Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Ignorance of Well-Meaning White People

I probably just started something on Facebook with an ignorant, well-meaning white person.

You see, a friend of mine posted a video about that young man whose mother found him rioting. And then a friend of hers responded with this:

I loved seeing the interview today with the mother and the son. think it taught all of us a little bit about the community and a whole lot about the importance of a mother's love-regardless of what it looks like to the onlookers the child's heart felt it and connected with it and responded in a way that all of us mothers could appreciate. I just hate that this young man and his mother had real reason to fear the police.”

Reading that, I’ll admit I saw some red.

Because I’m in Baltimore. I work here. I had to walk to my car and office building on Monday and Tuesday, hyper-aware of the chances of being attacked. And I’ve had to look in friends’ eyes as they discussed what’s going on in this city – their city – while they nearly cried.

If that sounds too self-focused, fine. How about the people whose property was damaged or who were injured… including 17 of those supposedly fearsome cops? I can’t imagine what they’re going through.

Yet here comes this well-meaning white person up on her high horse because she “cares” about black people, spouting ignorant nonsense like she’s some kind of authority on the subject just because she reads a few liberally-biased sources.

She and other well-meaning and ultimately ignorant white people aren’t helping. In fact, they’re just as much a part of the problem as the young black men who were rioting here in Baltimore.

I’m not kidding. She’s just as bad.

Why? Because she’s perpetuating the idea that they’re horribly disadvantaged because of skin color. That the world is out to get them. That they have a right to be violent and immature because, hey, they’re poor black people and need her pity in order to get anywhere in life.

Sounds kinda racist like that, doesn’t it?

That’d be because it is.

Maybe it’s more difficult to be black these days, just like maybe it’s more difficult to be female. But it isn’t going to get better if we keep excusing bad behavior with pats on the head.

It’s never going to get better until we set and keep the same high standard for everyone. That includes well-meaning, ignorant white people, who need to grow up and get over themselves already. They’re not saving anyone with their self-righteous platitudes.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

“Democrats Protesting Democrat Leaders and Democrat Policies in a Democrat-Run City:” Breitbart Breaks Down the Baltimore Riots

I have a lot to say this morning and no real time to say it, so I’m just going to refer you to Breitbart for now. It’s running an article titled “Baltimore Is A Democrat Problem, Not America’s Problem.” And here are the first five paragraphs...

“Contrary to the emotional blackmail some leftists are attempting to peddle, Baltimore is not America’s problem or shame. That failed city is solely and completely a Democrat problem. Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor.

“In 2012, after four years of his own failed policies, President Obama won a whopping 87.4% of the Baltimore City vote. Democrats run the city of Baltimore, the unions, the schools, and, yes, the police force. Since 1969, there have only been… two Republican governors of the State of Maryland.

“Elijah Cummings has represented Baltimore in the U.S. Congress for more than thirty years. As I write this, despite his objectively disastrous reign, the Democrat-infested mainstream media is treating the Democrat like a local folk hero, not the obvious and glaring failure he really is.

"Every single member of the Baltimore city council is a Democrat.

“Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. It is the free people of Baltimore who elect and then re-elect those who institute policies that have so spectacularly failed that once-great city. It is the free people of Baltimore who elected Mayor Room-To-Destroy.

“You can call the arson and looting and violence we are seeing on our television screens, rioting. That’s one way to describe the chaos. Another way to describe it is Democrat infighting. This is blue-on-blue violence. The thugs using the suspicious death of Freddie Gray (at the hands of a Democrat-led police department) to justify the looting that updates their home entertainment systems, are Democrats protesting Democrat leaders and Democrat policies in a Democrat-run city.

Click here to read the rest of the article.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

A Non-Baltimore Native’s Take on the Baltimore City Riots

I wasn’t born or raised in Baltimore, and I don’t consider myself a Baltimorian today even if I do work in the city and live right outside it. In fact, I make fun of it all the time, with good reason.

But there’s nothing to make fun of right now. The riots and violence that happened this week – and will probably continue to happen for at least the next few days – aren’t anything any of us should be laughing at. They’re a sign of a society so diseased that it’s eating itself.

On Facebook last night, I saw statuses from friends who do consider themselves Baltimorians though. One posted a single word: “heartbroken.” Another trashed the city with harsh words and a sense of grief, while a third wrote out her feelings over multiple paragraphs decrying her liberal sympathies and admitting that she wanted to see the rioters sobbing under the effects of teargas.

They should be heartbroken and grieving. They have every reason to be. Because their city is under attack and the supposed authorities – whether elected or professional – are incompetent.

Baltimore City Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said the protesters should have space to “destroy” (whether she knew what she was saying or not is currently being debated by two of my coworkers down the hall), the city council has told police to stand down and watch people break into stores and burn down property. And my financial publishing company is meanwhile blaming it all on certain Baltimorians’ lack of wealth, flat-out calling financial wealth the key to liberty.

I’m not going to say that I think they’re all idiots. I know they are.

This isn’t about wealth. This is about education, or the lack thereof, at its most basic sense. Which means that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Dr. Alveda King, has so far said it best:

“As I watched the protest, I’m reminded of [when]… I was part of the first children’s march in Birmingham, Alabama,” she told Breitbart, adding that the march was supervised and peaceful. “These children [in Baltimore today] are not supervised – they are angry.”

“These children” also have a whole lot more going for them than King and her companions down in Alabama back in the day. How many of the little thugs from last night have cool kicks, smartphones and iPods? I bet a lot of them. And even if they don’t, there are kids far poorer around the world who don’t go around hurting innocent people because they’re poor. Likewise, there are plenty of rich people who do hurt innocent people.

Take politicians, for example, and I’m not just talking about their policies. Having wealth isn’t the key to freedom any more than abstaining from wealth. If someone gave the rioters a fortune each, they would still be ill-mannered little thugs. Because money isn’t the root of all happiness (incidentally, it’s also not the root of all evil).

Take it from King again, who also stated that allowing them to run wild and destructive isn’t showing compassion; it’s just the opposite. “These children need help. They need guidance.”

And that includes a good spanking. Right now, that might be the best education they could get.

Friday, April 24, 2015

President Obama’s Immigration Policy Is Destroying the Middle Class

President Obama and his likeminded lackeys like to drone on about owing the “little people.” How America with its one-percenters is so big and bad, and how we need to spread the wealth.

Except that, they don’t mean to spread the collective wealth, and they certainly don’t mean to spread their own wealth. They mean to spread your wealth.

You see, there’s a reason why most of the one-percenters are one-percenters these days. And it has very little to do with the American Dream anymore. Instead, it has to do with government connections, whether in the form of lobbyists or more direct relationships with politicians.

That’s something the American middle class doesn’t have, and so we’re the group that ends up paying the price of all this government generosity. We work hard, we don’t take handouts, we give up more than our fair share every year in taxes… and this is how we’re repaid:

As the Washington Times reports, “Wages of America’s middle class have dropped below 1970s’ levels as immigration has surged 325 percent, according to a new congressional report that questions claims that native Americans are economically helped by greater immigration.”

How in the world that original claim came to be, I have no idea; and frankly, I don’t care. It sounds like one more line in a badly written script we hear from the liberal agenda all the time. Like we’re too stupid to see the obvious truth.

And the obvious truth is that immigrants take jobs from citizens.

Now in some cases, that’s deserved. If a South African genius edges out an American genius for some genius job because he or she’s a better fit for some genius company, then tough luck. There are no guarantees in life anyway. Or if an India-Indian immigrant makes a better impression during the interview process than his or her American counterparts, then so be it.

However, when we allow waves of immigrants into the country – whether legal or illegal – that unjustly sets citizens back. And let’s face it, it’s mostly going to be middle-class citizens who suffer for it considering that most of the jobs available to the average immigrant are in the lower middle-class range.

Meanwhile, the one-percenters and five-percenters and 10-percenters who are constantly crying about how much more we need to give to the poor? They’re dodging and ducking and cheating on their taxes to keep every bit of money they can in their own hands for their own purposes.

Just ask the Clintons with their Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, which is under investigation for fraudulent and maybe downright criminal mismanagement of hundreds of millions of dollars.


Yeah, they care all right. About themselves.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

President Obama Declares for Earth Day: We “Don’t Have Time” to Think

I heard on the radio this morning that it’s going to be a high of 55 today, which is 14 degrees colder than average for this time of year.

14 degrees colder. And since yesterday was pretty chilly too, I have to assume that “Earth Day” – a day given to decrying the horrors of global warming – came in far lower than normal too.

Let me restate that: It was about 14 degrees colder on a day devoted to cooling a warming Earth.

Kinda makes you think, doesn’t it?

Well, according to President Obama and his larger liberal network, it shouldn’t. You’re not supposed to think. You “don’t have time” to think, which is why he’s offering to do it for you.

So sweet, right?

Flying down to Florida, he gave the following fragmented string of words (I can’t call it a speech. It was a ramble at best):

We’re also working with farmers and ranchers and forest land owners to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions. I’m going to keep doing everything I can to prepare and protect America from the worst effects of climate change, including fighting for clean air, clean water. Because in places like this, folks don’t have time, we don’t have time – you do not have time to deny the effects of climate change. Folks are already busy dealing with it. And nowhere is it going to have a bigger impact than here in south Florida. No place else. It has to be paying closer attention to this and acknowledging it, and understanding that if we take action now we can do something about it. 

“This is not some impossible problem that we cannot solve. We can solve it if we’ve got some political will. And we can solve it in a way that creates jobs. We can solve it in a way that doesn’t disrupt our economy but enhances our economy. And it’s a bipartisan issue.”

I have to admit, reading that speech over, I doubted its source. Considering that Real Clear Politics is a staunchly conservative publication, I thought it must have mangled the transcript for political purposes.

So I watched the provided video, only to find that the transcript and audio matched perfectly. Which is why I went on, against the president’s express wishes, to use my brain. Here’s what I couldn’t help but think:

1.      That speech would have made a little more sense (maybe) if he had stayed up in D.C., which had to be about the same temperature as Baltimore a mere 40 miles northward.
2.      He flew down to Florida to talk about how badly we’re polluting the Earth. Do you know how much pollution Air Force One uses for a round trip to Florida? Let’s just say it’s a whole lot more than necessary considering how Obama could have just video chatted.
3.      “Nowhere is it going to have a bigger impact than here in south Florida?” Why? How about China, which is polluting its chunk of Earth so badly it has eight-year-olds getting lung cancer? Or how about the Middle East with all of its drilling activity? Or maybe Canada, which is a whole lot more focused right now on extracting oil from sand than it is on creating electric cars and other eco-friendly technology meant to save the planet?

And see, that all right there is why Obama and too many other politicians don’t want us to think. Because when we do, we’ll see them for the nonsensical, arrogant hypocrites that they are.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Ben Affleck the Latest White Person Who Needs to Get Over His Whiteness

Ben Affleck has become the latest example of how white people seriously need to stop being so blasted oversensitive about being white.

It’s come out that, while he was featured on PBS’s documentary TV series “Finding Your Roots,” he found out that some of his white ancestors owned black slaves. This embarrassed him so much that he asked the show to edit that revelation out altogether.

And because Ben Affleck is Hollywood, and Hollywood and the news media are in bed together, they did as asked. (I’d say they set aside their credibility and integrity in order to kowtow to a famous person, except that would inaccurately imply they had credibility and integrity to begin with.)

Now, slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries was a monumentally bad idea. But none of us had anything to do with it, no matter what our ancestors did. We don’t get to pick and choose what family line we’re born into. We can only pick and choose what we do with the lives we’re given.

If that wasn’t the case, it’d be a whole different matter, of course. If Ben Affleck was given the chance to select an ancestral tree, saw that it contained white slaveholders abusing black slaves and went, “Oh, goodie! This one’s the one for me!” as a result, then yes: He should be embarrassed.

But he didn’t. He couldn’t. It’s scientifically impossible.

So since he had nothing to do with what his family members did more than a century ago, he has no reason to be ashamed of what a genealogy search turns up.

But here’s the thing… Let’s say that, instead of finding out that his ancestors were slaveholders, he found out that they were Roman emperors who plundered other people’s lands and threw innocents to the lions for fun and games.

I doubt he’d be so concerned about editing that bit of history out. For that matter, I don’t think he’d be nearly so upset if he discovered he had Nazis in his past. Because according to the white liberal mantra, being a white racist is pretty much the worst thing you can possibly be.

Which is why, according to the Washington Times, “police kill more whites than blacks, but minority deaths generate more outrage.”

Now, I’m not saying that being a white racist is a good thing. It’s pretty much the opposite of a good thing. But so is being a black racist, or a white racist who is racist against whites or, let’s face it, any kind of bigot. Human life is valuable, and we shouldn’t take it lightly no matter our differences.

That means that whites don’t mean more than blacks and blacks don’t mean more than whites.

Someone should really tell the embarrassed Ben Affleck that before he does anything stupid... er.

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

“Somebody” Is Worshipping the Worst Parent of a God Ever

This morning, I decided to listen to a pop song, “Somebody,” by Natalie La Rose featuring Jeremiah.

Both supposed artists are lost little idiots.  There’s no way anyone who isn’t a lost little idiot could promote these lyrics (put to a very catchy beat, of course):

I wanna rock with somebody
I wanna take shots with somebody (Shots. Shots. Shots.)
I wanna leave with somebody
And we ain’t gotta tell nobody
We ain’t gotta tell nobody

Why can’t everybody know what’s good
And some gonna hate because it’s new
We just do our thing, no time to waste
Always play it cool

And at the end of the night when the lights go out
We ain’t never turn down, ooh no, we won’t (We ain’t ever turn down. We never turn down.)
And when you try to make us leave
We turn and say we never going home

That’s meant to be an anthem of individuality, independence and, I assume, progressiveness considering the “Why can’t everybody know what’s good / And some gonna hate because it’s new” lines.

Which is just plain stupid. Anyone with a grasp on reality has to recognize the song’s blatant immaturity. It’s the ultimate brat’s cry of “I want my way! I want my way! I want my way!” even when “my way” means missing life’s potential by a few thousand miles.

The life-view expressed in “Somebody” by Natalie La Rose and Jeremiah is the same one that Miley Cyrus (and countless other poptarts) shouts from the rooftops with songs like “We Can’t Stop,” which declares “It’s our party; we can do what we want” and “Remember only God can judge us,” implying that God is okay with “shaking it like we at a strip club” and “dancing with Molly” (i.e. doing drugs).

If that’s the kind of god young Westerners worship, then they’ve got one hell of an irresponsible deity. Rather like one of those moron parents who “love” their children so much they let them do whatever they want, refusing to set boundaries and thereby encouraging them to participate in wildly detrimental behavior such as unsafe sex, underage drinking and drugs with overall attitudes that leave them desperately unfulfilled.

That’s not a logical god (or parent). It’s not a caring god (or parent). And its not a god (or parent) worth following.

Considering the sorry state of our society thats filled with people who are actively making it even more of a trashed-out mess by thinking of nobody but their immediate selves, Id say it's pretty clear we need a new god to follow.

Monday, April 20, 2015

If We Think Our Leaders Are Trustworthy, Than We’re Not Using Our Brains

We the people of the United States of America are supposed to be able to trust our leaders.

But we the people of the United States of America are also supposed to use our brains. In fact, we’re supposed to use our brains more than our trust in our representatives.

That means we’re expected to notice when our president is pushing (shoving might be a more accurate term) amnesty for illegal immigrants when there are 4.4 million people legally waiting to get into the United States.

When our leaders are more interested in assisting lawbreakers than law-abiders, it’s our responsibility as a free people to conclude that they don’t deserve our loyalty.

Likewise, we’re supposed to notice when our president bends over backward to allow Iran a full-fledged, unsanctioned nuclear program when that country refuses to grant even the most basic of concessions in return by allowing us to inspect its military bases where nuclear tests will be conducted.

What Iran is demanding is one of the most lopsided deals ever proposed to a free nation. We might as well be under an Islamic caliphate right now, paying it taxes for our unbelieving ways.

At this rate, with such an untrustworthy administration, we could soon enough be Islamic serfs if we don’t start using our brains to determine that our president is either dangerously insane or the most unpatriotic person alive.

If the latter, then Benedict Arnold had more patriotism than President Obama does today. At least Arnold solidly fought on America’s side once upon a time. By all indications, Obama hasn’t ever played for any team but his own.

Too harsh?

Consider this: Iran just held a parade displaying new weapons systems, prompting cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

What are the chances that Obama will call off negotiations or take a harsher stance on them?

If you used your brain – or any particle of integrity you should have – you know that a snowball has a greater chance in hell.

Friday, April 17, 2015

Military Unhappy Despite $287 Million Campaign to Make Them Happy

If you need a reminder that money doesn’t solve everything, just look at the U.S. military.

According to a USA Today article, “More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient…”

Ok. Let’s think about it for a minute… Why might our troops be so unhappy still? Maybe it’s because:

1.      Their commander in chief has repeatedly disparaged the U.S. military.
2.      Their commander in chief has repeatedly disparaged the U.S.
3.      Their commander in chief has repeatedly sent them into dangerous situations they have no business being in (e.g. Ebola-infected areas in order to supposedly contain the disease).
4.      Their commander in chief has stood back and let them die (e.g. Benghazi), then lied about it to make himself look good.
5.      Their commander in chief doesn’t actually listen to a single thing they say.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

I mean, money can do a lot of things, but it doesn’t provide respect. And that’s kind-of a big deal when you’re sacrificing – or at least knowing that you could be called to sacrifice – your comfort and even your very lives every day.

Maybe someone should tell their commander in chief that.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Women Hurting Women: Jessie J’s “Do It Like a Dude” and C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”

In yesterday’s blog, I mentioned that women are doing a whole lot of damage to ourselves, and how we should consider what we can do to encourage respect rather than always pointing the finger at the opposite sex.

Then last night, I watched Jessie J’s “Do It Like a Dude” music video, which featured women getting in the camera’s face like they’re tough, stone-cold gangsters… one of the worst male stereotypes to fall back on.

Not surprisingly, the lyrics aren’t any better. Here’s a few snippets:

“Dirty dirty dirty dirty dirty dirty sucka
You think I can't get hurt like you, you m*therf*cker
I can do it like a brother
Do it like a dude
Grab my crotch, wear my hat low like you”

and

“Boom Boom, pour me a beer
No pretty drinks, I'm a guy out here
Rollin' rollin' rollin' rollin' money like a pimp
My B-I-T-C-H's on my d*ck like this.”

Now, that by itself is a pretty negative commentary on how women are hurting women, going around with the maturity of a morally bankrupt 13-year-old and demanding to be lauded for it.

But here’s an even worse consideration… According to the majority of the 100,215 YouTube comments posted below the video, girls ate those lame lyrics up, calling them “feminist” and defending their grossly inaccurate definition of the word by swearing the male gender out.

Believe it or not, that made me think of famed Christian author C.S. Lewis.

You see, in his “Mere Christianity,” which was first broadcasted in the 1940s, he talks about how sexualized his country had become and how poorly women were being treated as a result.

Seven decades later, we’re finally accepting that reality. Yet our solution to the problem is not to treat women better, but to treat men just as bad.

Which means we’re not really interested in bettering ourselves or society. We just want everyone to be equally miserable.

I shouldn’t need to say this, but apparently there are a lot of evil, stupid or brainwashed people out there. So here goes: That’s just stupid.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

It’s Hard to Respect Unrealistic and Hypocritical Boundaries

Right now, I’m looking at one of the dumbest “exposes” on sexism I’ve ever seen. It’s a photo collection of a woman doing ordinary things like Yoga, working at her office desk, sitting at a bar, walking in a subway station or cooking… all while being accosted by groping hands as she pays blank-faced attention to the tasks before her.

It’s called “Boundaries” by photographer Allaire Bartel, and it’s supposed to be “a jarring visual symbolization of male entitlement in a woman’s everyday life,” as the Huffington Post explains.

Bartel’s website goes into further detail: “In this series, you will see one woman – an average young professional –depicted in routine daily situations. The concept of male entitlement is represented by male arms and hands performing a variety of actions that are overwhelmingly intrusive on her body and her life. In each situation, she maintains a blank expression, a visual choice that demonstrates how conditioned we as women have become to accept this atmosphere as excusable and even normal.”

Here’s a counter-thought: How about we “demonstrate how conditioned we as women have become to accept” a whole different narrative?

I mean the mental and psychological violation that accosts us every other day about how horrible men treat women and how victimized we are. About how we should be able to do whatever we want, wear whatever we want and say whatever we want without any consequences.

These are lies, they’re unhelpful lies and, in fact, they’re downright dangerous lies.

Now, when I say “consequences,” I’m not even talking about rape or sexual assault, which is never excusable. I’m talking about women like Rihanna and Beyonce and Selena Gomez and Ariana Grande going around showing off their goodies 24-seven and then demanding to be respected. I mean housewives getting off on “Fifty Shades of Grey” and then wondering why their husbands don’t treat them like they have brains. And I’m referring to Hillary Clinton letting her husband violate whatever woman he can, then getting up on her I-deserve-to-be-president-because-I’m-a-woman platform.

This is pathetic! It doesn’t work that way, any more than pig slop and perfume are equitable. If you roll in the former, then demand to be told you smell good anyway, no one is going to take you seriously.

Okay, let’s face it: Men can be pigs who want to wallow in that slop. And no, there’s no excuse for them when they do. But guess what? I’ve worked with a whole lot of such pigs. Yet I only worried about one of them putting their hands on me like these pictures depict happens all the time. (Not without my permission anyway; if I’d given them the go-ahead, it would have been a whole different story.)

Most men aren’t anywhere as bad as Bartel and her ilk want us to believe. And my guess is most of them would act a whole lot better if we would just give them reason to.

Why not try it out? It can’t do us any more damage than the current whiny hypocrisy we’ve adopted.

‘Cause right now, a much more accurate depiction of the prevalence of sexism in society would be to have pictures of women being accosted by female hands while a bunch of pathetic men drool on the sidelines.

Monday, April 13, 2015

Man Commits Suicide in Tax Protest in Front of Capitol Building on Obama’s Watch

Over the weekend, someone who thought he was hopeless committed suicide.

Unfortunately, that in and of itself isn’t newsworthy. After all, people take their lives all the time. Tragic but true.

What got it into the news was where he committed suicide and what onlookers say he did first.

You see, the so-far unidentified man made his way to the U.S. Capitol Building and opened up a placard that witnesses say said something along the lines of “Why don’t you tax the 1%?” Then he pulled out a gun and shot himself in the head.

Now the loss of any life is sad, and suicide is especially awful. So I’m very sorry to treat this man’s passing as a mere detail, but to someone who didn’t know him and who wasn’t there to see him die, I find myself focusing not on him but on the political backdrop.

Which, it appears, he intended.

He shot himself in front of a government building with a public message in Obama’s D.C.

Obama’s D.C.

This didn’t happen on George W. Bush’s watch, no matter how many people said he only cared about big business. This happened on the liberal, tax-raising, business-decrying Obama’s dime. And it happened six years into his administration.

Maybe it was the Republicans’ fault… except that Democrats had a majority throughout Congress during the first two years Obama was president. And now that Republicans control both houses, Obama is the king of executive orders, taking action and making deals on his own claimed authority.

So why, with all of that time and all of that power, has he not made it easy for the little people?

As one of those little people who works a regular job and is struggling to finance a start-up business, I can tell you flat-out that I’m not any better off tax-wise than I was under Bush. In fact, the last four years, I’ve owed the IRS money, sometimes as much as $500, even though my paychecks are significantly depleted every two weeks to give the over-bloated government its demanded due.

I can’t claim to understand why this poor man thought that killing himself was the right answer. But I can tell you that Obama has not brought hope. And the only change he offers – no, dictates – is further submission to politicians who either don’t have a clue what’s best for the people… or really just don’t care.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Are We Going to Make Muslims in America Cater to Gay Rights?

Today’s blog post comes courtesy of Louder With Crowder, who I never heard of before this morning, when I was deliberately avoiding getting ready for work.

Which I’m glad I did.

Then again, I usually am glad I avoided getting ready for work. But this time, it’s for a reason other than that I hate my job.

This time, it’s because someone – Steven Crowder of Louder With Crowder, apparently – addressed that horrific Indiana religious rights law that is savagely violating gay people’s civil rights throughout this backwards country of ours.


You know… Muslims like the ones our destructive president is negotiating with right now, who have repeatedly stated that they want our death and destruction. And Muslims like the ones who just honestly want to live their lives in peace and quiet like the rest of us, with the freedom to say “no” to what they don’t believe in.

Also, I have to add… Muslims like the majority of refugees pouring into America these days. Oh yeah, and the ones entering illegally.

Those Muslims.

What do Muslims have to do with religious rights laws and gay people?

Well, for one, as Crowder points out, in many Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime punishable by death. (P.S. It isn’t here in America.)

Number two: Why isn’t anyone marching into Muslim cakeries and freaking out when they’re refused service? Why is just Christian ones? If we’re going to shove minority opinions down people’s throats, then we have to do so across the board. No playing favorites, people.

And number three? Nobody is saying that American places of business can deny service to gay people. They’re just saying they can deny service of specific actions that blatantly go against their belief system.

Gay people could therefore refuse to bake a cake that says “I Want Homosexuals to Burn in Hell.”

Personally, I think people SHOULD have the right to refuse that kind of service. I know I would.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Associated Press Reveals Startling Fact About Kenyan College Terrorist Attack

I’m really surprised right now. Almost shocked. And no, I’m not being sarcastic.

A group of gunmen burst into Garissa University College in Kenya this morning, and here’s what the Associated Press had to say for the opening paragraph of its coverage on the subject:

Al-Shabab gunmen attacked a college in northeast Kenya early Thursday, targeting Christians and killing at least 15 people and wounding 60 others, witnesses said. The president said it is now a hostage situation.

It went on to include this first-hand account:

“Collins Wetangula, the vice chairman of the student union, said he was preparing to take a shower when he heard gunshots coming from Tana dorm, which hosts both men and women, 150 meters (yards) away. The campus has six dorms and at least 887 students, he said.

“He said that when he heard the gunshots, he locked himself and three roommates in their room.

“‘All I could hear were footsteps and gunshots. Nobody was screaming because they thought this would lead the gunmen to know where they are,’ he said. ‘The gunmen were saying sisi ni al-Shabab (Swaihi for we are al-Shabab),’ Wetangula said.

“When the gunmen arrived at his dormitory, he could hear them opening doors and asking the people who had hidden inside whether they were Muslims or Christians.

“‘If you were a Christian you were shot on the spot,’ he said. ‘With each blast of the gun I thought I was going to die.’”

So why am I surprised by this? Because the AP – the Associated Press, people! – acknowledged that Christians were being deliberately targeted for abuse. Moreover, it did so in the main text of the article instead of down at the very bottom, where it knows full well nobody actually reads.

Not to mention that Yahoo! ran it as a leading story in its usually mindless news feed.

I suppose this indicates that someone on both teams screwed up. Everyone knows the mainstream media isn’t supposed to acknowledge when Christians are the victims, only the aggressors. (And if it has to make up facts to paint it as the aggressor, then so be it.)

Admittedly, the article never once mentions that al-Shabab is associated with Al-Qaeda and therefore a strictly Muslim terrorist group. So the AP didn’t fail in its indoctrination goals completely.

But still. Someone’s totally getting at least a strong reprimand over there today…