But for people like Dan Savage who decided to use his opportunity to speak against anti-bullying as a bully pulpit, the level of hate and obscenity, in what is supposed to be a HIGH SCHOOL event, is really telling about what they gays are thinking these days.

Now every man (even gay men) in this country are entitled to their opinions and they don’t have to accept the tenets of Scripture, even if they misunderstand them and then use “pansy-assed” straw man attacks to justify their ignorance. 

First of, Mr. Savage, if you knew anything about Scripture, outside of your hate-filled rhetoric, you would know that:

1. While the Bible has specific guidelines on the keeping and treatment of slaves, there is nothing in Scripture that says requires slavery.  Slavery was a custom that was part of human society since the earliest days of human history.  Now I’m no advocate for slavery, but the Bible’s position on the matter is not wrong.  In situations where slavery (or in these days, servitude) is still going on, Christians were commanded to treat their servants with respect and care – because they were just as much God’s people as those that kept slaves.
2. Stoning of virgins – First off, you have no idea what you’re talking about with respect to this point.  Essentially, what you are doing is reading the law and only seeing the surface.  But to understand why, you need to understand the customs and the reasonings behind it.

   In Hebrew custom, the father was to present his daughter to the groom as a virgin as part of a betrothal.  The groom paid a price for his bride to the parents of the bride, in exchange for the bride, thus setting the ketubah.  Like any other legal contract, if the bride was found not to be a virgin, the contract was in default because the groom did not receive what he paid for – a chaste virgin to be his wife.  This is why the wife was stoned, because she became a disgrace and dishonor to the family and an abomination to the groom who paid for her.

   The ketubah is not a strange thing – in fact, we do the same thing in our society – it’s called a marriage license and it is signed by witnesses that the bride and groom entered into the marital contract of their own accord.  Or did you not know that?

   Unlike our country, where sexuality runs rampant, to the point where the obscene is the norm, Hebrew society practiced morality as a function of law.  This is not uncommon because there are morality laws on the books in the US, even, such as adultery.  In Israel, rampant sexuality was not permitted in society.  I guess you wouldn’t understand, since you enjoy waving your middle finger around at people who choose morality.

   Since marriages are not arranged in betrothal today, it’s up to the couple to accept and love one another and decide to live with one another.  But even in our culture, there are a great number of people who would be willing to throw rocks at a person who has been unfaithful or lied about his/her sexual history.  Or is the Bible wrong on that point, too?

   Just because you disagree with it, doesn’t make it wrong.

Mr. Savage, Christians are not “pansy-assed”.  In fact, if you ever want to go a round with me in the ring, bring it – I’ll revel in the opportunity.  But Christ also taught us that we as Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek when we’re struck.  So I applaud the young men and women who decided that Mr. Savage’s comments weren’t worth sitting in the room to hear – they had hit their level of tolerance.

So, I guess I won’t get that scrap with you.  But God says “vengeance is mine – I will repay”.  And we’ll see how long you maintain your arrogant, defiant attitude when you are forced to your knees before an Almighty God.

Turns out, over the weekend during the Easter Egg Roll activities at the White House, there was a basketball clinic featuring pro b-ball players. And you know, it can only be an Obama event with something that draws attention to El Presidente’s “awesomeness”.

Gak.

In any case, though, here’s how I think an Obama basketball might be actually a good thing to have:

5. That way, we all can pretend that it’s his head that’s being bounced around – a prospect that would be great stress relief, particularly over the high gas prices, exploding national debt to which Obama promised he wouldn’t add a single dime, and the insanity of bilking millionaires for 30% of their earnings, just because Warren Buffet says so.

4. It would look like just like Obama’s approval rating.

3. It would remind us of how Obama tries to govern, driving down the center, pissing everyone off.  (hat tip: Letterman)

2. It reminds us of the classic excuse for why the Utah Jazz, Orlando Magic, or the Phoenix Suns never won an NBA title, a team in “transition”.  I say transitioning from bad to worse.

1. It would make a video like this, which one would think couldn’t get any funnier, hysterical:

Stay rabid, my friends.

Sometimes, people just don’t get it.  Or maybe they do and they just don’t want to admit it because if they do, it shows that they are very wrong about things.

I personally believe we need voter ID laws.  Now before all you lib-crats out there begin having kittens about disenfranchisement and people being denied their vote, perhaps they should see this latest stunt by Project Veritas’ own James O’Keefe.

By the way, if you don’t remember, O’Keefe was the guy who embarrassed organizations like Planned Parenthood, ACORN, Medicaid, and NPR by showing different aspects of fraud and putting them out there on video.

So, O’Keefe rolls into Eric Holders voting district and asks for Mr. Holder’s ballot for the primary.  The election judge just gives it to him, even after he suggested that he be asked to show ID.

If O’Keefe can roll in and claim the ballot of the Attorney General (interesting how the election judge had no clue who Eric Holder was) without any suspicion, perhaps Holder might rethink this whole voter ID thing?

I doubt it.  Never let common sense and logic stand in the way of an agenda, right?

This little bit of ownage was even better than back in 2005 when a libertarian activist petitioned the board of the town of Weare, New Hampshire to declare eminent domain on the childhood home of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, because of how he ruled during the Kelo v. New London decision.  The petition was to take that location and develop it into a hotel and tourist attraction, which would provide higher taxes to the town of Weare.  While it didn’t happen, it very well could have, had the board voted for it.  Souter got away with his house, but the point was made.

Perhaps this is how we do activism now.  Either way, O’Keefe was pretty “fast” and I’m sure Holder was “furious”.

Okay, bad joke – it’s Monday.  I don’t care.

Stay Rabid, my friends.

One thing that did surface that was of particular interest was that it was noted that Professor Einstein couldn’t even come to a solution on how to have peace in the Middle East.  He had quite a bit of thought on the topic, but for some reason, just couldn’t figure out a way to make the Arabs, Jews, Christians, and the rest of the heathen play together in the same sandbox without kicking each other’s sand castle down in honor of their religion.

Interestingly, Benjamin Netanyahu’s IQ is estimated to be around 180, making the Israeli leader smarter than the man equated to have super-genius.  Einstein’s IQ is rated at about 160.  I guess with one of the smartest men in the political world currently sitting in the Middle East and debating the very thing that Einstein couldn’t figure out, I guess we should be expecting great things…?

Nah.  Won’t happen – because the problem is not one of academics, but intolerant ideology – something that doesn’t require high intelligence to have.

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?

STERN: And you’re living in London and you sense what other foreigners feel. Do they like him?

MACPHERSON: I think foreigners like him. He’s very popular.

STERN: Don’t we look good having a black president and everything? Makes us kind of cool.

MACPHERSON: I think it’s more about his policy. But you know there are I understand that there are a lot of people who don’t, you know, don’t want change. “We want change. We want change.” And he says, “I’ll implement change,” and you go, “Oh, actually, I don’t bleeping feel like I want change. It’s too difficult.”

Now, I’m not all that amazed that MacPherson calls herself a socialist; that doesn’t bother me in the slightest.  All looks and no brain, well, that’s the standard fare for a supermodel, methinks.  But what’s funny is that she likes Obama because she’s a socialist, yet, Obama doesn’t believe himself to be a socialist.

Plenty of times throughout his early presidency, Obama has deflected claims that he is a socialist or that his policies are “socialistic”.  Yet, when we look at some of his policies, he continuously defers to increasing the size and scope of government because he doesn’t believe in the power of the individual.  His arrogance simply tells him that raising taxes on the rich, taking more and more from people (and particularly, the rich) to allow more and more to hook up to the government spigot.  Or do we need yet another review of ObamaCare, Cash for Clunkers, and his current tax plan?

So Obama is not a socialist; he just advocates for things that socialists, like Elle MacPherson, the Occupy crowd (which is raising it’s ugly head again, now that the weather is getting warm) and people like Hugo Chavez really like.  Never mind the comments about “spreading the wealth” around, or some of those lofty comments about how we all have to “work together for our collective salvation”.  Obama isn’t a socialist…

…but Elle likes him anyway.

Someone’s drinking something…with a little more kick than Kool-Aid.

Sure, we are amassing more information today through digital and online means than we have ever before. And while Britannica will still live on as a digital version, one wonders if its end is an end to a way that many kids discovered the world around them.

Turns out, I grew up reading encyclopedias. I was rather bored with television for the most part, so I passed many hours with an encyclopedia in my lap, reading the articles and leapfrogging from one article to the next. From lightbulbs to Otto Lillienthal, Constitution to coral, Tchaikovsky to turtles (not the ninja ones either), I filled my mind with short articles of things, using the pre-cable version of the Discovery channel. I often miss those days, even though the encyclopedia that I read in my youth was a 1969 version – and I’m an 80′s child.

Yeah, I know the pragmatic reason for this move – we live in a world today where it only takes about one minute for a bit of news occurring in Belarus to be on the boards in Boston. A riot breaks out in Cairo and Chicago can get near real-time coverage of the event. But I kind of wonder if we’re losing something with all of this.

I’ve watched newspapers shrink and diminish into nothing because the news that I want to read is more readily available through an aggregation web site (which Germany for some obscure reason wants to tax) than it is through my local print paper. Interestingly, the paper boy tried to sell me a subscription to the paper based on the merits of all the circulars and coupons I could get. Yet, I told him that I can do better shopping online too. Sorry kid.

In any case, I’m not so overly sure why I felt the need to write this article, it’s not of the usual fare that we get around here at The Rabid Conservative, but I guess it just illustrates

More on the downside, Britannica won’t deliver a paper version of the article that details the end of Obama’s presidency. You know, I could read that article over and over and over again.

I guess I’ll just have to get that online too.

Stay rabid, my friends.

But today, for this post, I have to sound off on ABC’s newest attempt at creating entertainment. The new show, GCB, or Good Christian B*tches (later changed to Good Christian Belles) based on the novel of the same name, portrays Christian women as hypocritical and vain egotists claiming to be true believers of the faith.

One particular point of note was the character portrayed by Kristin Chenoweth who made the audacious statement, “cleavage helps your cross hang straight”, when questioned about how a cheerleading outfit looked. With offensive stereotypes abounding to this latest schlock of a show, it’s amazing that such a ball of tripe came from Disney. Generally, the stuff sounds like junk written by a bunch of idiotic teenagers.

The larger view here is that the show paints a horrible picture of what a Christian woman is supposed to be, portrayed by Ms. Chenoweth, a Christian woman herself. Maybe this is how you act, Ms. Chenoweth, but the majority of Christian women would find your portrayal and the like appaling.

Non-Christians that venomously fight against Christians usually come from a strawman position – that is, they mischaractarize Christians as being hick, Bible-thumping, hypocritical retards and then criticize that portrayal. They see the warts that we all have as humans and then gasp when they see them on Christians. And if they don’t see them, well, they just paint them on because they are ashamed of their own warts.

Or as the Bible says:

John 3:19-20 – And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

Christians don’t claim to be perfect – only forgiven. The thing is, as a Christian myself, I have made some serious errors in judgments and some outright rebellious mistakes and egregious sins. I live with that in my own life, as true Christians should.

But for some reason, the liberals in Hollywood have this belief that Christians are santimonious, yet completely hypocritical, yet condemning and preachy. For liberals, Christians are best portrayed as Ned Flanders and his family, except Maude is just like Edie or Susan from Desperate Housewives, another ABC atrocity, which, for some reason, has gone eight seasons.

*sigh* So, GCB’s new acronym is “gross crappy broadcasting”. How’s that.

I guess I can read a book on Sunday nights at 10pm when I turn off ABC – like maybe the Bible, eh?

Faithfully Rabid, my friends.

1. Sandra Fluke gripes and complains that her college’s health plan doesn’t give her access to free contraceptives. She goes before Congress to gripe about it. Rush Limbaugh calls her out on his radio program as a slut and prostitute – since she wants free birth control. Obama calls her up to console her for Rush’s “mean spirited” slander. And suddenly, she gets her 30 days of fame and becomes the new face of the farcical “war on women”.

My wife said to me today that some birth control meds are also prescribed for hormonal imbalance. Okay, I can buy that – but then, it’s no longer a “birth control” medication, but a hormonal regulator. I take an anti-depressant to keep my blood pressure in check, not unusual. And the way I see it, the Church shouldn’t have any problem with it, since the person taking it would be abstinent, but using the pills for another purpose – an off-label use.

Now, so long as the insurance company would pay for an off-label use of birth control pills to control hormones…

Ms. Fluke’s comment’s are just part of the chorus that proves the point that immorality comes with a high price. She wants that price to come down to allow immorality to have a lower cost – that’s what this is about. Whether she personally benefits from this or not is not my concern – I’m not interested in her personal life, so I won’t call her a “slut” or “prostitute”. But I will say that I don’t buy the lie about how Georgetown, a Jesuit university, should spring for her birth control, just because she can’t afford it.

Hold on…let’s unpack this point. According to Georgetown’s own site, tuition at the Law Center is $46,865, not including fees and books. So this girl can go to Georgetown, after attending and graduating from Cornell in 2003, yet she doesn’t have the money for birth control?

Yeah, right folks, this isn’t about helping ‘a poor underprivileged person in need of medication’. This is about advancing the social left’s immoral agenda. She went to Georgetown to further an agenda.

2. This whole thing about so-called “reproductive rights” is a nonsenical farce wrapped up in syntactical absurdity. No one anywhere is telling women they don’t have the right to reproduce (although there are some we wish wouldn’t). But there is no one stopping them from reproducing.

Oh, but it’s not about reproduction is it? It’s about PREVENTING reproduction. So rather than calling it reproductive rights, how about we call it the right to have sex-without-consequences? That is, after all, what the whole thing is about – unless pregnancy is some sort of virus that needs to be eradicated through medication.

But, at the risk of straw man, if pregnancy were a disease to be prevented, then, like AIDS, the best prevention is abstinence. Of course, the social lib-crats don’t want to hear that.

A Personal Statement for Ms. Fluke
Sandy, just so you know, the Democrats will treat you just like a prostitute. They will use you and, after they have had their way with your life, throw you to the side like last week’s news – because you are not important to them in the long run. You’re just another pawn in the Democrats bid to try to get moral high ground on an issue that they have been losing for decades – an issue that contributes to the death of millions of unborn children.

But if that make you feel good and sleep at night, then by all means – go ahead and jump right into that meat grinder.

I’m just sayin’…

Stay rabid my friends.

1. So we’ve all been told about the dangers of eating fast food and how bad it is for us.  Personally, the way I see it, moderation is the key to a healthy diet.  As long as a person isn’t slamming the stuff every day for lunch, I would say eating a Big Mac isn’t going to be as lethal as the health nuts like to tell us.But we found that Big Macs can save lives now.  Take this 45 year old Arizona resident who scaled a radio tower in downtown LA, stripped off all his clothes and demanded hamburgers from McDonalds.  The cops complied and got the guy some food.  While that was quite a stunt, just to get some Mickey D’s, I guess if he didn’t get his Big Mac, he’d be “special sauce” on the pavement below.Was that a little over-the-top?  Well, perhaps it was, given that he was on a tall radio tower.




2. I’m not sure what the obsession is for women to get massive breast implants.  I can see it for women who have had mastectomies or something, or maybe for the gal who needs a few more digits in her va-voom.  But when women like Sheyla Hershey decide that too much is never enough and go up to…oh…say a 38KKK, well, that’s pretty crazy.But, when she was driving to pick up her hubby after a Super Bowl party, Ms. Hershey wrapped her car around a tree.  The airbags didn’t deploy, however, the silicone implants cushioned her from nosing into the steering wheel.She was on some heavy meds at the time of the crash, so she could find herself being charged with a DUI.  But for now, the record-holding Hershey gets to live another day – perhaps to try and break her own record.  Hopefully she doesn’t start influencing the tides or something.

My guess, though, is an augmented woman with a Big Mac, though, could be very dangerous – so I recommend caution, at least until the neutrinos change direction.

Stay rabid, my friends.

Of course, homosexuals have always been pushing to have “class status” – but they want to be treated like some other minority class.  But that’s a different argument for a different day.

Decisions like these stand against everything that the Founders sought to avoid.  The idea behind a constitutional republic that is built around democracy is that majority rules.  Liberals are pretty quick to point that out when it suits them.  However, when it comes to California’s Proposition 8 which bans homosexual marriage by constitutional referendum, suddenly, it doesn’t matter what the people say.  Two judges have effectively overrode 52% of the Californian voting population.

Another sickening reminder that our country has deviated from what the Framers had intended – how a handful of people can defy the will of the people.  When the people decides to amend their constitution through a majority vote, the amendment becomes constitutional because it is part of the constitution.

Or can someone out there explain whether prohibition was constitutional when it was passed.  Or was its repeal constitutional?

This is what happens when the judiciary goes messing around with a constitution.