Obama wins Florida. Wins the election. That's my prediction. Why?
Well, it didn't hurt that the third and final debate was in Florida. The state got a chance to see the candidates close up. The importance of the debate would not have been lost on either man. It's no doubt the reason why Obama arguably won the debate.
Florida voters will remember that performance.
Also, Hurricane Sandy.
The Presidents response and leadership during this disaster will determine whether he retains the White House.
He's doing nothing different to what George W. Bush did during Katrina. Of course, the Dark Saint gets nowhere near the vitriolic abuse and criticism that the 43rd President did.
Anything Obama does from now will get him more Black votes. The Black community is so blinded by Obama love it would vote for him even if he reversed his policies.
The other factor likely to get Obama over the line is the undecided voter. There is so much liberal bias in the media that it essentially means that even when Obama isn't on the tv screens his message is still getting out to the American public.
Take MSNBC, for example, and the infamously Left Chris Matthews. Undecided voters who watch Matthews and MSNBC are subject to a shameless Obama barracking which could have an influence on their voting choices.
On Saturday I will present my final predictions, state by state.
Tuesday 30 October 2012
Sunday 28 October 2012
Animals Australia - Master Manipulators
Animals Australia is alarmed that we view pigs as dirty animals that roll in the mud.
It instead wants us to see them as talking characters from a children's movie
http://www.SaveBabe.com/kids.php
This is really dishonest - even for an animal rights group.
The brainwashing, and attempts to emotionally manipulate children, is frightening and wrong.
Have the pig farmers of Australia had a chance to respond to these scandalous claims?
Animals Australia makes the pig farming look like a concentration camp. And they do it all under the pretence of serious concern.
I have no doubt animals are treated cruelly. But those are isolated cases. To group a whole industry together under a banner of barbarianism is factless and false.
But, apparently that's the truth about pigs. We have been misinformed.
Hang your heads in shame. You pigists!
Really? Educating us on pig issues and pig awareness. Understanding our porcine pals?
Religious tolerance; racial tolerance; and now: pig tolerance.
If that includes bacon appreciation I am all for it.
Because I do like pigs. I like them with apple sauce and sweet potato.
Now I feel like pork rashers. Hmmm. Thank you Animals Australia.
Pigs are delicious. Treat them with respect.
Oh, and Animals Australia, not all pigs are so lovely.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=napoleon+animal+farm&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=OVeNUMKFOeyziQe70YG4Cg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=416#i=48
It instead wants us to see them as talking characters from a children's movie
http://www.SaveBabe.com/kids.php
This is really dishonest - even for an animal rights group.
The brainwashing, and attempts to emotionally manipulate children, is frightening and wrong.
Have the pig farmers of Australia had a chance to respond to these scandalous claims?
Animals Australia makes the pig farming look like a concentration camp. And they do it all under the pretence of serious concern.
I have no doubt animals are treated cruelly. But those are isolated cases. To group a whole industry together under a banner of barbarianism is factless and false.
But, apparently that's the truth about pigs. We have been misinformed.
Hang your heads in shame. You pigists!
Really? Educating us on pig issues and pig awareness. Understanding our porcine pals?
Religious tolerance; racial tolerance; and now: pig tolerance.
If that includes bacon appreciation I am all for it.
Because I do like pigs. I like them with apple sauce and sweet potato.
Now I feel like pork rashers. Hmmm. Thank you Animals Australia.
Pigs are delicious. Treat them with respect.
Oh, and Animals Australia, not all pigs are so lovely.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=napoleon+animal+farm&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=OVeNUMKFOeyziQe70YG4Cg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=416#i=48
Capitalism - the Friendly "ism"
It's not that capitalism is perfect, it just that it's flawless when compared to socialism.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html
http://www.minimum-wage.org/international/en/Cuba
A great truth that many "socialists" in the West fail to acknowledge is that realising their "socialist utopia" requires recognition of and acceptance of democracy.
Huh? You say. You inquisitive, liberal minded, Che T-shirt wearers. What?
What did they Occupy idiots do? What does every milkshake brained, hemp obsessed, mini revolutionary do when they feel bummed out by the "capitalist machine"?
Why, they protest; an activity which is a democratic right.
Then the socialist wannabes might want billionaires to be taxed more. So they "PETITION" the government.
So you want to achieve your socialist utopia, you need the First Amendment.
Of course, if the North Korean people want democracy the government would be all too happy to take them round the back and give them several rounds of it.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html
http://www.minimum-wage.org/international/en/Cuba
A great truth that many "socialists" in the West fail to acknowledge is that realising their "socialist utopia" requires recognition of and acceptance of democracy.
Huh? You say. You inquisitive, liberal minded, Che T-shirt wearers. What?
What did they Occupy idiots do? What does every milkshake brained, hemp obsessed, mini revolutionary do when they feel bummed out by the "capitalist machine"?
Why, they protest; an activity which is a democratic right.
Then the socialist wannabes might want billionaires to be taxed more. So they "PETITION" the government.
So you want to achieve your socialist utopia, you need the First Amendment.
Of course, if the North Korean people want democracy the government would be all too happy to take them round the back and give them several rounds of it.
You Mean He's Just Human. No Way!
I was going to say we should give Kyle Clark a Pultizer; but he doesn't seem Left enough. I'll just have to create my own award. Until then, here is something you don't often get to see: an interviewer asking the "Messiah" some tough questions.
http://m.youtube.com/index?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&desktop_uri=%2F%3Fgl%3DAU%26hl%3Den-GB#/watch?v=MC31krZK-nI
http://m.youtube.com/index?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&desktop_uri=%2F%3Fgl%3DAU%26hl%3Den-GB#/watch?v=MC31krZK-nI
Saturday 27 October 2012
Thursday 25 October 2012
More Laughs From the World of Social Media
A dead communist dictator could threaten the World Series. https://mobile.twitter.com/KeaganFederici/status/261459477205770240?p=v
Stand by for updates.
Stand by for updates.
The Sinister Tactics of The Left
In the Soviet Union during the 1960s and 1970s, the communist party used the tactic of questioning the mental health of political dissidents. The infamous, made-up diagnosis "Progressively Sluggish Schizophrenia" was used to justify the detaining of political rebels and dissidents in mental facilities.
In 1959, Nikita Khrushchev said of political dissidents, "clearly their mental state is not normal."
Fast forward to democratic Australia in 2012. Where prime minister Julia Gillard has called into question the sanity of anyone who dares to question her on her shadowy past involvement with former AWU secretary Bruce Wilson, and the slush fund she helped him set up. A slush fund, it is claimed, was used to illegal obtain funds and defraud union members. Gillard has likened those who question her past to the birther movement in America. She has called her critics "nutjobs of the Internet."
The birther movement: American citizens with a concern that the president, contrary to article two of the US Constitution, was not a natural born citizen.
The response from the liberal media and other Obama barrackers? To call the birther movement "lunatics."
Indeed, just the tactics used by the scaremongers who preach the fiction of man-made warming.
Anyone who calls into question the past lives of the political Left, must expect to have their mental state cruelly questioned.
Deputy prime minister of Australia, Wayne Swan inflamed the firestorm of attack when he called Republicans cranks and crazies. He was talking of their economic politics; but still, there were the mental illness references again.
Earlier tonight on ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) shamelessly partisan political panel show "The Drum", author and ethicist (yeah, one of those) Leslie Cannold wondered why the Right of the Republican Party - Tea Party, birthers - had not already been marginalised by the political mainstream.
Questioning the mental state of conservatives; calling for them to be marginalised. It's all a very sinister attempt to freeze free speech. And we should be alarmed.
In 1959, Nikita Khrushchev said of political dissidents, "clearly their mental state is not normal."
Fast forward to democratic Australia in 2012. Where prime minister Julia Gillard has called into question the sanity of anyone who dares to question her on her shadowy past involvement with former AWU secretary Bruce Wilson, and the slush fund she helped him set up. A slush fund, it is claimed, was used to illegal obtain funds and defraud union members. Gillard has likened those who question her past to the birther movement in America. She has called her critics "nutjobs of the Internet."
The birther movement: American citizens with a concern that the president, contrary to article two of the US Constitution, was not a natural born citizen.
The response from the liberal media and other Obama barrackers? To call the birther movement "lunatics."
Indeed, just the tactics used by the scaremongers who preach the fiction of man-made warming.
Anyone who calls into question the past lives of the political Left, must expect to have their mental state cruelly questioned.
Deputy prime minister of Australia, Wayne Swan inflamed the firestorm of attack when he called Republicans cranks and crazies. He was talking of their economic politics; but still, there were the mental illness references again.
Earlier tonight on ABC's (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) shamelessly partisan political panel show "The Drum", author and ethicist (yeah, one of those) Leslie Cannold wondered why the Right of the Republican Party - Tea Party, birthers - had not already been marginalised by the political mainstream.
Questioning the mental state of conservatives; calling for them to be marginalised. It's all a very sinister attempt to freeze free speech. And we should be alarmed.
Wednesday 24 October 2012
Happy U.N. Day. Mahmoud to Sing. *groan.
I hear it's UN day. What a great time to celebrate all the good the UN has done. Like...
Stopping genocide and promote practical peace... Okay, maybe not.
Speaking out against tyrants and refusing despots a platform from which they can attack Israel and the West... Oh, wait. No.
Backing a coalition of Western democracies, led by the US, in their operation to free tortured Iraqis from over two decades of Saddam Hussein's murderous madness... Yeah. No. They weren't exactly on board there.
Protecting and upholding the rights of women by rejecting the membership of oppressive Islamic regimes... No. They didn't quite do that, did they?
The UN has failed. Only the most liberal progressive Bono channelling social trendy would delude themselves that this corrupt and useless body has achieved anything but, at the best - petty symbolism, at the worst - a dias for the diatribe despots.
The UN is useless and redundant. Nations lived in peace alongside each other for centuries before the UN was formed. There was never a need for it.
UN treaties are useless. They are not binding under US law. They do not override the constitution. Nor are they binding under Australian law.
Why should we Aussies even give them the time of day when they shamelessly compare us to Apartheid era South Africa http://m.smh.com.au/world/un-rights-chief-slams-racist-australia-20110526-1f4yy.html
Of course the UN Human rights chief made those statements at a time when women were being raped in the Congo; Christians were being persecuted in Nigeria, Iran, Yemen, North Korea; and the people of Cuba, Myanmar, Laos and North Korea were living under military, communist dictatorships.
I will always have a deep dislike of the UN. Not just for their libellous smearing of my country - which, I remind you, was founded under peaceful circumstances, has never suffered through a civil war, never allowed legalised slavery, and is today ranked in the top ten of world's best economies and democracies. And I mean REAL democracies. Not "Democratic" Republic of Congo democracies.
No. My dislike of the UN is born from hearing of the millions of lost and hopeless people - many of the atheists - who turn to the UN with wide eyes and radiant auras; hoping for change and looking to the bright future. Poor, blind leftists. Actually, that isn't fair. Most of them are probably 11 and 12 year olds who have been brainwashed by an activist teacher. I don't have the heart to tell them the truth. Maybe they'll read this and find out.
It can be tough to learn that the "saints" and "saviours" you look up to aren't all they seem.
Happy U.N. day.
Stopping genocide and promote practical peace... Okay, maybe not.
Speaking out against tyrants and refusing despots a platform from which they can attack Israel and the West... Oh, wait. No.
Backing a coalition of Western democracies, led by the US, in their operation to free tortured Iraqis from over two decades of Saddam Hussein's murderous madness... Yeah. No. They weren't exactly on board there.
Protecting and upholding the rights of women by rejecting the membership of oppressive Islamic regimes... No. They didn't quite do that, did they?
The UN has failed. Only the most liberal progressive Bono channelling social trendy would delude themselves that this corrupt and useless body has achieved anything but, at the best - petty symbolism, at the worst - a dias for the diatribe despots.
The UN is useless and redundant. Nations lived in peace alongside each other for centuries before the UN was formed. There was never a need for it.
UN treaties are useless. They are not binding under US law. They do not override the constitution. Nor are they binding under Australian law.
Why should we Aussies even give them the time of day when they shamelessly compare us to Apartheid era South Africa http://m.smh.com.au/world/un-rights-chief-slams-racist-australia-20110526-1f4yy.html
Of course the UN Human rights chief made those statements at a time when women were being raped in the Congo; Christians were being persecuted in Nigeria, Iran, Yemen, North Korea; and the people of Cuba, Myanmar, Laos and North Korea were living under military, communist dictatorships.
I will always have a deep dislike of the UN. Not just for their libellous smearing of my country - which, I remind you, was founded under peaceful circumstances, has never suffered through a civil war, never allowed legalised slavery, and is today ranked in the top ten of world's best economies and democracies. And I mean REAL democracies. Not "Democratic" Republic of Congo democracies.
No. My dislike of the UN is born from hearing of the millions of lost and hopeless people - many of the atheists - who turn to the UN with wide eyes and radiant auras; hoping for change and looking to the bright future. Poor, blind leftists. Actually, that isn't fair. Most of them are probably 11 and 12 year olds who have been brainwashed by an activist teacher. I don't have the heart to tell them the truth. Maybe they'll read this and find out.
It can be tough to learn that the "saints" and "saviours" you look up to aren't all they seem.
Happy U.N. day.
Striking Mum Needs to Take a Good Look at Herself
Mother of 3, Jessica Stillwell, goes on "strike" and proves nothing except that kids don't like cleaning up, and too many adults today are attention whores.
Jessica, from Calgary, Alberta, is the mother of a 12 year old girl and 10 year old twin girls. Jessica went on "strike" - you know cause that must the new parenting trend. She then blogged about her adventures because, you know, the whole world cares. Apparently the blog was pretty popular. Well, whaddaya know.
The problem I have with parents like Stillwell is that they fail to teach their children basic cleaning habits and respect for property and possessions. Not fair you say? You can't judge her as a mother.
No? Really? I can't? I've seen the photos of her kitchen, that she took midway through the strike. Remember, her children are 10 and 12. Maybe If they had have been taught, when they were 5 or 6, to not be pigs, then they would be able to do a basic chore like clean a cereal bowl.
Instead of blogging about how hard it is being a mother (it's a blessing, not a job, you selfish woman) she should have been whipping them into shape and teaching them respect. You can't blame your kids for the fact that they can't clean their own breakfast dishes by the time they're in grade 6. That's your fault, Jessica. Parents like that need to put down the Benjamin Spock Guide to Parenting Bullshit, get off the computer, and teach manners.
And yes, I'm a parent. And I try to get my daughter into the habit of cleaning up after herself. She's 4 in December. She empties her toybox? She cleans it. When she turns 12, if she is anything like Jessica Stillwell's children, I will write a blog... about how much of a terrible parent I've been. But that won't happen. Because I raise by the listen and opposite method. I listen to what liberal progressive whackos like the new age "experts" say, and I do the opposite. I have never read a parenting book, neither has my girlfriend.
All kids need is love and rules.
Jessica, from Calgary, Alberta, is the mother of a 12 year old girl and 10 year old twin girls. Jessica went on "strike" - you know cause that must the new parenting trend. She then blogged about her adventures because, you know, the whole world cares. Apparently the blog was pretty popular. Well, whaddaya know.
The problem I have with parents like Stillwell is that they fail to teach their children basic cleaning habits and respect for property and possessions. Not fair you say? You can't judge her as a mother.
No? Really? I can't? I've seen the photos of her kitchen, that she took midway through the strike. Remember, her children are 10 and 12. Maybe If they had have been taught, when they were 5 or 6, to not be pigs, then they would be able to do a basic chore like clean a cereal bowl.
Instead of blogging about how hard it is being a mother (it's a blessing, not a job, you selfish woman) she should have been whipping them into shape and teaching them respect. You can't blame your kids for the fact that they can't clean their own breakfast dishes by the time they're in grade 6. That's your fault, Jessica. Parents like that need to put down the Benjamin Spock Guide to Parenting Bullshit, get off the computer, and teach manners.
And yes, I'm a parent. And I try to get my daughter into the habit of cleaning up after herself. She's 4 in December. She empties her toybox? She cleans it. When she turns 12, if she is anything like Jessica Stillwell's children, I will write a blog... about how much of a terrible parent I've been. But that won't happen. Because I raise by the listen and opposite method. I listen to what liberal progressive whackos like the new age "experts" say, and I do the opposite. I have never read a parenting book, neither has my girlfriend.
All kids need is love and rules.
Tuesday 23 October 2012
The Final Debate
The best judge of a man's character is not how he talks it, but how he walks it.
The last two debates have shown us a different Obama. No, he hasn't had the resounding victories the media cheerleaders would have you believe. But he has clearly been practicing.
But back to the premise of this post. Obama's handling of the tragedy on September 11 this year, that saw 4 Americans murdered, was laughable. Laughable because he blamed an Internet movie - one that had caused offence to Muslims - for provoking the Benghazi attacks. We now know that tensions in the region were high, and that the US embassy had requested, and been denied, extra security. We now know that the attack on the embassy was planned and carried out to inflict more pain on America on the 11th anniversary of what is arguably the most painful moment in her history.
So, Obama may have regained that edge the Left always imagined he had, but that's only in theory. In practice, he's an abject, abominable ass.
Romney won this debate by default. Obama's failures and cover ups; his appeasement, and U.N. inspired, weak, feather duster condemnation of Iran and Syria, is a betrayal of the trust the American people placed in him when they voted him into office 4 years ago.
My grandmother has been making professional looking, quality wedding cakes for 35, 40 years. I'm not going to tell her how to layer each tier when I burnt the last scones I baked.
Now, you might say, but Romney has no experience either. Yes. But it's Obama who has stuffed up foreign policy. It's under Obama's watch that American haters have gone berserk and killed and maimed in a way only fanatics can.
Oh and, Obama, Russia isn't exactly stumbling over it's snow shoes to hand America a bunch of flowers and a chocolate love heart. The Cold War may be over, but the cold shoulder ain't.
Russia has close ties to China and Iran. In the event of a nuclear attack by Iran, or North Korea, do you really think Russia is going to side with America. Would the President like to look at a map so he can be reminded where Russia is in relation to North Korea. Putin will show his true colours; i.e. screw, you America, I'm not going against a nuclear rich dictatorship lying just under my ass.
And, Obama. You didn't kill Osama. Brave navy seals did. You just lapped up the Newsweek love.
Photo shoot Pres.
I'm out of here for another day.
The last two debates have shown us a different Obama. No, he hasn't had the resounding victories the media cheerleaders would have you believe. But he has clearly been practicing.
But back to the premise of this post. Obama's handling of the tragedy on September 11 this year, that saw 4 Americans murdered, was laughable. Laughable because he blamed an Internet movie - one that had caused offence to Muslims - for provoking the Benghazi attacks. We now know that tensions in the region were high, and that the US embassy had requested, and been denied, extra security. We now know that the attack on the embassy was planned and carried out to inflict more pain on America on the 11th anniversary of what is arguably the most painful moment in her history.
So, Obama may have regained that edge the Left always imagined he had, but that's only in theory. In practice, he's an abject, abominable ass.
Romney won this debate by default. Obama's failures and cover ups; his appeasement, and U.N. inspired, weak, feather duster condemnation of Iran and Syria, is a betrayal of the trust the American people placed in him when they voted him into office 4 years ago.
My grandmother has been making professional looking, quality wedding cakes for 35, 40 years. I'm not going to tell her how to layer each tier when I burnt the last scones I baked.
Now, you might say, but Romney has no experience either. Yes. But it's Obama who has stuffed up foreign policy. It's under Obama's watch that American haters have gone berserk and killed and maimed in a way only fanatics can.
Oh and, Obama, Russia isn't exactly stumbling over it's snow shoes to hand America a bunch of flowers and a chocolate love heart. The Cold War may be over, but the cold shoulder ain't.
Russia has close ties to China and Iran. In the event of a nuclear attack by Iran, or North Korea, do you really think Russia is going to side with America. Would the President like to look at a map so he can be reminded where Russia is in relation to North Korea. Putin will show his true colours; i.e. screw, you America, I'm not going against a nuclear rich dictatorship lying just under my ass.
And, Obama. You didn't kill Osama. Brave navy seals did. You just lapped up the Newsweek love.
Photo shoot Pres.
I'm out of here for another day.
Sunday 21 October 2012
Alright. Something easy for Sunday (actually just gone into Monday here in Oz). I posted my 50 favourite Aussie and Kiwi songs on Twitter over the weekend. Here's number one: my favourite Aussie song of all time.
The Go Betweens were an underrated and under appreciated band. Most Australians have never heard of them. Which annoys me. Because they are a million times more musically pleasing - to my ears - than the far more popular and overrated Cold Chisel, or Men at Work.
Anyway. Enjoy.
http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=pq1s6FCEoZM
The Go Betweens were an underrated and under appreciated band. Most Australians have never heard of them. Which annoys me. Because they are a million times more musically pleasing - to my ears - than the far more popular and overrated Cold Chisel, or Men at Work.
Anyway. Enjoy.
http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=pq1s6FCEoZM
Friday 19 October 2012
UN Security Council Seat: Not Something Aussies Should Be Proud Of
Lawyer and Labor Party cheerleader, Chris Murphy, yesterday tweeted the following "After grovelling to the Queen and George Bush Australia finally stands on it's own feet."
If Chris took off his eye patch for one minute he would see that what this government has achieved in getting a UN Security Council seat is... GROVELLING.
Leftists like Murphy accused Howard of being a sycophant towards Bush. But Howard was simply respecting and upholding an alliance that has enriched Australian and US relations for over 60 years. I'd rather our prime minister be a suck up to the US than court the favour of a corrupt and useless, "leftist" organisation.
So now we rub shoulders with such beacons of humanity and freedom as Rwanda and Argentina. The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom lists Argentina at number 158 in the world. Australia is number 3.
Of Argentina, the Heritage Foundation writes that there is: "extensive government intrusion into free markets"
"the courts are slow, inefficient and vulnerable to corruption."
Such great company.
THV44JRQEAJV
If Chris took off his eye patch for one minute he would see that what this government has achieved in getting a UN Security Council seat is... GROVELLING.
Leftists like Murphy accused Howard of being a sycophant towards Bush. But Howard was simply respecting and upholding an alliance that has enriched Australian and US relations for over 60 years. I'd rather our prime minister be a suck up to the US than court the favour of a corrupt and useless, "leftist" organisation.
So now we rub shoulders with such beacons of humanity and freedom as Rwanda and Argentina. The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom lists Argentina at number 158 in the world. Australia is number 3.
Of Argentina, the Heritage Foundation writes that there is: "extensive government intrusion into free markets"
"the courts are slow, inefficient and vulnerable to corruption."
Such great company.
THV44JRQEAJV
Thursday 18 October 2012
"Misogynist!" the New "Racist!"
Americans have long used racial issues to discredit political candidates, especially Republicans. Opponents of Obama are regularly cited as proof of an undercurrent of racism. MSNBC takes particular pride in calling out this "racism."
Now a new kind of victimhood is catching on.
Both Tony Abbott and Mitt Romney, are said to have a "problem with women."
The gender card is a new card in play, in a long and tiresome list of made up grievances and self proclaimed victimhoods.
At the core of the debate is abortion and so called "choice." I'm not going to get into abortion in this post because it is a subject that requires a post of it's own. However, I will say that feminists, leftists, or what the Americans call: "liberal minded" women have an unhealthy obsession with abortion. The presidential candidate who lets them kill their unborn child whenever they "choose" to, is the candidate they will vote for.
In Australia, the allegations that Tony Abbott is a misogynist stem from he and his party's refusal to approve, should they be voted into government, the abortion pill RU486. The refusal has as much - if not more - to do with safety concerns rather than ethical.
Yet, for women to become so ferocious that they would call a man a misogynist because he chooses to be pro life, shows how intolerant they themselves are.
Of course, there are other reasons why Abbott is accused of misogyny: he's a Catholic male.
British actor, comedian and personality Stephen Fry tweeted that Abbott was that "creepy Christian homophobe." So is he creepy because he's a Christian? Or because he's a homophobe? Or both? This is another case of those shouting "Bigot!" actually being bigots themselves.
Tony Abbott and Mitt Romney are accused of having "women problems" because they, through no fault of there own, happen to be men. It's actually quite sexist and judgemental.
And if women want to complain about how badly Julia Gillard is being treated, I might ask them if they remember how the following women were, and are treated: Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop, Kelly O'Dwyer, Julie Bishop.
"Misogynist!" It's the new "Racist!"
Now a new kind of victimhood is catching on.
Both Tony Abbott and Mitt Romney, are said to have a "problem with women."
The gender card is a new card in play, in a long and tiresome list of made up grievances and self proclaimed victimhoods.
At the core of the debate is abortion and so called "choice." I'm not going to get into abortion in this post because it is a subject that requires a post of it's own. However, I will say that feminists, leftists, or what the Americans call: "liberal minded" women have an unhealthy obsession with abortion. The presidential candidate who lets them kill their unborn child whenever they "choose" to, is the candidate they will vote for.
In Australia, the allegations that Tony Abbott is a misogynist stem from he and his party's refusal to approve, should they be voted into government, the abortion pill RU486. The refusal has as much - if not more - to do with safety concerns rather than ethical.
Yet, for women to become so ferocious that they would call a man a misogynist because he chooses to be pro life, shows how intolerant they themselves are.
Of course, there are other reasons why Abbott is accused of misogyny: he's a Catholic male.
British actor, comedian and personality Stephen Fry tweeted that Abbott was that "creepy Christian homophobe." So is he creepy because he's a Christian? Or because he's a homophobe? Or both? This is another case of those shouting "Bigot!" actually being bigots themselves.
Tony Abbott and Mitt Romney are accused of having "women problems" because they, through no fault of there own, happen to be men. It's actually quite sexist and judgemental.
And if women want to complain about how badly Julia Gillard is being treated, I might ask them if they remember how the following women were, and are treated: Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, Sophie Mirabella, Bronwyn Bishop, Kelly O'Dwyer, Julie Bishop.
"Misogynist!" It's the new "Racist!"
Wednesday 17 October 2012
Criticise Gillard? Go to Jail!
Meet Anne Summers. Apparently Summers is an Australian author and feminist; but if you asked a random Aussie on the street who she was you would probably get a blank stare. Well, stare in confusion no longer, silly plebs, for Ms Summers wants to see you put in jail. Well, not all of you, just you knuckle draggers who criticise the prime minister.
As astute foreigner observers will notice, Australia's prime minister, Julia Gillard, is a woman; the first female prime minister in our nations history. Like all prime ministers before her Gillard has been subject to fair, and maybe sometimes unfair, criticism of her policies and behaviour as prime minister. She has been accused of lying to the Australian people on more than one occassion. She is alleged to have been complicit in an orchestrated race riot on Australia Day 2011. And there are suspicions surrounding her role in the setting up of a union slush fund for her then boyfriend, former Australian Workers Union state secretary Bruce Wilson.
So it becomes clear early on, to even the most green of novices, that Gillard is a woman to be questioned and scrutinised - as all elected officials should be. It's also clear that Anne Summers is a dangerous woman and we should thank God she isn't in any office of political power or influence.
Anne Summers claim, reported in The Australian yesterday, that "sexist" criticisms of Gillard would see people jailed in the United States, is just plain wrong. Summers claims that the attacks (free speech) on Gillard would never have been directed at a male prime minister.
Just look at how nice the Left was to John Howard http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Against_Howard#section_1
Using race (Obama), sexual orientation (the gay lobby), or gender (Gillard) to discourage healthy debate is extremely sinister.
I am not saying that threats to the prime minister should not be investigated. Threats to elected representatives should be taken very seriously. However, Summers is talking not of threats, but of "sexist" criticisms. She considers these prison worthy offences.
Summers has the kind of views Hitler would have been proud of. She even looks like someone whom Hitler would have approved http://www.google.com.au/search?q=anne+summers&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=uqd_UKbrF8v2mAXK74DwDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=306#i=0
Now, what constitutes sexist in Anne Summers mind?
Because she advocates such tyrannical, draconian measures we'll let her decide what is and is not sexist. Judge, jury etc.
Is it sexist to call a man a misogynist simply because he is a man and doesn't share the views of a majority of feminists?
Is it sexist to create a culture of fear and division based around the notion that men are misogynistic and that women are eternal victims?
Because if it is, Summers better get that jail cell ready for herself, the prime minister, and all the other feminazis who have made villains and pariahs of all men, not just Tony Abbott.
Correction: Summers does not call for critics of Gillard to be jailed. She does however claim that in the US such "sexist sprays" would be "targeted for criminal investigation." Anne Summers should be well aware that this creates the potential for people to be jailed.
As astute foreigner observers will notice, Australia's prime minister, Julia Gillard, is a woman; the first female prime minister in our nations history. Like all prime ministers before her Gillard has been subject to fair, and maybe sometimes unfair, criticism of her policies and behaviour as prime minister. She has been accused of lying to the Australian people on more than one occassion. She is alleged to have been complicit in an orchestrated race riot on Australia Day 2011. And there are suspicions surrounding her role in the setting up of a union slush fund for her then boyfriend, former Australian Workers Union state secretary Bruce Wilson.
So it becomes clear early on, to even the most green of novices, that Gillard is a woman to be questioned and scrutinised - as all elected officials should be. It's also clear that Anne Summers is a dangerous woman and we should thank God she isn't in any office of political power or influence.
Anne Summers claim, reported in The Australian yesterday, that "sexist" criticisms of Gillard would see people jailed in the United States, is just plain wrong. Summers claims that the attacks (free speech) on Gillard would never have been directed at a male prime minister.
Just look at how nice the Left was to John Howard http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Against_Howard#section_1
Using race (Obama), sexual orientation (the gay lobby), or gender (Gillard) to discourage healthy debate is extremely sinister.
I am not saying that threats to the prime minister should not be investigated. Threats to elected representatives should be taken very seriously. However, Summers is talking not of threats, but of "sexist" criticisms. She considers these prison worthy offences.
Summers has the kind of views Hitler would have been proud of. She even looks like someone whom Hitler would have approved http://www.google.com.au/search?q=anne+summers&hl=en&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=uqd_UKbrF8v2mAXK74DwDQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=306#i=0
Now, what constitutes sexist in Anne Summers mind?
Because she advocates such tyrannical, draconian measures we'll let her decide what is and is not sexist. Judge, jury etc.
Is it sexist to call a man a misogynist simply because he is a man and doesn't share the views of a majority of feminists?
Is it sexist to create a culture of fear and division based around the notion that men are misogynistic and that women are eternal victims?
Because if it is, Summers better get that jail cell ready for herself, the prime minister, and all the other feminazis who have made villains and pariahs of all men, not just Tony Abbott.
Correction: Summers does not call for critics of Gillard to be jailed. She does however claim that in the US such "sexist sprays" would be "targeted for criminal investigation." Anne Summers should be well aware that this creates the potential for people to be jailed.
Christine Assange Advocates Freedom of Information; Blocks Tweets She Disagrees With
Christine Assange's son, Julian, wants a more open and transparent world. He wants the US government and military to be more open and honest. Freedom should mean freedom of information. That includes speech, right? A free press? Which is why it's struck me how astoundingly contradictory Assange's motives are (which I have said since August?) He seeks asylum in a country which is anything but open and transparent.
The Heritage Foundation ranks Ecuador 156 on it's list of economic freedom. 153 places below Australia.
When I pointed this out to Christine Assange, who claimed falsely that Ecuador has 80% democracy and growing (Australia and America have 100%, Christine), she blocked me.
Free speech, anyone?
The Heritage Foundation ranks Ecuador 156 on it's list of economic freedom. 153 places below Australia.
When I pointed this out to Christine Assange, who claimed falsely that Ecuador has 80% democracy and growing (Australia and America have 100%, Christine), she blocked me.
Free speech, anyone?
Tuesday 16 October 2012
Gillard, Tyson, India. Abbott is a Misogynist?
What a crazy week. A convicted rapist says that Tony Abbott is a product of a "sexist society"; and Indians chat with Julia Gillard about sexism in Australia and her views on Abbott.
Is this the same Indian where arranged marriages are still common?
The same India in which wives were once, and in some cases still are, classed as chattel to be traded for cows or goats.
We don't need to be lectured to on sexism and misogyny by people like that.
Is this the same Indian where arranged marriages are still common?
The same India in which wives were once, and in some cases still are, classed as chattel to be traded for cows or goats.
We don't need to be lectured to on sexism and misogyny by people like that.
The Second Presidential Debate
These style of standing debates are strange to a non American's eyes. The candidates always come across as students standing before the dean or a principal. I do like that the audience has more influence over the course of the discussion. There's something about this kind of intimate, forum style that forces the candidates to be more open. Not hiding behind a lectern exposes them as naked, open, more human.
So what of the issues?
Obama has, throughout this campaign, gone after Romney over taxes and the issue of tax rates for the top bracket vs the middle class. Romney, it is claimed, wants tax cuts for the wealthy and for the rich to play by a "different set of rules." Yet when Romney declared that the top earners would not receive tax cuts, and the middle class would, Obama dismissed this, asking how the Governor would achieve it.
Obama is more concerned about the government losing revenue than he is about businesses losing staff because of high taxes.
Obama continues to portray the businesses of America as evil corporate 1 percenters, while ignoring the shop owners, and small start up businesses working from the back of their garage.
And on energy? it's the same old business. Talking up expensive, unreliable green power. Dissapointingly, Romney also pledged to support green energy; but only, I believe, to try to court the student vote. Liberals arevt going to vote for Romney no matter how moderate he appears. But if he can atleast appear open to the possibility of renewables... maybe...
So the winner? Well, Obama definitely came out stronger than last time. He's been practising without a TelePrompter. Ha.
The O camp will be happy with that performance. Now it all comes down to Florida. Which, along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, is likely to be where the election will swing. Right now it's neck and neck. But three weeks is an eternity in the world of politics.
So what of the issues?
Obama has, throughout this campaign, gone after Romney over taxes and the issue of tax rates for the top bracket vs the middle class. Romney, it is claimed, wants tax cuts for the wealthy and for the rich to play by a "different set of rules." Yet when Romney declared that the top earners would not receive tax cuts, and the middle class would, Obama dismissed this, asking how the Governor would achieve it.
Obama is more concerned about the government losing revenue than he is about businesses losing staff because of high taxes.
Obama continues to portray the businesses of America as evil corporate 1 percenters, while ignoring the shop owners, and small start up businesses working from the back of their garage.
And on energy? it's the same old business. Talking up expensive, unreliable green power. Dissapointingly, Romney also pledged to support green energy; but only, I believe, to try to court the student vote. Liberals arevt going to vote for Romney no matter how moderate he appears. But if he can atleast appear open to the possibility of renewables... maybe...
So the winner? Well, Obama definitely came out stronger than last time. He's been practising without a TelePrompter. Ha.
The O camp will be happy with that performance. Now it all comes down to Florida. Which, along with Ohio and Pennsylvania, is likely to be where the election will swing. Right now it's neck and neck. But three weeks is an eternity in the world of politics.
Saturday 13 October 2012
The Left Are SO Smart, Just Ask Them... Oh, and It's All Bush's Fault
Bill Maher, Bill Maher, Bill Maher. Oh dear, oh dear. You liberals just can't get over Bush. It's an infatuation.
Ben Affleck made an appearance on Real Time on Friday - you know, to seem like a smart liberal - with Bill Maher in the room, seeming smart wouldn't have been too difficult a feat.
Now it's true that liberals know everything about everything. Just ask them. They were all born with IQs of 150. They were instantly enlightened at birth as to the ways of all cultures, races and creeds. And only they have the power to speak truly from the heart about issues like AIDS in Africa and oppression in the Middle East. Because they really care about brown people. Chris Matthews told them about them.
Now, being aware that liberals are so smart, I always get lost in the mystical fog they emit as they belch hot air from their all knowing mouths.
Ben Affleck: Bush was a profoundly stupid guy.
Oh, wise Ben, you have learnt well, my chela. For the way to appear smarter is to make some other guy look dumb. It's the reason atheist teenagers around the world think they are evolutionary biologists when debating Christians. It's why every 16 year old was suddenly an English major whenever Bush spoke. Now smug liberal Ben Affleck is so smart because he knows that there are Sunni Muslims, as well as Shiite. You theological genius, Ben. If only you could put those brains into making a movie that doesn't suck. How hard could it be, Ben?
Affleck's remark came after fellow panelist, congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) metioned the Obama administrations mishandling of the Libyan embassy attacks on September 11. Maher came in to defend Obama. He made the point that Bush didn't even know that there was more than one Islamic denomination. Cue professor Affleck's comment.
Deflecting blame from Obama, by making a comment about how "stupid" Bush was, does not mitigate Obama's Biblical sized stuff up(s).
4 Americans are murdered? "Don't blame Obama. Blah blah blah. Leave Obama alone. Blah blah blah."
Bush isn't up to scratch on his Islamic denominations? "stupid man!"
The Left are so infatuated and obssesed with Bush they manage to mention his name when talking about the stuff ups of Obama. You know, the guy who's been President for 4 years. The guy who is supposed to protect Americans.
With all this blaming and finger pointing at a former Republican, I'm surprised Democrats haven't brought up Rutherford B. Hayes stealing the 1876 election as the reason Obama is so terrible. Yeah. It's all his fault. Actually, now I mention it, let's blame every Republican who has ever lived. And let's blame every ancestor of Bush, and every descendant. Even better, lets blame everyone or everything with Bush in it's name: rose bushes, blackberry bushes, the Aussie bush, the Bush Taker Man, the band Bush, Kate Bush. It's all your fault!
Ben Affleck made an appearance on Real Time on Friday - you know, to seem like a smart liberal - with Bill Maher in the room, seeming smart wouldn't have been too difficult a feat.
Now it's true that liberals know everything about everything. Just ask them. They were all born with IQs of 150. They were instantly enlightened at birth as to the ways of all cultures, races and creeds. And only they have the power to speak truly from the heart about issues like AIDS in Africa and oppression in the Middle East. Because they really care about brown people. Chris Matthews told them about them.
Now, being aware that liberals are so smart, I always get lost in the mystical fog they emit as they belch hot air from their all knowing mouths.
Ben Affleck: Bush was a profoundly stupid guy.
Oh, wise Ben, you have learnt well, my chela. For the way to appear smarter is to make some other guy look dumb. It's the reason atheist teenagers around the world think they are evolutionary biologists when debating Christians. It's why every 16 year old was suddenly an English major whenever Bush spoke. Now smug liberal Ben Affleck is so smart because he knows that there are Sunni Muslims, as well as Shiite. You theological genius, Ben. If only you could put those brains into making a movie that doesn't suck. How hard could it be, Ben?
Affleck's remark came after fellow panelist, congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) metioned the Obama administrations mishandling of the Libyan embassy attacks on September 11. Maher came in to defend Obama. He made the point that Bush didn't even know that there was more than one Islamic denomination. Cue professor Affleck's comment.
Deflecting blame from Obama, by making a comment about how "stupid" Bush was, does not mitigate Obama's Biblical sized stuff up(s).
4 Americans are murdered? "Don't blame Obama. Blah blah blah. Leave Obama alone. Blah blah blah."
Bush isn't up to scratch on his Islamic denominations? "stupid man!"
The Left are so infatuated and obssesed with Bush they manage to mention his name when talking about the stuff ups of Obama. You know, the guy who's been President for 4 years. The guy who is supposed to protect Americans.
With all this blaming and finger pointing at a former Republican, I'm surprised Democrats haven't brought up Rutherford B. Hayes stealing the 1876 election as the reason Obama is so terrible. Yeah. It's all his fault. Actually, now I mention it, let's blame every Republican who has ever lived. And let's blame every ancestor of Bush, and every descendant. Even better, lets blame everyone or everything with Bush in it's name: rose bushes, blackberry bushes, the Aussie bush, the Bush Taker Man, the band Bush, Kate Bush. It's all your fault!
Armstrong Still a Hero in My Eyes
Yes, I strongly believed that Lance Armstrong was innocent of doping allegations. No, I wasn't in denial. Yes, I suspected an anti-American conspiracy from French cycling snobs who couldn't stand to see an America take seven Tour titles. But now, after a week of revelations from even Armstrong's fellow team members that he took banned substances, even I am compelled to accept that he cheated.
The memories of cheering on this heroic man are etched in my mind. Now, the revelations come like a thud to the guts.
He might have lost his seven tour titles, but one victory that can never be taken away from him... beating cancer - twice. This is Armstrong's greatest victory. And it will always remain. To many, that is what made this man. The doping controversy takes nothing away from the fact he had the heart and the will to survive when death came riding in to claim him.
The memories of cheering on this heroic man are etched in my mind. Now, the revelations come like a thud to the guts.
He might have lost his seven tour titles, but one victory that can never be taken away from him... beating cancer - twice. This is Armstrong's greatest victory. And it will always remain. To many, that is what made this man. The doping controversy takes nothing away from the fact he had the heart and the will to survive when death came riding in to claim him.
Friday 12 October 2012
Nobel Prizes Do it Again
The International Society For Heads Stuck Up Asses strike again with their pointless peace prize. The EU - the same EU that has attempted to initiate big government under the guise of a "united Europe", the same EU that pats itself on the back that Europe hasn't had a mass genocide since, oh, the 90s. Go Europe!
Australia has never had a civil war; we didn't fight a war for our independencexslavery was never a legal institution in my country; no Australian governor general, or prime minister has ever been assassinated*. Only one politician has ever been murdered - John Newman. Another, Arthur Calwell, was shot while sitting in his car but survived, getting the majority of his injuries from the glass that smashed as the bullet passed through the window.
So... where's our Nobel Peace Prize? Can we have Yasser Arafat's. He's dead. He shouldn't have had it in the first place, and he doesn't need it now.
Maybe next year the alternate reality chardonnay socialists of scandanavia will honour Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last month he told Piers Morgan he was in love with all humanity. Jews, Americans, Gays, Israel and every sane person in the world laughed. Mahmoud does irony. Perhaps the Nobel Prizes commitee does too.
*In 1868 the Prince of Wales, visiting from England, survived an Assassination attempt while in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the landing of the First Fleet.
Australia has never had a civil war; we didn't fight a war for our independencexslavery was never a legal institution in my country; no Australian governor general, or prime minister has ever been assassinated*. Only one politician has ever been murdered - John Newman. Another, Arthur Calwell, was shot while sitting in his car but survived, getting the majority of his injuries from the glass that smashed as the bullet passed through the window.
So... where's our Nobel Peace Prize? Can we have Yasser Arafat's. He's dead. He shouldn't have had it in the first place, and he doesn't need it now.
Maybe next year the alternate reality chardonnay socialists of scandanavia will honour Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last month he told Piers Morgan he was in love with all humanity. Jews, Americans, Gays, Israel and every sane person in the world laughed. Mahmoud does irony. Perhaps the Nobel Prizes commitee does too.
*In 1868 the Prince of Wales, visiting from England, survived an Assassination attempt while in Sydney to mark the 80th anniversary of the landing of the First Fleet.
Brave Malala
We Aussies have a saying for those who pick on the weaker, younger or smaller. We call them flat track bullies. It's a term derived from the sporting field - much like Americans might say someone "hit it out of the park", or went "the whole nine yards".
The term applies to teams or players who confidentally beat weaker, lower ranked teams, yet are exposed and easily beaten by superior, or even teams with an equal standing.
Real world example of flat track bullies:
The Taliban: shoot a 14 year old girl, wounding, but thankfully not killing her - run to the mountains and hide when faced with the US army.
Threaten to kill same 14 year old girl - cower in caves from the Australian army.
Malala Yousufzai, is a brave young girl; an activist fighting a worthy cause: education for all women.
While we in the West get upset if the government introduces a new tax, or the banks raise interest rates, the Taliban get really irate if women start learning.
Malala is courageous and... I'm not going to keep adding superlatives. None of them could ever do justice to the resolve of a 14 year old who gets shot twice - in the head and neck - but survives and keeps fighting.
The only thing better than seeing the Taliban brought down and destroyed, is seeing their victims get up and survive.
The term applies to teams or players who confidentally beat weaker, lower ranked teams, yet are exposed and easily beaten by superior, or even teams with an equal standing.
Real world example of flat track bullies:
The Taliban: shoot a 14 year old girl, wounding, but thankfully not killing her - run to the mountains and hide when faced with the US army.
Threaten to kill same 14 year old girl - cower in caves from the Australian army.
Malala Yousufzai, is a brave young girl; an activist fighting a worthy cause: education for all women.
While we in the West get upset if the government introduces a new tax, or the banks raise interest rates, the Taliban get really irate if women start learning.
Malala is courageous and... I'm not going to keep adding superlatives. None of them could ever do justice to the resolve of a 14 year old who gets shot twice - in the head and neck - but survives and keeps fighting.
The only thing better than seeing the Taliban brought down and destroyed, is seeing their victims get up and survive.
The Vice Presidential Debate
The Obama camp just breathed a sigh relief. In a fortnight which saw the President comprehensively beaten and exposed in the 1st Presidential debate, and the revelations that the US embassy in Benghazi had been refused extra security prior to the attacks that killed four Americans including ambassador Christopher Stevens, this was a second wind the Democratic Party desperately needed.
Biden came out like an Irish prize fighter. He actually seemed more presidential than the president. I think maybe Ryan was a little taken aback; that was evident early. It looked to me like Ryan was expecting to encounter a dog with his tail between his legs, apologetic and stuttering. Instead, Biden was like an old hand. Ryan, the novice.
Don't get me wrong. Ryan was NOT slaughtered like the Obama grill and roast the week before. (Romney is still licking the meat off the bones).
Ryan's biggest problem was not standing up to the rudeness of Biden. Biden lost points for this, in my eyes. But Ryan lost even more for not at least attempting to negate it, or even to tell Biden to stop. Ironic that Ryan was talking about America being exposed as weak to her enemies, all the while himself being exposed as weak for not biting back hard enough at Biden.
82 times Biden interrupted Ryan. He was most rude when Ryan was attempting to explain how he would lower tax rates by 20 percent, while also increasing defence spending. If Biden really wanted answers to his questions he would do well to listen.
(Extra note): I have a feeling Americans won't take kindly to Biden's dismissal of Iran's nuclear threat. At best it was generous, at worst reckless.
Biden came out like an Irish prize fighter. He actually seemed more presidential than the president. I think maybe Ryan was a little taken aback; that was evident early. It looked to me like Ryan was expecting to encounter a dog with his tail between his legs, apologetic and stuttering. Instead, Biden was like an old hand. Ryan, the novice.
Don't get me wrong. Ryan was NOT slaughtered like the Obama grill and roast the week before. (Romney is still licking the meat off the bones).
Ryan's biggest problem was not standing up to the rudeness of Biden. Biden lost points for this, in my eyes. But Ryan lost even more for not at least attempting to negate it, or even to tell Biden to stop. Ironic that Ryan was talking about America being exposed as weak to her enemies, all the while himself being exposed as weak for not biting back hard enough at Biden.
82 times Biden interrupted Ryan. He was most rude when Ryan was attempting to explain how he would lower tax rates by 20 percent, while also increasing defence spending. If Biden really wanted answers to his questions he would do well to listen.
(Extra note): I have a feeling Americans won't take kindly to Biden's dismissal of Iran's nuclear threat. At best it was generous, at worst reckless.
Thursday 11 October 2012
Gay Marriage Infringes on Religious Freedom
Many supporters of gay marriage use the separation of Church and State argument when explaining why same sex unions should be legalised. They argue that religious views on marriage, and religious laws, should not influence state legislation, especially in secular societies. However gay marriage proponents forget two well known truths:
1. that our laws were influenced by religious articles like the Ten Commandments; that the monotheistic faiths have had a very important hand in building the basic structures of law and order that keep nations like Australia and America stable and free from anarchy.
2. That separation of Church and State works both ways. The government is prohibited from creating a state based religion. No man may be discriminated against based on his chosen religion, or even if he chooses to have no religion.
This is true. But it also applies the other way. Government may not interfere in the running of the church. That includes interfering in the conducting of services, altering rules that make up the dogma and tenets of that church, and forcing the church to abide by laws that contradict it's own rules and infringe upon it's freedoms.
In fact, the original notion of a separation was intended to protect not the people from a tyrannical theocracy, but to protect the Church from an interventionist and tyrannical government. Legalisation of gay marriage would wipe away this basic tenet of Western freedom. If gay marriage were to be legalised across the whole of America, the whole of Australia, (not civil unions, but full marriage rights) that would mean churches would lose the right to practice their faith free from government interference. Government legislation would dictate who they can and MUST allow to marry. Any church that refuses could, and most definitely would, be sued.
The Christian belief, that marriage is between a man and a woman only, would be trumped, stamped out and swallowed up by government busy-bodies. Essentially, the State interfering in the Church. As a Christian I find it hard to stomach that atheists and other alleged champions of "rights" and "freedoms" think these precious things only apply to themselves and other non-religious types.
Places like North Korea show us that atheist societies can be just as oppressive as theocracies. It's an example of what a fine line there is between the giving of a right to one group and the taking of a right from another. Lovers of freedom - atheist and theist alike - can only hope that current and future politicians keep in mind all whose rights are likely to be effected by changes to marriage laws.
1. that our laws were influenced by religious articles like the Ten Commandments; that the monotheistic faiths have had a very important hand in building the basic structures of law and order that keep nations like Australia and America stable and free from anarchy.
2. That separation of Church and State works both ways. The government is prohibited from creating a state based religion. No man may be discriminated against based on his chosen religion, or even if he chooses to have no religion.
This is true. But it also applies the other way. Government may not interfere in the running of the church. That includes interfering in the conducting of services, altering rules that make up the dogma and tenets of that church, and forcing the church to abide by laws that contradict it's own rules and infringe upon it's freedoms.
In fact, the original notion of a separation was intended to protect not the people from a tyrannical theocracy, but to protect the Church from an interventionist and tyrannical government. Legalisation of gay marriage would wipe away this basic tenet of Western freedom. If gay marriage were to be legalised across the whole of America, the whole of Australia, (not civil unions, but full marriage rights) that would mean churches would lose the right to practice their faith free from government interference. Government legislation would dictate who they can and MUST allow to marry. Any church that refuses could, and most definitely would, be sued.
The Christian belief, that marriage is between a man and a woman only, would be trumped, stamped out and swallowed up by government busy-bodies. Essentially, the State interfering in the Church. As a Christian I find it hard to stomach that atheists and other alleged champions of "rights" and "freedoms" think these precious things only apply to themselves and other non-religious types.
Places like North Korea show us that atheist societies can be just as oppressive as theocracies. It's an example of what a fine line there is between the giving of a right to one group and the taking of a right from another. Lovers of freedom - atheist and theist alike - can only hope that current and future politicians keep in mind all whose rights are likely to be effected by changes to marriage laws.
Wednesday 10 October 2012
Obama's Ring - Conspiracy?
Kooks and conspiracy theory nuts are just as bad when they come from the conservative side of politics. All those claiming Obama has the Shahadah (Islamic oath that is the requirement for becoming a Muslim) written on a gold ring, are doing the conservative cause a disservice. This only fuels the Left in it's belief that conservatives are intolerant nut jobs and conspiracy freaks.
We need to fight Obama on the facts, not on assumptions or crazy theories.
Obama has more faults than allegedly being a "secret Muslim. Romney is committed to focusing on these faults. Things like Obama's Carter like weakness in the wake of the murders in Benghazi. His racial game playing and race baiting after the Trayvon Martin shooting. His secrecy regarding his education records and the socialist connections of himself and his family. His support for abortion and partial birth abortion. His support for gay marriage. Skyrocketing debt and 24 million unemployed during his tenure. 4 years and the debt tripled. These are all areas in which Obama deserves criticism. Concentrating on unproven maybes and crackpot controversies mean he avoids the real scrutiny he should receive.
We need to fight Obama on the facts, not on assumptions or crazy theories.
Obama has more faults than allegedly being a "secret Muslim. Romney is committed to focusing on these faults. Things like Obama's Carter like weakness in the wake of the murders in Benghazi. His racial game playing and race baiting after the Trayvon Martin shooting. His secrecy regarding his education records and the socialist connections of himself and his family. His support for abortion and partial birth abortion. His support for gay marriage. Skyrocketing debt and 24 million unemployed during his tenure. 4 years and the debt tripled. These are all areas in which Obama deserves criticism. Concentrating on unproven maybes and crackpot controversies mean he avoids the real scrutiny he should receive.
So, the State Department, through the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, repeatedly rejected requests for more security at the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Four Americans are murdered, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. How could the Obama administration possibly cover it's sorry behind? How about... blame it on a film. A horribly made, D-grade film.
Yes. This will suffice. Because angry Libyan Muslims would never attack a US embassy in their country. And of course the date had nothing to do with it.
Well the film excuse won't hold up anymore. It's rubbish. It's a lie. A lie created for convienience. A lie used to cover up the failings of the President to do his job in protecting Americans home and abroad. This was a well planned and performed attack on an embassy. An attack to celebrate the attacks on America of 11 years prior. Attacks that many fanatics celebrated as if their team had won the superbowl. Of course fanatics are going to commemorate an attack on the one nation in the world they have so much hatred for.
Obama's rush to apologise for the fanatics and murderers by blaming a film (thereby excusing the perpertrators) for the murder of American citizens, is a betrayal of the people and nation he swore to serve. He has let America down, and as a result, compromised the safety of all embassies in the region.
Yes. This will suffice. Because angry Libyan Muslims would never attack a US embassy in their country. And of course the date had nothing to do with it.
Well the film excuse won't hold up anymore. It's rubbish. It's a lie. A lie created for convienience. A lie used to cover up the failings of the President to do his job in protecting Americans home and abroad. This was a well planned and performed attack on an embassy. An attack to celebrate the attacks on America of 11 years prior. Attacks that many fanatics celebrated as if their team had won the superbowl. Of course fanatics are going to commemorate an attack on the one nation in the world they have so much hatred for.
Obama's rush to apologise for the fanatics and murderers by blaming a film (thereby excusing the perpertrators) for the murder of American citizens, is a betrayal of the people and nation he swore to serve. He has let America down, and as a result, compromised the safety of all embassies in the region.
Steven Spielberg has delayed the release of his latest film "Lincoln", about the 16th President and the last days of the Civil War. Oh, dear. We can't remind the voters that the Republican Party was founded as an abolitionist party. We couldn't possibly remind them that it was the Democrats who were the party of slavery. They might do something crazy like... VOTE REPUBLICAN. That would just shock Mr. Spielberg's sensibilities. *Groan.
Tuesday 9 October 2012
The Manners of the Facebook Generation
I knew we lacked manners in this age, but this is astounding. Shocking and brutal sexism. Facebook should suspend this site immediately: http://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=479929765361893&id=249093695112169&set=a.250816424939896.62357.249093695112169&refid=17
Romney Restores Sanity to Foreign Policy
Ah! Breathe in the fresh air of freedom. And behold a man willing to fight for it.
In his speech to the Virginia Military Institute, Romney says what Obama was too polite (or scared) to. That the attacks on the US embassy in Libya had nothing to do with a terribly made, awfully written and acted movie, but were in fact the work of extremists looking to comemorate the evil deeds of 11 years ago.
Romney spoke with pride about America exceptionalism. An American presidential candidate who talks up America, while condemning her enemies. In other words, sanity is slowly being regained.
Romney called out Obama on his silence over Iran, his distancing of America from Israel, his failure to speak out more vehementally and passionately against that Syrian tyrant thug Assad.
Obama is no better than a police officer who stands by while a mob beats up a sole innocent. He is as bad as the perpetrators of these crimes. By doing and saying nothing he is a tyrant appeaser who would make Neville Chamberlain blush.
Romney continued by stating he would contribute to the Navy 15 new ships, 3 submarines and "implement missile defences to protect against threats."
He refused to consider any compromises, stating there would be "no flexibility with Vladmir Putin."
Here is a man who is tough, uncompromising, and committed to protecting, not disarming America.
Romney's intentions to promote more free trade in the Middle East is the policy that stood out for me. Free trade is the surest way to peace. This is the first step in his plans to influence a two state peace aggrement between Israel and Palestine.
Free economies, free trade, all well read conservatives know this is the way to peace.
I was also pleased, and assured, to hear Romney state that under him the United States would pursue those murderers responsible for the attacks in Benghazi. Murdered Americas deserve justice. The least the families of the murdered deserve is to see the killers of their loved ones punished in such a way that fits the severity of the autrocities.
I am hopeful of a REAL hope and change.
Remember, Romney is doing this with out media cheerleading. Can't say that about the coward-in-chief.
Romney spoke with pride about America exceptionalism. An American presidential candidate who talks up America, while condemning her enemies. In other words, sanity is slowly being regained.
Romney called out Obama on his silence over Iran, his distancing of America from Israel, his failure to speak out more vehementally and passionately against that Syrian tyrant thug Assad.
Obama is no better than a police officer who stands by while a mob beats up a sole innocent. He is as bad as the perpetrators of these crimes. By doing and saying nothing he is a tyrant appeaser who would make Neville Chamberlain blush.
Romney continued by stating he would contribute to the Navy 15 new ships, 3 submarines and "implement missile defences to protect against threats."
He refused to consider any compromises, stating there would be "no flexibility with Vladmir Putin."
Here is a man who is tough, uncompromising, and committed to protecting, not disarming America.
Romney's intentions to promote more free trade in the Middle East is the policy that stood out for me. Free trade is the surest way to peace. This is the first step in his plans to influence a two state peace aggrement between Israel and Palestine.
Free economies, free trade, all well read conservatives know this is the way to peace.
I was also pleased, and assured, to hear Romney state that under him the United States would pursue those murderers responsible for the attacks in Benghazi. Murdered Americas deserve justice. The least the families of the murdered deserve is to see the killers of their loved ones punished in such a way that fits the severity of the autrocities.
I am hopeful of a REAL hope and change.
Remember, Romney is doing this with out media cheerleading. Can't say that about the coward-in-chief.
Monday 8 October 2012
"Clueless" Liberals Mock a Beautiful, Intelligent Woman
Black Republican voters always come across as less bitter, less cynical, more outwardly happy than their Democrat voting haters. And Stacey Dash is no exception.
"House Negro"; "Uncle Tom"; just some of the racially charged names the brave actress has been called in the last 24 hours; proving that liberals just can't get over their own racist past, and the racist past of the Democrat Party.
Liberal Blacks still use slavery era terms to attack Blacks who don't play the script. Stacey would have read a fair few scripts in her time. She was smart enough to reject the one handed out to her by Black liberal America.
The real "Uncle Toms" are Democrat voters. Democrats were the party of White supremacy. Democrats were the party of slavery. Democrats approved segregation, while denying civil rights. The KKK was set up by Southern Democrats. So Black people voting for Democrats are supporting the party of the slave master. They are the "Uncle Toms."
And White people still have Blacks in chains. The fact that Dash was mocked by White people, as well as Blacks, shows that they don't like losing Blacks to Republicans, just like 150 years ago they didn't like losing Blacks to freedom.
MSNBC nutjob, Chris Matthews, even thinks Obama would have performed better in the first debate if he had just "Watched the show."
So Obama didn't perform well because he didn't listen to White folks on cable. Supremacists.
So Stacey Dash is "clueless" (yeah, the leftist media is using that pun. Cringe.) because she intends to vote for the same party that MLK once did. The party that has treated Black Americans as part of America, and not APART from America. The Party that freed the slaves.
If ignorant liberals can't accept that, they can just shut up and vote Obama. Whoopi, Rachel, Chris and Bill promise not to make any jokes.
"House Negro"; "Uncle Tom"; just some of the racially charged names the brave actress has been called in the last 24 hours; proving that liberals just can't get over their own racist past, and the racist past of the Democrat Party.
Liberal Blacks still use slavery era terms to attack Blacks who don't play the script. Stacey would have read a fair few scripts in her time. She was smart enough to reject the one handed out to her by Black liberal America.
The real "Uncle Toms" are Democrat voters. Democrats were the party of White supremacy. Democrats were the party of slavery. Democrats approved segregation, while denying civil rights. The KKK was set up by Southern Democrats. So Black people voting for Democrats are supporting the party of the slave master. They are the "Uncle Toms."
And White people still have Blacks in chains. The fact that Dash was mocked by White people, as well as Blacks, shows that they don't like losing Blacks to Republicans, just like 150 years ago they didn't like losing Blacks to freedom.
MSNBC nutjob, Chris Matthews, even thinks Obama would have performed better in the first debate if he had just "Watched the show."
So Obama didn't perform well because he didn't listen to White folks on cable. Supremacists.
So Stacey Dash is "clueless" (yeah, the leftist media is using that pun. Cringe.) because she intends to vote for the same party that MLK once did. The party that has treated Black Americans as part of America, and not APART from America. The Party that freed the slaves.
If ignorant liberals can't accept that, they can just shut up and vote Obama. Whoopi, Rachel, Chris and Bill promise not to make any jokes.
Holier Than Thou, Dude.
The Left is so convinced that they are the knights of virtue and righteousness. They are the guards and patrons of peace, beauty, culture and awareness. If only the truth were as hilarious.
The Left - through the education system, the media, and now the online world - has fooled generation after generation that they are the promoters of peace and tolerance.
A university teacher of mine once declared openly that she was a leftist. This might have come across as brave to any Left leaning students; and perhaps she herself it was courageous. But a braver thing would have been to open up as a conservative on a campus of Che crusaders.
This teacher was of the belief that her leftism made her particularly sensitive when it came to racial issues. This belief was not only distorted, but also unsupported by historical fact and social evidence.
The Left is no more likely to be "tolerant" and "sensitive" than the Right. In fact, the Left has shown itself to be quite racially regressive in the past.
The KKK were Southern Democrats. Politicians like Robert Byrd and George Wallace blocked opposed civil rights and ends to segregation and inequality.
Hitler was a socialist who wanted to nationalise industry and control production.
Karl Marx was an anti-Semite.
The Nazis were environmentalists. They banned animal testing (sadly they didn't ban testing on Jewish children).
They enacted tough gun control, intiated anti smoking laws, and made steps to protect the forests of Germany. All pet projects and loves of the Left.
So what other claims do liberals make? That they are the political ideology of peace. Che Guevara, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. All such peaceful men.
The Left are against imperalism( they despise the idea of superpowers (which is why so many liberal Americans hate their own country); they hate military dictatorships, (fair enough. So do I. So did the man in my background). Now lets look again at those names.
Guevara - militant revolutionary; murdered people for for
political cause; used force to bring his ideas to fruition.
Castro - Alongside Guevara, murdered innocent people, dragged
the survivors into 50 years of poverty while he chomped away at expensive cigars.
Did I mention that what they set to achieve, and succeeded in doing, was to set up a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.
The Left also claim to be the guardians of cultural traditions and artistic beauty. The facts: Pol Pot - murdered the educated, and anyone with glasses who looked like they might have a high intellect.
Mao's cultural revolution murdered all those who opposed and dissented it. A cultural and political cleansing occured.
If liberals care so much about culture why are they always degrading Christian belief and traditions as "fairy tales", and the life and work of Christ as fictitious. Why do they call those who have pride in America, or Britain, or Australia, "racists?" Why are they ashamed of our histories? Our national anthems? Our flags? Why do they tread on the traditions of Christmas by demoting it to a "holiday season", or a "winter break." Why such terms? Why such cultural destruction?
I do not claim that we conservatives have a monopoly on peace and tolerance. I do not for a second claim that conservative politics has been without scandal. But never has conservative politics reached the kind of backward, stagnant, murderous lows of progressivism (read: regressivism).
We conservatives do not sanctimoniously claim we are the crusaders of tolerance. It is the Left that does that. And it's that sanctimony that is most grating when one knows that it's at odds with the savage and bloody truth.
The Left - through the education system, the media, and now the online world - has fooled generation after generation that they are the promoters of peace and tolerance.
A university teacher of mine once declared openly that she was a leftist. This might have come across as brave to any Left leaning students; and perhaps she herself it was courageous. But a braver thing would have been to open up as a conservative on a campus of Che crusaders.
This teacher was of the belief that her leftism made her particularly sensitive when it came to racial issues. This belief was not only distorted, but also unsupported by historical fact and social evidence.
The Left is no more likely to be "tolerant" and "sensitive" than the Right. In fact, the Left has shown itself to be quite racially regressive in the past.
The KKK were Southern Democrats. Politicians like Robert Byrd and George Wallace blocked opposed civil rights and ends to segregation and inequality.
Hitler was a socialist who wanted to nationalise industry and control production.
Karl Marx was an anti-Semite.
The Nazis were environmentalists. They banned animal testing (sadly they didn't ban testing on Jewish children).
They enacted tough gun control, intiated anti smoking laws, and made steps to protect the forests of Germany. All pet projects and loves of the Left.
So what other claims do liberals make? That they are the political ideology of peace. Che Guevara, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot. All such peaceful men.
The Left are against imperalism( they despise the idea of superpowers (which is why so many liberal Americans hate their own country); they hate military dictatorships, (fair enough. So do I. So did the man in my background). Now lets look again at those names.
Guevara - militant revolutionary; murdered people for for
political cause; used force to bring his ideas to fruition.
Castro - Alongside Guevara, murdered innocent people, dragged
the survivors into 50 years of poverty while he chomped away at expensive cigars.
Did I mention that what they set to achieve, and succeeded in doing, was to set up a MILITARY DICTATORSHIP.
The Left also claim to be the guardians of cultural traditions and artistic beauty. The facts: Pol Pot - murdered the educated, and anyone with glasses who looked like they might have a high intellect.
Mao's cultural revolution murdered all those who opposed and dissented it. A cultural and political cleansing occured.
If liberals care so much about culture why are they always degrading Christian belief and traditions as "fairy tales", and the life and work of Christ as fictitious. Why do they call those who have pride in America, or Britain, or Australia, "racists?" Why are they ashamed of our histories? Our national anthems? Our flags? Why do they tread on the traditions of Christmas by demoting it to a "holiday season", or a "winter break." Why such terms? Why such cultural destruction?
I do not claim that we conservatives have a monopoly on peace and tolerance. I do not for a second claim that conservative politics has been without scandal. But never has conservative politics reached the kind of backward, stagnant, murderous lows of progressivism (read: regressivism).
We conservatives do not sanctimoniously claim we are the crusaders of tolerance. It is the Left that does that. And it's that sanctimony that is most grating when one knows that it's at odds with the savage and bloody truth.
Hugo Chavez's Socialist "Success."
Could we show this to Sean Penn? Such a utopia of freedom and progress: http://www.heritage.org/index/country/venezuela
Friday 5 October 2012
The Bitter, Spiteful Haters.
The left shows it's lack of class. As if we didn't already know they were cretins and bottom dwellers.
ttp://memegenerator.net/instance/27859411?urlName=Sensitive-Tony&browsingOrder=New&browsingTimeSpan=AllTime
The leftist bullies who have taken over the web, are getting much enjoyment out of posting bile like this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gabster0191/status/254088610930913280?p=v
Tony Abbott has been called a homophobe. He has a gay sister, who he loves and stands by. He has gay friends.
He has been branded a racist. He works during the summer in poor Aboriginal communities. Building houses and learning about issues that affect the Indigenous people of Australia. Where are the pious and preachy Greens at this time.
Abbott has been labelled a misogynist. Let me ask. Who is the real hater of females? A husband of over 20 years, faithful and loving? A father of three well raised, happy daughters? Or leftist feminists who advocate killing baby girl foetuses?
The bitter left only knows one way. Attack What bitter sad people.
ttp://memegenerator.net/instance/27859411?urlName=Sensitive-Tony&browsingOrder=New&browsingTimeSpan=AllTime
The leftist bullies who have taken over the web, are getting much enjoyment out of posting bile like this:
https://mobile.twitter.com/gabster0191/status/254088610930913280?p=v
Tony Abbott has been called a homophobe. He has a gay sister, who he loves and stands by. He has gay friends.
He has been branded a racist. He works during the summer in poor Aboriginal communities. Building houses and learning about issues that affect the Indigenous people of Australia. Where are the pious and preachy Greens at this time.
Abbott has been labelled a misogynist. Let me ask. Who is the real hater of females? A husband of over 20 years, faithful and loving? A father of three well raised, happy daughters? Or leftist feminists who advocate killing baby girl foetuses?
The bitter left only knows one way. Attack What bitter sad people.
Thursday 4 October 2012
1st Presidential Debate
A little thing I noticed early on: the number of times the President 'ummed' and 'ahhed.' Romney was confident, a true businessman with a business mind. Obama came across as a professional bureaucrat.
In typical Democrat fashion, the Presidents solution to create more jobs is to, eh, increase taxes.
Of course Obama didn't say these exact words; no, socialism is coded with certain 'phrases.'
He spoke about investing in education. Which is fine and good. But it doesn't guarantee immediate jobs. It's no use investing in the future if adults in the present can't find jobs.
Say the government invests in engineering courses at college. That's all well and good for the future. But a better way to create engineering jobs would be by lowering the taxes on the people whose companies build the bridges.
Romney was straight to the point, well spoken, open. Obama was apologetic, timid, lost for words.
Romney 1; Obama 0.
In typical Democrat fashion, the Presidents solution to create more jobs is to, eh, increase taxes.
Of course Obama didn't say these exact words; no, socialism is coded with certain 'phrases.'
He spoke about investing in education. Which is fine and good. But it doesn't guarantee immediate jobs. It's no use investing in the future if adults in the present can't find jobs.
Say the government invests in engineering courses at college. That's all well and good for the future. But a better way to create engineering jobs would be by lowering the taxes on the people whose companies build the bridges.
Romney was straight to the point, well spoken, open. Obama was apologetic, timid, lost for words.
Romney 1; Obama 0.
Wednesday 3 October 2012
Massacre of Students in Nigeria
You won't read this in the mainstream media.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/world/article6766260.ece
Obama's War On Christianity and Religious Freedom
So now even Bible publishing houses aren't free from the atheist swords of revolution.
President Obama is an atheist. He calls himself a Christian, but he's about as Christian as Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee. He is anti theistic. He is AGAINST the teachings and views of all Christian churches and denominations.
Jesus said that to enter heaven we must learn to be "like the little children." Obama interpreted this as "stab the baby and suck it's brains out."
A majority of American Christians would not support gay marriage. Despite what liberals always claim, the US is still very conservative, and rightly puts family values and children's rights ahead of a dudes right to marry another dude. Despite this, Commander-in-Cheap supports gay marriage so that his media spin doctors and screaming liberal hipster cheerleaders continue to worship him.
So what has the Constituion hating fraud done this time?
The Obama administration says that Tyndale House Publishers, a Bible publishing company, is NOT classified as a religious employee, and should have to contribute to insurance coverage - including abortion procedures and contraceptives - for it's employees.
Sorry, the 1st Amendment just doesn't have the same appeal as it used to. The first victim of this new secular dictatorship was always going to be Christianity.
The Bill of Rights are a set of suggestions for Obama, that's all. He adheres to what he wants, how he wants. Freedom of religion? Sure. Except I'll be getting you Christians to pay for something you don't believe should be legal, a procedure akin to murder. So you're Catholic? You won't mind paying for contraception for your staff. Religious freedom my foot.
Obama is as bad as the worst religious tyrants of history like Oliver Cromwell, Pol Pot and Kim-Jung Il, who banished, persecuted and murderously sought out the followers of religions they did not approve.
His Constitutionally twisted beliefs are disturbing not only because he considers himself a Christian, but more so because he considers himself an American. He's lying to himself on both counts.
President Obama is an atheist. He calls himself a Christian, but he's about as Christian as Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee. He is anti theistic. He is AGAINST the teachings and views of all Christian churches and denominations.
Jesus said that to enter heaven we must learn to be "like the little children." Obama interpreted this as "stab the baby and suck it's brains out."
A majority of American Christians would not support gay marriage. Despite what liberals always claim, the US is still very conservative, and rightly puts family values and children's rights ahead of a dudes right to marry another dude. Despite this, Commander-in-Cheap supports gay marriage so that his media spin doctors and screaming liberal hipster cheerleaders continue to worship him.
So what has the Constituion hating fraud done this time?
The Obama administration says that Tyndale House Publishers, a Bible publishing company, is NOT classified as a religious employee, and should have to contribute to insurance coverage - including abortion procedures and contraceptives - for it's employees.
Sorry, the 1st Amendment just doesn't have the same appeal as it used to. The first victim of this new secular dictatorship was always going to be Christianity.
The Bill of Rights are a set of suggestions for Obama, that's all. He adheres to what he wants, how he wants. Freedom of religion? Sure. Except I'll be getting you Christians to pay for something you don't believe should be legal, a procedure akin to murder. So you're Catholic? You won't mind paying for contraception for your staff. Religious freedom my foot.
Obama is as bad as the worst religious tyrants of history like Oliver Cromwell, Pol Pot and Kim-Jung Il, who banished, persecuted and murderously sought out the followers of religions they did not approve.
His Constitutionally twisted beliefs are disturbing not only because he considers himself a Christian, but more so because he considers himself an American. He's lying to himself on both counts.
Political Hijackers
What is it with the Left and their attempts to hijack opposing parties from the inside? The Left are always going on about how moderate a candidate is. To them, left of Che Guevara is moderate.
Conservative parties around the world have succombed to this pestilence. In the USA, the rise of the RINO (Republican in name only) has reached such a point that some have said they will only vote for Romney because it's at least an alternative to the "Obamanation."
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron's support for abortion, gay marriage, and a tax on carbon, hardly makes him a conservative. In fact, that's the very antithesis of a conservative.
He makes up for his support of abortion by declaring he wants the legal limit lowered from 24 to 20 weeks. A real conservative would introduce a bill abolishing the practice all together.
In Australia, opposition leader Tony Abbott, a Catholic Conservative, wants to introduce a paid parental leave scheme if elected. Under a Coalition government, the parental leave payment would extend from 18 weeks (4 and a half months) to 6 months. It is akin to forced socialism, is anti business, and will encourage unprincipled types to have a baby so they can stay at home, while still getting full wages, for 6 months.
The same party, when in office, introduced the controversial Baby Bonus: an assistance payment to new parents. It has since gone from a lump sum payment to fortnightly instalments. However the damage was already done. People in low socio-economic regions suddenly turned into rabbits.
The $5000 (Australian money) payment went not on baby supplies, or towards medical bills, but on plasma TVs, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol.
In introducing this new welfare disease, the Coalition betrayed the people they were supposed to represent, and bowed to the demands of the welfare infected Left.
The Left want conservatives to meet them in the middle. But that "middle" keeps moving more and more to the Left each time.
Liberals cheer "moderate" conservatives, hoping that these "moderates" infect parties from the inside. There is evidence of this in the Australian Left's support for Malcolm Turnbull,
who advocates many Left leaning positions.
In America there are questions over Mitt Romney's sincerity as a conservative. Here is a man who was elected governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts. A man who once publicly declared his support for Roe vs Wade. Showing he holds not only views unborn babies with contempt, but also the 10th Amendment.
The Left want THEIR Romney in the White House. It's a clever each way bet. If Obama is booted out, they can hope that THEIR Romney will take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Romney needs to show the Left that he's NOT their friend. He needs to show the Left that they already have their "Dear Leader." He needs to avoid bowing down to the principles, I
mean, lack of principles of the Left. Every politician wants to
appear trendy. Every politician wants to appeal to the 20-something vote, to the minority vote. Maybe it's time they started appealing to sense instead.
Conservative parties around the world have succombed to this pestilence. In the USA, the rise of the RINO (Republican in name only) has reached such a point that some have said they will only vote for Romney because it's at least an alternative to the "Obamanation."
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron's support for abortion, gay marriage, and a tax on carbon, hardly makes him a conservative. In fact, that's the very antithesis of a conservative.
He makes up for his support of abortion by declaring he wants the legal limit lowered from 24 to 20 weeks. A real conservative would introduce a bill abolishing the practice all together.
In Australia, opposition leader Tony Abbott, a Catholic Conservative, wants to introduce a paid parental leave scheme if elected. Under a Coalition government, the parental leave payment would extend from 18 weeks (4 and a half months) to 6 months. It is akin to forced socialism, is anti business, and will encourage unprincipled types to have a baby so they can stay at home, while still getting full wages, for 6 months.
The same party, when in office, introduced the controversial Baby Bonus: an assistance payment to new parents. It has since gone from a lump sum payment to fortnightly instalments. However the damage was already done. People in low socio-economic regions suddenly turned into rabbits.
The $5000 (Australian money) payment went not on baby supplies, or towards medical bills, but on plasma TVs, drugs, cigarettes, alcohol.
In introducing this new welfare disease, the Coalition betrayed the people they were supposed to represent, and bowed to the demands of the welfare infected Left.
The Left want conservatives to meet them in the middle. But that "middle" keeps moving more and more to the Left each time.
Liberals cheer "moderate" conservatives, hoping that these "moderates" infect parties from the inside. There is evidence of this in the Australian Left's support for Malcolm Turnbull,
who advocates many Left leaning positions.
In America there are questions over Mitt Romney's sincerity as a conservative. Here is a man who was elected governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts. A man who once publicly declared his support for Roe vs Wade. Showing he holds not only views unborn babies with contempt, but also the 10th Amendment.
The Left want THEIR Romney in the White House. It's a clever each way bet. If Obama is booted out, they can hope that THEIR Romney will take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Romney needs to show the Left that he's NOT their friend. He needs to show the Left that they already have their "Dear Leader." He needs to avoid bowing down to the principles, I
mean, lack of principles of the Left. Every politician wants to
appear trendy. Every politician wants to appeal to the 20-something vote, to the minority vote. Maybe it's time they started appealing to sense instead.
Keeping Them Honest
Phillip Adams in 2008. The disrespect towards the two women mentioned is shocking. Ignored by the Left at the time. Not surprising. At least the righteous Adams makes up for his demeaning remarks by refering to Melina Mercouri as a former actor, and not the politically incorrect title "actress."
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=aQet_rjCi3kC&pg=PA24&lpg=PP1&dq=The+best+Australian+humourous+writing&output=html_text
Tuesday 2 October 2012
More From NYT
Unity, homogeneity, national and historical pride. The South has a culture that can never be eroded by government. These are the reasons that the South is now in a boom, while Northern cities like Detroit decay.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/01/the-souths-enduring-conservativism/the-american-souths-inescapable-history
The South and Conservatism
NYTimes debate on conservatism in the Deep South.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/01/the-souths-enduring-conservativism
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/10/01/the-souths-enduring-conservativism
The Sensitive and Educated Left
The Left is unleashing it's inner homophobe. But that's ok. Because the man they are bullying is a conservative. So he's fair game. Besides, conservatives gays aren't real gays. Just like conservative Blacks aren't real Blacks. They're Uncle Toms.
See, to be part of the liberal progressive machine (it IS a machine) you have to have certain credentials and merits.
I once had a dream that I thought perfectly illustrated the Leftist ladder of merit. Like most dreams, it made little sense. But, then again, it was about the Left.
In the dream I am in a room surrounded by liberals. We are all rating each other based on particular "progressive" things we have supported or achieved. For example: a woman in the dream says that she donated blankets to a Tibetan orphanage; another supported some splinter resistance group. Do-gooder causes like that.
As the dream went on the examples of do-gooder achievements went from ridiculous to "messed up in a way only drug legalizing, Marx loving liberals can be messed up."
One person dusted Bono's jacket.
"Up the ladder you go."
Another person smiled at an African child.
"Here are the keys to heaven, you Messiah, you."
Plant a tree in an orphanage garden while thanking Gaia and the whales.
In reality, it's not much different. The sanctimonious Left think their feel good activism permits them to be homophobic, vicious, and down right crude at certain times. They are just like pious priests who think their holy devotion licenses them to abuse young boys. Those who do good, or seem to, think that this gives them a surplus of holiness.
If you donate to African aid agencies you can make the occasional racist joke, or protest when African workers try to get jobs in Australian mines.
If you support gay marriage you can make sexual remarks about gays whose politics you don't agree with.
Liberals are always going on about how we big bad conservatives need sensitivity training. Yet all their "sensitivity" didn't prevent them from making comments about Sarah Palin's down syndrome child.
Liberals believe in women's rights and free will; yet they criticise Ann Romney for being a stay at home mum.
Their hypocrisy and double standards know no bounds. Sanctimony is an art to them; and the perform it very well.
In Australia, they are now using comments, made by radio host Alan Jones, as an excuse to fling homophobic slurs.
"Educated" liberals should know better than to use someone's sexuality against them. But that's exactly what they are doing with Alan Jones. It's disgraceful; but it shows them up for the hypocrites they are.
Sensitivity training anyone?
See, to be part of the liberal progressive machine (it IS a machine) you have to have certain credentials and merits.
I once had a dream that I thought perfectly illustrated the Leftist ladder of merit. Like most dreams, it made little sense. But, then again, it was about the Left.
In the dream I am in a room surrounded by liberals. We are all rating each other based on particular "progressive" things we have supported or achieved. For example: a woman in the dream says that she donated blankets to a Tibetan orphanage; another supported some splinter resistance group. Do-gooder causes like that.
As the dream went on the examples of do-gooder achievements went from ridiculous to "messed up in a way only drug legalizing, Marx loving liberals can be messed up."
One person dusted Bono's jacket.
"Up the ladder you go."
Another person smiled at an African child.
"Here are the keys to heaven, you Messiah, you."
Plant a tree in an orphanage garden while thanking Gaia and the whales.
In reality, it's not much different. The sanctimonious Left think their feel good activism permits them to be homophobic, vicious, and down right crude at certain times. They are just like pious priests who think their holy devotion licenses them to abuse young boys. Those who do good, or seem to, think that this gives them a surplus of holiness.
If you donate to African aid agencies you can make the occasional racist joke, or protest when African workers try to get jobs in Australian mines.
If you support gay marriage you can make sexual remarks about gays whose politics you don't agree with.
Liberals are always going on about how we big bad conservatives need sensitivity training. Yet all their "sensitivity" didn't prevent them from making comments about Sarah Palin's down syndrome child.
Liberals believe in women's rights and free will; yet they criticise Ann Romney for being a stay at home mum.
Their hypocrisy and double standards know no bounds. Sanctimony is an art to them; and the perform it very well.
In Australia, they are now using comments, made by radio host Alan Jones, as an excuse to fling homophobic slurs.
"Educated" liberals should know better than to use someone's sexuality against them. But that's exactly what they are doing with Alan Jones. It's disgraceful; but it shows them up for the hypocrites they are.
Sensitivity training anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)