Sunday, March 24, 2013


In the atheist’s continuing war on Christianity, two more blows were struck in the name of the alleged mandate of “separation of church and state” in our Constitution.

Side note-no one has claimed my standing one million dollar reward for pointing me to where the Constitution says that.

The first battleground is in the Pacific northwest, where school officials in Seattle are waging a war against the evils of Easter and it’s eggs.

Jessica, 16, sophomore at a local private high school , told KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson Show that a week before spring break, the students commit to a week-long community service project. She decided to volunteer in a third grade class at a public school, which she would like to remain nameless.

 “At the end of the week I had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy, but I was kind of unsure how the teacher would feel about that,” Jessica said.

She was concerned how the teacher might react to the eggs after of a meeting earlier in the week where she learned about “their abstract behavior rules.”

“I went to the teacher to get her approval and she wanted to ask the administration to see if it was okay,” Jessica explained. “She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat ‘spring spheres.’ I couldn’t call them Easter eggs.”

Funny, in their haste to save children from the horrors of the Easter egg these “educators” have laid one of their own.

 Who wants to tell the geniuses in Seattle that their "Spring Spheres" are actually "Spring ovoids"?


The second combat zone is across the country in Delaware, where the Indian River School District’s concern over issues of religious expression in the schools — a matter discussed and debated for the past three years — reached new heights this week when officials mandated on Tuesday that no school in the district can host or celebrate the Easter holiday with egg hunts, candy or the Easter Bunny, or his ilk.

 Apparently, this image is too Christian even for atheists!



The recommendation was made at the suggestion of the district’s administrative superintendent, Susan Bunting, on strong advice from attorney Jason Gosselin, in an attempt to bring the district’s policy on religion “more in line with the U.S. Constitution” after two Jewish families filed suit claiming the district had pursued pro-Christian policies.

The recommendation, with the ambition to avoid offending non-Christians, resulted in mixed opinions among board members.

The religion policy posted on the school district’s Web site, which states that the district does: “Permit the use of religious symbols such as a cross, menorah, star and crescent, Star of David, crèche, symbols of Native American religions, or other symbols that are a part of a religious holiday (including, but not limited to Christmas, Easter, Passover, Hanukkah, St. Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day, Thanksgiving and Halloween) as a teaching aid or resource, provided such symbols are displayed as an example of the cultural and religious heritage of the holiday and are temporary in nature.”

However, it was suggested at the board meeting Tuesday that Easter is the holiest day for Christians — and exclusively a Christian holiday. At Christmastime, other traditions, religions and events are celebrated, while Easter is of solely Christian faith.

Interestingly enough, the Passover holiday is prominently mentioned on the school district’s site.

I guess if there was a clause about the separation of church and state in the Constitution (and there is NOT), it would not apply to Judaism.

Hopefully, parents in Selbyville, Delaware, will start voting with their wallets. Stop giving money to the school. Enroll your children in activities that are outside of the school.

Let the school board know how you feel and what you are doing.
The school board was split on this, but bowed to the only two idiots making any noise. 

Make some noise of your own and shut those whining maggots up!

And for God’s sake, make sure those kids have black jelly beans! You can never have enough Brach’s black jelly beans!


Thursday, March 21, 2013


In 2003, against the will of a majority of citizens, a handful of justices in Massachusetts ruled that the state constitution guarantees equal marriage rights for homosexual couples. The following year, “marriages” of same-sex couples began. We are now seeing the effects play out in many areas of public life, including the Massachusetts public school system.

Although homosexual couples often say they only want the same rights as heterosexuals and that they have no desire to impose their views on others, Massachusetts proves otherwise.

There is a radical agenda in motion, and those promoting it will gladly trample on the freedoms of anyone who dares to disagree.

Citizens of Massachusetts are learning just how far-reaching the high court’s decision is. The reach goes to public schools, hospitals, businesses, adoption agencies, growing government mandates and harassment of those who disagree with homosexual “marriage.”

Each step is logically built on the legalization of homosexual “marriage.” Once approved, it’s hard to make a case against other legislative mandates consistent with equal rights and non-discrimination.

Parents in the state of Massachusetts now face new public school rules that allow transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms of their choice and punish students who refuse to affirm or support transgender classmates.

The new rules appear in the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education guidance for Massachusetts section titled, “Public Schools Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment.”

How will this be monitored to prevent abuse?

The document emphasizes responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student. It also deemphasizes involvement from parents.

Most ironically, counseling will be provided for students who are uncomfortable with integrating transgender students into locker rooms and bathrooms. 

Massachusetts serves as a wake-up call to concerned parents.

This just in-99.7% of all male high school students in Massachusetts have said they are a woman trapped in a man’s body and need to shower in the girl’s locker room after gym class.

And coincidentally, I have found that due to a processing error, I need to retake high school gym. I have decided that Massachusetts will be the most convenient place to take the class. 

Did I mention my identity crisis? I'm a girl's lacrosse team member trapped in an old man's body!

File this one under "Sometimes Liberals Are Really Friggin' Stupid!"

Thursday, March 7, 2013


Carly Rae Jepsen has canceled a concert appearance for the Boy Scouts of America because of her opposition to the organization's controversial policy banning openly gay members.

The 27 year-old Canadian singer announced her withdrawal from July's National Scout Jamboree on Twitter, tweeting her support of the "ongoing battle for gay rights" as "an artist who believes in equality for all people."

Really? She tweeted her withdrawal?

How unprofessional is that?

Apparently Jepsen, who has questionable musical talent at best, recognizes she would only find an audience in the Boy Scouts because teenage boys would want to masturbate to her (because I promise you, no teenage boy is listening to “Call Me Maybe” unless his girlfriend is making him).

Or unless he’s gay.

So maybe this is a ploy to find an audience who, while being male, would listen to her because they identify with her.

Never mind, that for more than a century the Boy Scouts have been an organization based on Christian values.

And while I am not passing judgment on anyone’s sexual preference, every translation of the Bible I have ever seen documents pretty clearly what the Christian view is on homosexuality. 

So a ban on homosexuals in the Boy Scouts should not be a stretch of the imagination to anyone.

Jepsen's cancellation comes on the heels of another Jamboree headliner's tentative dropping out: the band Train said yesterday that they would only play the July concert if the Boy Scouts of America makes “the right decision before then,"a reference to a meeting in May, when the policy will go up for a vote.

In protesting the Boy Scouts' policy, both Jepsen and Train acknowledged a petition on that encouraged them to remove themselves from the concert's lineup. The petition, started by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), has supporters that number in the tens of thousands.

I wonder-how could Ms. Jepsen, or Train, or or GLAAD or the tens of thousands of supporters respect the Boy Scouts America if they were to change their stance (i.e. SELL OUT) simply to attract musical entertainment to an event?

The gay lobby has no cajones. 

That means balls, in case you don't speak Spanish. 

They are, simply put, cowards who have a gang mentality-"if I can't have it, I'll screw it up for everyone else!"

Many of the finest country clubs in America were started because Jews were not admitted to WASP country clubs.

So the Jews said, "F#@K the WASPs, we'll start our own clubs and they'll be better!"

And they were. 

If there is such a demand for gay youth to join the Boy Scouts, that sounds to me like an (no pun intended) untapped market.

Why doesn't GLAAD put their energy into a marketing campaign for a new scouting organization? 

Then Carly Rae and Patrick Monahan could be scoutmasters in the happy new Gay Scouts of America venture!

But the left does not work that way. 

It's too much effort to build, when you can much more easily destroy.

As usual, this is about the gay lobby simply trying to get their way, destroying any organization that does not pander to them.
They were the kid who always theatened to take his ball and go home.

Yet, gays wonder where resentment towards their lifestyle choice comes from.

I've said this before-true Christians should be the least of GLAAD’s concerns!

True Christians do not beat gays up.

True Christians pray for them!
How cool is that? Your adversary does not wish violence upon you-he prays for you!

So the Boy Scouts instilling Christian values in young men is a plus for the gay movement-there are less angry homophobic adults gunning for them and more True Christians praying for them!

The Boy Scouts are not defaming homosexuals by not allowing open gay members. 

They are exercising their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of assembly, hand in hand with their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to freedom of religion.

I recognize that GLAAD also has the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to protest.

But I believe they should rethink where they expend their efforts.

And maybe a little respect for different points of view might be in order.

But I'm not holding my breath for that.

I’m exercising my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to tell them to stop getting their panties in a bunch and grow the hell up!

Sunday, March 3, 2013


There is a constant debate in America about which way the media bias leans. After all, shouldn’t the media be objective?




There is no such thing as an objective point of view.


No matter how much we may try to ignore it, human communication always takes place in a context.


The collective influences on a message are its bias.


Bias in and of itself does not make a message incorrect or unfair, but it is important for the reader to understand it exists.


The journalistic ethics of objectivity and fairness are strong influences on the profession. So are the views of editors and senior management, and the pressures from external forces, such as advertisers and shareholders.


The ethical heights journalists set for themselves are not always reached.


A bigger problem than bias is the media’s ability to decide what is and is not news.


Hundreds of thousands of pro-life demonstrators gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 25 for the annual March For Life, in protest against of legalized abortion.


However, judging from the "news" coverage of the major television networks and daily papers, this event never occurred.


This is NOT a post about pro-life/pro-choice positions, nor is it about gun control, although that subject gets a mention below.


Nor is it a post about liberalism versus conservatism. As I have said before, there is a time for both, when they are being practiced appropriately (which we do NOT do in the United States Socialist Republic).


What this post IS, is a post about the responsibility of the media to report the news.


Even if you are a major news outlet pushing a pro-choice agenda, wouldn’t you be hard pressed to argue that this march was not a reportable event?


The day’s event was not mentioned at all on major news broadcasts that evening.


Not a single syllable of coverage.


Do you know what was given thirty seconds?


Whether or not Subway’s “five-dollar foot-longs” were, in fact, only eleven inches long!


Thirty seconds on a half hour news broadcast, where roughly twenty minutes is news content.


That means there are forty blocks of thirty seconds each available for the news stories of the day.


And one of those forty precious blocks of time was devoted to delivering the American people from the evils of shortened hoagie rolls.


THAT is what passes for national news these days!
Granted, the Christian Bible has a lot to say about the five-dollar foot long issue.
You only have to look to the Sermon On The Mountain and the miracle of the loaves and fishes to see hoagies mentioned.
In fact, this event marks the first sighting of the hoagie sandwich, which was blessed!
But I think that the march was a little more news-worthy.


Was the omission of the March For Life the furthering of the media’s agenda against life, or was it simply a decision that the Subway “scandal” would attract more viewers?


I am sure you will find people who will argue both. Maybe it is even a little of both.


Interestingly enough, the next day, all major media covered a much smaller demonstration (1,000 marchers) looking for gun control.


Hmmm…a demonstration that was 99.8 percent SMALLER than the March For Life was given coverage by the networks, and coincidentally, the larger demonstration was for a cause contrary to the major network agenda, and the insignificant one was is alignment with their agenda.


Are you certain the media is not pushing an agenda?


Saying that half a million people were too silly to stay in out of the cold is bias.


Failing to cover them at all is something far more devious.


And I would caution any reader who is pro-choice who may be reading this and thinking, “good-screw them, pro-lifers,” to beware.


Today the media may be backing YOUR cause.


But what about tomorrow?


Will the media always be there to support your cause?


Freedom of the press carries with it responsibility. Is our press shirking theirs?


Note to Stephen T. McCarthy, who left a comment about the missing text in my original post even though it looked fine when I previewed it-it was easier to delete that post and start over, hence your missing comment. Thanks, though, for alerting me to the snafu.