San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, September 2, 2016

Post-Christian Politicians Make Modesty Illegal

The bikini was invented for the expressed purpose of destroying Christian standards of modesty and inciting sinful lust in men.  Progressives, moral degenerates and other God-haters constantly seek to erode all standards of moral decency and clothing is one of their favorite tools to move the world into a state of moral degeneracy.  Women's clothing, in particular, has long been the focus of attention of those who want to create an imaginary world in which men are not sexually aroused by the sight of the naked female body and all women are treated as subjective works of art to be admired and adored but never lusted after.  Despite the fact that God-hating fashion designers profess to be doing nothing more than tastefully adorning the female body, the fashion changes and designs they bring about persistently and consistently expose more of the erogenous zones of the female body, thus betraying their true goal of selling products by arousing lust in men and empowering women to lead men around by their lustful noses.
Just how far has the departure from biblical standards of modesty gone?  Attend any Evangelical mega-church on any random Sunday and examine the attire of the women.  Ample cleavage and exposed long legs will fill your eyes with lustful delight.  Evangelical Christians who love to say that they seek to live their lives in a way that causes people to come up to them and ask, "What makes you different?" quickly justify their immodest and sinful swimwear by asserting that wearing a conservative swim suit would "make me stick out like a sore thumb at the beach or the pool," thus proving that they want to behave as immodestly as the world when it comes to swimwear.  Not surprisingly, when the contradiction between their alleged doctrine and their actual behavior is pointed out they claim to be unable to understand what they are being told.
The attack by the purveyors of immodesty takes a very strange turn when they are accused of immoral and sinful behavior, especially if they happen to be Christians.  People who would rush to the defense of a woman who claims to have been raped but whose allegations are downplayed because of the belief that she was "looking for it"  will be first in the chorus to inform men that they are guilty of exactly the same thing.  That's right.  Men are "looking for it" when sinful lust wells up in their minds at the sight of erotically clad women.  Half naked women parading around the beach and at the pool are not responsible for the lust that men feel.  No, the men are perverts and it is their fault they feel lust when they see half naked women.  The women, on the other hand, are paragons of moral virtue and victims of the male propensity to see naked women as sex objects.  I have had Christians inform me that I have the problem if I am sexually aroused by the erotically presented female body.  The women doing the presentation, on the other hand, are innocent of all charges and not responsible for anything that takes place in the minds of men.  It is nothing more than a classic case of "blame the victim."
As if the complete adoption of unbiblical cultural standards of dressing were not enough, the French have taken an additional step and criminalized modesty.  Let me tell you about that today.  Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post wrote a column a week or so ago in which she reported the story of how French civil authorities have made wearing modest swimwear a crime.  She wrote, "Once upon a time, a scantily clad lass padding down a beach might cause a riot -- at least of eyeballs eager to extend the sidelong glance.  Today, its the fully clothed woman who overheats the passions in France, where three towns have banned the burkini.  Leave it to the French to criminalize modesty....In the strangest justification offered for the wardrobe ban, Lionell Luca, mayor of Villenueve-Loubet, said it is unhygienic to swim fully clothed. For whom?  The fish?" 
Accompanying the story was a photograph juxtaposing two women at a French beach.  The first woman is wearing a bikini that most likely covers less skin than her underwear would.  The woman next to her is fully covered, including her head, with only her feet, face and hands exposed.   The Muslim woman appears to be enjoying herself as she cavorts in the water.  The French slut appears to be concerned about only one thing, making as many men look at her in lustful delight as possible.
I like the new French law.  I wish the Socialist Democracy of Amerika would adopt something similar.  We lead the world in everything, or so we believe, so I think the new SDA law should criminalize all swimwear at the beach or the pool.  By law everyone should be required to go nude at the beach and the pool.  If my experience of what takes place at most beaches and most pools is representative, this standard would not be very much different than what actually takes place anyway.  Force Christians to either go nude, which I suspect most would do so they could have opportunities to evangelize their fellow nudists, or cover up and be arrested.  Those who are arrested for disobeying the world's standards for clothing decency should be harshly punished.  Make it clear that divergence from the world's standards will not be tolerated.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Militant Lesbians Seek To Create New Civil Rights

Did you hear the one about the militant lesbian couple who are suing their health insurance company for not providing pregnancy coverage?  Ha! Ha! Ha!  Oh....how I wish that it was a joke.  It isn't.  Here is the story, as told by the Associated Press:
"A federal lawsuit brought by a New Jersey lesbian couple who want to have a baby may mean insurance coverage for women who currently don't meet the state's definition of infertile.  Erin Krupa was denied insurance coverage for infertility treatments essentially because she failed to show she couldn't get pregnant by having sex with a man....Krupa's insurer eventually agreed to the coverage, based on her doctor's diagnosis...But she and Marianne Krupa (her "husband" I suppose....isn't it quaint that Erin took her "husband's" name, ed) say in their lawsuit that they are pursuing the case as a civil rights issue....Two other women have joined them as plaintiffs in the case....Meanwhile, state lawmakers plan to advance legislation to change the law...their proposal would revise the definition of infertility to include lesbians, women without partners and those who have protected sex." The news article also quotes one of the lesbians as saying that she is seeking, "the right of all New Jersey women who dream of becoming mothers to access the reproductive health care they need to realize that dream on an equal basis."  Equal to what, I wonder?  Aren't they already equal?  All they have to do is have sex with a man, just like any other woman, and they can have a baby.
So let me see if I have the story straight.  A militant lesbian woman is seeking to become pregnant by means of artificial insemination but she does not want to be required to pay for the unnecessary and elective procedure.  Although this militant lesbian woman could be inseminated by a man naturally and for free, she clearly finds that option odious.  So she believes that the other members of her health insurance company should be forced by government rules to pay for her decision to attempt to have a baby.  To bring about the state of affairs whereby she can force the other members of her insurance company to pay for her artificial insemination she has beseeched her god, civil government, to make a new law on her behalf. Erin's insurance company knuckled under and agreed to pay for her artificial insemination but she is suing them anyway because she sees herself as a civil rights pioneer.  Indeed, she believes that, at least, women living in New Jersey should be allowed to use the revenues of profit seeking health insurance companies to pay for their artificial inseminations, regardless of what the other policy holders believe or desire.
Vote seeking career politicians have jumped on her bandwagon and are now drafting a new law that will make everything right with the world, except for those of us who happen to be Christians.  To accomplish the goal of reproductive equality, whatever that is, the new law is going to redefine what it means to be infertile.  Being infertile used to mean that a woman could not get pregnant after having sexual relations with her husband.  In our post-Christian society infertility does not mean anything like that anymore.  Now infertility means what happens when lesbians get "married" and, shockingly, are incapable of having children.  Infertility also refers to single women who fornicate and don't get pregnant and, to top it all off, the term also refers to single women who fornicate while using birth control and don't get pregnant. We now have a classic case of infertility!  Only in a post-modern world filled with meaningless terminology could the term "infertile" apply to a woman who uses birth control devices to prohibit conception while she is fornicating.
I am intrigued by the notion advanced by the lesbians defining "infertility" as what happens when it is physically impossible to conceive, either because you have been engaging in sexual relations with a person of the same sex or you are using birth control devices that prevent it.  I am also intrigued by the fact that they believe the ability to force a profit seeking insurance company to pay for something that is physically impossible under the practices of normal sexual behavior is a "civil right."
Historically a civil right has been defined as something each citizen of a particular geo-political zone has or enjoys that does not, by the exercise of that right, impinge upon any other citizen in that geo-political zone.  As political philosophers debated the issue over the ages it became a matter of general consensus that there are only three civil rights:  the right to my life, the right to own and use my property as I wish and the right to be free to do as I please provided my actions do not impinge upon others.  Hence, life, private property and freedom were generally considered to be the only civil rights available to the citizenry.  My how things have changed.
In today's world militant lesbians define a civil right as anything they can convince career politicians to make a law about that allows them to take away a portion of the property and/or freedom of other people.  Interestingly, pro baby murder activists also define their alleged right to kill their babies as a civil right, thus putting the taking of a human life into that category of things granted to people by the nature of the universe and the eternal decree of God.  In today's immoral and topsy-turvy world the three things that used to be civil rights are no longer while a whole host of wealth redistribution programs are now considered to be God-given civil rights.
Erin sees herself as a civil rights crusader because she wants to use the coercive power of government to force her insurance company to pay for medical procedures she does not need.  To justify her profligate behavior she attempts to include other "victims" of the free market in a vain attempt to convince herself that what she is doing is moral.  If she is successful, and I suspect she will be, she will have managed to use the services of her career politicians to craft a law that will force other health insurance policy holders to pay for a procedure she does not need and would not need if she were not a God-hating lesbian.  Well done Erin!

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Naked Feminists Are Nuts And Delusional

I didn't realize it but apparently there was an  international "Go Topless" day a couple of days ago.  I was topless while I slept during the night and I was topless while I showered that day so I guess I was an unwilling and unwitting participant in the event.  The day was celebrated locally with a parade in downtown Denver in which men and women walked down public streets wearing nothing from the waist up.  It seems like a pretty stupid thing to do to me but it was important enough to make the news.  Here is some of what the Denver Post reported about the parade:
"Hundreds of topless women and men paraded down Denver's central mall and rallied in Civic Center on Sunday afternoon...as part of international Go Topless Day to promote gender equality.  'We are protesting for equal rights for women.  We want for women to not be objectified,' Connie Fitzgerald of Boulder said in the park with a sign.  'We want to be able to take our tops off just like men.  On a deeper level, we would like to see this bring in equality for women at all levels,' she said....'To still define women's bodies as inherently sexual is wrong, ' Wilson (Matthew Wilson, the organizer of the local parade, ed) said, making his case that nudity is not necessarily sexual.  'Americans sometimes forget that,' he said.  'Confusing the two is the foundation of objectification and rape culture.'" Well that is a fine kettle of fish, is it not?  Let's consider what is being said here for a moment.
Let me begin with a question.  What planet did these people beam in from?  Connie is from Boulder so we know what planet she came from.  I don't know where Wilson came from....Mars perhaps?  So let me get this straight.  Connie is tired of women being objectified by men and she believes the best way to keep objectification of women from transpiring is for women to walk around in public topless?  Umm....Connie.....I have something to tell you that you are apparently completely unaware of.  Men are sexually aroused by the appearance of naked women in public.  Maybe you haven't noticed but there is an entire industry that exists for the purpose of producing naked images of women for men to look at for the purpose of sexual arousal.  And maybe you are also not aware but when men become sexually aroused by looking at naked women they are not seeing those naked women as wives, co-workers, mothers and daughters.  In other words, they are not seeing naked women as subjects.  They are seeing them as objects.  If I am not mistaken it therefore follows that what you are doing when you parade around naked brings about the exact opposite condition from the one you are attempting to create.
Connie from Boulder believes that running around naked in public is going to somehow magically and mystically "bring about equality for women at all levels."  What a quaint concept!  Does that mean women will be equal to men when it comes to the ability to inseminate women?  Does that mean that all sports records that are currently segregated between men and women can be integrated into one book, thus dropping women from the sports record books forever?  Does that mean that Connie's god of civil government will be invoked to force profit seeking businessmen to pay her more than the free market would bear simply because she has XX chromosomes?  At least on one level Connie has already achieved her goal.  The military forces of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika see men and women as equal when it comes to kidnapping them, moving them to the front lines and forcing them to be canon fodder in wars of imperial expansion.  Good for Connie.  Taking off her top has given her the ability to senselessly die in an immoral war for her immoral country.
Matt Wilson believes that defining women's bodies as "inherently sexual is wrong."  Ummm.....Matt....isn't calling a woman a woman rather than a man inherently sexual?  In fact, isn't the fact that there are two sexes populating this earth inherently sexual?  I know the trannies want us all to believe that we are born as neuts and we choose which sex we want to be at some later date but those folks are kooks and best ignored.  For those of us who live in the real world, all human beings are inherently sexual.  That is one of the things that makes life so interesting, and also so sinful.
Matt believes that nudity is not sexual.  That belief is nuts.  Nudity is inherently sexual.  There is a reason people take clothes off, rather than putting clothes on, before engaging in sexual relations.  There is a reason men become sexually aroused when looking at a woman who is not wearing clothing.  I know, I know....the feminists believe all men are perverts because we become sexually aroused around naked women.  They refuse to acknowledge a fact they all know and exploit every single day of their lives.  Women have the ability to arouse the sexual interests of men by what they wear.  Hypocrites, all of them.
Matt is a kook.  He believes that a woman walking naked in public is not  in some way responsible for the fact that men who see her will view her as a sex object and then become sexually aroused.  He believes that men who see naked women are sinning because they see those women as objects worthy of raping.  Indeed, Matt believes women should be permitted to run around naked in public and that their doing so has nothing to do with the sexual response of men to them.  Matt is a typical feminist.  No matter what women do it is good. No matter what men do it is bad.
Shall we admit the obvious and come in from the delusional world created by the feminists?  Why do almost all women's tops show cleavage whereas almost all men's tops are close around the neck?  Is it not abundantly obvious to anyone without a feminist ax to grind that a woman's breasts are the object of sexual attention by men?  Is it not also equally obvious that women know this fact and use it to their advantage whenever possible?  Come on folks, quit lying to me by trying to convince me that women can walk around naked in public and it has nothing whatsoever to do with sex.  We all know that is untrue.
The article concluded by saying that "organizers encourage people in cities worldwide to stand up for women's rights by going topless in public."  I can't think of a more meaningless, more ridiculous, more stupid, more ineffective, more delusional and more crazy program for social change than that one.  Can you?

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Hate-Filled "Patriots" Blast Kaepernick

It was not my intention to do a second post on the Kaepernick affair but it will just not go away.  Ignorant, stupid and foolish patriots insist upon continuing to make Kaepernick's decision to ignore the National Hymn and the Holy Icon into a federal case.  After posting my first article yesterday I heard on the radio that Kaepernick had previously refused to worship the military and the federal government it supports during the first two exhibition football games.  He rather obviously is not attempting to make a big deal out of his "protest."  On the contrary, it is the high priests of patriotism who have decided to take offense at Kaepernick's rational and moral behavior by crucifying him on their altar of State worship.  They are the ones who have turned this into a big deal.  Don't believe me?  Allow me to offer up two examples in support of my position.
Dan Montgomery of Arvada loves the Amerikan Empire and the military that expands and supports it.  Although he does not say so, I suspect he chokes up when he thinks of dropping bombs on foreigners and he probably sheds a tear or two when he contemplates what it is like to gun down an "enemy" fighter.  Dan is a very religious man and he worships at the throne of State power.  Anyone who refuses to bow down to his god is immediately declared to be his enemy.  Dan wrote this to the Denver Post, "San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick is an unpatriotic, race-baiting loser disguised as a football player.  Disrespecting our flag and our national anthem was an in-your-face insult to all those who have worked so hard to make this country great, and those soldiers, police officers and emergency responders who had their lives stolen from them by punks, perverts, predators and foreign enemies....I think Kaepernick should move to China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or some other desolate place,...what an ungrateful and pathetic loser."  Let's consider Dan's rant for a moment, shall we?
Danny-boy, you don't seem to realize that Kaepernick was not seeking to publicize his decision to not engage in idolatrous worship of the Holy Icon.  Your assertion that his decision to not be an idolater is an "in-your-face insult" is stupid and wrong.  Indeed, Danny-boy, you are stupid and wrong.  Nevertheless, I appreciate your words.  Not because you are free to say them and most certainly not because the expansion of the Amerikan empire, at the cost of over 20 million lives of stinkin' foreigners since WWII, is what gives you the alleged freedom to say them.  No, Danny-boy, I appreciate your words because they are a perfect example of religious idolatry and your worship of the Beast.  You have proven my point perfectly.  Kaepernick is refusing to stand and worship the State because he believes, right or wrong, that cops murder black folks in this land.  His act of non-worship has nothing to do with your god of the military.  Yet you are utterly incapable of seeing or understanding what Kaepernick is doing.  Why?  Because your god has blinded you and you hate anyone and anything that you perceive to be contrary to the glorious, imperialistic and murderous nature of your god.
You also support my position that patriotism is now defined, in the exact opposite fashion as its historical definition, as support for a legalistic, God-hating, immoral, envy-filled and idolatrous civil government, including the military that supports and expands it.  I find it fascinating that you wish to banish Kaepernick to those wonderful bastions of Amerikan established socialist democracy found in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.  If those three countries are such hell holes to live in, who do you think made them that way?  It was your blessed Amerikan solider who destroyed those countries and it is your blind love and adoration for that same soldier that leads you to want to banish Kaepernick to those wretched by-products of Amerikan imperialism.
You conclude your diatribe with the assertion that Kaepernick is an "ungrateful and pathetic loser."  You see him as ungrateful because he does not worship the same god as you.  You deem him a loser because he has the courage to stand up for what he believes, even if it disagrees with the majority opinion of the time.  Danny-boy, I wish I had Kaepernick's courage.  When I go to a Rockies game I stand for the National Hymn, although I refuse to sing it and I also refuse to genuflect by placing my hand over my heart.  My wife, who is far more courageous than I am, refuses to stand.  I wish I were as brave as she is.  I wish I were as brave as Kaepernick.  Instead, I am afraid of patriots like you who hurl insults, peanuts, beer and the occasional punch in my direction for refusing to worship your god.  There is a pathetic loser in this situation but it is not Kaepernick.  If you want to know who it is, take a look in the mirror.
Ann Moore of Centennial is another Amerikan patriot.  She writes, "Hey, Colin Kaepernick, why don't you stand up and show pride for our men and women who have lost their lives, limbs and minds so you can sit on your sorry butt and make millions of dollars?  What kind of role mode are you?"  Well, at least I appreciate the fact that Ann kept her ridiculous comments short.  Let's consider them for a moment.
Like Danny, Ann misses the point. She too is blinded by religious adoration for the Amerikan Empire and its holy artifacts.  Annie, Colin is not protesting the military.  He is protesting the fact that he believes cops are murdering black folks in this country.  I can't speak for Kaepernick, and I suspect he would strongly disagree with what I am about to write next, but the reason no one should ever stand up and adore the flag during the playing of the National Hymn is because they represent the murderous thugs who have murdered tens of millions of innocent foreigners around the world during my lifetime, all in support of the Amerikan Empire.  None of those tens of millions of dead people ever presented a clear and present danger to the life, liberty or property of any Amerikan citizen and yet they are all dead as a direct result of Amerikan military actions and Amerikan political engagement.  That is the very nature of empire.
I wonder, would Ann want me to stand up and applaud all the murderers presently rotting away in Amerikan prisons?  I suspect not.  So why should I stand up and applaud all the murderers who are not presently rotting away in prisons?  Annie's answer to that question, I am quite sure, would be that I am a horrible person for suggesting that killing a foreigner in the name of empire expansion is an act of murder.  In her delusional world it is an act of self defense.  Who has lost touch with reality now Annie?  Killing another human being who is not attempting to steal and destroy my life, freedom and property is murder, not self defense.  The contradictory notion that I could, or should, "support the troops" while they engage in immoral wars of empire expansion is ghastly and immoral.  If a war is immoral those who prosecute it are behaving immorally and should never be praised or held up as "role models."  When a war is immoral the people who fight it are murderers.  There is no escaping that logically necessary truth.
Thanks to Danny and Annie today.  These hate-filled patriots perfectly prove my point that in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika patriotism is now synonymous with religious adoration of the Amerikan Empire.  For those who engage in such behavior, and that is certainly the majority of the citizens in this post-Christian land, I have only one word.  Repent.

Monday, August 29, 2016

The Kaepernick Brouhaha Proves My Point

For the two or three citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika who are not aware of this, Colin Kaepernick is a washed-up quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers.  During an exhibition game last week he made the voluntary, rational and legal decision to refuse to stand and address the flag during the playing of the national anthem.  His protest, if you have seen the video, was very understated.  To even realize that he is not standing the video producers have highlighted where he is seated among the throngs of state worshipers who are standing and genuflecting to the holy icon known as the flag.  In a country in which the government is not idolized his action would have gone unnoticed.  In a country that worships civil government his action became the worst sort of sacrilege.
I have argued many times in this blog that the flag of the SDA is symbolic of the Amerikan Empire in general and the Amerikan military in particular.  Any notion that the flag is representative of the land, rivers, lakes, people, businesses, hobbies or 50 million citizens of the SDA murdered by their mothers and government approved medical professionals is utter nonsense.  When I make that argument I am always informed that I am exaggerating the situation and that I need to calm down and realize that nobody worships the Beast in this fine and fair country.  I am told that patriotic Amerikans do not worship civil government or its military branch.  I am told that patriotic Amerikans just love Amerika and that if I don't I am free to leave.  Now I have proof for my assertion that flag idolization is little more than worship of the Beast.
I have read dozens of angry responses to Kaepernick's apostasy on various websites, news outlets and Facebook pages and the one common theme I have found in all of them is that Kaepernick has insulted the Amerikan solider who died to protect his freedom, most especially his freedom to exercise his 1st Amendment right to not salute the flag.  There appears to be almost universal agreement that Kaepernick's decision to remain seated during the playing of the National Hymn of adoration for the State is an offensive action in the eyes of the military which ostensibly protects my freedoms by killing foreigners in foreign lands.  I have been told, in response to Kaepernick, that the Amerikan soldier has died to grant me the right to refuse to worship civil government.  That got me to thinking....precisely which Amerikan soldier died in precisely which war to protect my right to remain seated during the playing of the National Hymn?
Since I was born so many moons ago the SDA has fought wars in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Libya.  To the best of my knowledge, no Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Lebanese, Grenadian, Panamanian, Iraqi, Somalian, Haitian, Bosnian, Kosovian, Afghani, Pakistani or Libyan has ever been a threat to invade my country and take away my civil rights, including my right to free speech critical of those wars of imperial expansion.  I don't deny that Amerikan soliders have died in dozens of foreign countries since I was born.  What I do deny is that any single one of them died protecting my right to free speech from foreign aggression or invasion.  When someone informs you that the Amerikan soldier has died to allow you to speak freely, ask him who it was and when it happened.
By the way, as Amerikan soldiers have been drying in droves allegedly to protect my freedom to not worship the civil government of the SDA, they were responsible for the murder of 20 million people in 37 victim nations since WWII.  Did all 20 million of those people really present a clear and present danger to my right to speak freely?  If not, why were they killed? 
By the way, why is nobody apparently concerned about real attacks upon my right to free speech?  Why must I stand in a segregated and physically isolated "free speech zone" when I wish to express myself in the presence of a career politician?  Why can I be arrested for hate speech when I express the opinion heterophobes are sinful and need to repent of their sins?  Why am I deemed to be immoral when I declare that trannies should not be permitted to shower in women's bathrooms?  Are those not all denials of my right to free speech?  Oh....right....I keep forgetting.  Only Christian speech is forbidden in this immoral and God-hating country.
I have not conducted a statistical analysis but I believe it is fair to say that the majority of the citizens of the SDA worship civil government and the military that supports it.  The reaction to the Kaepernick display is proof positive of my opinion.  Kaepernick is being treated as a heretic because he refused to bow down to the holy icon and stand up for the playing of the national hymn.  In a truly patriotic country no man would ever be criticized for his refusal to pay homage to the Beast.  It is only in a country that has given itself wholesale to the worship of the Beast that such things take place.
Pagans and assorted God-haters love to condemn Christians for their religious zealotry.  Go stand in front of a mirror for a moment you hypocrites.  Your response to Kaepernick is exceeding more zealous than even the most ardent response of a Christian to perceived offenses against his God.  And the Christian God actually exists!  Confess your sin and repent of it, especially you who call yourselves Evangelicals who seek to ride the fence between the God of the Bible and the god of the State, by acknowledging that you are religious idolaters who command and demand worship of civil government.  Your actions speak louder than your words.  You may protest all you wish that you are merely being secular and patriotic but that does not change the truth revealed by your behavior.  Liars, all of you.  You worship the god of civil government and you vehemently desire to punish all who do not agree with you and who have the audacity to refuse to bow down in the presence of your god.  How else, Mr. and Mrs. State Worshiper, do you explain the Kaepernick affair?