Ties on Pigs
Friday, August 29, 2003
  This just in: Hell has frozen over! By Jason Stonefeld

I actually agree with Alan Dershowitz. See his column here.

Actually, Professor Dershowitz is fairly intellectually honest. He believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided though he personally believes that abortion should be legal. 
Thursday, August 28, 2003
  What's the Diff? by David Z. Dent

What is the real difference between Communism and Fascism? Multiculturism and Racism. That's it. I submit to this audience that Communism is worse because it tells a bigger lie than Hitler's 'Big Lie' and has better marketing appeal to the 'think with your heart, not with your head' crowd. Hitler limited his support group to blondies living in Northern Europe, while Communists can appeal to anyone naive, stupid, or evil enough to buy into the biggest lie of all time.

I remember sitting in my Junior High School AP (Advanced Placement) Social Studies course (didn't they used to call it 'History'?), listening to my teacher talk about the Nazis. We had spoken about Communism already and gotten a white-washed version of Communism. Somewhere in the intense focus we had on Nazi's, I raised my hand and asked what the difference was between Nazi's and Communists. My instructor, who shall remain nameless to protect the...er...to not embarass him, told me in front of the whole class that if you go to either end of the political spectrum, you find that extremism does a full circle and the far left and far right are fundamentally the same. This little pearl of wisdom grew in my soft, maleable brain for years, troubling the logic centers. I even saw the same tripe repeated in print somewhere.

Then, I realized that the National Socialists Workers Party (aka the Nazi's), were only different from their hated enemies, the Communists, by the fact that the Nazi's were xenophobes and racists, while the Communists wanted a worldwide worker's revolution. Their policies were identical, their methods the same.

So why does the left consider Nazi's right wingers? Racism. It doesn't fit with the multiculturism model of their thinking. The only problem that the left has with the Nazi's, was the fact that they didn't invite them along. They wouldn't have a problem with the Nazi's if they would have killed 10 million people, as long as they were equal opportunity murderers. Once they focused upon particular racial and ethnic groups, they became bad guys. You see, in the infinite wisdom of the left, killing isn't bad, as long as you kill for ideological reasons (unless you are a Jew in Israel) and not along ethnic lines.

Perhaps if Hitler would have made sure he killed the requisite number of blondies in his purges, he would be folk hero like Che Gavara, or Fidel Castro?

The equation of the right with Nazi's has to end and its true allegience with the left must be highlighted. The worst part of the Holocaust that is never spoken is that many Jewish intellectuals were enamored with Hitler and would have been his most loyal servants if wasn't so intent on killing them. The first campers were stunned that the man they loved so much would do that to them. Unfortunately for all Mankind, we all found out what he was about.

Communism and Socialism hasn't succeeded thus far, because it hasn't found the proper focus for its hatred. The Nazis could focus their hatred upon a target. A race of people. Hatred is the engine that fuels the left, for that is all that remains when G-d is removed from one's life.

  A Badly Needed Memorial in D.C. By David Z. Dent

There is a non-profit, but thus far privately funded, organization trying to create a memorial to all the innocents slaughtered by the greatest cancer to humanity ever invented by Fallen Man - Communism. Check it out. Send money.


Spend some time looking and reading, and you'll realize that the current lingering threat of communism makes the defunct and defeated threat of Fascism look like the Junior Varsity compared to the Pros.  
  Warning! By Jason Stonefeld

Do not click on this link unless you want to see the picture that has broken the hearts of my blog brother and I. If you are a parent, do not look at it. If you don't believe in human evil, do not look at it as it may change your mind. 
  All Right, the Democrats have gone insane. By Jason Stonefeld

What else is the explaination for this.

Its OK to make fun of Conservatives and Republicans, but Taco Bell having fun is rigging an election??

Ay, Caramba! 
  Ann Coulter Errors! By Jason Stonefeld

Yes it is true. I am afraid Ann Coulter may have made some inadvertent errors in her latest column at WorldNetDaily.com. Click on the link, read her column first, then return here.

1) The left's favorite leader after Saddam is Fidel Castro, not Chiraque. (I base this upon Castro's treatment by Members of Congress and Hollywood. Of course, the left's lack of pilgrimage to Paris may be simply explained by the fact they would have to go to Paris). Also, I don't think Chiraque has the "courage" so admired by the left to torture and murder out of concern for the People's welfare (Does torture and murder to improve the people's welfare negate an accusation of a Hate Crime?).

2) Going by Maureen Dowd's picture in her columns, she is post-menopausal thus incapable of PMS. Perhaps her rantings have more to do with age induced dementia? I am note sure of Dowd's age so corrections are appreciated.

Of course, these "errors" are just an opportunity for me to have fun at the expense of the left while standing on the shoulders of intellectual giants. 
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
  More Returning Manliness By Jason Stonefeld

A Wall Street Journal article discusses the growing appeal of NASCAR outside of the South. This makes perfect sense as this country is returning to embrace masculine values that have been so maligned during the last 30+ years of radical feminism (sorry for the redundancy). The patriotic expressions at NASCAR events are even more indicative of most normal thinking people expressing gratitude for living in the greatest country G-d gave man.

See also Peggy Noonan's WSJ column regarding a return to manliness. Thank goodness more people are recongnizing that masculinity is not synonymous with boorishness, violence, and filth. 
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
  More Myth Busting By Jason Stonefeld

Can we now break the myth that the National Organization of Women is a mainstream women's group? They have now endorsed Carol Mosely Braun, the least likely of democratic contenders for the nomination.

This should prove once and for all that NOW has made itself irrelevant to everyone but the mainstream media who think NOW speaks for all american women. By endorsing a sure loser, NOW may be standing on principal, but demonstrates that those principals are as out of norm as is Carol Mosley Braun.

It will be interesting if NOW re-endorses the Democratic nominee. 
Monday, August 25, 2003
  Bus Bombing in Israel and the Solution to the Problem By David Z. Dent

There is an elephant in the room, the emperor is wearing no clothes, or there is a tie on that pig - whichever turn of phrase pleases you. This elephant is invisible to the world because of the poison of multiculturism and liberal ideology and an overcompensation from the horrors of WWII. This elephant is the solution to the insane level of violence in the Middle East right now. This elephant we are talking about is the issue of exile. It is actually illegal for Israelis from mentioning the subject.

What is so wrong with exiling people living in your cities that wish to blow you up? The answer is for Israel to deport every last Palestinian, and then defend her borders from the coming attack. There is no other solution short of Israel ceasing to exist.

I am not a blood-thirsty zionist. I am simply pointing out the obvious facts from what we can learn from history and human nature. This Israeli conflict cannot be resolved under the current model of international affairs. How many more people have to die from useless forays into naive international relations before people in the world wake up and start deporting antagonists and troublemakers in their own country? If a significant portion of your population moved into your country in recent history and decided to start blowing things and people into little tiny bits, why on Earth would you want to keep them? Why can't you deport them?

Why can't people defend themselves? Why can't nations that claim to be civilized recognize this threat to their very existence?

Maybe a holy war is coming for real. Let's pray for some peaceful solution without taking our eyes off of the reality of the situation. Deport rabble-rousers. Confiscate their property. Send them to Jordan, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia.

I have harsher things to say, but I will refrain. I just saw pictures of the broken bodies of children, deliberately targeted and massacred over the weekend in Israel. Five Americans were on board that bus. No major news service is reporting that dirty little secret. The murderer was a father of a five and a three year old. He left them orphans so that he could kill children.

I have no patience for this. I have no tolerance for people that target unsuspecting civilians. Once that happens, nothing those people have to say has any sympathy from me. Kill them all, for the sake of the children that would be slaughtered by these beasts.

  Is he still a Moderate? By Jason Stonefeld

Can we finally dispense with the media created fiction that Howard Dean is really a moderate with a dash of conservatism? This Letter to the editor will hopefully put that lie to rest.

Howard Dean is to the left of Mondale, Dukakis, Carter, etc. and his own words prove it. The liberal media know that a liberal will never be elected, so it disguises a liberal as really being moderate because after all he balanced the budget in Vermont. His own rhetoric is anti-american (anti-military, anti-success). It is possible to disagree with policy without being anti-american, but to advocate foreign policy that will make the United States more vulnerable is by definition ant-american. Ditto for class warfare statements all too common in the liberal left lexicon. 
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
  Compulsory Charity by David Z. Dent The article mentioned by Mr. Stonefeld did not address my real moral concern for socialism, or compulsory charity. The main concern is that charity is an expression of love of Mankind and the "love thy neighbor" part of the mitzvot or commandments handed down by G-d. In Christian theology it is the second part of the two-part commandments that are the most essential according to Jesus Himself.

How can I pursue any kind of salvation through obedience to these commandments if I am forced to do so? How can I be forced to believe in Jesus Christ? I can be forced to parrot the words of someone else. I can be forced to contribute my earned wages toward a charity that I don't believe in or wish to benefit. I can be forced to do many things. But men do not have the power to grant my salvation. That is the providence of G-d and G-d alone. Any love I may show toward G-d or my fellow Man is mine to show or not to show. It is my responsibility as G-d's creation to show my gratitude for His gifts and His Mercy. A government cannot do this for me or for anyone else. Gifts, by definition, are freely given. As are charitable donations. As is one's personal commitment to G-d.

If the government takes money from me to pay for my salvation, it robs me of some of my means to acheive those same ends on my own. Taxes are actually a hindrance to the one's efforts to obey G-d's commandments. If the tax burden is too high, it may prevent an individual from contributing to charity or helping others. Those struggling to make ends meet, aren't in a good position to donate money to charity. If the tax rate were smaller, people would have more disposable income, single income families would be more prevalent, and many would be in a position to contribute to charity on a regular basis. How can a handful of people in the Capitol possibly know what amount of money is the correct amount for me to donate to the poor? It is my decision to make. And my reckoning to deal with if I am wrong.

While none of these things are excuses for disobeying commandments, neither are they moral or ethical to encourage engage in any more than is absolutely necessary. Arguements extolling the "Christian duty" to help the poor by passing socialist policies are backward, short-sighted, and theologically wrong. Your Christian duty is yours to wrestle with, as is mine. We all have our crosses to bear, we cannot force the unwilling to bear the burden. It is immoral.
Monday, August 18, 2003
  Government Imposed Christian Charity by Jason Stonefeld Here's another article on a favorite topic of my blog brother. Essentially, charity comes from voluntary giving, not government coercion. I once had to tell this to a birkenstock wearing woman at Pacific Lutheran University who tried to tell me that it was unchristian to desire lower taxes.  
  Nazis are right wingers and other revisionist history myths. by Jason Stonefeld Here is an interesting article on why Nazis are closer to todays left wingers as opposed to the right.

The terms Nazi came from the party's acronym NASD. The S stood for Socialism. Roughly translated, the party was named the National Socialist Democratic party. Sure Hitler and Stalin hated each other but because they were each on the same end of the political spectrum. Intra-ideological struggles tend to be the bloodiest. 
  Opinion Journal Imitates Ties on Pigs by Jason Stonefeld Click here to see an article making the same point I did in my last post, though much more elegantly. 
Friday, August 15, 2003
  Power Outages by Jason Stonefeld All the weeping and nashing of teeth regarding the power failure "How can this happen?!" "It is obviously George Bush's fault because he is a Texas Oilman!" Etc. proves that the chattering classes (media, politicians, university faculty (in decending order of irrelevance) who are also overwhelmingly liberal) are absolutely incapable of surviving outside of a modern society.

There are two kinds of people in a situation such as this: those who are incapable of accepting their situation, and those who accept that that cannot be changed and forge ahead. I saw thousands of New Yorkers taking to the freeways walking home. that is accepting your situation and making do. The others were probably still in their offices fuming and doing absolutely nothing constructive.

The power was out in parts of two states for 23 hours. The fact that this does not happen every day is amazing. In other third-world countries and California, power shuts off in rolling blackouts. Along with water as well. I once had some neighbors from Cuba. They report that running water is available only a few hours a day in that socialist paradise (no doubt a result of the U.S. embargo).

Leftist politicians are already laying this event at the President's feet as if he were the Duty Engineer at the power station. Of course it is only natural for liberals to react this way because to them, government is G*d and the President is his High Priest. These liberals would sooner sacrifice a virgin to restore the power than try to find a solution to the problem.

Is this even a problem? If your car gives you 100,000 miles of faithful service and then breaks down on your way to the store, do you condemn the car as no good? Antiquated? All technology will experience failure at some time. A practical person will plan for contingencies: generator, food and water for a few days, and firearms.

In this instance, perhaps the power grid needs updating and redundancy. but the fact remains that this is the first major blackout in several years.

The United States are home to the self-reliant of the world. It is our generosity that then makes it possible for liberal moochers to exist. In the pioneer days of the frontier, a Marxist would quickly become a conservative, or die.

Prediction: Leftist politicians will demand government oversight if not outright nationalization of the power grid. (Sound familiar? This thinking put pretty maroon sweaters with the letters TSA on Octogenarians at our nations airports). 
  Required e-Reading for Conservatives by Jason Stonefeld For lack of a better topic here are some of the websites I review on a daily basis in order to keep abreast of news events from a conservative point of view:

Wall Street Journal Online
Media Research Center
Drudge Report
Jewish World Review
World Net Daily

that will do for now 
  More Bad Reporting From "Unbiased" News Media by David Z. Dent

I just read an article from the Associated Press, that bastion of fair and balanced news reporting, titled "Third World Laughs at Blackout Woes". First of all, I doubt sincerely that the entire Third World is overjoyed at every US misfortune. I doubt that the people interviewed for this story are representative of the public at large around the world in these countries. This is a fun story to look at the lighter side of an unfortunate, but not catastrophic situation.

But, as I think about it, this story illustrates a core anti-American bias in the American and foreign news services. I guarantee you that there are many Iraqis right now that would not have made the statements that this story's sole representative from that country have made. I suspect that that is true of the remainder of the "sources". Why the 'sneering-at-America' slant to the story? Why is this story necessary? What possible contribution does this story make to the public good? What can this story do, other than create more cynicism and dislike of the US? It reported no facts of any use to anyone. Its only purpose was to say that blackouts in the rest of the world happen all of the time and we're just spoiled and priveledged whiney-babies...nanny, nanny, boo-boo. I got the distinct impression from the article that we were somehow morally inferior because we had competant engineers, and a world-class infrastructure envied by the rest of the world.

Oh yeah, I forgot. We are. That is the liberal calculus. Morality is based solely upon the sufferring of the individual, regardless of culpability. Competance is universally despised.

Thursday, August 07, 2003
  The Gay Bishop Schizm By David Z. Dent

After being baptized in the Episcopal Church as a half-step between my paternal family's Catholicism and my maternal family's convenience-store style of Church-of-the-Nearest-Corner selection whenever they moved, I was raised an agnostic atheist by default by a single mom after a divorce. My paternal grandmother died when I was 10 and with her went the last person in my family to care much about me going to church or being involved in any kind of religion.

In recent years, I've married a nice, but very secular Jewish woman and we have made a beautiful son with another due in about a month. In the last few years I have been exploring religious options, trying to take a little more care than my maternal grandfather did when he moved to a new town. My sister went back to the Episcopal Church for her wedding several years ago and I thought I would give the first try at the Church that promised to sheppard my soul to heaven upon my death.

My first return to the Church was on a Labor Day weekend and I was horrified to be subjected to a guest-sermon by a lesbian, and liberal activist-professor from the University here in town. I watched as her "partner" ushered the group of robed people with staves and important religious stuff down the center of the aisle and listened to this professor rant about Republicans and our newly elected George W. Bush as being threats to our nation and our liberty because they don't support the labor movement.

I went from a peaceful place of humility before God, trying to get in touch with Him and what His plan for me might be, and I was rocked out of my solace by this inappropriate, and disrespectful behavior from a sexual deviant seeking acceptance and even applause for her brazen defiance of what scripture describes as abominable behavior, the practitioners of which, should be either exiled or stoned to death. How am I to reconcile what the Bible says and what these people want in this world? Why should I have to while I'm at Church?

I don't have anything personal against gay individuals. I don't have any sort of agenda to banish them from society. I don't have any desire to hunt them down and beat them up, or ridicule them in public, deny them jobs, homes, or anything else. But the Bible tells us that the behavior they engage in is sinful. Being such, I don't think they are in a position to act as a moral authority or any sort of official position within a Church that professes to believe that the Bible is True. I see no philosophical difference between an openly gay priest and one that is openly adulterous or openly dishonest or abusive. We are all human and all make mistakes, but one cannot have any moral authority if one blatantly and proudly disobeys the moral code outlined by the very text upon which one claims to be a moral authority.

What kind of message does it send that openly defiant people are in places to lecture and teach about the very code from which they themselves deviate? The law school trained gay activists can parse the language and play word games all they like but they will never gain widespread acceptance for their lifestyles and choices...and yes that is what they are - choices.

God works in mysterious ways and some people are burdened with a homosexual bent, some with a predilection for substance abuse, some with an inability to curb their consumption of food or drink, a gambling problem, a self-esteem problem, and countless other problems. Some seem to have a truly blessed life and have no real struggles that outsiders may observe. None of it releases any of them from the moral code and scripture handed down through the prophets. Perhaps and individual's behavior will be forgiven, but that is the job of God and His Mercy, not me or the general public. I may have the desire, but not the power to do such a thing. The problem is that one can only be forgiven if one is repentant and asks for that forgiveness in full humility. One cannot engage in a behavior that goes directly against a teaching, brag about it, push it into the public debate as an acceptable, normal and reasonable lifestyle and expect forgiveness for it.

In addition to the inability to achieve absolution from other humans, a sinner cannot erase the sin by getting others to engage in the same sin, or getting others to condone, accept or encourage that sinful behavior. Niether can one expect a majority of church-goers to accept the deviant behavior. The case is very simple for most people:

1. The Bible states in a variety of ways that homosexuality is wrong.
2. Well...there is no #2.

It takes a special lack of clarity in the thought process to miss this very important point...repeatedly. There is no debate. There is no negotiation. Let me state this as simply and directly as I possibly can:

There should be no priests that openly engage in unrepentant behavior that is contrary to the teachings of scripture.

Period. End of arguement.

How did a gay bishop get appointed? The homosexual agenda has gone too far. There is a reason why the membership in these churches in America are declining and membership in others is increasing. I don't know what I am going to do. Perhaps I'll go flirt with the Catholic Church. My paternal grandmother would be overjoyed. My maternal grandfather would be aghast. My inlaws would be disappointed that I didn't become a nice Jewish man. I am rudderless and sent adrift by this selfish, destructive, leftist agenda that is attacking our nations foundation and bedrock. This pernicious disease called liberalism needs to be eradicated. Perhaps I will pray for the soul of Gene Robertson as I search for a new place to say those prayers.

Pushers for a Theistic Conservative agenda. Shining the light of truth on the muddy waters of moral relativism.

10/01/1999 - 11/01/1999 / 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 / 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 / 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 / 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 / 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 / 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 / 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 / 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 / 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 / 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 / 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 / 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 / 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 / 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 /

Powered by Blogger