Damn Bearss!

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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.