Saturday, June 27, 2015

Blogging Update — On Hiatus, Until?

Getting away from the discouraging news we’ve faced the last few days, I hope your summer is going well.

It is hard to believe that June is almost over, as well as half the year. Now is the time when things start slowing down, as I’ve noticed in the nine and a half years I’ve been blogging here.

With that in mind, I’ve decided that (with the exception of of anything of interest I wish to comment on or report) I’m going to take a hiatus from blogging the rest of the summer

I’ve been here typing away since January of 2006, when I was living in Marin County, CA. Since that time, I moved across the country a year later to the Washington DC area, and got to see and take part in a lot of things, as well as meet people, I probably wouldn’t have unless I’d started my little corner in the blogosphere.

But times change. Back when I started, there were a lot of smaller blogs who rose to prominence because they had interesting stories, found a niche, and had their stuff mentioned that they had an endurance. Today, independent blogs aren’t really what they once were. Many have decided to get out of the game, or perhaps become a contributor to an online news source. Yet in all those years, I wanted to continue my independence, plus the fact that I have a full-time day gig that doesn’t involve politics, kept me from doing this full-time. It was still a goal.

Regardless of whether or not you’re an independent blogger or get to a point where you do it professionally, it has to be fun. That’s the key. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten to a point where blogging just hasn’t been fun.

Some of it started after the November 2012 Presidential election, and continued with the 2013 kneecapping of the GOP Virginia ticket by the GOP establishment, and the full-scale surrender of the GOP leadership in Congress, who have now become the biggest enablers of Richard Milhous-Hussein Obama’s transformation of America (funding unconstitutional amnesty, Obamacare, giving him trade power). It is one thing to be outraged at what Obama is and has been doing. But having the so called “opposition party” enable it has been equally outraged, to the point where I’m “outraged out.”

But my discontent isn’t just political, it’s mostly personal as well. Back in March of 2014, in a post about my father’s miraculous recovery from an aortic aneurysm, I wrote the following:
Those closest to me know that this past year has been one of the most difficult in my life, probably since the struggles I faced when I first left home about this time 22 years ago to enter the "real world." In the last few months, I've undergone personal loss and heartbreak that has forced a great deal of self-examination.
I’m now ready to reveal to you, my friends, the personal crisis I’ve been going through. In the fall of 2013, a mutual decision was made by my wife and I to separate. We are planning to formally file for divorce this summer. Though it has been an amicable process (we are probably greater friends now and dedicated to being good co-parents to our son) for which we are both grateful, it has been one of loss, sadness and heartbreak, sometimes I've been too brave or too proud to show my hurt. Unless you’ve gone through it yourself, you cannot comprehend the heartbreak, and even sense of failure you feel, at the ending of a marriage.

As I mentioned also back in March 2014, all of these trials have brought me back to a right relationship with God. But just because of that, I’m by no means perfect, or “better than” anyone.  I’m just forgiven, even though I stumble every day, sometimes many times and of my own choice.

I know more than ever I am a fallen, broken creature, just as the rest of the world. Though I’m still passionate about conservatism and those ideals that I believe have and will work, I think (as referenced after the Charleston shooting) all of our problems we face today are not of a political nature, and no political solution will fix.

It is a heart problem. I’m at the point where I believe our only hope as a nation won’t be found in any human, it will only be found in a spiritual solution.

With that in mind, I’m going to use this hiatus for rest, recovery, and also prayer for guidance…not only for my own life, but the direction of my future writing projects.

But I won’t be gone completely. Feel free to e-mail (maroonedinmarin-at-yahoo), contact me on my Facebook page, or follow me on Twitter. I’ll be showing up there, so please keep in touch!

And have a great rest of the summer!

A Central Texas sunset -- March 2015

The Same Obama Who Claimed POTUS "Works For Everybody, Not Some" Uses The People's House To Flip Off Same Sex Marriage Opponents

Flashback to September 2012, on the David Letterman show, when Richard Milhous-Hussein Obama made an appearance to chide Mittens Romney, the worst GOP Presidential candidate ever, over his "47 percent" comment.

"I don't know what he was referring to but I can tell you this. When I won in 2008, 47% of the American people voted for John McCain, they didn't vote for me. And what I said on election night was, 'Even though you didn't vote for me, I hear your voices and I'm going to work as hard as I can to be your president.' And one of the things that I've learned as president is you represent the entire country. And when I meet Republicans, as I'm traveling around the country, they are hard-working family people who care deeply about this country. And my expectation is if you want to be president, then you've got to work for everybody not just for some."

That was then. Last night, Obama used the White House, the property of the American people, to show just who he stands with, besides the Muslims.

So to those of us who disagree with same sex marraige, and/or the way it was foisted onto the American people, here's what Obama is using the people's house to tell us.

Utter disrespect. And just because he has the title of the President doesn't mean I have to show respect to someone who I believe is the embodiment of all that is evil in America.

Oh, and one more thing, it's OUR house, not your house, you narcissistic SOB!

Friday, June 26, 2015

While Legalized Gay Marriage Is Being Celebrated...

All Americans--regardless of race gender, ethnicity, even sexual orientation--lost this morning one of the most fundamental rights of our republic, one that Americans throughout the ages have fought and even given their lives in defending.

The right, guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, to having a say (otherwise defined as a vote) in making state laws via the state constitutional amendment process.

Time and time again, a state constitutional amendment process in which propositions are voted upon, has the voice of the people silenced by oligarchs in black robes when the vote doesn't go down the way the liberals want it to go. In doing so, these unelected judges make law from the bench.

It happened again today, as the US Supreme Court decided to overrule the votes of millions of Americans who were opposed to the concept of marriage being anything other than the union of one man and one woman, regardless of the fact that the concept of marriage is not a right that was established by any government, let alone the United States. It is a religious ceremony that existed thousands of years before the founding of this nation. Thus, the five liberal justices of the Supreme Court, have made a right that did not exist in the Constitution, arrogantly thinking their thought process is higher than the laws of nature and nature's God.

And all you liberals, who have not gotten over Bush vs. Gore, and too busy screaming about people being denied the right to vote, you're silent today because your in the streets celebrating and shaking your fist at the heavens, thinking your "religion" of liberalism now trumps any other belief system. You hypocrites!  You just denied the right of millions of Americans to decide state law via the ballot initiatives.  You show today you only care about voting rights only when you need more time to manufacture enough votes to put your candidates into office.

Just like abortion laws, "same-sex" marriage laws should have been left to the states to decide.  Even then, there are more complicated matters to decide, such as the rights of religious liberties issues.

Liberals and same-sex marriage supporters on the right/libertarian side, use the "equality" argument. "You can't tell someone who they can and can't love." Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. It is the emotional argument made to sugar coat and hide the true aims of the "same-sex" marriage crowd.

Why do I say that? Listen to "America's Pastor," the Rev. Billy Graham, starting at 2:09 in this clip from a 1978 crusade in Toronto, Canada.

"If the home goes, the nation is going to go."

Now, keep in mind the words of Rev. Graham as you watch Glenn Beck from 2013 reference a speech by LGBT activist Masha Gessen, who stated that the fight over so-called "gay marriage" is a 'lie' to meant to destroy the concept of marriage.

And consider this, like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley found out when she decided (mistakenly, I might add) to get rid of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state grounds, if you give the cultural Marxists on the Left an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll never be satisfied, which is why you cannot negotiate with the Left.

Justice Alito realized the implications of this thinking in his dissent (Legal Insurrection).
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
If you want more of an example of what Alito is warning about, see what happened up north when Canada made same-sex marriage legal, and how Biblical passages against homosexuality have been ruled "hate speech." 

Destruction of the family is one of the tenants of Marxism. It's not just economic, look at all the other assaults on the family up to now that have weakened it...abortion-on-demand, radical feminism, and now "gay marriage."  Not just the family, it is also religious liberty at stake. Marxists have been threatened by religion, because no power can be higher than the state.

Also, one of the consequences of today's decision is, once you go down the slippery slope of redefining marriage for one group, you have to do it for other groups (Politico).
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.
Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
... Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
So while homosexuals feel a right has been given to them, the rights of all Americans are threatened because of this judicial activism yesterday and today.

And the nation is much weaker and less free because of it.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

What Is Wrong In America Today?

Last night, an unspeakable tragedy in a Charleston, South Carolina church. Nine murdered in cold blood by a soulless creature.

Instead of unifying with the victims and their families, the usual suspects come out to push their agendas: blaming whites, conservatives, gun owners for this horror. Instead of unifying and representing the whole nation, Richard Milhous Obama comes out, like a buzzard, preying on this tragedy to disarm law-abiding citizens, while attacking opponents of gun control and this nation in the process. He claims no where else in the civilized world is this type of killing happening, yet he could not be bothered to send a US representative to France when Islamists murdered employees at Charlie Hebdo, and Obama is silent about the beheadings, crucifixions, and mass killings of Christians in the Middle East by Islamists.

Violent criminals get killed by police and become martyrs, which leads to police officers being killed in ambush attacks. Riots in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD. Calls of "police brutality" at pool parties in McKinney, TX and another town recently in Ohio.

What is wrong in America today?

This is just my opinion, and it's come from a lot of thought over the last few months, and even last few weeks.  Obama, the libs, and the gun-grabbers can get all the gun control laws they want, and it won't stop horrible tragedies like Charleston or Sandy Hook.  Just like all the regulations and other nonsense he will do to try and stop the fraud known as gloBULL warming won't cool the planet. It is the supreme arrogance, thinking that their human power is the be-all and end-all.

Background checks, gun-free zones, gun locks won't stop what is in the human heart. You can try and change behavior, but no law, no act of Congress, no President, no political party, can change someone's heart.

It's evident to me that the solution to what is wrong in our country is not completely a political one. The problem we have in America today, I believe, is a spiritual and moral bankruptcy. It is one that didn't start overnight, and won't go away overnight either.

I'm not trying to sound like a preacher, and I'm not trying to tell someone how to live their life, because God knows I have enough trouble living my own. But how many people over the age of 50 will tell us how much this nation has changed over the last few decades, starting to when governments and the courts started telling God he must get out of the public square.

Humans are imperfect, and never will attain perfection. We are all broken people, and we are looking for something to fix that brokenness. People are looking for meaning, for something to take away the emptiness. People are obsessed with money, their stature, pop-culture icons. Thanksgiving cannot go by without people camping out at stores to go on rampages for Black Friday sales, going at each other like animals over some gadget or inanimate object, just for a temporary fix. People are doped up on anti-depressants, or take a number of drugs (legal or illegal) and alcohol, only to get rid of the emptiness and try to find all the wrong things.

There is no political solution to the heart of what ails our nation today. In fact, I think the solution to our problems can largely be found in what the nine people were doing in that church.

They were on their knees, earnestly seeking God.

(2 Chronicles 7:14)

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Neil Peart Proves He Is An Ignorant Sellout, Bashes Rand Paul--"Hates Women, Brown People"

Anyone who knew me as far back as 1984 knew I was a fanatical fan of the band Rush.

They were my first concert, back at the (now demolished) Hemisfair Arena in San Antonio in 1986. I even received a handwritten postcard from drummer and lyricist Neil Peart right before the show in response to a fan letter I sent him. They were great musicians, and what really grabbed my attention besides the musicianship were lyrics like those found in "Subdivisions," "Anthem," "2112," many of which were influenced by Ayn Rand. These lyrics spoke of individuality, non-conformity, and being a free thinker.

Peart told Creem magazine in 1981, around the time they hit their big success album "Moving Pictures."
"I think everything I do has Howard Roark [the non-conformist, protagonist of Rand's The Fountainhead] in it, you know, as much as anything. The person I write for is Howard Roark."
However, Peart and Rush appear to be writing more these days for another character of The Fountainhead, Peter Keating, the polar opposite of Roark, in that Keating was a conformist who craved the approval of his superiors. He's even come a long way from someone who once said "It is a fundemental tenant of my personal philosophy that people should believe what they choose to believe." That Neil Peart and Rush are dead.

Why? The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Rolling Stone(d) magazine, beckoned. I remember several RS writers saying they'd refuse to nominate Rush into the Hall of Fame, because of their lyrical content (music "writers" in the late 1970s called them "fascist"). Even though they claimed they didn't want the Hall of Fame, Rush's sellout began.

In 2007, Rush released "Snakes and Arrows," (first album of theirs I never bought) an album that was full of faith bashing lyrics by the athiest/agnostic Peart, influenced in part by the hater known as Richard Dawkins. Then came the Stephen Cobert show appearance, and the sellout to the Left-wing pop-culture gods began. The band then attacked Rush Limbaugh in 2012 (for which I announced here they had lost me as a fan).

This week, they completed their sellout to the Left-wing, gods of pop-culture, just for the thrill that will getcha when you get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone(d), with the supposed intellectual Peart displaying his colossal ignorance by slandering Senator and GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul as someone who "hates women and brown people" (Reason).

So I imagine that some fans may be distressed to learn that, according to this excellent new Rolling Stone profile of the band, Peart's self-described "bleeding-heart libertarian" tendencies include automatically voting Democrat, and sending cease-and-desist letters to an allegedly racist Rand Paul: 
Rush's earlier musical take on Rand, 1975's unimaginatively titled "Anthem," is more problematic [than 2112], railing against the kind of generosity that Peart now routinely practices: "Begging hands and bleeding hearts will/Only cry out for more." And "The Trees," an allegorical power ballad about maples dooming a forest by agitating for "equal rights" with lofty oaks, was strident enough to convince a young Rand Paul that he had finally found a right-wing rock band. 
Peart outgrew his Ayn Rand phase years ago, and now describes himself as a "bleeding-heart libertarian," citing his trips to Africa as transformative. He claims to stand by the message of "The Trees," but other than that, his bleeding-heart side seems dominant. Peart just became a U.S. citizen, and he is unlikely to vote for Rand Paul, or any Republican. Peart says that it's "very obvious" that Paul "hates women and brown people" — and Rush sent a cease-and-desist order to get Paul to stop quoting "The Trees" in his speeches. 
"For a person of my sensibility, you're only left with the Democratic party," says Peart, who also calls George W. Bush "an instrument of evil." "If you're a compassionate person at all. The whole health-care thing — denying mercy to suffering people? What? This is Christian?" 
Thus proving once again that politics and music are like bourbon and vodka—generally a bad idea to mix, especially on those rare occasions when they seem to taste great together. 
First of all, why do I need a lecture from a professed non-believer about how to be a Christian, if Peart mistakenly thinks Christianity is about generosity and compassion. Second of all, consider the fact that Peart just insulted and publicly attacked a fan by the name of Rand Paul, who I'm sure had supported him and the band for many years. What a classless jerk! He acts like a lot of atheists/agnostics whom I've had the misfortune to come across--angry and bitter people.

And as far as Rand Paul supposedly hating women and "brown people" (gee Neil, are you a bigot?) let me introduce you to an online friend by the name of Zuri Davis writing at
In a recent interview with The Rolling Stone, Rush’s Neil Peart said Rand Paul “hates women and brown people.” Peart, a self-described “bleeding heart libertarian,” also said “For a person of my sensibility, you’re only left with the Democratic party.”
As a woman who is brown, a few thoughts.
I typically run in conservative and libertarian circles, where Peart apparently believes sexism and racism is abound. Though I am still waiting for someone to tell me to get back in the kitchen or go pick some cotton, I have heard much worse, scarier things within these groups.
Dark tales of “equality under the law.” Folklore regarding something called a “free market.” The mysterious promotion of “economic prosperity.” Advancing something sinister called “liberty.” Protecting a mythical creature called “the Constitution.”
These ideas and values helped create a level of happiness without parallel in history—they all contributed to the American Dream.
The American Dream is not a dog, a house, and a white picket fence. Rather, it is the uninhibited opportunity to obtain such wealth and happiness. Though this does not mean we will all be millionaires, it means we all have an opportunity to prosper.
Sen. Paul the supposed bigot and misogynist took up for Ms. Davis after she was attacked on Facebook for voicing her support for him (The Blaze).
“Last night a Facebook notification showed up on my screen. A friend had posted a picture to my wall. What I saw disgusted me.”
That’s how Zuri Davis, 19, describes the moment she saw a Facebook post targeting her for being a black, female supporter of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
A FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN who is standing with Rand,” the post said. “She must not realize the platform. The fact he’s pretty much regarded as racist, sexist, a**hole along with the rest of his party.”
“Honey, honey, honey,” it added.
There is your bigotry and hatred of women, Neil! From one of your fellow liberal Democrats who attacked a black woman for daring to be an individual and not part of a collective. You wrote about that once, didn't you, in "Subdivisions"?

But I guess "glittering prizes and endless compromises," as well as living in the socialist hell-hole of Santa Monica, will shatter one's integrity.