One Year Later

It's been a year since that dark day we elected to office the most radically leftist, socialist, anti-life, and anti-Christ president we've yet had.

Many of us have only just started seeing this. The media-- even CNN (Communist News Network) and MSNBC (Most Socialist News Broadcasting Company)-- are criticizing him. Back in January, the Obama Messiah could do no wrong.

I notice that I see very, very few Obama bumper stickers or t-shirts anymore. Just as virtually no German could be found after World War II who would admit to having voting Nazi, it seems that Americans who admit to having supported Obama are likewise becoming scarce.

The Germans who voted Nazi and the Americans who voted socialist have something in common:

They were blind, in many cases willfully so. They chose to listen to what their candidates said rather than look at what they did. Germans chose to ignore what Hitler had written in his own book, while Americans chose to ignore Obama's anti-Americanism, anti-life voting record, and his many unsavory associations with radical racists, open socialists, and domestic terrorists.

Why? Well, this is another thing Hitler's and Obama's supporters had in common: they chose security over liberty, a government welfare state over a free republic.

Remember that Nazis were the National Socialist Party; the German people were, thanks to their country's rape of occupied Europe and of the Jews in particular, very well taken care of by the Reich. German citizens who didn't criticize the government and weren't Jewish had little to fear from the Gestapo, so the idea of the average German living in terror isn't quite accurate. German citizens whose homes were destroyed by Allied bombing raids had their homes and possessions replaced-- again, courtesy of their former Jewish neighbors, who were either dead or in camps and wouldn't be needing their stuff anymore.

Obama, meanwhile, promised all kinds of government goodies: "free" health care, and "stimulus" money. Many people voted for him because his face is black and/or because they thought of him as a sort of combination Santa Claus/vending machine. It seems that many of us haven't yet realized that money which the government spends doesn't magically come out of the air. And since Obama can't imprison Jews and conquer Canada and plunder their money/belongings, it's the American citizen who's going to get royally screwed.

Are you seeing a pattern here? In both cases, people chose not to see that their candidate was dangerous because they were too greedy. They chose to turn a blind eye to corruption and evil because they were being teat-fed by their government-- or thought they would be. And many came to realize, too late, who and what it was they were supporting.

I know it's become trite to compare leaders we don't like to Hitler, although Code Pinko and Berkeley types never tired of painting little square mustaches on photos of George Dubya. But in this case, I think it's a comparison worth paying attention to.

A recommended read about the Third Reich's social and economic programs that puts the lie to the idea that they were "right-wing": Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly.

A Homily About Evil-- How Refreshing

We recently got a new priest at my parish, and I'm enjoying his homilies immensely.

He talked about there actually being objective good and evil. What's right and wrong doesn't depend on how we feel or the time period we live in.

He talked about Christianity being true and other religions being false. Not all religions are equally true or good.

He talked about Jesus truly being God, and not just some great moral teacher or social activist.

He talked about the reality of an intelligent being we call Satan. He's not just a personification of a philosophical idea... he's a real being.

He talked about the evils of abortion. About how many would-be scientists, doctors, artists, etc. have been murdered in this holocaust (and yes, Alan Grayson, he used the "H" word!).

He talked about how neo-paganism and the occult are rampant today, and how they represent a "return to our cultural vomit."

And that was just what he said today!

In Catholic churches, you rarely hear this from the pulpit anymore... it's not happy and warm and fuzzy enough. Doesn't make people feel good about themselves.

Well, tough. Christianity isn't about feeling good, or about peace or social justice or making the world a better place. It's not even about being "nice" or moral.

It's about tranformation, salvation, and union with God. Pure and simple.

The Real Dracula

For Halloween, I thought I'd write about Dracula. Not the Eurotrash movie character who sleeps in a coffin and has a cheesy accent, but the real man on whom this legend is based.

Yup, there was a real Dracula.

He wasn't a vampire, or even a count, but a 15th century prince from what is now Romania. He was plenty scary in his own way, but far more interesting.

Vlad Dracula was born in Tirgoviste, Wallachia (what is now southern Romania) in 1431, the second of three legitimate sons born to Prince Vlad Dracul. The name "Dracul" has a double meaning-- it means "dragon", but it also means "devil"; the addition of the "a" at the end of the name means "son of." This would do nothing to improve Dracul's son's reputation later in life.

When Vlad Dracula was just 11 years old, he and his younger brother Radu were sent by their father to Turkey to basically live as "good faith" hostages. The Ottoman Turks really controlled the Balkans at this time, and puppet rulers like Vlad Dracul were expected to pay tribute and cowtow to the Sultan. Sometimes they would hold the children of these princes as collateral. The children were given education and treated well... so long as their fathers remained cooperative and didn't do anything stupid, like try to rebel against the Turks.

Little Radu would grow to be a weak, easily-led man, and his unusually good looks would attract the attentions of the apparently bisexual Sultan Mehmed; Radu, later known as Radu the Handsome, would become his consort. Vlad, by contrast, was awkward-looking and difficult-- his captors didn't like him nearly as much as they liked Radu. The differences in the way they were treated, as well as their differences in temperament, would cause them to hate each other and be enemies as adults.

By the time he was seventeen, Vlad was a commander in the Turkish army; his leadership qualities hadn't gone unnoticed. Whatever Vlad had to endure as a prisoner of the Turks made him diamond-hard, but what he learned during this time would come in very handy later: knowledge of Turkish culture, religion, military tactics, and language.

In 1448, he was released from Turkish captivity when his father Dracul and elder brother Mircea were killed. There was no longer any reason to keep him, now that Dracul was dead. Radu chose to remain in Turkey, but Vlad vowed to avenge his father and brother. He blamed the nobles of his land, whom he believed betrayed his father, and would exact brutal payback.

That same year, when he was still just an adolescent, Vlad briefly reclaimed the Wallachian throne. This was his first reign, which didn't even last a year. He would be on the throne twice more, and would spend a good bit of his time off the throne in prison.

Vlad Dracula ruled with an iron fist-- along with several wooden stakes. His preferred method of dealing with enemies, criminals, and people he regarded as deadbeats was to have them publicly impaled; for this reason he is better known as Vlad Tepes-- the Impaler. This system proved extremely effective for keeping order and lowering the crime rate to nothing. He had a peeve against lazy people, people who didn't work (like beggars), liars, and thieves. Such people usually ended up on the wrong end of a sharp stake.

Dracula, unlike his father, was not willing to cowtow to the Turks, refusing to pay tribute to them. This incurred the wrath of Sultan Mehmed, who thought he would send his army to the Wallachian capital of Tirgoviste and take over. Imagine the horror of the Turkish army when, upon arriving at Timpa Hill (only 60 miles away from the city), they found a seemingly endless string of impaled bodies, in various stages of decomposition. Dracula had ordered his Turkish prisoners to be killed and placed here, shrewdly figuring this would discourage the army from moving forward. It worked; the army turned and fled.

Dracula was also an excellent and innovative military tactician; he employed germ warfare, sending soldiers who had the plague to mingle with the Turks at their camps. He used a "scorched earth" policy, destroying land and crops and poisoning wells so that Turkish armies pursuing them would have nothing to eat or drink. He would reward soldiers who fought bravely and punish those displaying cowardice.

Vlad Dracula himself participated in battle, often disguising himself as a Turk. This tactic, while clever, proved fatal for him; in 1476, not long after his third and final reign had begun, he was killed in battle, likely by one of his own men who mistook him for an enemy soldier. Dracula was 45 years old.

While Vlad Dracula may not have been a nice guy (today he would be charged with countless war crimes and human rights violations), he did single-handedly keep Eastern Europe free of Turkish rule. He was really the only ruler who heeded the Pope's exhortion to fight the Ottomans, and he wasn't even Roman Catholic at the time (he converted from Romanian Orthodoxy to Roman Catholicism about a year before his death, out of sheer political necessity).

In the late 19th century, Vlad Dracula would be the inspiration for an Englishman by the name of Bram Stoker who visited Romania...

Hope everyone has a happy and safe Halloween.

Even Late-Term Abortionists Aren't "Pro-abortion"

How pathetic.

In spite of abortionist Leroy Carhart's seemingly honest description of himself as an abortionist rather than a doctor, even he can't bring himself to admit that he's "pro-abortion."

"I am not pro-abortion," he says. "That's the very one clear thing I want you to understand. Abortion is not the right answer for every pregnancy."

So he's not pro-abortion because he believes that not all unborn babies should be torn apart in their mother's wombs. Pfft, whatever.

But isn't it interesting that even someone like Carhart-- a man who makes Charles Manson look like Mr. Rogers-- has to convince people that he's not "pro-abortion"?

What that tells me is that he knows that what he's doing is despicable and evil. And while he may not care that he makes his living murdering the most innocent and defenseless members of humanity, he apparently cares that he'll be seen for what he is: a mass-murdering lowlife comparable to Josef Mengele. At least Mengele's victims had some ability to defend themselves, unlike Leroy Carhart's.

Oh, and if Carhart's still upset about the killing of his good buddy and fellow abortionist George Tiller, he need only consider it a very late-term abortion. That should make him feel better.

Dhimmis Of Kent

Town officials of Kent, Connecticut won't allow the father of a victim of the Mohammedan terrorist attack on 9/11 to have the phrase "murdered by Muslim terrorists" on his son's memorial.

The reason is because it might provoke swarthy, bearded head choppers hurt precious Muzzie feelings.

"We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town," said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. "To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here."

Epstein noted that other Sept. 11 memorials, like the one at the Pentagon, don't mention Muslim terrorists, and she said she does not want to alienate any members of her small and close-knit community.

"We have at least one Muslim family living here with children and it — it would be just awful to have them see something like that," Epstein told Fox News.

So much more awful than having your child be murdered by these bastards in the first place.

Instead let's just suppress the truth-- which is that the perpetrators of 9/11 were Mohammedans killing in the name of their twisted religious/political system.

Let's just not bring that up, dear, m'kay?

If we're suppressing the facts because we're afraid-- and let's be very clear, that's what this is about-- then we have really lost our right to be free people and deserve what we're bringing upon ourselves. I mean, if we don't even have the gonads to identify enemies who murder our own innocent civilians, then explain why exactly we should be spared from these barbarians.

Ooops, that's probably another word the hoity-toity Connecticut cowards don't like!

In fact, I have a better idea for the memorial: "James Gadiel, Murdered By Mohammedan Barbarians."

And if I were Peter Gadiel, I'd tell Kent thanks but no thanks to the plaque; they frankly don't deserve the honor. There are no doubt other American towns that would be proud to be home to a memorial that says what Gadiel would like it to say-- the truth.