Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Traditional Definition of Marriage Under Attack

Today the supreme court overruled California's laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman exclusively.

It's remarkable that those who have taken a stand on marriage and its definition as between a single man and a single woman have now, according to the supreme court today, become nothing more than "bigots".  It is remarkable for the following reason:  Those who have stood up for the bible are now nothing more than some adage decided by vicious leftists who generally hold views not altogether favorable towards tradition, the U.S., and religion itself.

It amounts to hate speech!

If you, as a christian, stand up for biblical values - you are no longer a human.  You are just a bigot.  A racist.  A fascist.  A conformist.

Hate speech is defined according to the world community as referring to humans as something non-human.  For example, the former President of Iran referring to jews as "cockroaches".  By this definition, defining christians who stand up and defend traditional marriage as "bigots" seems to me to be akin to this type of hate speech, functionally.

I'm no longer a christian with deep and philosophical beliefs regarding morality... no, I'm just a "bigot" and anything else non-members of the club of "cool" are defined to be.  I'm no longer virtuous or honorable or an important contributor to our culture.  I'm now, according to the activist judges in the supreme court merely an inhuman, subhuman, non-human person filled with hate against a minority.

The irony is, we are being accused of hate speech on the right - yet the left, in terms of "soft" hate speech is far more guilty of this new way of marginalizing and defaming people on the basis of language and generalizations. We have been accused, as of today, of being "bigots" by the supreme court.  They, to a point, have dismissed any rational reasoned argument from the right on the basis of our subhuman "bigotry".

"They want to impugn homosexuality"
- the supreme court (paraphrase)

In fact, upon permanently defining marriage in its traditional sense in my state of North Carolina the air waves were rife with conservo's saying pretty much the following: "WE are not against gays.  WE believe that gays are okay.  It is GOD who condemns homosexuality."

...and they said it nicely!

But the fact is, gay rights is a stumbling block for the traditions of America and, yea - the world.

My personal thesis is that the supreme court is reacting, to a degree, against the harshly totalitarian laws in Russia against homosexuality - where it is a crime to even acknowledge that homo's exist.  With the trouble in syria and the conflict with Russia there increasingly becoming a problem, and increasingly being blacked out of the lamestream media, the supreme court must see their attack on traditional marriage today as a way of standing up to totalitarianism.

What they fail to realize in their dark little bubble of D.C. is that this is not a sociological issue, but an anthropological/cultural one.  A culture defines what it approves of and doesn't, and it is not the role of a group of former lawyers isolated in the District of Columbia to decide for ANYONE what it should do regarding such minute and delicate cultural preferences as the definition of marriage.

The fact is, we define marriage as it has been for thousands of years.  According to biblical principles.

But the supreme court has overstepped its bounds.  Let's just hope they don't aim their sights on NC, where we have upheld the traditional definition as between a man and a woman in our constitution.

Friday, June 21, 2013

Marco Rubio is Destroying America: Why the Repub Party Needs to Exile R.I.N.O.'s

Compromise on immigration seems to be the current path to reforming the waves of illegal hispanics in the senate.  Muckrakers would make a fuss about the amendment, agreed to on both sides of the aisle initially, that prohibited any action until the border is secure, but this is beside the point altogether.  The lone fact is - Marco Rubio is a R.I.N.O. or republican in name only.

His "reform" seems to be nothing more than ushering even more immigrants into our dear country on the basis of his nostalgic RNC speech: more American dream for immigrants and sons of an immigrant like himself.  Personally, I believe his credentials to be not altogether vetted properly by the party.  Rubio's involvement with his nation of origin, Cuba, has not sufficiently been investigated; and DDU calls on the republican party proper to inquir into how genuine of a repub Rubio actually is.  I mean this literally.

You see, ever since the term "Compassionate Conservativism" was coined in a fit of genius, those not even coming close to being actual conservative republicans have attempted to defame the legacy of reagan and all of his cold war splendor by positing a kinder, gentler conservatism.  Basically, without going into too much detail, the politics of pre-meditative compromise to the left.

Why should we compromise?  Why can't at least an effort to build fences succeed?

Because, I would wager, some number cruncher in the G.O.P. has a penchant for fiscal conservatism and the strength of "cowboy export".  I.E. - some dullard who sincerely lacks belief in creationism or other related theories believes, in his heart of liberal bleeding hearts, that bue to the complete inability of anyone to stop the inflow of hispanics into our country, the former USA, that the G.O.P. must stoop to the immigrant hoardes.  Probably due to the pervasiveness of "tolerance" and "evolution of culture", the egghead weenies in washington think, unequivocally, that we should welcome these non-natives "infrastructure".

It is the opin' of DOMESTIC DEMOCRACY UNITED that we ought to, en' mass as a republic, deport all of them who come here illegally.

For it is due to the myth that jobs taken by low wage immigrants are undesirable to natives of OUR country that we make such ignoble and untimely compromises.

Those compromises such as offering hispanic immigrants subsidized healthcare.  That we should welcome them into our communities.  That we need to change all infrastructure to stoop to their little brown level and force godfearing christians to hear some kind of cheap blooded demon speak.

Marco Rubio - GO BACK TO CUBA

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

NC's "Farm Bill": Populism Hiding Redistributionism

Recently, a bill was proposed in North Carolina that is a perfect example of everything wrong with populism.  For those that don't know, "Populism", better known as pandering with a perfectly crafted southern accent, is an evil ideology that literally fleeces the south of its heritage proper.

This bill, which is nothing more than an expanse of food stamps for blacks and (especially) latinos, actually has the decidedly convincing veneer of being at all related to farming and agriculture.  It is not. Maybe 20 percent of the bill is applicable.  The remainder is simply part of the tug of war over providing free food for non-whites.

The proposed legislation wouldn't be so offensively grotesque were it not for the fact that it's being sold to carpet-bagger's and universalist christian's alike as a noble "juss' helpin the farmer" sentiment whilst hiding a decidedly redistributionist policy.  It seeks to provide millions free food.  Free food provided by the fat skimmed off of the top of other's and industry's wealth.

If this at all sounds problematic, it isn't.

It's merely big Washington Democrat Establishment machinery being shoved down the southern christian populous's throat.  What isn't so apparent, is that not only is the DEM constituency pro Farm Bill for laughable reasons, but they are (as low information voters) entirely oblivious as to the contents of the legislation.  Ask your fellow DEM about the substance of the bill, and all of them will reply something other than to do with Food Stamps.

NC will deny the bill passage, but the insult of populism remains.  Talking southern may buy vote's, but being disingenuous in order to advance a streamlined big government agenda doesn't.  It buys contempt.

Monday, June 3, 2013

Irretrievable Grace: Why the Recent Build-up in Security Leaves "Grace" Behind

Many people, at this point in U.S. conscience and falling from grace, feel perfectly free from guilt or remorse in lue of an untenable allegiance to collectivism in practical application.  The price for this may be subject to payment.  What will we pay for sticking our heads in the sand in light of the encroachment upon Freedom as understood by those who remember pre-Regime American life?

What will we pay?

The debt, of course, won't be nearly as severe as the price of the damages in Oklahoma after the recent multi-billion dollar tragedy that befell those in the mid-west.

But it will be something which we may never be capable of retrieving...  True "grace-as-such".

The grace of civility in matters of security and conflict domestically may be gone with the wind.

The truth and rights meant for our everyday lives by the Founding Fathers is something which could lose it's real sense of spirituo-religious grace, a peculiar existent sentiment honored and revered by most all in the U.S. for centuries.  Sometimes this sense of grace was understood to be the legitimate and prevalent sentiment known as "spirit".  This recognition of spirit, in the sense of, say, school spirit, as the primary mode of being-in-the-world has maintained an order of spirituality for decades.
If this sounds at all susceptible to undermining instincts it's because it very much is!
The "spirit" of a nation, of a culture, of an individual is fragile.

Grace, embodied or in some sort of differing abstract sense, is not merely finesse and mastery, though it is that in a sense.  It is the innocence of majesty.  Majesty, in it's pristine and noble condition outside of the constraints of disobedience.  We are in danger of losing this child-like sense of majesty and spirit.  Why?

Precisely this.

Tom Brokaw appearing on television directly after the Tragedy in MA. proclaiming it was time to live in a "new america" with higher security.  Telling us, as the voice of a generation of boomers, to "get used to it".

The key to understanding the degeneracy of Grace is in the conceptualizations in Negative Rights, or the right to be uninhibited by government.  Our freedom-as-such, in a negative sense, preserves our innocence and integrity as humans.  Human's who are distinct from the "lower forms" restricted by brute sin and instinctual degradation.  We stand in danger of degenerating to the status of birds in a park...

"It's like you once commented on the birds... they were all grabbing for scraps of food."

We're losing the grace intended for us by our ancestral forefathers of olde.

How can we save it?

By being graceful, each of us, in our own lives.

saying that, here are two examples of grace I've created for i-tunes:

mozart "switched on"

bach "switched on"