I do not want civil discourse – Don Surber

I may not necessarily agree with 100% of the following from Don Surber, but it sure did wake me up and make my morning.

For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. . . .

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible. (except for the idiots – Wannabe)

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

And you think I can get a good rant on! I think it is important to add that tea party protesters have been directly assaulted by union thugs. That has been ignored/forgotten by the “mainstream” news media.

Surber continues:

There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

So screw you and your civil discourse.

I don’t want to hear it.

I have been screamed at for 10 years.

It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.

My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.

Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.

So screw you.

You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?

Too bad.

When I read this, I thought Surber might be channeling me!

Now obviously civil discourse has an important place in a society. But truth has a more important place. And when those in power commit crimes against our constitutional democracy with stolen elections, arbitrary dictator judges, reckless raids on the treasury and more and attack those who oppose their crimes, telling the truth and acting on it appropriately will likely seem slightly uncivil. (Hence the tone of this blog on occasion. I might not go quite as far as Surber, but I completely understand where he is coming from.)

In any case, those who have committed and/or cheered on the crimes and have smeared those who opposed them are in no place to lecture anyone about civility. And I share Surber’s suspicion that calls for civil discourse from Lefties are merely yet another attempt to muzzle those of us who are right of center. Those who commit rape do not like anyone crying, “Rape!”

Now, right or wrong, I am still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his call for civil discourse . . . for now. He did not engage in the post-Tucson libels and quite clearly said they were wrong. And I give him credit for that. But his administration should still be watched . . . closely.

That is my civil response to Surber’s post although I am sure some will not find it so.

My not so civil response?

YESSSSSSSS!

----
Hat tip to Christopher Johnson.

Should Orthodox Primates Attend the Primates Meeting?

There is an interesting discussion in the Anglican blogosphere about whether orthodox primates should attend the Primates Meeting in Dublin later this month. Matt Kennedy says no. BabyBlue says yes. And there are vigorous discussions in the comments to their posts as well.

I am a bit torn on this question. I have thought, and still do think, that a case can be made for attending the meeting if orthodox primates insist that the first item of business is a vote to expel Katherine Schori and Fred Hiltz. And if they are ready and willing to walk out if the two archapostates are not expelled. (And the two will likely not be expelled.) I heartily agree with Matt+ that scripture mandates those two are not to be treated as legitimate church leaders.

Not attending the meeting at all is the only other acceptable course I can see. For Rowan Williams has so rigged the rules of the game against the orthodox, it is appropriate for them to protest by refusing to play the game.

Past Primates Meetings made robust decisions at least begin to put apostasy in its place. ++Rowan’s response was to undermine those decisions and to undermine the institution of the Primates Meeting as a whole. When the orthodox manage to “win” one, ++Rowan turns it into a loss. Of course, most of the time, Anglican Communion processes are so rigged by Rowan and company, the orthodox hardly have a chance at the start even though they are an overwhelming majority in the Communion.

Like I said, when a game gets that rigged, an appropriate response is to protest by refusing to play. There is no scriptural mandate to play Charlie Brown to Archbishop Lucy.

Blame Righty: A Condensed History

Yesterday, I noted that blaming “right-wingers” for shootings they had nothing to do with is nothing new. Those sorts of smears filled the air after the Kennedy Assassination with my home town of Dallas as the target.

Michelle Malkin notes a number of more recent instances in which Lefties blamed the right for killings the right had nothing to do with. The toxic post-Tucson libels from the Left are indeed nothing new.

Enough!

I was not intending to post on the post-Tucson controversy. I was busy this past weekend and have had energy issues since. And I did not want to repeat what others have said. (I have tweeted on the subject though. Don’t forget that I have a tweeter feed on the right, no pun intended.)

But Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s little piece this week increased my energy greatly. It is the same old garbage blaming Dallas for the Kennedy assassination. It rehashes the line that Dallas was a right-wing city that killed Kennedy.

This brings back bad memories. I grew up in Dallas. I was very young in the Sixties, too young to remember the assassination itself. But I remember some of the aftermath, of the price Dallas paid for being the unfortunate location of the tragedy. I particularly remember my mom rightly getting angry as we watched CBS’s Eric Sevareid calling Dallas “an adolescent city with adolescent ways.”

It did not matter to the Dallas bashers then or to RFK, Jr. today that blaming right-wing Dallas is absurd. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. He even tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Those right-wingers in Dallas had nothing to do with the assassination and obviously had zero influence on Oswald. There is evidence he was shooting at them instead (the Edwin Walker assassination attempt).

I had thought that this Dallas Killed Kennedy meme was long dead and gone. But apparently not.

It is not unlike today when Leftists blame Sarah Palin and tea partiers for the Tucson shooting . . . even though one of the shooters’ favorite books is The Communist Manifesto. What a big influence Palin is on him! Leftists also blame Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh . . . even though Loughner did not listen to talk radio. As I tweeted Mark Levin, he must have amazing mind control powers!

RFK, Jr. is quite right that the atmosphere surrounding the Kennedy assassination and that surrounding the Tucson tragedy have much in common. The thing is it is the libels of sniveling Lefty smear merchants like him that is the chief commonality.

I could go on, but instead I will praise a man of the Left for standing up and saying enough of this. I will praise Obama. Yes, you read that right. His speech last night was needful and, yes, presidential. He winsomely but firmly stated that the blaming of conservatives for Tucson is not only unhelpful, but also flat wrong. Kudos to him for stepping up.

Let us hope his clear statement brings a quick end to the poisonous libels.

You might like your Christmas tree just a bit much . . .

. . . if you use the octave of Epiphany as an excuse to light it up.

Yes, I am talking about yours truly. Yes, I promise to take it down this week . . . well, at least before Lent.

Ad Orientem John Nails It

In response to the “marriage” of two lesbians by a “bishop” of The Episcopal “Church”, John of Ad Orientem says something of import better than I could:

I think it was Perry Robinson who came up with the great line that in Christianity, you are who you are in communion with. With that in mind, you do know that you belong to the same church as these people, right? And that you are in full communion with the bishop who just blessed this "marriage," right? I am slow. So please indulge me and explain how anyone who self identifies as a Christian can in good conscience belong to a church that is by any reasonable standard utterly apostate. And yes, a church that does these things and ordains and promotes clergy who call abortion a blessing has ceased to be Christian. Do you call sinners into the Episcopal Church for their salvation? Do you in all honesty believe that the Episcopal Church is truly a branch of the catholic church spoken of in the ancient creeds? Do you seriously doubt for even an instant that if any of the Fathers of the Church walked the Earth today, that they would shout "ANATHEMA!" at the Episcopal Church?

Exactly. Now as I’ve said before, I respect those orthodox who feel they should endure in The Episcopal Church. But I think their position untenable.

What John posted could be applied to other mainline Protestant denominations as well. Looking back at my post-college church searches, I rejected churches in most mainline denominations out of hand for the reasons John spells out, although my ecclesiology was not so well developed as to think in John’s terms. I did know that I did not want to be in any denomination in which outrages against The Faith were committed, tolerated, and even promoted. And that ruled out the mainline Presbyterian Church in which I grew up, among others. I was tired of The Faith being undermined and my conscience outraged by my own church.

I could say more. But, like the title says, John nails it.

And thanks to the Good Professor for bringing this to my attention.

TEC Bishop Marries Two Lesbians (Yawn)

You knew it was coming. The TEC “Bishop” of Massachusetts, Thomas Shaw has “married” two lesbians, namely Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of Episcopal Divinity School and priestess of Moloch, and Canon Mally Lloyd.

So this week, there will be another dithering statement of concern from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the usual statements of joy/condemnation from the usual churchly people. There will continue to be no discipline of The Episcopal “Church”. In other words, life will go on as usual . . . which pretty much illustrates what is wrong with the Anglican Communion.

Throw some rice at Christopher Johnson for alerting me to the blessed event.

Oh, this is the Abomination of the Week, by the way. *yawn* Wake me when The Episcopal “Church” marries three lesbians.