that homosexual kids are somehow more likely to commit suicide over bullying or harrassment, doesn't that say something about the nature of homosexuals? Amongst those who aren't impacted by the pressures of the activists pushing the agenda that homosexuals pretend doesn't exist, there is still the question of which comes first: are emotional problems the result of being homosexual, or can emotional problems result in some turning to homosexuality? Of all the aspects surrounding the issue of homosexuality never to have been settled definitively, this is but one. A minor one perhaps, but when the issue concerns kids, I don't much care what the activists think or feel. It's something that needs to be settled.

Just Some Stuff

2010-09-30T12:37:00.002-05:00

Why Apologize?

Steve Raushenberger came in second in the Illinois GOP primary vote for US Senator to Jack Ryan, whose opponent wound up being one Barack Hussein Obama. When Ryan dropped out of the campaign after his "sealed" divorce documents were to be opened for all the world to see (what's the point in sealing them?), the Illinois GOP, in a staggering display of stupidity, tapped Alan Keyes to take Ryan's place. Though I like Keyes, I thought the smart move was to go with the runner up in the primary, Raushenberger, and throw all support behind him. The result of the GOP decision was disastrous and now look where we are.

Now, Raushenberger is vying for state senator and recently, following a debate or interview, apologized for having called "gay marriage" abnormal. My question is why would anyone apologize for speaking the truth? I think Raushy is a bright guy, but I think he should have stood firmly behind what I'm sure he knows is true. The issue of normalcy is separate from what the homo lobby sees as civil rights. Though the latter is debatable (barely), the former is a self-evident fact.

Hostage Crisis

The current blather from the White House and Dem leadership is that the Republicans are holding the middle class tax cuts hostage in order to benefit the wealthy. This level of gall should not be surprising to anyone. It has constantly been said by the same people that the Bush tax cuts were unfunded, as if funding is necessary to slash taxes. The fact is that spending should have been cut at the same time, and current spending should never have been implemented. The lefty point of view is what is known as "bass-ackwards". There should have been no spending that was not within the current levels of incoming revenues. No doubt spending was done with the aim of having as much of the Bush cuts lapse as could be gotten away with.

But to suggest that it is the Republicans who are holding the cuts hostage is nonsense. The tax rates are what they are to the extent Bush was able to get them reduced, which means also to the limits of time he was able to secure. People with actual brain matter understand that letting the cuts expire is a tax hike. The right wants everyone to continue benefitting from the current rate, particularly now during bad economic times, and that would include those with the greatest impact on job creation. The left prefers the lie that those people should be footing the bill for whatever wacky federal expenditure the Dems can dream up. But they don't care enough about the middle class, or those lower who no longer had to pay since the Bush cuts went into effect, to allow the greatest producers to keep what they've earned. So it is Obama & Co. who is REALLY holding the middle class cuts hostage. The bastards.

Where's The Outrage?

I just heard a story in the past couple of days that Obama is looking for ways to scrutinize our internet conversations in an attempt to head off terrorist activity. It seems that the baddies have taken to using the world wide web to communicate and do so by extreme routing methods that make getting a warrant useless. Hmmmm. Didn't we hear all sorts of wailing over similar actions by Bush and his security people when they sought to tap certain phone calls? Why aren't those same people whining about Obama hacking into emails and tweets and such?

It was never about civil rights and the right to privacy and other such things during the Bush years. It was about Bush-bashing, plainly and simply. With the Dems we've had the great misfortune to suffer over the past twenty years or so, let no one believe that any of them give a flying rat's patoot about anything other than gaining and maintaining power.

Bear Down

Allow me to take this opportunity to puff out the chest in celebration of the dominance of the Chicago Bears. OK, OK, back off. They look like crap much of the time with just enough stuff to stay in the game to allow a big play to win the day. Detroit doesn't know how to win, Dallas ain't America's team and Green Bay just beat the crap out of themselves on the Monday Night stage.

But we're 3-0 and that's all that matters right now. What's more, with the way the New York looks, together with some starters being injured, 4-0 seems more than likely. At that point, the Bears will be believing they can win for real and hopefully have their downsides pushed upwards enough to do so. I'm not totally on the bandwagon yet (though I am always in their corner), but I'm definitely driving right behind them.

Hey Mark! How 'bout dem Chiefs?

Idiot-In-Chief At It Again

2010-09-06T19:48:00.003-05:00

Yahoo ran this AP report by Darlene Superville of President Barely O'Braindead getting tough on the job situation.

I know. That's funny just saying it. As if he has any idea. It begins like this:

"A combative President Barack Obama rolled out a long-term jobs program Monday that would exceed $50 billion to rebuild roads, railways and runways, and coupled it with a blunt campaign-season assault on Republicans for causing Americans' hard economic times."

This means we'll see more money spent on those signs that inform us of how the slowdown on the freeways are brought to us by Barry & Co. It also means little else as the "stimulus" only ever lasts as long as our money is given back to us to "create" these jobs. First of all, I think, but am not sure, that the railways are owned by the railway companies. So why are we again subsidizing private industries? Why not lower corporate tax rates and let them fix their own tracks. They could surely work out details with all other entities that use the tracks or hope to ship via the rails.

Roads are a local matter, not a federal one. States and counties should be taking care of their own roads and if they continue to chase away business in their areas with Obama-like policies, then that's their own tough luck. Why should Delaware help pay for roads in New Mexico?

Only the runways might fall into some federal jurisdiction, but around here, you might have to talk to Richie Daley about that.

But then the end of that opener is par for Obama's course. Blame it all on the Republicans, as if Dems were pure as the driven snow. Doesn't matter what their part was in our current economic situation, and they had plenty to do with it, just blame the opposition. The question now is just how many of those who voted for the boob buys into that crap anymore.

Here's anothe gem from the article:

"Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, cautioned, "If we are going to get anything done, Republican cooperation, which has been all but non-existent recently, will be necessary.""

The fact that any Republican cooperation with this administration exists at all is reprehensible. Why would any self-respecting Republican care to jump on this train to hell only to claim his share of the righteous anger and frustration that is growing amongst the electorate? There are some Dems that are getting the message as well, at least as regards the plan for letting the Bush tax cuts expire, and one can only hope that they find the spine to stand firm.

We once again take the time to point out that while it is better to have an alternative at the ready (and the GOP does), one is not necessary to justify a loud "NO!" to the stupidity that is meant to pass for intelligent policy proposals by Obama, the brilliant one who has yet to provide any brilliance.

"He said Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy..." because his ideas are stupid and have failed. He proposes nothing new, but only his version of ideas that haven't worked for other countries that have tried them.

"...and have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse." How can this be? They have no majority to implement anything. How can something that can't be implemented make anything worse? Has he, through his cohorts in Congress, allowed or tried anything like, say, what Mitch Daniels has done in Indiana? I don't think so. What a liar. But then the next line in the article is this:

""That philosophy didn't work out so well for middle-class families all across America," Obama told a cheering crowd at a labor gathering. "It didn't work out so well for our country. All it did was rack up record deficits and result in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.""

To what philosophy does he refer? The one that opposes his goofy ideas? THAT didn't work out so well? THAT is how we racked up record deficits? We didn't start racking up anything record-breaking until he and his Dem cohorts took control of Congress in '06! And anything they did was dwarfed after his sorry ass took a seat in the Oval Office! Hey Geoffrey! This is what a liar in the White House looks like!

Check this out:

""If I said fish live in the sea, they'd say no," Obama said."

The smart money says to question anything that comes our of this guy's mouth. If he told me my name, I'd check my ID.

Once again, we see that he appeared "Casual in brown slacks and open-collar white shirt with rolled-up sleeves," I have a tip for him: He could appear in overalls and a hard hat and I still wouldn't believe he is working hard. He should stop the posing and actually do something, preferably something that works, like cutting corporate tax rates to attract business.

Of course, here's the punchline:

"Obama said the proposal would be fully paid for. In an earlier briefing for reporters, administration officials said Obama would pay for the program by asking lawmakers to close tax breaks for oil and gas companies and multinational corporations."

So once again, he intends to hurt the sources of jobs by taxing them harder to pay for his little project that he thinks is going to stimulate job creation. But we can't be too hard on the man. It must be really hard to think with his head so far up his backside. In the meantime, the unemployment rate steps up a little higher.

Heinous Selfishness

2010-08-24T19:17:00.002-05:00

Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart upon hearing of such audacious selfishness described in this article.

Who Would Hire? Who Could?

2010-08-19T23:57:00.001-05:00

The question of whether Obama and the boys are stupid or deliberately destructive came up in Eric's post below. This article from Investor's Business Daily lists ten reasons for the poor job situation in this country: (Hat tip--Wintery Knight)

-Executive orders and regulations promoting compulsory unionism.
-Obama's forced restructuring of GM.
-Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (ObamaCare).
-Extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks — almost two years!
-American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009.
-Minimum wage laws.
-Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
-Moratorium on offshore oil drilling.
-Expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
-Obama's runaway spending.

Any number of the above list would make moving a company overseas a good idea. Why would anyone want to start a business or expand a business with all the above hanging over their heads? In the best economy, with everything laid out to the advantage of business, start-ups or expansion is risky. But now, corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars and are too nervous to make a move, with some considering China, of all places, as the place to set up shop. Does anyone seriously think that's preferred?

The thing is, the detrimental effect each and every point has had on employment and/or the economy had been foreseen. Only a lefty could be so blind as to believe any of these moves would have a positive effect. If Barry's the brilliant one we're so often told he is, then this has to be a deliberate attempt to screw things up. Rank stupidity is the only rational explanation.

But hey, the nation was warned. He had no record of wisdom upon which to gamble a vote back in November of '08. True, McCain is no Einstein. But would we have it THIS bad? Doubtful. Keep in mind also that this is only the arena of economics. Barry's shown nothing resembling brilliance in any other area of leadership either.

From My Inbox

2010-08-08T20:02:00.001-05:00

Of all the "trash" emails I get, some are real treasures. This is one of them:

"The Postal Services created a stamp with a picture of President Obama on it. The Postal Service noticed that the stamp was not sticking to envelopes. This enraged the President, who demanded a full investigation.

After a month of testing and $1.73 million in congressional spending, a special Presidential commission presented the following findings:

1. The stamp is in perfect order.

2. There is nothing wrong with the glue.

3. People are spitting on the wrong side."

View From The ICE

2010-08-06T12:52:00.003-05:00

This littl snippet gives us some insights from the perspective of ICE officers toward ICE brass. I especially love the part where illegals who are criminals will voluntarily turn themselves in order to get a free ride home knowing they can easily return. They don't get put through any trial for their crimes committed here because ICE isn't equipped to do much more but deport. The article also indicates some things aren't always so bad for those awaiting deportation. Apparently, Obama admin people just refuse to see the dangers of an unprotected border and lax immigration policies.

In a side note, a lib columnist appearing in my local paper has tried to convince readers that Obama is doing more than Bush in deporting illegals. But based on the the report of ICE agents, how many of those being deported had been deported before, and how many times, is now in question. If numbers are heavily comprised of previously deported illegals, then there's really nothing about which anyone on the left should brag. It's all been a big farce. Of course, that pretty much describes this presidency.

Yeah, Just Swing Wide The Doors!!

2010-08-02T01:46:00.003-05:00

We don't need to secure the borders. Hell, no. Those poor immigrants coming here to make a better life for themselves is all that's important and by golly we can't, if we're to remain good and Godly people, do one single thing to inhibit their ability to enter at will. Why criminalize the foreigner with whimsical laws for crossing imaginary lines? Aside from the fact that only an idiot would think an unregulated influx of just anyone, even the "hard working people trying to save their families from imminent starvation", is a good idea, here's why.

Oh hell, I'm sure it's just right-wing fear mongering. Nothing to it at all. No, no, it's just racism under the guise of "national security". Yeah, like any sovereign nation needs to worry about something like THAT! Those wing nuts! They're so goofy!!

The Hapless Cubs

2010-08-01T15:13:00.005-05:00

I'm one of those rare individuals who supports both the North Side Chicago Cubs, as well as the South Side Chicago White Sox. Pretty much always have. I tried to be strictly a fan of one or the other, but it never made sense. Back in the day, before inter league play, and contests between the two were only exhibitions, my position was that Chicago was lucky to have representation in both leagues and as they did not play each other for real, it made sense to support both teams. Still does. To me, to do otherwise would be like an American supporting the efforts of the Army, but not the Marines. They are both our teams and they battle against teams from other nations. Da Sox and da Cub are both our teams and they battle teams from other cities. What do I do when they DO meet in inter league play? Well then, in such a case I pull for which ever team needs the wins most, either to gain ground in their respective divisions, or to maintain the ground they've already gained, which ever need is greater. (At this point, backing da Cub in such circumstances is futile with less than 60 games to go. They're toast.) If I live to see them both in the World Series, I'd simply sit back and beam, with a slight lean toward da Cub, since it would likely be their first chance since dinosaurs walked the earth.

*sigh*

And that's the problem. Da Cub can only seem to be good enough to disappoint. Every once in awhile they make the playoffs and then they're gone. And now the worst has happened two games in a row. Nothing hacks me off more than to see a record broken or a rare achievement happen against a team I support. A running back posting a career best against da Bearss. A shooting guard hitting a record number of treys for a quarter against da Bullss. I hate that. And now, two games against the Colorado Rockies (what the hell is a "Rockie", anyway?---"Hey! I'm a mountain range, dude! Watch out now!") has produced two fantastic achievements against da woeful Cub. On Friday they broke the record for most consecutive hits in an inning, amassing 11 with two outs (as I understand it). The final score was something like 17-2. Then, on Saturday, as if we were not sufficiently embarrassed, Carlos Gonzalez hits for the cycle. (For the uninitiated, that's hitting a single, a double, a triple and a homer all in one game.) And here's the kicker from the AP story: "Gonzalez became the sixth Rockies player to hit for the cycle and the first since Troy Tulowitzki did it last Aug. 10, also against the Chicago Cubs." (boldface mine--sad face mine,too). I'm glad I hadn't the sorry misfortune of seeing either game.

Now for those who are strictly Cub fans, this really sucks despite how freakishly typical. For me, I at least can take solace in the tenuous half-game lead of da first place White Sox in the American League Central over the surging Minnesota Twinkies. But I am a die-hard either way, and hurt more deeply if both teams are suckin'. Fortunately, that isn't the case.

But da Cub? Some say they're cursed. I ain't much for curses, but they seem to play the part well. I can definitely wait to see what's next.

The Condition of the Gulf

2010-07-30T23:03:00.004-05:00

Like many people these days, I have a Facebook presence. I never understood the point, but one of the lefties who never comment here anymore, one of my faves by the name of "Les" emailed me asking if I had one. Eventually I got one and I found one good reason (possibly the only one worth the effort) of having anything to do with FB and that was to try and contact old friends. It worked. I've been able to contact quite a few, including one I haven't seen in about thirty years.

Another I haven't seen in awhile is a regular poster and presented the final few minutes of one of the worst Steven Segal movies ever, called "On Deadly Ground". Absolutely horrible, except for the cool fight scenes.

Anyway, my friend posts the end of the movie which is an overwrought environmentalist pleading, not much different than your basic AlGore drivel. It shows those weepy shots of oil-covered animals and like most such calls for action, assume we can just drop oil consumption and switch to wind, solar, electric cars and fairy dust, and do it *SNAP!* just like that! Needless to say, I posted as somewhat snarky comment, mostly regarding the quality of the movie, but some directed at this part of it.

WELL! My buddy was none too pleased and launched into a raving chastisement which included knocking me out if we were close enough for him to do so (it's possible---we used to be martial arts students together). I asked him, "Why the hate, dude?" and he replied that I don't know a damned thing and that the Gulf is now just so F'd that I have no idea! There was talk about greedy oil people and such, I defended against such childish claims, he called me other names and suggested I don't know what I'm talking about.

This led to him sending me, upon my request, a sizable list of videos to watch (in order educate myself on things beyond my ability to fathom), some of which I've been able to watch and the rest still on tap. I haven't viewed enough for a report on the lot of them, but of the few I've seen some good ideas and also some conspiracy stories (hapless inventors oppressed by the man).

But I digress.

Getting back to the Gulf, I've read in this morning's paper a story from the Washington Post regarding a missing 4 million barrels of oil that spewed from the BP well. Here's some of what "experts" are saying:

"On Wednesday, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco said the oil is now much less visible on the surface and present only in microscopic, dilute droplets further down. She said that was a sign that the Gulf ecosystem is resilient and processing the hydrocarbons.

But she said that 'doesn't mean the situation is benign because it is not.'

'There's so much noise out there now saying the Gulf is dead or the Gulf will come back easily,' Lubchenco said. 'The truth is in the middle.'"

That sounds reasonable. In fact, it's kinda what I was saying myself, or at least I was speaking in that tone as regards the hyperbolic nature of the Segal movie and my buddy's rants. Here's more:

"The best-case scenario is that much of this amount has been eaten by the Gulf's natural stock of oil-munching microbes."

It goes on to say that some scientists think these microbes, which I believe I've mentioned to my friend, might cause problems of their own, depleting oxygen that sea creatures need, but that no oxygen-free dead zones have been detected thus far. Ed Overton, a professor at LSU, believes the microbes, helped by the summer heat (Hurray for global warming!) was helping. In fact, he believes we're "well, well over the hump" and that the environment is in the recovery stage.

Already? I thought we had a "fragile earth"!

All seriousness aside, it's still not a joking matter. The condition, as Lubchenco said, is still a matter of great concern. The effects could last for quite some time and will likely be monitored for years to come.

But what this article points out is that nature can indeed handle quite a bit. It always has and likely always will. It's bigger than mankind and I personally doubt that we could destroy it without an intense and concerted effort on everyone's part, worldwide. That's not to say that we shouldn't play cleanly as we continue moving forward with technological developments. Of course we should. But the political games have to stop. This event is being played for the benefit of economically damaging political policy proposals, like cap and trade. We can't allow that to continue because the fact is that the condition of the earth isn't going to matter to people without jobs. And the fact is that we need oil still, (as well as coal and nuclear) because there hasn't been any really practical alternatives ready to step in and take over without breaking the bank. What's more, if we finally can drive decent cars that don't look like crap as well as don't need gas and oil, we'd still have over four thousand other products for which we need oil to produce.

UPDATE: I just read and article by Jonah Goldberg, someone that makes lib heads explode with his smarts, that actually could have been used for its own post, but contains more info regarding the actual measure of the Gulf disaster. And as he points out, despite the over-hyped nature of the environmental laments, it is still a disaster. It's just not as bad as everyone of the environmentalists and Obama people shamefully hoped it would be. Apparently it isn't enough that eleven men lost their lives. It must really suck for them when more suffering does not occur. It seems two points I can plainly see are true has thus far been validated: 1) The earth is not the fragile planet some hope is the case, and 2) Technology has advanced to the point that even with government intervention, more commonly known as "government interference", the worst scenarios of any given disaster can be mitigated effectively. The left just hates that.

Stupidity Directs Judge's Actions

2010-07-28T12:46:00.005-05:00

This AP report demonstrates why it is so important to know as much as possible about a presidential candidate, lest he appoint an idiot to federal courts. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several aspects of the new AZ law which goes into effect Thursday. There are several questionable aspects of her ruling:

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,"

Apparently, she believes that the federal requirement that lawful aliens maintain legal identification on their persons at all times is a restriction on their liberty. Can you say "ass-backwards"? Having proper ID is what maintains the liberty of a lawfully-present alien. This is true for actual citizens as well. If I am pulled over for a traffic violation, my liberty will be in jeopardy if I don't have any ID, since I'm supposed to have my driver's license with my while driving. If I am merely walking the street and suspected of a crime, perhaps due to a physical resemblance to a wanted individual, my liberty will be suspended if I have no ID to prove who I am, or rather, that I am NOT the person they seek. (The horrors! I would have been profiled for my resemblance to the wanted dude!)

Further stupidity in the above quote is the implied notion that for AZ officials to wonder as to the legal status of anyone arrested and without ID is somehow foreign. Worse, is the implication that there is any less burden on the arrested "legally-present" alien if their arrest came about though federal action. In fact, would it be more or less a burden on their liberty if the crime for which they were arrested was a federal crime? In some cases, I would suspect that local cops make the arrest, but hold the suspect until the feds arrive. Since the feds don't work out of local police stations, there'd be a wait involved.

The judge put a hold on parts of the law that "...made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places."

Is this legal at all anywhere in this country? Why is it a problem here, where so many citizens, some legal aliens, are trying to find work?

"She ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues."

This would have been nice had they done as much for other states, like Missouri and California, that already have similar laws in place, and for the federal law itself, already in effect and unenforced.

"Opponents argued the law will lead to racial profiling..." dishonest fear mongering of the worst kind. Playing the race card in order to enable law-breaking is reprehensible despite how typical it is. "...conflict with federal immigration law..." it can't conflict if it was patterned upon that very federal law. It aligns with federal law. "...and distract local police from fighting more serious crimes." as does stopping motorists for broken taillights. What a BS argument. The concern for "serious" crime is a sham and only mentioned to support an already weak argument for the open borders crowd. It is used in arguments for legalizing recreational drugs. It is used for arguing against laws that restrict whatever the advocate wants to support.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law)," Bolton ruled. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

First of all, "substantial likelihood"? Says who? There is always a likelihood that cops will arrest an innocent person. So what? That's what lawyers and one's day in court is for. That's what the court system is for, to determine whether an arrest is just or not. It's more abject fear-mongering, once again playing on the racial aspects of the situation.

Secondly, no "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden" is imposed on ANY legal alien who has legitimate ID as they are lawfully required to have at all times. And really, what difference does it make WHO imposes this so-called "'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden", as long as it is lawfully imposed?

"Federal authorities who are trying to overturn the law have argued that letting the Arizona law stand would create a patchwork of immigration laws nationwide that would needlessly complicate the foreign relations of the United States. Federal lawyers said the law is disrupting U.S. relations with Mexico and other countries and would burden the agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries."

There's no patchwork if all states enact laws that are patterned on the federal law as AZ has done. This argument is incredibly stupid coming from "authorities". And if maintaining and enforcing existing federal law "complicates the foreign relations of the United States", then I would suggest that those engaged in said relations need to be replaced as they apparently are willing to trade our sovereignty and duty to our own citizens in order to bribe other nations to be friendly. Screw that. I'll take John Bolton over such weasels any day of the week.

But here's the one silver lining and it's a lesson for the nation, but mostly for the fools who are opposing the AZ law:

"It also led an unknown number of illegal immigrants to leave Arizona for other American states or their home countries."

And that's the point. DUH! Hello! Idiot lefty fools? Are you listening?

Imagine every state adopting the AZ example! This is evidence of what the anti-comprehensive immigration reform/amnesty people have been saying all along. You enforce the law and illegal trespassers leave. We won't have to "round up all 12+ million illegals", like some boneheads like to argue. Enforcing the laws already on the books is enough to make their decision to invade and stay unprofitable and uncomfortable. Rather than busting our collective asses to accommodate them, enforcing the laws makes them bust their asses to accommodate the country into which they mean to trespass. If you are illegally here, go back whence you came and get in the back of the line formed along the already established pathway to citizenship. While it is still there. I'd prefer it be closed for the next decade.

Report On Illegals And Crime

2010-07-23T02:25:00.003-05:00

I found this report to be very interesting. It reminded me of a CDC report showing that 60% of new syphillis cases are from the 2% of the population that are homosexuals. Here, we see 9% of the AZ population are illegals from Mexico, and they constitute 22% of the violent crimes committed (at least in Maricopa County). There is a graph that lists various crimes to illustrate what percentage is committed by illegals. There is only one that is below that 9% mark that denotes the percentage of illegals, but almost every other crime shows higher percentages of illegals being arrested (by that I'm referring to higher percentage than the 9% who are illegal). If it was Congress instead of crime, they'd be over-represented, as they are so in nearly every crime category.

The costs are very high. The report is dealing with just one state or county, but of course, there are illegals all over the country. I wonder how the stats compare nationally. Some people speak of the financial benefits of illegals (actually they usually just say "immigrants" and group them all together) and I also wonder how those alleged economic bennies match up to all these costs of criminal activity, adding also NON-violent crimes, as well as other costs to our society like welfare-type assistance for illegals.

Of Course Obama's A Socialist

2010-07-23T01:27:00.003-05:00

The title of this post is take from this American Thinker article. It would have been nice to have had it available while the discussion two posts below was still in gear, but it'll do nicely enough here. That some, even some on the right, steer clear of the word in relation to the Socialist-in-Chief, one cannot dismiss his upbringing, his own recorded words (in print, on tape and video) and of course his actions, some of which the article discusses. The reality is that Obama backers, leftists and even those disturbing souls on the right can only deny. They cannot defend against the truth. This Obumble is a socialist (as well as an idiot).

There is only one aspect where I might diverge from the author, and that has to do with just how far he'll go, or how far he'll set up the next socialist (should the nation not get the message soon) toward actual socialism of the type that even the lefties CAN'T deny. He might settle for the level of control he now has for awhile. But why would he stop there?

Racist, Or Just A Jerk?

2010-07-14T14:24:00.002-05:00

I saw this and just had to post it. For someone who's a lefty, Whoopie Goldberg has always impressed me as someone who sometimes has a decent perspective, depending on the issue. On this issue of the recent Mel Gibson tirade, I am in total agreement with her, that the use of racial epithets does not indicate even latent racism within the, uh, "spewer". She makes a remark about being cut off in the car and how her emotions make her lash out. Few could honestly deny doing something similar. When emotions are high, intelligence is low. This is a fact and during emotional times, everyone is stupid and many say stupid things that don't really imply anything more than being emotional and then saying something stupid. I mean, how could Gibson be considered racist for saying such words to his girlfriend? It doesn't make sense. He's not a racist. He's pissed off. There's a difference. If he was a racist, he'd never have been with the woman to begin with.

At the same time, I see his name all over the internet. It's on the yahoo home page regarding hot topics. And it's in the news on TV. What I should be seeing more of is REAL racism that is being perpetrated by that Black Panther dude insisting that a good black man should be killing "crackers" (I love that eptithet! I'm happy to be referred to in such a happy way! Of all the things I could be called, that one just brings a smile to my face. "I hate that cracker! He kept smiling while I beat his ass!")

But that's REAL racism. Calling names is just calling names. Being pissed isn't racism, and being pissed while drunk isn't racism. Should Mel lose business because of his personal life? Too many in his line haven't over things I think are worse, or at least no better. He also carries the stigma of daring to believe in God, even though he too often displays his own imperfection (he NEEDS Jesus, doesn't he? Don't we all!) I'll still see his movies. I find the guy entertaining. I hope he finds a way to deal with whatever demons possess him. He used to be a source of pride with a previously long-standing marriage, lots of kids and even his own chapel on his property. But he's obviously got issues with booze and rage. May he find peace and may the rest of us get over this race-baiting when no racism really exists.

Happy 4th!

2010-07-04T08:10:00.002-05:00

With the growth of the Tea Party movement, and the seemingly overall swelling of interest in the political, today might more, or at least, different significance than July 4th's of recent years. 9/11 brought about a patriotism based on a rejection of foreign tyranny and the feeling protecting the nation from it. Now, there is a sense of patriotism based on a rejection of domestic tyranny, manifested in bad legislation, appointments, judicial nominations and proposals still going through the process of forced feeding of an unwilling populace. More people, hopefully, are looking to our founders to remember what they had in mind for our country and our Constitution, and those who do are shocked at how far away from those ideals our leaders have tried to direct this nation.

We must resolve on this day to become even more involved, more vocal and more willing to take action as we get even closer to November. Stay on top of our representatives no matter what party they happen to represent. Make sure they understand that above all, they are to represent us.

Please keep the course and character of our nation in mind today. We must not let that course continue in the current direction. We must not allow the character of our nation to diminish any more than it has, but must insure that its character is refined and elevated so that our leadership amongst nations is again apparent.

In the meantime, don't blow off any fingers today. Enjoy the day, but remember why it's special.

Mayor Daley Is An Idiot

2010-07-01T23:35:00.003-05:00

I just read this online and frankly, it's not surprising. Aside from Daley being a Democrat, and that alone makes him an idiot, his position on gun control is about the goofiest pile of steaming bile one can imagine. This line is a gem:

"As long as I'm mayor, we will never give up or give in to gun violence that continues to threaten every part of our nation, including Chicago," said Daley, who was flanked by activists, city officials and the parents of a teenager whose son was shot and killed on a city bus while shielding a friend.

If he knew how to read, he could bone up on the studies that show a marked drop in violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws in states that have them. He could also see how states like his (which is also mine) have much higher murder rates per capita than do states with more reasonable gun laws. If he didn't have his fat head buried so deeply up his posterior, he would understand that the scum of the earth will not be the least bit put out by his attempt to further contribute to gun violence by continuing to disarm the law-abiding in Chicago.

The following is from the list of restrictions he's planning on enacting once the SCOTUS decision takes effect:

"• Prohibit people from owning a gun if they were convicted of a violent crime, domestic violence or two or more convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

He almost gets it right. Convicts, I believe, are already prohibited from gun ownership, though I might be wrong on that. But that is a good law to have. I don't mind that right being restricted for those who have proven to be a lawbreaker already. But the rest of the line poses problems. Neither domestic violence or drunk driving means one is likely to go shooting up the place. And domestic violence can mean varying degrees, with one side being somewhat, uh, less violent.

In any case, this would be a wee bit less insulting if the Mayor was not armed himself, either personally or by virtue of having bodyguards. None of his proposals should be passed without him having to surrender any arms or bodyguards that he uses for personal protection. OR, he should not be able to leave the house, or sit on his porch, or be in his garage with his bodyguards with him. Leave them in the house.

Will Geoffrey Breathe Easier?

2010-06-28T23:23:00.003-05:00

As we mark the passing of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, I can't help but wonder if sometime visitor Geoffrey will feel thathis death relieves us of the burden of having to recall that he is still among those stealing oxygen from the rest of us. Try as I might, I could never find anything attributed to Helms that matches the level of evil racism this Powerline piece attributes to Byrd. So I'm surprised that as of this writing (11:34PM CST), Geoffrey has yet to post the same celebratory obituary that he joyously posted for Helms.

It's easy to rip on southern politicians of the generation of Helms, Byrd, Thurmond (I wonder what Geoffrey thought of Trent Lott's speech to Strom on his 100th birthday---he must have gotten the vapors!), as they all came up in a time when racism was just the way things were. We look down on them for their racist beliefs (those who actually had them) and lump them all together if they ever uttered the "N-word". But there are differences between Byrd and Helms (Thurmond was somewhere in the middle leaning more toward Byrd than Helms, as far as I can tell).

For some, and Geoffrey's input will help clear the air as far as he's concerned, the differences are mostly political. It was hard to find stories of Helms that didn't label him as the worst kind of racist. But despite the fact that he claimed not to be a racist, and despite the fact that he had black people on his staff, he was (and still is) vilified more because of his politics than for him actually being a racist. He never supported affirmative action, which is racist in a different direction. He didn't support making MLK JR's birthday a holiday (Oh. The. Horror!) He didn't support propping up third world countries with tax dollars. And of course he didn't support abortion or homosexual "rights", which makes him Satan.

Byrd, on the other hand, was an officer of the KKK, a recruiter and as the linked article shows, fully expressed the worst kind of racist sentiments as part of his duties in Congress. He said that his time with the Klan was "a mistake", but good gosh, what a doozy! What in Helms life ever compared to THAT? And apparently, in March of 2001, Byrd allegedly called someone a "White Ni**er" while miked. Is there a Helms anecdote like that anywhere?

Hey, I'm not saying there isn't such things about Helms, but only that I've not found anything. I've looked again before beginning this post. What I'm seeing is that there are a ton of websites and blogs listed on Google that talk about Helms being an awful racist. One needn't even click on a link; it's right there. Google "Was Jesse Helms a racist" and see what I mean.

The question is, will we see the same for Byrd? Will he get the exact same treatment in the many obits that will appear, or will that "(D)" next to his name mean he gets a pass? As this AmericanThinkerBlog post shows, he'll likely get the latter.

But at least Geoffrey will be able to rest assured that the oxygen Byrd was stealing is now available for some really deep breaths. Kinda like springtime after a gentle rain, ain't it?

No Truce On Social Issues

2010-06-24T12:15:00.002-05:00

I came across two articles from Illinois Family Institute that I found to be essential reading for conservatives and Republicans. The first is from Laurie Higgins and the second by David E. Smith. They both refer to comments made by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniel(R), a guy I think on the whole to be a very fine governor. He has done a lot to keep Indiana from suffering the fates of other states that have fallen from the effects of liberal thinking. The state of Indiana is doing quite well by comparison to my own Illinois, Ohio, California, Michigan and a host of others in these hard economic times. (Indiana is also the home of Republican Congressman Mike Pence, an example of superior conservative thought and a long-time champion of many of the policies Daniel has put into place in their state.)

But the point here is in reference to something Daniel has said regarding social issues and whether or not it is wise for Republicans to spend much time and effort on them. I personally have heard a right-wing friend or two suggest that spending time on issues like abortion would be detrimental to the cause of steering our nation back toward the clearly superior conservative leadership. As I stated in a humble piece I wrote at American Descent, I don't see how standing for truth and facts can ever be a bad thing.

Some would say that winning enough seats in Congress to regain Republican majorities and/or winning the White House is what matters most. We can't do much if we're in the minority and have no audible voice in the White House. I can't knock this argument entirely, because it's true. We're seeing this now.

But to totally ignore the social issues, especially now, only serves to allow those who are on the blatantly wrong side of those issues (that would be pretty much everyone in the BO administration, most of the Democratic Party and everyone Barry would ever think to appoint to any judicial post) to dictate laws and legislation and policies that would wreak havoc on our culture.

The second article to which I linked counts the costs in dollars to our nation as well as to our national character and it is our character as a nation that concerns me most. Of those issues Smith lists, we have a stituation by which our character is defined by the lust of sexual gratification. I'm no prude, but I can't see how bowing to our lusts makes us a better nation, particularly with all the negatives that go along with it, such as abortions, unwed child mothers, STDs, etc.

One of my liberal visitors has commented that we (mostly me) seem to be obsessed with sex. This is truly a poor understanding of what I have been trying so hard to make clear. What concerns me is the obsesssion of our nation with sex. It has lead to so many problems in our society and indeed, has been a problem throughout history. The left proudly views itself as progressive for its position on human sexuality, but to compare today with all of history shows nothing progressive at all. Instead, it shows the left deludes itself that it has a better grasp of human sexuality which it then uses to justify its own unsavory lusts.

The right needs to find a better voice for defending virtue amongst our citizenry. Like it has with so much else, the right has failed to articulate the benefits of a moral society creates for itself. It has cowered before the mockery of leftwing criticism so that it feels such defense is a losing proposition.

But really. Who cares about mockery if it comes from those so fixated on pleasuring themselves? Are these really the best people to guide us? Look what they've done to our nation so far. It's morally corrupt, it's decadent and it's trying to become more so because for too long, on the social issues, good men have done nothing.

More Common Sense Regarding DADT

2010-05-31T14:25:00.003-05:00

This article in Human Events by William Buchanan (didn't he die in last season's "24"?), highlights the only sensible arguments that should be considered as Congress once again discusses a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which would allow openly homosexual men and women to serve in the military (in direct violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

A military spending bill that repeals DADT has already passed the House. This is a devious and dishonest ploy by enablers within our government. They tie this unconscionable repeal to spending meant to enhance the ability of troops now engaged in warfare to succeed. What results is that those who vote against this bill because of the part that repeals DADT, as whether it fails to pass or not, can be said to have been against supporting the troops. At the same time, the military has requested that Congress do nothing on this issue until it can be reviewed by the military, but apparently members of Congress think they know better what's best for the military than military people.

And this is where the article comes in. Even if the military leaders are wrong if they vote against a repeal (which they would not be), it is still something only they can righteously judge because the responsibility of the quality of our military falls on them.

But it seems there are too many political animals in the military as we see by an article in today's paper heralding the first batch of women now assigned to submarines in the Navy. There have already been higher incidents of rapes and pregnancies since women were allowed to serve on other ships, and now somehow, closer quarters won't make a difference. Don't these boneheads understand that our ability to protect the nation is at stake?

The article begins with a perfect example of boneheadedness:

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen recently fired another salvo to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 1993 law that prohibits openly gay people from serving in the Armed Forces, when he declared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, "No matter how I look at the issue I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens." "

"Lie about who they are"? Not at all. What common sense people are hoping for is that such people resist who they are, just as we hope pedophiles resist who they are, adulterers resist who they are, thieves resist who they are, etc., etc., etc. Why should this behavior be considered immutable, yet all other behaviors forbidden under the UCMJ not? Where's the social justice for rapists and thieves? The lie is that there is no difference between homos and heteros and that there won't be serious negative ramifications should this stupidity be made into law. The article to which I've linked lists a number of considerations that are more than just potential, but are worth a wager for their extreme likelihood.

UPDATE: More common sense on the issue of DADT is found here. It is even better than the one above for the fact that it focusses more directly on the real point of the opposition to the repeal of DADT. As much as some want to see it as some kind of racial like discrimination against those poor homosexuals, it is and always has been an issue of military effectiveness and how that would be impacted by the repeal.

FOR MY NIECE EMMA and other young people I love

2010-05-28T22:56:00.003-05:00

After commenting on my niece’s unnecessary use of the “F-bomb” on Facebook, she responded thusly:

“Can u like stop uncle art or ill just delete u off facebook my dad is my friend on fb and doesnt even comment these and u have no idea whats going on right now cause u never call me”

So now, my dear, I say to you:

You are more than free to delete or “de-friend” me for whatever reason you find sufficient. I’m sure someday (maybe months, maybe years, who knows?) I’ll learn to get over it. In the meantime, the truth remains unchanged: the use of such language shows a great lack of class. It shows a great lack of maturity. Before you or anyone else regard me as hypocritical, be it known that I do NOT consider myself exempt from this criticism and knowing that my daughters or nieces or nephews spew such vulgarity makes me more ashamed that I’ve cultivated the habit. And though your father might downplay your routine use of such language, I’m going to stick my neck out and say that it is not something which swells his chest with pride. (Go ahead---ask him. Ask him what would please him more---your continued use of profane and obscene language, or the knowledge that you are the unique one among your peers that never does. I dare you. See what he says and have him get back to me.)

Here’s something else to consider: It’s one thing when we let such words fly from our pie-holes. It’s quite another to consciously decide to type it out, in caps no less. In other words, it’s not like you were overcome with emotion that even your fingers on the keyboard are beyond your control. Besides, it really doesn’t matter what stresses you believe yourself to be under. It’s easy to be in control when there is no stress. It’s how we act when we are under stress that defines our character.

The Oil Thing

2010-05-27T11:07:00.003-05:00

I had been wanting to address this oil leak disaster for awhile now. I wasn't sure from which angle to do so. I was leaning toward simply discussing that as bad as this disaster is, it should not push us away from drilling more. There is still the little matter of getting too much of our oil from nations that don't much care for us, and sending them money to get it, money that is surely used to increase their own power and ability to mess with us.

But that just seemed so incredibly obvious. We didn't stop space exploration when the Challenger blew up. Why should we stop extracting our own resources and spend the money here just because a rig blew up? We'll surely have improved our ability to prevent another such disaster. Indeed, if redundant safety measures not in use can be proven to have prevented this mess, then the issue is moot. Drill, baby, drill!

I could have jumped on the slow reaction time of Obama to this crisis and ask, "Why does Barry hate black people?" It's been two months now. When the Exxon-Valdez spill occurred, Geo HW Bush was chastised by the press only fifteen days into the situation. Dems were demanding swift action, damnit!

But then, in the last thread, Dan hit on it (thanks, Dan). The perfect angle!

As you may recall, gentle reader, in our last episode, I was making a couple of points about illegal immigration based on info not commonly expressed in the media. One of these was the incredible mess left behind by the invaders. It was and still is my contention that those who weep so many tears for the plight of illegal invaders who trespass across our border and then undeservedly avail themselves of the incredible bounty of these here United States should go down to Arizon and clean up after these poor unfortunate souls who's own country doesn't give a flyin' rat's ass about them. I mean, it's only fair considering how those of us who understand that abortion destroys a real person are expected to adopt and be responsible for the unwanted unborn, so to should those who care so desperately for the illegals who don't care about our laws be made to adopt and be responsible for them.

But Dan, in a weak attempt that for him must pass for being clever, suggested that I have no credibility regarding the environment because, I guess, I support the move to drill here, drill now (Baby!). According to Dan, he'll worry about the despoiled Arizona desert when I worry about the Gulf, as if I don't already. A few problems here with the first being that the Gulf has nothing to do with the topic I was covering. Next, in the case of the Gulf, where drilling I support makes me culpable somehow, clean-up efforts by those responsible were ongoing, whereas the mess made by illegals was NOT being cleaned up by either those responsible or those, like Dan, who support them.

Dan goes on to try to compare the extent of the damage and who and what is affected by it and thinks he's scored as a result. But of course, illegals destroyed the World Trade Center, killed many and deprived many more of jobs and income. So, by Dan's math, he's still in the hole. But what's worse was made more clear to me by this article. In it, Henry Wickham, the author, shows just how much the tree-huggers are responsible for this disaster as well. Their obstructionist actions regarding drilling in more reasonable locales has to be included if one wants to honestly think in terms of blame, because really, why would anyone want to drill a mile below the ocean's surface in the first place when there are plenty of safer and less expensive places to extract what is so wanted and needed? I tell ya, that ANWAR is lookin' a whole lot better now!

What this comes down to is the typical manifestation of the law of unintended consequences so often experienced following the implementation of most lefty proposals. A good rule of thumb would be that if a lefty has a plan, don't let it become law until it is properly scrutinized by smarter people. Likely as not, it'll end up hurting far more than it helps.

More AZ stuff

2010-05-24T10:48:00.004-05:00

This AmericanThinker blog post shows what most Americans never see, and what most American libs would prefer we didn't see. Perhaps Dan, Geoffrey and Marty can buy about fifty 50 gallon drums to serve as garbage cans so the poor illegals seeking a better life have some place to throw out their crap so as not to despoil the land they really, really want to inhabit. And like this news report highlights (takes a few seconds to load---be patient), it points out a more sinister aspect of the border issue: those that want to do us harm enter in the same way.

These two reports show that members of terrorist groups actually learn Spanish so as to more easily sneak across the border. The Mexican scumbags that are preying on the poor that libs think they are considering will also help the terrorists get across the border to do whatever it is they are planning and hoping to do. Sure, perhaps some of these people from Arab lands are also seeking a better life but, like the Mexican illegals and S. American illegals, are illegal themselves.

But just meditate on the pictures, libs. In addition to the trash littering the desert, throw in the occasional dead body of an illegal who didn't make it, or was murdered by the thugs preying on those seeking a better life. Now think on just how open borders would work. Would there be simply open borders, get here as best you can? Or would you be insisting the feds spend my tax dollars to facilitate their entry? And what of those who live on the AZ side of the border, who own the property through which the illegals are now trespassing, would you insist that they sell part of it to the feds, or should the feds just take it under a lib interpretation of public domain?

For now, I insist that all you libs who think our current laws need amending or eliminating, those of you who think the United States provided the motivation for these illegals to leave their shithole environs governed by corrupt and/or incompetent politicians, those of you who insist that these invaders are just hard working people seeking a better life despite an apparent inability to clean up after themselves, I insist you all go to the Arizon desert and clean up after these forlorn people and maintain the area for as long as they need it to ignore our laws. And tell those terrorists you really want to be their friends. See how well that goes over.

UPDATE: I just had to add this absolute gem. Note at the bottom of the piece that the author is a grad of Berkeley and Harvard. Sure, he was there in the 70's, but it's amazing he got through those schools with his common sense intact.

UPDATE II: Two more relevant articles here and here.

Alien Nation---More Questions

2010-05-02T20:15:00.004-05:00

*Just read this in a George Will column:

"...since 1952 federal law has said: "Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." "

It seems to me that a law such as this carries with it an expectation that at some point, and for some reason, such identification might be required of an alien in this country. Does it make sense that such a law should exist yet law enforcement should be prohibited from ever requesting that an alien produce such documentation? Why is asking for this documentation fascism and a cop asking for license, registration and proof of insurance after pulling someone over not?

*In today's local newspaper there were stories of rallies and marches for immigration reform. It stated that this was planned well before the AZ law became news. Aside from the fact that it presented a great opportunity for ICE to apprehend more illegals, it was basically an event organized to draw attention to the plight of people who broke the law to enter this country. Apparently, that they are "forced" to enter illegally is some kind of "social justice" issue. (I never needed Glen Beck to tell me that use of the term is a ploy.) I wonder where the justice is in demanding citizenship for illegals when we have 10% unemployment in this country. Far better that we deport as many illegals as we can to free up some of the jobs that they have taken. I don't want to hear this crap about them doing jobs Americans won't do. In today's economy, I have personally spoken to many who have "lowered" themselves to take jobs they never would have taken five to ten years ago.

*Also in today's paper, in the same article, was an activist with stats about how long it takes to go through the proper channels to enter this country. Supposedly, the United States is one of the most restrictive and it takes twenty years for some to go through the process. I'm tearing up. How it that our problem? How does it make us responsible for this "social injustice"? Apparently, we screwed up so badly the economies of so many other countries that we now owe these teaming masses a piece of the American pie. Of course that's crap. And La Raza thinks they're gonna get back California.

*So maybe by now, one of those who have posted comments opposing the AZ law could tell me what number would satisfy them as the proper amount we should let in each year, and while they're at it, explain where the hell they're all going to work? Explain also just what is wrong with the numbers we're letting in now. With our unemployment level, why should we let ANY in right now?

Theses are just a few of the questions that keep popping up in my head regarding the illegal invader issue. More will pop up I'm sure, at which time I'll add them to the list.

Way To Go Arizona!

2010-04-27T11:30:00.003-05:00

There's been a lot of hoopla over this new Arizona immigration law that will take effect later this summer. The violence and hate that is normally said to be a trait of the Tea Party protesters (falsely) has been common in the protests of those who oppose this legislation. Critics have been taking pot shots at it such as Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who said that the law sends "a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens." So? How is that a bad thing? I mean, being unfriendly is rarely cool, but to be unfriendly to those who willfully break the law? That's supposed to be something for which anyone should be ashamed? What the hell has happened in this country?

Michael Medved, if I'm understanding him correctly, thinks this law, if supported by conservatives, will drive Hispanic support more in the direction of the Democratic party. I don't get that. Conservatives will lose support (or rather, not increase support) of the Hispanic community because they stand for the rule of law? Is that it? So are we supposed to be like the left who, rather than insist on proper behavior will alter the understanding of right vs wrong so as not to lose votes? I'd rather the country comes crashing down around us rather than to "compromise" on righteousness like that.

Medved thinks that because even legal residents of Hispanic background might know someone who is here illegally, perhaps even a relation, that they cannot be reasoned with regarding the need to follow proper procedures for entering this country and availing one's self of its bounty.

So what's so bad about this bill, anyway? I've looked it over and haven't found anything over which anyone should be alarmed. It basically says that henceforth, Arizona law enforcement will enforce the law. That's it. It states that cops can, with reasonable suspicion, insist that a person provides proof that he is here legally. That's already required, but what has been happening is that cops around the nation are being prevented from making such inquiries.

Indeed, Obama is said to have called for a cut in border enforcement, a stop in ICE raids and is planning to propose what's sure to be, another amnesty bill dressed up as immigration reform. And how's that fence coming along?

Here's the deal: We have laws for entering this country. They need to be obeyed. Period. Those who don't obey them, never mind just how hard working they are or how much they wish to provide for their families, should be deported. If they came through proper channels, then they wouldn't be deported. It's that simple. No. I'm not saying the immigration rules provide a simple means of entry. I'm saying that doing things by the way the law is structured will prevent deportation.

Here's more of the deal: We have every right and duty to regulate who enters our nation. It does not serve us to have open borders where there is no oversight as to who is or isn't here and why they came, what their intentions are, etc. If there happens to be more people wishing entry than our system is set up to allow in a given year, that's just too damned bad. They have to wait or prove they are more worthy than the next immigrant.

The Arizona law also prohibits other laws that might interfere with the ability of law enforcement to enforce the immigration laws. This is a good thing as it prevents any Arizona municipality from becoming a "sanctuary city". Some lefty mayor looking for more votes won't be able to game the system in order to win election.

Some, like Medved, wonder what will happen once this law is in effect. Will profiling take place? I hope so. But not only of the racial variety, but of the linguistic variety. Anyone who can't speak English should be under suspicion of being illegal. It's only logical. Are Hispanics now expected to carry papers, like the Jews in 1930's Germany? Not exactly. But aren't we all required to carry identification when we drive or seek to do various business? And if we are arrested for any reason, aren't we expected to identify ourselves with our legal names, and legal places of residence? I can easily provide a birth certificate if one is requested, as it has been for the last dozen or so jobs for which I applied. Why should it be any different for someone suspected of being here illegally, whether that person is Hispanic or not? And look, like most terrorists are youngish Arabs, most illegals are Hispanic looking/sounding. No, not all, but the Polish illegals will get theirs eventually as well.

What will we do with them? Are we to round them all up, and if so, where do we put them and how do we transport them? Stupid question. Who says that we have to get them all right away? Who says that once we show we are no longer going to protect illegals, but follow the law, that many of them won't start leaving of their own accord just to prevent the major hassle? And really, as far as transporting them, how did they get here in the first place? So they ride a crowded bus. Big deal. Many rode in the back of a trailer sitting on the floor. Some merely walked across. We can round them up, lock them up until we can transport them all on our own terms and timetables. If our facilities get crowded with illegals awaiting deportation, we'll just back off on the round ups until the facilities are emptied.

What of the children? Some are born here and are Americans! Assuming there are no legal Americans willing to take them in, they simply go back to their parent's country of origin with their parents.

This new Arizona law, for all intents and purposes, only does what existing laws are supposed to be doing. Enforcement. I applaud the Arizona governor for signing this bill. I hope more states adopt the law as well. The reform of our immigration policy must begin with enforcement of existing laws. It must begin with strengthening and securing our borders. All illegals must be deported and made to stand in line behind all those who are seeking entry in the legal manner, if any still exist.

What God Hath Joined...

2010-04-14T21:46:00.005-05:00

I saw a bumper sticker today. It looked something like this:

What God has joined together

I support gay marriage

Well...I couldn't get the fonts and sizes to work the way I wanted them to, but you get the idea. I thought whoever created the sticker, as well as those who paste it to their bumpers, assume a lot considering they have no Biblical justification to believe that God would have anything to do with the joining of two people of the same sex. It assumes they know His mind in a way for which I am often chastised. Of course when I state something I believe God would do, think, say or whatever, I at least can back it up Scripturally. I guess it's OK if someone wants to proclaim that they support what the Bible would indicate is totally out of the question. But to suggest that God would take part in such a thing is really assuming a bit much. In fact, it's quite absurd based on all the Bible says about the subject of marriage and sexuality. But it's the world in which we live and for those who are determined to do whatever they want, it is necessary to get as many people believing as they do as to whether or not a behavior is right or wrong. Even if it means rewriting the Bible.

Northern Wisdom

2010-04-12T18:35:00.003-05:00

I saw these articles over at Wintery Knight's blog. He always has such good material and is worth a gander with regularity. These Canadian articles were so good that I had to link to them here. Read them. They're excellent.

The first is an article by a guy named Rex Murphy and is an article explaining to the Canadians who Sarah Palin is. I put it here because he understands far better than do so many of her fellow Americans and quasi-Americans.

The second is also a Rex Murphy piece and it speaks to a different matter altogether. In this one, he reports on the state of human rights in Canada. It's an important piece because of what it portends for us if we continue to adopt the same inane attitudes regarding what does or does not constitute "human rights". It's important to remember such as this:

"The core concept of human rights is the protection of the irreducible safety and dignity of the individual from the massive and arbitrary power of the state. Not, the state wandering in, with its apparatus and procedures, its boards and tribunals into the doings, or speech, of the individual."

This is not merely a Canadian concept here, but something that is very American in understanding the place of the state versus the value of the individual. Murphy speaks of two specific cases of politically correct insanity (both involving "different" people) that cannot help but be in our own future should the wrong people (read=Obama &Co) be in charge for too long. He then asks,

"For this, did the great armies of the West storm the beaches of Normandy? For this, did Solzhenitsyn and Sharansky endure their endless nights of hell in the gulag?"

Indeed. What passes for rights these days would make many of bygone days roll over in their graves.

Finally, Howard Levitt followed up the above Murphy column with one of his own regarding employment. This, too, has implications for our country as this administration plays footsy with the unions. What results is a confusion over rights. Namely, who has them?

To say that we are headed in the direction the second and third articles describe is hardly a point of debate. We see it all the time in the constant whining for "gay" rights and the debate over Card Check and investigations into SEIU. We're only six and one half months away from correcting the drastic mistake of the electorate in November of 2008. Only 6.5 months to hold off this administration from further damaging our nation. And this administration will continue to berate those who see things clearly and speak with logic and common sense. People like Sarah Palin for example who, like Murphy understands all to well, is far more intelligent than the Obamaniacs have the courage to admit.

Born On The Side Of A Hill?

2010-04-04T17:37:00.002-05:00

I brought this up once before, either here at Marshall Art's or on someone else's blog. I don't remember which and after several glasses of wine and a fine repast I'm not up for searching it out (not that I'd be up for it in any case). But the topic here is proper attire for church.

Call it a pet peave, but there's just something about jeans and t-shirts that seems something less than reverent in the setting of a Sunday service. The usual defense of this practice is that God loves us just the way we are, or some such nonsense. First of all, I don't believe that for a second. He loves us, that's for sure, but not necessarily the way we are. I mean, what's so good about any one of us that any one of us should take that attitude? Seems kinda prideful to me and that's not a good thing, either.

A variation of that is that as long as we go to church, that's the main thing. I don't buy that either. The Parable of the Wedding Banquet ends with the king in the story throwing out the guy not wearing wedding garments. Now despite the spiritual moral of the story, all the parables of Christ dealt with real world situations and applications. None of the parables involved things that did not also have practical "real world" value. This parable speaks of the man entering the wedding on his own terms which was insulting to the king. Seems to me that it is insulting to wear less than one's best to attend a worship service.

That is, insulting to God. Imagine actually going to a wedding wearing whatever you pulled out of the hamper. Would that not be insulting? Did not the bride and groom (whichever invited you) simply want you to attend? You went, that's the main thing, right? Of course not. Few would dare attend a wedding dressed in everyday clothes (unless one's everyday required a suit). How does anyone figure a jealous God would be cool with that same person then showing up on Sunday like he's off to clean the stables?

The whole thing here, is not really even a matter of what God might think of dressing down for service. My concern is in the thinking of the person that thinks shorts and sandles is appropriate for attending a worship service for the Supreme Being in Who's hands resides that person's eternity. Is He not important enough that looking one's best is worth the trouble? "Ah, it's only God. He loves me no matter what!" We know that God loves each and every one of us. That love, however, isn't a free pass. How much does one really love and revere the Lord if one can't muster up the effort to put on a tie, or, for women, to wear a dress?

There is one person I know who dresses very casually every Sunday. One Sunday was an exception. This person was dressed more formally than usual and my first impression was that something awaits this person after service that the person felt required the better clothes. Sure enough, I heard someone ask this person about the sartorial upgrade and the answer given was as I anticipated. I wanted to ask this person why this event after service was more deserving than service of such fine attire. I wish I had the courage to ask that question. But I didn't. (Such courage if fodder for another article.)

For my own part, I only recently resumed wearing a suit and tie. During my layoff I was unable to maintain my wardrobe as I preferred it to be. The last interview for which I needed a suit was January of '09 and I wasn't happy with the fit. In addition, that was the last shirt that I could button at the neck and it was quite snug. I hoped that the interviewers weren't scrutinizing my clothes too closely. As I moved into the trucking field, suits for interviews were actually discouraged. I was told to dress like a trucker. But I didn't dress like a trucker for church. I wore slacks, dress shoes and the best shirt I had in the closet. And that's the point. For God I wore the best I had.

Now, I've been able to get my suits re-tailored and I have a few shirts that fit, so I'm back to my preferred Sharp Dressed Man status. A more handsome man would be hard to find. (A quick hint to those whiners who think neckties are uncomfortable: buy a shirt that fits. If the shirt fits around the neck, you shouldn't even notice the tie until you look down or in the mirror, at which point you'll say to yourself, "You look marvelous!")

I am not worthy to be in God's presence. I'm not worthy to be in His house. That I am invited does not change that. The only thing that makes me worthy is me and how I relate to my God. There is nothing I can do (beyond accepting Christ) to win His favor, but that doesn't mean I need do nothing. He is deserving of my best and that includes how I dress. I do it to glorify Him. I do it because He's worth it. I do it because I care about how I present myself to Him for worship.

Happy Easter!!!

2010-04-04T16:54:00.003-05:00

In a recent long running discussion, the subject of Easter services came up and what is appropriate for teaching during such a service. It was my contention that Easter, being the single most pivotal event in the history of mankind, deserves to have the events of that day, indeed the events of that weekend memorialized every year at this time to the exclusion of all else. Without the Easter weekend event, there is no Christianity. It's that simple. The events of the Crucifixion through the Resurrection are essential events without which we are still bound by the law of Moses (if we gentiles even get to be considered). The whole weekend 2000 or so years ago took place to allow us the means by which we are forgiven and that physical death will not be the end for us. Now that Jesus died and rose we have the ultimate "in" regarding access to Heaven and God's presence.

So what was the services like at my church? That was a question posed to me after I critiqued the services of another. I begin with Thursday, Maundy Thursday and our Tennebrae service. In this service, the pastor begins by welcoming everyone and then speaks a bit about the service and what the point is. We look at this day as the day of the Last Supper and the events that surrounding it, such as Gethsemane, etc. So the choir, of which I am a part singing tenor, begins the Shadows of the Cross contada with a member of the elders doing readings in between hymns. The readings are simply a retelling of the events up to the Resurrection, and throughout, candles specially set up are extinguished as the readings and hymn singing go on. We then partake of communion, followed by another hymn.

Friday and Saturday, my wife and I were in Galena, IL celebrating our 20th anniversary, and she couldn't be happier.

Sunday, today, my wife attended the early service so as to give her time to prepare for the family coming over for Easter dinner and the daughter and I attended service at the usual time. A regulary feature of our Sunday service includes time for joys and concerns, wherein congregants express things in their lives that have brought them joy or given them cause for concern for which we can all pray together as a community or extended family. Both my wife and I each voiced our joy for our anniversary. Isn't that just too sweet? (Say "Awwww!" here.)

As the service progressed, all hymns were Resurrection related as were the readings from Scripture. Then came the sermon. The pastor, Pastor Pete, began to speak about "Dancing With The Stars" for the purpose of bringing up Buzz Aldren, who, I guess, is a contestant. He brought up Buzz because he landed on the moon and supposedly once there, asked Houston for a moment or two wherein he served up the Eucharist to the rest of the crew. I'd never heard that story before and I found it quite cool, but the point of bringing it up was that there were and are some who think the moon landing never happened. They think it was a hoax. Buzz doesn't care what they think because he was there and knows what is or isn't true about it.

Then Pastor Pete spoke of the Holocaust and how there exists those who think that didn't happen, but that there are still Jews alive with tattoos on their forearms who know if it did or didn't. From there, he spoke of the Resurrection and how some believe that never happened and have been such people since the time it did happen. And he spoke about belief in the Resurrection as an essential belief of the Christian faith. He spoke about whether or not there would be a Christian faith had not the Resurrection occurred.

So Pastor Pete spoke about, not flowers and clean water, but the Resurrection. He didn't really get too much into why it is important, but he didn't speak about some nonsense regarding politics in Roman occupied Jerusalem of the first century. No. He spoke about Easter. He spoke about the Resurrection and how it is an essential of our faith. And despite my serious reservations regarding the heretical teachings of the denomination in which my congregation is a part, I am pleased to know that at least in my church, we know what Easter is all about.

Not Really About Health Care

2010-03-29T09:14:00.002-05:00

I got the above from Wintery Knight's blog. There's much more good stuff to read there. I re-posted the video for the stupidity of Max Baucus actually stating what the right already knew, but what the left was trying to hide. The redistribution of wealth, that not-socialist intention of Barry & Co. and their blatant not-hatred of those who create wealth is again on display, admitted in public for the edification of the people. The guy sounds hammered. He had to have been to spill the beans. I wonder how Barry feels when his people speak out of turn like this.

Where We Stand II

2010-03-25T22:49:00.002-05:00

This article is another look at the current state of affairs, and why anyone with any sense at all needs to be more involved politically and reject progressive/liberal/Democrat ideology.

Perspective

2010-03-24T13:38:00.003-05:00

In the previous post, I mentioned a protester at a local rally wondering if armed revolt is warranted should Obamacare pass the House vote. Bubba reminded that such an option should not be dismissed and may indeed be necessary at some undefined point in the future. Dan jumped on it as if there are actual plans afoot to bring about such a response. Of course, he thinks this is a done deal as do many libs who can't see past the rhetoric to understand what is really going on.

This excellent J.R. Dunn article clearly points out a number of reasons that underline my belief that armed rebellion is not close to necessity. He adds some that didn't come to mind.

Consider also the fact that members of Barry's own party required bribery to cast a "yes" vote. Only the totally corrupted liberal (almost a redundancy) would overlook such a thing and constituents of those who were so bribed will not likely forget, especially if they are among the first who's taxes will rise as a result of the bill's passage.

There are also, as the article suggests, those who voted for Obama not to support him, but to punish the GOP. Now they fully understand the warnings and pleadings of their more rational compadres.

Add to that the actions already underway across the nation and the numbers willing to continue the vocalizations of the people begun by the Tea Party Movement and Barry's gonna have his tobacco stained hands busy. My oldest friend (who is a lib) spoke of his having optimism for our nation. Maybe this is what he meant

Where We Stand

2010-03-23T01:39:00.002-05:00

Not totally unexpected, the numbers of people who had shown up in Washington on Saturday was not enough to provoke attention from the mainstream media minions of Obama. It took some racial epithets supposedly hurled by protesters of economy destroying health care bill toward black (that's "black", not "African-American") congress people heading across the street to vote. Now, I won't put all my eggs in the basket of one brief video that failed to show actual protesters actually screaming the "N"-word at anyone. It could have indeed happened. But it seems we have only the word of some black congress people at this point, unless something's come out of which I am as yet unaware. No matter. Why was there so little coverage of the gathering at all? If it was a pro-baby killing gathering, we'd hear how 400 million people showed up.

Now, in a side note, that same Saturday found me amongst some worthy people protesting outside the building that houses the office of Rep. Melissa Bean (D). It was to begin at noon and run until 3PM. There were roughly between 30-50 or so braving the windy, snowy day (it was in the low 30's) and there were somewhere in the neighborhood of 12-20 supporters of this heinous assault on liberty and the American way. I got there around 12:20 and split around 2:15. By this time, the stupid, also known as supporters of this heinous assault on liberty and the American way, had packed it in. It was said that around 1:00, the news was the Bean had announced she would vote against the wishes of the American people. I wasn't surprised. She's a Democrat and there's no way they really anguish over such decisions. They don't have the brain power required to really think deeply enough, otherwise, how could any of them support this crap?

I must say that I did run into one guy who gave me pause. This guy was beating around the bush for awhile, but eventually copped to the notion that he would support an armed rebellion, and that it was all that was left to us. I totally called him out on it and said that his idea was about the stupidest thing I had heard of since the election of Barry Obama. I told him that if he really cared he'd spend more time studying the issues so as to be better able to explain to lefties he knows just how stupid they are for being lefties. (In not so many words.) We just don't need that kind of nonsense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What ranks as among the hardest aspects of this whole deal is to hear the comments of the idiots who voted this monstrosity upon our nation. "Historic" is a word used far too often as if we're to see it as historic in a good way. Pearl Harbor was historic. Auschwitz was historic. The Chicago Fire was historic. The assasination of Abraham Lincoln was historic. None of it was good. This health care "reform" bill isn't either.

Some of these chuckleheads want to suggest that there is enough good things in this bill to make destroying our economy worth it. They don't use quite that presentation, of course, but that's the reality of it. There's not one good thing in this bill that couldn't have been handled individually, with a bill specific to whatever good thing one wishes to bring up. Not one. And if they were to have crafted a bill to, say, tackle the issue of pre-existing conditions, they would not have needed as much of our tax dollars to bribe other politicians to vote for it. Think of the cost savings in bribes alone! "This is the way it's always done" we hear them say. Bastards.

As to pre-existing conditions, to force insurers to cover such will drive them out of business, which is exactly what they were intending in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To continue on the subject of chuckleheads, and believe me, it's all I can do to inhibit my desire to use much stronger language (the assholes), there's the BS-er extraordinare, Bart Stupak. This lying S.O.B. has been doing the Texas Two-step in trying to justify his turncoat "Yes"-vote Sunday night. This little blog-post has a few vids that show just how little he really cares for the unborn. Voting for this piece of crap was what he was intending in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still another chucklehead, this time a Dem on Hannity's show, (can't remember his name but he's a regular on Hannity's "Great American Panel") stated that now 30 million people will have access to health care. This lie is told over and over by all sorts of chuckleheads, from Dem politicians to the chuckleheads who vote for them. The fact is that everyone already has access. We have illegals getting care for hangnails at emergency rooms all over the country. It's total bullshit that anyone lacks access. The truth is that the Dems want to provide, at our cost, health care of all kinds to anyone, for any reason, no matter who they are, how they live, so that they can get votes. Bribery is a mainstay of Democratic/leftist politics. And here's another little gem that will hasten the demise of our economy: immigration reform is coming next. Obraindead will be pushing through Congress some half-assed bill to reform immigration, grant citizenship to all the illegals here, and all the promises about lowering health care costs, which were bullshit to begin with, will be right out the window for sure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is so much wrong with this health care bill that I simply can't properly gather my thoughts to expound on it. I am shaken by the audacity, effrontery and arrogance of the Democratic Party and their pathetic leadership. I am aghast at the stupidity of those who voted for these people. There is very little of what has transpired since January of '09 that wasn't predicted. Barry & Co. are acting pretty much as we knew he would because, after all, we actually vetted the bastard ourselves and knew well the cut of his jib. Still now, I have little doubt that there exists too many who think yesterday was a great day for our nation. And somewhere between now and November, and surely between now and November of 2011, there will be a bone designed to be thrown to enough of the stupid to keep them enthralled with this bane to our liberty and it could be enough to perpetuate his harmful administration. I pray fervently that the stupid receive their epiphany, pull their heads from their collective asses, and get with the program.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is said that once we get an entitlement it is near impossible to repeal it. We've repealed a freakin' Constitutional Amendment. This should be child's play. Demand it!

Rhetorical Drivel

2010-03-18T08:56:00.006-05:00

I saw this as a teaser to an article at Townhall.com:

"Candidate Barack Obama promised immigration activists, "I think it's time for a president who won't walk away from something as important as comprehensive reform when it becomes politically unpopular.""

I haven't read the article yet, which is by Victor Davis Hansen. Though he's talking to immigration activists, I don't know if Obama's referring to immigration reform or health care reform or some combo thereof. What strikes me is the lie inherent in the statement. Actually, there are two. The first is that he is somehow more courageous in meeting such challenges, such as whatever reform it is about which he speaks, as if other presidents are actually frightened by the prospect.

The second is that reform, of either or really, any kind, is what is politically unpopular. This is the same kind of lying that goes on when the Gore-ites insist that their opponents deny there is warming, when everyone who pays attention knows that the "deniers" are referring to man's part in it. It isn't reform that people reject, for most people do indeed believe reform is necessary for both areas. The opposition, the unpopularity revolves around the means of reform. What it will look like under plans and proposals Obama favors.

As with GW Bush's plan for comprehensive immigration reform and WJ Clinton's plan for health care reform, we see the same scenario playing out regarding BH Obama's health care reform (and likely whatever immigration reform he may have in mind, I'm very sure). The plain fact is that in every one of these scenarios, the people know better. They can see that each of these proposals are/were rife with flaws and that they would be damaging to our nation.

So the hunt for the legendary Obama brilliance goes on. No evidence of any has ever been revealed. Who could stand up and insist such reform packages are good ideas and hold claim to brilliance at the same time? I know, however, that I'm sure to get some true brilliance out of that VD Hansen article.

Mature And Reasoned Continued

2010-03-17T00:50:00.003-05:00

This press release from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention serves up some hard facts that support one of the issues brought up in the post below entitled "A Mature And Reasoned Objection".

In the debate over the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, activists and their enablers cry out for justification over the (sarcasm alert) heinous bigotry of those who support the current Uniform Code of Military Justice policies banning homosexuals from serving. One such justification came from the CDC and the link provided here provides the stats that suggested to mature and reasonable people that there does indeed seem to be a far greater concern regarding health issues from a group of people who engage in this behavior forbidden under the UCMJ. That 2% of the population can be responsible for the majority of new cases of STDs says something about the group that justifies a discriminating attitude and policy.

The study didn't seem to mention "marriage", either legitimate marriage or the faux marriages of the homosex community. Thus, it would be difficult to comment authoritatively on what possible difference it would make if they removed "married" homos and married heteros from the equation. But as they based the numbers on the overall groups, that is, all the homos over a particular age compared with the rest of the population over that age, it's likely the numbers wouldn't change all that much.

Sadly, the press release seems to have a bit of a pro-homo slant (which makes the numbers all the more important in determining whether the military should bother changing their policy). For example, one quote from Kevin Fenton, M.D., director of CDC's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention:

"It is clear that we will not be able to stop the U.S. HIV epidemic until every affected community, along with health officials nationwide, prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men with HIV prevention efforts."

Prioritize the needs of gay and bisexual men? I thought they were supposed to prioritize the needs of the country in general. There is a percentage of the population that still smokes. Do they ever think in terms of "prioritizing the needs" of smokers? How about fat people? Do they prioritize the needs of fat people? I don't think so. For all other people who engage in unhealthy and self-destructive behavior, I believe the CDC is looking to get such people to change their ways. But here they worry about their "needs"? What does that mean, exactly?

It goes on to speak of contributing factors for the high rates among the homo population which...

"include high prevalence of HIV and other STDs among MSM, which increases the risk of disease exposure, and limited access to prevention services. Other factors are complacency about HIV risk, particularly among young gay and bisexual men; difficulty of consistently maintaining safe behaviors with every sexual encounter over the course of a lifetime; and lack of awareness of syphilis symptoms and how it can be transmitted (e.g., oral sex). Additionally, factors such as homophobia and stigma can prevent MSM from seeking prevention, testing, and treatment services."

So here we have a group of people who show a marked lack of self-control even with a higher probability of negative effects. How difficult is it really to consistently maintain safe behaviors, anyway? And dig that last sentence of the quote! They blame normal people for not seeking prevention, testing and treatment services! The noive!

This next bit is especially rich:

"There is no single or simple solution for reducing HIV and syphilis rates among gay and bisexual men," said Fenton. "We need intensified prevention efforts that are as diverse as the gay community itself. Solutions for young gay and bisexual men are especially critical, so that HIV does not inadvertently become a rite of passage for each new generation of gay men."

The mature and reasoned individual knows immediately what's wrong with this picture. There is indeed one single AND simple solution for reducing STD rates, not only among homos, but among normal people as well. Everybody knows what it is. It's never been a secret, even though it is the solution who's name no one will mention.

This study shows that there is indeed one important consideration regarding whether or not DADT should be tossed, or whether or not the UCMJ should be revised as regards homos in the military. These stats indicate a burden no organization should have to bear for the sake of so small a percentage of the population.

Still Another Shows His True Colors

2010-03-13T11:26:00.002-06:00

As anyone knows who has bothered to follow the post entitled "A Mature and Reasoned Objection", little Danny Trabue has now taken his ball and left. Oh, he'll respond to Craig's comments, but that won't last for I detect Craig experiencing the same frustration as anyone of common sense who seeks to engage with Dan. Lil' Danny will soon level charges of slander and false witness when Craig doesn't buy Danny's poor defense for his indefensible positions.

So again we see that as always, the lefty bolts when he can no longer defend his position rather than admit that, at the least, he might have to back off and reconsider either his argument or ours before proceeding. No. It would be catastrophic to have to admit being wrong, even if being wrong puts one's salvation at risk.

As I seek to better understand my God and the world around me, I offer this blog as a vehicle for all who wish to not only express their opinions, but defend them so as to enlighten those who might need enlightenment, myself in particular. What I get instead is leftist bloviating, condescension, and an overall unwillingness to consider the opinions of others. This is something, ironically, of which we are so often accused by them. The hypocrisy of the liberal/progressive/marxist/socialist/etc (terms that are interchangable in reality, if not definition), knows no bounds.

But Lil' Danny is a special case. Unlike the other leftists who have booked from these welcoming confines after having failed to plug the holes in their arguments, Dan has gone a step further by leaving after the usual whinefest with a slew of lies left to sully the furniture. He then chose to ignore any further comments by Bubba and myself, except for one begun by calling me "the man of slander", as if I actually slandered anyone.

So I took my responses to his charges to his blog where he then proceeded to blatantly mistinterpret them. When I took the time to correct THOSE lies, he deleted my comments, leaving one of his own suggesting that I was lying some more. Dan Trabue has proven himself to not only have a poor understanding of the Christian faith, but that he is a hypocrite, liar and a slanderer.

He's a contemptable and pathetic figure and really has always been so, seeking to present himself as pious and sanctimonious, but always revealing his true self when others expose the errors of his understanding, casting aspersions on the critic's character and motivations not suggested by his words. Yet, his own words are the basis of the conclusions of his critics. His clarifications cement rather than alter those conclusions. Nothing that is said of him has ever come from any other source than himself.

Here at Marshall Art's, I have only deleted the comments of those who's language was severely profane or offensive (in MY opinion). The only exception would be the comments of Feodor, who is a special case because of his pompous arrogance and condescension not supported by any evidence of higher intelligence and the fact that his comments so often bear no relation to the topic. (He doesn't stray toward a tangent, he jumps to something totally unrelated---and he bores me.)

But real discussion is always left as it stands for the reader (should there be one) to decide for himself who is being logical or illogical, truthful or untruthful, sensible or nonsensical. I have no fear of being shown to be lacking in any area of thought. I wish I could say the same for my opponents. I have no need to lie about anyone or anything as I have the truth on my side and the truth speaks for itself.

Good luck to you Dan. Like all the others who have run like wussies, you are always free to return. I'll probably leave more comments for you to delete or dismiss without an intelligent rebuttal, which is apparently what you do now. And anytime you think you can demonstrate that I truly owe you an apology, that you can demonstrate that I have truly lied or slandered either you or your church, feel free to do so and an apology will be quickly offered. The fact is, no lies or slanders came from my mouth and if you had any courage, you would have let your readers see that instead of depriving them the truth.

Another Sign of Descent

2010-03-09T09:17:00.001-06:00

Read this article here.

Why Our Descent Sped Up

2010-03-08T16:41:00.001-06:00

Go here to read this article.

A Mature & Reasoned Objection

2010-02-25T15:40:00.004-06:00

I saw this in my inbox today and just had to present it here. In other discussions regarding Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the move to eliminate the restrictions on homosexuals in the military, I had expressed concern about those who must deal with the change should it occur, they being the officers in command positions. The linked piece contains a letter from a retired Navy Captain with 30 years in the military. He lists his credentials and relates his experiences and in doing so, touches on some of the points I tried to make albeit with more eloquence and authority. He also relates problems already experienced with regard to homosexuals already in the Navy, to answer points made by some that they are rare. They apparently are only rare as compared to non-homosexuals who comprise a larger percentage of the service.

Many of the points and concerns raised by the captain are dismissed as inconsequential in the larger picture by those for whom homosexuality is a cause on par with racism, which of course it is not. They only want it to be seen as such because it helps the cause. But the captain makes a great case and as he says himself, shows that he has really considered the question, rather than what appears to be merely a bow to politically correct inanity so typical of the pro-homo activists and their enablers.

If We Were Fools Then, What Does This Make Them Now?

2010-02-24T09:13:00.002-06:00

We who didn't buy it were called all sorts of things by the sophisticated adherents. We were rubes who didn't understand science. And of course, those professionals who also denied were criticized as being less than theirs, not really qualified, or worse, paid to deny by corporations who stood to profit by our destruction.

But now we see a blizzard of evidence indicating that it is the adherents who have been less than honest. We have a rising tide, as it were, of contrary info that shows that the adherents were less than selfless in their research.

This Selwyn Duke article lists a litany of abuses and questionable practices by those who have championed the AGW sham upon the world. There are many such sources available now showing how tax money was stolen for the sake of this nonsense. Imagine if the Copenhagen talks went better for the warmists! Imagine if Bush had signed on to Kyoto! The money that would have been wasted would have been more than criminal, it would have been demonic. And we still have politicians in this country that are looking at cap & tax policies, looking to force stricter regulations that can cripple job growth.

What it comes down to is that we just missed a financial catastrophy and wiping our brows and gasping, "Whew! That was close!" is about right. But as Duke suggests, it ain't quite over and we must push those who intended to foist upon us this crapola and bring them all out into the light of our warming sun and determine if criminal charges are in order for any of them.

In the meantime, we can now enjoy those who cling to the lie and laugh as they have little left but to try and pretend we don't know the difference between weather and climate because we use recent snowstorms to mock the warmists. Their overinflated sense of superiority is always good for a few chuckles.

P.S. It should be re-stated, because many on the left will always seek to try to pretend we don't care, that the state of our environment is always a righteous concern for all. Though the weather is beyond our ability to improve or destroy, we can muck up the earth if we aren't careful. Let's not be pigs and let's punish those who are.

Partisans Just Sayin' "No"

2010-02-22T23:56:00.003-06:00

So Evan Bayh says he's not coming back. Partisanship and gridlock, he says. I wonder what his constituents think of his "leadership". Is running away from challenges what they were thinking when they voted for him?

(As a sidebar, a lefty blogger who no longer visits here thinks his excuse was better than Palin's when she stepped down as governor of Alaska. Don't think so. He quit because of the job. SHE quit because lefty haters were interfering with her ability to do her job with their goofy lawsuits and such. In addition, her Lt. Gov had already proven himself in her place as she campaigned with McCain, so it's not as if she left her people hanging.)

Back to Evan. More precisely, back to partisanshihp and the party of "No". First of all, I don't think partisanship is a bad thing at all. Gridlock indicates there are some real problems with what one side is trying to propose. In a time when one side lost there power after forsaking principles, holding fast to those principles is a good thing. (When the government can't operate, they can't get in our way.) I don't think the founders meant that anyone just roll over and accept what they think is a bad idea. I think they meant that these things get hashed out extensively before imposing anything on the nation.

But we know that the idea is to ram stuff through as quickly as possible before anyone can really get a handle on what is being proposed. This is definitely NOT what the founders had in mind at all. So any obstruction is a good thing. And what we've seen over the past year is that when there is obstruction, time is had to pour over just what Barry & Co were trying to do to us. (They'd say "for" us, but it's really "to" us when the impact is felt.) There's really no excuse for any administration to rush any legislation, especially considering the size and scope of things like health care reform, the banking industry, stimulus packages, etc.

So now, of course, we hear that the GOP is just the "party of 'no'". We hear that the right has no alternatives. Let's look at this.

Suppose there's an apartment building on fire. A guy name Barry O rushes forth and says "I can fix this!" and he whips out a big bucket of gasoline and is intent on throwing it on the fire. A bunch of guys scream at him "NO!!!" and Barry insists that if they don't have an alternative, they should shut up and let him throw the gasoline on the fire. Of course they have an alternative. They have water and history has shown that water is a good thing to use to put out fires. But did they really need to have an alternative in order to be justified in telling Barry "NO!!! Don't throw gas on the fire!!"? Of course not, because they know his idea is stupid and only going to make the matter worse.

This is what we are witnessing now in Washington. Barry is intent on throwing gasoline on the fire that is our messed up economy. We know his proposals are detrimental because they parallel similar moves in history. The right doesn't need an alternative in order to be justified in telling him his ideas suck.

But the right DOES have ideas. This Randle Hoven article lists a few health care proposals. This Christopher Chantrill article lists some budget cutting ideas. Check out Newt Gingrich's American Solutions.com and more ideas can be found there. Wisconsin's Rep. Paul Ryan(R) has a mess of ideas.

There's plenty from the right and we know that Barry doesn't even give them the time of day. They've been kept out of meetings, though now Barry says he's going to invite them to talk health care. I hope they continue to obstruct because frankly, he's not about to do anything about their ideas anyway. And we know Senate buffoon Harry Reid is intent on using reconciliation to push whatever the hell he thinks is a good idea.

No. Keep saying "NO" and obstruct as long as you can. If they want to really discuss, then discuss and articulate the superiority of conservative ideas. If we can obstruct until the mid-terms, that'll be far better than allowing more economy destroying liberal policies to go into effect.

Just say "NO!"

Real Awareness

2010-02-21T22:57:00.004-06:00

Do you display one of those pink ribbons for Breast Cancer Awareness? How aware are you really?

I'm someone who believes that there are really few, if any, incurable diseases and/or conditions. Among those that seem to be incurable, many, if not most, are avoidable. Cancer falls into either category. We often set ourselves up for cancers by our lifestyles through what we ingest, inhale or absorb through our skin. We cripple our immune systems and render them too weak to do their jobs from these poor practices as well as through poor nutrition needed to fuel our systems properly. Not easy to do as we live our lives in today's world, but not impossible if we really care enough. Like most of life, it's a matter of trade-offs, a little work and study, and some of that nasty self-discipline.

Self-discipline. That's the hardest part. Doing what's best and avoiding what ain't. Here's a trade-off for ya: the pill or no sex? Of course, one could say, the pill or condoms. Either way. The pill has been shown to raise the chances of breast cancer, especially in young women who have not yet been pregnant. (Irony here. Doing what one tries to avoid might prevent what one doesn't want.) This article presents information that should be more public but isn't.

Like the abortion/breast cancer link, the pill/breast cancer link is downplayed. You'd think feminist groups like NOW and NARAL would be sounding the alarms...oh wait. They LOVE abortion and the pill. They love the pill so much they insist on a morning after version which is just the pill at a larger dose. OK, that's just a joke. Not the part about feminists loving abortion and the pill. The joke is that they are really looking out for womanhood. They aren't looking out for women anymore than GLSEN is looking out for homosexuals. If they really cared, this stuff about connections with cancer wouldn't be underplayed. What it amounts to is an incredibly heinous lie that leads to death or disfigurement.

It's simple, really. Do you like your breasts? I do. I don't want to see them harmed in the least. They look good on you, they belong on your chests and someday some baby of yours might want lunch. Why take chances? To get laid? C'mon. You're supposed to be liberated now. Why use your liberation to be like the men you considered immature? Why put yourself at risk? Take charge of yourselves and you'll be taking care of yourselves.

Ya Prolly Seen Dis Awready...

2010-02-21T21:57:00.002-06:00

...but I thought I'd reprint it anyway. I got it in an email a couple of times and whether it's true or bunk, it's a good way to go about layoffs these days. Enjoy (or wet yourself if you're a lefty):

A Lay-off letter from an excellent boss.

Dear Employees:

As the CEO of this organization, I have resigned myself to the fact that
Barrack Obama is our President and that our taxes and government fees will
increase in a BIG way.

To compensate for these increases, our prices would have to increase by
about 10%. But since we cannot increase our prices right now due to the
dismal state of the economy, we will have to lay off sixty of our employees
instead.

This has really been bothering me since I believe we are family here and
I didn't know how to choose who would have to go.

So, this is what I did. I walked through our parking lots and found sixty
'Obama' bumper stickers on our employees' cars and have decided these folks
will be the ones to let go. I can't think of a more fair way to approach
this problem. They voted for change...... I gave it to them.

I will see the rest of you at the annual company picnic.

THE BOSS

Cuz I Haven't Posted In A While

2010-02-18T01:01:00.001-06:00

Took The Words Out Of My Mouth

2010-02-06T01:23:00.004-06:00

I've been thinking about the Rahm Emmanuel incident regarding his use of the word "retarded" and trying to figure out how I wanted to address it. I've just read this Paul Shlichta article which says it all for me. The same could be said for other words, such as "bastard" which I once used as it was meant to be used and good golly how the poop hit the fan! Shlichta nails it. Now that I think of it, I get the same crap for using "homo".

Just Like Us?

2010-02-05T15:01:00.004-06:00

I came across this article in my email inbox and found evidence of what has been said before, yet denied by the activists and enablers. Homosexuals aren't interested in monogamy in the traditional sense. They aren't interested in marriage in the traditional sense. And despite the fact that there are cases of heteros willingly engaging in wife-swapping, in inviting a third party to the conjugal bed, and other deviancies, that has never been considered, to say the least, typical of what a marriage or monogamy is or is meant to be.

There is little doubt that the main drive is to redefine both marriage and family so as to accomodate every perversion possible. Michelle O'Mara suggests that everyone finds ways to make their relationships work. By this she implies that it isn't a matter of submitting one's self to the traditional sacrificial aspects of a true union, but instead, finding ways to accomodate each individual's personal desires.

This is ass-backwards. We have marriage, wherein a man and a woman willingly bind themselves to each other for life to become as one unit manifested in the compact of fidelity to each other. That is marriage. Not one man with another man, or woman with another woman, or any other arrangement with no fidelity. They are trying to redefine the whole game to their own satisfaction due to their personal weakness regarding with whom they choose to have sex.

Dan Savage, who twice has engaged in "three-ways" with his "husband" says this: "The culture says if there is love there is no desire for others and that makes people–essentially puts them at war with their own instincts and leads to lies and deceit because you’re lying and deceiving yourself."

I don't know of which culture he speaks, but I don't think that's the case in the one in which I live. I've heard people say that, and it's surely a romantic notion, but I've never known that to be a given. In fact, the standard and traditional set of marital vows makes that notion quite naive. Why would each party have to vow to love each other from this day forward in good times and bad, for better for worse, etc, etc, etc forsaking all others and such 'till death do they part? Right there it suggests to me that temptations will not be magically rendered non-existent, and like all other temptations we are to resist them, rise above them and do the right freakin' thing. I do not lie to myself about being attracted to other women. I simply do not allow myself to be ruled by those attractions. That's not lying. That's being a man.

Then of course there's the whole monogamy thing. I don't think it is typical in the hetero world that both parties agree to open relationships. But according to the small Lowen and Spears study, 40% of the homos begin their relationships with an open arrangement while the remaining percentage get to it eventually. I don't think you find those numbers in hetero situations. And when you do find a party looking outside his/her vows, they're doing it on the sly whilst the other remains committed.

We're expected to change our laws to accomodate a segment of the population that even within itself has few that really care about true devotion to their partners. And that strengthens the institution how, exactly?

Et tu, Dan?

2010-01-28T16:52:00.004-06:00

It may be that we've now lost Dan Trabue. Hard to say with him. He may only have bailed on that specific discussion. The thing is, it always comes up again, both here and elsewhere, including his own blog. But just as recent posts have suggested, he has bailed in the typical manner. I guess that's just the way it is with those on the left.

Some may say it's good riddance. That may be true for them at their blogs and I have no problem with how others choose to maintain their own. Me, I like the back and forth, even if it seems futile, non-productive and when it gets boring even for me to continue (because that passes and I get back into it).

But I won't apologize for my style of engagement. Charges that I'm stubborn, hateful, mean-spirited and the like are rank bullshit. I'm a great guy. I'm a regular fuzzy puppy. Soft and cuddly (especially since I haven't worked out in months). But I am intolerant. Oh, I tolerate people who are different, that is, those who don't articulate well, those that misspell words, those who need a few explanations in order to get it.

But I don't, not "won't", "DON'T" tolerate stupid, silly or wacky opinions. I don't tolerate opposing opinions. Sure, all have the right to express them. But I don't have to respect those opinions, and I don't show respect by pretending there's validity in every opinion presented. I expect those opposing opinions to be defended until they can no longer be. I find it far more respectful of others to show them the error of their ways. And I'm respectful in hearing out those opinions when they are presented respectfully. But if it's weak, it's weak. If it's crap, it's crap. It's best you find out as quickly as possible without any tap dancing. I'll explain why I think so. I hope my opponents will do as much for me. Don't bore me with accusations about my character just because you can't make your case. I don't think that's too much to ask.

In Other Words...

2010-01-24T00:33:00.002-06:00

This wonderful essay from American Thinker, that racist, poorly written but incredibly spot on collection of articles of intelligent opinions against which liberals who visit here have never been able to argue, is timely considering recent posts of mine such as "Poor Baby". There has been a lot of whining over "respecting" the opinions of others, allowing that other opinions "have merit" and generally boo-hooing when I dare to call what I think is a crappy opinion...well...crap. As I continue to maintain, everyone is free to believe what they choose, but I'm not in any way obliged to respect those beliefs.

As the article submits, respecting the person is the important thing, but to respect a poor idea, opinion or position does no one any good. That I continue to welcome opinions of all sorts shows the obvious point that I respect those people (except for maybe Feodor---he seems to demand far less and who am I to refuse a visitor?). But to just automatically tolerate those opinions as equal to mine? Not a chance. One must make one's case. Some call me stubborn for this. Standing firm for what I believe to be true is not stubborness. It's integrity. It's being principled. And as poor an example of either that I may be, I do the best I can.

Consider: I believe, nay, I know that poop is stinky. Let's say someone, say, Feodor, shows up with a smattering of poop behind each ear. He loves the smell so much he wears it like perfume. Though it may match perfectly his personality, I will not tolerate him wearing that scent in my presence. What the hell! It stinks! No matter how he tries to explain it otherwise, it plainly stinks! I haven't even gotten to whether or not I like him even showing up, but his opinion of delightful odors is crappy and so obvious is it that I cannot be persuaded otherwise. I'm not being stubborn. I'm stating the plainly permeating truth.

Most opinions aren't quite so obvious, but without an argument that persuades the result is the same. That my opponents are offended by my, uh, opinion of their opinion is really too bad. I care too greatly to be put off by the slings and arrows of those with so sensitive a nature. Frankly, I don't understand the sensitivity. It's pretty obvious that my opponents don't agree with me, but you don't see me crying about being offended. Imagine if some Druid left comments here. There's no way I'm going to respect their beliefs about oak trees and mistletoe. Am I being unChristian to allow them to continue believing such nonsense? I don't think so. Tolerating such leads to chaos. From the obvious to the subtle, I will continue to reject opinions contrary to mine if I find them to be foolish, mistaken or out and out crappy (interchangable adjectives all) and do so in the same way I always have: by offering evidence to support my opinion or refute the other. Whichever side can no longer return volley will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side picks up their ball and goes home will usually be the side with the lame opinion. Whichever side pleads for civility, just because the other says the opinion is crappy will usually be the side with the lame opinion.

The tolerance demanded is intolerable.

Herd Thins Again As Les Bolts

2010-01-16T22:25:00.004-06:00

In my last post, I published a comment wherein I appealed to Les to return to the debates as he is one who offers fairly good opposition. I said this while dealing with the famously goofy and notoriously prideful and arrogant Feodor, who fails so routinely in showing why he should be either prideful or arrogant.

But in the post entitled "Poor Baby", he once again bid me farewell. At first I thought nothing of it as he has done as much more than once in the past, only to continue lurking and dropping a comment here and there.

However, for some reason I decided to look him up on Facebook, where he is on my friends list. At least he was. It seems as if he's "de-friended" himself and I suspect it happened after a recent response to a recent comment of his. Kind of ironic him leaving since he's the reason I'm on FB in the first place.

I guess my little blog is beneath him now. Too boring, he says. We're not much more than people who think we're on a talk show. That's an interesting perspective. I kinda thought Marshall Art's was a place where people can discuss and debate topics and issues for which they had some passion. I also would have thought Les was sharp enough to see that. It's looking like the title of that post, "Poor Baby" is pretty darned appropriate for those who no longer care to engage.

Oh well. I'll continue to keep the welcome mat out, as all those who've vacated are still more than welcome to put in their two cents, engage in the fun and then leave like they've a real reason to take offense or to condescend. I fully understand those with whom I'm dealing.

Pioneer or Propagandist?

2010-01-11T15:55:00.002-06:00

This article discusses one Frank Kameny, one of the first to push for special rights for homosexuals. He apparently was a gov't worker who was fired for "simply being a homosexual". I don't know how I could find the original documents describing the circumstances surrounding his termination, or if such even exist today. I will say that if he was indeed fired for "simply being a homosexual", then indeed his firing was unjust. Somehow, I can't help but feel that there must be more to it, though considering the times, perhaps not. But I also can't help but feel that all pro-homo elements would prefer that the story be no more than is advertised as it helps them maintain their phoney victimhood status.

Now, let me elaborate for just a minute on my last statement. The homo-as-victim ploy is a favored one by the activist. Indeed, Kameny states,

“Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot. He should repent of his sinful homophobia. He should atone for that sin, And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4000 years.”

I guess God should also atone for all suffering endured by thieves over that same time period. What a mean guy that God Almighty is!

Franky also insists bigotry is a sin. Funny how atheists have no trouble defining behaviors as "sinful", but aside from that, I'm kinda bigoted against thieves. Is that sinful? But though thieves can resist the urge to steal, so of course can homos resist the urge to have sex with members of the same sex. So bigotry against bad behaviors and the people who engage in them is not sinful in the least, but actually beneficial to society. Indeed, it enhances the character of our culture to have citizens holding each other accountable through our laws and customs. Keeps us all on our best behavior.

Frank and his friends want us to allow one particular bad behavior continue and worse, insist that we all ackowledge it as "good". Imagine that. Taking from the REAL civil rights movement the expression, "Black is Beautiful" and changing it to, "Gay is Good", he is one of the first to take this perversion and insist on this moral absolute. But again, it's like saying "Kleptomania is good". What nonsense. Imagine someone saying "Straight is good". The best we can say is that straight is normal, that straight is how we were born to be. But one cannot qualify it morally as "good".

Later in the article, we get to the point where it speaks of Barry Obama's lauding of this guy as a true civil rights pioneer. Please. All those who think Barry really supports traditional marriage must find a way to resolve such a statement and other words of encouragement to the homo community. Personally, I doubt Barry would even care to think about homo issues. I'm sure he finds it all a big pain in the neck. I would wager that in reality he doesn't care about them at all, but that wouldn't help in the polls for it to be known. (I'd also wager that this is true for damned near every hetero person alive. But reading hearts and minds is so hard.)

Anyway, I find it very difficult to give kudos to someone who can be described as one of the first to push for all this homo stuff that has caused so much trouble in our society. Some will see that as hateful. Heck, they think it's hateful to use the abbreviation "homo", but I've come to accept that from those who really don't care about homosexuals enough to do what's right by them.

Still XMas for the Bucks

2010-01-08T22:02:00.002-06:00

Playing headupass basketball, the Bucks squander a 17 pt lead but survive thanks to incredibly poor free throw shooting by normally reliable Bulls free throw shooters. Half the misses, nay, a third of the missed FTs would have meant a win for the Bulls. These two teams are having similar years, fans never knowing which Bulls or Bucks team will show up. But for now bragging rights, such as they are with Cleveland miles ahead in the division, go north as the Cheeseland Bucks are now 2-1 in the season series against the beloved and better Chicago Bulls.

I hear the Hawks are doing quite well.

Damned Denying Experts!

2010-01-07T23:47:00.002-06:00

This is really good. And what they say is true. It's up to the Gore-ites to prove what they say and that hasn't been done. Theories and alleged evidence isn't enough. Something more compelling is needed before we spend tons of dough to prevent what isn't really happening. Gee, I hope these 141 experts have enough peer reviewed papers to satisfy the psuedo-sophisticated science geeks that used to visit here. Maybe they can explain why these 141 experts don't understand science.

Shades of Vonnegut!

2010-01-04T02:44:00.002-06:00

If there's any truth to this article, then there's no limit to the stupidity of liberal thought regarding issues of race, equality or education. I don't know which is worse, eliminating a science department because one race excels where another doesn't, or dividing students into racial categories when judging the effectiveness of a program. Who freakin' cares which racial group is doing best? Why not just judge how many STUDENTS are benefitting and how many are failing. How can we expect our kids to develop a color-blind mentality if adults (I use the term loosely when speaking of liberal educators) refuse to ignore skin color? If a kid's failing, what difference does his color have to do with it? Answer: None whatsoever. All that matters is who's raising the kid and how good the teachers are at dealing with kids who are born to idiots.

Poor Baby

2010-01-03T02:28:00.003-06:00

I had decided to visit some of the lefty blogs listed below in recent days. Since Dan visits here often, willing to stand firmly for what he believes, as wrong as that is, I hit a post or two over there. Only Alan, charmless as ever, had given me any crap. That's OK. I can take it and actually relish even that back and forth. I'll spar with anyone, literally or rhetorically.

Then I went to Geoffrey's place, "What's Left in the Church". Apparently poor Geoffie doesn't want to play anymore. He made a comment in one of his posts regarding whether or not anyone even reads his stuff anymore. Indeed, as I went through about half a dozen, there were no comments on any of them. Of course there are now, because I made some, and since then, he's made mostly childish responses, as has his "sis" and ER. Sad. Geoffies has never really been much in the debate department. He'll make noise about conservatism, pointing to specific people, like Newt Gingrich for example, while never explaining why he trashes them. I've always found this odd considering Geoffie seems to be well read. You'd think he'd be able to make some sort of supporting argument. But he's devolved into a bitchy little trash talker and doesn't support any of his charges at all. Actually he never really did, but he'd at least fake it momentarily before pretending it's all so tiring to spend time explaining himself. What a fraud.

That kinda takes the wind outta my sails as far as visiting the other blogs. I'll give them a try later and I hope I find a better quality of lib when I do. Geoffie-boy's giving them a bad name right now.

In the meantime, I continue to welcome all comers to THIS happy blog, where even the likes of a Feodor can come and engage in debate (if he thinks he can without the usual tiresome arrogance and condescension). Geoffie is also welcome if he feels all jerked out back at his circle. I maintain that I can be persuaded should anyone be persuasive. In religion and politics, it does matter what one thinks and believes.

To All Who Visit Here...

2009-12-25T02:06:00.002-06:00

Merry Christmas!!!