Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Hollywood has emerged as America's staunchest enemy in the culture war. Formerly known for uplifting, quality movies celebrating America's traditional way of life, Hollywood today is controlled by leftist ideologues dedicated to destroying the values it once extolled. Chief among those values are faith and patriotism. The result is that movie attendance has steadily declined along with the quality and message of films.
Hollywood is increasingly making movies (and tv shows) for ideological rather than artistic or even monetary reasons. If you doubt that just recall the slew of "anti-war" films Tinseltown released this past fall. All of them were steeped in anti-American propaganda and they all flopped big time at the box office. But their creators were proud of those movies because they made a statement, Brian de Palma going so far as to say his vile "Redacted" would "stop the war". Yeah, right.
Hollywood's increasing preoccupation with producing left-wing propaganda, and its resulting slide into irrelevance, is a golden opportunity for talented conservative artists. They can and should seize the moment and fill the void with quality movies that speak our truth to the culture in the culture's language. It's time that we conservatives spoke for ourselves and stopped simply whining about how our enemies speak for and about us. As liberal Hollywood self-destructs we can pick up the pieces, then America will start watching the Oscars again.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
This video was made by my blogging buddy Robert who blogs at Tired of All the Liberal Rhetoric Out There. In it Robert reads the eloquent letter written by a young American soldier, Eddie Jeffers, who later died in Iraq. This letter will bring tears to your eyes, especially the part where Eddie writes that Americans are now the enemy he and his buddies face. Americans like Cindy Sheehan who actively work for defeat in Iraq out of crazed hatred of Bush.
Eddie is generous towards these "Americans", insisting they don't know the impact of their words and actions against the war. But they DO know! They are totally conscious of the aid and comfort their "peace activism" gives to the terrorists and the demoralizing affect it has on our troops. That's what the activists want!
When you hear Eddie's letter you'll not only cry but burn with anger against the traitors among us. Traitors who spit on our troops literally and figuratively, burn them in effigy, and make vile movies portraying them as raping, murdering thugs. I hope that Eddie's poignant words will move you to resist the traitors and fifth columnists working to destroy our nation. You can start by spreading Eddie's message how ever you can. I am; join me.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Times has always been exhibit A for conservatives' charge of a liberal bias in the media. This attack on McCain not only solidifies that view but also gives McCain more conservative street cred. In the process of condemning this blatant liberal smear conservatives are finding themselves defending McCain as a candidate. Yes, the New York Times endorsed McCain for the GOP nominee but did so, apparently, just to knock him down. Thus, that initial endorsement shouldn't cause conservatives to continue to shy away from McCain. Now that the Times is bashing the senator from Arizona it's time for even the most sceptical conservatives to give him another look. And here's another reason to support McCain: abortion.
For now the pro-life vote seems to be going primarily to Huckabee, but since he has virtually no chance of being nominated it's time for pro-lifers to switch to McCain. If conservatives care about this issue as much as we say we do there's no other choice. McCain's pro-life record is nearly pristine. Hillary and Obama are pro-choice fundamentalists, Obama going so far as to vote against the Born Alive Act which would've required doctors to save babies who survived abortions rather than letting them die. Obama claimed that saving the babies would put a "burden" on women.
And let's not forget Hillary's and Obama's promise of universal health care. This would almost certainly mean taxpayer funded abortion, even for minors. For me, that's almost as vile as the procedure itself. Under no circumstances will my tax dollars go to pay for someone else's abortion, especially that of a minor. Other conservative pro-lifers feel the same I'm sure. Yet many of them continue to back a sure loser in Huckabee or, like Ann Coulter, say they'll vote Democrat if McCain is the GOP nominee, not caring what impact that will have on the unborn.
We pro-lifers must rally around McCain. We and the conservatives outraged by the Times' tabloid journalism could give him the edge he needs to win. The defense of the nation as a whole and of the unborn in particular depend on a McCain victory. Hillary and Obama stand in opposition to both tasks. If we care about these causes as much as we say we do then McCain has to be our man, like it or not.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Even if McCain wins we conservatives will be put into what I'm calling a time in the wilderness. We will be out of power but that could be a blessing in disguise, if we use our wilderness years right. And how do we do that? First, we must stop our pity party. Our time in the wilderness will be fruitless if all we do is sulk, pout, and whine. Rather, we must use those years to regroup, reevaluate, and reflect. We must build on our successes and strengths but also face our failures, weaknesses, and mistakes with unflinching honesty. Our biggest mistake, I believe, was relying on political power alone to uphold and advance conservatism. We believed that if we could just elect the right people we'd convert the culture but we were wrong. And the faith we put in politics has cost us dearly. While we were consumed with winning elections our children became more and more steeped in an increasingly liberal, neo-pagan culture scarcely impacted by our political "victories".
Think about it. Reagan took office for the first time in 1980. The infants, toddlers, and preschoolers from then are the young voters swooning over Obama now. The children of the conservative "revolution" are today worshipping one of the most liberal presidential candidates in recent history. They are eager to accept surrender in war and socialism at home. These are our children! And we didn't see it coming. We didn't see the continuing liberalization of the culture and that culture's influence on our kids. We didn't see that that would bode ill for our cause. We failed and failed big time. This is one of the unpleasant things we must ponder during our wilderness stay.
We were blinded by might. We won all the elections but didn't realize we lost the culture and even, I think, our personal conviction to a degree. Much of our society's continued slide into liberalism during our "revolution" was fueled by us. Some where along the way we decided we didn't have to live out conservative values in our personal lives because Reagan was president and Gingrich was Speaker of the House and that solved everything. So it was ok to keep sending our children to anti-conservative, anti-Christian, and anti-American public schools. It was ok to keep consuming Hollywood's largely degenerate fare. It was ok to "forgive" immoral pastors and to keep attending their churches. Conservatives held the reins of political power; nothing else was needed.
Hopefully, during our stay in the wilderness, we conservatives will not just admit our error but plan bold strategies to overcome it. Hopefully we'll realize that to advance our philosophy we must have a cultural foundation as well as a political one. We must invade the turf--academia, media, Hollywood--controlled by our foes and use their weapons against them. We must speak our truth to the culture using our opponents' language. And we must stop handing our children over to the other side on the proverbial silver platter. This is what we must do during the wilderness time that is coming. And onced we're refreshed and renewed we'll win again!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
On the issue of illegal immigration, for instance, Huckabee is problematic. Yes, he signed Numbers USA's "No Amnesty" pledge, but as Arkansas governor he gave in state college tuition to the children of illegals, saying famously that we shouldn't punish children for the crimes of their parents. And in a speech before Hispanic leaders Huckabee "joked" about Whites soon becoming a minority. And he believes in what I call atonement politics, saying that leniency toward illegals is America's atonement for slavery. Exactly how being indulgent to illegal Hispanics atones for the enslavement of Blacks he hasn't explained. Maybe Huckabee thinks one group of non-Whites is interchangeable with another.
With conservatives' anger at McCain's liberal position on illegal immigration you'd think they'd be just as outraged at Huckabee, but they're not. Could Huckabee's status as a former preacher be the reason? Most of the conservatives who've voted for him are Evangelicals. They propelled Huckabee to victory in Iowa and their low numbers in more secular states helped to ensure his defeat there. Perhaps, for these people, Huckabee's distasteful record on illegal immigration policy is palatable because it's wrapped in Christian garb. You know, the language of atonement.
Yes, Huckabee has some good ideas. I love his plan to abolish the IRS! But McCain has some good ideas, too. More importantly, he has a much better chance of winning against both Hillary and Obama than Huck does. Conservatives have no excuse for forgiving Huckabee's deviations from pure conservatism while crucifying McCain for his. I understand commitment to principle but, sadly, principle is compromised in virtually every election. Whatever side you're on you're never going to get everything you want in a candidate. Therefore, the question all voters face is, what will we get for our compromise? If conservatives vote for McCain the answer is a damn good chance for Republicans to keep the White House and for America to win in Iraq. If conservatives vote for Huckabee or, God forbid, Hillary or Obama, what they'll get for their compromise is socialism at home and surrender on all fronts abroad.
The right choice is clear to me.
Friday, February 08, 2008
This latest gay attack on freedom of religion and speech is occurring in New Mexico where Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to photograph a lesbian couple's "commitment ceremony". The couple then lodged a complaint with New Mexico's Human Rights Division which is now trying Mrs. Huguenin's business, Elane Photography, under the state's anti-discrimination laws. One of the things the lesbian plaintiffs want is an injunction permanently revoking Elane Photography's right not to photograph gay ceremonies. This is insane!
I've had enough with liberal gays attacking the freedoms of others, especially Christians, in pursuit of their agenda. Clearly, they want a world where any questioning of their views is illegal. That's Stalinism and we must not stand for it. Elaine Huguenin was perfectly within her rights to refuse to promote anything that conflicted with her religious beliefs. That's what freedom of religion/conscience means.
Left-wing gays need to realize that Christians don't answer to them. They need to realize that they have no right to force every institution in society to parrot their party line. The notion that it's hate to disapprove of homosexuality and call it sin is opinion, not truth. No one is obligated to believe that opinion, let alone live their lives by it. Elaine Huguenin cannot be compelled to promote a cause with which she disagrees. Neither can any other American. There's still freedom of conscience in this country. Stalinist gays need to stop trying to take this freedom from others and concentrate on using it for themselves. They just might find that their cause will be better served for it.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Please don't give me that line that McCain's not a real conservative. We don't need him to be a "real" conservative, we just need him to be more conservative than his Democratic rivals. And what is a "real" conservative anyway? Someone who's strong on border security? Ronald Reagan signed an amnesty bill in the '80's. Guess he's not a "real" conservative, then. Is a "real" conservative someone who's tough on terrorism? Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the bombing of the Marines' barracks, and he traded arms for hostages after saying he wouldn't negotiate with terrorists. Reagan rarely attended church while in office but Nancy, his wife, did consult astrologers, in violation of Biblical doctrine. So just how conservative was dear Ronny?
Yes, Reagan stood up to the tyranny of communism and won the Cold War. He also cut taxes and paved the way for the welfare reform that Bill Clinton reluctantly signed into law in the '90's. But, as I pointed out above, Reagan's conservative credentials weren't infallible. He did things that some people could use to call his conservatism into question. Would McCain trade arms for hostages? Would he cut and run from a fight after the first attack? I don't think so. Reagan did both, yet he's admired almost like a god by today's conservative faithful.
I say we should give McCain a chance. Some of his views are not to our liking but there's no telling how he might distinguish himself in the national and international crises that are sure to come. Who knows. Ten or twenty years after McCain's presidency conservatives might be worshipping him as the epitome of "real" conservatism, and forgetting all about his amnesty for illegal aliens. Just like they now do with Reagan.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Yes, McCain's position on some key issues is big time wrong, but the American Conservative Union (ACU), the nation's oldest conservative lobbying organization, gives McCain an 82% lifetime conservative voting rating. I admit that 82% isn't 100%, but it IS a tad bit higher than the 9% rating for Hillary, no matter what dear Ann says. Look people, McCain has been more consistently pro-life than Romney. He supports gun rights. He believes gay marriage should be decided by the states. He has opposed the expansion of hate crime laws. And, most importantly, he's a hawk on the war on terror. Does that make McCain perfect? No, but it does make him better than Hillary, Obama, or anyone else the Left has to offer.
There's an old saying that conservatives should heed in this uncertain time: Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If McCain is nominated he has a better chance of winning the presidency than Romney or Huckabee. And if Republicans keep the White House conservatives will have a greater chance of having their voices heard with sympathy than if the Dems take the White House. And that's good. We conservatives must not become our own worst enemies by demanding perfection or nothing. We just might end up with nothing.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Black History Month (BHM) was started by Dr. Carter G. Woodson for the positive and innocuous reason of educating Americans about the contribution of Blacks to this nation. That's great. But as a child I noticed that all I ever learned about Black Americans during BHM was how oppressed they were. In school and on tv everything centered on the Black struggle to overcome. There was very little teaching about Blacks' actual accomplishments except for the obligatory mentioning of George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman, the only Blacks who seemed to do something besides struggle to overcome.
And then, after weeks of being practically force fed stories of struggle and hardship--poof!--it was over. March first came and with it a return to "real" history which didn't include an obsession with Blacks. All during February I learned how evil segregation was but once February was over the school went right back to intellectual segregation. This is why I feel that Black History Month is artificial and encourages Blacks to have a perpetual chip on their shoulders.
If Blacks are full Americans and contributed to the development of this country the same as Whites, then their history should be taught the way it actually happened: as an integral part of American history. There should be no instructional apartheid, with a month for Blacks, another for women, yet another for Hispanics, and so forth. And what children learn about Blacks--and other minorities--should highlight their successes and accomplishments as much as their oppression. Children should be taught, for instance, that most Black families were intact, two parent households even at the height of segregation and racism. Therefore, Whites are not to blame for the current disintergration of the Black family.
Absolving Whites of responsibility for the individual and communal ills of Blacks won't be a popular move. Many Blacks like the sainthood that comes with being perpetual victims of Whites. And a lot of Whites take a masochist delight in doing never ending and totally unnecessary penance for the sins of their ancestors. So intergrating Black history into American history and scrapping Black History Month is sure to meet with strong resistance. But that's the only way to underscore both the progress Blacks have made in modern America and the achievements they made in spite of the racism of the past. The American Dream was and is reachable by Blacks who work for it. Understanding that is what learning Black history should really be about.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is drafting legislation to cut over $2,000,000 in federal funds from Berkeley. While acknowledging the Berkeley city council's (BCC) right to free speech the Senator rightly recognized that the council has no right to federal funding of its speech. Bravo Senator DeMint! But he shouldn't expect any of his liberal colleagues to support him. They're not about to chastise the people who's votes they're counting on to get and/or keep their power.
The Left hates America and hates our troops. They are NOT anti-war; they're anti-American and we'd better understand that. The BCC's ruling is just the latest in the Left's long parade of hate-the-troops shenanigans. In March of last year Portland, OR "anti-war" protestors burned a US soldier in effigy. In September of '07 the San Francisco Film Commission refused to allow the Marines to film a recruitment commercial in the city. In the fall of last year Hollywood released a slew of anti-troop movies including Brian de Palma's vile "Redacted" which portrayed American troops in Iraq as raping, murdering thugs. In January of this year the New York Times played on the psycho vet stereotype with a front page story claiming that veterans were committing murder across the land. And just a couple of days ago Code Pink protestors tried to disrupt the Marines' Berkeley recruiting office by chaining themselves to the front door and yelling that the Marines were training kids "to kill babies". It goes on and on.
Never let leftists tell you they're patriotic while committing acts like those mentioned above. Yes, Americans have the right, even the duty, to question and criticize government policy. But there's a huge difference between honest questioning and constructive criticism and rank hatred. There's a huge difference between questioning the way a war is being fought and spreading defeatism in order to aid the enemy. In short, dissent and sedition are two different things. Leftists know this and have chosen sedition, hoping we won't notice. But we do notice and now it's time they heard from us. Their treason must not stand. Sign the petition available at the link below and let the Berkeley city counci and all leftists know just how we patriots feel about their attack on our finest!