Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Hard Working Traditional Values With A Dash of Fun

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Allowable NBA Sins


Los Angeles Clipper owner Donald Sterling was banned from NBA basketball and fined $2.5 million for making disparaging remarks about black people in a private conversion with his girlfriend.

In announcing this penalty, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said:

The views expressed by Mr. Sterling are deeply offensive and harmful; that they came from an NBA owner only heightens the damage and my personal outrage.

As a private organization, the NBA can decide whatever it wants to do regarding its business. But it is a sad reflection on our current culture that the following actions are not offensive and harmful or cause damage or outrage Mr. Silver.

  • Having a mistress when you are a married man. Donald Sterling is married to Rochelle Stein. Sterling has been in the news more than once for stories about his mistresses. Not offensive.
  • Racist, misogynistic hip hop music. Instead of spouting his own racist statements, perhaps Sterling should have quoted hip hop lyrics from Tupac Shakur, Too $hort, or Geto Boys. Not offensive.
  • Uncontrolled promiscuity. The late LA Lakers owner Jerry Buss had hundreds of teen or near teen girlfriends. In his autobiography, LA Laker Wilt Chamberlin claimed 20,000 sex partners. LA Laker Magic Johnson also claimed thousands of sex partners, a cause of his acquiring HIV. Not harmful.
  • Fathering multiple illegitimate children. Charlotte Hornets player Larry Johnson has 5 children with 4 different women. Seattle Super Sonics player Shawn Kemp has 7 children with 6 different women, and it could be as high as 11 children. Chicago Bull player Jason Caffey has 10 children with 8 different women. Houston Rockets player Calvin Murphy has 14 children with 9 different women. No damage.
  • Being arrested for sexually assaulting a 19-year old. This happened to LA Lakers star Kobe Bryant in 2003. The victim refuse to testify and a related civil action was settled out of court. No outrage.
No one can defend Donald Sterling's racist words. He was juvenile and wrong. Fortunately for him and others there is other bad behavior that is acceptable and approved by the NBA and much of society that will not get you banned from basketball or fined $2.5 million.


For a humorous post on the NFL considering banning racist words on the field, read here.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Monday, April 28, 2014

Diversity Hypocrisy


While the values espoused by conservatives include hard work, morality, and thrift, one of the most favorite values of liberals is diversity. Unfortunately, this is often a false value that is rarely actually displayed by liberal institutions. For example, higher education is a bastion of liberal thought where diversity is king (or should I say queen in the interests of diversity).

Sadly, the diversity in action is wildly missing when it comes to diversity of thought. The percentage of liberals teaching or administering at most leading universities can be up to ninety percent or more, hardly evidence of diversity.

You may argue that this is because no conservative wants a career in positions such as theater, women's literature, and queer studies but couldn't the universities at least invite conservatives to speak at graduations? In the interest of diversity, we should expect at least half of the commencement speakers to be conservatives, right?

Here are the upcoming commencement speakers at the leading U.S. universities for 2014.

Ivy League Schools

Brown University - Writer Isabel Wilkerson, a former NY Times bureau chief and expert on black migration

Columbia University - No commencement speaker

Cornell University - Actor Ed Helm, known for The Office and Hangover.

Dartmouth College - TV Producer Sonda Rhimes, known for Grey's Anatomy, Scandal and President Barack Obama appointed her to serve as a trustee for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts appointed by Barack Obama

Harvard University - Liberal former mayor Michael Bloomberg

Princeton University - Former Vice President Al Gore the climate change prophet

University of Pennsylvania - Singer John Legend, known for supporting Earth Institute's sustainable development and AIDS Service Center NYC

Yale University - Democrat Secretary of State John Kerry

Other Top Line Schools

Brandeis University - Social activist Geoffrey Canada

Duke University - General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

John Hopkins University - YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki, Democratic fund raiser

Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Dupont CEO Ellen Kullman, 61% of political donations made to Democrats

Northwestern University - Conductor Riccardo Muti, Chicago Symphony Orchestra

Stanford University - Liberal philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates

Tufts University - Anne Marie Slaughter, former Democrat State Department official

University of California Berkeley - Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

University of Southern California - Salesforce.com CEP Marc Benioff, regular Democrat campaign contributor

University of Notre Dame - BBC Chairman Chris Patten, former Conservative member of Parliament

University of Rochester - Liberal CNN commentator Chris Matthews

Wake Forest University - Jill Abramson, executive editor, New York Times


So, out of 20 top schools, only two (Notre Dame and Duke) have speakers that would not be identified as liberals.

Where is the diversity?

Not at our most prestigious universities.

Liberals seek a diversity of gender, sexual orientation, or skin color, but the last thing they want is a diversity of thinking.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Climate Change Cure Worse Than Problem


Happy Earth Day.

I recently heard a climate change disciple claim that we should take action to fix climate change since 95% of scientists believe it to be true. He supported this by saying that if you had a child diagnosed with a serious illness by 95% of doctors, you would get it taken care of. The goal of this comparison is to get people to act all emotional and conclude, ¨I would never allow my child to go without medical attention to address a serious illness, so we must take action to address climate change.¨ Where this analogy fails is that the climate change doctors have a cure that is worse than the disease - the destruction of our free-market economy.

A better comparison is to ask yourself, would you get on an airplane that had a 95% chance of reaching its destination? I think I would pass. Americans can change their light bulbs and start driving electric cars, but since we only occupy 5% of the globe, our actions are pretty much futile. No wonder less than 40% of Americans buy the global warming Chicken Little argument.

I think P. J. O'Rourke said it best:

¨There's not a goddamn thing you can do about it. Maybe climate change is a threat, and maybe climate change has been tarted up by climatologists trolling for research grant cash. It doesn't matter. There are 1.3 billion people in China, and they all want a Buick. Actually, if you go more than a mile or two outside China's big cities, the wants are more basic. People want a hot plate and a piece of methane-emitting cow to cook on it. They want a carbon-belching moped, and some CO2-disgorging heat in their houses in the winter. And air-conditioning wouldn't be considered an imposition, if you've ever been to China in the summer.

¨Now I want you to dress yourself in sturdy clothing and arm yourself however you like - a stiff shot of gin would be my recommendation - and I want you to go tell 1.3 billion Chinese they can never have a Buick.

¨Then, assuming the Sierra Club helicopter has rescued you in time, I want you to go tell a billion people in India the same thing.¨

My advise is to stop wasting time on stuff you can't change and focus your efforts on the real climate change - let's work on making our culture less toxic and harmful to children and families.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

How Liberals Create Stupid Voters


A new study confirms the fact that liberals want people to damage their brains. Here are the facts that support this conclusion.

  • In January, CBS news reported that 72% of liberals support legalizing marijuana.
  • In February the National Institutes of Health reported that regular marijuana use among adolescents lowers IQ by about 10 points.
  • This month researchers from Harvard and Northwestern Universities, reported that marijuana use by those age 18-25 creates abnormalities in the nucleus accumbens and the amygdala, parts of the brain that help people judge what is rewarding or aversive.

I don't anticipate this knowledge will change the liberal support for the expansion of legal marijuana use. After all, just like granting citizenship to illegal aliens would result in more Democrat voters, making people dumber and unable to think will also result in more Democrat voters. 

Does this remind you of soma? Every conservative should read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World to see the future of what happens when liberalism is given free reign. Soma was a drug given to everyone to make them feel better so they were easier for the government to control.

It is one thing for a political philosophy to take a stand because it wants something better for its supporters, but it is nothing less than cynical unconscionable evil to support an activity that will damage the brains of young people and lower their intelligence, all for the purpose of controlling political power.



If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

$6 Million Abortion Mistake


Over the weekend, police in the overwhelmingly crime-free city of Pleasant Grove, Utah made the shocking discovery of six dead newborns stored in boxes in a residential garage. The babies were suffocated right after they were born between 1996 and 2006. The suspect is a woman who was the mother to all six babies. She was arrested and charged with six murders, with bail set at $1 million for each murder.


It seems that the mother's $6 million mistake was not getting abortions. If she had killed the babies one day earlier, when they were still in the womb, she would be walking free today. Actually, the real mistake is a society where it is a crime to murder a baby the day it is born, but looks the other way if the baby is murdered the day before it is born.

This is the kind of story that makes liberals embarrassingly uncomfortable. How does someone rationally defend that murder is not murder when a baby is minutes away from being born?

The pro-abortion position is hard to defend, when it results in the termination of over 50 million lives in the past 40 years. Conservative actions to make it more difficult to kill the unborn are fought every time by pro-abortion liberals. When Bill Clinton was president, he said his position was that abortion should be ¨legal, safe and rare.¨ The language made it's way to the Democrat platform for many years, but this position must have offended their base, because it was removed from the platform in 2008 and 2012 when Obama ran for president.

Yes, it is a tragedy that six dead babies were discovered on Saturday. But the greater tragedy is that there are over 3,000 abortions every day in the United States that don't make the news.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.


Wednesday, April 9, 2014

'Gay'-vid and Goliath or David and 'Gay'-liath?


Malcolm Gladwell's latest best-selling book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants presents a challenging argument that the underdog can beat the giant most of the time by changing the game. He starts by explaining that David was no match for Goliath in a hand-to-hand combat, but that Goliath was no match for David when David changed the game to nimble slingshot shooter vs. lumbering armored swordsman. Gladwell gives the example of America winning their revolution from Great Britain. The Continental Army could not beat the better trained and equipped redcoats. However, when they changed their tactics not to fight head on, they were able to last long enough to wear out the enemy. The same thing happened in Vietnam. The communists could not beat America using conventional military means, so they changed the way the war was fought.

There are many other examples of the underdog beating the favorite in history. The Soviets could not beat the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan in the 1980's. During World War II the British tried to challenge the battleship Bismark using conventional means of other battleships. The Bismark easily won, sinking the vaunted HMS Hood. However, when they changed tactics and attacked the formidable battleship with slow flying bi-plane torpedo bombers, they were able to win.

In our current day, perhaps no group has been more successful in a David vs. Goliath struggle than the homosexual community. They are riding a wave of growing acceptance of same sex marriage. 

Could a gay agenda win in an open challenge against traditional values? Absolutely not. During the 70's and 80's the homosexual activists acted like revolutionaries, with in-your-face challenges of cross-dressers, public same-sex kissing, and other actions meant to shock. It got them nowhere. Fighting Goliath on his terms, you lose.

Then in the 90's they changed their strategy from revolutionaries to victims and found a way to play David against Goliath. It was all planned out by public relation experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in their 1989 publication, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred for Gays in the 90's. The plan was for homosexuals to show themselves as mainstream, such as wanting to marry, instead of displaying their overwhelming desire for promiscuity. They would get the media to focus on middle aged women or professionals and not the leather-men or drag queens. Extreme gay groups like the North American Man/Boy Love Association would have to be kept out of the news.

The plan also included selling the idea that people are born gay and have no choice. Again, it is a victim ploy to make society believe that homosexuality is the same as race as far as choice is concerned. If someone can't be held responsible for their actions, how can you blame them for what they do? They have largely succeeded in this plan even though there is no full proof scientific evidence. For example, studies of identical twins do not show that they are always both gay or both straight. Obviously there is choice involved.

We only have to look at the daily headlines to recognize that 'Gay'-vid has beaten Goliath and as long as we keep playing the same game, those who believe in traditional Christian values are going to keep losing.

The way to win is to change the game so David beats 'Gay'-liath. What will that require? I don't think we can use Right vs. Wrong, or Good vs. Evil, because moral relativism increasingly dominates society and does not recognize these are legitimate public issues. I do think an argument we can win is making choices as responsible adults (traditional) vs. making choices like irresponsible juveniles (homosexuals). I will present the details for this argument in a future post. It will show that when both values are compared, homosexual values will be recognized for what they are: immature, selfish, and anti-children. Traditional values will be recognized for what they are: responsible, forward thinking, and pro-children.


If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Friday, April 4, 2014

Kickstarter Kicks Anti Abortion Serial Killer Film


Conservative independent filmmakers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer used the popular crowdfunding website Kickstarter to raise more than $200,000 for their last movie FrackNation, a documentary that corrected many of the misconceptions that hydraulic fracturing for natural gas is harmful to the environment. They decided to use Kickstarter again for their next movie, Gosnell, The Doctor Is Sin.

Kermit Gosnell is an imprisoned doctor who specialized in late term abortions. He was sentenced to life in prison for multiple murder of patients. ABC's Terry Moran calls him ¨the most successful serial killer in the history of the world.¨

Little did the filmmakers know that raising money for a movie about a convicted murder and serial mass abortionist was objectionable and might upset ¨community guidelines.¨ A Kickstarter rep would not allow the project on their website unless the phrase 'thousands of babies stabbed to death' was deleted or changed. Why? ¨Our Community Guidelines outline that we encourage and enforce a culture of respect and consideration.¨

What kind of community objects to factually identifying the documented actions of a convicted serial killer who was sent to prison?

Kickstarter doesn't like projects that draw attention to a notorious abortionist, but their community guidelines are fine with:

There also 28 projects with the F-word in it, but these must have passed the community guidelines of culture and respect.

Once more we see that liberals are open-minded when it comes to promoting anti-traditional values, but when it comes to a project that will show the abortion industry in it's worst light, they take action to suppress free speech.

Fortunately, the movie producers have been able to obtain alternate crowdfunding elsewhere at Indiegogo. So far they have raised over $300,000 toward a goal of $2,100,000.

I look forward to the success of this film effort. The death of more than 50 million aborted babies in America in the last 40 years is not an affront to community guidelines of culture and respect.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Noah S(t)inks


The much promote movie Noah debuted last weekend to less than blockbuster levels ($44 million) given the amount of money spent to produce and promote it ($250 million). It is clear that director Darren Aronofsky's warped retelling of the Noah story is not going to attract the massive interest of the church going public that helped the last high profile religious movie, The Passion of Christ to make over $600 million from a cost of $30 million. He is missing out on an untapped market. Four to five times as many people attend church each week compared to how many people go to the movies each week.

This movie is just the latest example of the secular world view seeking to supplant the traditional religious world view in modern America. Religion has been forced out of schools. Religious values regarding the protection of unborn life has been overruled. The traditional definition of marriage is being redefined. And now the Bible is being revised to replace the Word of God with a message not found in the Bible.

Aronofsky makes the excuse that there is not enough source material in the Bible for a 2 1/2 hour movie, so he had to creatively filled in the blanks and created conflict that is needed to keep interest in a story. I get that. I've dabbled in screenwriting myself (Jihad on Hollywood), so I know the elements of an engaging story. However, Aronofsky totally changes the message of the Noah story to promote an agenda not found at all in the Bible.


Aronofsky's Noah is a vegan Jason killing machine (without the hockey mask). He believes that God wants to destroy man because of his mishandling of the environment. The evil depicted in the movie is murder and people eating meat. Only the animals will be saved and he will make sure that he and all his family will die off, even to the extreme of killing his own granddaughters to prevent the birth of more humans. Aronofsky couldn't change the story beyond this (or we wouldn't be here). His Noah eventually changes his mind and tells his descendants to multiply and replenish the earth.

What did Aronofsky get wrong?
  • The Bible clearly states that Noah and his wife and his 3 sons and their wives boarded the ark. Aronofsky leaves out the wives because his Noah wants to end man's life on earth.
  •       The Bible clearly states that Noah brought 7 of the clean beasts and only 2 of the unclean beasts onto the ark. The extra beasts were obviously here for food. Noah was no vegan and his ancestors included herdsmen who did animal sacrifice.
  • The Bible clearly states that Noah was a righteous man with a righteous family. He was not against all mankind, he was only against evil mankind. God was not mad at men for ruining the environment. He was mad at the evil choices they made. What evil choices did they make? Well according the Jesus in Matthew 24:37-38, the last days will be like the days of Noah. The evils of the people God destroyed with the flood are the same kind we see in society today.
Much like Noah, Bible reading families teach against the values they see in general society - promiscuity, pornography, violence against women and children, abortion, divorce. Not ever eating meat and going green are not that big a deal and are not on the short list of how to get to heaven.

Noah will not reach the potential high box office it could have reached because it is not a Biblical message that active Christians can support. If anything, it is continued evidence that Hollywood is on a mission to tear down traditional religion and build up secularism by treating the Bible as just another fairytale.

If you liked this post, be sure to share it by selecting one of the share buttons below.

If you would like to get a notice of future posts, choose the Follow option at the bottom of this blog.