Posts Tagged ‘angry’

Obama, The Angry President Who Is Angry For All The Wrong Reasons And None Of The Right Ones

January 31, 2012

Recently Obama did an interview with ABC to manage the flap created by his run-in with Governor Jan Brewster of Arizona – which ended with Obama storming off with the governor in mid-sentence.

Instead of answering the direct question (which was basically, “Are you thin-skinned?”), Obama punted to this:

“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.”

Well, let me assure you of something: I’VE sure never called Obama “too relaxed.”  I’VE sure never called him “No Drama Obama.”  In fact, the reason I write this blog is to try to document the incessant never-ending drama and histrionics that constitutes the Obama presidency.  Every day is a fresh, new outrage.

The man who is “the most polarizing president in American history” is hardly “too relaxed.”  You just don’t get to be “the most polarizing president in American history” by being “too relaxed.”

A partial list of reasons why I openly mock the “No Drama Obama” bullcrap of “I’m usually accused of not being intense enough” appears below:

Don’t you think we’re not keeping score, brother” – Chairman Obama
Bring it on”- Obama Regime to The American People.
Get ready for hand-to-hand combat with your fellow Americans” – Obama
I want all Americans to get in each others faces!” – Obama
You bring a knife to a fight pal, we’ll bring a gun” – Obama
Republicans are our enemies“–Obama
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
the Cambridge Police acted Stupidly” ” – Beer Summit Gaffe Leader

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/commenter?id=4d2ba389ccd1d58425050000#ixzz1l0CejqKX

So I thought it was interesting to learn a little more about this incredibly angry man who inhabits our White House rather like a Chicago thug.  And here’s a triad from the Orange County Register’s Mark Landsbaum:

Obama the Angry
January 25th, 2012, 3:49 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

During the State of the Union speech last night we had the TV turned up very loud so I could hear the speech while following along in the released transcript on my computer screen and taking notes at the keyboard while simultaneously roughing a draft of our editorial today.

Let him make this perfectly clear…

During the 65 minutes he spoke, I developed something of a headache.

It seemed to me the president virtually shouted his entire speech. I though that maybe it was the louder-than-normal TV volume. But all the same, it seemed as if the guy was, how should I put it? Angry.

Now, given what he had to work with, stupefying unemployment, a dead-in-the-water cap-and-trade scheme, a soon-to-be-ruled unconstitutional ObamaCare, an economy that’s doing an excellent imitation of a recession and the likelihood of losing not just his support in Congress, but his own job, I can understand why the president might be a bit on edge.

Then this afternoon I clicked on to one of our favorite items, James Taranto’s Best of the Web column in the Wall Street Journal. And what did he have to say?

“This guy is angry.”

Maybe it wasn’t just the TV volume.

Considering that the SOTU speech essentially marks the beginning of Obama’s reelection campaign, what does this portend for the campaign trail as the president ratchets up his mood and voice another notch every time he is greeted with underwhelming response? He could be hoarse by June.

How about voters?

We don’t know about you, but there is little in politics that turned us off as did Al Gore’s pretentious and pompous tone, or Hillary’s fingernail-scraping shrillness. Little, that is, until we got 65 minutes of Obama’s screaming, ranting performance last night.

And:

Obama the Angry, part II
January 27th, 2012, 4:54 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

We normally don’t comment on blogs in the neighborhood, but this one was too sweet to ignore. Some fella named Prevatt over at some blog called TheLiberalOC.com took exception to our characterization of the angry fellow in the White House as being, well, angry.

Our post was titled “Obama the Angry,” for reasons pretty much apparent to anyone with ears to hear. But Mr. Prevatt said that we went on, “to promote the stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president’s” State of the Union speech.

Stereotype of an angry black man?

We checked and sure enough, we didn’t identify the man in the White House by his race. Which means once again the Angry Left has jumped to the conclusion that any unflattering characterization of Obama must be rooted in something racial.

What we did, of course, was simply identify an angry man.

Perhaps “an angry black man” fits some stereotype of Barack Obama held by Mr. Prevatt. After all, it was he not we who drew the inference of stereotype.

For our part, we think Barack Obama is much different than any stereotype. We find him almost singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced and, well, angry. Particularly so for a president. In fact, he couldn’t in any way be described as stereotypical. We’ll give him that. He’s definitely one of a kind.

Let’s reiterate here, just in case someone other than Mr. Prevatt is reading this. It was Mr. Prevatt who invoked the “stereotype of the ‘angry black man’ to describe the president.” Not us.

As it happens, we also had alluded in that blog post and linked to the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto column, headlined “The State of the Union Is Angry.” Lo and behold, it was another characterization of the president as being angry during his speech. Taranto, like us, also didn’t mention race.

Have you noticed how often the Angry Left finds race and racism in, well, in just about everything? And have you noticed how we (and Mr. Taranto too) never seem to? Why is that?

But we digress. Taranto actually has written recently on this tendency of the Angry Left to see the world through racial lenses. Check here for a sample in his recent column, The Genetic Fallacy. In that column Taranto offers interesting insights into why the Left does what it does. It’s rooted in “a new kind of inequality that developed in the wake of the civil rights revolution, defined by Shelby Steele in his brilliant 2006 book, ‘White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era’.”

We put it another way. We call it projection, the defense mechanism in which a person transfers or projects his feelings onto another person. We think there’s a lot of this among the Angry Left.

Feelings of white guilt result in projection by Angry Leftists of their own failings and shortcomings onto their opponents.

Anyway. We found Mr. Prevatt’s blog transparently so. But what are you gonna do?

We’re not even going to complain that Mr. Prevatt referred to us by our first name, something we find just a tad presumptuous from a stranger, and for the record we can’t ever remember shaking the hand of anyone named Prevatt, let along being friends with one, although we wouldn’t rule that out, provided he stops projecting onto us.

And we aren’t going to make too much of Mr. Prevatt’s rather crude suggestion that “Mark, try … investing in a hearing aide,” or make a big deal about him misspelling it.

This Prevatt fellow may not even know that our otolaryngologist diagnosed yours truly to have substantial hearing loss in both ears, so Mr. Prevatt probably didn’t mean to be crude or rude. That may just be the way he is.

But to clarify, the reason we turned up the TV volume to listen to the president’s speech had nothing to do with our somewhat impaired hearing, which actually doesn’t require a hearing aid. It was because we were typing at the keyboard in THE NEXT ROOM.

We don’t doubt that even Mr. Prevatt may strain when it comes to listening to a television from another room.

But be all that as it may, let’s deal briefly with whether Taranto and we correctly identify the president as an angry person, whatever color he may be. Google for yourself the words “angry” and “Obama.”

Here is just a sampling with our emphases:

“Obama’s gracious tone has diminished almost by the hour since his election. He snipes at the American people for not being smart enough to get how smart his plans for them are. He blames others for his failings. Bush, Congress, rich people, even poor people.”

The Washington Post’s headline Friday: “Obama exchange with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reveals his testy side.” Oh those stereotyping guys at the Post.

Writes Michelle Malkin: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said, “He was a little disturbed about my book.” Then “In the shadow of Air Force One, Obama complained that Brewer hadn’t “treated him cordially,” and then stalked off while she was responding mid-sentence.”

Recall this one? “Angry Obama walks out on debt-limit talks” By S.A. MILLER, New York Post Correspondent.

And this account: “…Cantor explained, the president became ‘very agitated’ and said he had ‘sat here long enough’… Before walking out of the room, Cantor said, the president told him: ‘Eric, don’t call my bluff. I’m going to the American people with this.’ He then ‘shoved back’ and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’.”

Then there was this Washington Post account last week by David Nakamura and Rachel Weiner, not exactly card-carrying Tea Partiers: “AURORA, Colo. — President Obama’s raw exchange with the governor of Arizona on an airport tarmac this week did more than overshadow his carefully stage-managed road trip to trumpet his State of the Union goals. The discussion revealed a testy side of the president’s personality that is at odds with his public image as ‘no-drama Obama,’ reviving criticism that he is unwilling to be second-guessed — or to even entertain another point of view.”

Testy” was the reporters’ characterization. Reporters from the left-leaning Post.

Brewer later told reporters “He was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense to say the least.”

Oh we could go on. And on. But that would be sort of like, well, piling on. And we don’t want to make him angry, so we’ll let it go at that.

But testy. Angry. Yelling his speeches?

These are signs of a guy who is frustrated and can’t seem to make things work the way that he wants them to. That’s because things don’t work that way. He’s not organizing the illiterate unemployed in Chicago slums. He’s trying to deal with some of the most argumentative and experienced political animals on the planet.

Did we mention inexperience and ineptness?

When others complain, he has no solution but to figuratively stomp his feet and blame them for not getting it. On a couple of levels he’s right. They don’t get the money that used to belong to them but thanks to Obama redistribution logic now is handed to someone else.

They also don’t get how that’s supposed to benefit anyone except the cronies who walk off with the dough.

Such a degree of frustration with people who don’t get it is enough to make any singularly aloof, pretentious, arrogant, inept, inexperienced person angry. Whatever color he may be.

And:

Obama the Angry, part III
January 30th, 2012, 1:51 pm · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Nah, he’s not an angry guy. Not much.

We no sooner observe how the Hothead in Chief gets snippy at the slightest provocation than another incident comes to the fore to verify that this president is out of his league. Criticisms and things that don’t go his way seem to have a disproportionate effect. The guy loses his cool. And we had such hope. Oh well, another change unanticipated.

According to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, after the Gulf oil spill the president visited.

“He grabs me by the arm, takes me aside,” Jindal said, “Here’s the strange thing … I thought he’d be angry about the oil spill, the lack of resources; I thought he’d get down there and say, look governor, we’re going to do everything we can to work together. Instead, he was upset he was going to look bad; he was worried about some routine letter we had already sent to his administration, nothing important.”

The reaction shocked Jindal.

“I was amazed at two things: one, that he was mad about the wrong things, and two, that he was so thin-skinned.” In a time of crisis, Jindal said the last thing he wanted or expected was for the president to stage what was “clearly a media stunt. I wanted him to be the president of the country, and instead he was playing political theatrics.”

Why’s this guy so angry? Why’s his threshold so low?

It’s because he’s been in over his head from Day 1. He’s never managed anything more robust than a political campaign, and even then not all that many of them.

The only reason you’ve kept hearing about “No Drama Obama” is because the mainstream media is the most dishonest since Joseph Goebbels and TASS were in business.

Advertisements

Truth Among Murder Victims As Left Tries To Make Jared Loughner A Republican

January 11, 2011

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”  Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated.  The reason?  Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

As Democrats galore shrilly and viciously attack Sarah Palin for her “targeting,” what is conveniently ignored is that liberals not only targeted Gabrielle Giffords for defeat, but literally said “she’s dead.”

But “what is truth?” for these people?  An inconvenient obstacle to be overcome, at most.

I was also amazed that the White House literally used Fox News to pass off clear and demonstrable lies associating a conservative organization with Jared Loughner.

Incredibly, the Pima Country sheriff – elected as a Democrat – without a single shred of supporting evidence, has repeatedly denounced conservatives as being somehow to blame for the shootings in blatantly partisan and irresponsible manner.

“What is truth?”  Don’t ask Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.”  Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This crap just never ends. It doesn’t matter to these lying propagandists one iota that if anything, Jared Loughner was a liberal, rather than any kind of conservative.

Here’s yet another depraved Democrat attempt to deceive:

Loughner “Republican” Voter Registration faked. Three points that demonstrate that.
Posted on 01/10/2011 6:14:13 AM PST by Lazamataz

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

  • TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.
  • If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy.  Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler.  Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse.  And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that?  Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care.  The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced.  Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there.  First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”?  Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power?  The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge?  Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument.  Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings.  And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.”  And, of course, he’s aghast.  What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done.  Someone must act.  By any means necessary.  Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

How does this not follow on their own rhetoric???

Didn’t Obama command, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”?

The president beamed his command into my brain to bring a gun to the Republican congressman’s meet-and-greet.

Didn’t Obama command, “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”?

“Yes!  YES!  Get in their face.  With a gun!  And then pull the trigger!”

Didn’t Obama tell his followers to “punish our enemies”?  With said “enemies” being Republicans?

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen.  He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence.  Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.”  And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats.  If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves???  And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do???  And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have.  Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale.  Which most people just do.  And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it.  Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth.  And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies.  And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address.  A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale!  YARD SALE!”  And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her.  There was no point.  She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off.  Absolutely anything.  Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.”  Avoid everything.  Shut down the economy.  Close the stores.  Stay in your homes.  Shut off all the television and radio stations.  Make tinfoil hats.  Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.”  It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people!  Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

This Jared Loughner guy wasn’t livid over ObamaCare or the stimulus or anything based in reality; he was frothing at the mouth over the government being behind the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, he was furious over the government taking over our brains by controlling grammar, he was enthralled with his bizarre dreams, that sort of thing.  He was as disconnected from politics as he was from the rest of reality.  Loughner once confronted Rep. Giffords with a question that made no sense.  And when she basically ignored it, his warped mind apparently fixated on her.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting.  Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims.  Not just six.  The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent.  The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

Atheists Get The MOST Angry At The God They Claim Not To Even Believe Exists

January 5, 2011

Every day I have my screaming session with this big purple unicorn that keeps harassing me.

Oh, and the leprechauns.  You don’t want to hear me yelling at them, either.

And don’t even get me started about that damn tooth fairy, and the vile Easter Bunny, and that rat bastard Santa Claus.

Obviously, I’m being facetious.  None of these fictitious entities have ever made my blood pressure rise.

Atheists, however, continue to put “the fool” in “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1):

Anger at God common, even among atheists

If you’re angry at your doctor, your boss, your relative or your spouse, you can probably sit down and have a productive conversation about it. God, on the other hand, is probably not available to chat.

And yet people get angry at God all the time, especially about everyday disappointments, finds a new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

It’s not just religious folks, either. People unaffiliated with organized religion, atheists and agnostics also report anger toward God either in the past, or anger focused on a hypothetical image – that is, what they imagined God might be like – said lead study author Julie Exline, Case Western Reserve University psychologist.

In studies on college students, atheists and agnostics reported more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers. A separate study also found this pattern among bereaved individuals. This phenomenon is something Exline and colleagues will explore more in future research, which is open to more participants.

The CNN article title falsely implies, “Even atheists” get mad at God.”  When the article itself clearly states that the article SHOULD be titled, “Atheists get the MOST mad at God.”

Because that damn nonexistent being who isn’t even real just pisses them off to no end.

You’ve got to love how science and research just keeps demonstrating the truth of Scripture.  Take this one from the book of Romans, for instance:

“For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them” – Romans 1:18-19

Deep down, atheists know the same thing the rest of us do.  They’re just too dishonest – even with themselves – and too bitter to admit what they know.  And so they just keep suppressing and suppressing the truth.  They force it down, and try to loudly claim what is true is false.  But this is a reality that just has a way of coming out even in THEIR nasty attitudes.

Here are a few other passages of Scripture that apply to these pathetic, deluded, and, yes – angry and bitter –  souls:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

If you want to believe in elves, or in gnomes, or in unicorns, or in reincarnation, or in little green men, or that Elvis lives, whatever – fine.  I could care less.  Believe whatever you want.

But that isn’t your garden-variety atheist, I can tell you.

Well, of course, what I KNOW is that atheists are fools.

Dinesh D’Souza makes a fantastic point in his book What’s So Great About Christianity:

“It seems that atheists are not content with committing cultural suicide – they want to take your children with them.  The atheist strategy can be described in this way: let the religious people breed them, and we will educate them to despise their parents’ beliefs.  So the secularization of the minds of our young people is not, as many think, the inevitable consequence of learning and maturing.  Rather, it is to a large degree orchestrated by teachers and professors to promote anti-religious agendas.

Consider a timely example of how this works.  In recent years some parents and school boards have asked that public schools teach alternatives to Darwinian evolution.  These efforts sparked a powerful outcry from the scientific and non-believing community.  Defenders of evolution accuse the offending parents and school boards of retarding the acquisition of scientific knowledge in the name of religion.  The Economist editorialized that “Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis.”

This may be so, but doesn’t Darwinism have friends and supporters mostly for the same reason?  Consider the alternative: the Darwinists are merely standing up for science.  But surveys show the vast majority of young people in America today are scientifically illiterate, widely ignorant of all aspects of science.  How many high school graduates could tell you the meaning of Einstein’s famous equation?  Lost of young people don’t have a clue about photosynthesis or Boyle’s Law.  So why isn’t there a political movement to fight for the teaching of photosynthesis?  Why isn’t the ACLU filing lawsuits on behalf of Boyle’s Law?

The answer is clear.  For the defenders of Darwinism, no less than for its critics, religion is the issue.  Just as some people oppose the theory of evolution because they believe it to be anti-religious, many others support it for the very same reason.  This is why we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einstenian.  Darwinism has become an ideology.

The well-organized movement to promote Darwinism and exclude alternatives is part of a larger educational project in today’s public schools.  I’ll let the champions of this project describe it in their own words.  “Faith is one of the world’s greatest evils, comparable to the small pox virus but harder to eradicate,” writes Richard Dawkins.  “Religion is capable of driving people to such dangerous folly that faith seems to be to qualify as a kind of mental illness.”  While Dawkins recognizes that many people believe that God is speaking to them or that He answers prayers, he points out that “many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon…but there is no reason for us to believe them.

Columnist Christopher Hitchens, an ardent Darwinist, writes, “How can we ever know how many children had their psychological and physical lives irreparably maimed by the compulsory inculcation of faith?”  Religion, he charges, has “always hoped to practice upon the uninformed and undefended minds of the young.”  He wistfully concludes, “If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in a quite different world.” [Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity, pp. 31-32].

This is basically how D’Souza introduces his chapter titled, “Miseducating the Young: Saving Children From Their Parents.”

Two things: 1) Yes, Mr. Hitchens, you’re right: it WOULD be a quite different world; it would be a world of fascist totalitarianism where a Big Brother replaced mom and dad.  It would be a world much like the one Joseph Stalin created for his people.  And 2) boy, are these guys ever angry at God.

I’ve used similar quotes from atheists in both educational and political contexts.  Bottom line, these angry, seething haters of God want to create a fascist totalitarian state and impose their values over and above the values of believing parents who don’t murder their children through abortion.  And they are the kind of self-deluded, vicious liars who would do this in the name of science and in the name of freedom.

As D’Souza brilliantly demonstrates, this movement isn’t about science, or we’d be seeing Boyleists and Keplerists rather than Darwinists.  No, it is a seething movement that is determined to literally seize control of a free society in order to forcibly take crying children away from their parents for the purposes of brainwashing and indoctrination and thought control.

We’ve seen the kinds of places that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous other atheists yearn for: they’re called “re-education camps,” and they come only from officially state atheist societies:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

And it is no coincidence that these communist officially state atheist societies have murdered more human beings during peacetime than have been killed in all the wars in history.

Or take the Nazis.  Please, as they say.

For the record, I’m not fighting atheists because of what they want to believe.  I’m fighting atheists because of what they’re trying to do.  There are a disturbing number of prominent atheist thinkers who literally advocate the taking of children from their religious parents.  I challenge any atheist to document as many contemporary, high-profile pro-religionists arguing for the children of atheists to be taken from their parents by force of law as I can cite of the opposite.  Further, I’m fighting atheists because of what they are trying to change; namely, the history and culture of America itself (as this article amply demonstrates).

Yes, atheists are angry.  They are, in fact, the MOST angry.

And if I had their angry, hateful, bitter worldview, I’d be pretty damned angry, too.

I’m not an expert in anger, but I’ll offer my own theory: these people are so mad because deep down they instinctively know that one day they will be abandoned by the God whose very presence they so hate, where they will be able to have a temper tantrum for all eternity.

Maybe Democrats Should Change Their Symbol To An Ostrich

February 9, 2010

I had a very brief conversation with my Democrat neighbor (a retired professor emeritus in education).  I asked him what he thought about Obama.  He said he liked him, and I left it there: no point arguing with a fool – especially if that fool happens to be your neighbor.

But I was pretty shocked that an otherwise intelligent man would be unable to see that the president he likes so much is utterly laying waste to the party he likes so much.

There is more and more evidence coming out that even DEMOCRATS are recognizing that Barack Obama is a total failure as a president.  And I recently wrote a piece that quoted from a number of Democrat-written articles lamenting the complete failure that their failure-in-chief has turned out to be.

Obama’s polls have gone from the stratosphere right into the toilet bowl as Americans have finally begun to comprehend what this radical leftist is trying to do.

Republicans have won every single statewide election since Obama took office – with every victory occurring in states that voted heavily for Obama.  Obama actually managed to transform Camelot into a Republican state – something nobody would have dreamed possible only a short time ago.

But Democrats – and apparently the “smartest” Democrats in particular – continue to keep their heads shoved into the ground (or their rear ends).

Republicans certainly had their fair share of self-delusion in 2006 when the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate.  But as bad as it was, it wasn’t even close to this Obama-as-Messiah-worshiping disregard for reality.

But more and more and more news keeps coming out:

Americans Losing Hope, Looking For Change

By Ed Carson

Tue., Feb. 09, ’10    10:00 AM ET
(IBD)Voters are souring on the economy and the government’s remedies, according to February’s IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index. It fell 4.1% to 46.8, matching December’s level and the weakest since July.

“Persisting high unemployment and a wobbly stock market dampened January’s optimism,” said Raghavan Mayur, president of TIPP, IBD’s polling partner. Readings below 50 signal pessimism.

Confidence in federal economic politics dived 7% to 38.3, the lowest since President Obama took office. That’s consistent with other polls showing a strong shift by Americans away from big government over the past year. The $787 billion stimulus failed to keep unemployment from soaring to double digits, now 9.7%. But it helped the deficit explode to $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2009, with $1.6 trillion seen in 2010.

Obama has tried to stress economic issues since Scott Brown’s stunning Massachusetts election victory derailed health care legislation. He’s railed against fat-cat bankers while proposing new taxes and further curbs on the biggest banks. That populism can win easy political points, but it can also backfire. Stocks have sold off since Obama began his anti-Wall Street rhetoric.

He’s also proposed a jobs bill that includes a hiring credit for employers. But some Democratic lawmakers question that idea while many experts say the latest stimulus plans are too modest to make much of an impact. And any government boost will add to the gusher of red ink.

The new emphasis on jobs and the economy also is an implicit admission that for much of the past year Obama’s focus has been on health care.

That was a mistake in the eyes of independents. Their view of federal economic policies tumbled 12.7% vs. January and 30.3% since September.

Independents disapprove of Obama’s handling of economic issues by a 2-1 ratio (50%-25%). Just 3% think he’s doing an excellent job while 29% say it’s unacceptable. This extends a recent trend.

Swing voters’ view of Obama’s overall job performance sank 7.9% in February to 40.8, a new low for him. A year earlier, the rating was 72.9.

The IBD/TIPP Presidential Leadership Index dipped 0.6 point to 50.2, holding just above the neutral 50 mark thanks to continued strong support from his liberal base. But the White House and congressional leaders fear most voters will soon lock in their negative views of the economy for the rest of the year, even if conditions improve in the summer.

That may already be happening. Three-fourths of independents have a favorable view of the tea party movement and say one-party control of the White House and Congress has been bad.

As today’s IBD story notes, independents were a key part of Obama’s coalition in 2008. But no longer:

“They truly believed in his campaign message of hope and change, but Obama’s performance has disappointed them,” Mayur said.

Independents are increasingly anxious about the economy as well as soaring government spending and deficits. Obama may be tempted to keep playing to his solid liberal base, but that could further alienate moderates.

Then again, maybe Obama can’t take his base for granted. His health care agenda is comatose, though Obama hasn’t issued a DNR order yet. Meanwhile, cap and trade is going nowhere, the Gitmo prison is still open and unions’ hoped-for card check bill never had much momentum. And while independents took the sharpest downturn in February, Democrats’ were less enchanted with federal economic policies and the six-month economic outlook. What’s going to motivate left-liberals, greens and labor to turn out in the midterm elections?

On the upside, Americans’ view of their own finances edged up 0.1 point to 53.5, holding in a tight range of modest optimism. But that’s well below the pre-recession reading of 60.8 in February 2007.

IBD/TIPP conducted the national poll of 902 adults from Feb. 1-7. The margin of error is +/-3.3 percentage points.

It wasn’t all that long ago before the way-too-left-leaning media pundits were smarmily predicting the permanent demise of the Republican Party and the permanent ascendancy of the Democrat Party.  They virtually ignored the Tea Party movement that now dominates the current political picture – and the coverage the movement has since received has been both incredibly condescending and incredibly biased.

No matter.  The mainstream media is merely another exemplification of the nation repudiating the left: now Fox News – the very Fox News that Obama repeatedly attempted to demonize – is the most trusted name in news.  And it is dominating the ratings as people increasingly abandon leftwing propaganda and embrace reality.

The Democrat-mainstream media industrial complex broadcasts the narrative that it’s the other way around – with quintessentially racist fearmongers hatefully attacking the Obama administration agenda and spreading a viral spirit of fear and obstructionism – but their narrative couldn’t be more wrong.  In reality, the American people gave Obama and the total Democrat majority a fair chance: and they recognize that Obama and the Democrats have utterly failed.

Obama’s polls nosedived to an all-time low yesterday, with the Marris-College survey revealing that Independents now oppose Obama by a 2-1 margin, and his approval has plunged to 44%.

And a whopping 75% of Americans are angry at the policies of the Obama and Democrat-controlled government.

CNN – which led off every single hour with Bush’s poll numbers when they hit their lowest point – did not bother to mention Obama’s poll numbers even ONCE last night.  Instead, they gleefully mocked the fact that Sarah Palin had written a total of four points on her palm.

A complete addiction to the Teleprompter of the United States of America is fine, as is referring to the highly-trained Navy medical personnel who save the lives of Marines on the battlefields as “corpse men“; writing seven words on one’s palm is apparently just beyond the pale.

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media are as dishonest as they think they can possibly get away with.

Independents are leaving Obama and the Democrat Party the way rats must have left the Titanic.  And it is quite possible that Democrats will abandon the Democrat Party before long, as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid continue to attempt to impose contemptible policies upon an American people who have done everything imaginable to scream that they do not want them.

If a few elitist Democrats want to continue to serenely play their violins while their party literally sinks around them, it will only make their going down all the sweeter.

Obama’s Train Wreck Town Hall In Ohio Reveals Angry Man Determined to Fight To The Last Democrat

January 24, 2010

Going back to Ohio had to be extremely awkward for Barack Obama.  And if it wasn’t, the man should literally be impeached.

Consider that

Obama’s last visit to Lorain County was during the presidential campaign in 2008. Then, he visited a drywall plant in an event where he promised that if elected he follow a “job-creation agenda.” Since his visit that plant has closed and unemployement for the area went from 6.9% under President Bush to around 10% under Obama.

That’s just bad.  Obama had to go to a different plant to pitch his bogus jobs bullcrap because the last plant he said he’d save had gone totally bust.

That said, Obama should be ashamed of talking about his record on jobs anywhere in the nation, given that he’s lost 4.1 million of them last year — the most any president has lost in any year since 1940.

So how did Barry Hussein do in Ohio this time?

Friday, January 22, 2010
Obama’s Train Wreck of a Town Hall in Ohio

Earlier this week, during a radio interview, I had said that Obama’s appearance for Martha Coakley on Sunday was one of the least effective stump appearances I had seen from a president. A lot of factors contributed to that – Coakley’s literally yawn-inducing speech, the decision to use the president as an attack dog in the race, the president (or his speechwriter’s) odd fixation on Scott Brown’s truck, and so on.

But perhaps Obama is in a “stump slump.” Maybe it’s me; maybe I can’t see any Obama speech as a good one these days. But today in Ohio, it seemed like the president was way off his game. I thought he was defensive, prickly, almost indignant that he’s found himself in the tough spot that he’s in.

He began by talking about how much he didn’t like being in Washington, and apparently said something about the job being stifling. Sir, you spent two years trying to get this job.

One of his rallying cries as, “This is not about me!” Yes, Mr. President, but it’s about the decisions you make and the policies you’re trying to enact.

He made a reference to bankers who “click their heels and watch their stocks skyrocket.” Was he going with a Dorothy in Oz metaphor? Do bankers click their heels?

“I won’t stop fighting to bring back jobs here,” worked as an applause line, but I wondered how it worked outside the venue. That insinuates he’s been doing it for the first year, as unemployment has steadily increased. He’s calling on Congress to “pass a jobs bill.” I thought the stimulus was supposed to do that.

As Caleb Howe noticed, he said “I won’t stop fighting to open up government” while breaking the promise about health care bill negotiations being on C-SPAN.

I realize he’s using it to justify a new tax on banks, but I think “we want our money back” is a dangerous chant for a man who so steadily expands government spending.

UPDATE: A very out-of-rhythm speech was followed by some of the most obscure and unhelpful questions ever uttered at a town-hall meeting. I was left with a bit of sympathy for President Obama, as questioner after questioner asked about their own specific concerns, often way out of the president’s duties, responsibilities, and  realm of expertise: One guy was an inventor who wanted to give him a sales pitch, one woman lamented the impatience of the American people before complaining about a slow response from the state environmental agency over her toddler’s lead poisoning, one guy wanted to read the president a poem; there was a woman who talked about the problem of finding students for her truck-driving school, an old lady who was upset that her Social Security didn’t have a cost-of-living increase, and a guy who had the patent for some wind-turbine issue that he was in a fight with some company about. One poor soul raised his hand and just wanted to shake Obama’s hand.

Obama was a visibly angry man throughout the extremely partisan speech he gave.  Rather than understand that the American people are simply not behind his fanatically liberal agenda and promise to finally show a little bipartisanship, Obama used the word “fight” 20 times.

He is going to fight to the last Democrat for his Marxist vision of “God damn Amerikkka”:

It appears that the only way America has a chance to win is if Obama loses, and loses big.

Obama: Fool Or Tool, Either Way He is Dangerous

May 3, 2009

I came across an interesting article via Atlas Shrugs.  I don’t know who Dr. Wheeler is – or if he is actually interacting with an actual French intelligence source (or if that source is being honest if he is) – but the read is interesting and illuminating.

A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Dr. Wheeler has interesting friends in faraway places. He is inside, and always has a fresh skinny inside the beltway and outside — this time, outside the Left Bank. Every once in a while I will run an entire piece of Jack’s, because it’s too juicy not share. But subscribe to his newsletter — worth every penny.

Obama laughingstock

100 DAYS OF BEING A LAUGHINGSTOCK IN PARIS

Paris, France. It is very cool to be a French intel guy. A spectacular meal at a Parisian bistro with $90 entrées and a $200 bottle of Bordeaux? No problem. I’d known this fellow since he got me out of a jam in Sudan years ago. His James Bond days are over, but still, riding a desk for the DGSE — Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure (General Directorate for External Security), France’s military intel agency – in Paris has its decided benefits.

One of them is not being infected with Obamamania. “My agency considers him a joke,” he confides. “Every day there is some fresh lunacy that we cannot believe. Mr. Bush would often make us angry. But at this man we just laugh.”

“In truth, it also makes us sad,” he continued. “French resentment towards America is strong, so being able to laugh at your country feels good. But it is such a sad and strange thing to see America – America The Great! – do something so crazy as to elect this ridiculous man.”

“There are many people in America who think he isn’t a legitimate president as he wasn’t born in the US and isn’t a natural citizen. What do you think?” I asked.

He shrugged. “I wouldn’t know. I’ve never had reason to make an inquiry.”

“There are a lot of people convinced he is a traitor who hates America and is actively determined to destroy it. Any opinion on that?”

He didn’t shrug at this. After a long slow sip of wine, he mused, “I would not go that far. Many of his actions, however, are very puzzling because they are so counter-productive regarding America’s best interests. There seems to be a consistent pattern in that direction.”

“What does Sarkozy think of him?”

Nothing but contempt.”

After a pause he asked, “And Langley?”

“Well, if you thought the war they waged against Bush was intense, it was nothing compared to how they’re going to screw Obama. He has tried to gut them with the ‘torture memo’ release and slashing their budgets. The morale is depressed, sullen, and enraged. You know what a left-wing outfit Langley is. They thought he was their boy and they feel betrayed. All kinds of damaging stuff on him will be appearing via their media friends.”

He nodded. “And in Tel Aviv City?”

He was referring to the huge underground city complex of Langley’s underneath the US Embassy in the Israeli capital. “That’s an interesting question. You know how vast and deep the relationship is there. Langley is making every effort to overcome the total and massive distrust their Israeli colleagues have for Obama, whom they know is selling them down the Jordan River. So far though this effort is in words. The Israelis are waiting to see what Langley does.”

He said nothing. I smiled. “You guys wouldn’t be Langley’s cutout for thwarting BO regarding Israel, would you? I’d never suspect that…”

He continued to say nothing, gave me only a slight smile in return, and poured me another glass of wine. “The Bordeaux is good, yes?” I nodded.

“You know, the French media worships this man the same as yours in the US. All of this ‘100 days’ talk, it is impossibly stupid. Most anyone in the French elite, the business leaders, Sarko’s people, they all know this. They all think this is some crazy joke of the Americans. But it is a very, very dangerous joke. For 100 days your president has been a laughingstock among the tout le monde No one may be laughing 100 days or 10 months from now.”

He leaned forward. “The world can go – how do you say – sideways with this man very quickly. No one he has working for him knows what they are doing – possibly excepting Mrs. Clinton – and he certainly does not. All of us in our little community are worried – us, our friends in Berlin, London, Tel Aviv, and Langley too as you say. It is not like the barbarians at the gates. It is everythere are no gates. The Somalis, Chavez, Iran, Putin, Beijing, the ‘Norks” as you call them, the list is long and it is growing. We are not sure what to do.”

It took me a moment to respond. “The best thing that has happened now is Obama making Langley his enemy. They will be cooperating with you more, be more a part of your worried community. Working together, you can undermine his efforts more effectively, block and maybe even repair the damage.”

It was my turn to lean forward. “Then again, all together you could be more pro-active. The man is a mystery. Nobody can make public his actual birth certificate, or even the particular hospital he was born in, or his college grades, or how he got into Harvard, or how he made editor of the Harvard Law Review and never wrote a single article for it. It goes on and on. He really is a Zero. I think all of you guys should find all of this out and make it known.”

I added, “The quicker the better, before the laughing stops and the real dangers begin.”

“What is that phrase you use?” he asked. “Something to consider?”

I laughed. “Yes, there is much to consider – and much that you can do. I mean, really, if the Soviet Union could be dismantled, so can this presidency.”

It was a beautiful April afternoon in Paris. He walked me back to my hotel. It could be that the times we live in may get even more interesting.

I added the links to the article.  Whether the French intelligence agent sipping his Bordeaux and disclosing his insider knowledge is genuine or a literary device, the facts and fears presented are nevertheless legitimate facts and fears.

Barack Obama is pursuing so many dangerous and foolish policies at once that it is simply unreal.  The U.S. is on the hook for $12.8 trillion dollars – and counting.  He is taking over the auto industry by way of a foolhardy government-UAW partnership that will produce political correctness at the expense of profits.  He is seeking to nationalize one-sixth of the American economy by taking over health care, which is guaranteed to become a massive boondoggle and a massive failure.  He is attempting to impose cap-and-trade on the energy industry in yet another takeover, which will (in Obama’s own words) necessarily send energy prices skyrocketing.  And he has all but decided to surrender on a war on terror that he refused to even call a war on terror any longer.  And his bowing down before the king of Saudi Arabia and shaking the hand of an America-hating Venezuelan dictator only underscore the massive changes in our foreign policy.

Any one of these policies by themselves would undermine America; Obama is pursuing all of them very nearly at once.  Fear – and the desire of many Americans to feel like the government is “doing something” – have created the perfect storm of imposing radical action in the name of averting the “crisis.”

Is Obama a laughingstock among those in the know?  I’m sure not laughing.  Whether he’s a fool or a tool, Obama is the most dangerous man in the world.

Are Conservatives Lonely On The Internet?

August 11, 2008

Am I the only conservative who often feels rather lonely on the internet?

There isn’t much in the way of official statistics out there. We have internet campaign donation figures that show Democrats are raising far more money online than Republicans.

I came across a study that found that far more liberals get their news from the Internet than do Republicans. And liberals are far more trusting than conservatives on the media across the board.

When I first started blogging – and I dare say to this very day – I have received far more comments from liberals than from conservatives. Which is kind of weird, considering that my blog is https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com. And the phrase “from a conservative perspective” immediately follows my blog title. It’s not like I’m trying to hide who I am or anything.

I’ve learned a few things.

I’ve learned that married people are far more likely to be conservatives than liberals.

I’ve learned that conservatives are far more likely to be raising children than liberals.

And both institutions leave a lot less time for surfing the internet, don’t they?

There also seems to be a rather clear bias on the Internet against conservatives. Recent stories have come out that Google has been actively discriminating against conservative sites.

But we conservatives have got to hang in there. If we don’t, we will lose the field.

An example is education. By and large, religious people – Christians especially – have been virtually shut out from academia. How did that happen?

Well, they largely did it to themselves. What we find is that for decades, even generations, Christians gave both their time and their money to their churches and to the mission fields, and secular humanists gave their time and their money to universities and to activist organizations such as the ACLU.

As a result, universities – following the money – took on a more and more secular humanist and liberal bent. Christians funded missionaries and preachers and secular humanists funded teachers and lawyers. In spite of the fact that universities in America were overwhelmingly founded by Christians for Christian purposes, universities betrayed their origins and turned against the very people who created them. There has recently been an increasingly successful effort by religious people to take back the field of education amongst all the pagans and infidels, but there is a long way to go.

Conservatives need to keep their foot in the door regarding the Internet, or we will find ourselves shut out. And once the door is closed – as was the case in education – it is very hard to force it open.

I hope you conservative bloggers keep fighting the good fight!

Just so you know, liberals are more likely to be unhappy, and more likely to be angry, according to studies. So that might explain all the vicious and mean-spirited comments you get.

So just remember this: you only have to be around liberals for a little while: they have to live with themselves all the time.