Allow me to apologize for not posting at all this past week. Some things have drastically changed in my personal life and that has restricted the free time I have had. On Monday of last week I was notified by my company that they were eliminating my department. Frankly, I think this is insane on their part as our entire business is predicated on the acquisition, collection, analysis and delivery of data to our customers, through a complex Access / SQL hybrid database that frequently has issues. However, it is not my decision and no longer my concern.

Therefore, the past week I have been spending what spare time I had applying for jobs. If there is anyone in the Fort Worth area that is looking for a seasoned IT professional, let me know.

While I have not been able to post an article, I have been trying to keep up with events and comments as best I could. An interesting conversation developed on the ELCA article I posted the other day. As I knew would be the case, someone came on to flame me for my intolerance and hatred. Now, I think I was plainly clear in my posting that I would never deny someone access to the word of God by telling them that they could not attend church, but I felt it wholly inappropriate for someone openly living in sin and against the will of God, to give instructions to others in His word. How that is hateful, I do not know. How it is intolerant I acknowledge, but make no apology for.

This posting is not about the issue of homosexuality in the church at all. This one is a broader examination about tolerance. We hear this word used an awful lot today. We are told that we must be tolerant of others. We must be tolerant of their behavior and their beliefs. We must be tolerant of ideas that we oppose and opinions that we do not share. What I want to know is where this comes from and why that tolerance is never offered in return. There is no tolerance for the Christian faith. It is continuously under assault and forced to change to the will of others. Christian churches have been forced to perform same sex marriages, Christmas events have been banned or relabeled to not offend others and there is now talk of hate crimes legislation against speaking the word of God. How is this tolerant? I thought Congress was to make no laws governing religion or the free exercise thereof? Was that not clear enough?

We are expected to understand when the effigy of Bush was burned in protest while people screamed offensive appellations against a sitting President. We were expected to be tolerant of people rights to protest as they called our soldiers murderers and our leaders criminal. We were expected to understand when our own political leaders betrayed the men and women serving this nation for their own political needs. We were expected to be tolerant.

Now we see people amassing to protest their rights to individual freedoms and government by their states and we are called racists, tea baggers (a sexually derogatory appellation), unruly mobs and terrorists. We protest for lower taxation, responsible spending and less government intervention in our lives and we are made out to be nothing more than angry dissenters who simply hate having a black man as our President. Where is the tolerance now? Oh, and I have some news for you… I can quickly name about five black men and one black woman that I would easily take as my President. Barack Obama is simply not one of them.

Where did this idea of tolerance come from? Were we tolerant of the British when we rebelled in Boston over a 2.5% tax on tea? When did this nation start down this path? Did we suddenly decide that it is not appropriate to speak out when we see something we believe is wrong? What exactly does tolerance mean? Should we have been tolerant of the South and their belief in slavery? Should we have learned to accept that they believed differently and that the North had no right to impose its morality upon them?

The issue of tolerance is often used as a club to stifle debate on an issue that one side does not want to face. What I find interesting is that most often though, it is those who preach tolerance the loudest who are the most intolerant of all. Just as the commenter showed in the previous post, there is absolutely no tolerance allowed for the Christian faith decide to follow the word of God and not allow certain people to instruct other in His word. There is no tolerance at all for our beliefs or what we see is right when it differs from others.

tol⋅er⋅ance – noun
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.

So where in this definition does it say this only works one way. Furthermore, I do not like the use of the word permissive. Should I be tolerant or permissive of something I believe to be wrong?

What if I see someone stealing money from a vending machine? Should I be tolerant of this behavior because the person stealing might think that there is nothing wrong with theft?

What if I discover that my neighbor disciplines his children in a dangerous manner that I think might be abusive? Should I be tolerant of this because he thinks it is appropriate?

Why are liberals not tolerant of my desire to own an automatic weapon? I would absolutely love to own an M4 Carbine, an FN P90, an M107 SAS .50 cal or one of the new H&K MP7s. My ownership of those weapons would affect no one but me. I am a law abiding citizen who just happens to like firearms. So where is the tolerance for my desire to own them?

I welcome any serious discussion on this or explanations of why this tolerance aspect seems to only be a one way street.

In a striking turn of events, that actually surprised no one, it has now been confirmed that Nancy Pelosi is one of the most ignorant people that has ever held a public office. I have not given out a Blithering Idiot award in some time, so maybe one is due. Congratulations Nancy Pelosi, you are the Blithering Idiot of the Week. She has plenty of company in Congress right now and they are willingly showing their ineptitude day after day.

Astroturf? Seriously? Did that take you all morning to come up with Nancy or did one of your staffers write that little line for you? The indignation and arrogance on display by our Congressional leaders against the American people right now is simply appalling. These corrupt, out of touch, elitist morons cannot fathom that the American people are completely fed up with their crap and are finally standing up for ourselves.

Just a few short months ago Hillary Clinton stated that it was our patriotic duty to voice our dissent against a government that we disagreed with. There were multitudes calling President Bush everything from a murderer to a terrorist to Hitler himself. We saw morons like Cindy Sheehan literally camped outside his home, shouting horribly insulting and borderline threatening comments at the President. How did the former administration act when these ‘angry mobs’ showed up? Did he encourage other Americans to report them to their government for exercising their free speech? No. Did he chastise them publicly claiming that they were an unruly angry mob? No. Did he demand that others show up to counter their protests? Nope. He simply acknowledged their right to have their own opinions and protest against the actions of their government.

Now we see astounding arrogance coming from Washington in their personal attacks on citizens who are speaking their mind openly and honestly. Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to claim that these citizens protesting the nationalized healthcare were carrying swastikas and similar symbols to the protests. Really? I have done some extensive searching and can find not a single photo or video from these protests containing any such symbols. However, I was able to find multiple photos containing swastika symbols from earlier protests against President Bush. Was that who she was talking about? I wonder… This just goes to further show the feeble intelligence of this woman. If she actually knew anything about the Nazi (or National Socialist) Party, she would realize that it would more likely be those in favor of this national socialized medical program that would bear symbols hailing the Nazi regime. After all, one of the questions often ask of German citizens in the 1930s and 1940s was, “Are you a good socialist?” Well, Nancy, are you?

What they do not realize is that by dismissing these normal, everyday citizens who have legitimate concerns as nothing but an angry mob, they are likely to turn them into just that. Now we hear that they are canceling these town hall meetings in an act of pure cowardice because they do not want to face the truth of a public turned against them. They might as well stand upon the steps of Congress and shout, “Let them eat cake!” This will not sit well with an America already tiring of the wasteful, corrupt and reality deprived administration that has shown nothing but contempt for the will of the populace. I will point you to another time in our history, when the calls from the people went unheeded. A time when taxation was used as a means to control and laws were forced upon a people from a distant, detached government who did not concern itself with what those governed desired. We should learn from this past where the voices of the people went unheard and the protests that they staged were dismissed as a bunch of unruly ingrates and angry mobs. In the end this did not fare well for the governing body responsible for such injustices against the American colonies, nor will it do so now.

If we stare into the Abyss long enough, the Abyss stares back at us. Right now we stand at the edge of the Abyss, what we do will define the future of this nation for generations to come. I say we stand and fight.

Arise you sons and daughters of Liberty. Stand firm in your beliefs and make your voices heard from the tip of the Aleutians to the Florida Keys. Call them out and give them no quarter to the lies being told. Fight for your freedoms and liberty, lest they be stripped from you while you sleep.

Once again we see the intolerance, violence and hatred of the left. There have been many leftists that I have disagreed with, vehemently at times. However, I can recall not one single incident where I actually wish physical harm to come to one, especially not publicly or to such a vicious level at to completely demean the subject.

Here is your tolerant left. Here are your champions of women’s rights. No. The sarcasm fails me. They are nothing of the sort.

Today, Playboy Magazine published a list a list called So Right, It’s Wrong. This is a list of the top ten conservative women that they would like to hate f*ck. You heard me right. I did not coin that term, it was used many, many times in the vile article posted on the Playboy website. That is until the cowards pulled the article due to the outrage it caused. If you want to view some of the postings, I found a website that captured screen shots of the insulting article before the spineless scum at Playboy pulled it. You can view the comments on these professional women and the abhorrent languages used to describe how they would like to have violent sex with them, on RedState (Caution: Content Possibly NSFW).

What I find so infuriating about situations such as this is that when it is a leftist showing their complete intolerance of, hatred of and violence towards others it is somehow acceptable. There has been no mainstream media condemnation of this vile assault against these women. None on the left have come forward to condemn the actions of these petulant children for their assault on these women. Just as when that complete waste of skin Perez Hilton assaulted Carrie Prejean because she gave an honest opinion that he did not share, the left can call these women horrible names and suggest vile actions against them and it seems acceptable.

However, we are not to criticize a judicial nominee based on her racist comments or horrible record from the bench, when the Democrats schemed to prevent Miguel Estrada from being nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals based solely on the fact that he was Hispanic, ignoring that he was one of the most well respected trail lawyers and was supremely qualified.

We are told to be nice and not criticize President Obama’s dishonest, appeasing, apologetic speech where he panders to those who would just as well see us dead, when the left spent the last several years calling multiple members of the Bush administration everything from murders to Hitler himself.

We are said to be the sexist, racists, intolerant, ignorant rednecks, clinging to our guns and religion, but when you look for intolerance and hate, you only need to look to the left to find abundant examples. I will not stand for this hypocritical double standard bullshit any longer. Every single one of the people responsible for this article should be immediately terminated from Playboy. That means authors, producers, editors, researchers, etc. Everyone needs to be gone for this abomination against these women. I mean if Don Imus gets canned for a nappy headed ho comment, then these guys have to hit the pavement and hit it now.

No longer will I stand for the racist, sexist, hateful, bigot claims of the left. I dare anyone to bring that argument to me. I will bury anyone who does in multiple examples of bigotry and hypocrisy from the left. I am done with this hateful bullshit. I will stand for it no longer.

Well, this is a disturbing pick for a Supreme Court Justice. President Barack Obama announced today that he is nominating Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor has served in the Southern District court of New York since 1991 until she was elevated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 by then President Clinton. In most instances, this level of experience would certainly qualify someone for a nomination to the Supreme Court, but it is her very decisions and opinions expressed during this service that make here unqualified in my opinion.

Allow me to preface this by stating that I believe a nomination by the President to any position should receive an up or down vote by the Senate for confirmation based upon the candidate’s qualification to hold the position and not based upon the political agenda of the candidate or the Senate. Nominees for the Supreme Court should not be asked how they would vote on this issue or that in an attempt to flesh out their political tendencies, because those tendencies should not come into play when they are judging the law. It is insane to ask a Justice nominee of any level to pre-judge an issue without the benefit of hearing all the sided before making that decision. Any nominee, who would willingly give such an answer, obviously admitting prejudice or preconceived convictions on an issue, should be immediately disqualified. However, past decisions and behaviors are well within the scope of the approval process.

Her name was immediately familiar to me when she was announced, but with a modest effort of research, I find myself with serious questions about this candidate’s qualifications to sit on the highest court in the nation. One such glaring case that calls to question the impartiality of Sotomayor is currently awaiting review by the very court to which she has been nominated.

In 2003, New Haven, Connecticut issued a civil service examination to its firefighters to fill eight vacant lieutenant and seven vacant captain positions within in the department. The test material was known to all those tested and was administered to 77 employees who desired a chance to fill the fifteen vacant positions. When the test was completed and scored, it returned almost all white candidates to fill the promotion positions. None of the nineteen black firefighters who took the test made the cut. The City of New Haven made the decision not to certify the results of the test and not to give the promotions that were promised because they felt the test was somehow racially biased toward the white candidates. How this could have been possible is not clear since the testing material was available to all candidates who took the test. The white firefighters sued the city for racial discrimination, claiming that their successful scores had been disregarded based solely on the color of their skin.

To me this is a clear cut case. Even with the New Haven claiming that the test itself was racially biased, it matters not. How can a test asking questions about firefighting, an activity that is performed by men and women of all races, be racially biased towards ‘white’ firefighters? Is it the fault of the successful, high scoring candidates that the city presented a bad test? Should they be punished for the quality of a test that they were asked to take? The test was announced to all, the materials made available to all and it was presented that the top scoring candidates would receive promotion based on their scores. When the scores did not reflect what the city determined was ‘racially appropriate’ they changed the rules. In my opinion this is a clear cut case of discrimination based upon racial factors only. The firefighters who scored the highest on the test for promotion were denied those promotion because the color of their skin. The city was wrong.

This case came before Judge Sotomayor and she denied the appeal, siding with the lower court decision against the firefighters. However, this is not the real issue with her involvement in this case. The 2nd Circuit Court’s decision was unusually quick and their opinion added basically nothing to support their decision or uphold the decision of the lower court. Fellow 2nd Circuit Court Judge Jose Cabranes went so far as to claim that, “Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case. … This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

This drew the attention of the Supreme Court who heard the issue in April with most analysts agreeing that the City of New Haven did not fare well. If this is overturned, it will be the fifth such decision of Sotomayor’s that the Supreme Court has reversed often citing improper application or misinterpretation of the law.

If this were the only example of such judicial irresponsibility, it would not cause as much alarm, but it seems that Judge Sotomayor is incapable of separating her personal racially tinted opinions from affecting her decisions. Allow her own words to illustrate my opinion, from her 2001 UC Berkeley speech: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Uhm, what? Well that is a purely racist statement in itself. If I said that I would hope that a well educated white man would make better decisions than (insert any other race / sex combination here), I would be chastised as the ultimate sheet wearing racist on the spot. There were plenty more examples that re-enforced my belief that this woman is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

A Justice is supposed to apply the law impartially, fairly and without preconceived opinions about the issues before it. A Supreme Court Justice is ultimately responsible to the Constitution of the United States and is supposed to uphold it regardless of their personal beliefs, political tendencies or opinions. They are NOT meant to reinterpret the law, massage the law or change the law. They are meant to uphold it. It appears that Sonia Sotomayor is simply incapable of doing this.

On Friday, three children in Holland Township, New Jersey were removed from their parents by Child Protective Services (CPS). Unfortunately this would not normally be a newsworthy even as we have grown accustomed to seeing cases of abuse and neglect on a regular basis. However, what makes this particular case interesting the apparent reason for the children being removed from the home is because of their names.

The incident began because a local grocery store refused to print the name of the Campbell’s three year old son, Adolf Hitler Campbell, on his birthday cake. This has apparently been an ongoing issue as the store has denied the Campbell’s request for three years in a row. For some reason this time it drew media to the Campbell family and their unusual naming conventions. They also have two daughters named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell. It seems that their Nazi revering naming methods also drew the attention of the New Jersey CPS.

When the children were removed from the home, no additional reasons were given by CPS for their removal. No statements of abuse, neglect or mistreatment were made and so far every effort from the local media to clarify the situation has been ultimately rebuffed.

I will reserve my final opinion on this matter until it is known whether or not CPS has any legitimate charges of abuse, neglect or other forms of mistreatment in the Campbell household. However, I will state that if the only reason that these children were removed from the home is that their parents are ignorant racists who named their children after iconic Third Reich symbols, then the Campbell family should sue the State of New Jersey for all that they possibly can.

I most certainly do not agree with the idealism that these names remind us of, but I do believe that the State has no business telling parents how to raise their children or what names are acceptable. If parents choose to raise their children to be ignorant, intolerant racists because that is what they believe is right, then they have every right to do so. While I may pity the children raised in such a manner, neither I nor the State have any business telling someone that they may not raise their children in such a way.

If this is acceptable then where does it end? Will traditional Christian names become taboo as to not offend others? Can I demand that Hispanic people stop naming their children Jesus because I believe that is taking the name of God in vain? Would a black family with a child named after Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X be subjected to the same abuses by the State? Are Stalin, Marx, Lenin or Che Guevara also to be names that subject you to the seizure of you children?

If the naming of the children is the only reason that CPS proceeded with the disruption of this family, every single person involved should lose their job and the State of New Jersey should pay a hefty price to this family. Even if there are other claims of abuse, I will look skeptically upon anything that CPS presents at this point having not immediately produced claims of abuse as grounds to remove the children.

At this point, it appears as if this is a case of major abuse of power by the New Jersey CPS officials and an incredible overstepping of the States authority over the parents ability to raise their children as they see fit, no matter how appalling it may be to those with even a modicum of intelligence.

Welcome to the Nanny State. We hope you enjoy your socialist stay.

In closing on the questions that were posed about conservatism, one additional point was made about the youth vote. This is a serious concern for conservatives and the Republican Party as well. This is a challenge faced on several fronts and will be a difficult one to surmount especially in the coming years.

There are several tiers to this problem and one of them lies in the concept of political correctness, a vile term in and of itself. Political correctness is defined as conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated, according to Merriam-Webster, but in actuality is far more ominous than that. It is a practice of suppressing and even oppressing political ideas and ideals by constraining what is deemed acceptable for discussion based upon the concept that everything should always be fair and no one should ever be offended. Unfortunately, this idea is far too often applied in a strictly unidirectional fashion and does not promote fairness at all.

One of the prominent examples is racism. White people are continuously demonized as racist and their speech is restricted, corrected and formulated as to not offend anyone ‘of color’. This concept has been pushed to the point that programs on television will use harsh language, show graphic violence and extreme sexual content during prime time television before they would ever put the word ‘nigger’ in a broadcast. I will probably get flamed because I actually dared to type the word versus using the ‘politically correct’ format by typing ‘the n-word’. By no means do I condone the use of racially derogatory comments in any way. However when it is acceptable for one race to use racially motivated arguments, use racially derogatory terms and have racially based organizations, yet another race is horribly demonized for even the slightest digression, there is an inherent problem. That is the very definition of racism. This extends into many areas other than race and can be applied to any discussion that people want to silence or control. The immigration issue is a good example of this strategy. If you favor strict immigration controls whereby people immigrating to this nation must follow the law and go through the legal process to become a citizen or else you get shipped back to your country of origin when caught, then you are some how a racist. This manner of political oppression is completely unacceptable and must be combatted at every turn.

Another area that impacts the youth vote is the extreme liberalism of the educational system in this country. Due to the highly unionized school system in this nation, our educational system has become intolerable in its political pandering for the left. Videos have surfaced of teachers harassing students for their political beliefs and flat out lying about political issues. We have seen many college professors who are allowed to spew flat out lies from their campuses with full support of faculty and staff. Socialism is promoted and capitalism demonized in our higher learning institutions and there you will find the root cause of the elitism that I addressed earlier. Campuses have attempted to refuse access to recruiters, banned them from their campuses and actively protested outside their offices. The ratio of liberal speakers hosted on major college campuses to conservative ones was something on the level of 44 to 1 in 2007. It not only affects our institutions of higher learning of which a great many are private institutions, but has deeply infected the public school system nationwide. Students are harassed, ridiculed and rejected if they do not follow the accepted ideologies. In more and more alarming incidents, these harassments are not coming form students, but from their instructors. These institutions of indoctrination have to be called to task. The school systems should be places of learning that encourage all students to think for themselves and defend their ideas and beliefs, not to conform to the dogma of one party or another. Just as liberals would have an absolute cow if people insisted upon creationism being taught with just as much weight in public schools as evolution, we should demand that conservative principals are not demonized in the eyes of the youth of this nation.

Finally, the lack of education of the voting electorate and the reliance on liberal leaning media sources has to be combated. Zogby recently did a post-election poll that it caught major flak for.  The poll was a sampling of Obama voters’ knowledge of the issues and their ability to identify their candidate’s stances on them. The failure rate of the participants was in the range of 50 to 88% depending on the question with an margin of error of 4.4%. More than half of the people that actually voted for Obama could not identify key issues and stances that their candidate had taken. However, almost 90% of them could identify that Sarah Palin was the candidate that one party spent $150,000 for on wardrobe and 75% of them incorrectly identified her as stating that she could see Russia from her house as her foreign policy experience (that was Tina Fey as Sarah Palin in a parody on Saturday Night Live).

The greatest threat to this society is unfortunately itself. All of these aspects weaken us as a nation. Political correctness strangles discourse and demonizes anything that does not conform to the liberal agenda. The indoctrination of our youth galvanizes them against the very principals that build this country and kept it great and free. While ignorance and acceptance of propaganda directs the populace to elect a man to the office of President that they admittedly know nothing about.

As Ronald Reagan highlighted in his ‘A Time for Choosing’ speech:

“Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.”

While the enemies we face today by be different, the reality is not. If we continue down this course, there will come a time when someone will ask us to pay the final price, what will our answer be when we have weakened ourselves from with in as Reagan warned above?

I will admit to being slow on the uptake when it comes to this piece. Jenn already has it over at her site and it originated from Texas Fred, but it is still well worth posting again.

How many people will call this man a traitor to his race because he is unafraid to stand up to the idiocy of the left and the liberal agenda. I wish we had more strong outspoke people of all races among the conservative movement. Those that realize that liberalism oppresses and damages them far more than the conservative principals we hold dear.

Just look at the example of Palin. Conservatives are thrilled to have a strong, intelligent, capable woman representing them as the next Vice President of the United States. We would have been just as thrilled had she been black, brown, yellow or green. Ideas matter to us, not identity. Character is what we judge, not color. Hell, my perfect pick for the VP tap was Condoleezza Rice, but unfortunately she did not agree.

Over the past few days all we have heard about is the Obama World Tour ’08. This insufferable arrogant jackass has been tooling around the world acting like he is already the President of the United States and trying to impress everyone else. What he should be doing is staying in this country either trying to impress American voters or, God forbid, doing his job as a United States Senator, something which he has only done for a grand total of 147 days since being elected to the position. He has no business meeting with foreign heads of state and commenting on American foreign policy until such time as he is elected to the office of Presidnet. Right now he is nothing more that a Senator with no political power or authority beyond our borders whatsoever. He needs to learn to mind his place. At least John McCain has the class and respect for our laws to not pretend to be more important than he acutally is.

You know, if Obama gets elected and gives as much effort to being the President of the United States as he is giving his current elected office, his presidency might not be so bad after all. Considering that he has worked less than five total months in the four years since being elected to the Senate from Illinois, we could expect just over one month of real work a year if he gets elected president, right? With a work ethic like that, maybe he cannot do as much damage to this nation as we feared.

I am getting sick of the media parading around like lovesick schoolgirls and fawning over his every move. How many network anchors followed John McCain on any one of his six visits to the Middle East? That would be exactly none. Yet when Obama decides to go, there is a virtual hurricane of activity and every news agency imaginable is tagging along waiting for some ecumenical moment when he unifies the world with a golden oratory.

However, some of them have been tiring of the treatment they have received from the messianic candidate and have grown weary of canned press releases, severely limited access and Obama ducking and dodging questions like punches thrown at a prize fighter. Even some of the Obama cheerleaders like Andrea Mitchell and Katie Couric have realized that all is not well in the liberal paradise that is the Obama camp.

Now we are being spoon fed the euro-love for Obama. Yesterday he spoke to a massive crowd in Germany who chanted, “Obama! Obama!” while he disparaged this nation before the German masses. Comments of how America must reject torture, embrace immigrants and end prejudice treatment of those who look or worship different from us fell on an overly approving crowd. Odd statements to be giving in a country that just sixty years ago held the world at the brink of genocidal dominance by a wildly popular charismatic leader. Funny that people demand that the America of today still answer for the injustices of our past such as slavery, but that Obama would speak of intolerance, torture and acceptance to a nation that just sixty short years ago nearly eradicated an entire ethnicity in Europe, tortured and murdered millions and accepted nothing other that their pure racist vision of the final solution. Frakking hypocrite.

Polls indicated today that Britons favor Obama by 60%, Germans by 62% and French by 64%. Of course Europe loves him. They know he will turn this nation into carbon copies of their socialist leaning states. They know he will put us on a more even playing ground by forcing America to repeat all the horrible failures of the European nations; extremely high taxes, socialized medicine, porous borders and subjugation of national culture, appeasement of terrorists, capitulation to terrorist demands, etc…

It is too frakking bad for Obama that he is not running in Europe, although he appears to be campaigning vigorously there. Why would Americans give a shit about who Europe thinks we should elect to be our President? If they like him so frakking much, then they can have him. We do not want or need him.

Is this the man you want defending your nation from those that mean us harm?

I am deeply embarrassed to be in the same state with idiots such as John Wiley Price and Judge Thomas Jones. During a Dallas County Commissioner’s Court meeting last Wednesday, Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield was describing Dallas County’s central collection offices, where things such as traffic citations are handled, as a virtual ‘black hole,’ noting that paperwork seemed to enter that office and disappeared. In an enormously moronic display of illiteracy and hyper-sensitive racial bullshit, Commissioner John While Price, who is black, responded, “Excuse me? Become a what? Become a what? You mean a white hole don’t you?”

What?! You idiot! As Commissioner Mayfield tried in vain to explain, a black hole is a super dense collapsed star that possess gravity so intense that not even light itself can escape its pull. It in absolutely no way, shape or form is a racially inclined comment and is a perfect analogy for a department where paperwork is sucked in and disappears into oblivion. On the other hand, a white hole is the theoretical time reversal of a black hole that acts as a source that ejects matter from its event horizon. Again not a racial term and would serve as a very poor analogy of the idea Commissioner Mayfield was attempting to illustrate.

For those of you who do not know John Wiley Price, let me just state that he is Dallas’s version of Al Sharpton. He is a racial activist and does everything possible to divide the community along racial lines. Not to mention that he is apparently a moron and not intelligent enough to recognize a scientific term being applied to describe a county office with similar attributes. Apparently he also objects to ‘black holes’ being called ‘black’ since it promotes the negative stereotype forced upon blacks by the white community. Once again, this jackhole displays his ultimate stupidity by not realizing that black holes are so named because since light cannot escape them they are actually BLACK and cannot be seen directly, therefore appearing as a ‘black hole’ in space.

If this moron was not bad enough, Judge Thomas Jones who presided over the meeting and is also black, felt it necessary to publicly display his stupidity. He demanded a public apology from Commissioner Mayfield stating, “Could I get an apology from the Commissioner? In this day and age, you don’t sit around a table when you have diversity and refer to a black hole.”

Thankfully, Commissioner Mayfield stood his ground refusing to apologize for using a scientifically recognized term that had absolutely nothing to do with race to describe the situation.

This was apparently not good enough for the race baiters on the Dallas Count Commissioner’s Court. In a interview the next day, John Wiley Price continued to claim that the comment was racially charged and compared it to socially accepted negatives such as ‘angel food’ cake being white and ‘devil’s food’ cake being black. But how does that explain German Chocolate cake since it is dark brown but most Germans are white? Oh, my God!

This stupidity had got to end. I understand some terms being racially based, but not all of them are. If you say that you ‘Jewed’ someone down on a price instead of bartered or negotiated, that can easily be seen as a racially charged term. However, using the term ‘black sheep of the family’ has nothing to do with race. It is a phrase coined in the culture of the American farmland where black sheep where a rare exception among normally white breed such as Suffolk. The term niggardly does not have any thing to do with the race of a person or describe behaviors associated with any particular race. The term means stingy or miserly and is not racially charged whatsoever.

For the history of literature, white has represented good and black evil. Why this coloration of good an evil exists dates back far into our literary history and not just the history of this nation. Are terms such as ‘black magic’ and the ‘dark arts’ now to be banned as well because they denote negativity? What about some one having a ‘black heart’ or being as pure as snow? Why do we dress in ‘black’ to mourn the passing of a loved one or the fact that traditional wedding dresses are ‘white’ to symbolize purity? Must those traditions no be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness. I say not just no, but hell no!

Moronic race baiting idiots like John Wiley Price and Judge Thomas Jones can take their apologies and shove them where the sun doesn’t shine. Wait… That would make it dark, possibly even *gasp* black if the sun is not shining there. Oh, well, shove it there anyway you idiots!

Forty years ago today a great civil rights leader lost his life for his beliefs. Today a great conservative leader is laid to rest and his beliefs are thrust upon the shoulders of our generation to either push forward or fail under the weight of that responsibility.

In honor of this day, I would like to post something that so many people convienently ignore: the entire text of the Dream speech.

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This is unfortunately not what the legacy of this man has come to represent. If we truely lived in the shadow of Dr. King, there would be no seperate city councils defined by race. There would be no seperate political caucuses based solely on the color of skin. There would be no afirmitive action and applicants for employment would be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.

No, Dr. King preached peace, equality and humility before God. It is a terrible shame that such a great message, from a great man, has been perverted into an abomination that fuels the very racial segregation that he gave his life to fight for. We should be proud of the legacy that men like Dr. King and William F. Buckley have left us, but ashamed of how poorly we have adhered to their values.