Raving Conservative


Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Defending Obama

While I do not support Barack Obama for President, for reasons of him being a liberal, I also do not support unnecessary mud-slinging to besmirch a man who, to date, has shown himself to be clean as far as politicians go.

One of the recent accusations leveled against him is that he belongs to a church that is a black separatist organization. I see no evidence that this is so.

Allow me to explain.

Yes his church is very ethnocentric toward black people. Yes it has a ten point manifesto emphasizing dedication to black people.

Yes, who really cares?

It is natural that an organization that is predominantly one ethnic group would gravitate toward a sort of ethnocentricity in its goals. So a predominantly black church emphasizing bringing black people up morally and socially is perfectly natural. I would expect something similar in any organization that is predominantly one ethnicity, especially is that ethnicity has an image problem. Yes, thanks to media emphasis on black crime, rap and hip-hop music, and other sources the black community has an undeserved image problem that is being exacerbated as youths actually adopt it in a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy. And no, it does not represent a majority of the Black community no matter what anyone may think.

However, there are real problems, just as every group has real problems. So I find it a good thing that there are churches that want to focus on fixing these problems. Barack Obama’s church happens to be one of them. Good.

As for charges of black separatism based on the fact that this church is focusing on supporting positive values and ethics in the Black community . . . whatever. The church is predominantly black, and this means that it is simply serving its constituency. This is natural. And I would much rather have churches promoting positive values to various groups of people that let the Godless secularists continue to promote their destructive form of values unchallenged.

On top of that, the values being promoted in this ten-point manifesto are good ones. If the word “black” was removed from the ten points it would be praised instead of criticized. It isn’t as if this is some pretend church built around anti-Christian hatred like the Westboro Baptist Church.

So to all the critics I say, shut up. If you want to criticize the man criticize his politics, positions, and personal actions if you can find cause to do so. But do not seek to destroy a church just because it focuses on its primary constituency as a means of going after a politician.

Saturday, February 24, 2007


UPDATE: The man spoken of in this article is the same man who is resposible for the Virginia courts banning the use of internet filtering programs in public libraries which was supposed to protect children from porn and prevent perverts from using public libraries to access all kinds of porn, including child porn. Is it any wonder he wanted to make sure people had a place to go were they could anonymously access any perverted material their hearts may desire?

The former President of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU was arrested earlier on child pornography charges. U.S. authorities, in cooperation with international authorities confiscated this man’s computer which contained numerous videos of pre-pubescent girls being forcibly raped. Reports state that the abuse was severe, and that the girls were crying and screaming as they were raped.

This guy is sick, and I don’t mean that in the ACLU “he needs help” kind of sick, I mean sick as in “He and everyone who can be linked to this atrocity need to be done away with.” The rapists and the purveyors of this atrocity need to be hunted down and killed. All of the sick bastards who buy this filth need to go away forever and be glad they are not killed too. I’m thinking a small deserted island far away from humanity would be appropriate.

It was only a matter of time before a leader in the ACLU was busted on something like this. Thinking people could see it coming.

The ACLU has a long history of defending the so-called “rights” of degenerates of all stripes. They came to the rescue when women wanted the right to do illegal drugs while pregnant. They secured the right for hate groups to parade their hate in the streets for all to see. They are trying to create special rights for foreign terrorists under the Geneva Convention, which, I might add, expressly excludes terrorists and people like them. They defend the sickest pornography. They are even defending the North American Man-Boy Love association’s (NAMBLA) “right” to publish and distribute instructional materials on how to kidnap and rape children.

With a history like this it is unsurprising that the ACLU has attracted degenerates like this guy to work for them. With degenerates who acquire and use kiddie rape porn in positions of leadership in the ACLU it is unsurprising that the organization as a whole is willing to defend this crime against humanity.

There are people, especially the ACLU and its supporters who will claim that he is the exception, and he probably is. Most supporters of the ACLU are simply deceived or ignorant, not criminals. However, the link to personal behavior and chosen causes is one that is long-established. Now that there is proof of at least one leader in the ACLU, one who presumably supports all of the ACLU’s causes, I think it is time for a closer look at the leadership of that organization.

What I am suggesting is Bill Clinton style inquest. Since it is apparently okay for a liberal President to investigate and harass organizations he does not like or considers in opposition to him, then it equally okay for a more conservative President to do the same thing when an organization with the ACLU’s history starts having its leaders come up as pedophiles. Speaking as the devil’s advocate, the ACLU cannot afford to have corruption within the organization, so they should welcome a thorough investigation, complete with federal warrants into the lives of its leaders to ensure that they are not complicit with, or even participating in illegal activity. Air out the dirty laundry and eliminate the crooks. Those who remain are free to continue with their legal activities.

Naturally, the ACLU itself will oppose such an action, which I will choose to interpret as proof that the leaders and lawyers of that organization are, in fact, crooks or enabling crooks.

I don’t know if the ACLU attracts degenerates because it defends them, or if it defends degenerates because it is run by them, but I suspect that it is the latter based on who founded the ACLU and the stated goals of that organization to push America toward Soviet style communism. The claim that is not the goal anymore, but from what I see it is still actively working for that goal and many other equally disgusting goals as well.

Please visit the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) for an organization that is really doing what the ACLU pretends to do at http://www.aclj.org/ .

Also be sure to visit the excellent site Stop the ACLU at http://www.stoptheaclu.com/ for an excellent expository site about the ACLU’s abuse of America and defense of criminal activity.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Democrat’s Screwed-up Priorities

The recently sworn–in Democrat controlled Congress, the same Congress that took the day off for the college football championship game, worked an extra day to try to force a treasonous resolution through the Senate FOR THE SECOND TIME! Fortunately, more intelligent and moral heads prevailed.

It is infinitely fascinating that the Democrats have as their top priority a non-binding resolution condemning sending reinforcements to our troops fighting a war in Iraq. They call it an “escalation”, President Bush calls it a “surge”, but in reality it is merely sending reinforcements into the war zone to bolster our troop strength to meet a new aspect of the mission in that country. It is a normal military tactic that has been used ever since war was invented, and the retarded Democrats in Congress oppose it because they are afraid it might work!

For years the Democrats were screaming that we needed more troops in Iraq. Now that the President has given what they asked for they want to condemn him, the troops, and the mission with a non-binding bolster enemy morale act! This is what is known as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Such an action has always fallen under the legal term “treason”. Treason is punishable by death in case you didn’t know.

Not that I am suggesting that we execute more than half of Congress. I am simply pointing out the fact that what is being attempted by Democrats with a small amount of support from a vast minority of Republicans could be taken as criminal by people who are strictly by the book.

What about the budget deficit? What about saving Social Security? What about ax reform? What about border security and immigration reform? What about the thousands of other impactful bills that could be worked on right now? APPARENTLY NONE OF THEM ARE AS IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRATS AS UNDERMINING OUR TROOPS AND EMBOLDINING THE ENEMY SO THEY CAN TRY TO PROVE THEIR LIE ABOUT IRAQ BEING UNWINNABLE TO BE TRUE!

I’ll tell you why the Democrats oppose reinforcing our troops in Iraq. I’ll tell you why John Murtha is trying to sneak measures to defund the war and prevent new troop deployments into finance bills. It is because they are afraid that it might work and prove them all to be the hopeless, defeatist traitors that they are! As long as America loses this war they can proclaim their wisdom to the world and pretend to be the great peacemakers while they really enhance terrorism. But, if this war turns into a decisive victory then their lies will be exposed and they will be given over to the wrath of an American population that will feel betrayed and lied to.

Put simply, the Democrats have to make the U.S. lose this war or they stand to lose power for decades to come.

It is a sad state of affairs when people put personal power over what is good for America. It is even worse when doing so gets people killed like the actions of Democrats did in the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, and now in Iraq as well. Democrats have a long history of trying to gain power by getting Americans killed. It is simply wrong, and it is utterly despicable.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Vanity Proven, and I am Satisfied

This is a follow-up to the previous article The Vanity of the Specialty. My coursework has been reviewed by a nuetral professor. Based on the grading criteria set forth in the syllabus the grade that my professor set as an "F" is reccommended, upon thorough review, to be raised to a "B".

This is huge. It also proves my point about how the professor of that class was grading off personal bias and not quality of work. Dissenting viewpoints, no matter how justified, were being arbitarliy penalized. It is hyppocrisy to ask students to analyze events for themselves and then to hurt them if they reach conclusions you do not personally agree with unless those positions cannot be justified. This goes to prove that my positions were justified, and that I did an above average job in my historical analysis despite taking positions that were sometimes contrary to the instructors personal biases.

I remind you that I wrote from a perspective of trusting the source material and did not seek to put my own twist on history. At the same, this second opinion agreed with my professor that analysis is vital to history and must be reduced striclty to who, what, when, where, and how. He states, essentially, that the question of the why and the identification of bias in original sources is vital to the field of history. Now that it is not being used to bludgeon me into taking positions that the evidence I have seen does not support I can relax and conceed the point. However, I also maintain that the abuse of this principle is the chief source of historical confusion and modern lies about history. There is too much irresponsibilty through personal agendas to grant this principle sufficient trust to make it worthwhile for students.

Analysis is a wonderful thing in general. I spend a great dealof time analyzing things. I look at everything from many angles before making my decisions. But I have found that overanalysis is univesally bad, possible worse than no analysis at all. I also maintain my original point that history classes are not about creating an excersize in critical thinking or philosophy. History classes are a place to learn history itself. It is not inappropriate to ask students to analyze events, but it is inappropriate to ask students to analyze events then expect them all to reach the same conclusion as the professor. This creates an environment of scholastic intimidation and must be allowed to persist in any scholastic forum.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Pebble Creek Mine

As a pro-business conservative and an honest, educated environmentalist I am expressing my opposition to the proposed Pebble Creek Mine in Alaska. This is both a pro-environment and pro-business position, though it is anti-mine. Here is how.

The mine is to be placed near Lake Iliamna, at the headwaters of the Bristol Bay Salmon fishery. It will drain the headwaters from Upper Talarik Creek and the Koktuli River, possibly drying these rivers, and at least drastically reducing the water volume they carry. These are all important salmon spawning and nursery habitats that would be negatively, possibly catastrophically affected by the drainage.

Mines use a lot of hazardous chemicals in the extraction and processing of ore, and they release a lot of hazardous chemicals from the Earth as a byproduct of mining. The hazard in this is demonstrated in numerous dead streams across America, as well as rivers and lakes where the fish are considered unsafe to eat due to heavy metal poisoning. By placing any metal mine at the headwaters of a delicate fish habitat it is possible to wipe out the entire salmon fishery and put many hardworking fisherman out of business. The damage done by these toxins could make the river uninhabitable to fish for decades.

A little mentioned fact regarding mining activities near rivers is the fine materials that go into the water and are considered non-hazardous rock. While these fine rock particles are 100% non-toxic they present a different problem. Natural silt is smooth, having been broken and worn down by natural processes. The fine particles produced by mining are sharp, and they literally shred the gills of fish, choking g them to death after enough damage has been done. The chance of these fine particles slashing the spawn rate of Bristol Bay Salmon is unacceptable. The probability of the fry and fingerlings being killed before they migrate to the ocean is also unacceptable.

The Bristol Bay salmon fishery is a vital Alaskan resource. It provides jobs, and it provides sustenance. The three ways that the proposed Pebble Creek Mine would damage this fishery would rob us all of this important resource. The risks are known, and they are unacceptable. The fact is that any one of these problems will damage and possibly destroy the local ecosystem. The fact is that all three will happen. There is no chance of these risks not happening. Every metal mine that I know of on a river has these problems.

It is also possible that the contamination of the river could affect the ocean fisheries I the nearby area as well. This makes the proposed Pebble Creek Mine even more unacceptable.

There are times when the environmental cost far outweighs the economic gain of human activity. These cases are all extreme cases with profound impacts on both man and wild. This is one of them.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Maybe Giuliani After All . . .

I’m conflicted.

I have stridently opposed Rudy Giuliani for President for several years now. As much as I love his ability to manage taxes, empower law enforcement, his positions on foreign policy, and other important conservative issues, I have opposed him because I personally view him to be a social liberal and I do not trust him to appoint conservative judges. However, in his interviews as a candidate for President he came out on the right side of everything.

Most importantly he was very open about supporting Judges like Scalia, Robetrs, and Alito.

He supports the Second Amendment in a constructionist sense, but also supports the right of local legislatures to pass local laws to met local needs.

He specifically opposes homosexual marriage.

His position on abortion is acceptable. He expresses a personal moral opposition to abortion. Believes partial birth abortion should remain banned. Believes in parental notification prior to abortion with a judicial review available to victims of incest. And is willing, like any decent human being, to allow any abortion for lifesaving purposes. His position that abortion is a choice and should be left that way one I do not support, but is not automatically disqualifying for someone who is wiling to challenge the egregious abuses of abortion availability.

He has an acceptable, not perfect position on border security. A perfect solution will never pass Congress because of the weak-kneed Barbie-boys who are subjugating themselves to criminals. His ideas might pass, and they might even work in reality.

As long as he stands by his stated positions he could be one of the most wildly successful Presidents America has ever had, especially in light of the almost universal admiration Americans have for his achievements and leadership ability that would give him a mandate to govern that even the selfish narcissists on the liberal side of Congress cannot deny and expect to keep their jobs.

But I am not certain that I trust him to do what he says on the social issues because of his actions in New York.

Still . . . he has just managed to move into serious consideration. I shall have to watch him closely, but if he wants my vote over Mitt Romney he will have to work hard for it.

And if he maintains his current positions there is strong likelihood that I will vote for him over ANY Democrat, although I still like Bill Richardson quite a bit despite his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Homosexual Activists Showing Their True Colors . . . Again

It is good to be proven right after the ignorant accuse you of deceit and bigotry.

I have said before that the leadership behind the homosexual rights movement is not interested in getting marriage rights for homosexuals so they can be like the rest of us, but rather that the goal of this part of the movement is to destroy marriage to make the rest of us more like them. Recent events in Washington prove openly what most in the homosexual rights movement only admit privately. That they really do want to see marriage ended.

Assaulting the family has been a hallmark of the homosexual rights movement for decades now. It’s part of the strategy to normalize homosexuality. Anything that makes the rest of us more like them helps their cause just as much as anything that makes them appear to be like the rest of us.

Here is the most recent assault on the family.

Homosexual activists have proposed legislation that places an undue burden on heterosexual couples who wish to marry. Here is a synopsis of the legislation:

Heterosexual couples may not marry unless they can prove their fertility. They must submit to fertility testing to establish their ability to have children. Upon marriage they must have a child within three years or the marriage will be annulled.

UPDATE: You can view the propsed legislation at the website of the actual authors of the bill at http://www.wa-doma.org/ This is a homosexual/homosexual sympathetic activist group in Washington.

This is motivated purely out of spite by the homosexual activist group that has proposed. They are bitter that the honest argument that marriage is about families, primarily the bearing and raising of children resonates with not only the 98% of America that is heterosexual, but also many courts. This legislation is designed to denigrate marriage and eliminate it entirely over time.

Allow me to demonstrate the logical and moral idiocy of this proposed legislation.

1: It unfairly discriminates against women. Since men remain fertile much later in life than women do, it places an unfair burden on women who wish to marry, or remarry late in life. A man can find a younger woman of childbearing age and get married, but a woman cannot do the same thing.

2: It unfairly discriminates against single parents. Single parents may wish to marry, but may not have desire or the means to support additional children in three years. While marriage in this case is proven to be beneficial to both the single parent and all children, this legislation would ban such a family from forming. A single parent marrying provides the two parent household that is proven to be the best possible situation for the healthy development of children, but this legislation would prevent this family from forming.

3: Infertility is not what it once was. My wife and I are an infertile couple, but we have a child that is biologically our own. Set aside the many miraculous births of children to supposedly infertile couples and take a look at modern medicine. In-vitro fertilization is a blessing that has allowed many infertile couples to have their own children. But it is also expensive and does not always work. We went through three rounds of in-vitro before it finally succeeded. The first round was within two years of marriage. The second round was just before out fifth anniversary. The final round that finally succeeded was a few months later. We had our son just less than a month after our sixth anniversary. Under this law we would have been banned from marrying each other, and even we did slip through the system we would have been forced to divorce after three years because we did not have the money at the time to perform rapidly repeated rounds of in-vitro fertilization. There is no such recourse for homosexuals.

4: Point 3 proves how this proposed legislation also discriminates against the poor.

5: It ignores the historical morality of marriage. The three religions that comprise some 70% of the planet all teach their followers that sex is reserved for marriage alone. This places a moral burden on the vast majority of heterosexuals that most homosexuals do not share for two reasons. The first is that homosexuality itself is a violation of all three of these major religions, so any homosexual behavior from a follower of these religions is already morally wrong. The second is that most homosexuals feel no need whatsoever to restrain their sexual behavior prior to marriage while a full quarter of Americans, oversexed as we are, actually only have one sexual partner for their entire lives. The average American heterosexual has a total of 4 sexual partners in a lifetime, including those who have multiple marriages. The average homosexual has 50 (Correction: The original number of 90 was a typo. The 9 in adjacent to the 5 on the number pad. I missed the original typo.) sexual partners in a lifetime. This figure is skewed because male homosexuals have exponentially more sexual partners than female homosexuals. However, the average lesbian still has notably more sexual partners than the average heterosexual.

6: It ignores that the debate over homosexual marriage is, at its core, both social and moral. It has nothing at all to do with the legal system for most heterosexuals, but everything to do with the legal system for homosexuals because it is the only place where they have the ability to overcome popular opinion and moral consensus.

7: It ignores the historically proven fact that heterosexual marriage stabilizes society with or without children. By seeking to end marriage this legislation is guaranteed to have a destabilizing on America. There is no correlation between homosexual marriage and societal stabilization. In fact, current indicators show that homosexual marriage, including homosexual “civil unions” may actually have a destabilizing effect on society.

8: When the sponsors of a bill say things like “Let’s see how they like getting a taste of their own medicine.” It proves beyond all reasonable doubt that this legislation is nothing more than a revenge bill designed to hurt all heterosexuals. It is an intimidation tactic, and it will not work. Homosexuals may be able to intimidate Hollywood and Democrat politicians, but it cannot intimidate the entire heterosexual community.

Listed on BlogShares