Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
An American missionary believed to be detained when he stepped into North Korea on Christmas didn't inform his parents of his plans but they had a hunch he would visit the communist nation.
"We had a sense," Pyong Park, the missionary's father, told The Associated Press late Sunday. "We told him to continue what you're doing in South Korea."
About 100 people held candles Sunday night at Palomar Korean Church in San Marcos, a north San Diego suburb, to commend Park for going to North Korea.
"Robert is doing what God called on him to do," the Rev. Madison Shockley told the crowd. "We call this speaking truth to power."
Robert Park, 28, slipped across the frozen Tumen River into the North from China carrying a letter calling on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to shut down the country's political prison camps. There has been no word from him since.
Park's parents last heard from their son Dec. 23 in an e-mail that predicted upheaval in North Korea.
"Know that I am the happiest in all my life," his e-mail read. "Incredible miracles are happening in the liberation of North Koreans right now ... We are going to see a big and beautiful change in Korea and in the World this year!"
I find this story to be a light in an age of cynicism towards religious belief, especially Christian belief. There are many people today who view the Christian faith in scorn, who harbor prejudices towards Christians, considering them all to be Bible-thumping hypocrites and bigots, and considering their religious leaders to be either con-artists or pedophiles. In essence, there are those who view religious belief as an enemy to freedom.
This missionary breaks the mold of the Christian stereotype. In a time when missionaries are viewed in contempt, accused of forcing their religion and culture on foreigners, this missionary risked his life to enter a closed country and deliver a message of freedom—not only through human rights, but through Christ.
Only God knows the fate of this missionary. Shall he live to see his loved ones once more, or shall he die a martyr’s death? Either way, let us pray that he fulfills God’s will.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Guess what’s hanging on Obama’s Christmas tree:
The face of China's Mao Zedong, blamed for the deaths of 50 to 80 million of his countrymen, graces an ornament on the White House Christmas tree for President Obama's first holiday season in residence.
According to BigGovernment.com, the tree also features an ornament adding Obama to Mount Rushmore.
The images, such as the "transvestite" character "Hedda Lettuce," are attributed to the work of Simon Doonan, creative director of Barney's New York, whose previous projects have included Margaret Thatcher as a dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist's dummy, according to the New York Times.
"Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements," Big Government's report asked. "These photos of ornaments on the White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room were taken just days ago. Of course, Mao has his place in the White House."
As much as I disagree with Obama, I do not think he is evil. I simply think he is wrong on many issues.
Unlike other right-wing bloggers, I do not wish to jump the bandwagon by calling Obama a Marx-worshipper who is hell bent on turning this country into a socialist regime akin to the Soviet Union.
However, it’s really hard not to accuse Obama of being a Marxist or communist when an ornament of Mao hangs from the White House Christmas tree. It really is!
If Obama and his administration wish to curb accusations of communism and Marxism, they need to carefully watch what they do and say, especially when it comes to decorating the Christmas tree.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
It was the night before Christmas, and all through the Senate
The right held up our health care bill, no matter what was in it
The people had voted a mandated reform
But Republicans blew off the gathering storm
We'll clog up the Senate, they cried with a grin
And in the midterm elections, we'll get voted in
They knew regular folks needed help right this second
But fundraisers, lobbyists and politics beckoned
So try as they might, Democrats could not win
Because the majority was simply too thin
Then across every state there rose such a clatter
The whole senate rushed out to see what was the matter
All sprang up from their desk and ran from the floor
Straight through the cloakroom and right out the door
And what in the world would be quite so raucous?
But a mandate for change from the Democratic caucus
The president, the Speaker, of course Leader Reid
Had answered the call in our hour of need
More rapid than eagles, the provisions they came
And they whistled and shouted and called them by name
Better coverage, cost savings, a strong public plan [sic]
Accountable options. We said, 'Yes, we can.'
No exclusions or changes for preexisting conditions
Let's pass a bill that restores competition
The Democrats all came together to fight
For the American people that Christmas Eve night
And then in a twinkle, I heard under the dome
The roll call was closed, and it was time to go home
Despite the obstructionist tactics of some
The filibuster had broken, the people had won
And a good bill was ready for President Obama
Ready to sign and end health care drama
Democrats explained as they drove out of sight
Better coverage for all, even our friends on the right.
I'll give this guy credit: at least it wasn't Senator Alan Grayson reading the poem. Then again, he probably would have chosen "How The Grinch Stole Christmas," rewriting it as "How The Republicans Stole Healthcare (And Wanted Americans to Die Quickly!)."
Here’s something you don’t see every day: Liberals promoting abstinence!
Just when every tactic in the book had been seemingly exhausted in the health care debate, Rock the Vote comes along with a new one: if you want health care reform, don't sleep with anyone who opposes it until his or her mind is changed.
The youth advocacy group is pushing the campaign in a Web video and pledge on its Web site, which asks supporters to "hold out" for health care.
The subtlety of the online pledge, though, is completely undone by the video, which employs zero rhetorical devices, except for a couple of bleeps, to get its message bluntly across.
"We pledge ourselves to the health and liberty of young Americans and to government for the people ... and to never f---ing you if you are against us," the team of actors in the video says.
"We will vote against you, work against you, and once again, just in case you forgot, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever f--- you."
Figures: the one time Liberals tell kids to keep their pants up, and it’s to promote Obamacare! Maybe they should heed their own criticisms about how telling kids not to have sex doesn’t work. LOL!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Liberals like to criticize Conservatives for using scare tactics to oppose healthcare reform, which is ironic since Liberals use scare tactics to support healthcare reform (“Sign this bill, no matter how dubious it seems, or else Americans will die!”).
During an interview last night on ABC News, the big man himself propagated his own scare tactic: Support healthcare reform or else the federal government will go bankrupt.
President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”
The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.
“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year. “
The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.”
“This actually provides us the best chance of starting to bend the cost curve on the government expenditures in Medicare and Medicaid,” Obama said.
Hmm. So Obama claims that not passing the healthcare bill will raise premiums, increase costs, and hurt Medicare.
If I recall from a previous blog post of mine, the Health and Human Services Department gave a different story, claiming that passing the healthcare bill will raise premiums, increase costs, and hurt Medicare.
Either Obama has not checked with HHS, or he is lying. Somehow I want to go with the latter.
And if Obama is truly worried about bankrupting the federal government, he should be less concerned about passing an expensive healthcare bill and more about the wasteful spending of the federal government itself (i.e.: the economic stimulus).
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Theology For Dummies by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
Theology seems like a difficult subject; but it basically revolves around one question: Does God exist? And the answers to that question can easily sum up an entire beleif system.
I want to say it’s hard to believe that a boy would be suspended for drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross; but considering the growth of secularism in public schools, it’s not hard to believe at all.
A Taunton father is outraged after his 8-year-old son was sent home from school and required to undergo a psychological evaluation after drawing a stick-figure picture of Jesus Christ on the cross.
The father said he got a call earlier this month from Maxham Elementary School informing him that his son, a second-grade student, had created a violent drawing. The image in question depicted a crucified Jesus with Xs covering his eyes to signify that he had died on the cross. The boy wrote his name above the cross.
The student drew the picture shortly after taking a family trip to see the Christmas display at the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette, a Christian retreat site in Attleboro. He made the drawing in class after his teacher asked the children to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas, the father said.
“I think what happened is that because he put Xs in the eyes of Jesus, the teacher was alarmed and they told the parents they thought it was violent,” said Toni Saunders, an educational consultant with the Associated Advocacy Center.
Considering the boy was required to have a psychological evaluation, you’d think he had drawn a realistic depiction of Jesus’ crucifixion with blood, flesh wounds, and full-blown nudity—something that would rival the Passion of the Christ.
But no. The boy had drawn a stick-figure Jesus with Xs for eyes.
That’s supposed to be violent?
The boy was asked to draw something that reminded him of Christmas. Considering that Christmas is celebrated as the birth of Jesus Christ, whom Christians believe was born to die for the sins of mankind, the boy wasn’t exactly drawing something off-topic. And a stick figure with Xs in its eyes hardly qualifies as violent.
In other news (and Ironic enough) school children in Indiana are singing songs to Allah. I also want to say this is hard to believe; but considering the double-standards concerning secularism in public schools, this is also not hard to believe.
A battle over religion is brewing in central Indiana after a public school wanted second graders to sing a song declaring, “Allah is God.” The phrase was removed just before the performance after a national conservative group launched a protest.
The principal of Lantern Road Elementary School in Fishers, IN, said they were trying to teach inclusiveness through their holiday production. It included references to Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Las Posadas and Kwanzaa. However, no other deity, other than Allah, was referenced in the show.
Here are the lyrics that school children were required to sing:
“Allah is God, we recall at dawn,
Praying ‘til night during Ramadan
At this joyful time we pray happiness for you,
Allah be with you all your life through.”
School children can’t sing Christmas carols in school, but they can sing praises to Allah? A school boy can be suspended from school and recommended psychological evaluation for drawing a picture of Jesus on the cross?
Just what are our public schools coming to?
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Must have been a slow news day for 13WHAM in Rochester, NY for it to run a news story about a chicken shortage at a local Popeye’s restaurant.
As humorous as this story may be, many people weren’t laughing about it. Some people accused the new story of stereotyping, as it interviewed mostly black customers (and angry ones at that!).
Could the fact that the story mostly interviewed black customers be because most of the customers were—oh, I don’t know—black?
I’d like to rant about this subject, but I think one YouTuber actually nails it in his video, and shows my sentiments exactly:
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Republicans have been accused of obstructing healthcare reform with scare tactics and misinformation. They have even been maligned as wanting millions of Americans to die without health insurance.
But according to the Health and Human Services Department, Republicans are right: the proposed bill will hurt healthcare, not help it.
Democrats trying to push President Barack Obama's health care overhaul plan through the Senate got a sober warning Friday that costs will keep going up and proposed Medicare savings may harm the program.
A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation's $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won't shrink under the Democratic blueprint that senators are debating. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing.
More troubling was the report's assessment that the Democrats' plan to squeeze Medicare for $493 billion over 10 years in savings relies on specific policy changes that "may be unrealistic" and could lead to cuts in services. The Medicare savings are expected to cover about half the nearly $1 trillion, 10-year cost of expanding coverage to the uninsured.
In still more bad news, the report starkly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan included in the legislation could "face a significant risk of failure" because it would attract people in poor health, leading to higher and higher premiums, and eventually triggering an "insurance death spiral."
The one bright note: The bill would provide coverage to 93 percent of Americans, reducing the number of uninsured people by about 33 million, the report said.
So let me get this straight: under the healthcare reform bill, costs will increase, Medicare will be drained, and premiums will rise. But at least Americans will have health insurance!
That’s like saying: in your new house, the roof will leak, the foundation will sink, and the electricity and water will not work. But at least you will have a house!
Maybe uninsured Americans will finally have health insurance (After all, that was the Democrats’ goal), but it will be crappy—if not crappier—health insurance.
Republicans seized on the report as validation of their concerns that the overhaul bill is both unaffordable and unrealistic.
"This report confirms what we've long known — the Democrat plan will increase costs, raise premiums, and slash Medicare. That's not reform. This analysis speaks for itself. This bill is a sham," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Couldn’t have said it any better myself.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Apparently, Maddow does not understand why Americans would fear allegations of racism for opposing Obama and his policies.
Gee, Rach, could it be because your network often allows libtards like Janeane Garofalo to label protestors “tea-bagging rednecks” who are only “hating a black man in office”?
Could it be because your network allows pundits like David Shuster to label protests against Obama as being “intolerance festivals” which contain “white, whiter, and whitest”?
Could it be because your network is known for race-baiting Republican figures like Sarah Palin, whose book-signing crowd was labeled “white vs. other people”?
But hey, we can’t blame Rachel. We can’t expect her to see the race-baiting in her network or political party.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
I couldn’t make this story up if I wanted to:
So who knew? Santa Claus is a ho-ho homosexual. When the story goes public, it rocks the world. Well, at least in writer-performer Jeffrey Solomon's "Santa Claus Is Coming Out," his newest one-man show exploring gay issues. What Solomon's really interested in is how to discuss gay sexual orientation with young children. It's a timely and important subject, particularly as the religious right's demagoguery has exploited people's fear of it to roll back legal gay marriage in California and Maine. But while Solomon—who has taught theater to children in Catholic school and written works for young audiences—has his heart in the right place, his play is a curiously muted affair.
So Santa Claus is turning gay? Oh, excuse me, I mean Santa Claus is “coming out of the closet” (because we all know people can’t be turned gay!).
I believe in tolerance as much as the next person, but I also believe in common decency. As Mr. Garrison of South Park once said: “Just because you tolerate something doesn’t mean you have to approve of it.”
We should tolerate homosexuals and allow them to have the same rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry. But we shouldn’t approve of homosexuals when they throw parades featuring BDSM paraphernalia and simulated sexual acts. We shouldn’t approve of homosexuals when they try to teach sex education to kindergarteners. And we shouldn’t approve of homosexuals when they produce plays such as this one aimed at young children, especially since one scene involves a character “who shows Santa the bar scene” (You know, for kids!).
Unfortunately for this play, the article gives it a poor review.
It's hard to know who Solomon's audience is. Material such as this needs much more of an edge to hook hardboiled New Yorkers, but if changing hearts and minds is the idea, that title alone will probably keep such folks away. "Santa Claus Is Coming Out" is unlikely either to fire up the converted or convert the fired up.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Anyway, here's a video from How The World Works spoofing Obama's Weekly Address: Pushing Forward On Jobs:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
No matter how much I disagree with him, I want and need the president of the United States for the stability of our country – the stability of our world – to be safe. I also think it would be a good idea to keep his family and the guests in the White House safe.
I know what most of you are thinking: "Oh Glenn Beck is just fear-mongering again!" But Glenn Beck is not creating a conspiracy theory, he's explaining that a conspiracy theory can be created with the lack of information about this incident.
And he does has a good point. Does it really make sense that the couple simply slipped by the secret service--the men who have been trained to guard and protect the President and White House? I'm not saying the incident was a publicity-stunt, but I'm keeping keep the idea far from my imagination.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Comedian and overall liberal douchebag Bill Maher appeared on The Jay Leno Show last night. Because he can’t go anywhere without ridiculing faith and religion, Maher cracked his usual irreverent jokes.
Why is faith good? Faith is the lack of critical thinking….Why, especially in perilous times, is that a good thing?
So, according to Maher, people who believe that the universe may have a cause and purpose for its existence lack critical thinking. Does that mean Isaac Newton, Thomas Jefferson, and Albert Einstein lacked critical thinking?
While I do believe that religion has been responsible for many ills, and that we should be skeptical of organized religion and dogma, I still believe faith in God is a good thing. Granted, faith means believing in something without proof; but then again, God needs no proof for his existence. His existence is self-evident.
Maher claims to have liberated individuals through his film Religulous. But has he? Or has he taken them out of the frying pan and into the fryer? After all, without God, we are left with an indifferent and uncaring universe where all things good and bad happen purely by chance, and where we are nothing more than highly-evolved clumps of cells.
This is why faith is good: it gives meaning to our otherwise meaningless universe, purpose to our otherwise purposeless lives, and, most importantly, hope in otherwise hopeless times. One would think, especially in these ‘perilous times,’ that we could have hope in that, no matter how bad things get, something out there is making sure all things will work out for the best.
Obviously not Bill Maher. He just loves being a pessimist.
In closing, here’s a commentary about Bill Maher and his beliefs, a video made by my favorite columnist Jack Hunter (a.k.a.: The Southern Avenger):
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Is it really fair to compare a talk show host to a senator?
To CNN’s Howard Kurtz, it is.
On his show Reliable Sources, Kurtz compared Glenn Beck to Sen. Alan Grayson. He claimed that when Beck accused Sen. Mary Landrieu of ‘hooking’ for the $300 provision for the healthcare bill (“basically calling her a prostitute”), Beck was being just as offensive as Grayson who called a lobbyist a ‘K Street Whore,’ and thus should face the same scrutiny that Fox News gave Grayson.
One of the guests, Jim’s Geraghty of National Review, managed to point out Kurtz’s faulty comparison:
Geraghty: Well, it's a little bit crass, but nobody elected Glenn Beck to Congress, yet.
Kurtz: So you’re saying there should be no standards for what people say on television?
Geraghty: I’m saying we should…[expect] more from a member of congress or an elected official…
Kurtz: So you’re saying Grayson should be held accountable because he’s an elected official and Glenn Beck is in the gas-bag business like many of us on television?
No shit, Sherlock!
Geraghty: I think I expect more out of a member of Congress than the 5 p.m. hour of Fox News.
I know Glenn Beck can be outrageous; but as a talk show host, he has every right to be. As long as he’s not broadcasting slander (and no, claiming that a senator was acting like a prostitute is not slander, though claiming a senator is a prostitute would be), he has the liberty to say what he wants.
Grayson, on the other hand, cannot. He is required to adhere to the decorum of Congress, and thus does not have the same liberty as Beck.
Hey! Remember the census worker Bill Sparkman who was discovered hanging from a tree with “FED” written on his chest? And remember how people, mostly left-wing bloggers and pundits, assumed that Sparkman was a victim of right-wing extremism?
Turns out Sparkman committed suicide.
Yup! The man responsible for murdering Sparkman was not a right-wing extremist enraged by “anti-government sentiment,” but rather the census worker himself. Turns out Sparkman staged his death as part of an insurance scam.
Think this is one paper’s opinion, or rather spin? Here are a few additional sources:
And to think that the mainstream media was so quick to blame the incident on right-wing extremism.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Earlier this year, a California high school was sued over discrimination after canceling a performance of RENT – a musical featuring homosexual characters. The high school later allowed the performance to continue as planned.
At least in that instance, the high school performed a cleaner version which removed the objectionable material of the original musical, including profanity, drug references, and a song about a character’s sexual experience.
The following high school, however, was not as stringent about their school play:
Students at a high school in Massachusetts are opening theater doors today for a free performance of scenes from their upcoming musical, a tale about a bisexual father torn between his family and his "gay" lover.
Seven students of Concord-Carlisle High School in Concord, Mass., are cast in the school's rendition of "Falsettos," a Tony-award-winning production described by a local newspaper as "a musical comedy about life, love and loss in which the characters renegotiate their definitions of family."
But one organization in Massachusetts is objecting to how the plot redefines "family" and pointing to some of musical's content – including the songs "My Father's a Homo", "Everybody Hates His Parents" and "Four Jews in a Room B----ing" – as blatantly offensive.
"Community residents are very concerned about the production's vulgar sexuality and anti-family message," writes MassResistance – a local group that counters promotion of homosexuality in the state – on its blog entry. "Not content with inflicting this on the community in the weeks before Christmas, the school has added a sneak preview scheduled on Thanksgiving Day."
I’m all for tolerance, especially towards the LGBT community, but good grief: whatever happened to common decency? This performance contains songs with sexual innuendo and anti-Semitism, songs which are clearly not suitable for a public high school setting.
This school performance should not be excused simply for the sake of tolerance. Equal rights do not mean special rights. If the performance did not feature homosexual characters, would school officials be as willing to allow it to perform? If not, the performance has to go.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
As I said before in previous posts, I’m not a big fan of Sarah Palin. She is more of a celebrity than a politician. People who like her have no real reason to like her; people who hate her have no real reason to hate her.
In my opinion, the real reason people love/hate her is because she is not a liberal elitist, unlike Obama, Biden, Pelosi, or Clinton. She is an average American, which makes it easier for other average Americans (a demographic rarely represented, especially with this administration) to relate with her. She is the voice of the people, the bourgeois. In short, she is the Oprah of politicians.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Remember last week when MSNBC accused the crowd at Sarah Palin’s book signing of being “largely white” with “almost no minorities in this crowd”?
Well, blogger Michelle Malkin did some fact checking and discovered that, not only is the reporting staff at MSNBC “predominantly white,” but the audience as well, with “almost no minorities in the crowd.”
After the Don Imus debacle, NBC hired a “diversity leader.” By the left-wingers’ own tallying in 2007, guess which network boasted the whitest programming on cable TV during a randomly selected period? Hint: Starts with “M” and ends with “SNBC.”
By MSNBC’s own logic, that makes MSNBC’s audience a bunch of white-supremacists and racists.
Looks like MSNBC was the pot calling the kettle black, or rather the china calling the teacup white. LOL!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Looks like MSNBC is race-baiting—again! This time, it’s over Sarah Palin’s book signing, an event that was “largely white” with “almost no minorities in the crowd” according to MSNBC.
Well, they look like a white crowd…I think there's a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people.
I don’t know which is more dividing: the tea party protestors and Palin supporters who are upset over Obama and his policies, or the news network which claims that said people are motivated primarily by racism? I’d go with the latter.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
I don’t like Sarah Palin, not because I disagree with her politics or policies, but because I feel there is no real reason to like or hate her.
Sarah Palin is a celebrity figure—nothing more, nothing less. She is someone people like or dislike due to personal preferences rather than political ones. Those on the Right love her because she personifies the all-American woman. Those on the Left ridicule her as a Bible-thumping redneck who resides in a state few Americans know about. Neither side base their opinions on her because of her politics.
She already published her memoirs and appeared on Oprah. Now she’s supposed to get her own reality show. Good grief. Ronald Regan was a celebrity who became a politician. Sarah Palin is a politician who became a celebrity.
What has happened to the proud party of Lincoln?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Some people take the soaps and shampoos from hotel rooms. Others steal the towels and bathrobes. A few may even take the hair dryers. Actor Sir Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, takes something else from hotel rooms: pages from the Bible.
When openly gay actor Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, among other memorable roles) stays in a hotel with a Bible in the nightstand drawer, he rips out pages that contain a certain passage from Leviticus, according to a new& interview with the actor by Details magazine.
(The passage says: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable," as translated by the New International Version; the King James Version uses the word "abominable.")
McKellen, about to turn 70, came out late in life at age 49, according to the magazine.
Here's part of the interview:
Details: Is it true that when you stay at hotels you tear out the Bible page that condemns homosexuality?
Ian McKellen: I do, absolutely. I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible. And I'm not really the first: I got delivered a package of 40 of those pages -- Leviticus 18:22 -- that had been torn out by a married couple I know. They put them on a bit of string so that I could hang it up in the bathroom.
Somehow I should be troubled by this, but I’m not. I doubt people even read the Gideon Bibles in hotel rooms. So I doubt people would notice.
Even so, McKellen doesn't have the right to deface private property. Who knows what legal trouble he may face because of this.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Obama Norsefire by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
Tonight, I will speak directly to these people and make the situation perfectly clear to them. The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance. Tonight, any protestor, any instigator or agitator will be made example of.
Our enemy is an insidious one seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast, we must remain determined, but most of all, we must remain united.
When I heard these words spoken by High Chancellor Adam Sutler in V for Vendetta (which I recently watched for the first time last night), I immediately thought of Obama and his administration.
I know what most of you are saying: But Adam Sutler and his Norsefire party were ultra-right conservative theocrats. The movie was making fun of Bush and his administration. You cant compare it to Obama.
True: the movie, as Alan Moore claimed, did become a Bush parable, especially with the whole the terrorist attacks were an inside job bit; but I believe that any partyright or leftwhich promises security in exchange for complete and total compliance, which utilizes propaganda and spin to further its political agenda, which discourages and silences any dissenting views, and which criticizes dissenters as bringing division and disunity, is comparable to Adam Sutler and his Norsefire party.
And I believe Obama, his administration, and his supporters ARE comparable. Why else do they think they are fervently pushing for the economic stimulus and healthcare bill despite their known flaws? Why else do you think they are asking citizens to report misinformation about healthcare reform to the White House? Why else do you think they have accused town hall and tea party protestors of dividing America? Why else do you think they openly attacked Fox News, but openly favors MSNBC?
Obama and his administration have shown that they are weary of dissent. And why shouldnt they be? Obama has been portrayed as Messiah figure sent forth to liberate America from its economic, political, and social woes brought upon it by Bush. In essence, He promised you order. He promised you peace. And all he asked in return is your silent obedient consent. And it is because of this that he and his administration disdain dissent; in fact, they fear it.
Good. It is as it should be. As V said, the people shouldnt be afraid of the government: the government should be afraid of the people.
Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and everyone else in this administration: be afraid.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Hard to believe that Sesame Street is over 40 years old. Most children’s television shows don’t last more than two to three seasons. And you would think that a 40-year-old show would be outdated—especially since it has to compete with newer shows like Dora the Explorer (bleh!).
But Sesame Street proves that not only can an old dog learn new tricks, but it can keep performing the old tricks just as well. Sesame Street is timeless because its method of teaching children basic life skill through fun is timeless. Even after 40 years, Sesame Street is still able to teach children how to read, write, and count—something the public school system is failing to do.
Sesame Street was one of my favorite shows growing up; and it still holds a special place in my heart today. So to commemorate this special occasion, here are a few of my favorite Sesame Street moments:
Monday, November 9, 2009
If someone told you today that East Germans were better off before the Berlin Wall fell, would you believe them? Of course not! But over 20 years ago, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, some journalists in the liberal news media did oppose the fall of the Berlin Wall and communism.
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, which, along with the fall of the Soviet Union two years later, marked the end of Communism in the West. Today, the news media is celebrating this victory of freedom from oppression; more than 20 years ago, it deplored such an idea.
Sounds hard to believe?
The Media Research Center recently released a report Better Off Red which reveals how the liberal news media inaccurately portrayed East Germany, the Soviet Union, and communism prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Here’s a sample from the Executive Summary:
- Before it collapsed, these journalists insisted those enslaved by communism actually feared capitalism more. "Despite what many Americans think, most Soviets do not yearn for capitalism or Western-style democracy," CBS anchor Dan Rather asserted in 1987.
- As the Soviet system began to totter, a few journalists claimed it as proof that the threat of totalitarian communism had never existed. "Gorbachev is helping the West by showing that the Soviet threat isn’t what it used to be, and what’s more, that it never was," Time’s Strobe Talbott argued in a January 1, 1990 piece.
- After Eastern Europe was liberated, these leftist journalists attacked capitalism for "exploiting" the newly-freed workers. A Los Angeles Times reporter touted "communism’s ‘good old days,’ when the hand of the state crushed personal freedom but ensured that people were housed, employed and had enough to eat."
- Some journalists refused to connect the economic misery caused by communism with communism itself. As the Soviet coup unraveled in 1991, NBC’s John Chancellor lectured how "the problem isn’t communism; nobody even talked about communism this week. The problem is shortages."
- Viewers heard perverse arguments that the end of communism was a setback for human rights. "Yes, somehow, Soviet citizens are freer these days — freer to kill one another, freer to hate Jews," CBS’s Harry Smith deplored in 1990: "Doing away with totalitarianism and adding a dash of democracy seems an unlikely cure for all that ails the Soviet system."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Dethroned former Miss California CARRIE PREJEAN is at the centre of a new scandal following reports she's the star of a new sex tape.
The blonde beauty was stripped of her crown earlier this year (Jun09) after candid shots of her posing on a beach hit the Internet - a strict breach of the pageant's rules. Officials also took offence to her decisions to miss official engagements - an allegation she denied.
And now it appears Prejean, who hit the headlines when she questioned gay marriage at the Miss USA pageant, is caught up in another controversy.
A source who has seen the alleged sex tape tells TMZ.com Prejean appears to be "doing very graphic things to her body," adding no one else features on the tape.
The insider says Prejean claims she was 17 when the video was shot.
The beauty queen is currently suing pageant bosses for her dismissal.
When I first learned about Carrie Prejean, I admired how she voiced her personal beliefs even though they were not popular, even though they possibly cost her the title of Miss America, and even though they caused her to be scorned by Perez Hilton. That much I admire about her.
But I do not admire how she claims to be a Christian yet paraded scantily-clad in a beauty pageant, yet posed topless in a photo shoot, yet openly violated her contract, yet received breast implants, and yet was involved in a sex tape.
I do not admire Carrie Prejean because she personifies everything wrong with Christians today—how they pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe and follow. Christians today view the Christian faith as nothing more than being against abortion and gay marriage. They could care less about following the example of Christ. Carrie Prejean is no different.
Call Prejean a role model for free expression; but please do not call her a Christian role model, let alone a role model for traditional family values. As for me, I’m calling Prejean what she really is: a role model for hypocrisy!
Here’s another video from my personal idol Jack Hunter (a.k.a.: The Southern Avenger):
Liberal politicians and pundits who are calling conservative activists crazy…have it exactly backwards. It was crazy that anyone who might have claimed the label “conservative” would also claim the Republican party of George W. Bush. Conservatives haven’t lost their sanity; they’ve regained it. In the meantime, the Left has gone completely nuts. Worshipping a president who promised change, liberals continue to ignore that little has.
In trying to make Minority Leader John Boehner look like an idiot, left-wing pundit Rachel Maddow made herself look like an idiot:
Boehner: This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm gonna stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the Preamble: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...
Maddow: No. Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That would be the Declaration of Independence. Ooh.
Wait. The Constitution doesn’t have a Preamble? Then what’s this:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I know, I know: Boehner wasn’t quoting the Preamble to the Constitution; he was quoting the Declaration of Independence. In that sense, Maddow was correct. But it didn’t help that she claimed the Constitution didn’t have a Preamble.
If you’re going to make someone look like an idiot, make sure you have your facts straight so you don’t make yourself look like an idiot as well.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
I recently watched this documentary andwowwas I amazed by its sheer paranoia. Lets look at some of the movies premises:
1) Religion is a sham created to brainwash and control the masses.
2) 9/11 was an inside job.
3) Every U.S. war was fought for economic gain.
4) The U.S., Canada, and Mexico are secretly creating a North American Union.
This movie was apparently created by conspiracy theorists for conspiracy theorists. I pity the ignorant bloke who takes this movie seriously.
Good grief! If I wanted to watch a movie about conspiracies, Id watch National Treasure or the Da Vinci Code. Both are much more entertaining than this movie, and at least the directors knew they were directing a piece of fiction, unlike the director for this movie.
Oh, and if anyones interested, heres a website debunking this movie.
Several weeks ago, Bill Maher boasted how Glenn Beck would finally go insane and appear on Fox News dressed as a woman. While Beck hasn’t appeared on his show in drag, a guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann has:
On the Nov. 4 broadcast of MSNBC's "Countdown," with fill-in host Lawrence O'Donnell substituting for Keith Olbermann (still MIA since New Jersey gubernatorial race went Republican), Michael Musto, gay columnist for The Village Voice and author of "La Dolce Musto" dressed up as Palin and reenacted two phony speeches. The occasion: A few media outlets had obtained "leaked" portions of two possible speeches Palin would have given on Election Night 2008 in the event of a McCain/Palin victory and a defeat.
Well, what'dya know: Countdown did what Beck was supposed to do. I guess Keith Olbermann is desperate for ratings. Maybe the White House should attack MSNBC; then MSNBC can have a boost in ratings just like Fox News experienced.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
But let's not be too harsh on the guy. After all, he has another three years to prove himself worthy of the title of President of the United States; and if he doesn't, no matter: the Democrats are dumb enough to re-elect him even if he does mess up.
To commemorate this occasion, I have set up a countdown clock counting down the days until Inauguration Day 2012--a day we will hopefully have a better president.
Also to commemorate this occasion, here's a video highlighting the two main accomplishments of Obama: jack and squat!
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sorry I haven’t posted anything in a while. I’ve been really busy with my job search.
Unfortunately, my first post for November is about Anna Nicole Smith. Apparently, news about Michael Jackson was getting too passé; now we have to talk about a celebrity who’s been dead for nearly two years:
Video of Anna Nicole Smith appearing to mistake a doll for her unborn child was just the reality TV star acting for a camera, a defense lawyer for Howard K. Stern says.
Prosecutors presented the tape in a preliminary hearing last week as evidence that Stern and two doctors conspired to keep Smith in a drug stupor in the two years before her death.
In what has become known as the "clown video," a 9-year-old girl seems uncertain whether Smith is pretending or is really having "brain trouble."
Acting or not, Smith's face -- painted like a clown's -- is a disturbing sight in light of her death from "acute combined drug intoxication" six months later.
Stern shot the 45-minute-long video at Smith's Bahamas home on August 12, 2006, at a ninth birthday party for Riley Shelley, the daughter of a friend, according to court testimony.
Seriously, I don’t see why this video is different from any episode of her reality show. She’s acting like a dumb blonde? So what? She is a dumb blonde! I don’t mean to make light of a celebrity’s death, but it’s kind of hard to tell when a dopey celebrity is acting any dopier.
And is it too much to ask that we allow Anna to rest in peace? Considering how we can’t allow Michael to rest in peace, I guess so.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Liberals vs Conservatives by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
“Both side like to make a lot of noise when the other camp has problems, but they also like to sweep it under the rug when the camera points to them. Really, when was the last time you saw politicians hold their own candidates or party accountable for things they said and done?” - WhatYouOughtToKnow.
One of the problems I have with politics today is the childish quarreling between the political parties. One party claims that the other party is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country, and vice versa. Liberals claim conservatives are to blame. Conservatives claim liberals are to blame. Personally, this picture portrays my feelings on the issue.
I think the problem with our country is that we want to blame everything on the opposing party without taking responsibility ourselves. And we also tend to ignore what the opposing party has to say, under the impression that we’re right and they’re wrong (or evil).
George Washington wrote about this “spirit of party” in his Farewell Address:
“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
In short: fighting with ourselves is stupid and destructive.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Normally I roll my eyes when someone alleges racism or discrimination. Not that either one doesn’t exist; but most accusations seem to be nothing more than someone crying wolf.
But the students in the story below managed to provide tangible evidence of the alleged discrimination.
A Chicago nightclub barred entrance to six out-of-town black college students while admitting nearly 200 white classmates, the students allege.
In a complaint filed with the Chicago Human Rights Commission, the Illinois Attorney General, the U.S. Department of Justice and other organizations, six black Washington University students from St. Louis weren't allowed inside the Original Mother's bar on the grounds they violated its dress code by wearing baggy jeans, CNN reported Monday.
One of the students, senior class president Fernando Cutz, said in the complaint that a white and black student exchanged clothes in a test of the nightclub's policy, and the white student wearing baggy jeans was admitted, the U.S. broadcaster said.
A bar representative told The Chicago Tribune that the establishment was taking the issue "very seriously," and was carrying out an internal investigation with employee discipline possible.
Cruz told CNN the visit to the bar on Chicago's Gold Coast was part of a senior class trip, and had been arranged in advance by the student class board.
Looks like discrimination to me.
We may have a black president in office, but racism still exists in this country.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Ann Coulter appeared last night on The Joy Behar Show where she claimed “Every presidential assassination or attempted presidential assassination was committed by some left-wing loon, communist, anarchist, communitarian…or they had no politics as all.” In other words: left-wing extremists.
Of course she’s wrong. Not all presidential assassinations were committed by left-wing extremists. Both Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield were assassinated by right-wing extremists: Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth who opposed abolition and suffrage for freed slaves; Garfield by Charles Guiteau, a member of a far-right faction of the Republican Party who believed he was commanded by God.
Yet Ann isn’t completely wrong. The other two presidents assassinated—William McKinley and John F. Kennedy—were killed by left-wing extremists: McKinley by Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist influenced by socialist and anarchist propaganda; Kennedy by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Marxist who spent several years in the Soviet Union and tried to immigrate to Cuba.
And she’s not entirely wrong about attempted presidential assassinations, many which were attempted by left-wing extremists:
· Franklin Delano Roosevelt was shot at five times by Giuseppe Zangara who would later tell police, "I have the gun in my hand. I kill kings and presidents first and next all capitalists."
· Richard Nixon was threatened by Samuel Byck, who planned to fly an airplane into the White House, but committed suicide when confronted by police. According to Wikipedia, Byck believed that that “the government was conspiring to oppress the poor.”
· Gerald Ford was nearly shot by Sara Jane Moore, a Marxist who was strongly influenced by the revolutionary Symbionese Liberation Army.
Yet Ann Coulter was wrong to imply that all presidential assassinations and attempted assassinations were committed by liberals. Conservatives have the same capacity to commit terrorism as do liberals. The problem isn’t an ideology itself, but rather an ideology taken to an extreme. All extremists are evil, be they liberal or conservative.
Ironically, Joy was shocked when Ann suggested that liberals could be murderers, but was unmoved when, on the same night, left-wing author Gore Vidal shared his desire to kill George W. Bush, to which she simply replied, "Well, it's too late anyway."
I wonder how Joy would have reacted had a left-wing columnist suggested that all presidential assassinations were committed by conservatives. Knowing Joy, she probably would have nodded her empty carrot top head in agreement.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
It’s no secret that Bill Maher despises Glenn Beck. In a guest appearance on The Joy Behar Show, Maher called Beck a “bimbo” who would someday be caught “dressed as a woman or playing with his feces.”
But last Friday on his show Real Time, Maher stated that he is opposed to the swine flu vaccine. He claimed that “we need a debate” since the vaccine “is not a settled science like global warming.” He even posted on his Twitter account that “If u get a swine flu shot ur an idiot.”
Obviously, he never said that he agrees with Beck, who is also opposed to the vaccine; but it’s still funny how Maher who thinks Beck is an idiot shares the same opinion as him.
Perhaps even opposing minds think alike.
Compare for yourself:
Monday, October 19, 2009
I graduated from a private college where men were required to wear khaki pants and polo shirts, and women had to wear skirts. I didn’t care for the dress code, but it didn’t bother me that much. As a private college, my college had every right to enforce their dress code the way they saw fit. If students didn’t like the dress code, they could always attend another college.
That said, I have to side with this college’s recent dress code.
An all-male college in Atlanta, Georgia, has banned the wearing of women's clothes, makeup, high heels and purses as part of a new crackdown on what the institution calls inappropriate attire.
No dress-wearing is part of a larger dress code launched this week that Morehouse College is calling its "Appropriate Attire Policy."
The policy also bans wearing hats in buildings, pajamas in public, do-rags, sagging pants, sunglasses in class and walking barefoot on campus.
However, it is the ban on cross-dressing that has brought national attention to the small historically African-American college.
The dress-wearing ban is aimed at a small part of the private college's 2,700-member student body, said Dr. William Bynum, vice president for Student Services.
"We are talking about five students who are living a gay lifestyle that is leading them to dress a way we do not expect in Morehouse men," he said.
Before the school released the policy, Bynum said, he met with Morehouse Safe Space, the campus' gay organization.
"We talked about it and then they took a vote," he said. "Of the 27 people in the room, only three were against it."
There has been a positive response along with some criticism throughout the campus, he said.
So the demographic which the new dress code is supposedly aimed at doesn’t have a problem with the new dress code? Only three are against it? Where’s the controversy?
I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m also for common decency. Being told not to wear sunglasses indoors, to not wear your pants down to your underwear, and to wear shoes on campus seems to be common sense rules.
As for the “no dress-wearing” rule, I wouldn’t think that would discriminate against homosexuals as it would transsexuals. Then again, the desire to wear women’s clothing doesn’t seem to elicit special privileges. If students don’t like the dress code, they can always attend another college.
And if your college has to pass a rule telling you not to wear your pants so low that others can see your underwear, you’re wearing your pants way too low.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Meghan McCain gets news coverage because she shows a little cleavage on her Twitter account? Seriously? I've seen girls dress racier on the streets. This is nothing! People are reacting as though she posed nude or something.
Oh well, on with the hullabaloo:
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
"Blame The 1st" Blog Splash by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
I've recently created my own Deviantart account where I hope to upload drawings, poetry, and journal entries. I don't know how to draw, but I do have my opinions; and I wish to share those opinions in my very own (though crudely drawn) editorial cartoons. Expect the first pieces of art in a few days.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Yesterday marked another Columbus Day—the day most people celebrate to commemorate Columbus’s discovery of America, and a day other people hate for commemorating an alleged genocidal maniac.
Political correctness tends to smear American history. It claims American is a country built on slavery, genocide, and oppression. It claims the Founding Fathers were hypocrites for claiming all men were created equal while owning African slaves. It claims the Confederate flag is a racist symbol which represents slavery and white supremacy. And it also claims Columbus was a genocidal maniac whose crew slaughtered, raped, and enslaved the natives they encountered. According to political correctness, Christopher Columbus is just as evil as Adolf Hitler, and as such should not be commemorated with his own day.
Maybe Columbus wasn’t the noble explorer schoolchildren picture him to be, and perhaps his evil deeds should be mentioned along with his good. However, he was the first European to discover America. Maybe there were people living in America centuries before Columbus discovered it, and perhaps the Vikings were technically the first Europeans to discover America, but if it were not for Columbus, Europeans would never had known about the New World, and America would never have been founded.
And let’s not pretend that the natives his crew oppressed were the noble savages of myth. The natives of the Caribbean were warmongers known for practicing cannibalism and human sacrifice. Moreover, the natives who were sold into slavery actually practiced slavery themselves (how ironic). This does not excuse Columbus for what his crew did, but it does show that the natives were no better than Columbus’ crew, if not worse.
Like him or not, Columbus is an important figure in American history, and it is his discovery, not his life, which we commemorate every October 12th.
In closing, here are a few videos made by P.C. zombies:
Sunday, October 11, 2009
I won it for not being George Bush. To be perfectly honest, this award was a complete surprise, as I have only not been George Bush for 9 months.
And he had only been in office for two weeks when he was nominated for the prize.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Apparently, Obama will be rewarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Many question whether he truly deserves it or not. But we all know that he does. After all, he’s the president who single-handedly rescued our economy from recession, reformed healthcare, ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, established peace in the Middle East, shut down Guantanamo Bay, and ensured equal rights for homosexuals.
Wait! He didn’t do any of that. So why did he win the Nobel Peace Prize again?
Oh, I see. We’re giving Obama an ‘A’ for effort. I guess you don’t have to do anything to earn yourself a Peace Prize. All you have to do is try. At least Obama did his best.
A recent post from Stop the ACLU reflects my sentiments exactly:
Just after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the President was remarking to Press Secretary Gibbs that he had a great idea for a movie. As he started to explain, the phone rang with news that he’d won the Academy Award for Best Picture.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Apparently forcing restaurants to post calories on their menus doesn’t influence customers to make healthier choices, according to one study:
Skip to next paragraph The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.
It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.
But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.
The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.
“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.
Somehow I’m not surprised. Tobacco companies have been forced to place warning labels on their cigarette packs, and that hasn’t stopped people from smoking.
Forcing restaurants to post calories on their menu items seems superfluous. Most restaurants already have nutritional information posted in their restaurants, on their websites, and on their food containers.
Even if the calorie counts did influence customers to make healthier choices, many of the healthier choices aren’t really that healthy. For example, a Premium Caesar Salad with Crispy Chicken (without salad dressing) has only 30 less calories and 1 gram less fat than an Original Chicken Sandwich, and a Fruit n’ Yogurt Parfait (without granola) has only 20 less calories and 1.5 grams less fat than a vanilla ice cream cone.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
There are those on the Right who are angry. They think I am turning this great country into something that resembles the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. But that's just not the case. Because when you look at my record, it's very clear what I've done so far: And that is--nothing!
I brought a white police officer and a black professor together for a beer. Who else can do that? You're right: Oprah--but no one else!
So all you frothing Glenn Beck supporters put away those tri-cronered hats and photoshopped pictures of me as the Joker. Because if I see anymore of this hateful rhetoric, I'm going to have to take drastic action. Nah, not really!
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins appeared Wednesday on The Colbert Report to discuss his new book The Greatest Show on Earth. As with most guest appearances on Colbert’s show, the discussion was completely farcical and pointless.
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
But despite the incoherent babbling of Colbert, Dawkins made a few points which should be addressed.
There is no purpose to life, but it’s not an accident.
But can something have no purpose without being an accident? Isn’t an accident something that does not happen on purpose?
purpose: 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained.
accident: 1 a : an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance b : lack of intention or necessity : CHANCE <met by accident rather than by design>.
The definition of accident by itself provides the answer: “met by accident rather than design.” Since Dawkins does not believe in design, he must therefore believe in accident.
In order for something to have purpose, it must have been “set up as an object or end to be obtained.” If something does not have purpose, it was not set up, but was rather “unforeseen,” “unplanned,” and lacking “intention or necessity,” thus making it an accident. Therefore, either something has purpose and is not an accident, or it does not have purpose and is an accident. Dawkins cannot have it both ways.
If life does not have purpose as Dawkins proposes, it must have happened by accident; otherwise, it has purpose. And if it has purpose, it must have been set up. And if it had been set up, then someone or something must have set it up. And the only thing that could have set up life is a First Cause—i.e.: God. Therefore, God exists because life has purpose and did not happen by accident.
I’ve given you the evidence for evolution. Where is your evidence for God?
Aw, yes: Dawkins poses his famous straw man argument: Evolution is true; therefore God does not exist.
Let’s assume that there is sufficient evidence to prove evolution true. Does that mean God does not exist? It may mean creationism is false, and therefore the God of creationism does not exist. It may mean a literal interpretation of Genesis is false, and therefore the God of a literal Genesis does not exist. But it does not mean that God—even the God of the Bible—does not exist. Who is to say that God could not have used evolution to create life? Who is to say that Genesis must be interpreted literally rather that figuratively? Just because evolution is true does not mean God does not exist.
As for the evidence of God, allow me to quote Albert Einstein: “I believe in [a God] who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”