About Me

My photo
I'm a simple man, not a simpleton. The worst thing any of our leaders can do is to get those two things confused. I'm a warrior for those things I believe in. I stand up for my friends, family, God, and country. All I truly want is for the government to stay as far out of my life as I can get it. Oh and just in case you haven't guessed it; I'm conservative in my bones.


Custom Search

Saturday, November 22, 2008

War of Ideas

The fact that I've got people like chuck, Joe, and Pasadena reaching out to me, does give me hope. I do hold out hope that our country CAN be turned around. But I fear that there will be a cost in blood to get it accomplished.

This is not because I think Social and fiscal conservatives are going to push it to that point. I think that the level of gutteral hatred that the left has for us is what will do it. They have blood in the water and are just looking for a reason to escalate the confrontation. From one end of this country to the other, leftists scream and attack christians and conservatives in ways that would have been unheard of at any other decade in our history.

At times when we take a stand and push back their corrupting agendas (prop 8 for instance) the hatred comes out and spews accross the country. Look at what they did to that poor old church lady that just went out to calmly have her say. She was physically accosted and shouted down. Freedom of speech is only tolerated by the left when it's their views being presented. If you dissent then you're a bigot and racist.This type of hatred does not go away. This type of rage will only increase the more people like those of us on this blog and others like it, continue to bring the truths to the light of day.

Soon, very soon in my humble opinion, we will have a demonstration that will shed blood. If by some miracle the California Supreme Court decides to do the right thing and uphold a LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Then you will see a LOT of blood in California. From there it will spread. A pundant wrote a book once called "Liberalism is a mental disorder". To me, I see it more as a disease. It spreads and infects others with the hate that is necessary to even TRY to justify the acts it perpetrates. Class envy, Racism, Social relativism are all tools that the left uses to propogate their hate. What I see happening to our society is akin to watching a person at the edge of hysteria. You have to shock an hysterical person with a slap to get them to think again. What shock will it take to bring our thoughts back to reason and away from the madness that is growing.


Joe said...

Glad to be reaching out to you!

I am beginning to think that our front guard must be a full-fledged take-over of the Main Stream Media.

In fact, I have begun a "feeler" series on the subject.

Keep the faith...we CAN do it.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of speech is only tolerated by the left when it's their views being presented. If you dissent then you're a bigot and racist


You have described for us a social cancer; it began as a small one-celled organism called hyphenation. It led us down the path of multiculturalism, and this in turn led us to political correctness and moral relevance. Multiculturalism, as embraced by neo-communists and incorporated into public school curriculum, teaches our children that every other culture is as good as ours is. Every facet of our present society is quick to remind us that speaking honestly and truthfully simply isn’t polite; if we can refrain from hurting other people’s feelings, sooner of later we will all evolve into a more tolerant society, and we’ll all live happily ever after. To this, I say balderdash.

A very wise man once told me, “Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.” His name was Aristotle. And so now, we find ourselves inundated with hyphenated people who have no problem demanding tolerance of their beliefs, while concurrently demanding that we give up ours . . . or hide them from public view. They do not hesitate to prosecute us for speaking truth, as we understand it, for expressing an opinion with which they do not agree, but there is no vacillation perpetuating hateful intolerance of Christians, or Jews, or even “American culture.”

So I believe Aristotle is correct; left uncorrected, such attitudes will destroy us, just as it destroyed the ancient civilizations. There are those who call themselves Americans, but who could not be happier if and when our country crumbles from decay, and a soviet styled society is erected in its place. It would be good if our government’s tolerant and politically correct policies did not add to the problem — but there you have it. It is up to us. I refuse to acquiesce; I refuse to abandon our traditional Judeo-Christian values. I don’t think you intend doing that either.

Semper Fi

shoprat said...

We have something the left will never truly have. Something worth fighting for.

Z said...

Greywolfe, can you enlighten me on your comment and link at my blog?

I'm curious because there isn't anything that isn't true in that song...what's up? The link was one of those 'see snope' (snope's pretty much been shown for what it is by now, by the way...left leaning as possible) things and I'm not even sure WHAT to see snope about in regard to the blog post. thanks.

Greywolfe said...

Oh please understand, the song was great! it was the subject that rang a note. I was trying to debunk a chainletter myth that has some people up in arms. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Anonymous said...

Great blog Oklahoma Patriot. I am looking to add you to my blog roll if you are willing to add me in return. Let me know.

Christopher Hamilton

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

11 23 08

Heh! You are on the money here especially about what speech is free except when it is deemed offensive by the Left. I am utterly disgusted with the legal wrangling that bullied Eharmony into its current position. Although CA law is ambiguous enough to allow gays to marry, I think it is fundamentally screwed up when a PRIVATE COMPANY is legally compelled to serve folk that they don't wish to serve. If they don't wanna serve gay couples because of religious beliefs they shouldn't have to do that.

I am ranting, but I am feeling much of what you say despite a disagreement on how CA Constitutional law is interpreted!

Greywolfe said...

Mahndisa, glad to have your visits as always. I have a question for you. Who, if not the electorate, should have the power to determine the direction of a state? Some states are liberal, some are conservative. California has tried two different methods to protect traditional marriage. First, they passed a law defining it. The courts said that it was unconstitutional. Next, the PEOPLE spoke and passed a constitutional amendment in a legal method determined by the California constitution. I'm not sure where the dabate there is. Except in the fact that those people stood up for what has always been a traditional value and now the only recourse for the people that lost is to have the courts abrogate the lawmakers' and the voters' authorities. If they do that, then California might as well do away with their constitution completely, because it won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

11 22 08

Hello GW:
You are asking a really good question because on the one hand, people should have a say in how they are governed, but on the other hand we are in a representative democracy. The real issue is that the Founding Fathers and the State Constitution writers did not explicitly give a right to marriage. The Federal Const. doesn't have an explicit privacy right, but the CA Const. does. The Courts have interpreted marriage to be a privacy right. They did this in Loving v. Virginia and Perez v. Sharp.

Because of this rather ambiguous wording etc, we are in the mess we are in regarding gay marriage. What happens when the will of the people contradicts the judiciary's interpretation of the law? This is crucial and unknown. You are seeing it happen right now.

I strongly feel that if something is considered a right, it should not be voted on by the public because it is intrinsic. The truth is that if marriage was defined more explicitly from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess anyway.

Greywolfe said...

The answer here is simple. The constitution, the end all be all of what the courts should used to answer questions of legality, has been changed. Therefore the courts must in turn change. Otherwise, they are taking unto themselves the right to write law. That is NOT a purpose of the judiciary.

Ducky's here said...

Well if that's what you want then bring it right here.

“Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society.”

Yes sir, and we ain't tolerating this laissez-faire, military imperialism, "family values" nonsense any longer.

We have talent, education, money and maybe a few surprises. Do NOT underestimate our will to fight.

Greywolfe said...

Ducky I left your comment on here for now, so that you can explain it. Right now i'm baffled as it doesn't fit in context to either the post or the other comments. But if you can't explain I'll be deleting it as a mis-post. And tripe to boot. Again, maybe it's just missing context.

Web Site Hit Counter
discount climbing gear