Category Archives: Conservative whining

High Maintenance Citizens


Some people adjust to new cultural trends fairly easily. Some change reluctantly. Some have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present and some will be dead and gone without ever accepting that society has moved on without them.

We saw this after the Civil War, in the wake of the Emancipation Proclamation. There are people in our culture to this day who believe that the pigment on someone’s skin makes them unequal to those with less pigmentation. When you say it this way it is hard to understand what the hold outs are thinking. Perhaps that’s because they are using an old script that prevents them from using logic.

We haven’t even all caught up with each other on the social issue of race and now we are asking people to deal with the issue of gender. It’s sort of weird though that many of the people who have trouble with racial issues also have trouble with gender issues. These are the same people who make sure we know that they are Christians who live their faith. It almost seems as if the better you know your Bible, the more judgmental you become and the smugger you become. I doubt that Jesus intended for his followers to act so self-righteous and entitled.

Regardless of what the Bible says about “gay” people (and I don’t think it says much) it has become clear that this is, for some, a genetic fact, written in their DNA. How can we punish people for acting the way they are physically made to act? Would God make unacceptable people? Aren’t we all a bit unacceptable? If you believe in God how can you set yourself up to judge his creations? It is possible that not all gay people are born with genetic gender differences but make a decision to pursue this lifestyle, but without a DNA test how would you know? Even primitive cultures did not punish people for the way they were born (unless their behavior was harmful to others). Why do we think our God, our compassionate Jesus, is less inclined to accept diversity than people in primitive cultures were? In a time when the number of people on the planet threatens to render the planet inadequate to fill all our needs it may be smart to be accepting of any relationships in which humans find love without reproducing.

It seems as if we have some very high maintenance people in America and they are all in the Republican Party. They just cannot let go of their prejudices, no one should ask them to let them go. That would be un-American. It would challenge their freedom. They cannot extend Christian charity to the poor because the very charity they extend dooms the recipients to poverty. I wonder what Jesus would think about this convoluted spiritual logic.

Don’t ask these Christian people to accept God’s children as they exist. It makes them uncomfortable. They enjoy a life that is simple and sweet and Godly (if you don’t look at it too closely). Accepting LGBT people makes them feel like they are sinning. Are these people whose gender code reads differently from the majority abominations? Why would Jesus allow so many people to be born with the same genetic codes if they were abominations?

I just don’t get it; if this is the kind of thinking it takes to be a good Christian, it makes me think that it is better to be an agnostic or even an atheist. I know it is probably no more PC to lecture devout Christians than it is to talk about any social group at all, but these Christians (born-agains, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals) have been whining and complaining and haranguing the rest of us for decades. Please get a grip on yourselves and let go of whatever forces tell you that you have been appointed to keep us sinners on the straight and narrow. Why is it against the Christian religion to provide a business service to a same gender pair? I know this is happening too fast for some of you but I just hope we don’t find ourselves fifty years down the road (as we are from the Civil Rights Act) and still having to guard against the mistreatment of people born with a genetic code just because the way that code plays out makes the perpetrators of the cruelties nervous.

By Nancy Brisson

<a href=>Nancy Brisson</a>

The Left Wing has Richer Backers

The Republican in my backyard (TRIMBY) sent me the transcript of an interview that Glenn Beck conducted on his radio show with an ex-liberal, now conservative writer, David Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz has a new book out called The New Leviathan: How the Left Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future. (That’s a mouthful.) TRIMBY loves to zing me with anti-liberal propaganda and he loves Glenn Beck, who gives me a stomach ache.
Mr. Horowitz sees conservatives awakening. I certainly agree with that. He says conservatives don’t like politics. I say they’re learning fast.
Glenn says the number of groups and how much money they have on the left is “breathtaking.
14 liberal groups have more than a billion dollars in assets says Horowitz. “The conservatives have zero. There’s nobody on the side of the conservatives that have the juice and power of those foundations.”
On the conservative side the Koch brothers have $239 million.
On the liberal side the Ford Foundation has $10 billion (35x greater), the Gates Foundation is 3 times the size of the Ford. Total left-wing assets are $104 billion. There are 75 conservative foundations whose assets total $10 billion.
Glenn argues that the left made farmers stop using DDT which he does not consider dangerous (smack the palm of your hand against the side of your head and say “duh”). Because of that “horrible” Rachel Carson and her book The Silent Spring and the Environmental Resources Defense Council (funded by the Ford Foundation) (those awful lefties) we have to worry about malaria again which had almost disappeared. (Why do you think Ms. Carson named her book The Silent Spring?  Mosquitoes were not the only things dying.)
Glenn, really? DDT? That’s where you choose to make your stand?
Horowitz says Rockefeller is now left-wing, also Carnegie, Hewlett, Packard, Kellogg, Casey, and Joyce. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are funding the left and these are government backed institutions. And Soros.
Fact checkers please!
The leftwing 501(c)(3) ‑‑ by the way, this book is really about the Shadow Party on steroids. George Soros is an important player here but when you see how many of them there are, you’ll appreciate what we’re up against. The environmental leftists, we divided environmental groups into pro free market and antifree market. The antifree market wants huge government controls. They think that corporations are the cause of everything from the mythic global warming to every other environmental problem we have. So they have built into them this anticapitalist, antifreedom agenda. The progressive environmental organizations have $9 1/2 billion in assets. That’s bigger than the EPA budget which is 8.7 billion. And also dwarves the pro ‑‑ there are pro free market environmental organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. There are 32 of those and they have $38 million. So that’s the left ‑‑
HOROWITZ: But that’s ‑‑ that’s not the end of it because the left through the Democratic Party and through brainless Republicans gets itself funded by the government. What’s the disparity there? They get annually $570 million to fund these anticapitalist, anticorporation environmental organizations, and the pro free market environmental organizations get 728,000. 570 million versus 728,000. You can do the math on that.
GLENN: We’re bringing a ‑‑ we’re not bringing a knife to a gunfight. We’re bringing a toothpick.
HOROWITZ: A toothpick, exactly right.
Yet in a blog yesterday morning
Obama says,
“I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his reelection campaign, if things continue as they have so far.”
(Questions: Can Foundations also be PACs? Do they qualify as corporations? Is the environmental movement by definition anti-capitalist and anti-freedom?)

Obama goes on to say: “I’m not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups – I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.”

“The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand. Through the primaries, we raised three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mill Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1000 or more.”

“And, again, that’s not including the massive outside spending by super PACs and front groups funneling up to an additional billion dollars into ads trashing me, you , and everything we believe in.”

“We can be outspent and still win – but we can’t be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.”