Happy Holidays From The Media

donald_trump_official_portrait

Strangely, the Left’s theology parallels Christianity quite closely. Just like in the Bible there were many false antiChrists before, but Trump is clearly the real deal after his conversation with a 7-year-old. Image from wikimedia.org

The media went insane when President Trump asked a child if she still believed in Santa. They tried to claim he basically told her Santa did not exist. The child’s parents on the other hand thought the phone call was awesome, and the child herself was positively exuberant.

I have a question for liberals- you spend your time selling atheism, except where Mohammed and astrology and Scientology are concerned. You spend your time attacking Christianity. You tell us we should only believe in your logic and your facts, that you don’t have any bias. (But from Kindergarten onward you try and destroy belief in scientific facts like how everyone except rare genetic freaks have either an XY or XX chromosome that determines their biological gender.) Yet, here you are, the masters of science and atheism, dedicated to destroying Christianity, trying to say Trump is pure evil for possibly hurting a child’s belief in Santa?

Heat-Miser-Year-Without-A-Santa-Claus

The only media personality so far who I can safely say wouldn’t mind burning “Year Without A Santa Claus”. Image from that production, all rights to whoever holds them.

What Trump said was this: that there aren’t many 7-year-olds who believe in Santa. That’s it. He didn’t say “there is no Santa”. He said few believe. That’s a freakin’ theme from “Year Without A Santa Clause”! Are Rankin and Bass now the modern equivalent of heretics like Baron d’Holbach? Will we see one of these journalists attacking Trump burn a copy of “Year Without A Santa Clause” on national TV?

 

As for that idiot from The Hill who said what Trump did was worse than Obama’s “happy holidays” and that the right should be outraged, I’ll take this time to say that such an idiot ought to be canned on the spot for making so blatant of a false equivalence. Trump just noted few 7-year-olds believe in Santa. That’s it. Yet that’s equivalent to banning Christmas in the eyes of this reporter from The Hill. Which leads question to the man’s journalistic abilities. If two disparate things are so comparable to him, then shouldn’t that raise questions about his ability for accurate reporting, given this gross inaccuracy? And if he is ever on deck for promotion to editor, shouldn’t this raise questions about what he would think a good story to cover is? The man has all the good judgment of the stereotypical drunk mall Santa.

The Left gives awards to anti-Christian bigots, the Left teaches atheism in schools except when it needs to refer to Mohammed’s teachings as the “revealed word of God”, the Left creates pro-atheist media, the Left works to convince every level of society that there is no God, yet they attack Trump for saying that most 7-year-olds don’t believe in Santa.

So… What Is Their Theology?

Let’s take a look- Mohammed is ok, Buddha is ok (don’t want to offend anyone!), Satan is ok, human sacrifices are ok, but God and Jesus are either pure evil responsible for everything wrong in the world or simply never existed to begin with. When someone expresses a Christian belief they should be burned at the stake as a heretic (if they’re not faking it like Obama (Obama was part of Wright’s church for a LONG time and visited Wright “countless” times, but none of this came up? Might as well say Hillary made a speech and the question of payments didn’t come up)), kicked out of public life, have their company razed to the ground and the earth under it salted, but if a child professes a belief in Santa then we can’t even say that other kids their age don’t believe. Just like we can’t say anything bad about Islam, Mohammed, or anything related.

Islamic-Crescent-wikimedia

The only star that should be on top of your Christmas Tree. The “C” is for “Christmas”. Image from Wikimedia

The pattern taking shape here isn’t that the Left has a coherent theology, but rather that it’s just a mass of hatred against Christians and various other enemies, that if they ever use Biblical terms it’s to glorify their mortal selves. How many atheists do you see protesting mosques? How many atheists do you see protesting Muslim monuments on public land? How many atheists do you see complaining about how Muslim bakers won’t make cakes for gay weddings? How many atheist comedians make jokes about Islam? Well, we know the answer to that last one- just read the obituaries. As for comedians who make fun of Christians, that answer is also easy- look at who the ones with the most awards are. Get the picture?

 

Remember- the people gathered at the DNC in 2012 desperately wanted references to God removed from the party platform. And these same people are complaining that Trump told a kid that other kids don’t believe in Santa.

For those who are still not getting it, take a look at this statistic: your side of the aisle is trying to tell 70.6% of the U.S. population- men, women, AND children- that their God does not exist or is evil. Then your side of the aisle screams as loudly as it can that Trump is evil for trying to exterminate a child’s belief in Santa. There is absolutely no way you can claim this isn’t hypocritical of your side, at least not in a way that isn’t as fictional as Santa Claus or the man-made global warming apocalypses that your side told us should have happened many times in the past 30 years (Dan Rather tried to jab at Trump over his disbelief in global warming related to disbelief in Santa- this serves as my rebuttal to the old disgraced sham of a human being).

So I ask you, proud defender of the Left- is the really the group you want to belong to? The group that does not believe Christians are fit to serve in our courts? I’m especially asking that alleged 59% participating in the destruction of your own religion (the Democratic Party that you belong to has defended Santa and Satan while attacking God and Jesus)? Can’t you just go independent- not Bernie Sanders or Angus King ‘independent’ where you vote Democrat more times than you inhale in the average year. Because every vote for a Democrat is a vote for this hypocrisy. Sure, statistically you think Christianity and Islam (and Buddhism) are equally as violent, with 10% believing that Buddhism is more violent than Islam, and 9% believing Muslims in America are treated worse than Middle-Eastern Christians facing genocide but… oh. Well, could you at least vote for people who do a better job of not looking so stupid when they reveal their hypocrisy? It’s as embarrassing to me having them as political leaders as it must be for you to have Trump as President!

Congresswoman_Ocasio-Cortez_Daily-Caller

We need to have a little talk about something called “optics“. Image from Daily Caller/Shutterstock

Advertisements

Grinches Stealing Christmas And Elections

Grinch-animation-magazineA.O.B. First

I’ll open with an update for last week’s post: the day after it went up, probably later the same day, I learned that the same Democrats who were all for invading Libya and running away while anarchy filled the vacuum of power are attacking President Trump for leaving Syria. Moreover, they can’t get their message straight with hardened Lefty anti-Trump ideologue Chris Matthews actually taking Trump’s side. It’s weird to see Matthews side with Trump against Republicans and the Democratic establishment, but there you go.

Onward And Backward

Russian Bots! Russian Bots! Russian Bots! The whole thing is rigged, except when Democrats win. But Russia and as you’ll read soon are apparently the only groups that have now or ever tried to rig elections in this country.

No one will believe some of the midterm races anymore than Democrats believe Trump won fair and square. Even Democrats are now admitting voter fraud is possible, when before we had an ironclad foolproof supersystem that was impossible for anyone to abuse (except Russian hackers) according to them. They told us that all attempts at Voter ID laws, purging dead people and people who don’t vote from voter rolls, and attempts to curb voter fraud were unnecessary. Worse still, Democrats invented nefarious motives for voter laws- racism. The claim from Democrats was that since minorities have no form of I.D. and are so ignorant that they were incapable of obtaining them, stronger voting protections would oppress these groups.

But Democrats have changed their tune, once they found an incident they could pin on Republicans. Apparently someone in North Carolina for an utterly irrelevant Congressional seat decided to screw around (no offense to folks in that area, it’s just that I don’t understand why Republicans would participate in fraud for such a small gain given the losses they had, better to lose but keep your dignity right? It’s not like a major Congressional leader was going to be ousted or this was the district that’d determine control of the House). An outside contractor decided to collect absentee ballots, and a few of them went missing. It just happens that collecting them was illegal and this contractor was tied pretty well to the Republicans. There were also fraudulent activity that the Democratic candidate himself reported. Well, silver lining, at least Democrats now acknowledge voter fraud happens. They might re-do the election, but that won’t be decided until January.

Down 95 A Ways

Failed liberal Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is trying to say that their must be fraud because she lost.

stacey-abrams-weekly-standard

Stacey Abrams, image from the Weekly Standard

She made an interesting point, yet Democrats fought tooth and claw against any reform efforts. As established above, these are all racist and evil. She also mentions the “handwriting police”. So I guess if someone made an X voting in my name, Abrams wants there to be nothing stopping that vote for counting. Speaking of which, my vote was not counted. Oh I mailed it in plenty of time, but they claim they received it 3 days too late. Maybe Democrats in my home state suppressed my vote? Abrams certainly would agree if my vote had been for Democrats, and I’m sure the liberal gubernatorial candidate in Florida who says every vote must count would have said the same thing for my vote had it been for a Democrat.

Democrat Senator Sherrod Brown said it best- if Democrats lose then Republicans stole the election, meaning there is no legitimate way Republicans win any elections.

At The Bottom Of 95

I’m sure you’ve heard by now about Florida, mostly since I wrote about it. In summary: an election board member with a court-ruling against her about her inability to handle voting in a situation where her alleged incompetence helped an establishment Democrat win is found to have messed up again. Ballots mishandled, probably illegally, and of course magically appearing like an early Christmas miracle with the results pushing the Democrat closer to victory. We have a witness saying Democrats were altering ballots. Nothing suspicious there, but the Left went nuts over North Carolina while being dismissive of Florida.

Intelligencing

While searching for data on this topic, I found a point I’d like to address. Let me just point out that the “Intelligencer” is lacking in its titular boast, chiding Republicans for spinning a poor election showing when that’s everything NYMag has ever done for Democratic races. I assure you, reading gossip columns like New York Magazine does NOT lead to more intelligence, except perhaps better reading skills and a broadened vocabulary.

NY-Magazine

I believe everything New York Magazine says.

At the link above you’ll notice that liberal NYMag is accusing Republicans of inventing fake voter fraud to cover election losses in California. Republicans already have a snowball’s chance in South Town of winning an election in California outside a handful of bizarre districts, so why the NYMag turns keeping California into a boast about how great Democrats did is a little beyond my intelligence. NYMag attacks in particular a line from a Republican party official about it being fishy that their candidate lost despite a 14-point lead (according to polling on election day). Democrats believe that Russia literally changed the vote count to let Trump win and absolutely believe his win was not above-board, in part because Hillary was always up in the polls, so surely NYMag can understand the shoe being on the other foot, if their “Intelligencer” section were to live up to the title.

As to suspicions of voter fraud in California and the characterization that Republicans just want to make voting as hard a possible for people, there’s a good reason for that. They’re letting illegal immigrants vote in elections, legitimately, brazenly and openly. As opposed to their methods of letting illegals vote wherein they simply issue them driver’s licenses and pretend that those aren’t used to obtain ballots. There’s a 46% chance that anyone who professes that the system is safe is someone who already believes illegals should be allowed to vote (and a 100% chance that someone in that other 54% would believe the people professing it to be safe), so you can’t really believe it anymore than you could believe a wolf with bloody feathers covering it when it says all your chickens are safe

Historical Context

Stealing elections is nothing new for Democrats. Because variety is the spice of life, let’s go to bullet points:

  • Boss Tweed. Democrat notorious for voter fraud in the 19th century.
  • Democrat Lyndon Johnson won in Texas, in alphabetical order even!
  • And no, the alleged migration of the 60s where the Left alleges all the racists and presumably vote-riggers left the party didn’t purge the Democrats’ pure ranks of this disease: disgraced sexual harasser Al Franken won his Senate seat in the first place because of 312 fraudulent votes (over a thousand felons voted when they should not have, and thanks to Minnesota law they could just claim they didn’t know any better and avoid prosecution, much like I’d imagine San Francisco’s standards for illegals voting would be).

Sure seems to me like voter fraud happens. Let’s look at suppression and intimidation now, since they allege that is what Republicans want to do.

  • Democrats passed laws banning interracial marriages and creating segregation in the late 1800s, and also not an insignificant number of laws stopping blacks from voting. This was after Democrats fought a war to keep slavery intact (among other things, a bone for those who have read Jefferson Davis’ book “A Short History of the Confederate States of America” and think Lincoln/the Union were jerks) which as you can imagine suppressed the democratic process among the African-American population.
  • The 1900s weren’t any better in the Democrat-controlled Deep South.
  • The Ku Klux Klan gets its own mention here- it was a group of Democrats (née Confederates) created to stop blacks from having rights, such as the right to vote. It came back in the 1910s in-part to do the same, with a highly praised (allegedly from Democrat, segregationist, and MODERN Progressive Icon Woodrow Wilson) pro-KKK propaganda film inspiring the resurgence’s founder.

A bit more contemporary, after the alleged party switch I like mentioning never happened (also, why would it not have happened earlier, since even though Democrats were suppressing black voters we saw the black community voting heavily Democrat for 20 years before the alleged switch), we have:

  • Huffington Post talks about Democrats suppressing their own voters in 2016
  • CNN admits that Democrats are more than happy to engage in voter suppression, right now as you read this, two years after the alleged “Russian hacking”, wherein we are told Russia essentially did the job of a journalist in lieu of the “real” journalists (who were and are basically unpaid advertisers for the DNC, something else the emails showed) by exposing to the public how the Democrats rigged the system.
  • Black Panthers intimidating voters (DOJ dropped it because they didn’t want to sue black people, as they phrased it, Federal Court found Obama appointees messed with it, Obama himself knew the defendants’ leadership and probably had one in the White House). And the Black Panthers did not stop.

So they went from oppressing physical minorities to oppressing ideological minorities… and any physical/sexual minorities that disagree with them.

From The Other Side

John-Yarmuth-wikimedia

He looks creepy. Image from wikimedia commons

Ever read what Democratic Representative John Yarmuth (KY) proposed? He wanted the government to be able to pick the candidates. His proposition was that the only funding for any federal-level campaigns (House, Senate, President) would come from the government. That means the government would pick who gets to run, and who doesn’t. If you can’t steal the votes, steal the candidate. In Khrushchev Remembers, we learned from him that the Soviets had a system very much like this, where the NKVD (the secret police who had a sloped basement so they could easily hose off the blood from the people they shot) always had pre-approved the candidates running for leadership positions.

And if you can’t steal the candidate, steal the district. I of course mean gerrymandering. Democrats routinely badger Republicans over doing this, but in Maryland we have Democrats going to the Supreme Court to defend THEIR gerrymandering practices.

What Else Do These Election-Stealing Grinches Want?

Christmas. Duh. Our sticky-bandit friends on the Left aren’t content with taking elections for themselves, it seems they want to take holidays from the Christian community.  We can’t even say “Merry Christmas”, because that is a “racist dog whistle”. Obviously the only things they want celebrated are Democratic victories. Don’t worry, they’re not going to touch other religions… yet.

Merry Melodies

Baby It’s Cold Outsideit’s just some guy saying he likes the girl and wants her to stay. Based on the backlash that allegedly represents the feelings of all women, women don’t want men to express any kind of positive emotion towards them, so here’s what the lyrics should read: “Lady just go outside!”. I won’t lend you a coat, and it’s freezing out there. Sorry, but if I gave you a coat you might accuse me of trying to put a straight-jacket over you so that I could rape you.

So I guess the moral of this uproar is: if you like a girl and want to convince her to stay at your house longer because you’re both having a good time, don’t. Because that’s rape. I assume if women don’t want to hear anything positive about them, don’t want to hear that a man likes there company, don’t want to hear a man beg them to stay, then women must either want to hear nothing, want nothing to do with men, or want to hear only something negative.

I think the negative, because they are doing everything they can to anger men. It’s no wonder homosexuality is on the rise– women don’t want to even see a man let alone talk with one.

whistler's-mother-wikimedia

An aging feminist showing support on World Hijab Day. CNN thinks it’s good to encourage women to cover up. Image from wikimedia commons

What I like is this: these #MeToo women who think it’s rape when a man accidentally glances in their direction, they grow up to be alone and unfulfilled, and are miserable later in life unless they happen to be lesbians, trans, or find one of the increasing numbers of woke emasculated Pajama Boys. There aren’t that many men like that… yet, but with schools weakening male students and neutralizing male kids with drugs this seems to be the wave of the future (which isn’t much of a future, because sciencey things like space exploration are signs of toxic masculinity, and science is sexist.).

But the present lonely old spinsters blame the patriarchy for their bitter golden years, and so start organizing younger activists to start the same sad cycle all over again. I guess it’s good that such women don’t have kids- keeps their genes from passing on, so less people will be genetically programmed to be receptive to their hate-based ideology.

On The Chopping Block

  • White Christmas. You can probably guess why this one is a problem. Sorry folks, no snow days for you. Snow is racist.
  • Jingle Bells.
  • Do They Know It’s Christmas? Not exactly a traditional one, but I like how some Lefty celebs decided to do something charitable, and now end up on the wrong side of the PC Police’s nightstick for raising money to help. And let’s face it- despite the BBC’s spin, there isn’t a part of Africa that isn’t going under.

Broadcasting Their Hate

Charlie Brown is on the chopping block over his Thanksgiving debacle, so I can imagine that his Christmas special isn’t that far off from being banned. Then we come to the most famous reindeer of them all. Only liberals (except The View for once) could take an anti-bullying Christmas PSA and decide that it’s actually telling you to bully. Huffington Post was ground zero for this PC bomb. The point of the story is that bigots learn their lessons not to be bigoted. So maybe

Obama-Farrakhan-talkingpointsmemo

Farrakhan was totally a cool guy, but Rudolph is a little punk! Image from talkingpointsmemo.

HuffPost’s problem is that it shows bigots aren’t beyond redemption. If bigots could learn their lesson, doesn’t that mean they’re not all deplorable and not beyond redemption as Hillary Clinton opined and the Left agreed? Once a bigot, always a bigot, stained for life. But only if the Left dislikes you. Folks like Sen. Robert Byrd (Democrat, Hillary’s mentor) get a free pass of course. And people like Louis Farrakhan, while bigoted, are bigoted against the right kind of people.

Personally, I think it has more to do with their egos. They have to be the civil rights leaders, they want to be the ones in the history books. Thus nothing good could have come before them. Those nice words about equality for the founding of the country, followed by various amendments to ensure it? Forget about them. Racist sexist slaveholders. Martin Luther King jr? LGBTQ/Feminist-exclusive, so strike his name from your buildings.

Your Candy Too

Candy canes look like the letter “J”, “J” stands for “Jesus”, therefore Candy Canes should be banned. And they were. The logic is incredible.

Crumbs Too Small For A Mouse

Remember that tax reform bill that gave us on average $1000? Our incoming House Majority Leader said these dollars were crumbs, and much like the Grinch she and her colleagues are coming to take them away. Maybe her reasoning is that no one will miss them because they’re so small. Just look at her district- no one there would miss $1000. She’s spent decades representing them, rubbing elbows with people who don’t blink when they drop $1000 for fancy meals with portions so small that we’d describe them as “crumbs”.

So Happy New Year, happy misc Holidays, and enjoy your crumbs before the Democrats America put in charge of the House come for them.

thousand-dollar-dessert-howtocookthat

$1000 just for dessert? Merry Christmas indeed! Image from howtocookthat

Fattening The Absurdity

trigglypuff-urban-dictionary

A liberal. Image from UrbanDictionary

Liberals indisputably have claimed they are the rational ones. They’re the factbased, settled science ones. They don’t let emotion and instinct interfere. They’re the ones whose policies will make us healthier. So why are these so-called rational, scientifically-minded, health-conscious people abandoning that?

 

Elephant In The Room

Let’s start with fat people. Establishing my ethos (you allow it to impact your reasoning when liberals do it, so here I am too): I was obese for 9 years, then dropped to the “optimal weight”, then gained until I was “overweight”, then sort of straddled the line between “optimal” and “over” for the past 4 years. Except recently- I was a few pounds shy of obese for the last month, maybe a week or two longer. Certain issues kept me exiled at my parents’ house, and as is a well-known stereotype parents love to fatten their kids up. Just ask Jon Arbuckle. Oh yeah, exercise is a foreign concept to me and I love eating.

Now that I’ve established myself as a member of the fat group, thus depriving the reader of their own credibility should they accuse me of skinny-splaining, let’s get to the meat of the discussion. Princeton, one of those allegedly esteemed Ivy-league schools, held a dinner aimed at empowering “fat identified” students. This is exactly why an Ivy-league degree isn’t even worth being used as a napkin at that dinner. We have an obesity epidemic in this country, and the Left instead decides that sickness is health. Why?

Princeton’s Lewis Center for the arts also has a course designed to reveal how fat might “be a liberating counterperformance”. I mean, liberating in the sense of liberating the soul from the body after a heart attack, sure. Again, why are these kings of health, who by their own arrogant statements of superiority must acknowledge that obese lifestyles are harmful, knowingly and deliberately promoting said lifestyles?

Ivy Leagues aren’t the only place, of course, we can drop down to Bradley University and

Omar-Bradley-history

No relation to Gen. Omar Bradley, Image from history.com

their “The Body Project” which tells us it’s a-ok to be fat. This is using the same crude justification that leads people to think that half the population, including themselves, is gluten intolerant when really it’s half of half of half of half of half of half of the population (about 1% of the country). In fact, Bradley does worse than tell us “if you think you are, then you are and should get a doctor’s note”. Bradley tells us that you’ll die if you DO try to lose weight.

 

My weight dropped by 30 pounds in two months. My weight jumped by 20 pounds in two months. I’m still here! Wild weight fluctuations haven’t bothered my heart, however reading all this crap about SJW’s perverting science to justify their narcissism (“I’m perfect and you’re offensive and evil for saying otherwise”) is doing a number on my cardiovascular system!

Now we go from me to the general public. Obese award-winning comedian Sofie Hagen proves why the awards council made her a winner with her virtue-signaling attack on Cancer Research UK. CRUK has researched data showing that obesity is the second-most common source of cancer, under smoking. Sofie’s Choice was to cuss out CRUK for daring to present facts that demonstrated she led an unhealthy lifestyle and then proceeded to back up her attack with points that must have come from the aforementioned Bradley University. CRUK started this campaign because only 15% of people (in the U.K.? It doesn’t say) are aware that being fat can cause cancer. If tolerant, educated, open-minded liberals only interested in spreading truth and knowledge like Sofie had their way then this bit of knowledge would be buried and forgotten right next to the 100,000,000 people that liberal ideas like Communism killed in the 20th century.

I started with fat because (at least until the last 10 years when we started getting groups

Jabba-The-Hutt-star-wars

You are so beautiful as you are! Image from starwars.com

like NAAFA (yes, it is real) and being fat became a civil rights movement and forcing people to find fat attractive became a new form of brainwashing) it can commonly be agreed, even among liberals, that being fat is bad. Well liberals, this is where your ideology has brought us. Now you’re ironically not even allowed to force people to be healthy. Now Michelle and Barack Obama’s efforts to fight childhood obesity make them look like bigoted mass murderers to the Left. I just disagreed with the program because it had a one-size-fits-all solution that left kids who needed extra food starving, impacting student-athletes (this was either an effort to keep male students from exhibiting toxic masculinity through athleticism, or it was a failure by liberal scientists who think reality conforms to their models and throw out data contradicting it, at the expense of the public, much like Stalin’s agriculture program) and led to schools policing what parents gave their kids to eat thus interfering with parental decisions.

 

It’s More Than Fat

rei-ayanami-disarmed-neon-genesis-evangelion-aminoapps

Pictured left is Rei Ayanami: Pioneer of the transabled movement, or dedicated Chambraigne customer? You decide. Image from aminoapps.

If you have investment advice for how to milk these civil rights movements (their term, not mine) for all they’re worth, I’d appreciate it. Because I know a new one on the rise that’s sure to take flight. First was transsexual, then transracial, now we have “transabled”. These are people who have perfectly functioning body parts and want to cut them off. That’s different from transsexual in that transsexual’s exchange one for the other, transabled folks just lop their parts off altogether. Period. No replacement. And it’s not just changing from one version of a healthy human to another. They want to be WITHOUT feet, hands, arms, legs, things like that. We are being told to accept this and give them what they want. We are being told that, like obesity, these are conditions that should not be treated.

I thought evolution was settled science. “Transabled” as a normal thing that humans should accept flies in the face of everything that “settled science” tells us on evolution (survival of the fittest, anyone?). Unless there is an advantage to having a mental disorder (BIID) that makes you want to be part of one of the left’s victim classes. Maybe transablism is just an adaptation for humans to survive in the Left’s system of allocating privilege based on how victimized one can claim to be. Let’s be clear– my intent is not to be condescending and demeaning to people who have the disorder; I’m attacking people who say it should be encouraged rather than treated. What’s next, saying that if someone identifies as having cancer they should not undergo chemotherapy? Haven’t liberals attacked people who do that?

Will the Left not be satisfied until the entire population consists of fat people who are missing a limb and aren’t of the same race or gender they were born as? Let’s add icing on the soy cake and say they’re all gluten-intolerant too!

What’s Next?

Let me take a stab at the next group- ones with known, communicable medical conditions. In California, it used to be a felony to deliberately give someone HIV without their consent. Not anymore, because of political correctness or social justice or something. Maybe this will come full circle and hurt another leftwing agenda, by making it a civil right to put a bullet inside someone else right next to that HIV. Both are just as lethal.

The scientifically-minded Left that wants to keep us safe and claims that any policy is justified if it saves just one life is trying to make self-harm and ill-health acceptable and encouraged. And they’re winning.

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other — until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology. – Ayn Rand

Why?

That’s a good question. If the Left is as smart as they tell us, surely they know what the consequences of encouraging all of this will be. Are these failed social experiments? Are these efforts to weaken the Western world? Notice that we don’t see them imposing this kind of thing elsewhere in the globe, not even with behaviors that are just plain taboo and don’t involve physically hurting yourself. Look at gay rights- Indiana wanted to pass a bill that’s the same thing Connecticut has, but Indiana is called “homophobic” and other states and even corporations boycott them. Meanwhile, the very same liberals denouncing and boycotting Indiana are promoting havens of gay rights like… Saudi Arabia and Iran. You remember Iran right, where they are so woke that they force women to wear hijab as a sign of solidarity against Islamophobia? Them and their woke buddies in Saudi Arabia who legally execute people for being homosexuals in a culturally tolerant manner that we are not allowed to judge (how come only Americans aren’t allowed to be intolerant anyway? Leftwing news source Daily Beast in that article tells us that we must tolerate Iran executing gays and tolerate Iran’s different ideas on sexuality, yet the Left, if it had its way, would hang Republicans for being different!). It’s almost like the Left hates Western civilization and look for any way to hurt it, while in turn empowering oppressive regimes across the globe (even empowering regimes the Left itself acknowledges to be oppressive).

Or maybe the Left figures that if they take up every cause like this, and encourages everyone to treat whatever little quirk or disease they have as a civil rights issue, they will never lose an election again since everyone will be reliant upon The Party for their personal civil rights matter.

severed head

If President Trump were just a severed head, would that be enough victim points that liberals could no longer criticize him at the risk of being called “corpore-ists”?

 

Being Gay in a Disposable Society

In a way, this is a political post but it’s also more of a social observation. We really do live in a disposable society materialistically speaking. We have disposable plates, disposable tableware, disposable phones. Sadly this convenience comes at a cost since it breeds a disposable mentality. People are now just as easily tossed aside like trash as the phones and eating instruments they use.

This is most noticeable in relationships, especially relationships between gay people. I’m very happy to see my straight friends finding love after trial and error, it really warms my heart. But as a gay man, I know the odds are I will die in a bed alone. Commitment went out the door with the older generation as well as tolerance and reasonable compromise. Everybody feels entitled to have exactly what they want down to the last detail.

When perfection is the name of the game things get tricky, especially when ideology is bundled in there. It boils down to two choices in the end. You can either start to believe everything your partner believes and try to think the exact same way they think and be partnered but a shallow shell of a person, or you can be yourself and die alone. Substance is not welcome in the modern LGBT relationship. Even if you are physically perfect if you are not 100% ideologically perfect then you are only good for a hookup and many guys will lie to you and manipulate you for just that.

A similar mentality applies to friendships. The only difference is that if you put out they will be your “friend” but only as long as you are on your back or inside them. The second you say you are not going to have sex or the second they get a boyfriend you always get the cold shoulder. You’re never truly their friend so much as their sex toy. Always the “friend” when they are single but disposable when they don’t need you.

Now you have to wonder when this started and why. It really wasn’t always this way. A long time ago gay men valued love and they could have a relationship with someone different. When I was younger I was a Catholic. Despite what the media will tell you Catholics are extremely tolerant. When I came out actually the congregation I was part of gathered around me in extreme support with the exception of a few members. I still try to visit them even though I have converted to another religion that’s a world apart from Christianity. This story I am about to share is about a couple in the congregation I knew before I came out who greatly contributed to it. They were both Gay men.

I’m hazy on the details but apparently, they met in the 50’s in Ocean City Maryland. They fell in love and maintained a relationship even though one of them had to ship off with the Navy. The other man was a teacher and when his lover came back they began to live together. They were together for 60 years despite the huge differences in who they were and they finally got married when Washington DC legalized it. What was key for them is that they were around in a different time when people valued other people over possessions.

What fundamentally has changed since then? Well, the first thing is that the LGBT community was formed and quickly became pawns of the Party of Hate who just years earlier were directing their hate at Gays and only changed that outward appearance when they realized they could make slaves out of another gullible demographic using lies. Frankly, when Democrats touch something it becomes corrupted very easily. So along with this growing culture of disposable things they were taught by the party that views people as possessions that they should pursue what they want while ignoring laws, the rights of others and how their actions adversely affect others. But that was not the end of this story.

Compounded by a disposable society and the manipulation of the party of hate, Gays entered the 90’s with a slightly selfish momentum but this still was not universal and they even had occasions where they could cast aside selfishness. Then in the 90’s we saw the rise of the special snowflake mentality. It took hold in some teenagers including LGBT teens but it took deeper root in children born in this decade. By the start of the 21st century a force of loud and selfish children arose which has since grown larger every year, and this manifests in the LGBT spectrum of society as gay and lesbians intolerant to what others believe and who readily dispose of anybody in their lives who challenges anything they say or believe. Even among gay conservatives the special snowflake mentality has set in a lot of them though to a lesser degree, but still substantial one. There are still some Gays and Lesbians left who are tolerant, but they are very hard to find and in my experience they live very far away.

If there is any hope I find it in two places but both become an issue of distance for someone like me. First, there are Gays and Lesbians overseas. I find they are a lot more likely to tolerate different points of view, even conservative ones. They seem more relaxed and less influenced by the special snowflake mentality or the lure of a disposable society. They look like hopeless romantics from where I sit and that’s a good thing. The next are gays who sadly live far away from me but show tolerance or objectivity. There are 2 or 3 tolerant ones that I have met online and some are even registered Democrats, sadly they often live 50 or 80 or 200 miles from me. Even with some of these two categories of guys I sadly find myself trigger-shy and I end up wondering if they are actually this tolerant or whether they are just acting tolerant because they find me attractive.

That’s the sum of things really. The hope is though with each generation things will get better. I am almost certain that I will die alone, but I’m hoping that younger gay men and women will rebel against the dogma of this generation with a new one of their own which truly fosters total tolerance and respect for others. Maybe in the next 10 or 20 or maybe even 30 years, a political movement will form that is truly Pro-LGBT and not just pretending to be to get votes for votes for a political party while setting them up for failure. The sad thing though is for someone like me it is too late, and barring a miracle person entering my life I will live alone and die with only my baby sister and her family there to comfort me on my deathbed. I will not be alone in a literal sense but I will have spent my life alone after sharing what little love extra I had to share with all of the wrong people.