Sunday, January 31, 2010
If Fox News is biased against atheists, MSNBC is clearly biased against Evangelical Christians. Both Olbermann and Maddow trashed Liberty University when it revoked offical recognition of a student-run Democratic club.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Freedom Is Not Anarchy Stamp by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART
Your freedom to swing your fist ends where someone elses face begins. - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Many people interpret freedom as being able to do whatever you want, to live without restraint.
This is no freedom; it is anarchy.
Freedom is not unlimited. Ones individual freedom ends when it violates or threatens to violate anothers individual freedom. Freedom must therefore come with proper and rational limitations.
Consider some of our basic constitutional freedoms:
Freedom of Religion: Does not entitle cults to perform human sacrifice.
Freedom of Speech/Expression: Does not entitle artists to create and distribute nude art of underage minors.
Freedom of the Press: Does not entitle newspapers to print intentionally fabricated and slanderous stories.
Freedom to Petition and Protest: Does not entitle protestors to agitate into a rioting, pillaging mob.
Freedom to Bear Arms: Does not entitle a gunman to enter a government building with an assault rifle with intent to assassinate a public official.
In order to protect freedom, law must be instilled; and it order to maintain law, government must be established. Therefore, true freedom is not anarchy, nor can it exist in anarchy.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The pro-choice movement claims that it does not support abortion, but rather a woman’s “right” to choose abortion. Yet I’m becoming more convinced, day after day, that pro-choice is really pro-abortion.
First, there was the Daily Kos blog post that labeled pro-life protesters, especially little old ladies who hand out pamphlets outside abortion clinics, as terrorists.
Now, feminists are attacking a Super Bowl ad where football star Tim Tebow’s mother will discuss how she chose not to have an abortion despite advice and pressure from doctors.
Jehmu Greene, president of Women's Media Center, asked CBS on Monday not to air the commercial, saying, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sporting event of the year."
First off, when has sports ever been used to unite? Sports, by its very nature, tends “to divide rather than to unite,” as I’m sure is true with the Colts and Jets fans.
Somebody should tell these feminists that “choice” goes both ways. Women not only have the choice to have an abortion, but also the choice NOT to have an abortion.
This ad is not telling people to vote against abortion or to overturn Roe vs. Wade; it's simply advising women to choose no abortion over abortion. It’s more of a pro-choice ad than a pro-life one.
If the pro-choice movement were consistent in their stance, they would have no problem with this ad. Yet they have a problem anyway, thus proving they are pro-abortion rather than pro-choice.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
In other news, online comedy show Newsbusted! released its funniest episode today:
Big news last week: A Republican senator was elected in Massachusets, Air America is going off the air, the Supreme Court struck down McCain-Feingold, and Obamacare is dead. So liberals, how's that hope and change working out for yah?Good thing I'm not a liberal; otherwise, I'd be having a lousy birthday today.
Monday, January 25, 2010
But the liberal lunacy peaked when Angry Mouse labeled grandmas who pass out pamphlets outside abortion clinics as terrorists.
A distinction is often made between the violent and non-violent members of this "movement." The government, the media, and the activists are careful to point out that the Scott Roeders and Paul Hills of the world are rare. Most of the activists just want to "inform" women about their options. Most of the activists care about preserving all life, including the lives of the providers and women.
The little old lady who sits outside an abortion clinic, handing out fliers to young frightened women, full of deliberately misleading or outright fabricated information -- she's not doing any harm, is she? She's not like the Army of God, which advocates murdering abortion providers, calls these murderers "American Heroes," and has even circulated a how-to manual.
But grandma, with her pamphlets and her signs? Certainly she's not a terrorist.
Common sense dictates that there is a major, MAJOR difference between blowing up an abortion clinic and peacefully protesting outside one.
Does common sense stop Angry Mouse from spewing her polemic? Oh no! It gets worse.
The law doesn't consider grandma a terrorist. Because even though she is trying to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, her method of intimidation is legal. She has a First Amendment right to stand outside a health clinic and try to persuade patients not to enter. She has a right to hand out brochures filled with lies so patients will be "informed." She has a right to carry graphic signs, to call the patients "baby killers," to tell them they will burn in hell. Freedom of speech, after all.
Someone should tell the pro-choice crowd that "choice" is a two-way street. Not only do women have a choice to have an abortion, but they also have a choice NOT to have an abortion. Persuading women not to have an abortion is not terrorism.
Now, yes, pro-life protesters can get out-of-hand (i.e.: blocking the doors to the clinic, threatening to kill women who get abortions, etc.), and certainly such protesters are not protected by the First Amendment. Otherwise, protesting outside abortion clinics is perfectly legal and is in no sense applicable to terrorism.
And if her words and deeds and false information succeed in their purpose of intimidation and coercion? What will become of the woman grandma has "counseled"? Will she choose to take her chances in the privacy of her own home by drinking bleach? Will she throw herself down the stairs? Will she become another nameless statistic?
So, because a woman has been convinced not to have an abortion at a clinic, the only alternative is to have an abortion at home or to commit suicide? Non-sequitur argument?
If this movement is successful, more women will die. That’s not hyperbole. That's a fact. And while even the supposedly non-violent activists claim they are concerned with preserving life, they cannot justify those deaths (of women who needed abortions).
By Angry Mouse's insane logic, she would be conisdered a terrorist if a pro-choice activist read her article and decided to maul a few pro-life protesters at the local abortion clinic.
But I guess if people protesting Obama can be labled "racists" and "tebagging rednecks," then people protesting abortion can be labeled "terrorists."
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Recently heard Air America Radio has gone bankrupt and will eventually go off the air.
I’m emotionally mixed. On one hand, I’m delighted that a waste of airwaves has gone off the air. Seriously, who listens to that crap? Pothead college students with a grudge against society maybe?
On the other hand, no matter how much I despised the station, I did view it as a necessary evil as it balanced out the otherwise right-wing bias in talk radio (sort of like how Fox News balances out the left-wing bias in the mainstream media).
On Thursday, left-wing satirist Jon Stewart lampooned left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann for the smears he made against then Massachusetts Candidate Scott Brown, claiming "I think that's the harshest description of anyone I've ever heard uttered on MSNBC, and that includes descriptions of the guys that star in your weekend prison program."
The next night, Olbermann accepted Stewart’s criticism and apologized (albeit half-heartedly) for his behavior.
You're right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.Don't you love it when liberals eats crow?
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Republicans have been accused of obstructing healthcare reform with scare tactics and fearmongering, being maligned as wanting millions of Americans to die without health insurance.
This is ironic, since the whole premise of the healthcare reform bill is based upon a scare tactic: Sign our bill (no matter how questionable or expensive it is) or else Americans will die. Never mind the current healthcare bill will still leave millions uninsured, and will actually hurt healthcare by raising costs and premiums, along with slashing Medicare (Gee, so much for reform).
But no. The Democrats have made their threat: Support our bill, or else Americans will die.
Whos the one fearmongering and spreading scare tactics?
During the election in Massachusetts Tuesday night (which Scott Brown won), left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann speculated that if Brown won the election, it would mostly be due to racism.
What else can we expect from the guy who smeared Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees”?
1964-1965 (the greatest years of civil-rights change in this country since Emancipation) and in the 1966 midterms, the Republicans took 47 seats from the House from the Democrats; and most of those elections had clear, racial undertones, any had overtones.
The Republicans and the Tea Partiers will tell you what happens with Scott Brown tonight, whether he wins or comes close, is a repudiation of Obama policies; and surely one of Obama's policies from the viewpoint of his opponents is it's okay to have this sea-change in American history—to have an African-American president. Is this vote to any degree just another euphemism, the way 'states rights' was in the sixties?
Olbermann discussed his theory with Howard Fineman, Senior Washington Correspondent for Newsweek, who refuted Olbermann, claiming, “I think for most of the American people race is no respect a part of the equation.” The two continued by discussing “racist codes” present in Brown’s campaign, codes like pick-up trucks (because everyone who owns a pickup truck is racist).
Fineman ended the discussion by stating the campaign was more likely fueled by liberal elitism than by race.
I don't think it's so much a matter of race, or even very, very much a matter a race at all, Keith. I think it's a matter of people in the suburbs and people outside of the cities feeling themselves not paid attention to by the “elites.” This is a problem that the Democratic party has had year in and year out for decades….And I think race really in the end wasn't a factor for him overall. I don't see it.
Nice to know there was a voice of reason in Olbermann’s otherwise unreasonable show.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
By trying to prove Minority Leader John Boehner doesn't know US History, Rachel Maddow proves that SHE doesn't know US History either, claiming the US Constitution doesn't have a preamble.
I don’t visit the Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting website anymore, since I quickly learned that they are anything but “fair” and “accurate” as they focus more on right-wing media bias than they do left-wing media bias.
I recently came across an article published about a month ago “analyzing” a poll which claimed that the Tea Party was more popular (41%) than either the Democrat (35%) or Republican (28%) party (never mind the Tea Party isn’t an official political party).
But look at the poll a little more closely. The first thing to know is that most people don't know what the Tea Party movement is--25 percent said they "know very little," 23 percent "know nothing at all." So the question that elicited the 41 percent approval mark had to give people some idea of what it's about. And NBC's poll question offered a remarkably upbeat description:
“As you may know, this year saw the start of something known as the Tea Party movement. In this movement, citizens, most of whom are conservatives, participated in demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and other cities, protesting government spending, the economic stimulus package and any type of tax increases. From what you know about this movement, is your opinion of it very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative or very negative? If you do not know enough to have an opinion, please say so.”
In other words, the "no-tax-hike, responsible spending" party that you've never heard of is a little bit popular.
I guess the fact that the poll gave the Tea Parties a “remarkably upbeat description” made the poll unfair in the eyes of the otherwise left-wing FAIR. I guess it’s inaccurate to claim the Tea Parties are about “protesting government spending, the economic stimulus package and any type of tax increases” (even though that’s exactly what they’re about).
Maybe the poll would have been more “accurate” if it had described the Tea Parties as a “bunch of teabagging rednecks.”
I think Keith Olbermann has reached a new low!
Last night, left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann attacked Republican Senate Candidate Scott Brown with a string of insults, smearing him as a "homophobe" and "racist.”
And I thought Keith calling people "fascist" was bad.
You may not have heard Scott Brown support a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, or describing two women having a child as being "Just not normal." You may not have heard Scott Brown associating himself with the Tea Party movement, perhaps the saddest collection of people who don't want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the sixties insisted they were really just concerned about states' rights. You may not of heard Scott Brown voting against paid leaves of absence for Massachusetts Red Cross workers who had gone to New York to help after 9/11.
In short, in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history, this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and a disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead, the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.
Somebody should tell Keith that disagreeing with gay marriage or adoption does not automatically make one a “homophobe,” nor does protesting against a black politician make one a “racist.”
The fact that he spewed this string of insults before the day of elections makes his smears especially distasteful.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
If you thought Richard Dawkins’s ego couldn’t get any bigger…
I would like to comment on this, but I actually found a comment to this article
The champion of unbelief Richard Dawkins, Britain's star atheist scientist,
has announced he'll personally cover the PayPal fees (up to $10,000) for
donations to two non-religious relief groups -- Doctors without Borders and the
Red Cross -- through a newly established site called Unbelievers Giving Aid.
The twin goals at the site are are first, to help Haiti, and second to
"counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their
that sums up my sentiments exactly:
BelmontScott: My question is this: How much would Richard Dawkins donate if he weren't trying to prove a point to the world that atheists are generous? People who really care about those in need give money without alerting the media. This appears to be nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Liberals attacking Palin for her religious beliefs? Why am I not surprised?
On Friday, left-wing radio host Cenk Uygur mocked former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin for expressing her religious beliefs during an interview with right-wing pundit Glenn Beck.
Cenk: (sarcastically) Because they (the Founding Fathers) were really concerned about making this country about God and religion. Except they made the only country in the world not to be dictated by religion at that time. Only one in the world!
Co-host: Right. The only thing that they clearly did was separate God from the running of the country. That was job one, that they got done.
Hmm, did Palin really imply that America should become a theocracy, a nation whose law is dictated by religion? Let’s recap what she really said:
Palin: I’m never going to tell anybody else how to live. I’m never going to preach to anybody else and tell them “you must do that!” But I sure would to see more Americans give it (faith in God) a try, and seek that guidance that our Founding Fathers sought and were able to craft documents then that allowed America to become the strongest, healthiest, most prosperous nation on this earth.
Sounds to me that she didn’t want to force her beliefs on anybody, or force anyone to become a Christian, but that she would like to see more Americans place their faith in God. Now, I could understand why a nonbeliever like Cenk would be insulted by that suggestion. I would be insulted if an atheist candidate claimed that I should abandon my faith in God. Then again, Palin made her suggestion in a private conversation, not a public address.
And Palin was right: While not all the Founding Fathers were Christians (most were deists), they did believe in God and the role He played in their lives and county; and they did seek his guidance when crafting documents like The Declaration of Independence (which mentions God twice). While they didn't establish a country dictated by religion in the sense of a theocracy, they did establish a county based upon the idea that God gave man individual rights which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
Cenk’s co-host then erroneously claimed that the Founding Fathers separated God from the country. This is a gross interpretation of Separation of Church and State, which originally intended to keep an official church or religion from being established in America.
Yes, the Founding Fathers did believe in separating the church from the state, but they did not believe in separating God from the country. As George Washington stated in his Farewell Address:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens....Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
In other words, Washington would have agreed with Palin when she said more Americans should place their faith in God.
As for the rest of the complaints against Palin, they’re nothing more than pointless nitpicks. Palin wasn’t’ literally suggesting that people are afraid of God (though there are people who deny his existence). And when she mentioned “loud mockers,” she probably meant douchebags like Bill Maher or Matt Damon, both whom have criticized Palin about her religious beliefs.
As if the scathing Air America article wasn’t enough, left-wing pundit Rachel Maddow chastised satirist Jon Stewart about the comment he made about her politicizing the Haiti earthquake.
Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night dinged me for doing a segment on USAID and the State Department being named the lead agency for our response in Haiti, and for me putting that in the context of what a big deal this administration has made about bringing the State Department back, having them take a lead role in government again since the Bush administration somewhat downgraded the State Department.
I’m sorry, Mrs. Strawman, but Jon Stewart did not ding you for putting the story into context; he dinged you for using a tragedy to bash Bush and Cheney (“Oh, well, this is much better than what those other two guys did with the State Department”).
I know that's politics, but listen: I love me some Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. I'm a big fan, but no apologies for reporting on which agency is the lead to respond to our national efforts to respond to Haiti, whether or not that agency is well-resourced, whether it had been subject to partisan attacks, how much the current administration values and prioritizes and indeed brags on that agency. We all as Americans are counting on our government to do a good job in responding to this catastrophe. This is what it looks like to report on our government's capacity to do just that.
Sigh. Like I said before: Jon Stewart can lampoon conservatives all he wants; but the minute he mocks a liberal, he’s a turncoat to his party. Such is liberal hypocrisy.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Last night, satirist Jon Stewart mocked left-wing pundit Rachel Maddow (along with right-wing pundit Limbaugh and televangelist Robertson) for politicizing the Haiti earthquake.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Haiti Earthquake Reactions|
Stewart: These are terrible events. Can’t we put aside ideology for a second?
Maddow: Development and direct assistance is what USID does. And when responding to a disaster like the one in Haiti right now, we use the USID and the military alongside one another.
Stewart: You see, thank you, sober factual report on America’s aid work, working with the military together, no spin, thank you.
Maddow: It’s also important to understand what USAID is up to because the idea of more diplomacy and development, more USAID-style power, is a part of the Obama administration's agenda….Putting somebody as high-profiled, powerful, and capable as Hilary Clinton in charge of the state department, all of that central to what the Obama administration wants to do differently than what Bush and Cheney did.
Stewart: NOT THE RIGHT TIME! Congratulations MSNBC viewers: you’re part of this terrible, terrible tragedy.
Apparently, this joke rubbed Megan Carpentier, correspondent at far-left radio network Air America, the wrong way, as she published an article chastising Stewart, accusing him of turning to the Dark Side (Fox News!).
Wednesday night, Rachel Maddow used her hour-long politics show to provide political context to the use of USAID to lead America's military and civilian response to the disaster in Haiti. For this unspeakable crime, she was blasted last night by Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" as having been as insulting to Haitians as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.
I don’t think Maddow was so much “blasted” as she was chided. If anything, Limbaugh and Robertson received harsher treatment than did Maddow.
And while I agree that Maddow wasn’t as “insulting” as either Limbaugh or Robertson, she wasn’t as tasteful either. Politicizing is politicizing, and as Stewart said, it wasn’t the right time.
When did Jon Stewart sign a contract with Fox News? Did we miss it?
This is the second time in recent months that Stewart has gone after a liberal from his perch atop a liberal-leaning comedic--though influential--fake news broadcast: he went after ACORN last September, echoing all the right-wingers who were calling for its utter destruction. If he hadn't done that, one would be tempted to ask if his interview of noted torture enthusiast John Yoo on Monday was really a failure, as Stewart himself acknowledged Tuesday, or just an elaborate hoax by Yoo to brainwash Stewart.
So Stewart makes a few jokes about liberals and suddenly he’s a turncoat, a traitor to his party? I guess it’s okay for Stewart to lampoon conservatives and point out their bulls***, but the minute he targets a liberal, he’s sold his soul to Fox News!
Many in the comment section have been quick to point out this blatant hypocrisy:
- Talk about overplaying a minor slap on the wrist by Jon Stewart. Looks to me as though you're looking for conspiracies under every rock.
- You are making too big of a deal out of this, clearly, Jon was angry about how people use tragedies to their own advantage. We love Rachel, she is brilliant, but The Daily Show is still the one bright spot in that giant cesspool of what they call "news".
- Jon Stewart = FOX News? Are you kidding me? Talk about overreaction!
- To think that I believed the headline that Stewart blasted Maddow... He blasted Limbaugh & Robertson & tapped Maddow! You can't distinguish between an inch and a mile, Megan?!? (How very, very Fox-like...)
And my personal favorite:
- F** !^&^!%^! as soon as I saw the title of this story being on AIr America I just KNEW that Megan Carpentier had to be the writer. A Foxified Jon Stewart? Jon Stewart merely pointed out that Rachael getting political was too soon since the tragedy just happened and we needed to concentrate on finding ways to help the people, many of whom likely still trapped under rubble. He said Rush literally had NO heart and told Pat to shut up. How does that compare? How do the editors keep letting your moronic inflammatory crap through Megan? What power do you hold over these normally sane people? If anyone is Foxified around here it's you Megan. After this so-called story and the Keith Oblbermann piece not too long ago I'm really starting to believe you're a paid troll from Fox News yourself. You're exactly the kind of "liberal" that makes people think we are blindly following our leaders and filling the media with leftist propaganda. If you really care about the liberal movement, do us all a favor and STOP WRITING ABOUT IT!
I know this video is over a week old, but I wanted to highlight it anyway.
You know Obama is in trouble when left-wing satirist Jon Stewart targets him for scorn and ridicule.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|Stealth Care Reform|
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Last night, left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann attacked televangelist Pat Robertson and right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh for the controversial comments they made concerning the Haiti earthquake.
Mr. Robertson (It is laughable now to try to call him Reverend) explained today that this earthquake was a result of a “deal with the devil” that he claimed the nation made in the 19th century to gain its freedom from France. True story, Robertson says.
Sir, because of your tone deafness and your delight in human misery and your dripping, self-satisfied, holier-than-thou, senile crap, I'm now likely to believe that you are the Devil.
…your lives are not worth those of the lowest, meanest, poorest of those victims still lying under that rubble in Haiti tonight. You serve no good; you serve no God. You only inspire stupidity and hatred. And I would wish you to Hell, but knowing how empty your souls must be to be able to say such things in a time of such pain, I suspect the vacant, purposeless you both live now are Hell enough already.
Nice to know Oblermann tries to be the better man.
I won’t defend Limbaugh, as he is a far-right nutjob that nobody (not even the Right) should take seriously. His comment is typical of his nature, and so I wouldn’t expect anything different from him.
Robertson, on the other hand, though I disagree with how he mixes Christian doctrine with right-wing ideologies, I have some respect for (keyword: some). His comment was merely that of a Christian trying to make sense of the chaotic world around him and how it relates to his faith.
Also, according to a press statement released by CBN, Robertson did not blame the earthquake as a punishment from God. Moreover, his ministry has served Haiti in the past, and will begin a relief campaign for the victims of the earthquake.
Shortly after attacking Limbaugh and Robertson for politicizing the earthquake, Olbermann preformed a 360 and juxtaposed the disaster with the need for healthcare reform.
I don't want to turn this into something about domestic politics, but I think it's a good frame of reference in terms of the health care issue that we always talk about. We could easily have a natural disaster, if not quite on this scale, at least in the same broad ballpark. A slightly heavier earthquake in California could do extraordinary devastation to San Francisco or Los Angeles. I was thinking about this -- and maybe it's inappropriate and tell me if I'm inappropriate in asking it -- but how would survivors of something like this here fare in terms of getting on their own feet economically afterwards, with the health care system we have in place right now?
I just “love” how Olbermann opened his statement: I don't want to turn this into something about domestic politics (but I’m going to do so anyway!).
The man attacks Limbaugh and Robertson for politicizing the earthquake, then politicizes the earthquake. Classic example of the pot calling the kettle (or, this case, kettles) black!
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness…[but] when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man. (Rom 1:18;21-23)
To the nonbeliever, either God does not exist, or if He does exist, He is evil. The nonbeliever cannot (or rather, does not wish to) comprehend the existence of a benevolent God, for if he did, he would have to accept his own sinful nature and repent of it. Instead, every nonbeliever—from Epicurus to Nietzsche to Dawkins—has portrayed God as either non-existent or malevolent.
Thus it is not hard to believe why Frank Kameny, a gay rights activist honored by President Barrack Obama, would claim that God is a "sinful, homophobic bigot."
Kameny, who was dismissed from his federal job as an astronomer in the 1950s because of his homosexuality, told LaBarbera, "You have the whole issue of sin, vis a vis homosexuality, 'on the wrong foot.' It is your homophobic God of Leviticus (and of the Bible as a whole) himself (herself? itself? themselves?) who is the sinner because of that homophobia."
"Bigotry is sinful, whether it be racism, anti-Semitism, or homophobia," Kameny wrote.
I wonder if anti-theism counts as bigotry. To Kameny, I guess it doesn’t.
"Your God of Leviticus (and of the whole Bible) is clearly a sinful homophobic bigot. He should repent of his sinful homophobia. He should atone for that sin, And he should seek forgiveness for the pain and suffering which his sinful homophobia has needlessly inflicted upon gay people for the past 4,000 years," he continued.
See where the Romans 1 passage fits in? Kameny clearly does not wish to accept the reality of a benevolent God, and thus portrays Him as evil and unworthy of worship. To Kameny, God is malevolent, mankind is benevolent; God is the sinner, mankind is the redeemer; God is corruptible, man is uncorruptible.
LaBarbera commented: "Of course Frank Kameny's outrageous statements about God are completely backwards: it is Frank who is the stubborn sinner who needs to repent. Thankfully, it is never too late for sinners to turn away from their sins and humbly accept God's forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
"However, in one sense at least Kameny is forthright about how his homosexuality-celebrating ideology stands diametrically opposed to God's plan for mankind, as revealed in the Bible. Unfortunately for Frank, he has no authority to judge sin and morality; that is the province of Almighty God alone," he said.
Kameny's statement, delivered Oct. 13, continued, "It is not homosexuality which is always wrong, immoral, and sinful. It is homophobia, including the homophobia of your god himself which is wrong, immoral, and sinful. And so your god is a sinner, on this account (I deal with no other issue here)."
Now before I am attacked as a homophobe and bigot, let me state that I have nothing against gay rights. While I do not agree with gay marriage, I do believe that two consenting adults have every right to marry, be they heterosexual or homosexual.
And to any homosexuals reading this (and have made it thus far), consider this: would you want a man who believes it’s okay to sleep with animals to represent you and your fight for equal rights, or is this a man you would distance yourself from?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Director Oliver Stone plans to release a documentary series which he claims will offer a more empathetic view on history’s most ruthless dictators.
"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, (U.S. Senator Joseph) McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," Stone told reporters at the Television Critics Association's semi-annual press tour in Pasadena.
"Stalin has a complete other story," Stone said. "Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.'
"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between World War I and World War II ...
"I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."
The controversial director's 10-part documentary series for Showtime promises to focus on events that "at the time went under-reported, but crucially shaped America's unique and complex history of the last 60 years." An airdate has not yet been set.
"You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate," Stone said during the show's trailer, which promised to put historical villains "in context."
Liberals have no problem attacking America for its atrocities (slavery, Native American genocide, McCarthysim), but are equally willing to defend totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia—whose atrocities are far worse than any committed by America. To the left, America is evil and should be hated, while Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia “have been vilified” and should be examined “in context.”
Then again, Oliver Stone is no stranger to revisionist history. He has directed several controversial films, a prime example being JFK, which suggests that Lyndon B. Johnson may have been responsible for the Kennedy assassination.
Yes, with such “historically accurate” films under his belt, Stone clearly has the credentials to create a documentary on Hitler! Ugh!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Thus begins a new video series highlighting the liberal bias on MSNBC. Stay tuned as I continue to reveal the propoganda spewed by MSNBC, or as I like to call it: MSDNC! LOL!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
I don’t know why I even bother visiting blogs like Let Freedom Rain. I guess I must be a masochist.
I wouldn’t suggest anyone visit Let Freedom Rain, unless they enjoy reading poorly-written posts riddled with spelling and grammatical errors and drowning in liberal lunacy.
But I wish to comment on a post made about a month ago. In the post Jesus Loves Me, the blogger laments about how his mother’s death forced him to go to church. (Oh the humanity!).
I don't go to church for obvious reasons. Number one: I'm not a moron.
This man shouldn’t be quick to boast “I’m not a moron” when the horrendous spelling and grammar in his post and blog proves otherwise.
But my mother's funeral brought me to such a horrible place. The preacher, minister, padre, priest - whatever you call the bitch at the podium - intoned some miserable s*** about my mother and sang loudly off-tune three hymns. His nostrils flared at the appropriate time, probably just like he does when he's s***ing off some choir boy. My stomach turned several angles until it knotted like a fist and I wanted to bolt. But I stayed through the whole wretched sermon out of respect for my mom and three sisters.
Someone should play the world’s tiniest violin. This guy deserves it, since the inconvenient death of his mother forced him—for this one and only time of his life—to attend a church.
And isn’t it funny how atheists assume that all priests are child molesters? Several isolated incidents of child molestation occur in the Catholic church in the early 2000s, and suddenly, all religious leaders are pedophiles.
It wasn't until he introduced the infantile "She Loves You" - oops, I mean "Jesus Loves Me" - that I really blew my lunch, which I hadn't eaten yet (it was only 11 o'clock) but did anyway shortly thereafter in the funeral home bathroom.
He ate lunch in the funeral home bathroom? That must have been a horrible experience!
Oh, I’m sorry: I think what he meant to say is that he lost his lunch in the funeral home bathroom. Sorry. Bad grammar caught me off-guard.
But seriously, if you throw up because someone sings “Jesus Loves Me,” you must be one of two things: possessed, or degenerate. (I’d actually like to go with the former! LOL!).
Anyway, back to church. This gowned c********* stood there in his white and blacks and relayed some story about some famous ass**** who on his deathbed whispered his last words, supposedly famously, "Jesus loves me. This I know. For the bible tells me so".
What a f***ing idiot. Rest in peace, ass****.
From this post alone, I have learned that this blogger assumes all Christians are idiots, all ministers are child molesters, and hymns like “Jesus Loves Me” are vomit-inducing.
And religious people are bigoted?
Life must be a sad existence for this man. To live life paranoid thinking everyone other than yourself is an idiot, that religion (along with the corporations) is out to get you, and that a song like “Jesus Loves Me” may make you vomit is a sad way to live life.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Why do news shows insist on inviting Janeane Gaorfalo as a guest? For that matter, why do news shows insist on inviting any celebrity (left-leaning celebrities especially) as a guest. Since when have celebrities been considered experts on politics and news?
The obvious answer as to why celebrities are invited as guests is simple: to boost ratings (while unintentionally destroying credibility). And whenever Miss Garofalo appears on a show, she not only boosts ratings, but her own ego as an intellectual liberal.
Lets just recap some of Garofalos sparks of brilliance:
The Tea Party protests (or any protest against Obama) are racially motivated, and all protestorsor teabagging redneckshate Obama because of his skin color.
Republicans, Conservatives, and Right-Wingers suffer from a neurological disorder caused by an enlarged limbic brain.
Women and minorities in the Republican Party suffer from Stockholm syndrome (I guess Martin Luther King suffered from Stockholm syndrome, then).
There is no liberal news outlet in America (if you dont count CNN, MSNBC, all three broadcast networks, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, and Air Americaa progressive radio station where Garofalo once hosted a radio show).
Who takes this woman seriously?
For more ripping on Janeane Garofalo, please watch my video series Janeane Garofalo Is A Stupid Bitch: part 1 and part 2
Friday, January 8, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
I don’t watch reality shows. They tend to lower one’s IQ!
But in reality show news, actress Heidi Fleiss dropped a bombshell on UK’s Celebrity Big Brother when she thanked God for abortion.
I hope I never have babies. That would kill me. Every minute I'd be, 'Is the baby OK?' I'd worry too much.
I've never had kids, thank God for abortion, my God. I don't mean to offend anyone but I wouldn't be a good mother. I shouldn't have kids.
See that one woman’s reaction at 0:12? That should be the reaction of every decent person who heard Heidi’s comment!
She said she wouldn’t be a good mother. Considering her criminal background (she was charged with owning a prostitution ring), I believe her.
Never mind her blatantly vulgar comment about the sensitive issue of abortion, who in their right mind would want to sleep with this:
Does she remind anyone else of Janice from The Muppet Show?
It’s official: Keith Olbermann is my punching bag for the week.
On Tuesday, Olbermann accused Lieutenant Tom McInerney, Congressman Peter King, and radio host Mike Gallagher of racism after each suggested that airport security should pay closer attention to Muslim passengers. Before that, Olbermann made a snide remark about “racism” in the Republican party.
There is nothing that racists in this country like better than an excuse to tell themselves that they are not being racist—just a coincidence that it’s a black president who’s “destroying” this country, when in fact he has done very little that a white Republican president would not also have done.
I’m not going to comment on this, as I have already established in previous posts that MSNBC likes to race-bait when it comes to criticism of Obama, especially right-wing criticism of Obama (Boo-hoo! They only hate Obama because he’s black!).
The next comment, however, I will not let fly.
Just a coincidence that the Christmas Day terror attempt in Detroit has led to repeated right-wing calls for a special profiling of all people who are like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. People from Nigeria? Students from Yemen? Big fans of British soccer?
Gee, Keith, could it simply be a coincidence that the guy nearly responsible for a terrorist attack was—oh, I don’t know—a young Muslim Arab man? Could it simply be a coincidence that most people who typically pull off terrorists attacks (especially in airplanes) are—oh, I don’t know—young Muslim Arab men?
This isn’t racism. This is common sense!
I agree that many of the suggestions made were a bit over-the-top (strip searching Muslims, creating a special line for people with Arab names, etc.), but they’re grounded in common sense, not racism. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists from the Taliban or Al-Qaeda are Muslim—more specifically young Muslim Arab men! Why should airport security bother old ladies with nail clippers or young children with toothpaste bottles when common sense dictates that those people wouldn’t be affiliated with Al-Qaeda?
I’m not suggesting that we randomly pull over black men for drunk driving, or randomly target Mexicans for drug possession. I’m not even suggesting that we follow the advice of either McInerney or Gallagher. What I am saying is that airport security should pay closer attention to young Muslim Arab men—people who are known for being terrorists.
For the sake of national security, Olbermann and like-minded liberals should pull their PC heads out of their PC asses!
Is there no low that Keith Olbermann will not stoop to?
After accusing “hate radio host” Nearl Boortz of dehumanizing supporters of healthcare reform, Olbermann—being the liberal hypocrite he is—dehumanized Boortz by comparing him and other critics of healthcare reform to terrorists.
What would you do, sir, if terrorists were killing 45,000 people every year in this country? Well, the current health care system, the insurance companies, and those who support them are doing just that.
…those fighting health care reform – not those debating its shape or its nuance – people who demand the status quo, they are killing 45,000 Americans a year.
…Neil Boortz and those who ape him in office and out, approve their deaths, all 45,000 of them – a year – in America. Remind me again, who are the terrorists?
Do I have to point out Olbermann’s blatant hypocrisy?
If critics of healthcare reform are responsible for killing uninsured Americans, would supporters of healthcare reform be responsible for bankrupting Americans? We’re in the middle of a recession. Can we honestly afford to place the 46 million uninsured Americans on taxpayer-funded healthcare? I’m no economist, but I have to say no, and claim that such a move will raise the national debt.
And critics aren’t necessarily against healthcare reform as they are against the current healthcare reform bill and the public option it proposes.
And for good reason!
Not only will the healthcare reform bill fail to cover all uninsured Americans—leaving millions uninsured—but it will fail to lower healthcare costs and premiums (it will actually do the exact opposite plus slash Medicare).
Unfortunately, Olbermann and others who blindly support the healthcare reform bill are too concerned about the ends to bother with the means—no matter how flawed they are.
If the Republican party is wise, they would run away from the Tea Partiers as fast as they possibly can. Of course, no one is saying Republicans are wise. Are they? And Michele, let me just remind you of some of the folks you want to embrace. You would be redefining the Republican party as ignorant and hateful.
MSNBC is attacking the Tea Party protests. Why am I not surprised?
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Earlier this week on Fox News Sunday, senior political analyst Brit Hume suggested that Tiger Woods seek redemption for his adulterous affairs.
Whether he can recover as a person depends on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."
While I agree that Hume was irresponsible for making that suggestion on national television, and I would have preferred that he had made his suggestion to Tiger Woods in private, I feel that the negative attention he has received in the mainstream media is unwarranted.
For example, on Tuesday, left-wing pundit Keith Olbermann claimed that Hume tried to “threaten Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity,” alleging that the suggestion would have been just as offensive had Hume asked Woods to convert to Islam. He also alluded that Hume wanted Woods to be a celebrity role model for Christianity, as Tom Cruise had been for Scientology.
Olbermann’s attack on Hume should come as no surprise, as the host is infamous for attacking people’s statements on religion and faith. His network MSNBC has also allowed others to broadcast anti-religious sentiment. In October 2009, Chris Matthews compared the Religious Right to the Taliban.
On the same day, Hume was ridiculed on The Daily Show. The left-wing host John Stewart, along with correspondent Aasif Mandvi, ridiculed Hume over his statement, his defense on The O’Reilly Factor, and the negative attention he has received.
|The Daily Show With Jon Stewart||Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c|
|The Temple of Hume|
Monday, January 4, 2010
I plan to do more in the future, mostly on the bias in MSNBC, as well as on liberal douchebags such as Janeane Garofalo, Bill Maher, and Alan Grayson. Stay tuned!
And he is right. Environmentalism is based on theories, like global warming, which are based on scant scientific evidence blown to extreme proportions and which are defended by their adherents as religious dogma (to environmentalists, denying global warming is akin to denying the Holocaust).
So it’s no surprise that environmentalists finally have their own sacred text:
Lefty author Margaret Atwood has created, in the form of a novel, the environmentalist's bible. "The Year of the Flood", as it is titled, is not merely a figurative bible for a dispersed and sporadic collection of greenies, but rather a sacred testament (the author says as much) for a movement that, every day, looks more like a church--complete with sin, salvation, and saints (one of whom is--you guessed it--Al Gore).
In an interview with Atwood, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep described "The Year of the Flood" as gloriously melding science and religion into a harmonious enviro-theology. Atwood "thinks that in the future we could see a religion that combines religion and science," Inskeep states.
But the more the listener learns about Atwood's novel, the more he or she realizes that the book does not meld science and religion. Rather, it does away with religion and replaces it with radical environmentalism. Here is an excerpt from the NPR interview (h/t CATO's David Boaz):[RICH] KLEFFEL: ["The Case for God" author Karen] Armstrong sees the role of religion as a guiding force for ethical behavior. Margaret Atwood brings that notion to life in her newest novel, "The Year of the Flood." It's set in a dystopian near future where genetic engineering has ravaged much of the planet. The survivors have created a new religion.
Ms. ATWOOD: This group, which is called God's Gardeners, has taken it possibly to an extreme that not everybody will be able to do. They live on rooftops in slums on which they have vegetable gardens. And they keep bees. And they are strictly vegetarian, unless you get really, really hungry, in which case you have to start at the bottom of the food chain and work up. And they make everything out of recycled castoffs and junk. So they're quite strict.
KLEFFEL: Atwood points out that the beginnings of her religion of the future have already appeared in the present.
Ms. ATWOOD: Indeed, we now have the Green Bible among us, which I did not know when I was writing this book, which has tasteful linen covers, ecologically correct paper, the green parts in green. Introduction by Archbishop Tutu. And a list at the end of useful things you can do to be a more worthy green person.
KLEFFEL: Atwood created a new pantheon of saints, including Rachel Carson, Al Gore and Dian Fossey, the murdered conservationist, as well as hymns, which have been brought to life by Orville Stoeber… But even though God's Gardeners feels like a real religion, Margaret Atwood is not ready to step up to the pulpit.
Ms. ATWOOD: Well, not quite in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard did. I don't have any adherents yet. But, who knows?
No one is chanting Margaret Atwood's name, but given that she has just written a holy text for what could be the largest secular religion on the planet, she may be selling herself short on that last point.
As Matt Sheffield wrote in 2007, the utter failure of socialism during the 20th century left the radical left with no supernatural force for salvation. Historical determinism and righteous revolution were out, but environmentalism swept in just in time, and gave Gore, Atwood, and the rest of the religious greens a divine purpose to rally behind. Atwood's novel is but a logical step in the progression towards a full-fledged Church of the Earth.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Anyway, I have three quick annoucements:
1) As everyone can see, I revamped my blog's layout. I decided to try something new for this new year.
2) I recently got a new job, and as such, I will not be updating as frequently as I did in the past (which wasn't much to begin with). I will create most of my posts around the evening, since I get off from work around that time.
3) Today, I launched my own YouTube channel. As with my Deviantart account, it will be used as an additonal medium for my views and opinions. Expect my first video Monday.