Sunday, January 27, 2013

Liberals want Combat for Women

by David Lawrence

It’s ironic that liberals feel that women should engage in actual combat, opening up the less physically strong and less environmentally prepared sex to maiming or death.  Liberals cannot distinguish between males and females because they basically want sexes to be treated the same in the name of the great principle-in-the-sky—ephemeral equality.

To progressives equality is the failure to make distinctions and the inability to understand differences.
And yet, liberals are against torture even if it is for the good of their own side.  They don’t want to hurt their enemies yet they don’t mind seeing their women maimed or murdered in battle. 
What is wrong with liberals?  They make pronouncements that seem fair minded and good yet the results are horrendous, traitorous and anti-women.  They want to allow women to be killed in battle yet they won’t torture their enemies and they won’t relieve women from combat no matter how their backgrounds and physical assets are not conducive to battle.
A liberal friend of mine criticized my saying in the Huffington Post that I felt we shouldn’t use women for combat. So he’s the gentle philosopher here who wants to use women for targets. He is proud that he wants women to have the opportunity to be killed.
He probably never read Falstaff’s saying about his troops, “…Food for powder; They will fill a pit as well as better.” He was too busy misunderstanding tradition and history, converting it into some utopian mistake, to try to even make an attempt to protect women. How noble—turning women into “food for powder.”
Liberals are women killers in the name of presumptuous equality. I’m surprised liberal men can get dates.  Oh, that’s right, self-destructive women like them.  They want to be them.  They don’t recognize sexual differences.
Liberals remind me of communism. A philosophy filled with good intentions that ended up in the murder of millions of people.
Liberals are not phonies.  They mean their desires.  But they fall short at every leap and are indeed stupid and shortsighted.
Civilization has depended on the kindness of women, their love of family and their child rearing.  Pushing women into male roles to the delight of misogynists will slip the rug out from under civilization. It will turn women more like men, their violent brothers.
Women dying in battle is uglier than dying men.  If you can't see the gentler sex bleeding to death in a sand dune as worse than a man rotting than you have a certain amount of dumb logic but no imagination.
If we want to dispose of a sex we should get rid of the brilliant beasts—men.  Why do women want to take the worst traits from men?   Men should imitate the kindness of women.
Women are different. There is no such thing as equal when you are dealing with fundamental differences.
The polarity between men and women is what magnetically holds society together. Leon Panetta, you should quit trying to make both sexes the same.  You should quit trying to explode tradition and the differences that attract.  The universe of men and women is held together by their opposite attractions.  Not bloody women in Iraq.
Encouraging women to die in combat is ideological equality but civilizational destruction.
It is the same as trying to make women and men not only equal but the same.  It is stupid and fallacious. It is a product of the over-educated small mind, the academic fear of warranted categorizations.  The politically correct need for Platonic forms of imagined correctness. The pat on the back of self-righteousness.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Glock's new gun commercial is hilarious

Friday, January 18, 2013

Obama’s Appointments

by David Lawrence

We have always suspected that Obama disliked Jews.  We have been afraid to say it because that would make us seem anti-black.  It’s hard to move when we are chained to the political correctness of anti-prejudice. Emotional prejudice has become more horrific than outright violence. You can punch a black guy in the face and people will censure you for brutality.  But use the N-word and you are sloshing around in the waves of fire in the Ninth circle of Hell.

In any event, from before his taking office the first time Obama has done nothing but indicate that he dislikes Jews.  Not such a big sin, unless he acts on it.  And he has.  He has sniffed around the waft of Rashid Khalidi’s anti-Semitic odor; he has changed our political alliances in his Cairo speech; he has insulted Netanyahu at the White House; and now he is appointing Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and John Brennan as head of the CIA.   
There is a liberal part of me that is sleeping on the corner.  He watches Hagel make abusive remarks about Jews and Brennan support Hezbollah.  Both like Iran.  Isn’t that dandy?  Their positions and Obama’s sweet speeches are candy to our deaths.
When my extremely Jewish friend voted for Obama the first time around I told him that he is putting a gun to our heads. I am an agnostic.  He is a serious Jew. But I care more than he does. His grandparents whispered in his ear from the death camps that Obama was a no-go.  But he didn’t listen.  I think I’ll have a talk with him this weekend. It’s too late. Still, truth will out.
The answer is blown in the wind of Obama’s appointments.

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Racemongers Rally To Gay Marriage's Defense

The Maryland referendum on gay marriage has been decided for now. However, the mindset and motivations leading up to such a decision are still in need of analysis and examination.

A couple of observations relating to it can be made regarding a column by Elbridge James of Progressive Maryland published in the 10/27/11 Gazette newspapers of suburban Maryland.

For starters, it is thoroughly established that Elbridge James is Black and borderline racist. He mentions his ethnic identity at least nine times in a piece of no more than 300 words.

Some of these references have very little to do with the topic at hand he is attempting to address.

For example, James writes, "Because I travel the state regularly speaking to Black voters of all ages and experiences on a variety of issues facing African Americans, I consider myself pretty plugged into the Black community." He concludes, "Continue to count on me when looking at African American support."

From his tone, one might assume this pigmentation narcissist was addressing a topic focusing particularly on HIS people such as sickle cell anemia awareness and prevention. It is in fact an oration in support of gay marriage.

So in regards to a topic that transcends race, why ought we to give added weight if a majority of Black folks supported gay marriage? All that tells the reader is that, given the mentality of dependency engineered into that particular demographic over the decades, those of this background can be manipulated into accepting a practice the religion so many of them claim to adhere to actually finds abhorrent.

If a majority of White southerners believe gay marriage is wrong, why shouldn’t that carry as much weight in determining the morality of the controversial practice?

Elbridge James also asserts, “The values of commitment and family aren’t confined to a person’s religion or race.”

But with some estimates of nearly 75% of Black babies being born outside of marriage, obviously commitment and family are not as valued among this particular human classification as he is persuading his readers to believe.

If Mr. James really loves his race rather than the status that has accrued to him as a fomenter of ethnic discord, perhaps he ought to spend his time addressing this lamentable development rather than promote an arrangement that will further tear down what little moral foundations remain of a rapidly deteriorating society.

by Frederick Meekins