About Me

Name: PDX Dave
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Blogs I Read Regularly

McCain vs Obama: Pastor Wars

One has to laugh at the image of leftists scouring the internet for a link between McCain and anyone who has made any comment which might be twisted as "racist."

One has to laugh more as they come up with the WWII equivalent of a pastor cheering for our GI's and begging God to smite our Nazi enemies.

Any pastor who believes in the Bible is prone to believe - and say - that the religion of Islam is not of God. Christianity is a monotheistic, exclusionary religion. That is to say, most adherents believe it is right to the exclusion of all others.

For a mainstream Christian pastor to say that Christianity is right and Islam is wrong is a yawner..... like expecting outrage that a Southern Baptist pointed his finger at his congregation and admonished them against sinning. Yawn.

McCain met the referenced pastor once, at a convention of thousands of people. Senator Obama walked through the doors of Rev. Wrights' church, and become a member of it. Senator Obama chose a racist hate monger as his pastor and THEN called that racist hate monger his personal adviser AND put him on his political campaign staff as an adviser.

To say that Senator Obama can throw up a picket fence between himself and the very public, very hateful views of his advisers and the pastor of his church is like saying a dues paying member of the KKK who regularly attends KKK rallies does not endorse their views....... yeah, right.

Pardon me while I make an optometric appointment. I rolled my eyes so hard, I think I sprained them.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: Racist or Victim of Racists?

As the days and weeks of Campaign '08 unfold, a critical question will be, is Senator Obama a victim of racist dogma pressed upon him by hateful elements of the black community, or does he embrace and perpetuate those racist dogmas, thus making him a victimizer of society in general?

If Senator Obama is afraid - as most Americans are - of being beaten with the "don't like blacks" stick (or in his case the black equivalent - the "you aren't black enough" stick), then he is a victim.

If a victim, it would explain why he would say too little too late to distance himself from the hateful words of racists like Luis Farrakhan and Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., the leader of Senator Obama's Chicago church. Forcefully debunking career hate mongers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Luis Farrakhan and Rev. Wright would be career suicide for any politician who relies heavily on the politics of racial identity, as does Senator Obama. Were he to do so, he would be tagged as a "kitchen n***er" by the leftist black establishment. He would be dismissed derisively as a "wanna be" or as "black on the outside but white on the inside." As are most blacks who dare to align themselves with the conservative right in America.

If Senator Obama is a victim who fears being abused by the race dividers like Farrakhan and Rev. Wright, and is cowed into near silence, then one must ask, does he have what it takes to face down our enemies abroad, and to lead us domestically against those who would reduce our nation to a racially divided battle zone?

If Senator Obama is a victimizer who embraces - in his heart of hearts - the words and sentiments of Farrakhan and Rev. Wright, then this nation is in trouble, because we have not the collective courage to question our politicians honestly, nor the ability to discern their not-so-hidden motives. If Senator Obama is a race hater who endorses the views of the church to which he belongs, and the friends whom he chooses, then he is a dishonest person who will say anything to get elected.

The question then becomes - what happens once he has the reigns of power?

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon













Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ed Begley Jr: Gross Polluter

Ed Begley Jr. is Joseph Mengele to the environment.

For his crime of promoting the mercury poisoning of our children and our environment, there should be no forgiveness. None. He holds up deadly waste in the container of compact florescent bulbs as if they are a savior for mankind when in fact they are deadly poison in any household, waiting to kill our children.

There is no scientific debate: Compact florescent light bulbs are a CRIME AGAINST NATURE AND HUMANITY.

If you break a mercury-based light bulb, the EPA states that the resulting toxic spill REQUIRES that you engage an EMERGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP procedure. And even if you NEVER break another light bulb in your life.... (right....) consider that these waste bombs can't be thrown away.... you have to DRIVE THEM (can you feel your carbon footprint expanding?) to a HAZARDOUS WASTE DEPOT.

And before you claim I am anti-environment, consider this: I changed every one of my normal, incandescent light bulbs for an Ed Begley Death Bulb. Every one. Because Ed told me to. If I was a crybaby liberal, I'd see you in court, Ed... You gross polluting death merchant.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland Oregon


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who is A Veteran? Only CNN Could Ask Such a Question

I did not have to view CNN's "Who is a Veteran" episode to know the answer they would produce:

We are "ALL" veterans, so honoring individuals who actually wore a uniform and bore arms is narrow-minded and "un-patriotic."

Their take will have been.... The soldiers' wife is veteran..... the corner grocer during a war is veteran.... the war correspondent is a veteran... the Soviet-paid war protester is veteran.... the 'I couldn't hurt a fly' pacifist is veteran.... enemy operatives Jane Fonda and Dennis Kucinich are veterans.....

Are you seeing a pattern here?

Let us dilute the value of "veteran" and make all who hide under their mother's skirt a hero. Let us call - in the name of political correctness - every person who advocated victory for the enemy as a "hero" to be cherished.

That is the value set of the Democrats.

Pardon me while I vomit.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clean Out the Rats Nest that is the State Department

No one begrudges the State Department their mission of achieving our nation's foreign policy goals through diplomacy rather than military action. But for the past half century, a perverted mission has  dominated the diplomatic efforts of that monolithic bureaucracy: To work against the goals of the United States. Their strange new mission appears not to be furtherance of America's foreign policy goals, but to thwart those goals, and achieve the goals of our foreign opponents.

One can argue what the motivation is for this strange new State Department mission. I feel it is a "self loathing American" syndrome that is a peculiar to leftists.

The U.S. State Department has been a bastion of far left career diplomats for far too long. It's time shake up that department while a Republican is in the White House and has the power to do so, and build it back from scratch.

When the foreign affairs department of the executive branch takes the attitude that it can oppose a sitting president's foreign policy goals with impunity, and individuals within it can plot to derail diplomatic and war efforts through refusal to fulfill duties they are sworn to perform, then that department is in mutiny and needs to be rebuilt from the foundation up.


PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems Want to Fix Problems They Created?

It boggles the mind that Americans allow Democrats to occupy any positions of policymaking. It certainly doesn't speak well for our attention to history.

Democrats continually champion causes that purport to "fix" things, and Americans continue to bite - conveniently forgetting that the problem being FIXED was created by Democrats in the FIRST place!

It makes you want to choke the collective electorate until their eyes bug out.

Examine Democratic planks of the present and recent past: Fixing the "broken" health care system. Preventing teen pregnancy. Treating drug addiction. Reducing crime. Raising our children's self esteem. Fixing America's dysfunctional education system. The list could go on and on....... but I the limited byte capacity on the internet prohibits a full itemization.

Democrats broke the health care system in the first place, with unrestricted predatory lawsuits against the very ones who make us the most desired health system in the world: doctors, drug companies, and insurance companies. The very "unavailability" of health care that the left kvetches incessantly about is the direct result of price increases due to  the liberals' best friend: lawyers. Now, they have the nerve to claim to possess the cure for the disease they created in the first place. Their "cure" - socialized medicine - would put the final nail in the coffin of the most effective health care system in the world, reducing it to the stupefying mediocrity that is Canadian and British health care.

After decades of championing a culture of unrestricted sex, Democrats have awoken to the horrifying reality that teenagers are making babies in alarming numbers. Rather than scratching their heads wondering "how did this happen," they roll up their sleeves and set about proposing ways to make it worse! "I know... let's give condoms to 11 year olds!" What a wonderful idea! Just the kind of "they will do it anyway" mentality that lead to the problem of teen pregnancy in the first place! Now they think MORE OF THE SAME will cure the problem? God forbid we should teach abstinence - after all, we can't hope to influence teenagers with reason, can we? Democrats largely favor allowing 16-year-olds to vote, but yet they believe they can't be trusted to understand and control their sexual impulses in a moral fashion.

Drug addiction follows the same template of tolerance verging on endorsement by Democrats, followed by feigned shock at the inevitable result, followed again inexorably by a socialist scheme for the "cure:" Free needles and more lax drug law enforcement. After lying about the use of drugs declining in drug-decriminalized states, the truth emerged: Drug use increased where drug laws were made more lax. Many conservatives rightly support a reform of our drug laws, but the difference is that conservatives generally need to see a plan first, rather than a pie-in-the-sky "everything will be fine" approach that simply opens the flood gates without an examination of the consequences.

Reducing crime, raising children's self esteem, fixing the broken education system..... all hold to the same pattern of things that become problems as the result of Democrat policies. I don't know who exhibits the symptoms of brain injury more: Democrats who laughably claim to hold the solution to the problems they created, or the American public who seems to have amnesia as to how those problems came to be in the first place.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Right of Return = Holocaust II

The closest comparison I can make to faith in the genocidal policy of the "Palestinian Right of Return" is a belief in the tooth fairy. It demonstrates a disconnect from reality, for the lie which is called the "Palestinian Right of Return" is just a public relations retread of the well-used Muslim chant: Death to the Jews.

It amazes me to hear some of my more level-headed liberal associates express support for the "Palestinian Right of Return."  The glibness with which they make the declaration makes it obvious that they are willfully blind to the horrible and logical consequences of that policy: Holocaust II.

It must be a willful blindness, because no one with two active brain cells to rub together can escape the truth of what such a policy - if implemented - would inexorably lead to. There is a disconnect in the thinking of liberals, as they pretend to believe that the "Right of Return" would lead to peace and prosperity in the land of milk and honey. The reality of course would be much more grim than the peaceful paradise they imagine, if they imagine anything at all past the bumper-sticker slogan.

If asked to look past the forced relocation of millions of Arabs into Israel, they will usually refuse to do so, and revert to a surly declaration that any consequences are the fault of Zionists and the existence of Israel in the first place. A perverse twist on the "shouldn't have worn that short skirt" argument which blames the rape victim for the rape.

They are willing to accept, apparently, the fact that the immediate result of a forced "return" of millions of Arabs to Israel would be for the new Arab majority to "democratically" change Israel. The name of the nation would of course be "democratically" changed to Palestine. And of course the left would have no problem with Sharia law being "democratically" introduced - it is up to the "democratic choice" of the majority, after all. Forget that they screeched loudly against the supposed "theocracy" of Israel as a Jewish state. With Sharia law of course, comes a "democratically" mandated relegation of infidels to second-class citizens. Cue the proverbial push of Jews into the sea. Any Jewish residents not intimidated into abandoning their homes from the outset would be harassed, assaulted, and killed. To believe otherwise is to believe in the tooth fairy.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Out-Greening the Left

The image of conservatives as eco-unfriendly gross polluters and general enemies of nature is one of the most pervasive of the false leftist myths.

The accompanying myth that the left are definitionally champions of nature is unfortunately one which conservatives seem to have ceded to the irrational tree-hugging fringe.

I believe that the right must begin to aggressively counter these lies, and undertake a concerted effort to point out the truth, and to "out-green" the left.

Time and time again, ill-advised policies that the left shoved down America's throat in the name of the environment have turned out to have the opposite effect or have other environmentally damaging consequences.  I'm referring to recent and current policies such as Kyoto.

As conservatives heatedly pointed out that Kyoto policies would actually CAUSE more pollution than it cured, the left stuck their fingers in their ears and childishly taunted that Republicans have a desire to destroy the planet. Now, the UN has become an unlikely ally of the conservative message, as the reality of the situation becomes so clear that even they cannot ignore it.

According to a recent article carried by Reuters, "The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says."

The rush to bio-fuels has caused a precipitous drop in the availability of food crops and a spike in chemical fertilizer use as growers get on the mindless "green or bust" bandwagon and switch their crops from food to ethanol production. The hungry of the world can thank the left for the pending wave of starvation which is the likely outcome.

No ill-conceived concept captures the left's imagination more firmly than the fascistic idea of controlling what rural land owners do with their property. Under the feel-good guise of "saving the trees" the left has systematically devastated forest lands by making it impossible for logging companies to harvest the trees which they own. The unintended consequence? The logging companies are forced to sell their property..... to developers. Well managed forests are turned into treeless suburban communities with ironic names like "Forest Glen" thanks to tree-huggers whose hatred of logging companies transcends their ability to see that those enterprises are among the biggest facilitators of maintaining large tracts of healthy forest.

Conservatives and hunters have for decades been the champions of conserving wild spaces on a voluntary basis. The environment has benefited much more from hunters than from the legions of tree-hugging vegans who think humans are a lesser form of life than any other living thing. Ducks Unlimited, for example, is the world's leading organization for conserving wetlands, having preserved more natural wetlands than even the federal government. Correct me if I'm' wrong, but Rosie and Sean Penn aren't big fans of the gun-toting hunters that make up the membership of Ducks Unlimited.

Conservatives need to take back the "eco-friendly" title from the eco-destroyers on the left. In reality, we are by far the more effective champions of a healthy, well-balanced natural environment, and it's about time we said so. Whenever do-good socialists set out to "fix" something, you can bet that they will bollocks it up and make a bigger mess than previously existed.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Fires..... errrrr.... Fodder

While the Santa Ana winds were still blowing hot and strong (as they have for hundreds of thousands of years) and the Southern California fires were at their worst, Democrats from coast to coast were throwing political fuel on the fire.

Democrat California Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi claimed during the height of the natural disaster that President Bush had no business coming to California, that the fires were the result of Bush-caused global warming, and that the California National Guard were unable to respond because they were in Iraq. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Cal.) echoed the ludicrous lie that California's National Guard were all in Iraq and thus unable to help fight the fires, while Harry Reid declared the origin of the fires as global warming, hoping to inject the political hysteria of that lie into the tragic event.

So you'll understand why I laughed so hard today, I almost fell out of my chair when liberal L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez sanctimoniously declared, "You knew it had to happen. The moment firefighters began to get an edge on the fires, pundits, bloggers and other gasbags couldn't wait" to use the successful outcome for political purposes.

It's amazing that Lopez's ludicrous assertion that 'Republicans are starting the politicization of the fires' could be squeezed in sideways on that newspaper, amid the insane declarations of fact that the fires were caused by global warming, and snide references to Katrina and the self-serving nature of Republicans concerning their response.

Later in the same piece, Lopez endorsed the fringe belief that the alleged lax response to Katrina was based on a racist agenda to make blacks suffer..... but let's be clear.... it's the Republicans who are using disaster as political fuel. According to the view that Lopez signs off on, the quick response to the California fires was because of all the rich white folks living there....

Someone please hand Lopez a tissue as he weeps uncontrollably over the crime of politicizing a natural disaster.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Appease the Islamofascists

CAIR and it's leftist allies around the world have patiently explained that Americans brought terrorism upon ourselves. That the "chickens are coming home to roost."

Let's pass for the moment on the absurdity of that claim, and accept it on it's face, for the sake of debate.

Presumably that means that if we CHANGE something that we do, we can appease the Muslim terrorists and stop the slaughter of innocents. That doing something different will make them like us. So, Let's look at how we might appease the Islamofascists:



If every American diplomat, soldier and civilian left Iraq right now, would that stop Islamist terror attacks against America?
No. American feet defile more than just Iraqi soil - Americans need to get out of all Arab countries.

If we left all Arab countries, would that appease Muslim terrorists?
No. Americans are imperialists that interfere in all Muslim countries.

If we left every Muslim country on the earth and never stepped foot in any of them ever again, would THAT satisfy the Islamic Nazis?
No. Americans are the Great Satan and the enemy of Islam because we are friends of Israel.

If we we stopped giving our Israeli friends military support, would that appease those who practice terror in the name of Islam?
No. It's not just military aid; American civil aid and private contributions help keep Israel strong.

If we turned our back completely on our friends, and stopped all aid to Israel, would that appease the Islamofascists?
No. Israel is already a major world power with the help of American aid. They would still defeat the Arab nations in a war, even without outside aid.

If our military attacked our Israeli allies and drove all the Jews in the Middle East into the sea, allowing Arabs to re-populate Israel and rename it Palestine, would that appease the Muslim extremists?
No. America allows Jews to be equal citizens. Jews have too much influence in America.

If we created gas chambers, rounded up all the Jews in America and gassed them, would that appease the Islamonazis?
No. Christians are actually a greater insult to Allah than Jews, and most Americans are Christian.

If we also gassed all Christians in America, would that appease the mass-murder wing of the "religion of peace?"
No all Americans are infidels and must die.

OK... if we gassed all Americans and deeded America to Al Qaida, would that appease the radical Muslims?
No. There are infidels all over the world, not just in America.

Now we're making progress. If we gas virtually every infidel in the world, leaving only Muslims, will that appease Hammas, al Qaida and their murderous ilk?
Yes, that would appease the fanatical Muslims. That's all they really wanted in the first place.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Homophobe" – Deconstructing the Term & Myth

Among the many terms that the left uses to stifle the free exchange of ideas, is the speech-killing and illogical "homophobe."

As Dennis Prager says so often on his radio show and blog, the left uses intellectually dishonest and inflammatory words and phrases that are designed to stop their opponent's debate in it's tracks. Little bombs that label the other as a despicable person of one stripe or another, and which render further debate meaningless. After all, one does not waste intellectual energy or logical debate with a racist, one showers them with scorn and hatred. Right? Of course.

So, little phrases which label the other as a bigoted hater are the verbal weapon of choice for the liberal. The first arrow out of the quiver. Anyone who has doubts about the wisdom of affirmative action is a "racist." Anyone who thinks the unborn have even rudimentary rights is a "woman-hater."  Those who seek a secure border are "anti-immigrant." An opponent of socialized medicine "doesn't care about the suffering of children."

And one who sees the institution of marriage as a social contract between a man and woman is definitionally a "homophobe."

I say that "homophobe" is an illogically coined term because it seems to me to defy the parameters of a phobia. In all seriousness, is there anyone who is - in reality - AFRAID of  homosexuals to the degree that it rises to a phobia? I sincerely doubt it.

Consider the term "arachnophobia." It's an irrational fear of spiders. A real fear - one that triggers a fight or flight response.  Or "agoraphobia;" the fear of open spaces which causes a sense of blind panic.

A phobia really has a narrow definition. It's not a term used to describe a person's disagreement with an opposing political plank. It simply isn't.  It is a term used to describe an abnormal and debilitating fear.

If one does not like broccoli, one is not a "broccoliphobe." A woman who avoids green dresses is not a "verdaphobe." She simply does not like the way the color looks on her. If one opposes leftists and their ideology, one is not definitionally afraid of them and thus a "libbiephobe" any more than a Democrat is irrationally afraid of Republicans and thus a "Republiphobe."

Nor is a person a "homophobe" who simply wishes society's age-old definition of marriage to remain, the union of one man and one woman. I would personally argue in support of gay marriage, but that is my opinion, and I know that my fellow conservatives respect my opinion and I in turn respect theirs.

The left will gain much more traction in their pursuit of socialism if they ditch intellectually dishonest, debate-killing buzz words designed to stifle discussion, and just get on with the free exchange of ideas.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

From Democrat to Conservative Republican: First Steps

On the morning of September 11, 2001 I was doing what many liberals do: I was asleep, with no intention of rising any earlier than 10:00am because I was in the midst of being oppressed by "the man."  In liberal-speak, this means that I was unemployed with no intention of finding a job anytime soon.

My live-in girlfriend, Joyce, woke me with the news that a plane had just flown into a skyscraper in New York City. This alert was interesting enough to rouse me from my bed, and I made it downstairs to stand bleary-eyed in front of the TV just in time to see the second plane slam into the other tower.

For a moment I thought I was seeing a replay of the first plane, but the awful reality soon penetrated the fog of my early-morning stupor: The other tower was already aflame, so this was.... this was a second plane... which meant.......

"New York is Under Attack" I shouted to Joyce as she prepared to leave for work.

"No it's not," she responded from the kitchen, in her typical desire to deny anything upsetting, preferring instead to insulate herself in normalcy. "It's an accident."

Normally keen to debate anything, I didn't rise to the challenge or bother to point out the fallacy of her position, but simply said, "I don't think so."

After a few more moments of watching the carnage unfold, and as the horrible reality began to sink in, I said aloud to myself, "Thank God George Bush is President."

Just hours previous, such a comment from my lips would have been unthinkable. Blasphemous. But at that moment I recognized at the gut level that Al Gore, had he won the election, would have responded impotently to this attack, as had his predecessor to other attacks, and that President Bush would rain relentless war and death upon those who would dare do such a thing.

Thus began the process of the scales falling from my eyes. The gradual opening of my mind to objective reality - unobscured by the subjective filter liberal ideology.

PDX Dave
Behind Enemy Lines in Portland, Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive