About Me

Name: Jason Drexler
Location: Azusa, CA
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

'Tea-bagger' comment proves Obama's classlessness

So much for postmodernism and bipartisanship and all that other "change" crap that candidate Obama promised. I never believed any of it, of course (unlike all those saps who actually thought this president was going to be different from most politicians), but now we have confirmation of the president's jerkiness, and of his real beliefs: his use of the word "tea-baggers."
 
In columnist Jonathan Alter's forthcoming book, "The Promise: President Obama, Year One," Alter writes, concerning bipartisan rancor, that "Obama said that the unanimous House vote against the Recovery Act 'set the tenor for the whole year,' " and follows that with a quote from our ever-classy leader: "That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans."
 
Now let me make sure I have this straight, because it's something I've often been confused about: According to the PC Liberal Left, it's wrong to speak out against homosexuality in any way, and it's waaaaaaaaaaayyyy wrong to point out the disgusting nature of male sodomy ... but it's okay to take a homosexual slang word and use it in a derogatory way toward conservatives? Oh, that's right, as long as it's coming from the Loony Left, it's okay.
 
Obama acts as though moderates should be in control of the GOP, yet moderates do not control even his own party. Of course, I realize that Obama's sentiments here, as in many other places, are insincere: He doesn't care about "rancor," he cares only about passing his radical agenda, and he'll do whatever it takes to meet that end, even being a two-faced fake.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Illegal Immigration: Just Say No

Virtually every law has the potential to be abused, but let's get away from speculation and deal with facts: most of America's illegal immigrants (and nearly all of Arizona's) are Hispanic, so of course people who look like Steve Nash are going to rarely, if ever, be stopped -- because there aren't a ton of illegal immigrants (especially in Arizona) who look like Nash. I realize that racial profiling, in a general sense, is wrong, but if one race is the primary or only culprit in a given situation, it's not racial profiling, it's just the way things are. (See also: The fact that every terrorist who's ever attacked or tried to attack America is Middle Eastern, so why do ALL of us get put through the wringer at airports?) Talk about an issue that shouldn't be: There's a right way to enter this country, so if you enter any other way (that is, ILlegally) and get caught, you should be arrested and/or deported, plain and simple. But Dems don't want to lose the Hispanic vote, so they'll do pretty much anything to go easy on illegals, and since there are so many Hispanics getting a free ride (or who have relatives getting a free ride), not many Hispanics are going to do the right thing here. And if Phoenix Suns owner Robert Sarver wants to make a political statement on his own time, fine, but he shouldn't be forcing his players to participate (by wearing "Los Suns" jerseys), since there are likely one or two of them (at least) who disagree with him on this.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama the Whine Connoisseur

From an article on The Hill:
"President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.
In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.
According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.
Obama’s decision to challenge Conyers highlights a sensitivity to criticism the president has taken on the left. Conyers’s critical remarks, many of which have been reported on the liberal-leaning Huffington Post, appear to have irritated the president, known for his calm demeanor."
 
Yes, Conyers is a Democrat, and I understand that criticism can hurt more when it comes from your own party, but poor, poor Barack: The Great Narcissist considers disagreement to be demeaning?
 
Wawahooseybooboo (that's baby talk for "pathetic").
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Proud Liberal and the Smart-aleck Conservative

I dissected a recent comment to a Sandy Rios column on Townhall. Here it is, the Liberal's parts in quotes, mine without.

Says Proud Liberal: "If straight couples want to have the additional cultural benefit of being married in a church ..."

CULTURAL benefit? This isn't like trying salsa dancing when you visit Mexico. It has a meaning that transcends any and every culture. Which leads to my next point ...

" ... after they have satisfied the STATE'S requirements and their marriage first legitimated by the STATE ..."

Marriage is a creation of God. I guess states, like individuals, have the freedom to do what they want, and certainly nothing that states or individuals do will change God's truth, but let's be real: the only reasons the state is involved in marriage is to collect the marriage-license fees and keep tabs on people. As my dad says, the government would tax farts if it could figure out how. It would also, I contend, collect fees on polygamous and adult-minor "marriages" if it could.

"Please keep your religious nose out of STATE affairs."

Nope. Sorry. Can't honor that request, mainly because I -- as a whole person, being more than simply the sum of my parts -- can't just leave my "religious nose" at home and use only my "secular brain" when contributing to discussions of public policy. If anyone can compartmentalize their religious beliefs, they're not a true believer.

"The United States is a democracy dedicated to equality among its inhabitants. The CHURCH is obviously AGAINST EQUALITY."

The kingdom of God is more about equality than any government, democratic or otherwise, can ever be, and by a country mile. It states, unequivically, that ALL have sinned and thus separated themselves from God, but that "God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son, that WHOEVER believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." The Bible also makes it clear what constitutes proper sexual/romantic relationship among humans: that of one man and one woman for as long as they both live. "Equality" is an overused, misused word when it comes to this area of discussion; we all have the right to marry ... it's just that some people want to make marriage something it's not, and is never supposed to be. And besides that ....

"Every American citizen has the right and deserves the right to marry whomever they want."

Really? To marry WHOMEVER? So I, as a married man, should be able to take additional wives? Or my wife additional husbands? Should a 30-year-old man be able to marry a 16-year-old girl -- or boy?

There are lots of ways to take apart and analyze this issue, but let's get down to brass tacks: bottom line, homosexuality is wrong, not meant to be -- a perversion.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

B.O.'s New Title: 'Most Powerful Writer Since Caesar'

Here's a gem for you, from Rocco Landesman, President Obama's handpicked chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, in a keynote address he gave last week to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference:

"This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists."
 
Whether Obama could be good for any artist other than the guy who "borrowed" someone else's work for the infamous "hope" poster, I don't know, but one thing's for sure: If Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar (and I never realized ol' Jules was such a wizard with the pen), then I suppose we should all start studying his words with Biblical fervor (he is, after all, the messiah, right?).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wanda Psycho

One of the TV ads for Wanda Sykes' new show states "nothing is off-limits." Does this mean she'll bash B.O. like she bashed Bush?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democratic Party a Racist Sham

So much for a post-racial Obama administration. Senate Majority Leader Scary -- I mean, Harry -- Reid, D-Nev., said today that the GOP better not vote against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor or else it would pay a steep price. Said Reid: "I just think that their voting against this good woman is going to treat them about the same way that they got treated as a result of their votes on immigration."
 
Aww. Isn't that sweet?
 
I'm sure Harry Reid is real freakin' concerned about making sure the GOP doesn't hurt itself. This, combined with the president's recent race-baiting and the Democratic Party's recent history of keeping blacks addicted to government assistance, makes it clear that the Democratic Party is the party of racism. "If you vote against Sotomayor, you must hate Hispanics." Sounds awful similar to the refrain driven home subliminally during November's presidential race: "If you vote against Obama, you must hate blacks."
 
Gimme a break. The only reason Democrats still have any power is their strategy of keeping blacks and Hispanics on the government-sponsored plantation. This is ludicrous. And pathetic. And wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Glam-rock Lambert a Study in Overhyped Theatrics

Let's get this settled right now: Adam Lambert did NOT deserve to win American Idol. He didn't deserve to even be in the top two. The guy is a total production -- a too-slick, overtheatrical, inauthentic hack. Rock 'n roll is my favorite genre of music, but I couldn't stand this guy, because he's nothing but glam-rock -- which is fun to make fun of, but never to be taken seriously. Thus, it would've been a crime to make him the winner. Anybody paying attention earlier in the season would've heard (from the show) that Lambert has a background in ... THEATER. A fact that (unfortunately) shown through with gagging clarity. Worst of all, Lambert thought he was the best thing in music this side of Twisted Sister ... and had no problem displaying his self-indulgence.
 
Kris Allen, on the other hand, is a true artist. He may not sing my favorite type of song, but he has an excellent voice; a kind, humble, highly likeable personality; a creative capacity approaching that of 2008 winner David Cook; and a genuine authenticity about him. The voters chose wisely.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hilton Should Take Agenda Elsewhere

I don't know much about Perez Hilton, but based on his judging performance at the Miss USA pageant, I think he's a jerk.

First of all, the issue of same-sex marriage has no bearing on what is essentially a beauty pageant -- particulary when other contestants got less-divisive questions.

Second, if he or any of the other judges voted against Carrie Prejean because of her non-PC answer, they have shown themselves to be unworthy judges of a beauty pageant. Miss Prejean spoke her mind, refusing to bow to pressure, and deserves much credit for that. Mr. Hilton, on the other hand, should conduct his personal crusades in other (appropriate) forums.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Same-sex 'marriage' not a civil right

Vermont state Rep. William Lippert, a homosexual, after the Vermont Legislature overrode the governor's veto of a same-sex 'marriage' bill: "It's been an incredibly powerful personal journey. I consider it my personal great good fortune to be a member of the Vermont Legislature under the leadership of speakers who have in fact prioritized civil rights for the community of which I'm a part. It touches me deeply."
 
Mr. Lippert has the right to be a part of any community he chooses, but he's woefully mistaken about what constitutes a civil right.
 
As I've argued previously, civil rights comprise our political freedoms -- freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to protest, to peaceably assemble, to petition the government. In essence, our civil rights are what protect us citizens from government tyranny. This is what made the black civil-rights movement a civil-rights movement; they had previously been denied the political freedoms due every American, such as the right to vote, and thus had a legitimate civil-rights argument: To deny them, for example, the right to vote was to treat them unequally under the law. This is the true meaning of the phrase "equal treatment under the law."
 
Homosexuals, on the other hand, are not being denied the right to vote, the right to worship as they please, the right to protest, to petition the government, to peaceably assemble. Relationships, unlike those things I've just mentioned, have nothing to do with protecting citizens from political tyranny. Furthermore, if relationships are classified under the "equal treatment under the law" rubric, then it becomes impossible to objectively draw the line as to which relationships qualify for "equal treatment." What right would any of us have, for example, to deny a 15-year-old the "right" to be with a 21-year-old? Who are any of us to say that such a relationship is not valid? 15-year-olds are people too, right? They have feelings, don't they? Can't they be "in love"?
 
Civil rights, indeed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tragedy in Iowa

Well laadi-frickin-da. So now Iowa is a "gay friendly" state. And not just any gay-friendly state; unlike the Northeast and Pacific Coast states, Iowa, some say, is "mainstream America." Being originally from Maine, I resent this comment. I also disagree with the opinion that the Iowa Supreme Court's decision somehow lends legitimacy to same-sex marriage (though I fear that a great many people will fall for that notion). Anyone who still has their head securely fastened to their shoulders knows that same-sex anything is wrong.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Big O: His Royal Weariness Sighs Again

So President Obama has approved another gigantic spending measure, this one loaded with billions in pork-barrel pet projects. And the best he can do is call the measure "imperfect." And the real kicker: According to an AP story, Obama "sounded weary" about all the criticism of earmarks, adding that his promise was to curb, not eliminate, them.
 
Well he didn't "curb" anything in this bill, and if he refuses to put his foot down during these tough economic times, he'll never get tough. As for His Royal Weariness, now he knows how true conservatives feel about him ... and it's not even two months into his presidency. He's developed a terrible habit of whining/sighing -- remember, this is the same president who got snippy with a reporter during his first week in office, and who thought a New York Times reporter was joking when he asked Obama a question regarding socialism.
 
And what the hell does he expect to hear concerning earmarks? "Way to go, O! That's a nice, fat pig you got, there -- and just in time for Easter!"? So much for change. Newsweek has a story out describing how those in the American "establishment" (for example, corporate Americans) are already growing weary of Obama's act. Maybe the Average Joes across the land will soon get the message too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Baby-Smashing: Not What You Might Think

I was just reading Psalms, and I came across a verse in which the psalmist expresses a desire to see the babies of his Babylonian captors smashed on rocks. Sounds rather cruel, I confess, and I immediately asked God to help me understand it. After all, such verses are ones that atheists and other nonbelievers latch onto as reasons for rejecting the Bible and its God. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, in particular, use such arguments, preferring to believe that a sound moral code exists independently of God and can be discovered without the aid of religion. They also presume that said moral code was available to anyone anywhere in the world at any point in history, and thus that the ancient Israelites were immoral for wanting to bash babies' heads and wage war against their Canaanite neighbors.
 
Hitchens, Dawkins, et al. make several mistakes, however. They first make the wrong assumption that this moral code is fully decipherable without the aid of God, the church or religion. They fail to realize, however, that they, despite choosing against God, were nonetheless raised in a society unmistakably saturated with and affected by Judeo-Christian morality. This affords them the opportunity to choose against God and be under the illusion that they "discovered" morality all on their own, never realizing that they can't completely escape the effects of growing up in a society influenced by Christianity.
 
Their second mistake is assuming, based on their first wrong assumption, that anyone throughout human history should have been able to fully decipher the proper moral code on their own -- and thus concluding that wishing harm on your enemies' babies should have been quite obviously wrong to any sane person. But what's wrong, as well as illogical, is to project a 21st-century understanding of morality -- culled from 2,000 years of Christian history -- onto a pre-Christian society. Not only does our basic understanding of morality today come from Christianity, but this standard had not yet been made manifest at that point in history. Thus, all they had to go on was the Law, with its eye-for-an-eye principle of "the punishment must fit the crime"; in other words, they had an incomplete understanding of mercy, compassion and grace. Combine this with the fact that survival was a daily struggle in those days -- because of limited resources, and constant warfare amongst groups over said resources -- and it's easy to see why your attack on my children would lead to my attack on your children.
 
Of course, with the advent of Jesus, we've been blessed with a full understanding of forgiveness, mercy, compassion and grace. This may be difficult, but try to imagine not having that understanding, not living in a society whose fabric is woven with the threads of Jesus' teachings, not living in a society where daily survival is thought to be a given. Makes for a different situation, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Homosexuals Missing a Lot of Points

The furor over the passage of Prop 8 having abated somewhat, Scott Boardman of Monrovia feels that there just aren't enough pro-homosexual rallies taking place anymore, and he plans to do something about it. Fine; go ahead and exercise your right to waste your time -- for only in America are we affluent enough to be able to put serious effort into legitimizing perversion.
 
And speaking of rights, one of Boardman's supporters, the Rev. (and I use that term loosely) Susan Russell of All-Saints Episcopal Church, said recently: "The United States is founded on values of freedom of religion and from religion." Actually, "reverend," "freedom from religion" is nothing but a fanciful idea dreamed up by atheists and the ACLU (the Anti-Christian-Liberties Union). Like "separation of church and state," it's a phrase found nowhere in our nation's founding documents. Besides that, no one can be free from religion; even if you don't subscribe to an "organized" religion, you subscribe to whatever unorganized hodge-podge you decide upon throughout the course of your life. In other words, you believe something, and whatever it is you believe, that is your religion.
 
Russell goes on to say: "All-Saints is part of a national group that believes God's laws include everyone and that the United States Constitution provides protection for everyone." Well, duh. Of course the Constitution applies equally to everyone -- that is, it guarantees everyone's civil (a.k.a. political) rights -- the right to vote, to petition government, to peacably assemble, etc. But since marriage has nothing to do with any of these things, it can't be considered a civil (political) right. (Ditto with abortion.)
 
And it's funny that Russell speaks of God's laws applying to everyone, because she glaringly fails to encourage obedience to one of His fundamental teachings: that He designed marriage as a particular thing, to the exclusion of all other things, as a way of demonstrating to us the differences and similarities between Himself and humans, and His desire (despite our differences) for intimacy with us. Russell, I'm sure, bases her position, at least in part, on the twisted, homosexual-friendly definition of "equality," wherein any two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want (then why not three, or 10?), and according to which there are no differences between males and females (then why do so many lesbians come off as being men, and so many homosexual men come off as being women?). At any rate, true equality doesn't mean equal results; it means having equal protection of our basic civil (political) rights, and we all have that (last I checked, homosexuals weren't being denied the right to vote, weren't being segregated and weren't being knocked over with firehoses). Beyond these "off-limits" items, society is ours (meaning everyone's) to shape as we will; you can disagree with any of the decisions, but a decision not in your favor doesn't mean that your basic rights have been violated.
 
Homosexuals and their advocates need to understand that sexual practices comprise a difference case than skin color: Even if sexuality (like skin color) is an inherent genetic characteristic, it is nonetheless (unlike skin color) a question of morality, and for many of us, the practice of homosexuality constitutes a perversion, a deviation from what God intended. For us, therefore, it's not a question of accepting someone who is different in a benign way; instead, you're asking us to agree with and approve of a behavior that we find immoral.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Churches for Religion, Not Political PR

So the Library of Congress wants churches, synagogues and mosques across America to preserve, via print, audio or video, any and all sermons or other "passionate speeches" concerning Barack Obama in the lead-up to his inauguration. Gimme a break.
 
I understand the desire to preserve certain things for posterity's sake; my problem here is that houses of worship are not supposed to be used for political PR. Perhaps I can't speak as well for non-Christian religions (since I'm a Christian), but I'm pretty sure that all houses of worship -- Christian churches, for sure -- are supposed to be about connecting God and people, strengthening the bond between the Creator and His creation. Not that political candidates or other public figures can't be mentioned in church -- I think they can be -- but the mission of the Christian church, at least, is clear: reach people with God's message. Time spent doing anything else is wasted, and if there's any person in American history whom we don't need more souvenirs regarding, it's Obama.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »