the “bravery” of gaga

Posted on April 22, 2011 by Robert Coleman

She’s dressed as a nun in her new video, in which she sings about being in love with Judas Iscariot.  She also swallows a rosary.  In her “Bad Romance” video, she is seen draped in what appears to be a giant rosary, then flashes a sign of the cross in the next seen.

In “Judas,” sung from St. Mary Magdalene’s perspective, she sings, “[w]hen he comes to me, I am ready/ I’ll wash his feet with my hair if he needs/ Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain/ Even after three times, he betrays me/ I’ll bring him down, a king with no crown.”

The song has been leaked during Holy Week.

Now, the woman who recently appeared on Good Morning America dressed as a condom, has apologized for using the word “retarded” in a bizarre rant.  Indeed, this tolerant, big-hearted gay rights activist is obviously quite sensitive when it comes to offending people (sans Christians).

She let the R-bomb slip while desperately defending her originality, claiming that she is not mimicking Madonna (the pervert; not the Mother of God).

Although both are sex-crazed, anti-Catholic ego-maniacs who sing catchy disco tunes and feed on shock. . . . wait, was I about to say she’s not a copycat?  Oh, no, she clearly is.

Ironically, Madonna is now a shriveled old hag clinging to the shock-capital she amassed back in the 1980s.  Madonna still tries to “push the envelope,” as they say.

But at age 83, it’s not shocking, it’s anything but sexy, and it has become manifest how pathetic it truly always was.  For all the industry talk about the “staying power” of certain celebrities, nobody truly cares for or respects a silly old woman dressed like a dominatrix.  She is sad.  And her protégé shall follow suit.

Yet, two thousand years, and two faux “Madonnas” later, the Church remains, unabashed and unafraid.  Talk about staying power.

In her apology for the R-word, she said, “I consider it part of my life’s work and music to push the boundaries of love and acceptance.  My apologies for not speaking thoughtfully.”

Truly, the Christ-mocking pop tart has pounded across that boundary of “love and acceptance.”

The sycophants who relish in her every move will call her courageous for breaking these puritanical religious boundaries.  Then when confronted with how offensive she’s being to Christians, they’ll backtrack and say, “you don’t understand, the lyrics aren’t about hate; they’re really positive!”

The Creative Director of the “Judas” video explained her initial reaction to the song:  “Listen,” she said, “I don’t want lightning to strike me!  I believe in the gospel.”

Then, she saw the positive message of “Judas” after being convinced by all the forward-thinking non-Christians she was working with:  “[I]t was amazing. . . . to have that conversation about salvation, peace and the search for the truth in a room of non-believers and believers, to me, that was saying God is active in a big way. . . . We don’t touch on things that we have no right touching upon, but the inspiration and the soul and idea that out of your oppression, your darkness, your Judas, you can come into the marvelous light.  So it’s about the inspiration and to never give up. . . . We’ve created a new Jerusalem.”

Oh, well, if this meandering tripe had just been explained to me, I would surely have understood much better when she sings, “[i]n the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance / Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind / But in the cultural sense I just speak in future tense/ Judas kiss me if offensed / Or wear ear condom next time.”

So how would “tolerant” Progressives respond to a Christian country singer writing a song riddled with anti-Gay slurs, who makes a video full of gays being beaten and ridiculed, and then explains, “No, no!  It’s a song about positivity, light and love for all people; and confronting the gay basher inside us all.  It’s more like a New Jerusalem!”

Maybe he’d win a Grammy for his bravery!

Since stunts like “Judas” are supposed to be ‘brave’, which repercussions does this trailblazer face?  Does anyone reasonably think Christians will react violently?  (Perhaps she’ll try mocking Mohammed next.  Then we’ll talk about bravery.)

Anyway, we’re used to the insults of moronic celebrities.  It’s not unique or shocking.

She will win MTV awards and be welcomed into the mainstream press.  Good Morning America and company loves having her come talk about gay rights and AIDS.  Would they ever condescend to ask about her hatred for Christianity?  (Maybe they’ll have David Duke come talk about his favorite charity too.)

Were the Roman guards who whipped Christ on His way to Golgotha, courageous?  Was the crowd who cheered and joined in the mockery an image of bravery?

In truth, Christ is the embodiment of courage.  There is no courage in mocking the King of Kings, and stringing him up on the cross.  Those who do so should not even be objects of anger; just pity.  It’s actually rather melancholy to observe these bewildered and pitiable souls.

True courage is only found in those who abandon themselves, pick up that cross and follow Him.  When she finds the strength to do this, I’ll call her brave.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

newspeak.

Posted on April 18, 2011 by Robert Coleman

Although the ideas of Leftists inevitably end up being highly detrimental to my freedom, I will not go so far as to boycott or blacklist them for these ideas.  (Can I still say, “blacklist”?)

Mind control is, however, a preferred method of the Left in implementing their heinous ideas.  Mind control often begins with language control.  And penalizing violators of the language laws is a cause célèbre of the Left.

In Nineteen Eight Four, George Orwell described a dystopia in which the Western World had essentially been subsumed under the emerging Soviet bloc (or its literary equivalent).  Commenting on Soviet phraseology, Orwell’s totalitarian State advanced its control over the people by instituting “Newspeak.”

One must understand that Newspeak is not merely political rhetoric; like Sarah Palin referring to ‘death panels,’ or Barack Obama and company suggesting that Paul Ryan wants women and old people to suffer and die.

Newspeak is where the State propagates its cultural and political agenda by transforming the current language, and instituting its preferred, often illogical, nomenclatures.  Those who refuse to cooperate are subject to alienation and penalty.

So does it strike anyone as just a little ironic when Leftist school administrators issue edicts to its teachers that “Easter eggs” shall henceforth be called “Spring spheres”?  This happened recently in one Seattle elementary school.

I mean. . . . even if it is the State’s objective to expel Christianity from the government schools, could we not at least settle on the incontrovertible fact that “eggs” are not “spheres”?  Is there some sectarian reason that “Spring eggs” is not preferable?

Perhaps we should also start calling the “Easter Bunny” the “Winter Kitty.”

Last week, Donald Trump proved that his foot could actually reach further down his own throat.  In one interview, he said that he had a great relationship with “the Blacks.”

Trump has effectively become a scapegoat, representing Conservatives and the Tea Party.  This is intriguing, considering that Trump has been a regular donor for Democrats, and has consistently supported Liberal policies.

But leaving aside the fact that Trump is no Conservative, and that his birth certificate obsession (a) began with Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and (b) is not shared by most Conservatives; would Trump’s comments have caused the same response (mainly from MSNBC) had he said “the Whites,” “the Jews,” or even “the Black Community.”

This last one should really give us pause:  How often do people speak of the Black Community, as if indicating that Black Americans share many common concerns, and live in homogenous neighborhoods?  To some extent, this is of course true.  But in substance, is “the Black Community” different from “the Blacks”?  Of course not.

To criticize Trump’s public etiquette is understandable.  A society does have its linguistic rules, and we’re entitled to them.  The absurdity here is that failure to adhere to such rules makes him a suspect of racism.

Consider also that Trumps sloppy word choice was public.  Unless this was “subconscious” racism seeping to the top of Trump’s [shallow] mind, blurting out in a Freudian slip, why would he make such a statement public, if he intended it to be racist?  Wouldn’t he want to keep his racism secret?

Likewise, Marilyn Davenport, a committee member for the Republican Party of Orange County, made no secret about sending an email with a picture of President Obama superimposed over a chimpanzee.

First, how often was George W. Bush depicted as an ape by Leftist protestors, in comedy, and on t-shirts?

Second, even if there is a racial connotation to depicting a Black man as a chimp, so what?  Davenport did not recommend racial violence; she was not being invidious or mean spirited, and there is no other evidence that she hates Blacks, in general.  She made a joke.  Are we not allowed to make racial jokes in good humor?  Dave Chappell, Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock have been for years now.

Davenport did not even target Blacks, in general.  Davenport’s target was one particular Black man.  And before we start preaching about the plight Blacks have been subjected to in America for the past 400 years, differentiating this from a similar joke about Bush, we should stop and consider that the Black man Davenport was joking about happens to be the most powerful man in the world.  Barack Obama is far from being a helpless victim.

Also, for all the hoopla over the crosshairs on Palin’s website, does anyone care that hyping people like Davenport up as sinister racists will almost certainly result in hate mail and threats. . . . to Davenport?

Davenport certainly showed poor taste; but racism?  Does a silly photograph deserve public denouncement?

Or to raise another overreaction to poor taste, did the UCLA student who posted a video complaining about Asians in the library deserve the backlash of UCLA’s own Chancellor?  What kind of damage did the Chancellor’s publicizing the incident to students and alumni cause to a 20-something kid, who merely imitated the way Asians speak?  As if this is a hate crime.  As if people in Asia have never laughed at Western accents.  As if this is raw evidence of racism. . . .

The real question here, is whether a finding of racism any longer requires intent?  Or does it just require failure to adhere to the preferred, politically correct norms and nomenclatures?

Be warned, failure to adhere to the regime of political correctness will result in strict liability. . . . well, if you’re White and/or Christian.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/seattle-teacher-renames-easter-eggs-spring-spheres-20110416-101928-202.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8077621

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Johj5WEYzZo

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

obama budget speech

Posted on April 13, 2011 by Robert Coleman

For once I think Joe Biden had the right idea:  He fell asleep in the first row.

“From our first days as a nation,” Obama said, “we have put our faith in free markets.”

“Faith” presumes an intellectual confidence, hopefully formed after rational deliberation, in a transcendent or metaphysical reality.  Faith is what one places in God.

The free market has simply worked.  Empirical evidence abounds in support of this fact.  For that, behold America’s sweeping vistas of freedom and opportunity (closed to public viewing in January, 2009).

President Obama has a tendency to begin a speech with a history of America that starts with the good parts, and then abruptly segues into his own horrifying revisions.

“[W]e are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.”

“But [meaning, contrary to what was just said] there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.”

(a) We are self-reliant and skeptical of government.  (b) We are interdependent and require government for many essential things.  (c) Therefore all A’s are B’s.

Oh, wait, that doesn’t follow.

To prove his point about the greatness of big government, he unswervingly talks about the military, technological advances, interstate highways and public schools (even though it is laughable to suggest that the federal government has been the cause of American public education, which presently stinks anyhow).

Obama’s three-year spending spree has, adjusted for inflation, cost more than the Vietnam War, the Marshall Plan, the Korean War, NASA, the Louisiana Purchase, the New Deal, the Iraq and Afghan Wars and the S&L Crisis combined.

Is he kidding with his jibber jabber about interstate highways?  (Which must truly beguile Obama, what with his high speed rail fetish; given that the interstate highways effectively replaced rail travel, as automobiles are often a more convenient and efficient method of travel).

No one is discussing interstate highways and races to the moon, here.  Yet Obama knows he has to roll out these neutral-to-popular government expenditures, as a premise for why we must gouge taxpayers for more disastrous federal welfare.

“Medicare and Social Security,” Obama went on, “guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income.”  Do they?  At 26, it is an indisputable certainty that I will not enjoy these programs given their current outlooks, and the amount of unfunded liabilities.

Big-spending liberals like to pretend that their welfare agenda is altruistic, and that it’s evil free market defenders who are acting out of self-interest.  Yet they themselves harvest votes by preaching to the masses that liberal policies shall provide those people more bread and circuses, at other people’s expense.

Well, maybe its time my generation started voting out of economic self-interest, and at least start to disabuse ourselves of failed New Deal Ponzi schemes.

“For much of the last century, our nation found a way to afford these investments and priorities with the taxes paid by its citizens.”  Yes, when Social Security began there were approximately 18 working persons for every beneficiary.  The baby boom, birth control, and rising life expectancy have caused that ratio to dwindle to 3 to one.  Five or six generations of insatiable government have brought the program to the brink of disaster.

Obama also complained that the tax code allows too many itemized deductions for rich people.  “And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership or charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize.  My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.”

Wait a second.  A person is given tax deductions (which simply means the government is entitled to less of that person’s hard earned money) for things like “homeownership or charitable giving” and yet Obama thinks we do nothing for the middle class in the process.   Therefore he shall limit the itemized deductions for the “wealthiest” 2% of Americans?

First, income taxes, tax income, not wealth.  If Bill Gates, who is worth over $50 billion, earns $0 in 2011, he will pay $0 in income taxes.  Thus, Obama is limiting deductions on the highest paid 2%.

Second, a charitable deduction is earned where one gives money to designated charities, as defined in the tax code.  Why, we can’t have “millionaires” getting a “tax break” for such covetousness behavior!  Therefore, it’s best we reduce the wealthy persons’ deductions.  Set them on equal footing with the middle class.  By jove, that’ll fix’em!

In the final analysis (which must have been fatiguing for Obama’s left-loony speech writers), but for the tax cuts of the past decade, our fiscal house would be in great shape.

Really?  Of course it couldn’t be that inefficient sectors and programs like Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Environmental Protection Agency shall enjoy rising and overfed budgets over the coming years, due to the inherent structural deficiencies of socialism (that is, what Liberals have put their “faith” in).  Rather, it is because of the highest paid Americans, that the least among us cannot get food stamps.

Because of the tax cuts of 2001, the government shall be forced to borrow $500 billion every year.  This is like saying, because my parents cut off my allowance in my 20s, I will have to borrow a zillion dollars a year throughout my 30s and 40s.  Who said the federal government had prior ownership of that $500 billion?  For it to even be generated, taxpayers will have to work, in a free market each year.  Has their labor been earmarked to pay for Social Security and other government-botched disasters?

What a joke.

 

 

Posted in Blogs | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment