Got your attention? The Obama Administration (and the entire United States government) uses your money, in a time where the US public is saddled with an unprecedented amount of debt, to give scores of millions of dollars (some years nearly $100 million) to the People’s Republic of China. The PRC is engaged in an active program of genocide against the people of Tibet.

Remember, there is an unrestricted influx of Chinese migrants to Tibet, often with government subsidies, and, along with forced assimilation, this is further marginalizing the Tibetan people and threatens to make Tibetans a minority in their own homeland. These are acts of genocide under international law. And US taxpayers–that’s you and me–are supporting it.

Now that I have your attention, I would like to point out that Republicans do it too, but my focus is Obama and the Democrats, because they are in charge right now. And Democrats claim to champion human rights, yet fund genocide with taxpayer dollars.

If I were you, I’d write my representatives and my senators and ask “why?”

I’m writing my Republican representative to ask this question, because Republicans control the House, and spending has to originate there.


The Guardian reports that five Tibetans lit themselves on fire to protest Communist Chinese rule.  However, the Guardian failed to report what Chinese rule entails for Tibet, which is an important detail given that self-immolation is a decidedly extreme form of political protest.

Guardian reporters make oblique references to “patriotic education” but this is a very weak description of what amounts to an overall campaign of genocide by the Chinese against the people of Tibet.

And make no mistake, what is going on in Tibet is no mere political occupation, the Chinese have an active policy of genocide against the Tibetans. There is an unrestricted influx of Chinese migrants to Tibet, often with government subsidies, and, along with forced assimilation, this is further marginalizing the Tibetan people and threatens to make Tibetans a minority in their own homeland.

Put in that context, these sorts of extreme protests don’t seem so extreme.  


Dear GOP…

Your candidate effectively lost this race by a few hundred thousand votes.

You do realize you can make up that deficit from your own base, don’t you? Here’s some free advice: instead of giving us a candidate who tries to appeal to people who will never vote for him, why don’t you give us someone who wants OUR votes.

The ONLY reason I voted for Romney is because 1.) He’s not Obama, and 2.) I didn’t feel particularly strongly about any of the 3rd party candidates on the ballot. Candidates who elicit that kind of support from their own base don’t win elections.

The Daily Beast ran an article purportedly authored by an anonymous homosexual employee of Chick-Fil-A.  And of course, the bias of the publication is that this person has a perfectly reasonable point of view.  Here is an example of that point of view:

“Never before have I been so grateful that I have tomorrow off.  Customers sang “God Bless America” in the dining room. They vocalized their support for “family values” in a way that made me want to vomit.”

But this employee later admits: “I can’t tell you much more about the customers today, because of my limited contact with them. I work in the kitchen, so I don’t see much of the clientele.”

So, she knows they were expressing family values in a way that makes her want to vomit, even though she didn’t have customer contact?  I guess because they’re Christians, and she clearly feels uncomfortable around large gatherings of Christians, she feels comfortable making such a statement.

And that’s what struck me in particular about this article.  We have an employee who identifies as homosexual (and nothing else, apparently) who was deeply disturbed by the fact that Christians were gathering in public and doing things like singing “‘God Bless America’ in the dining room.”

I’m sorry… if I implied that homosexuals gathering and singing some protest song or another was the least bit inappropriate, I’d be roundly denounced as a “homophobe” and an anti-Gay bigot.  But I’m supposed to feel sorry for this employee who clearly doesn’t like Christians getting together and socializing in public.  Most news coverage won’t even catch this anti-Christian bias.   They will simply declare the protesters pro-Gay, and leave it at that.

But if the protesters really were pro-Gay, like they suggest, they would protest the consumption of Saudi oil, the purchase of which supports a regime that punishes homosexuals by laws; these punishments include the death penalty. They don’t, they only go after openly Christian fast food companies.

They claim to be “pro-Gay,” and they may even think they’re “pro-Gay,” but they’re really just anti-Christian.

The Daily Beast article can be found at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/02/a-gay-chick-fil-a-employee-speaks-out.html

Anyone who knows Gainesville, Florida knows it is overrun by holier-than-thou transplanted Yankee liberals whose hatred of Southerners is only matched by their hatred of Christianity and traditional Western values in general.  Somehow, it is these people who have a death-grip on local government, aided, in part by student voters who don’t even live here.

So I’m always pleasantly surprised by things like what I saw on Wednesday.  But first, a little background. 

Chick-Fil-A has come under fire recently for being “anti-Gay.”  This came about due to the fact that the head of the company, a devout Christian, was asked essentially about what the Bible has to say on the issue of same-sex-marriage.  This has lead to the predictable wailing and gnashing of teeth by just about every far-left social activist organization.  They call for boycotts of Chick-Fil-A on the ground that they’re “anti-Gay.”

The mayors of Chicago and Boston have gotten into the act as well claiming that Christian values aren’t compatible with their cities and that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome.

Well, on Wednesday, there was the opposite of a boycott.  Instead, Chick-Fil-As across the United States were inundated by record numbers of customers.  When I drove past ours located on Archer Rd., I noted that the parking lot was full, the lobby was standing room only, and I couldn’t tell where the beginning of the drive-through line was, because traffic was backed up west on Archer Rd. all the way to I-75.

In the interest of fairness, I should point out that, this being a college town, someone was able to round up some students from campus (looked like fewer than 20) to stage an anti-Christian protest while claiming to be pro-Gay.   And this is really the heart of the matter.  Because yesterday, and today, that’s all my leftist acquaintances have been talking about… how “anti-Gay” (and therefore “evil”) all the people who went to Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday are. 

This just shows that the Left does not understand this Chick-Fil-A thing at all.  What we saw on Wednesday were Christians reacting to anti-Christian hate… because that’s what it is, and Christians are tired of it.  

All this started because someone effectively asked a devout Christian what the Bible says about homosexuality.  They did not ask a devout Muslim on the board of OPEC what Islam thinks of homosexuality, and then drum up sentiment against people who sell Middle Eastern oil.  No, they specifically targeted a Christian company.  Let me remind you that in Muslim countries, homosexuals are put to death (but the ostensibly “pro-Gay” protesters don’t care about giving THEM money, otherwise, they’d be pushing domestic oil production). 

The people who are against Chick-Fil-A claim they’re pro-Gay, but they’re really just anti-Christian, and that’s what we’re reacting to. We’re just tired of it. 

According to legend, 2000 years ago, Joseph of Arimathea tarried at Glastonbury with the Holy Grail. At some point during his stay, he thrust his flowering staff (traditionally a sign of God, the Father’s grace) into Wearyall Hill, where it eventually grew into the tree now known as the Glastonbury Thorn. Though the original tree was destroyed by the anti-traditionalist Puritans during the English Civil war, the current tree was propagated from the original.

The Glastonbury Thorn is a hawthorn type tree, notable for the fact that it is biflora, meaning that it flowers at Christmas and in Spring. Ordinary hawthorns only flower in Spring. This tree is associated with legends concerning the founding of Christianity in Britain and as such might be considered at some level a type of religious shrine.

Beginning in the reign of James I, a custom arose of sending the sovereign a flowering branch of the tree each year at Christmastime–specifically the eighth of December.

This year, however, after the Queen received her branch, vandals crept up the hill by night and methodically sawed all the branches from the tree, a blow from which it may not recover.

The articles I’ve read covering this wicked act call it vandalism (I call it what it is–desecration), and it is widely repeated that no one can imagine why anyone would do this.

I can imagine, and I am astonished that no one else has. This is a Christian holy site. Some legends claim it is the spot marking Christianity’s arrival in Britain. The Glastonbury Thorn is the most famous tree in England. An unbiased observer has to consider the likelihood that this is an act of deliberate desecration–specifically, anti-Christian bigotry; in short, what the left likes to call a hate crime.

But the term “hate crime” is not usually applied if the victim is Christian and European.

If the Mother Mosque of America (the first Islamic house of worship in the United States) were bulldozed by parties unknown in the dead of night at the beginning of the Ramadan season, I think the first assumption, not the last, would be that the act was motivated by hatred of Muslims. No one ever assumes–at least not in the papers I read–that vandals might randomly attack a non-Christian site. But when it’s one of the most famous Christian sites in Britain? Just vandals. No speculation as to motive other than vandalism.

Nothing to see here, folks, just your culture being attacked. Move along. Make no connection between this and attacks on public displays of Nativity scenes, Christmas trees, and other symbols of one of our most widely practiced and cherished holy days.

The New Snobs

Recently, I had a bit of a revelation. I’ve made no secret that I wear a tie regularly as I think any adult professional should. I rarely notice my tie because I wear shirts with collars that actually fit my neck, something that the average slob knows nothing about.

I am frequently asked why I wear a tie on days that I do. One American woman, sporting draped Hindu garb and piercings with heavy gold adornments, asked me whether I found it uncomfortable. I just smiled and said that I imagined it was more comfortable and less difficult to maneuver in than voluminous drapings and heavy metal jewelry.

The woman didn’t like that one bit. She responded that she thought ties were a sign of oppression, and she felt sorry for me because I wore one.

I just smiled again and said that I choose to wear a tie, I’m free to do whatever I want, within reason, just like she was free to wear her cumbersome costume. I didn’t approach her to give her a hard time, she came to me to give me a hard time and didn’t like the response she got.

She sniffed at me, said I was welcome to my opinion, and went on her way.

At that point, it occurred to me that maybe it wasn’t concern for me that my tie might be uncomfortable, maybe it makes them uncomfortable.

I’ve heard a lot of criticism of my ties–none of it to do with my choice of pattern and colors. Usually, such criticism is followed by a declaration of how proud that person is never to have worn a tie. I was even told once that people in ties are generally not to be trusted; and that comment was from a person who trusted me.

Recently, I had an epiphany. These people are snobs. I don’t do things the way they do, and look down on me for it. When they can, they take the opportunity to try to get me to behave the way they think I should, assuming that their position is correct and that no one could possibly disagree. If that isn’t a snob, I don’t know what is.