Let me just set the overall tone for this site. Two themes: I'm pissed and I don't care what you think. If you think you can keep that straight, great. We'll have no interaction and, therefore, we will get along just fine. If you can't, well, blow me.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments




In the Ditch

Our liberal pals are in real trouble, and as a compassionate conservative, I feel an obligation to help them winch their all-inclusive bus out of the ditch and help them with an ideological front end alignment.

Going into Nov. 2, the libs were riding high. John Kerry was running neck and neck with Bush in the polls. George Soros and the Hollywood crowd, you know, the people so often cited as being representative of “real America” were dumping truckloads of cash into the campaign coffers of Democrat candidates (a good sign, because it’s all about money). And even though Dan Rather got caught with his journalistic pants rumpled up around his ankles with nary an intern in sight, the press on the whole was doing a darned fine job of painting Iraq as an utter disaster. From the streets of Boston to the bath houses in San Francisco, joy and optimism filled the hearts of lefties everywhere.

And midway through election day, the news was so encouraging. Exit polls showed Kerry leading, in many states, by a healthy margin. The news was so good that Alec Baldwin is rumored to have called a real estate agent in preparation for buying an even larger home—on American soil. The staff of the New York Times was undoubtedly putting the finishing touches on their election stories…you know, the ones using phrases like “overwhelmingly rejected,” “tossed out of office,” “a widespread denunciation of the Iraq war,” “frustrated Americans everywhere” about President Bush’s election loss. The pro-legalized abortion crowd was gleeful, realizing they were about to win an unthinkable victory: seeing a pro-legalized abortion Catholic elected to the highest office in the land. And almost certainly, the gay marriage crowd was anticipating the joy that would come with their soon-to-be-legalized “right” to marry, as Mr. Kerry would be happy to help them end-run the American electorate, enlisting the help of a liberal judiciary in winning the Bath House Party its long-delayed “civil right.”

But something went wrong. Kerry lost, taking a four-point pasting at the polls. Gay marriage was banned in 11 states, including two states won by Kerry. Democrats lost House and Senate seats, including that held by their Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle. They even lost several gubernatorial races. And the election map was even more disappointing, with the country covered in red, with the Libs hanging on to the northeast coast, the west coast and a blue island populated by liberals and traditional union workers in the upper midwest.

Oh the pain. The injustice. And worst of all, the presidential victory by Bush was so clear, it couldn’t be clouded with allegations of vote fraud on the part of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Desperate for answers, the Libs starting searching for reasons for the “unfair” across-the-board spanking. It was wacked-out Evangelical Christians. No, wait, people in the Midwest were uninformed. Really, it’s just that the 60 million people who voted for Bush were “stupid” (uh, how does that square with John Kerry’s sizeable win in the “let’s not talk about them” demographic that is voters who did not finish high school?). It was Hillary’s fault. It was an evil plot by Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.

Sorry guys. Turn off NPR. Put down Al Franken’s book. Stand up. Look in the mirror. It’s you. It’s your party. And it’s the people who have shoved you out of the driver’s seat and taken the wheel. They’ve made a sharp left turn and now you’re sitting in a ditch. They guy in the driver’s seat, an unkempt, rotund chap wearing a baseball cap is screaming mad and he’s got the accelerator flat against the floor. But you’re not going anywhere.

You see, out here in the Midwest (or “Jesusland” as it was called on a map published recently by a bunch of Libs) the view of the evident majority of voters isn’t even close to what the New York Times, Rosie O’Donnell or Barbra says it is.

First off, we don’t hate anyone. In fact, we love our kids and we want them to first have a real childhood, get through the teenage years unscathed and venture into adulthood in a culture that looks something like the one that produced their parents. We don’t have any problem with gay people living together, or doing whatever. We don’t though, feel that that courts should tell us that we have to formally recognize their relationships in legal marriages. And we work with gays, we live next door to them and those of us that go to church sit in the same pews as they do. So we don’t equate gay marriage with the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. In fact, an awful lot of African-Americans find that comparison insulting. And we average, middle-class midwestern white folks agree with them. Just because we’re not in favor of gay marriage, doesn’t mean we hate gays or wish them harm. So when you scream that anyone who opposes gay marriage hates gay people, you push us away.

Like most of the country, we’re pretty much split on the abortion issue. But the majority of us feel we ought to give our consent before our 14 year-old daughter gets one, just as we have to give consent before the school nurse can give her so much as an aspirin. And most of us, while we may be divided on the issue of abortion, feel that partial birth abortion is a grisly form of infanticide which no reasonable person would consider defensible. And when you tell us regular folks that we’re fascists for disagreeing with you, you push us away.

We’re also somewhat split on Iraq. But what we do know is that if it was O.K. to take out good old Slobodon during the Bosnian Conflict due to his “ethnic cleansing,” then Saddam with his mass graves, support of terrorists and desire to acquire nukes was probably deserving of the same treatment. So when you scream “Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place,” you push us away.

On terrorism:  sure, we’d like to see Osama’s head on a plate, or at least know that he’s in the worst imaginable American prison, playing leapfrog with several large, lonely cellmates. But we know that every video of him shows a guy who looks increasingly worse, and who is obviously well on his way to looking like the aforementioned Saddam did when we plucked him out of a hole in the ground last December. He’s obviously on the run, so we don’t think he’s doing a very good job of commanding his “army” of psychopaths. And that’s evidenced by the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. Somehow, Mr. Bush and Company are doing something right. And we think it’s only a matter of time before we drag Osama into custody, or zip his remains into a body bag. So while you’re busy condemning the president for not pursuing terrorists, we see not only progress but results. Oh, and by yelling about Bush being a failure in the war on terrorism, you push us away.

On your party: you keep sliding leftward, all while your leadership looks back reverently at the JFK years, wondering how to get back to them. Well, think about it: JFK was a tax cutter. JFK also was quick to grab the handle of the sword when he perceived a Soviet threat in Cuba—essentially taking preemptive action. Who does that sound like? We out here in the red states liked JFK and his policies, heck, we liked him so much that thousands of dead people in Chicago even voted for him, giving him the victory back in 1960. So doesn’t it make sense that we voted for Bush? We haven’t changed out here, but the Democratic party has. JFK, your stated hero, would be somewhere to the right of Joe Lieberman, who, just four years after running for VP, now sounds more like a Republican than a Democrat. He hasn’t changed. But his party has. Ask Zell Miller if you don’t believe me.

Finally, you have to realize that we like Bush. No, we don’t think he’s perfect. But we don’t think he’s a whacked out Bible thumping fascist bent on torching the Bill of Rights and then throwing the Constitution into the blaze. We also wonder why it was no big  deal for Clinton to go to church, and for Al Gore to imitate a Southern preacher when he addressed the NAACP convention, but Bush gets condemned and compared to a Taliban-style Mullah when he dares to set foot in a church. We’ve suffered no terrorist attacks, we think the economy – despite the press ignoring employment figures identical to those of the Clinton years – is doing well and improving, and we like the idea that Bush seems to have an idea of right and wrong.

So, if you want to winch your car out of the ditch, maybe you ought to put down your triple mocha soy latte, pick up your cell phone and call Joe Lieberman or Bill Clinton. Oh, and leave Mr. Moore, the Rotund Radical on the side of the road. Maybe he can hitch a ride in Leonardo DiCaprio’s Prius.

Democrats: Remember the Lessons of 2004

Even today, two days after the election and just a day after John Kerry’s concession speech, Democrats are already openly speculating about the prospects of a 2008 White House run by Hillary Clinton. While this may confirm in some measure, the conspiracy theorist claim that the Clintons were hoping (and in unseen ways, working against) still-Senator John Kerry’s campaign, it also leads one to wonder what, if anything, the Party of the Ass has learned from the horsewhipping administered to it by the American electorate just 48 hours ago. While I, like most conservatives, celebrated wins in the race for the White House, victories that strengthened House and Senate Republican majorities and still more governor’s offices in the hands of conservatives, I’m an American first. And because of that, I think it’s important that those to the left of center take a long hard look at the lessons American voters wrote in the election results of Nov. 2. It’s important because, while I hold conservative values and policies dear, I believe a weak Democratic party can only lead to a weak Republican party (and, of course, vice versa). After all, good competition benefits all. So, what did the American Electorate tell us Nov. 2?

First, that it places great value on values. George Bush took a clear and certain position on every question or issue that came his way not only during the just-ended campaign, but since the day he took the Oath of Office in January 2001. You may have forgotten, but in the days and weeks preceding 9/11, he took a firm position on stem cell research. While the wreckage of the World Trade Center was still smoldering, he told Americans and the entire world that he would bring the full force of the U.S. military and its resources to bear on the bearded fanatics of the Muslim world. What’s more, he made it plain that states who supported terrorists in any way would be considered enemies of the U.S. No longer would two-bit tyrants in Muslim countries thumb their noses at the U.S. with impunity. Sadaam called Bush’s bluff. Muammar Qaddafi didn’t.

Bush’s other positions were every bit as clear. Bush opposed gay marriage. Bush supported tax cuts. Bush, rightly or wrongly, supported a guest worker program for illegal aliens. Bush supported the use of the PATRIOT act. Bush opposed abortion. All clear, all certain. Kerry, on the other hand, tried to win voters by taking something of every position on nearly every issue. His many flip flops certainly need not be repeated here; we’ve all heard scores of them ad nauseum for the past six months. Kerry had no expressed values, and it cost him the votes of those who wanted to know what they were.

Second, while American voters on the whole, do not bear any ill will toward gay, lesbian, transgendered, cross-dressers, those questioning their orientation, or what have you, they also do not feel they should be forced to place the societal stamp of approval that is marriage on the many lifestyles that make up the confused rainbow of those who choose to identify themselves chiefly by their sexual preferences. In short, you can dress like a Druid and spend your afternoons with transgendered midgets in bath houses, but don’t seek to have society give the same formal acknowledgement to that relationship as it does to traditional marriages, which human society has formally sanctioned for about 5,000 years. Once again, voters supported strongly several measures banning gay marriage. The idea of gay marriage has been pummeled by U.S. voters at every turn. Clearly, further pursuit of this issue only seeks to widen the divide between mainstream Americans and the Bath House Party, which is counter to their stated goals of merely seeking acceptance. You have acceptance, but you’ve no right to expect approval.

Third, put some distance between yourselves and the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. Certainly, the pseudo-intelligentsia of the entertainment industry sprained a few elbows clapping one another on the back after the screening of Fahrenheit 9-11, and after screeds by Sean Penn and intellectual heavyweights such as Leonardo DiCrapio, Natalie Maines, Rosie O’Donnell and the rest of the People Magazine crowd. But most Americans don’t buy it, and don’t identify with this bunch. Most Americans can’t afford to vacation regularly in every popular tourist haven on earth. Most can’t afford to have three kids, one by an ex-spouse, another by an ex-boyfriend and third solo, through invitro fertilization. Most Americans can’t completely flop at work one day and wake up to a host of multi-million dollar job offers the next. Jennifer Lopez makes “Gigli,” sees it turn into an utter failure financially and presumably artistically, and then spends months sorting through a series of new movie offers. That’s not the real world. While the lefties loved to listen to the Hollywood crowd snipe at George W. Bush, those of us who recognize the entertainment world and those who populate it as escapist didn’t. We knew better than to confuse this world and the opinions of those who live it in to drive our real world decisions at the polls.

Fourth, look at the map. The election map was truly astounding. Kerry took New England, a traditional strong ground for liberals, and the Left Coast. In between was a sea of red states, dotted only by the leftist bastions of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois (which is dominated by Chicago’s Democratic machine). If the dems want to Hillary to be competitive in 2008, they’d better help her learn what people in the Midwest, the South, the southwest, the north central and the west value and consider priorities. Clearly, apart from the three aforementioned liberal enclaves, the message of the dems was rejected by most of the U.S.

Fifth, don’t count on the media to do your dirty work. Americans could tolerate the liberal bias of the media, until the mainstream media began to act on its urges to influence the election. Dan Rather’s memogate, the overblown coverage of the Abu Graib prisoner hazing, the Missing Explosives controversy and endless other “Bush is screwing up” stories crossed the line. The price was an American electorate that shot back at the press, and more important, a total loss of credibility for the likes of Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, the New York Times, etc.

Sixth, play fair. Reports of plans for rioting in the streets of New York during the GOP convention, stealing Bush Cheney signs, slashing tires on vehicles used by Republican campaign workers, break-ins and vandalism of Republican campaign offices aren’t merely the acts of overenthusiastic campaign workers. These are initial steps on the road to fascism. (Funny how the left likes to hurl that very word at Republicans).

Certainly there’s more, but that’s a good start.

So, to summarize in the tradition of Dana Carvey’s best George H.W. Bush

  • Take consistent positions.
  • Get out of bed with the “LGBT” crowd.
  • Stay out of Michael Moore’s bed (there’s no room left anyway).
  • Visit Kansas City, Des Moines or Lubbock. When you get there, listen and don’t talk.
  • Dan Rather’s going to retire—for good reason.
  • Play nice—the ends don’t justify the means.

The Paradox of the Liberal Intellectual

Extreme liberalism is little more than a flatulent philosophy made bloated by hyper-egotism, unrestrained self importance, and an over abundant sense of self. With such an array of flattering characteristics at its core, the common misnomer so often assigned to it is that much more incredible to hear. All too often I hear the misguided merging of two mutually exclusive terms, forming a paradoxical and decidedly undeserved union: the “liberal intellectual.” Though often used as a pejorative to demonstrate the inane state of our politicized institutions of higher learning currently held hostage by liberal ideology, the pairing is, nonetheless, incorrect.

At its roots, liberal ideology is more dependent on emotion to serve as its foundation than any true empirical  reasoning or logical constructs. Consider for a moment the last time you had engaged in debate with a leftist. Here I will take the  liberty of employing the politically incorrect technique (and, therefore, my language of choice) referred to as “sweeping generalization.” In all likelihood no debate would have actually occurred. Instead, what you had probably experienced was a one-sided, childish rant characterized by ever an increasing volume from the left side of the “debate.” This is a technique deliberately engaged to drown out the conservative point of view rather than confront it head on and triumph by merit. In other words, their position was vociferated while yours was lost through loud, boorish behavior. This does not result in a debate illustrating the differences between two ideologies. Instead, what is achieved is an emotionally-charged monologue that could be likened to that of a two-year throwing a fit. Such diarrheal argumentation, or perhaps more appropriately  “ideological self-gratification,” though effective in soothing the orator’s delicate sensibilities, does nothing to advance their argument’s intellectual credibility—status it would have enjoyed through honest debate, despite the certainty of inevitable defeat under said circumstances.

But it is not difficult to understand why those embroiled in the leftist movement abandon logic and reasoned premise during “debates” of ideology. Positions based solely on emotion and kaleidoscopic visions of fantastic utopian social constructs are necessarily repudiated by such critical thinking. The magnetism of liberalism, therefore, does not rest in its intellectual foundation. Instead, it resides in its emotional appeal of perceived fairness and the promise of egalitarian outcome for all to enjoy (the true dangers of which are best addressed in a separate, dedicated thesis).

So there it is. Though liberalism’s underlying promise is a feel-good alternative to the harsh realities of everyday life, pragmatism forces us to reject the purest of such ideals in favor of solutions wrought from the intellect. That is not to say, of course, that pragmatism is always, or even often, the victor in ideological application—political forces see to that. The conclusion then, is this: if liberal ideology is not the fruit of the intellect, then by definition the notion of the intellectual liberal rings false.

Dismiss the Pretense and Unveil the Truth

Ah, the libs…once again they’re on the warpath, this time masking firmly rooted anti-Christian sentiments with high-minded laments and accusations of anti-Semitism and harmful depictions of violence. Of course, I’m referring to the leftist crusade du jour: the secular war against Mel Gibson and his production of “The Passion of the Christ.” Naturally, we all realize that Mr. Gibson isn’t the true target of their unholy war, nor is the film for that matter. Instead, their sites are intently focused upon Christianity as a whole. What better way to achieve that end than to call into question—in a very public forum—the founding principles of Christianity: the accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection as found in the Gospels. As has become the favorite tact of the liberators of historical truths—freeing said monolithic constructs from the oppressive binds of reverent study of past events and adherence to their factual origins—the libs have now undertaken the daunting task of compelling a revisionist accounting of the Gospels themselves. They are attempting said feat through an attempt to hijack public opinion with baseless accusation and the promulgation of widespread misinformation about the scale and magnitude of the purported public outcry against the imagery and message contained in the movie.

The “violence” that they’re all up in arms about is used to demonstrate the brutality that Jesus had suffered, thereby emphasizing the magnitude of His sacrifice. All too often, His ordeal had been characterized by “He suffered, died and was buried…” in effect, marginalizing His gift. This unintended reduction of salience is largely attributable to those who practice Christian faith. The movie, however, reverses that trend by clearly demonstrating the reality of the situation as set in the historical context of the time of Jesus’ life. It was necessary and not at all overstated to demonstrate the brutality of His ordeal in order to drive home the point and poignancy of His sacrifice and how truly difficult it would have been for one to voluntarily submit oneself. I find it ironic that only now, when an ages-old historical account is retold on screen, are the libs suddenly concerned about the violence factor. Of course, if this had been superfluous violence placed on screen only to draw audiences to the theatres for a secular film (a morally superior and critically exempt product, of course), this would not be an issue. Consider, for example, the countless films that have been released in the past thirty or so years—fraught with violence, gore, sex, drug use and virtually every other vice known to man—which garnered nary a comment from the suddenly now “concerned” critical base. One could go so far as to characterize their sudden “concern” as little more than thinly veiled Catholic/Christian bias aimed solely at denigrating the movie (or if the truth be told—Christianity) with unabashed, hypocritical vitriol—all coming from an amoral, hedonistic, revisionist crowd with oscillating sensibilities that are only activated through convenience of political advancement rather than adherence to a structured philosophy.

The anti-Semitism of which they speak was a concern brought forth even before the movie went public, which begs the question “how could they level such charges without being witness to the events contained in the film. The answer is quite simple, really. All they had to do was look to the movie’s source material: the Gospels. The Gospels recount the trials and tribulations Jesus faced in the last hours of His life. These stories are the historical documents we draw upon to learn of these events. Whether or not it casts those who were directly responsible in a negative light is irrelevant and, frankly, quite insignificant to the larger meaning attributed to the stories. To those now aghast at the depiction found in the movie, I offer you this: get over it. It happened and no amount of protestation can change that—a condition, by the way, that holds true for the historical accounting of any example of man’s inhumanity to man.

That said take a moment to reflect upon how the situation was demonstrated in the film. The viewer sees a frenzied mob whose collective emotions were given rise by the events unfolding before them—events that were fueled by protagonists who clearly relied upon the presence of an angry mob to secure their own desired result. That which cannot be denied is the dark figure that is found lurking about the agitated crowd, as well as the protagonists themselves. It should be quite obvious even to the layman that this figure is the physical manifestation of evil—or Satan, if you will—whose mere presence stimulates hateful emotions in those embroiled in the situation. It also prompts Jesus’ own followers to betray, deny, and abandon Him.  So even those closest to Jesus engage in unfathomable acts against the one they profess to love. It is clear that taken in aggregate, His followers, the Romans, and the Jews, are a small, representative sample of humanity as a whole, and as such, the sins of all mankind are responsible for His death. By freely accepting that death, He bestowed upon all the gift of forgiveness and salvation. It is this theme, of course, that is the root of Christianity and has been taught to present day in Christian theology. To argue otherwise merely underscores one’s ignorance and willingness to draw conclusions without the benefit of knowledge and understanding. Or perhaps, rather, it represents their outright rejection of the facts in favor of bolstering their unfounded claims of racial or religious intolerance for the sole purpose of advancing their own suspect agenda. Either is a possibility, however, it is the latter that seems most likely.