The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Archive for March 2012

Middle East Peace: It Evaded Einstein

leave a comment »

This week, the complete archives of Professor Albert Einstein are going online – something that should make for some interest for the new generation who has hair wilder than his, but I digress.

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.


Written by The Rabid Conservative

March 20, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Posted in Culture

Tagged with , , ,

At Least Elle Admits It

leave a comment »

Howard Stern interviewed Elle MacPherson, recently on his show (if you call that mess a “show” and not an exhibit to debauchery, but once in a while (a great while), we see something interesting.

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.


Written by The Rabid Conservative

March 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Posted in Culture, Political

Tagged with , ,

Encyclopedia Britannica – They Had a Good Run

leave a comment »

Well, after 244 years, just four years shy of the amount of time it takes for Pluto to complete a solar orbit, the Encyclopedia Britannica is calling it quits to the dead-tree print versions that have been placed on bookshelves in just about every library known to man. I guess the question of note is whether this is a good thing or not.

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.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

March 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm

Hollywood Doesn’t Understand What Christians Are

leave a comment »

I rarely write on topics with religious overtones because I believe one’s faith is about as personal a topic as one can have. We don’t use the pages of The Rabid Conservative to promote a faith-based viewpoint, even though we believe Christ is Lord of all. TRC is about conservatism, not the underpinnings. Some may criticize for this position but if truth is all that’s told, then the accusations about religious brow-beating don’t exist, even if I go off on abortion-loving liberals for a position that God, I’m sure, finds very offensive.

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.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

March 7, 2012 at 4:16 pm

War on Women – It’s a Fluke

leave a comment »

This whole Sandra Fluke shows me just how absurd this entire so-called ‘War on Women’ nonsense is.

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.

Written by The Rabid Conservative

March 5, 2012 at 6:27 pm

%d bloggers like this: