Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Liberals have no care for the Christian
To many liberals Christians are the epitome of evil because Christians believe in sexual morality and that people should bow to God not government.
That's why liberals have no problem trying to remove the First Amendment rights of Christians while constantly condemning any perceived slight towards Muslims.
Do you remember how incensed liberals were about "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia? Are you hearing those same voices now demanding US intervention to protect Christians in Egypt as they demanded we risk American lives to protect Muslims in Serbia?
Christians are what stand between liberals and godhead; for in the liberal mind liberals should be able to dictate every aspect of how everyone lives. If you doubt that ask why liberals think it's fine for a mayor to decide how much soda the citizens who elected him can drink?
You hear liberals condemn smokers and fat people because they cost too much in terms of medical care but when have you heard liberals condemn gays for the medical bills associated with AIDS?
A Christian can explain why those cases are different which is another reason why liberals hate them. You can't be a liberal if there is an absolute truth. Liberalism thrives on gray and ambivalence along with morality that changes with the situation.
Liberals are like vampires they can't stand the sight of the Cross. If you think that extreme ask yourselves why liberals are constantly campaigning to ensure that High School valedictorians can't voluntarily mention God in their speeches? Have you ever heard of a Christian demanding that a High School speaker can't mention Nietzsche?
These are all reasons why liberals are siding with Mursi in Egypt even though he supports Sharia law. An enemy of my enemy is my friend and Mursi probably despises Christians as much as liberals do.
That's why liberals have no problem trying to remove the First Amendment rights of Christians while constantly condemning any perceived slight towards Muslims.
Do you remember how incensed liberals were about "ethnic cleansing" in Serbia? Are you hearing those same voices now demanding US intervention to protect Christians in Egypt as they demanded we risk American lives to protect Muslims in Serbia?
Christians are what stand between liberals and godhead; for in the liberal mind liberals should be able to dictate every aspect of how everyone lives. If you doubt that ask why liberals think it's fine for a mayor to decide how much soda the citizens who elected him can drink?
You hear liberals condemn smokers and fat people because they cost too much in terms of medical care but when have you heard liberals condemn gays for the medical bills associated with AIDS?
A Christian can explain why those cases are different which is another reason why liberals hate them. You can't be a liberal if there is an absolute truth. Liberalism thrives on gray and ambivalence along with morality that changes with the situation.
Liberals are like vampires they can't stand the sight of the Cross. If you think that extreme ask yourselves why liberals are constantly campaigning to ensure that High School valedictorians can't voluntarily mention God in their speeches? Have you ever heard of a Christian demanding that a High School speaker can't mention Nietzsche?
These are all reasons why liberals are siding with Mursi in Egypt even though he supports Sharia law. An enemy of my enemy is my friend and Mursi probably despises Christians as much as liberals do.
Friday, August 16, 2013
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
What gay history will be taught?
In California a new law requires that children in Public schools learn gay history.
I wonder which gay history will be taught?
Will it cover how gays fought tooth and nail to keep the bath houses open when it was known that the massively promiscuous sex that occurred in those establishments was how people contracted the then inevitably fatal HIV virus? Probably not since that would show that gays are so addicted to sex they'd rather die than forgo it. We need to feel sorry for anyone with such a severe addiction but at the same time it's powerful evidence that the gay lifestyle is a pretty self destructive one.
Will it cover how the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) marched in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade for years? Probably not since that would show that many gays are far more comfortable with molesting children than are heterosexuals. It would also undercut a lot of the faux anger at the Catholic Church since the vast majority of children who priests abused were teenagers, instead of the 3 year old NAMBLA "loves", and were males. Yeah you read that right; the child abuse crisis in the Church--which ended decades ago by the way--was driven by gays. Another thing that will probably not be covered in the children's lessons.
Will it cover how wife beating groups are still marching in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade? True they're called sadomasochist groups not wife beaters but wanting to hurt someone you supposedly love is the same as wife beating for heterosexuals. But once again the truth of being gay has to be carefully managed so as not to shock and offend people so this is also unlikely to be mentioned.
Will it declare lots of historical figures to be gay who never said they were? Probably. Like all fringe groups gays declare historical figures to belong to their group even though the only "proof" is that the guy never got married. Nor will it be likely that the course cover how gays will out gays who wanted to stay in the closet if it helps the gay movement.
Will it talk about all the negative characteristics of historical gays the way the students are taught that dead white men like Jefferson and Washington were flawed? Off course not. The kids won't read about how a spy ring of gay men helped Stalin against the west or about how many serial killers have been gay. Now it's true that just because some gays have been bad not all gays are bad. But if kids are going to learn about all the warts of everyone else in history they should learn about the warts in historical gays lest the impression be that gays are better than the Founding Fathers.
Will it talk about the true nature of the gay lifestyle, the massive promiscuity or the infatuation with looks? Probably not because if a child learned that typical gays have sex with hundreds or thousands of people they might think that being gay is different than being straight.
Will it talk about the real percentage of gays in society? Probably not since if people realized that gays make up 1-2% of the population they'd realize that being gay is not "normal". Gays are loved by God but their lifestyle is not normal.
Will it talk about how according to science gays are defective? Now Christians realize that gays are loved by God and valuable because they are His children and hence no more "defective" than the rest of us. But according to science our only "purpose", to the extent we have a purpose, is to send our genes to the future. Well in that respect gays are more "defective" than pretty much any other person. If kids learned that they might start to wonder if it's Christians who say that gays are not defective that perhaps Christian condemnation of the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is not motivate by hate and those who encourage gays by saying their lifestyle, that leads to all sorts of STDs and AIDS, are not motivated by love.
My guess is that the new course material will be one sided propaganda designed to completely mask the real nature of the gay lifestyle.
I wonder which gay history will be taught?
Will it cover how gays fought tooth and nail to keep the bath houses open when it was known that the massively promiscuous sex that occurred in those establishments was how people contracted the then inevitably fatal HIV virus? Probably not since that would show that gays are so addicted to sex they'd rather die than forgo it. We need to feel sorry for anyone with such a severe addiction but at the same time it's powerful evidence that the gay lifestyle is a pretty self destructive one.
Will it cover how the North American Man Boy Love Association(NAMBLA) marched in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade for years? Probably not since that would show that many gays are far more comfortable with molesting children than are heterosexuals. It would also undercut a lot of the faux anger at the Catholic Church since the vast majority of children who priests abused were teenagers, instead of the 3 year old NAMBLA "loves", and were males. Yeah you read that right; the child abuse crisis in the Church--which ended decades ago by the way--was driven by gays. Another thing that will probably not be covered in the children's lessons.
Will it cover how wife beating groups are still marching in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade? True they're called sadomasochist groups not wife beaters but wanting to hurt someone you supposedly love is the same as wife beating for heterosexuals. But once again the truth of being gay has to be carefully managed so as not to shock and offend people so this is also unlikely to be mentioned.
Will it declare lots of historical figures to be gay who never said they were? Probably. Like all fringe groups gays declare historical figures to belong to their group even though the only "proof" is that the guy never got married. Nor will it be likely that the course cover how gays will out gays who wanted to stay in the closet if it helps the gay movement.
Will it talk about all the negative characteristics of historical gays the way the students are taught that dead white men like Jefferson and Washington were flawed? Off course not. The kids won't read about how a spy ring of gay men helped Stalin against the west or about how many serial killers have been gay. Now it's true that just because some gays have been bad not all gays are bad. But if kids are going to learn about all the warts of everyone else in history they should learn about the warts in historical gays lest the impression be that gays are better than the Founding Fathers.
Will it talk about the true nature of the gay lifestyle, the massive promiscuity or the infatuation with looks? Probably not because if a child learned that typical gays have sex with hundreds or thousands of people they might think that being gay is different than being straight.
Will it talk about the real percentage of gays in society? Probably not since if people realized that gays make up 1-2% of the population they'd realize that being gay is not "normal". Gays are loved by God but their lifestyle is not normal.
Will it talk about how according to science gays are defective? Now Christians realize that gays are loved by God and valuable because they are His children and hence no more "defective" than the rest of us. But according to science our only "purpose", to the extent we have a purpose, is to send our genes to the future. Well in that respect gays are more "defective" than pretty much any other person. If kids learned that they might start to wonder if it's Christians who say that gays are not defective that perhaps Christian condemnation of the massively promiscuous gay lifestyle is not motivate by hate and those who encourage gays by saying their lifestyle, that leads to all sorts of STDs and AIDS, are not motivated by love.
My guess is that the new course material will be one sided propaganda designed to completely mask the real nature of the gay lifestyle.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Democrats working to become rulers not representatives
The single biggest thing that the Republicans did when they took over Congress in 1994, other than saving Bill Clintons reputation as a successful president, was to change things so that laws Congress passed applied to Congress.
Since then Congress has had to live with the consequences of the laws they pass. Obama is working to change that. Obamacare is a disaster so Obama is ensuring that the folks in Congress who support it are not going to have to suffer through it.
By making the government special, just like in the old days when the Democrats ran Congress, Obama is reestablishing a Master government where those who govern have special privileges denied to the people they supposedly represent.
This is a first step towards the end of truly representative government in that if the ruling class are treated differently by the law they are no longer representatives but rulers. And historically rulers have looked after their own interests first and then the interests of the ruled.
Since then Congress has had to live with the consequences of the laws they pass. Obama is working to change that. Obamacare is a disaster so Obama is ensuring that the folks in Congress who support it are not going to have to suffer through it.
By making the government special, just like in the old days when the Democrats ran Congress, Obama is reestablishing a Master government where those who govern have special privileges denied to the people they supposedly represent.
This is a first step towards the end of truly representative government in that if the ruling class are treated differently by the law they are no longer representatives but rulers. And historically rulers have looked after their own interests first and then the interests of the ruled.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Democrats admit they're phony
President Obama and other Democrats have condemned the "phony" scandals that have been plaguing Obama.
Specifically Democrats have identified the IRS being used for a political agenda and the slaughter at Benghazi of several Americans as phony scandals.
In the case of the IRS the IRS's own internal auditors disclosed that the IRS had engaged in a systematic attack on organizations who were political opponents of the Obama administration. The facts really aren't in dispute; the IRS denied tax exempt status to conservative groups while granting it quickly to equivalent liberal groups and the IRS illegally released tax information to Democrat political operatives. While liberals claim that there is no scandal the fact that the key IRS official in the whole mess is trying to take the 5th, amendment not whiskey, when testifying is pretty good evidence that it wasn't just an innocent mistake.
Clearly then the IRS scandal is quite real.
Our Ambassador, and several brave men, died in Benghazi because of Obama's bizarre belief that Muslims wouldn't hate America because of Obama's Muslim roots. Because Obama thinks of radical Muslims as friends he didn't think it necessary to provide significant security to our Ambassador to Libya even though Libya was far from recovered from its revolution and there were lot's of terrorists running around.
But that's not the scandal. Incompetence is abhorrent when it leads to the deaths of innocent Americans but it's not a scandal to be a total failure at foreign policy; look at Jimmy Carter, he was a failure but nothing he did was scandalous.
The scandal was that the administration knowingly lied to Americans for weeks after the event in order to help Obama be elected. The administration went so far as to blame an innocent American film maker in order to avoid the country finding out that the disaster was due to Obama. Obama and Hillary Clinton knew within hours that there was no demonstration but they, and their stooges, kept blaming a spontaneous riot right up till the time Hillary Clinton could tell Congress, referring to the government actions which lead to the deaths of brave Americans, "what difference does it make?".
Those blatant and intentional lies are the real scandal. They're the reason why it's hard to trust the government with all of our private information; it's clear the government can't always be trusted so long as Democrats run the show.
So if the two scandals are not phony what are they? Well first and foremost they're Democrat scandals; not a single Republican involved. That means that if Democrats are saying
"phony scandals" = "Democrat scandals"
it means that Democrats are saying that
"phony" = "Democrat"
a astonishingly accurate assessment.
Specifically Democrats have identified the IRS being used for a political agenda and the slaughter at Benghazi of several Americans as phony scandals.
In the case of the IRS the IRS's own internal auditors disclosed that the IRS had engaged in a systematic attack on organizations who were political opponents of the Obama administration. The facts really aren't in dispute; the IRS denied tax exempt status to conservative groups while granting it quickly to equivalent liberal groups and the IRS illegally released tax information to Democrat political operatives. While liberals claim that there is no scandal the fact that the key IRS official in the whole mess is trying to take the 5th, amendment not whiskey, when testifying is pretty good evidence that it wasn't just an innocent mistake.
Clearly then the IRS scandal is quite real.
Our Ambassador, and several brave men, died in Benghazi because of Obama's bizarre belief that Muslims wouldn't hate America because of Obama's Muslim roots. Because Obama thinks of radical Muslims as friends he didn't think it necessary to provide significant security to our Ambassador to Libya even though Libya was far from recovered from its revolution and there were lot's of terrorists running around.
But that's not the scandal. Incompetence is abhorrent when it leads to the deaths of innocent Americans but it's not a scandal to be a total failure at foreign policy; look at Jimmy Carter, he was a failure but nothing he did was scandalous.
The scandal was that the administration knowingly lied to Americans for weeks after the event in order to help Obama be elected. The administration went so far as to blame an innocent American film maker in order to avoid the country finding out that the disaster was due to Obama. Obama and Hillary Clinton knew within hours that there was no demonstration but they, and their stooges, kept blaming a spontaneous riot right up till the time Hillary Clinton could tell Congress, referring to the government actions which lead to the deaths of brave Americans, "what difference does it make?".
Those blatant and intentional lies are the real scandal. They're the reason why it's hard to trust the government with all of our private information; it's clear the government can't always be trusted so long as Democrats run the show.
So if the two scandals are not phony what are they? Well first and foremost they're Democrat scandals; not a single Republican involved. That means that if Democrats are saying
"phony scandals" = "Democrat scandals"
it means that Democrats are saying that
"phony" = "Democrat"
a astonishingly accurate assessment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
