Ah, some very welcome news

As any Southerner who is not ashamed of the South, I have spent lots of time defending being Southern. From defending the accent from those who think it makes us sound inferior, to pushing back against those who look down on the entire region as uneducated. And, of course, I have spent many years studying the War Between the States, ever since I was nine actually. That has led me to believe something VERY politically incorrect. That belief, based again, in years of  research is that it is absurd for anyone to assume that we Southerners ought to reject, or be ashamed of our Confederate ancestors. It is especially galling when some Conservative blogger does their best impression of a whining liberal and insists we must forget our past. You know, like those Conservatives who said Virginia ought to scrap marking April as Confederate history month. Because, I guess, history is icky, and surrendering to Liberals who wish to selectively edit history is our best move.

I always like to mention that any sin attached to the Confederate Battleflag can also be attached to Old Glory. I also think it important to note that the same Liberal nutcases who wish to yank the names of Davis, Lee, or Jackson off of parks, streets signs, and schools will one day be yanking the names of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison off of the same things. And, when there are no more Confederate banners, and no more more schools named after General Lee, the Left will not stop their campaign of cultural genocide, they will simply change their targets! Odd that those clamoring for us to “forget” our history are actually forgetting the long history of the Left’s complete intolerance of history they do not like.

Those that write about the Confederacy as a traitors always get me too. I imagine that if the Colonies had lost to the Brits in the American Revolution these folks would be calling our Founders traitors too. After all, those colonies seceded and sought their own nation didn’t they? Much like the Confederate States did. Much like the State of Texas sought its independence from Mexico, and Mexico from Spain. Maybe only winning struggles for independence makes seeking that independence right in some folks mind’s.

All of that brings me to that good news I spoke of in the beginning. A Nod to the Gods has a story out of Utah that made me smile

For once common sense prevails over political correctness.

I posted about a small college in southern Utah called Dixie State. With the school moving into university status, a few misguided/confused/brainwashed liberal students wanted to change the name from Dixie to Southern Utah because the term “Dixie” was thought to bring connotations of slavery or a perceived deep south racial bias. The few libertards did manage to have a beautiful statue removed, but failed by a LARGE margin to get the name changed. (Read Original Post Here)

An overwhelming 83 percent of respondents — made up of students, alumni, faculty, staff and community members — said the controversial “Dixie” title could or should be part of the school’s name.

However, Dixie opponents, including the NAACP, argue the term invokes a negative association with racism and slavery. But, the Sorenson advertising CEO argued that the community associates the name with volunteerism, compassion and a pioneer heritage.

The Dixie State student body president said that he wanted “Dixie” removed from the name, but that he would vote for the voice of the student body. The majority wanted to keep “Dixie” in the name with only 17 percent saying to remove it.

The overall vote in the Board of Trustees meeting was unanimous in favor of Dixie State University.

Not sure if the statue has been put back where it belongs. It should go back, let the whiners that wanted it down learn to be tolerant of someone else’s feelings for once in their lives! Here is a picture of the statue

 

The Left and guns. Why the Left cannot bridge their reality gap

The Left has long embraced the wish to ban some, or all guns. There are really only two reasons in play here. For those in power, like Dianne Feinstein, the wish to revive the “assault weapons”ban is based in starting us down the road to an outright ban, and eventually, I believe, confiscation. Feinstein’s motives do not come from a lack of knowledge about guns. She knows the term assault weapon is ridiculous, and she knows it is about ginning up an emotionally driven image of fully automatic machine guns in the minds of Liberals, and other Americans who are ignorant of what a “semi-automatic” gun is. So-called assault weapons look scary to those who are not familiar with guns. In fact an assault rifle, like the dreaded and demonized AR-15 are just rifles with scary looking features, like a pistol grip, or a larger magazine. Feinstein and her ilk know that they can show these weapons, and throw around the term semi-automatic, and frighten people. They do this in hopes of turning public opinion towards supporting first an assault weapons ban. then, when this law proves a failure, they can then focus on all semi-automatic guns. Of course most guns ARE semi-automatic, so, you see where this road leads.

For those who support “reasonable gun laws” as if we have no gun laws on the books, their support comes from ignorance, and emotional reactions to gun violence. We all know that when we react emotionally, we tend to make mistakes, except of course while we are emoting like there is no tomorrow. That is exactly what the likes of Dianne Feinstein want. This story, from Fontana, California, has some great examples of how ignorant many are about not just guns, but about self-defense as well.

The Fontana Unified School District Police Department purchased 14 AR-15 assault weapons to protect students in response to recent shootings across the country, but some school leaders and citizens think it’s a step in the wrong direction.

FUSD Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks approved the acquisition of the rifles, which are being stored on campuses in locked safes for responding police officers in the event of an attack.

Fontana Police Chief Rodney Jones and Mayor Acquanetta Warren supported Olsen-Binks’ decision.

“It’s unfortunate that we have to have that, but it’s the best message we can send to anybody that thinks to harm our children,” said Jones. “The message we’re sending is…not here, not now, we’re prepared for you. And if you seek to harm our children, we will neutralize that threat and you will most likely be killed.”

Warren said, “Everyone wants children safe. At this time, we as a community, we have to come together and find other ways. But in the interim, our police officers need to be equipped.”

On these opening paragraphs we see the media plying along with the emotionally charged terms. Note they call AR-15′s assault weapons, when in fact they are simply rifles. The truth is that police feel that having such arms at hand will help them prevent, or stop a school shooting. The tactical merits of the plan can be legitimately debated, but listen to how a school board member, obviously driven by an emotions reacts.

School board member Sophia Green, however, doesn’t believe anyone will be safer if weapons are kept inside schools.

“If a person who has the intention of coming on campus to kill… knows we have the AR-15s…they might come with something even bigger or better. They will come prepared,” she said.

This is the classic Liberal response to fighting crime. They scoff at the notion that anyone can defend themselves. Of course this fallacy is driven by Liberal rhetoric, and a news media that exploits mass shootings, and ignores the tens of thousands of times Americans use guns to defend themselves against violent criminals. To Ms. Green, it is incomprehensible that a school shooter could be stopped by a good guy armed with a weapon. To her all guns are bad. All gun uses are bad, and all who carry or own guns are bad. I would bet that she believes the Liberal lie that all violence is equal. Liberal gun control groups use these lies all the time. Lumping all gun deaths together, even when police, or law-abiding Americans shoot violent criminals. Their stats are meant to skew our perception. Their other favorite trick is to exclude times when armed citizens use their gun to defend themselves by brandishing their weapon, or firing a warning shot. Such cases make up over 90 % of defensive gun uses. So, excluding these shrinks the number of what I call positive gun uses.

Another Liberal voice is cited in the article

Anna Conklin, a child development specialist, also opposed storing the guns on school grounds. She told KCAL9′s Dave Bryan that a counseling program would be a better way to address violence on campus.

“Children aren’t born with a gun in their hand and vengeance in their mind. They aren’t necessarily going to grow into being a killer. We, as a society, need to address why children are growing up to commit these acts as teens and adults. I don’t see how adding more weapons on a campus is addressing that,” Conklin said.

A counseling program? For what? To help grief-stricken students deal with another tragic incident? I have no issue with counseling, but it has nothing to do with preventing school shootings. Neither does disarming the good guys. More guns on campus, if they are in the hands of the good guys is a good thing. Certainly gun-free zones is an idea that has failed miserably. Again, a Liberal assigns blame and responsibility to inanimate objects rather than to those who use those objects. Again, this is the all violence is equal, all guns are bad nonsense. The Liberal sheep who drink the Kool-Aid Dianne Feinstein serves them have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated by the likes of Feinstein. Feinstein, and her fellow Statists need useful idiots like the two women in the story above to help push their agenda through. This is why education is so important my friends. People who know about guns do not fall for the lies Feinstein spins

 

Muslim man starts “Stop the Hate” drive, Christians hardest hit

Via Blazing Cat Fur comes the tale of  man with a dream, a man on a mission, a mission to stop the hate, and a man trying to run down people of other faiths

Mike Mohamad Agemy was trying to “stop the hate.”

That’s what he told police June 17 after he was arrested for trying to run over a group of Christian fundamentalists who were denouncing Islam in front of the largest mosque in the country, Dearborn’s Islamic Center of America.

A police report obtained under the Freedom of Information Act provides details about the incident that has touched off a firestorm of commentary on right-wing blogs and fanned the notion held by some that Dearborn’s Muslim community is hostile to Christians.

The group Agemy is accused of assaulting is called the “Bible Believers.” Based out of California, they had already been in the news that weekend for their anti-Islam demonstration at the Arab International Festival in East Dearborn. That display, which included a pig’s head on a pike and signs about Islam that many found offensive, led some festival-goers to pelt them with eggs, plastic bottles and reportedly rocks.

This story displays the difference between radical Christians, and radical Muslims. The group demonstrating in front of the mosque are what I might call radical Christians. They, at least in my view, take their religion too far. But, too far for them is carrying “offensive” signs, or maybe burning a Koran. The man who tried to kill them is what I might call a radical Muslim. He, and many other Muslims take their religion too far too. But, instead of carrying “offensive” signs, they KILL people, for simply expressing their opinions. See the difference?

There are other examples, examples the Left refuses to acknowledge. Take how Fundamentalist Christians treat Homosexuality for example. Yes, they say Homosexuals are going to Hell, or that Homosexuality is sinful, and tend to oppose Gay marriage. The Left rails against these Christians. The Left labels them bigots, backwards, hateful, etc. Now, consider how homosexuals are treated under Sharia (Muslim) Law. They are executed! Yes, executed, as in beheaded, hanged, stoned, as in DEAD! See the difference?

How about drinking? Christians discourage drinking to excess, they see it as sinful. But, they pray for those who over indulge. Under Sharia Law, drinking is grounds for lashing, yes, brutal public whippings. Again, can you spot the difference?

Adultery? Christians strongly condemn adultery, with words. Under Sharia Law, adulterers are often executed, maybe they are shot, maybe stoned to death, or maybe they get off “light” by receiving dozens of lashes. And understand that while Christians define adultery as cheating on your spouse, Sharia Law defines it as, well, a woman talking to a man in many instances. Can you spot the difference?

I could go on about the differences between “radical” Christians, and radical Muslims and how they treat gamblers, hint, Christians do not beat gamblers, teens who have sex, hint, Christian nations do not hang 16-year-old girls who have sex from cranes like Iran has been known to do. Christians also do not forbid women from driving, or dressing as they choose, nor do they forbid girls from being educated. Sharia Law, which again, is MUSLIM LAW, does those horrid things. One last time, can you spot the difference?

I understand that many Liberals cannot, or to be more precise will not note the differences. They are too obsessed with their perverse definition of “equality” and moral relativism. They simple refuse to recognize that some cultures are superior to others. They will, however, gladly denounce Christians for opposing Gay marriage. Yet, try to find any Liberal of note denouncing the executions of Gay people, or those even suspected of being Gay in some Muslim nations?

Yes, certainly Liberals will denounce the so-called “war on women” they claim, falsely, I might add, that Republicans are engaged in here in America. Yet, again, try to find the Liberal outrage over how women are treated under Sharia Law. Yes, the Left will gladly denounce the evils of Western Culture, but do they denounce Sharia Law? Cue the crickets chirping.

Leftism and Reality can you spot the difference?

Why the Left hates Fox News so much

No it is not because Fox has hot women anchors, MSNBS and CNN have those too, although the ones on MSNBS are nuttier than a fruitcake. No it is not because Fox is “Right-Wing”. It is for one simple reason, and only one. Fox anchors do not allow Liberal talking heads to get away with the BS talking points! The Blaze has video of a great example.

Watch and enjoy

The difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

Well, there are many. Here are just a few I thought of sitting here this evening

Conservatives believe abortion kills an unborn child, therefore they oppose it. Liberals believe abortion kills an unborn child as well, they just do not care.

Conservatives believe that self-defense is a fundamental human right, therefore they fully support the Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. Liberals believe self-defense, and gun ownership encourages self-reliance and individualism, therefore they are for disarming the citizenry.

Liberals believe that people who want everyone to get a tax cut are greedy. Conservatives believe that people who want to mooch of the success if others are greedy!

Conservatives believe that skin color, gender, and sexual orientation are unimportant, and that it is personal character that truly matters. Liberals are obsessed with labeling everyone, and hyphenating as many Americans as they can.

Conservatives and Liberals both cherish diversity, but in different ways. Conservatives view different ideals, ideologies, and opinions, and backgrounds as diversity. Conservatives also do not mind dissent, they welcome the chance to debate. Liberals, on the other hand see diversity as people having certain ideals based not on opinion, but on gender, skin color, or sexual orientation. Liberals also LOATHE any opinion except theirs of course.

Conservatives define freedom of speech as every American having a perfect right to voice their views. Liberals define freedom of speech as anyone toeing the Liberal line having the right to speak.

Both Conservatives and Liberals see the Constitution as a living document. Conservatives view the Constitution as a living document that actually means what it says, and that is the supreme law of the land. Liberals say the Constitution is living, meaning that it can mean anything a Liberal wants it to mean.

Conservatives believe that competition is a good thing. Liberals believe competition is bad because it might hurt someone’s feelings.

Conservatives believe history is important because it teaches us about where we have been, and that we can learn from knowledge of history. Liberals believe history is important because they can twist it to teach children that America is a racist, sexist, greedy nation that needs more Marxism.

Conservatives are more optimistic and Liberals are more pessimistic.

Conservatives are more charitable. They believe in giving THEIR money. Liberals are less charitable and tend to believe that real charity is the government taking other people’s money to spend on social programs Liberals favor.

There are more I might add later but I close with the BIGGEST difference between Conservatives and Liberals.

Conservatives are Individualists, meaning they believe that the rights defined in the Constitution are Natural, or God-give rights, that government cannot take away. Liberals are Collectivists, meaning that they see individualism as a dangerous thing. They also believe that all rights should come ONLY from government, and that individual rights are secondary to the “common good”.

You know, when I call Liberalism an ideology of convenience………

This cartoon at An Old Broad’s Ramblings got me thinking

When I say that Liberals suffer from Consistent Inconsistentitis I am referring to the Left’s inability to stick to certain core principles. The Left says one thing, then does another. The Left says they stand for one thing today, then next week, not so much.

The Left loves to say catchy phrases like “power to the people”, yet, everything the Left pushes for usurps power FROM the people, and gives it to the government.

The Left claims to be the fiercest defenders of freedom of speech, yet they are always calling for more government control of “hate speech” you know, speech which disagrees with Liberalism. Speech codes on college campuses? Shouting down Conservative speakers? Where IS the Left’s consistency?

Oh, and how about tolerance? Inclusiveness? Sensitivity? I could write for three weeks straight and not even begin to touch the many examples of how the Left is the exact opposite of what they claim to be. If you need proof, just look at how the Left treats women, Homosexuals, Hispanics, or Blacks that dare to be Conservative

The most glaring example of this is the Left’s stand on abortion. The Left says that a woman’s right to control her own body is sacred, unless of course, we are talking about universal health care. This is why the Left is so frustrating to us. Frankly, I love to debate political issues, it can be enlightening, but, debating with the Left is a beating of epic proportions. Conservatives do not mind debating, or even disagreeing, but it boggles our brains when someone cannot manage even a shred of consistency. If Liberals wish to be taken seriously then they must learn to pick an ideological position, and STICK TO IT!