Monday, May 30, 2016

How Long Could We Celebrate Memorial Day With Hillary Clinton as President?

Happy Memorial Day!

Hope you enjoy your all-American cookouts and freedom of speech to converse openly with family and friends.

Just a reminder: This holiday was created to celebrate the soldiers who died protecting those abilities…

Just a warning: It might not last much longer. Not if Hillary Clinton is elected president.

Think I’m being a bit melodramatic? I wish. But the truth is she’s promising to endanger our American borders, which were bought, paid and protected by spilled American blood.

Breitbart wrote up a whole entire article about it this month, corroborated by Hillary’s own words and website. Here are just a few of the things she’s been pledging:

·         Full-out amnesty within 100 days – Dictated from the president’s office, ignoring the proper legal channels to pass such measures and, of course, using taxpayer money to do so, Hillary Clinton wants to give citizenship to foreigners who obviously have no real respect for our laws.
·         No more deportations of illegal immigrants – With the supposed exception of violent criminals or terrorists, this means that, theoretically, they’ll only be draining us dry financially and culturally. Whoopie!
·         Ignore securing the border – As Hillary said back in March, “We [already] have a secure border. There’s no need for this rhetoric and demagoguery that still is carried out on the Republican side. You’ve run out of excuses.” Yeah, you silly Republicans, why do you keep on bringing up all of those drunk driving fatalities, rapes and murders of U.S. citizens by illegal immigrants. And quit yapping about the terrorist threat. France is doing fine with all of its immigrants, right?
·         No more illegal immigrant detention centers – These will no doubt be replaced by welcoming committees with goodie bags chock full of instant government handouts and Democrat voter registration cards.
·         Obamacare for all in this country – As her website states, this is “regardless of citizenship status.”
·         More Syrian refugees – Because Muslim-minded migrants are always so good about accepting their host nation’s culture.

I’m sorry to go all political on a holiday created to commemorate fallen American soldiers of all stars and stripes. But I think it’s high time this country starts really thinking about its freedoms and how it’s come to enjoy them.

What Hillary Clinton is proposing is not only no kind of gratitude to those men and women who gave their life to protect us in the past… It’s also no guarantee we’ll have much to protect going forward.

Friday, May 27, 2016

The Lesson I Learned From Maryland: It’s Easier to Be Illegal


I got a notice from the Maryland Vehicle Emissions Inspection yesterday, which made me realize that being illegal in this country is so much easier than being a law-abiding citizen.

There actually is a logical connection between the two. Bear with me.

Despite living in the state of Maryland, I bought a used car from Pennsylvania two months ago because I knew and trusted the dealer, and he had something I could afford.

Little did I know the hassle awaiting me when I returned back home.

Admittedly, some of it wasn’t Maryland’s fault, like the check engine light coming on not once but twice, forcing me to go back to Pennsylvania not once but twice to get it repaired.

But the fact that I failed inspection because of Maryland’s rigorous “safety” demands? Yeah, I blame that all on the “old line state.”

The same goes for the two whole days I had to take off of work, the three hours I wasted at the MVA and the $700 total I had to spend getting approved to simultaneously live and work here.

$700! That’s insane!

So when I then got a “Maryland Vehicle Emissions Inspection Notice” in the mail telling me that I have until July 27 to comply with “Maryland law” – which will cost me more time and money – I wasn’t thrilled.

First off, why wasn’t this covered in my state inspection?

And secondly, one very large part of this normally law-abiding citizen is thinking about how easily she could have gotten away with leaving her old Pennsylvania plates on her newish car.

If I got pulled over, so what? I can’t imagine the fine would have been $700. I’m going with $300 max. Which means I could have gotten pulled over yet again and STILL not have paid the same amount I did to go the good girl route.

But isn’t that a large part of what’s wrong with America today? How profitable it is to be illegal?

Thanks to various government programs, illegality comes with food stamps, discounted housing and even tax refunds, as IRS Commissioner Koskinen flat-out admitted last year.

Not pay taxes but get tax refunds? Where do I sign up?

Except, of course, that kind of perk is just for people who don’t obey the law. Which, honestly, is looking more and more tempting.

Thursday, May 26, 2016

LGBT-Friendly Marvel Fans Demand That Captain America Admit He’s Gay

I’ve long-since criticized straight women who pine away after their gay male friends.

The guy says he’s gay. That means he prefers men, not women, from a sexual standpoint.

Ladies, that means he doesn’t. want. you.

Deal with it. Then move on.

However, that criticism crosses the sexual aisle. So gay men who pine away after their straight male friends are just as worthy of derision as their straight female counterparts.

The guy says he’s straight. That means he prefers women, not men, from a sexual standpoint.

Men, that means he doesn’t. want. you.

Deal with it. Then move on.

No. Seriously. Stop whining about what you can’t have and find something that you can. There are plenty of fish in the sea, you pushy, greedy little brats.

That illogical and irritating whine for self-gratification is one of the many reasons I find the #GiveCaptainAmericaABoyfriend Twitter campaign so exceptionally pathetic. The character is clearly not homosexual, and demanding that he be anything but heterosexual is ludicrous.

How is Captain America not gay? Let me count the ways:

·         In Captain America: The First Avenger, he’s very obvious about being in love with Peggy Carter, who – incidentally – is a woman.
·         In Captain America: Winter Soldier, Black Widow – another female, by the way – smooches him for cover, and it’s obvious his hormones don’t object.
·         In Captain America: Civil War, he initiates his own smooch with Sharon Carter, who… wait for it… is a woman!

Yes, he has a close friendship with Bucky Barnes. But as I detailed last week, even Vanity Fair agrees – through the use of a lame little temper-tantrum – that’s there’s nothing homoerotic about it.

Anyway, since when can’t a guy have a close friendship with another guy? Where in the heterosexual code book states that straight men can only communicate with grunts, punches on the arm and chit-chat about sports statistics?

I don’t see that anywhere. And honestly, it’s incredibly close-minded to claim otherwise.

Friday, May 20, 2016

Instagram Cries Racist Over Blake Lively’s “Baby Got Back” Post

Blake Lively irritates me.

She’s an over-privileged, self-focused child who’s been told one too many times she’s pretty.

In other words, she’s a run-of-the-mill Hollywood actress. Which makes me so not impressed.

Yet I’m even less impressed with the get-offended-by-everything crowd crying “Racist!” over her May 17 Instagram post.

One would think they’d get tired of shouting the word. That they’d figure out how it loses its power every time they raise they raise the alarm without good cause.

But nope. Apparently not.

In the disputed social media display, Blake Lively showed a double-feature picture of herself. One side displayed her wearing a curve-hugging, somewhat see-through golden gown, while the other side shows her from the back.

The dress looks inexcusably inexpensive. Though that’s not what people are freaking out about. Because calling out celebrities for their pointlessly extravagant lifestyles would make too much sense.

What they’re mad at is the caption Lively added: “L.A. face with an Oakland booty,” which is a line from Sir Mix-A-Lot’s 1992 hit, “Baby Got Back.”

Now, rapped by a black man, “Baby Got Back” is an ode to black women with booties. But guess what?  Black men don’t exactly object to well-rounded backsides on white girls either.

And no, that’s not racist to say, even if I am a white girl.

It’s also not racist for a white girl to compare her derriere to that of a black woman. If anything, it’s a compliment. It’s saying that the stereotypical black female body is desirable.

Not everything is offensive, people!

If you want to get offended by something, how about how an influential actress promoting vapid narcissism by posting pictures to social media saying, “Oh my word, look how hot I am!”

That’s a worthwhile angle to criticize Blake Lively about.

The racist position though?

Before people go there – again – they should do themselves a favor and Google “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.”

Monday, May 16, 2016

Vanity Fair Whines About Captain America Not Being Homosexual

Homosexuality dominates television these days. And I’m not just talking about Modern Family.

Off the top of my head, here’s a list of ongoing shows that have featured homosexual couples among their main characters:

·         House of Cards
·         Grey’s Anatomy
·         Scandal
·         How to Get Away With Murder
·         Pretty Little Liars
·         The 100
·         Anything on Showtime
·         Anything on HBO

Need I go on?

Knowing all that, it’s ridiculous for homosexuals to get miffed about Captain America, a well-established character who’s been around for decades, having such “heterosexual virility” on the big screen.

According to the Washington Times, that’s what Vanity Fair’s Joanna Robinson lamented about after watching Captain America: Civil War in theater:

“As if to put the nail in the coffin of speculation, Bucky and Cap paused for a moment in the middle of snowy Siberia to reminisce about their days chasing skirts in pre-war Brooklyn. It’s a sweet, human bonding moment but one that also bristles with heterosexual virility. If Disney isn’t inclined to give audiences a gay superhero, couldn’t they have at least left us the dream of Bucky and Cap?... Doesn’t Captain America: Civil War go out of its way to ‘define’ Bucky and Steve’s relationship when Cap smooches Sharon Carter… while Bucky looks on approvingly? Where’s the room for interpretation in that moment?”

Really? Really?

No, I mean it. Really?

Why in the world SHOULD Captain America be homosexual? Why can’t single women revel in the idea of a strong, nice man being interested in what we’ve got going on?

Or, here’s a thought… Why can’t we all wake up and realize that there’s a whole wide world out there beyond our agendas? One where people have ACTUAL problems like, I don’t know, being a 13-year-old incest victim in India who’s publically BEATEN for not speaking up about it.

What about that, Joanna Robinson of Vanity Fair? Now, please, for crying out loud, get over yourself.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

U.S. Military Giving More Special Treatment to Minorities - Part II

Yesterday, I brought up the cases of 1) the U.S. Army allowing a Sikh to bypass its otherwise rigid rules by wearing a turban and a full beard, and 2) its decision to let 16 black female West Point recruits slide without so much as a slap on the wrist for posing in uniform with their fists raised in the air like they were Black Panthers instead of U.S. military personnel.

In that blog post, I only focused on the military reasons why giving minorities special treatment is a really bad idea. In today’s follow-up, let’s talk about an additional societal objection.

Two days ago, I read a really interesting line in The War of 1812: Writings From America’s Second War of Independence, one of my research books for my second Maiden America sequel.

A compilation of first-hand American, British, Native American and Canadian accounts of various military maneuvers, The War of 1812 includes Washington Irving’s “Biographical Memoir of Commodore Perry,” the American naval commander who claimed an underdog victory against the British on Lake Eerie.

In first laying out America’s reasons for declaring war, Irving makes some thought-provoking philosophical statements, such as the following:

“There is an obsequious deference in the minds of too many of our countrymen towards Great Britain, that not only impairs the independence of the national character, but defeats the very object that they would attain. They would make any sacrifices to maintain a precarious, and patched up, and humiliating connexion with her; but they may rest assured that the good opinion of Great Britain was never gained by servile acquiescence; she never will think the better of a people for thinking despicably of themselves.”

Irving may have written that 200 years ago about a completely different conflict, but his words ring true today about America’s increasingly violent racial divide. We could easily substitute “American whites” and “American minorities” for America and Great Britain in that last section:

White Americans “may rest assured that the good opinion of” American minorities “was never gained by servile acquiescence;” American minorities “never will think the better of” white Americans “for thinking despicably of themselves.”

That’s what this comes down to: one group kissing up to another to make itself feel better. And while brownnosing might accomplish short-term goals, what lasting good does it do?

If a white American cadet told the Army he wanted to wear a beard for any reason, religious or otherwise, he’d be told to shape up or ship out. And if 16 white female American recruits posed in uniform on base with, say, the Confederate flag, they’d be reprimanded in a heartbeat.

Telling American minorities they can break the rules because we really want them to like us isn’t going to bring about mutual respect. How can it when neither side is really respecting itself?

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

U.S. Military Giving More Special Treatment to Minorities - Part I

U.S. Military Giving More Special Treatment to Minorities

There are two military-related news stories that came out recently:


Both involve minorities being given special treatment.

In the Sikh’s case, his religious beliefs require that he wear a turban and a full beard, whereas Army regulations have equally strict dress and appearance policies. The two don’t match-up.

Then there’s the 16 West Point cadets, all of them black women, who posed in uniform at their barracks for an unofficial class photo with their fists in the air, a la the Black Panthers. The Yahoo article I linked to above says it was a perfectly innocent act, but I’m not buying.

As such, I’m honestly not sure which example is more disconcerting.

The military isn’t inclusive. At least it isn’t supposed to be. It’s supposed to encourage order and discipline and conformity. Sure, skin color and accents and body mass distributions can vary, but the common soldier’s uniform is made to blend in, not stand out. And boot camp is supposed to chip away at recruits’ sense of self until they’re a unified group instead of individual persons.

Why? Because that’s the best way to win wars, which is what the military is supposed to do.

When you’re an individual, you think about your own safety, which means you damn well don’t go running out into a hail of bullets or exploding grenades just because you’re told to.

When you’re a group, however, you’re focused on its larger good. And if that good can be best maintained by accepting orders to put yourself in harm’s way, then so be it.

It’s the everyday American civilian’s right to wear a turban and full beard, as in the case of the Sikh recruit. And it’s the everyday American civilian’s right to make race a big deal, as in the case of the 16 black female recruits. It’s also the everyday American civilian’s right to stay comfy safe at home.

It’s not the military’s.

(To be continued...)

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

I Hate the Baltimore Ravens… Which Isn’t Doing Anyone Any Good

I got picked on for being a Steelers’ fan again yesterday.

Admittedly, that’s to be expected when I work in Baltimore, MD, home of the Ravens.

Also admittedly, I was drawing attention to myself by wearing my Steelers’ blanket, which I keep in the office. In my defense, it was freezing! My idiot company refuses to put the heat on.

Also in my defense, it really doesn’t matter whether I’m wearing my blanket or not. I’m a Steelers’ fan in solid Ravens’ territory. Therefore, I get picked on no matter how demure I am.

Heck, I don’t even bring up my team when they beat the locals. Doesn’t matter one bit.

For the last year and a half now, my main football antagonist has been a coworker who’s annoying in general. After this latest round of razzing, I found myself hoping enough Ravens’ players get hurt this season to destroy the entire team’s Playoff chances. Just to get him back.

That isn’t something I’m exactly proud of. Yet I’m trying hard to be ashamed. And I’m not.

I’m not normally a violent person. Usually I don’t even like seeing my adversaries embarrassed intellectually or emotionally. It makes me cringe. Yet there I sat wishing – wanting – serious physical harm on my fellow human beings because of a difference in opinion.

Thinking it over, I realized this was a perfect example of why we should all learn to control our emotions a bit better.

Consider… My coworker hates the Steelers because he’s been told they’re the Ravens’ rivals; ipso facto, he must loathe them. As a result of that general mentality, I hear enough grating comments about my team that I’ve come to not only hate the Ravens, but even the color purple.

All of which is ridiculous on multiple levels.

This is a sport! A matter of ego. Which isn’t a good reason to discard another’s feelings.

The same applies to politics, no matter how much more serious the stakes. Yes, we could hate them for first hating us. And they could hate us for opposing everything they stand for.

But what’s the point? What in the world does it accomplish other than producing more hatred?

Rivalries and disagreements are one thing. They’re inevitable, and sometimes even helpful or fun. So I’m hardly suggesting we all sit around in a circle holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

What I am saying is that we should never forget that the opposing side is human. Even if they are Ravens’ fans.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

66-Year-Old Bruce "Caitlyn" Jenner Is Posing Naked for Sports Illustrated

Apparently, Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner is going to be featured on an upcoming Sports Illustrated cover wearing an American flag and his Olympic medal. And nothing else.

I’d say “Ew” except that I’m not grossed out. If anything, I’m bored.

Why in the world does everyone and their 66-year-old transsexual father think it’s a great idea to pose naked these days? Who bloody cares?

No, seriously: Who honestly cares?

It’s becoming ridiculously common how often we’re exposed (pun intended) to naked people these days, particularly celebrities or celebrity wanna-bes.

You’re pregnant and a celebrity? Pose naked.

You’re no longer a minor and a celebrity? Pose naked.

You’re totally self-consumed, desperate for attention and a celebrity? Pose naked.

Once upon a time, posing naked for the public eye used to make a statement. It used to say, “I’m bold. Daring. Independent of societal expectations of decency. You can take your cultural norms and stick ‘em somewhere highly uncomfortable!”

It used to say, “I’m a stupid slut and I’m proud of it.”

That was twenty years ago though. How times have changed.

Now, it says, “I’m still a stupid slut but it’s because I can’t come to my own conclusions and all the other stupid sluts tell me this is how to show I’m proud of being a stupid slut so I might as well pose naked and hopefully people will like it and think I’m sexy and bold and daring even though I only feel that way when people tell me I look that way because I’m really too insecure to make up my own mind about who I am and how I feel and what I think.”

Which, incidentally, is a lot more pathetic than those pioneers of nudity back in the day.

The truth is that being naked is so passé at this point that Playboy can’t even make money off of it anymore.

That says something.

Why Sports Illustrated and Bruce “Caitlin” Jenner haven’t gotten the memo yet is beyond me. If they really want to make a statement these days, they should try keeping their clothes on.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

I Just Watched 3 Minutes and 22 Seconds of Men Spanking Women

If you want to watch something really disturbing, check out this video, a compilation of scripted men spanking grown women on screen in a number of Hollywood films “from the early days of cinema up through the 1960s,” according to feminist publication Jezebel.

Now, I don’t like Jezebel. It says something about a group when it names itself after a murderous egomaniac who was so wicked she had a prophecy of doom tailored to her. For that matter, the Jezebel recorded in the Bible wasn’t an advocate of equal rights; she was a tyrant who both ruled her husband and yelled at him for being a spineless baby.

Which he was. But still. Make up your mind, woman. You can’t have it both ways.

Considering all that, I guess it makes sense that modern feminists would adopt her as an icon.

With all that said, after watching the 3-minute and 22-second spanking video, I’ve got to say that Jezebel did a great job this time of highlighting deplorable examples of negative attitudes toward women. I’m seriously creeped out beyond belief after watching the whole thing.

However, I’m going to analyze it from a different perspective than the publication. (Honestly, after reading the entire article, I’m not even sure what the publication’s perspective is.)

My conclusion is that Hollywood has a long history of keeping women in line, one that it’s kept up long after 1960.

In the disturbing list of movies Jezebel lists that show “wily women” being “rendered the children of the men who loved them,” attractive females were physically abused to keep them kowtowing to men’s desires. Today, while that style of physical abuse may be frowned upon, women are now being sexually exploited for the same end goal.

We still have the “wily women” portrayed onscreen. They’re even encouraged to be that way, scripted to give lip service to female independence. Yet they do this while embodying a close-minded ideal of beauty and wearing outfits – or not wearing outfits – specifically tailored to make men go “I’d like to bend her over.”

How many women truly feel lastingly liberated by exposing themselves to everyman’s ogling eyes? Because that’s what Hollywood is doing today: stripping females down and holding them out there like chattel for the public to bid on.

To some degree, those old-school spankings – which I maintain were utterly cringe-worthy – were tame compared to what movies are doing to women today. Our bottoms might be less sore, but now we’re at an extremely higher risk of unwanted pregnancies, STDs and low self-esteem, all because Hollywood has gone from telling us that our docility is our most important asset to preaching that our sexuality is what makes us valuable.

Wouldn’t it be awesome if Hollywood just shut up already and let women make up their own minds?

Monday, May 2, 2016

Barbary Pirates vs. the Crusades: Are Christians Really Historically Meaner Than Muslims?

The Crusades are routinely thrown in non-Muslims’ faces as a sign of inexcusable and unprompted Christian aggression, despite the far more complicated history behind them.

In the common telling, Muslims were living out their lives peacefully when power and land-hungry Christians ran in and tried to annihilate them for no good reason. That’s why we have so many men and women of Middle Eastern background practicing terrorism, we’re told: because they’ve been long-since disenfranchised by Christian cruelty.

In that light, it’s counterproductive to bring up the Barbary pirates, who spent centuries raiding Europe and pirating European ships. Which is probably why nobody really knows anything about them today. But since Words From the Right doesn’t pursue a Muslim agenda, here goes…

Conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation says this about the marauders:

“Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Hol­land, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800. The blood­curdling tales of brutality and horror that awaited Christians unlucky enough to fall victim to the Bar­bary Pirates were widely known, although sometimes wildly exaggerated.

“The reality was often much more prosaic, although no less cruel. After seizing the cargo and scuttling the vessel, the pirates would strip the crew of anything deemed remotely valuable. The shaken, naked, terri­fied crewmen would then be dragged back to North Africa. There, they would be imprisoned and enslaved or, if they were lucky, ransomed back to their sover­eign or their family or the company they worked for.

“Often enough, however, the victims of these mari­time hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam-"turning Turk"-instantly changed one's status and prospects.”

Now, if you’re not the type to trust conservatives, Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the Barbary pirates as “any of the Muslim pirates operating from the coast of North Africa, at their most powerful during the 17th century but still active until the 19th century.”

And while official U.S. sites such as history.state.gov and monticello.org are too PC-pansy to call the terrorists what they were, the liberal Wikipedia admits right off the bat that “the main purpose of their attacks was to capture Christian slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arabic market in North Africa and the Middle East” and “such raids had occurred since soon after the Muslim conquest of the region.”

The Crusades, on the other hand? The liberal Washington Post estimates “that 1.7 million people died in total,” with one in 20 Crusaders themselves never making it to the Holy Land.

The article in question goes on to write:

“And this is all at a time in which the world population was approximately 300 million — less than 5 percent its current total. Muslim extremists would have to kill 34 million people (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) to equal that death toll today. As horrific as the Islamic State’s brutal reign of terror has been, its death toll is estimated at around 20,000.

But clearly it didn’t factor in the Barbary pirates in its mean, nasty Christian vs. Muslim tally. For that matter, it didn’t even factor in the hundreds of thousands of Christians who died in the Crusades.

So those arguments sympathizing with Muslim aggression? Even if they had any historic validity, it seems that tit for tat, they’re not amounting to much.