I saw this on Yahoo today and had to comment. This Greek goddess (as in "babe-alicious") was banned from Olympic competition for a tweet that went something like this: with all the Africans, at least the West Nile mosquito will have homemade meals.
Really? That's racist? How exactly? Where is the Nile located?
Isn't it in Africa? So if the mosquitoes in question are of the same
location as Africans, and mosquitoes dine on blood of people (among
other species), wouldn't an African qualify as home cookin' to the
mosquitoes from Africa? And what of the white Africans? Aren't they
being slighted by the assumption that an African automatically must be a
black person? Can we please cut this racist crap from our collective
mentality, PLEASE!
The fact is that
there are far too many who insist on racism's existence, that demand it
continue and that there must be racists to feed their sad and desperate
quest for significance. It's getting to the point where actual racists
are more tolerable than the race-baiters of the world. And THAT is
sad.
For all that is wrong with true
racism (and that is that there is nothing right about it), the
race-baiters are far worse. Racists are at least sincere in their
misguided belief of their superiority (or the other guy's inferiority).
But the baiters are self-promoting frauds who don't care if their
targets are actual racists or not in their attempt to inflate their
value to society. Stay tuned as race-baiting lefties are likely to
comment.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Drivel Continues
My Sunday edition of the Daily Herald carried an opinion piece by liberal chuckle head, Eugene Robinson. This rabid lefty is safe bet to vomit the typical lefty nonsense and falsehoods put forth laughably as logic and reason.
In this piece he states "The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws is revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets." This is the stock line lefties use to demonize the logical implementation of ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process. From the fallacious column, he writes:
"Recent developments in Pennsylvania---one of more than a dozen states where voting right are under siege---should be enough to erase any lingering doubt: The GOP us trying to pull off an unconscionable crime."
Can you say "Hate-mongering rhetoric"? He goes on to speak of PA House majority leader Mike Turzai as he addressed a meeting of the Republican State Committee...
"Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai,with more than a hint of triumph, 'Voter ID, which going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania---done."
Robinson states that the Dem candidate for president has carried PA since 1992.
"...the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state's 20 electoral votes in November."
And why does this give Robinson the vapors? Because as he claims in his article, state officials presented figures recently that 758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver's license. Oh. The. Horror.
We've been through this before, but I guess Robinson feels it his duty to rehash the lame arguments in opposition to this simple and logical policy. His whine is that most of these people live in urban areas that are places where the poor and minorities tend to live. Like lefties everywhere, he apparently believes that the poor and minorities are people incapable of obtaining a photo ID. Here's the funny part: On June 11, as reported in Human Events, Eric Holder addressed an NAACP convention in Houston and referred to these laws as "poll taxes". Yet, one had to show a photo ID to get in to hear him say it.
Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist might want to check out the death defying and brain numbing requirements for obtaining these state IDs. Listing the incredible difficulties the oppressively impoverished and minorities of Pennsylvania must endure to do so might lend some weight to the argument Robinson makes and tug mightily at our heartstrings. So I went on-line and found just how impossible it is. According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50! OH. THE. HORROR!
How bad do lefties think the poor have it in this country that they can't get up so little in two years time, assuming any of them care to vote in the mid-term elections? Even between now and the deadline to register to vote in November (and many of these people ARE already registered) how many truly couldn't get up that small amount in time to vote? There's about fifteen weeks between now and November. That's less than a dollar per week to save assuming there's not a dime in the cooky jar right now.
Of course, is he assuming that all the minorities are too poor to pop for the fee? Is Robinson suffering from a bad perception of minorities? And he a black man?
Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud. But going back to that Human Events article, claims that fraud is rare is itself a fraud the left tries to perpetrate on the public in order to maintain their voting levels. It isn't that it is rare, but that it isn't easy to detect without safeguards that an ID policy can provide. The articles states...
"The controversial purge of illegal immigrant voters carried out by the state of Florida challenged a mere 2,600 names, and swiftly found more than a hundred illegal voters, with half of them on record as having actually cast illegal votes in previous elections. Many of these people were found by the simple expedient of reviewing a list of illegal immigrants who swore they were not U.S. citizens to get out of jury duty, and checking to see if the same people were registered to vote. For an allegedly "rare" problem, voter fraud is incredibly easy to find, for anyone who actually bothers to look."
Robinson plays the race card by suggesting the problem "seems to be that too many of the wrong kind of voters---low income, urban, African-American, Hispanic---are showing up at the polls." He's either a blithering idiot or an abject bearer of false witness. The GOP does not have a problem with losing elections fairly (except that the wrong guy won), and to suggest that this initiative has anything to do with restraining the groups of people that Robinson lists, especially when some of them could vote GOP, is reprehensible and all too typical of the leftists in our country.
In this piece he states "The Republican-led crusade for voter ID laws is revealed as a cynical ploy to disenfranchise as many likely Democratic voters as possible, with poor people and minorities the main targets." This is the stock line lefties use to demonize the logical implementation of ID laws intended to shore up the integrity of the voting process. From the fallacious column, he writes:
"Recent developments in Pennsylvania---one of more than a dozen states where voting right are under siege---should be enough to erase any lingering doubt: The GOP us trying to pull off an unconscionable crime."
Can you say "Hate-mongering rhetoric"? He goes on to speak of PA House majority leader Mike Turzai as he addressed a meeting of the Republican State Committee...
"Ticking off a list of recent accomplishments by the GOP-controlled legislature, he mentioned the new law forcing voters to show a photo ID at the polls. Said Turzai,with more than a hint of triumph, 'Voter ID, which going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania---done."
Robinson states that the Dem candidate for president has carried PA since 1992.
"...the top Republican in the Pennsylvania House is boasting that because of the new voter ID law, Mitt Romney will defy history and capture the state's 20 electoral votes in November."
And why does this give Robinson the vapors? Because as he claims in his article, state officials presented figures recently that 758,939 registered voters of that state do not have a state driver's license. Oh. The. Horror.
We've been through this before, but I guess Robinson feels it his duty to rehash the lame arguments in opposition to this simple and logical policy. His whine is that most of these people live in urban areas that are places where the poor and minorities tend to live. Like lefties everywhere, he apparently believes that the poor and minorities are people incapable of obtaining a photo ID. Here's the funny part: On June 11, as reported in Human Events, Eric Holder addressed an NAACP convention in Houston and referred to these laws as "poll taxes". Yet, one had to show a photo ID to get in to hear him say it.
Now of course, one who claims to be a serious journalist might want to check out the death defying and brain numbing requirements for obtaining these state IDs. Listing the incredible difficulties the oppressively impoverished and minorities of Pennsylvania must endure to do so might lend some weight to the argument Robinson makes and tug mightily at our heartstrings. So I went on-line and found just how impossible it is. According to the PA DOT, getting a state ID will cost a bank breaking $13.50! OH. THE. HORROR!
How bad do lefties think the poor have it in this country that they can't get up so little in two years time, assuming any of them care to vote in the mid-term elections? Even between now and the deadline to register to vote in November (and many of these people ARE already registered) how many truly couldn't get up that small amount in time to vote? There's about fifteen weeks between now and November. That's less than a dollar per week to save assuming there's not a dime in the cooky jar right now.
Of course, is he assuming that all the minorities are too poor to pop for the fee? Is Robinson suffering from a bad perception of minorities? And he a black man?
Like Jim has tried to put forth here, Robinson believes there is no fraud. But going back to that Human Events article, claims that fraud is rare is itself a fraud the left tries to perpetrate on the public in order to maintain their voting levels. It isn't that it is rare, but that it isn't easy to detect without safeguards that an ID policy can provide. The articles states...
"The controversial purge of illegal immigrant voters carried out by the state of Florida challenged a mere 2,600 names, and swiftly found more than a hundred illegal voters, with half of them on record as having actually cast illegal votes in previous elections. Many of these people were found by the simple expedient of reviewing a list of illegal immigrants who swore they were not U.S. citizens to get out of jury duty, and checking to see if the same people were registered to vote. For an allegedly "rare" problem, voter fraud is incredibly easy to find, for anyone who actually bothers to look."
Robinson plays the race card by suggesting the problem "seems to be that too many of the wrong kind of voters---low income, urban, African-American, Hispanic---are showing up at the polls." He's either a blithering idiot or an abject bearer of false witness. The GOP does not have a problem with losing elections fairly (except that the wrong guy won), and to suggest that this initiative has anything to do with restraining the groups of people that Robinson lists, especially when some of them could vote GOP, is reprehensible and all too typical of the leftists in our country.
Friday, July 20, 2012
New Sources For Post Ideas
I've been thinking of using posts or topics from the lib sites of my blogroll for post ideas here. I don't know if I will do it as a series ala Agenda Lies or just do them as the mood strikes me. Geoffrey's blog is a veritable cornucopia of ideas and I thought of doing a series of just his stuff, calling it something like "Geoffie's Place" or something to that effect. In any event, I have to draw attention to his most recent post as it is so astounding. This guy desperately wants George Zimmerman to have murdered an innocent black kid for no reason. There is little possible alternative explanation for someone to post such nonsense after all the facts that have come to light about the case and the people involved since the first malicious shrieks accusing Zimmerman of being a neanderthal racist who gunned down an innocent and unassuming black child. The irony is that Geoffie's "interview" with Martin is a lame attempt to mock the Sean Hannity interview of Zimmerman, where he has for the first time spoken publicly to defend against all the Geoffies of the world who passed judgement without knowing anything beyond the skin color of the two involved. You'd think this "Christian" seminary student married to a preacher would at least step the hell back at this point from his own racist assumptions. Even more ironic is that just two posts earlier, in the comments section, Geoffrey asks the burning question, "Are we loving people?" For Geoffrey, the answer seems clearly, "No."
Monday, July 16, 2012
Am I Obsessed?
It has been stated by a few left leaning visitors that I am obsessed with a particular topic. In fact, it is stated by many on the left, that people of the conservative persuasion are also obsessed in the same way. The charge is that we are obsessed with the sexual practices of others. In my case, I am accused of being obsessed with the sexual practices of homosexuals particularly. Well. Is it truly a case of me being obsessed? Let's see.
June was, as observed in my last post, was "Mental Dysfunc..." er, "Gay Pride Month". But now June is over. How do we account for what followed?
-On 2July, my local newspaper ran an editorial encouraging the acceptance of "Gay Marriage" in this country.
Stories in a variety of media sources included"
-A lesbian soccer player (I believe she was) came out and encouraged other lesbians in sports to come out as well.
-Anderson Cooper officially came out (as if anyone was surprised), to which announcement an online source added a list of over thirty celebrities who have come out, as if more doing wrong makes it right.
-The Episcopal General Convention approves same-sex blessing rites.
This is just a sample of stories gleaned, just through my normal reading of news sources, but not all of them. I've forgotten at least a couple and this is only since that July 2nd editorial. I'm obsessed?
Clearly someone's obsessed with all things homosexual, and it isn't me. I merely observe the culture being pressured to accept this behavior as morally benign and no different than normal attractions. It is pushed constantly through media images of all sorts, from entertainment to "serious" discussion pretending to educate to the political pandering of the Democratic Party. It doesn't go away. And I'm obsessed?
Not at all. I simply join in with organizations like Illinois Family Institute, AFTAH and bloggers who seek to counter the onslaught as best we can.
Is that obsession on my part? I don't think so. It isn't the only bad behavior I've highlighted. I have posts on abortion, racism and being a liberal (yeah, that's bad behavior). If I obsess about anything, it would be in encouraging proper behavior in many areas of human existence. Heck, I obsess about my own behavior.
I make no apologies about the number of posts I do on the subject of homosexuality in America. I feel privileged to have the ability and outlet to express myself in a manner that honors both God and my fellow man in continuing to point out the many falsehoods perpetuated by activists and their willing and often misguided supporters and enablers. It's a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it's just a few, or even one, makes it so.
June was, as observed in my last post, was "Mental Dysfunc..." er, "Gay Pride Month". But now June is over. How do we account for what followed?
-On 2July, my local newspaper ran an editorial encouraging the acceptance of "Gay Marriage" in this country.
Stories in a variety of media sources included"
-A lesbian soccer player (I believe she was) came out and encouraged other lesbians in sports to come out as well.
-Anderson Cooper officially came out (as if anyone was surprised), to which announcement an online source added a list of over thirty celebrities who have come out, as if more doing wrong makes it right.
-The Episcopal General Convention approves same-sex blessing rites.
This is just a sample of stories gleaned, just through my normal reading of news sources, but not all of them. I've forgotten at least a couple and this is only since that July 2nd editorial. I'm obsessed?
Clearly someone's obsessed with all things homosexual, and it isn't me. I merely observe the culture being pressured to accept this behavior as morally benign and no different than normal attractions. It is pushed constantly through media images of all sorts, from entertainment to "serious" discussion pretending to educate to the political pandering of the Democratic Party. It doesn't go away. And I'm obsessed?
Not at all. I simply join in with organizations like Illinois Family Institute, AFTAH and bloggers who seek to counter the onslaught as best we can.
Is that obsession on my part? I don't think so. It isn't the only bad behavior I've highlighted. I have posts on abortion, racism and being a liberal (yeah, that's bad behavior). If I obsess about anything, it would be in encouraging proper behavior in many areas of human existence. Heck, I obsess about my own behavior.
I make no apologies about the number of posts I do on the subject of homosexuality in America. I feel privileged to have the ability and outlet to express myself in a manner that honors both God and my fellow man in continuing to point out the many falsehoods perpetuated by activists and their willing and often misguided supporters and enablers. It's a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it's just a few, or even one, makes it so.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
"I Love You Just The Way You Are"
Earlier this week my local newspaper had two articles related to "Gay Pride Month". June is "Gay Pride Month". (July is "Obsessive/Compulsive Pride Month", August is "Bi-Polar Pride Month" and I believe September is "Psychopath Pride Month"...in this country we take great pride and celebrate mental dysfunction.) Of the two articles, one focused on the lack of celebratory events in the suburbs to where, like so many normal people, many homosexuals have moved for better schools, less crime, etc. The article referred to Chicago's annual "Gay Pride" parade, where children of all ages can witness various and extreme manifestations of this particular dysfunction, such as simulated sex acts by freakishly attired parade participants. (I would imagine the July parade being very neat and tidy, with far straighter lines and better synchronized marching.)
So there apparently was some kind of conference, seminar or coffee klatch, I don't remember which as I don't have that issue of the paper anymore. There were all sorts of anecdotes and testimonies about life in the burbs as a homosexual. But the part that I found most fascinating, as well as most annoying, was about one straight guy who spoke of starting or being part of a campaign whereby Christians wear these tee-shirts emblazoned with the words, "I'm Sorry", meant to apologize to the dear homosexual souls who have been treated so harshly by the Church. He didn't say which church, so I assume he meant the Body of Christ in general. He said he wanted the sad and suffering homosexuals to know that "God loves them just the way they are."
I'd much prefer this guy not speak for me or the Church of God by saying this blatant falsehood. And herein lies the point of this post. That statement told to those unfortunates who want it to be true, that "God loves them just the way they are" is not something that can be supported by Scripture.
I pass a UCC church several times during my workday. It has had a message on the sign in front of it which says, "God loves you no matter what." I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that it means pretty much the same thing the dude with the tee-shirt is saying (considering it IS a UCC church). But both of these statements send the wrong message. An absolutely wrong message.
There is this sad notion that unless God is just the sweetest God around then some people just won't worship Him. Somehow, we are just fine no matter what we do (as long as we don't hurt no one and are really, really nice to people). Whence comes this notion? Well. We all know the answer to that. It comes from selfishness and self-centeredness and the notion that "doing things God's way is HARD!!!"
But there's no justification for the "just the way your are" business". It brings to mind a question Bill Cosby asked of a guy who was defending his cocaine use. The dude said, "It makes you more of what you are." Cosby asked, "What if you're an asshole?" The question fits the premise posited by the dude above. God loves you just the way you are? But what if you're an asshole? Or worse? Does He love child molesters just the way they are?
The reality is far different. God loves us despite how we are and the distinction is in how each of us is to deal with how each of us is. If who we are is sinful and rebellious by the standards of God's clearly revealed Will for human behavior, His love for us will not result in our being spared our just rewards. Our love for Him, our belief in Him is manifested in our intention to become something pleasing to Him based on the standards for human behavior described so clearly and plainly in Scripture. They clearly and unmistakably run deeper than merely being really, really nice to people. They are far more comprehensive than that. The dude is lying to the homosexual community, but the lie is believed by far more people than him and those homosexuals who wish it to be true.
So there apparently was some kind of conference, seminar or coffee klatch, I don't remember which as I don't have that issue of the paper anymore. There were all sorts of anecdotes and testimonies about life in the burbs as a homosexual. But the part that I found most fascinating, as well as most annoying, was about one straight guy who spoke of starting or being part of a campaign whereby Christians wear these tee-shirts emblazoned with the words, "I'm Sorry", meant to apologize to the dear homosexual souls who have been treated so harshly by the Church. He didn't say which church, so I assume he meant the Body of Christ in general. He said he wanted the sad and suffering homosexuals to know that "God loves them just the way they are."
I'd much prefer this guy not speak for me or the Church of God by saying this blatant falsehood. And herein lies the point of this post. That statement told to those unfortunates who want it to be true, that "God loves them just the way they are" is not something that can be supported by Scripture.
I pass a UCC church several times during my workday. It has had a message on the sign in front of it which says, "God loves you no matter what." I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that it means pretty much the same thing the dude with the tee-shirt is saying (considering it IS a UCC church). But both of these statements send the wrong message. An absolutely wrong message.
There is this sad notion that unless God is just the sweetest God around then some people just won't worship Him. Somehow, we are just fine no matter what we do (as long as we don't hurt no one and are really, really nice to people). Whence comes this notion? Well. We all know the answer to that. It comes from selfishness and self-centeredness and the notion that "doing things God's way is HARD!!!"
But there's no justification for the "just the way your are" business". It brings to mind a question Bill Cosby asked of a guy who was defending his cocaine use. The dude said, "It makes you more of what you are." Cosby asked, "What if you're an asshole?" The question fits the premise posited by the dude above. God loves you just the way you are? But what if you're an asshole? Or worse? Does He love child molesters just the way they are?
The reality is far different. God loves us despite how we are and the distinction is in how each of us is to deal with how each of us is. If who we are is sinful and rebellious by the standards of God's clearly revealed Will for human behavior, His love for us will not result in our being spared our just rewards. Our love for Him, our belief in Him is manifested in our intention to become something pleasing to Him based on the standards for human behavior described so clearly and plainly in Scripture. They clearly and unmistakably run deeper than merely being really, really nice to people. They are far more comprehensive than that. The dude is lying to the homosexual community, but the lie is believed by far more people than him and those homosexuals who wish it to be true.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Agenda Lies 5: Based on Science?
The topic of today's Agenda Lies installment is the notion that declassification of homosexual behavior as a mental illness or disorder was a result of any scientific research or study. Here we have a former president of the APA saying exactly what I've stated in other posts and comments, which is that homosexuality was declassified as a mental disorder in 1973 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as the result of activism. What's more, Dr. Nicholas Cummings supports the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, but is honest enough to tell the truth.
(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position. Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)
Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents. What else is left to them but to be obnoxious? As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda's advancement. But we're not graced with any such evidence from science. What passes for scientific evidence is the APA's support. I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence. At least it's enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.
On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I've linked above. One of them carried this:
“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”
Really? Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed? There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself. Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me. What's wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed? I thought they were no different than the rest of us.
(This also points to a common misconception regarding which side of the political divide rejects science in order to maintain a position. Once again we see it is the left that does this, not the right.)
Pressure from the homosexual activists is essential in overriding the logic, morality and science that supports the positions of their opponents. What else is left to them but to be obnoxious? As stated many times, if there was sound science upon which to rely, that science would be at the forefront of every debate related to the Agenda's advancement. But we're not graced with any such evidence from science. What passes for scientific evidence is the APA's support. I guess because psychology and psychiatry are sciences, then it is enough for an association of those scientific practitioners to merely state that something is so for it to be regarded as scientific evidence. At least it's enough for the supporters of the Agenda (and lefties in general) who would prefer no one look too deeply into an issue they support.
On a side note, there is a list of links to related articles at the bottom of the article to which I've linked above. One of them carried this:
“Statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay, and bisexual residents of those states,” states the APA, which bills itself as “a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people.”
Really? Do homosexuals often sit about anguishing over this issue to the point of being significantly stressed? There are laws in my state that deny me access to a few things, such as the right to carry a weapon to protect myself. Such denial has never been particularly stressful for me. What's wrong with those people that they are so easily stressed? I thought they were no different than the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)