Thursday, June 30, 2005

I don't want to give it away, so click here.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Check out this CBS story about Joel Osteen's Lakewood super-church, which has over 30,000 members and pulls in $55M a year in donations, television revenues, etc. For those of unfamiliar with Osteen, he preaches a positive form of Christianity, which emphasizes all the good things that will happen to believers, as opposed to the bad things that will happen as a consequence of unbelief. His services are part motivational speech, part religious inspiration.

CBS, seizing on all the normal preconceived notions that atheists have about Christianity, peppered its story with several liberalisms about religion:

"Last year, Lakewood brought in $55 million. Sales of pastor Joel Osteen's book 'Your Best Life Now' became an instant best seller. But he makes no apologies for his style or his success." (So he should "apologize" for running a successful church. When is the last time CBS demanded an apology from some scumbag Hollywood producer raking in cash hand-0ver-fist? Answer: Never.)


As CBS News Correspondent Byron Pitts reports, Osteen looks like an anchorman, talks like a Southern salesman and runs this congregation like a CEO. (Allow me to translate: Osteen is nothing but a snake-oil salesman who runs his congregation of mind-numbed idiots, manipulating them like the CEO of Enron did his employees. All CEOs are evil, of course, as are all Southerners in Jesusland.)


Critics like Notre Dame sociology professor Michael Emerson say it cheapens religion by making it just another commodity for people to consume. They call it "feel-good theology." "Religion changes to nothing more than 'make me feel good,' and there's no sacrifice," says Emerson. (Why would they invite this do-nothing, most likely atheist, academic to criticize the success of an innovative new church? Answer: Because they couldn't say it themselves.)

This story is eerily similar to political stories about Republicans. All the media biases against CEOs, religion, successful financial endeavors, etc., are present. If you don't believe that this story shows bias against conservatives, Christians, and southerners, just try to imagine a similar story being printed about Democratic luminary and counselor Reverend Jesse Jackson. Case closed.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) has posted an op-ed on the Huffington Post website about how the President's speech last night lacked "Candor and Clarity" regarding our plan in Iraq. Accordingly, Generalisimo Feingold has issued the following orders to President Bush:

I have introduced a resolution calling for the President to provide a public report clarifying the mission that the U.S. military is being asked to accomplish in Iraq and laying out a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission.

This idiotic "resolution" shows just how incompetent liberals are when it comes to managing war and foreign affairs. If I remember correctly, the libs were demanding a "timetable" and public disclosure of future battle plans, etc., during the Vietnam War. Proving that liberals haven't learned anything since then, Feingold, like a deadbeat hippy of yore, asks Bush to provide a specific pullout strategy and "timeframe" for accomplishing our mission in Iraq, just like he probably asked of Nixon on the University of Wisconsin campus back in the 60s.

I'm starting to wonder whether the libs are actively plotting against our success in Iraq, rather than just being horribly wrong about the messages we send to our enemies. If we give the "insurgents" a timetable for withrdrawal, what does Feingold think that these people will do? Check their watches and say, "Well, the Americans are leaving soon, better attack now." No, unlike Feingold, the "insurgent" terrorists are not complete idiots when it comes to war policy. They will wait for us to leave, then attack a weakened Iraqi military, overthrow the government, and then impose an extremist regime in its place.

You would think that the Democrats, who are obsessed with Vietnam, would have actually learned something from that experience. If you let politics, instead of sound military policy, dominate the rules of engagement, spelling out everything for the enemy, you will lose. Feingold, in one sweeping letter, proved that he really is the "useful idiot" the Commies snickered at during the cold war.

War strategy is too tough for liberals to understand. Never vote for them.

Monday, June 27, 2005

Dennis Rader, the BTK killer, has plead guilty to the cold blooded murders of ten of his fellow townspeople in Wichita, Kansas. He admitted that the killings were conducted to fulfill his sexual fantasies. The killer was caught after complaining to the media about his lost notoriety, sending them a disk with clues about his victims, which the police used to finally catch him.

So, now that it's all over, where are the Democats? Shouldn't they be monitoring his jail cell to make sure that he's getting fair treatment, without torture or ridicule from guards? Shouldn't they be asking BTK why he "hates" us? Shouldn't they be trying to start a dialog, and come to a common understanding with this savage? Shouldn't the liberal media be running story after story about his "plight" and calling him an American "insurgent"? Shouldn't President Bush somehow be blamed for letting the BTK killer go free for so long?

If BTK were an Iraqi terrorist or member of al Qaida, who cut the heads off of live, conscious people in a fit of religious fervor, was caught, and then was transported to Guantanamo Bay or Abu Graib prisons, the liberals would be falling over each other to side with him and protect his "rights." Not only that, but this guy killed out of sexual fervor, which should all but make him a hero according to liberal standards. It is sorely disappointing to watch as this gentleman's (should I say victim's?) rights are being trampled, with no Jesse Jackson to consult him.

Somebody send ol' Dicky Durbin a postcard, he missed the train on this one.

Sunday, June 26, 2005

Moveon.org has put out a book called "50 Ways to Love Your Country," featuring such left-wing luminaries Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and "members across the country" (aka college professors, actors, and teacher's union members). Without reading the book, I will venture to guess what 10 of these loving acts would be:

10. Defect to North Korea.
9. Pull the plug on a disabled relative, who probably wouldn't want to live like "this" anyway.
8. Become a journalist, and "change" the country with your, uhh, "reporting."
7. Complain about how your upper-class parents are such, like, corporate slaves, while taking their money for tuition, books, cars, apartments, etc.
6. Become a homosexual, bisexual, transgender, transexual, beastialist, or make up something new involving inanimate objects.
5. Convert to Islam, except for the parts that are sexist, homophobic, intolerant, unpleasant, "confining," etc. On second thought, become a Wiccan (witch) instead.
4. Join a teacher's union, then complain incessantly about your career choice.
3. Make a paper mache effigy of George W. Bush, burn same, then burn flag.
2. Start a protest against war, which is, like, so wrong always. Learn Chinese.
1. Have an abortion.

Now let's get started!

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if the government could decide what sort of buildings should be built where, kind of like they did during the Cultural Revolution in Mao's China or during Stalin's 5-year plans?

Well wonder no more. The Supreme Court, in today's ridiculous decision in Kelo v. New London, decided that a city government can condemn a person's house just because some hoity-toity corporate-urban-planner types have decided that a "planned" neighborhood (complete with a Starbucks and Panera Bread, no doubt) would drive up property values, add jobs, and, most importantly, generate tax revenue for the sucking leach that is local government. That, the 5-4 majority of the Court says, serves a "Public Purpose." Sorry grandma, but your house is being replaced by a Bed Bath and Beyond. But hey, there's a consolation prize: Somewhere in your town, a teacher's union member won't have to pay a $5 copay on a bottle of prescription drugs at Walgreens. Feel better? I thought so.

At least there is an upside. It looks like O'Connor is back from the end of the plank. She ripped the Communist majority a new one, based on the increasingly outmoded principles of original intent, and, uhh, stare decisis. Scalia, while not writing an separate dissenting opinion, at least did not pull a Manchurian Candidate worthy switch like he did a few weeks ago in the Raich (medical marijuana) case. Thomas, of course, was in classic form. I think he's my new hero.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

The Senate has finally confirmed "out of the mainstream" judge Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The firmly "in the mainstream" Democrats were outvoted 56-43, with one Democrat, a la John McCain, crossing party lines to vote with the GOP. A disappointed CNN published a particularly unflattering photo of soon-to-be Judge Brown, and focused its story, entitled "Senate confirms Brown," exclusively on the filibuster and the Democrats' restraint in allowing a vote.

It's funny how the Democrats persist in claiming that they are in the "mainstream" while losing every election. Maybe they should rethink whether supporting partial-birth abortion and the supreme control of the federal government over the "masses" puts them into the mainstream of this country. There is nothing worse for the racist Democrats than a black judge who will tell them like it is. Just look at what a hero Justice Thomas is to conservatives (see two posts ago). Every time a free-thinking, conservative minority judge gets appointed, the so-called "white Christian party" gets a little bit stronger.

This is wonderful.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Marquette's appalling choices for a nickname, Golden Eagles and Hilltoppers, are so substandard that it's almost not even worth mentioning. I voted for the Hilltoppers, which would give Marquette one of the lamest nicknames in all of college sports, and deservedly so. I thought the whole idea behind this name change was that people hated the name Golden Eagles. It's time to just jump ship on this thing and throw it back in their faces.

That's not all, however. Marquette is allowing us, the masses, to suggest a logo now. There is no reason to believe that they will choose any of the submissions. I'm willing to believe that they've already picked a logo, like they did a nickname last time, but I still gave them some choices. The following was my written submission to the powers that be over at MU:

Given that you're willing to make everyone angry by giving only these two terrible choices, why don't you give the team a PC logo, like a rainbow flag, to show how diverse and wonderful Marquette is. Or you could take a personal check of the university and put a stamp with the words "Insufficient Funds" on it. That would represent the draining of the university operating budget after thousands of alumni refuse to donate one cent to a university that is willing to act in such a stubborn manner.

Ahh, but it's all for nothing.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Can you believe this crap?! Justice Scalia, of all people, voted that growing a miniscule amount of marijuana in your backyard, for medical purposes only, can expose you to the heavy hand of ham-fisted federal government regulation. What a load of garbage. This is why we lost control of the government of the first place. Let them regulate things that are well within the domain of the states and you will end up with an uber-government, one that knows what's "best" for you in every area of life.

Thomas summed it up pretty well the opening salvo of his dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually
anything‚Äďand the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

So, so true. I am still in shock about Scalia joining the commies on this one. You would think that voting with Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have given him pause. WTF!!!!

Sunday, June 05, 2005

Amnesty International sunk to a new low when it called Guantanamo Bay prison a "gulag," comparing the treatment of prisoners by our armed forces to that of criminal dictators in places like Saddam's Iraq. Either these people are completely politically motivated, or they are completely unable to put right vs. wrong into a meaningful hierarchy. I believe it's both.

To adequately present their side of things, I will quote AI's own words, as reprinted by left-wing-mouthpiece the New York Times:

"The issue of the gulag is about policies and practices," she said. "You put people beyond the reach of law, you locate them in facilities where families can't access them, you deny them access to legal representation, you attempt to prevent judicial review."

Huh? I've never been to a gulag, but I did read Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich," which he wrote based on his own memories of being in an actual gulag in the USSR. Among the differences between that gulag and our "gulag" were that the one in the USSR had the objective of WORKING PEOPLE TO DEATH. Probably the last thing a prisoner was worried about in a real gulag was whether he had "judicial review" or "access to legal representation" as part of the "policies and practices" of the prison. No, he was worried about only one thing: STAYING ALIVE. That was about it.

What are the prisoners at Gitmo worried about? Whether a Quoran gets too close to the toilet. Something tells me that the people in a real gulag would have bigger worries than this. It's probably a pretty safe assumption that no one in a real gulag ever had a Quoran, too.

Comparing Gitmo to a gulag is like comparing bad food in the county jail to being starved to death in a concentration camp. It's just that stupid.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?