Friday, March 29, 2013

Supporting Morality vs. Bullying Kids on Gun Control

Supporting morality means that society deems you “evil” and a “bully,” and that you don’t even deserve a place in the public sphere (since your very existence and support for morality causes lethal stress for sodomites).

At the same time, one has an obligation to demonize the Second Amendment and instill in everyone a deathly fear of all firearms. This obligation is so great that we even insist that our adults bully children about it and suggest that they are mentally ill if they do not relent to our bullying.

“Birthers” vs. Torture “Truthers

The Daily Caller published a post by Matt Lewis in which he mocks Pamela Geller as a so-called birther.

Yet on the very same date, The Daily Caller published a post by a libertarian praised two people who leaked classified information, and who railed against the CIA “torturing” our enemies.

Apparently The Daily Caller has no problems with “torture truthers.”

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Hispanic vs. White Hispanic and Black vs. White Black

La Raza and other leftist racists have thrown George Zimmerman under the bus, claiming that he is either a “white Hispanic” or questioning his Hispanic ethnicity entirely since he has white blood. Very well. If this is the new PC rule, then from now on I want it applied to anyone of mixed blood. For example, if someone is half black and half white, I want him referred to as a “white black” or “white African-American.” Anyone who doesn’t will immediately be attacked as a non-PC racist. Now, if I only could think of some prominent or famous person who is half black and half white . . .

Emasculating Men vs. Being a Man

Courtesy of the Daily Mail and Time magazine (via National Review Online) we learn that it is acceptable to emasculate men.

The Daily Mail gushes about the Chinese man who mutilated himself into a parody of a woman, and how he has become a cultural icon after his mutilation.

And National Review Online comments on the same Time magazine edition I saw the other day—the one with the cover boasting that, “Women are overtaking men as America’s breadwinners. Why that’s good for everyone”.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail churns out a story about the “outrage” over a guy who would dare to say that he’s sick of all the female comedies that have flooded the market.

So the rules of society now say: Emasculating men is a good thing; being a man is bad.

Monday, January 16, 2012

Urinating on Your Enemy versus Negotiating with Him

The media and government officials will continue crying over and denouncing the Marines who videotaped themselves urinating on the enemies they defeated. I just noted other incidents which are not considered urinating on corpses or graves—instances that the media, government officials, and the American People treat as acceptable. I also noted that these Marines, and all other Servicemen who have been prosecuted and imprisoned for killing or attacking the enemy, should be immediately pardoned.

Yet there is another angle at which to view this story; yet another reason to ask why the American People have not become outraged at the anger generated at the Marines.

Both the Associated Press and the Long War Journal have reported that the Taliban have vowed to continue jihad (read: war) even as it negotiates with the U.S. for so-called peace.

I find this amazing. I realize that information reported in the news is subject to verification. Even still, supposing the basic premise is true I am stunned that ten-plus years after September 11 there would come a day when the U.S. would not seek the destruction of the Taliban and victory in Afghanistan, but instead would seek to negotiate with the Taliban for how it is going to leave Afghanistan. You can interpret this how you wish. In fact, some people already have.

I would think that this story of the Taliban vowing not to end jihad and violence even after conducting so-called peace talks with the U.S. would have the nation outraged; not Marines urinating on the enemy that has been killing and maiming Servicemen for the past ten years. Then again, I have long since lost touch with what will outrage people and what won’t.

Pissing on Corpses versus Acceptable Wartime Behavior

The video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of those who have been maiming and killing them for the past ten years following the al Qaeda / Taliban / Iranian attacks of September 11 continues to make the news.

Outrage over this incident has reached feverish pitches in the media and top levels of government. (I’m assuming it will become even worse if it is learned that those depicted in the video did not piss in a direction away from Mecca.) Yet the most disturbing part of this video is that all the outrage over it could have easily been avoided if the men had (instead of urinating on their enemies) sodomized them while they were alive and then killed them. Then, they would have been hailed as heroes and their mission declared an overwhelming success. Their mission would have been declared even more of a success if they could have found the village of the men they killed and installed al Qaeda leadership in the village.

Nevertheless, with this incident serving as an example of how people should not act, I will now list examples of acceptable behavior—examples that aren’t pissing on corpses or graves—so we all can know how we should act with regards to American Troops being at war.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be the president of Afghanistan and openly say that your country would side with Pakistan in a war against America. We most assuredly know this is true since an American general who criticized this statement and defended his Troops was subsequently punished for doing so.

We also know that it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be the president of Afghanistan—someone the U.S. installed and keeps alive with our blood and presence—and demand an end to U.S. night raids, accusing them of being inhumane. Furthermore, it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to say that the U.S. abuses Afghani prisoners and then demand that the U.S. turns over the prisoners and prison to the Afghanis.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be a U.S. servicemember and denigrate U.S. Troops as monsters committing war crimes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy during war time. No. In fact, that gets you elected to the U.S. Senate. Furthermore, it is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to denigrate U.S. Troops by saying that they are terrorizing civilians. That nearly gets you elected to the White House.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be U.S. government representatives who work with a known American anti-American group that works to aid the enemy and kill American Troops. No one cares that you do this and they will in fact continue voting you into office.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be a Democrat, 20% of whom wanted the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq when President Bush was in office.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be President of the United States and release terrorists from imprisonment so they can return to the battlefield and maim and kill American Troops again.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave for the government (and by extension, the American People) to care more about the lives of our enemies that its own Troops.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to write a column called, “Fuck the Troops.” Doing so is fine and is nothing to prevent CNN from gushing over how you fooled Scott Walker into thinking you were one of the Koch brothers.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be part of #OccupyWallStreet and desecrate war memorials. Nor is it pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave to be part of the #Occupy insurgency and burn the American flag.

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave when it is Afghanis treating Taliban corpses with apparent disrespect; then it is “just their culture.”

It is not pissing on anyone’s corpse or grave when you support the person accused of betraying state secrets to enemy agents because you believe that he is guilty of doing so (as opposed to believing that he didn’t do it). It’s even acceptable for presidential candidates to support this.

This last paragraph is particularly good news, because now we can all justly expect whoever is the President of the United States to grant full pardons to these Marines (who inevitably will be punished and possibly imprisoned) and all the other Servicemen who currently are rotting in jail for so-called war crimes. After all, if we can pardon and free domestic and foreign terrorists, then surely we can pardon and free those who are imprisoned for killing our enemies . . . on second thought, maybe not.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Spanking Your Children versus Mutilating Them for Life

I excerpt the following from my, “Bill Ayers and Occupy Harrisburg: Debate Is Done,” published on December 16, 2011:
And perhaps nothing better defines the wickedness of where the American People now are than the fact that the same government that will punish you for spanking your children and take your children away from you because they are too fat, will at the same time allow you to keep your children if you begin injecting your son with male-blocking hormones and allow him to “live as a girl,” all the while you look forward to the day when you can inject him with female hormones and cut off his perfectly healthy genitals to replace them with a pseudo-vagina so that you can complete your mutilation of him. Indeed, not only will the government not take your children away from you for doing this, it will actively encourage you to do this.