Southern Fried Ridiculousness Part II: The Stupiding

OK, I’m getting sick of this.  There’s a ton of people passing around the following picture that are about to get a slappin’ by ye olde Annoyed Elephant:

Seriously…   what’s wrong with you people?  Christians are among the most generous people on the planet.  They give and give and give to food banks, homeless shelters, and individuals in need on a near-constant basis, giving billions of dollars every year out of their own pockets to combat poverty and hunger, not only in America, but around the world.  On top of that, Chick-Fil-A mandates that its franchises also give to local charities and people in need.

And yet, socially-minded folks are lining up to point out how evil some Christians were for spending $7 at Chick-Fil-A to support a man who shares their family values.  As if it’s an either-or scenario where we either help the poor or support Chick-Fil-A, and ne’er the twain shall meet.  As if, somehow, because of all the people who ate at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday to support Truett Cathy’s freedom of conscience regarding his Biblical morals will somehow erase decades of “success” in the war on poverty.

Get off your high horse, people.  Eat your damned chicken sandwich.

Read Full Post »

Southern-Fried Ridiculousness

If a business does something I don’t approve of, I simply stop shopping there.  For instance, Citgo is owned by Hugo Chavez, communist dictator of Venezuela, and because I consider Hugo to be a gigantic douche, I don’t get gas as Ctigo.  Ever.  If my friends ask me, I’ll tell them why I avoid Citgo.  They may agree and stop shopping there, they may not.  It’s all good because we’re all individuals capable of making adult decisions and I don’t pick my friends and colleagues based on politics – and those friends I have who do disagree with me tend to be adult enough to realize this.

So, this leads to the question: why the war on Chick-Fil-A?

First, let’s get this clear: Chick-Fil-A the company was founded by a Christian man whose values have driven his business model.  The employees are typically extremely friendly to customers, the restaurants are very considerate towards families in both design and menu offerings, and they’re closed on Sunday (a point which has annoyed me often when I’ve had a mis-timed craving).  The founder of Chick-Fil-A, S. Truett Cathy, continues to promote his personal values.  So what’s the problem?

I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Well, shockingly to some, this man – who’s fostered over 200 kids, attends church every Sunday, and continues to teach Sunday School classes in his 90′s, doesn’t like gay marriage.  His business doesn’t discriminate against gays, they don’t refuse to serve gay people, they don’t put pictures of the Chick-Fil-A cows holding signs that say “God Hats Homoos” on their marquees.  It’s simply that Truett doesn’t think gay behavior is right and doesn’t support gay marriage.  Now, what would an adult do about this shocking revelation?

• Option 1: Realize that we’re talking about a 91 year old Christian man and get on with life, applauding his works you agree with, and occasionally stopping by Chick-Fil-A for their delicious sandwiches.
• Option 2: Disagree with Mr. Cathy and send the company a letter expressing your discontent with his position, but accepting the fact that Chick-Fil-A probably isn’t going to be putting out an Anti-Gay Kids Meal any time soon.
• Option 3: Perform a personal boycott of Mr. Cathy’s businesses.  Be content in your personal sacrifice, but sad that you’re missing out on their delicious chicken.
• Option 4: Perform same boycott, but mention to friends that they may want to join you.   Send a letter to the company stating your reasons for boycotting.
• Option 5: Demonize a 91-year-old man whose values you never agreed with and use the force of government to exert the force of your will, not only upon the business whose founder has beliefs you don’t agree with, but on the potential employees of said business.  Plus, hold gay kiss-in events at Chick-Fil-A so that the people who eat their lunch there will feel totally weird about it and not eat there, forcing Chick-Fil-A to serve people who held their kiss-ins, except that they already totally do serve gay people at Chick-Fil-A, which means you’re just doing it for show.  Besides, people who don’t agree with your political views don’t deserve the same freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment that good progressives do.

Normal people would choose 1-4.  Sadly, a ton of retards are choosing 5, getting the likes of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino and Chicago Mayor and Obama associate Rahm Emanuel to try to push Chick-Fil-A out of their respective cities, a fascistic move that’s even set off the free expression alarm at the incredibly liberal Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and NPR.

The ultimate in irony is that while Rahm Emanuel was pushing against Chick-Fil-A for Cathy’s support of traditional marriage, he was also welcoming Louis Farrakhan to Chicago, who not only opposes gay marriage, but also openly and proudly hates Jewish people like…  Rahm Emanuel.

The pro-family groups have organized today, August 1, as a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, and have encouraged people to go by and grab a sammich.  Personally, I disagree with this.  I think that a better approach is simply to eat mor chikin.  Don’t limit it to a single day – go support the businesses who support your values on a regular basis.  Show them your support by becoming a regular customer.  Go buy a sammich today…  and then another tomorrow…  and then another a few days from now.  Sure, you’ll get fat, but it’ll be delicious and you’ll be giving your support to a business whose values are the same values found in Scripture.

That’s my take.

Read Full Post »

A Few Thoughts On the Ruling…

1. Obamacare sucks in every possible way.
2. The ruling had a somewhat subtle, but firm slap in the face of Congress, declaring that their use of the Commerce Clause was incorrect and that the authority for the act rested under the Taxation Powers of Congress.
3. In joining with the left, John Roberts may have just handed the November election to the GOP.  Now the GOP has more to run on that “we’re not Obama”.  They’ve got the economy and they’ve got Obamacare.  It won’t be hard for them to point out that the costs of Obamacare will be borne by the taxpayers in the middle of a bad economy – a formula that got them a tremendous victory in the House last November.  The more I think about it, this whole scenario has a very Karl-Rovesque feel to it, with someone playing a much smarter game than anyone’s realizing.
4. The ruling makes Democrats happy today.  I liken it to a team who just got a touchdown in a football game.  They did, however, miss the extra point and now the other team (the GOP) has excellent field position.  The only question is: can our Bringham-Young-graduate QB take it to the paint?

Read Full Post »

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid…

So the court says Obamacare is a-OK.  That’s right: the right of the government to force you to spend your money how they see fit is covered under “taxation authority”.  And, as expected, there’s a lot of blame to be passed around, most of it resting on the back of Chief Justice John Roberts.

But I don’t blame Roberts.  Honestly, looking at the ruling, I see the direction he was heading in: Congress has the power to tax you, and forcing you to buy health insurance is no different.  It’s not an argument I agree with 100%, but it’s a logical one.  It also throws the role of healthcare back into the legislature.  No, I don’t blame Roberts or even the left side of the court.

I blame you.

That’s right, America – I blame you.  You’re the one who elected these idiots.  You’re the one who voted for “hope” and “change” instead of thinking things through.  You’re the ones who voted retards into Congress assuring us that they were nowhere near as socialist and liberal as we said they were.  You, and only you, are the ones that I hold responsible for wiping your ass with our constitution, our economy, and our future and flushing it down the toilet.  You were stupid.

You don’t like that, do you?  You don’t like me calling you a bunch of retards?  Well, then, you shouldn’t have voted for retards.

Want to change my mind about you?  Then freaking vote right this time.  Stop sticking your fingers in your ears when someone tells you that Obama and his radical left are lying to you.  Stop feeling bad about your own racism, thinking you can cure it by voting for a black guy who hangs out with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers.  Stop not thinking things through.

And you Republicans?  Don’t you DARE back down on this.  Take hold of the reins that the people are screaming at you to take hold of and show us some leadership.  Defund this piece of garbage and send it back to hell where it belongs.  Be conservative, not stupid.

Read Full Post »

The Problem With Separation of Church and State

School in the…   wait for it…  liberal Democrat-leaning state of New York…  censored an art student’s contribution to a mural.  They had tons of religious imagery on the wall, but the minute a student who believed that Jesus was the Way, the Truth, and the Life decided to paint a cross and a few song lyrics, the school felt that she’d crossed the line.

Scary!

Painting a mosque?  Fine.  A demonic creature?  A-OK.   The Taj Mahal?  10-4.  A Native American totem pole?  Yee-hah.  A cross?  BLACKLIST THE TWIT!!!

Look, I’m all for not pushing religion on people.  I am a dedicated, strong, stubborn Christian, but I know that there are people who neither share my faith nor want to share my faith.  And while I do believe I am called to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to let you know the Good News that He can save you from your sins and the penalty to come if you only repent and believe in Him…  but I’m also well aware that the best way to communicate the Gospel is to build a personal relationship with people and to meet them where they are so that you can point them to the Cross.  An ineffective method would be sticking students in a classroom and indoctrinating them via a state-approved religious curriculum.

Having said that, there seems to be a mistake made by the anti-religious crowd and bureaucrats, that our precious little angels – and by extension, our precious little public – must be freed from any expression of religious (read: Christian) belief in the public circle.  They crow about the separation of church and state and point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer isn’t allowed in any classroom, ever!  Ha ha ha!

Silly people.  Silly, evil people.

Let’s take a quick look at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There’s a lot of meat in there, but it’s meat that’s easily identified and served up. Let’s stick with just the stuff that sticks with this case.

1.  Congress shall make no law.  This is pretty simple: the first amendment is a restriction on the actions of Congress, not the people.  Much like the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms, the First Amendment protects the rights of the people.

2.  An establishment of religion.  Again, pretty simple: Congress is not allowed to declare an official religion of the United States.  This was because many of the American colonies were founded by Christian people for religious purposes, and those Christian groups sometimes didn’t get along, sometimes even with themselves.  By avoiding the establishment of a national religion, those debates were rendered moot at the Federal level, even though every single colony still acknowledged Almighty God in their charters.  Today, this has been extended to other religions.

3.  Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  The Federal Government cannot keep you from practicing your religion.  If you want to practice Voodoo, that’s your business (so long as you’re not breaking any laws in doing so).

4.  Or abridging the freedom of speech.  Again, while there are reasonable limits placed on this right (you can’t yell fire in a theater, you can’t threaten someone’s life, etc.), it’s typically accepted that the government is not allowed to tell you what you can and cannot say.  Simple?  Sure.

So where did we get lost?  In my ever-loving opinion, it started in the 1980′s, when the Supreme Court ruled in Abington Township v. Schempp , where they introduced the “secular vs. religious” test.  Later, in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, the court went full retard, ruling that having the words “Gloria in Exelcis Deo” was illegal because that was totally religious, but it was OK to have a Menorah, because that’s totally secular.  By entertaining a micromanagement approach towards the free exercise of religion, the Court empowered those who want to push a secularist religion like atheism.

This leads to incidents like this, where the same people who thought it was evil, wrong, super-evil censorship to ban the sale of 2 Live Crew albums in Florida think it’s perfectly OK to paint over a student’s artistic expression of admiration for her God because, Lord knows someone might see her picture and get magically forced by the school board to join the Baptists.  They’re so busy enforcing point #2 of the amendment that they miss #3 and #4.  They’re taking a very liberal view of the constitution, where one can change the plain meaning of the constitution as it suits the situation (hence why I join Alonzo Rachel in rejecting “progressive” as a label for people who are more accurately described as “liberal”).  This liberal view means that the freedom of those who should be protected by the constitution is subject to the whims of a government bureaucrat.

Read Full Post »

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Convicted Speedway Bomber turned Liberal Activist Brett Kimberlin is bullying conservatives who point out that he’s a convicted bomber who’s receiving a lot of money from liberals.  After bombing a few choice locations in Speedway, Indiana and coming up with a few more bizarre plots, he received over 50 years in prison for a string of bombings, but for some reason was granted parole after 17 years, and is now breathing free air, collecting cash from liberal stalwarts like Barbara Streissand and Teresa Heinz-Kerry, and is thuggishly trying to silence anyone who points out exactly who he is, trying to falsely frame some for crimes, forcing some to leave their homes in fear of their safety, and threatening others with lawsuits that point out things that are part of the public record.  He’s gotten Wikipedia to delete his own article, hiding his crimes from history.

There are 3 questions I have:

1.  Why is this convicted felon who shouldn’t be free until, at minimum, 2028, breathing free air?

2.  Why are big-name liberals giving him big money?

3.  Why is this serial litigator still allowed to sue?

Today is Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin Day.  Join me and bloggers around the country in exposing this convicted felon and left-wing activist.

Read Full Post »

Piñata II: The Spawning

There’s nothing like watching a Union thug beat a Nikki Haley piñata to make you ask a simple question: why is it OK?  Or, to be a bit more direct: would it be OK if someone made a Barack Obama piñata and beat it with a stick?

I’m not saying that the right has been innocent in their treatment of liberals, but…   well, we are.  Seriously.  There’s no comparison.  Between the union thugs assaulting people who disagree with them to the Occupiers who attack cops and destroy private property, the left seems to have trouble containing the most violent of their ranks.

In comparison, the Tea Party events were peaceful, well-organized, and cooperative with law enforcement.  I’ve been able to come across a couple of stories of TPers getting arrested (most notably when a group decided to Occupy the Hart Office Building in Washington DC), but most of the events have been peaceful.  Sure, there’ve been accusations of people spitting on Congressmen and calling them names, and one CNN producer totally heard a Tea Partier use the F-word once, maybe, possibly….    but in comparison to the Occupy Twits?  They’re freakin’ boy scouts.

The point being that equivocation only serves its purpose when there’s something to equivocate, and there’s nothing here to equivocate.  I’ll go ahead and say it: the AFL/CIO idiot who made a Nikki Haley piñata was just as wrong as someone who’d make a Barack Obama piñata.  They’re both idiots and should both be treated accordingly.

Read Full Post »

Skittles, Iced Tea, and Stupidity

For two months now, all we’ve heard is how an evil white guy in Florida gunned down a poor, innocent black kid in cold blood, and I’m sick of it.

I’ve spoken out on this on Facebook and message boards quite a bit, but it’s time to lay everything out, both in terms of understanding the situation, the law behind it, the people involved, and the fluff on both sides of the argument.  If you don’t agree with me, feel free to start your own blog on the matter.

Here’s the facts that we actually know at this point:

• On February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch guy and concealed weapon license holder that lived in a neighborhood with rising crime rates, saw a person he thought was behaving suspiciously.  He phoned it in to the non-emergency number at the Sanford, FL police department at 7:09 PM.  At around 7:11-7:12, Martin begins running and Zimmerman begins to chase him.  The operator tells him “We don’t need you to do that”.  Zimmerman says “OK” and gives his best address location to the operator.  At 7:13, he hangs up.
• Martin’s girlfriend was on the phone with him around 7:12 and was told that someone was following him.  She reported that there was a verbal confrontation at some point during the phone call.
• At about 7:25, there is a physical altercation during which Zimmerman pulls a Kel-Tec PF9 pistol and fires a single shot at very close range.  The slug hits Martin in the chest.  At 7:26, support personnel arrive and perform lifesaving measures on Martin, who is declared dead at 7:30 PM.  Zimmerman tells the police officer on site that he had shot Martin.
• According to witnesses, there was a physical altercation that involved Martin on top of Zimmerman, hitting him with his fists.  Medical reports released after the event show that Zimmerman had wounds to his face, nose, and back of head, and the back of his jacket was wet and covered with grass, consistent with him lying on his back in the wet grass.  Zimmerman’s hands were not bruised (indicating that he did not hit Martin).  Martin’s autopsy report showed that his hands were bruised, as if he’d been hitting someone.  The autopsy report also showed that Martin had THC (a byproduct of marijuana) in his system at the time of his death, but the quantity as of today is not known.
• Zimmerman was placed into police custody and taken downtown where he was photographed, interviewed, and investigated.  The state attorney’s office called it self-defense and declined to pursue charges against him at the time.
• After protests by the victim’s family and rising national pressure, Florida Governor Rick Scott assigned a different state prosecutor to the case.  On April 11, 2012, the new prosecutor charged Zimmerman with 2nd Degree Murder.

Here’s where we have to start talking about legal specifics.  I am not a lawyer, so please consult a legal professional if you have questions about this:

• Self-defense law in the United States is simple and is accepted nationwide.  If a reasonable person believes they or someone else is at risk of loss of life, serious bodily injury, or serious sexual assault, then they have the right to use deadly force in defense.
• There are two doctrines that are tied to self-defense.  The first is called “duty to retreat” and it states that a defendant who is claiming self defense must prove to the court that they attempted to avoid the conflict and took reasonable steps to attempt to retreat before they used deadly force.  19 states use this doctrine.
• The second doctrine is called “stand your ground”.  This doctrine states that if you are in a conflict that you did not provoke and you have to use deadly force to defend yourself, you are under no duty to retreat.  31 states use some form of this doctrine that varies from an absolute stand-your-ground law (24 states) to a limited version that only applies to home, business, car, etc. (7 states)
• Massad Ayoob nicely covers stand-your-ground laws here.  You should pay attention to what he says.
• Under Florida Law, Second Degree Murder in Florida is defined as “The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree”. (FL State Code 782.04 (2)).  In other words, it is an unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without premeditation.  A classic description of 2nd Degree Murder is if a person became angry, grabbed his usual self-defense gun, and then shot the person he was angry at.

This is what we know so far.  Unfortunately, there’s so much stupid heat over this tragedy that we’ve forgotten the real facts of this case:

• A young man is dead, possibly because of his own actions.
• Another young man’s life is ruined, possibly because he defended his life against an aggressor.

Such a shame that both of these young men are being dragged through the mud by race-baiters, political hacks, media vultures deliberately editing material to poison public opinion, and politicians running for re-election.

Read Full Post »

Attention Conservatives: Stop Being Stupid

As anyone who’s read this blog over the past few years (including the desert years of 2009-2011) knows, I’m more than happy to hold those on the left accountable for their idiocy and to call them to task for being…  well…  illogical and willfully stupid.  And so, some people may think that my laser beam of stupid is aimed only at liberals and that I’m unwilling to hold my own – or myself – accountable.  Those people would be wrong.

Marco Rubio – Apparently, a Liberal

When it comes to politics, I’m a solid right-conservative.  My Political Compass rating (an excellent test for determining your personal beliefs, even if their analysis of public figures is way off – they rank Obama as a right-authoritarian) is a 7.12 economic and 0.15 social, so you know where I’m coming from: a fairly Reaganesque, but not hard-right conservative.  And as conservative as I am, I am well aware of the fact that there are those who do not share my beliefs.  The last 5 Republican Presidential nominees and presumptive nominees (Romney, McCain, Bush II, Dole, and Bush I) have all been much more moderate than my own beliefs.  And yet, though these differences existed, I came to the conclusion that, at the end of the day, my 80% political friend was not my political enemy.

And yet, what I see happening on the right now is to take Reagan’s sage advice to his staff back in 1972 (“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor”) and flush it down the commode in an attempt to find the mystical “perfect candidate”.  It goes to the point of people misunderstanding what conservatism really is, and calling out anyone who disagrees with us on a single issue.  Example? OK.  I’ve heard more than one conservative call out Marco Rubio as an imperfect RINO in waiting because, according to them, he supports the DREAM Act (or at least, a version of it).

OK, let’s think about this for a minute.  First – let’s talk about his version of the DREAM Act and what it really is.  First – it’s not even on the table yet.  It’s not even been proposed.  However, the word on the street is that the revised DREAM Act being proposed will basically allow children (who cannot be legally responsible) who were brought over the border by their parents (not of their own free will) who work to complete school, register for selective service, and be good citizens (no troublemakers or layabouts allowed) an opportunity to work within the existing immigration system (not creating a pathway to citizenship, thus preserving our existing investment in our legal immigrants) to stay in the country (rather than being thrown back over the border to a country they may not even remember).  In other words: it allows kids who had no choice in becoming illegal immigrants both an impetus to be good people and an opportunity to become law-abiding adults without ignoring their status as an illegal immigrant.  Simply put: this is a good thing.

Let me say it again: providing people who were unwillingly dragged into breaking the law an opportunity to follow the law is a good thing.  Period.

And yet, there are way too many conservatives who are ready to throw Rubio under the bus because he won’t toe the hard-line school of “we don’t care if they haven’t lived in Mexico since they were 2 – throw them back over the border”.  Marco Rubio.  A man whose voting record has earned him a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, whose record of conservative leadership in Florida has earned him the respect of people around this country. A man whose common-sense responsible conservatism has earned him a potential tap as the Vice Presidential nominee of our country.

And these idiots are calling him a RINO, not because he HAS stepped out of line on an issue…  but because he MAY step out of line on an issue.  Ditto with other conservatives, including some of the most conservative members of Congress out there.

We saw it all primary season long…  Republican candidates who would rise up to challenge Mitt Romney and then get knocked down by the conservative branch because they weren’t the perfect conservative candidate that Ronald Reagan was (the same Reagan who raised taxes, spent money like water – arguably with good reason, and who provided blanket amnesty for a group of illegal immigrants).  Tim Pawlenty (a strong mainstream conservative whose sin was supporting cap and trade), Rick Perry (another mainstream conservative who supported vaccinating girls against cancer and supported the Trans-Texas Corridor), Newt Gingrich (a successful conservative leader with a 90% ACU rating who got in trouble for global warming and for opening his mouth too much).  And the result: we’re left with Mitt Romney…  whose lifetime ACU Rating is 55.

Congrats, conservatives.  Thanks to you throwing good candidates under the bus, we’re left with a middle-ground squish.  Mission Accomplished!  And now, having learned absolutely nothing from the Primaries, you turn your attention to demonizing some of the most conservative people in this country because they’re not good enough on maybe – MAYBE one issue.  They’re like the geniuses who refused to vote for Sarah Palin for Vice President because a woman’s place is, apparently, in the home, ignoring the fact that she was a successful, inspirational administrator with a conservative and anti-corruption record longer than the Alaskan coastline.

So, this is my love letter to my fellow conservatives, and as much as it hurts me to say it: stop being idiots.  You’re acting like a bunch of retards.  As much as I loathe Romney’s moderate politics, you’re going to have to admit that it’s you conservatives who got us into this mess with him as a candidate because you were too focused on nuking your own wounded and not building a consensus candidate that could appeal to the entire party.  You were too busy running the bus over the people who failed the perfect-conservative litmus test and not busy at figuring out how to play a political game that requires more finesse than a Sherman Tank and that doesn’t alienate 30% of your potential voters.

Or, you could at least try to act like adults.  That would be a nice change.

Read Full Post »

Screw You, Bev Perdue

Gov. Bev Perdue, Twit

The hateful failure of a governor of North Carolina, Bev Perdue, has compared the state she governs to Mississippi because it voted to disallow gay marriage.

Am I insulted that she compared us to Mississippi?  No.  Mississippi is a fine state full of fine people.  The problem isn’t that she compared my home state of North Carolina to Mississippi, I guess implying that we’re a bunch of uneducated, uncouth, rural, backwards hicks – which would insult me if I were Mississippian.  The problem is that she insulted her own state’s voters – 61% of whom voted in favor of the amendment.  Instead of being a gracious loser, she instead decided to act like a hateful little douchebag, insulting 61% of her own state.

So you know what?  Screw you, Bev Perdue.  Resign and stop beclowning yourself.  You won’t.  Fortunately, your term is less than a year away from ending and finally giving this state a chance to improve from the cesspool you, Mike Easley, and 100 years of Democrat control of Raleigh created.

Read Full Post »