Tuesday, June 21, 2016


     If you look back to the beginning of "Roadhouse Blog", you will notice that I have never made mention of my personal theology.  This has never been an oversight, rather a purposeful decision.  I have always asserted that it is not a prerequisite that you belong to any particular religion to be a conservative.  Though conservative philosophy may be rooted in Judaeo-Christian beliefs, you don't need to be a Christian to understand and adopt the principals of conservatism as your own.  
     For instance, you can be an Atheist and understand free-market economics.  You can be a Buddhist and understand the concept of national sovereignty.  You can worship dirt and still understand the purpose and importance of a strict immigration process.  So I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight on my personal beliefs and their relevance to this post.
     I'm a Christian.  To "the left", that means I am an in-tolerant, hate-filled bigot who fears anyone different than myself.  To Christians, it means that I am not even allowed to hate others...ANY others.  So, when it is said that a Christian's opposition to certain parts of the  "gay agenda" is based on hatred, I simply remind myself that I know better than that.
     Yes, I will always dis-agree with the concept of "gay marriage" for both theological and practical reasons.  Yes, I will always see the "transgendered" as suffering from a dis-associative mental disorder.  And yes, I will always see homo-sexuality as a "sin".  
     That being said, after the terrorist attack at "Pulse", a popular Orlando, Florida night club frequented by the local gay community, I think it's high time we all take a step back and re-examine our priorities...not just as Christians or homosexuals, but as Americans.
     My disapproval of some one's personal choices does not prevent me from accepting their value as an American.  Besides, how ridiculous would it be for me to assume everyone agrees with some of my proclivities. 
     So, in the spirit of patriotism, I would like remind everyone of a few things.  When a Muslim extremist attacks a gay bar, he's not just attacking "gays", he's attacking infidels.  In infidel is anyone who is not willing to submit to Islam.  The "gay" thing is really nothing more than a "twofer" for a Muslim terrorist.  Similarly, my Christianity makes me a "twofer" as well.  In that sense, a Christian and a homosexual have a common, equally brutal enemy who would like to see both of our heads removed.  At the very least, it may be time for both of our camps to assert the "the enemy of our enemy is our friend" philosophy.
     Furthermore, the Second Amendment protects every one's right to protect themselves...even homosexuals.  A bullet does not care who fires it.  It will take down a bad guy for a gay person just as well as for the strait.  So, before you go sachet'ing on down to protest your local gun shop, maybe you'll want to consider going in and asking them to teach you how to shoot.  A bedazzled pink .45 semi-auto is the perfect accessory to match your chartreuse feather boa...and it might just keep you alive too.
     To sum up, getting shot at a gay bar is tragic, and so is getting shot at a mall, school, sporting event, concert, or on the street.  So, I suggest we move our usual differences to the back burner for now, and focus on the what's really important...life.                                

Tuesday, February 2, 2016


     The term "Orwellian" has never been used as a compliment.  There's a reason for that.  George Orwell's "1984" depicted the consequences of what happens when society ultimately decides to trade liberty for convenience.  The story illustrates the conflict between man's thirst for power and willingness to submit.  If you've seen the movie or read the book, you know how terrifying Orwell's vision was.
     After watching or reading "1984" you might find it strange and ironic that it's author was in real life a socialist.  But when you consider the seductive nature of socialism, it's not exactly a "shocker".
     Orwell saw his dystopian vision as a fictional account of socialism that is mearly mis-managed, as opposed to the natural end to a tyrannical means.  He suffered from the same delusion as socialists from before his time and present day.  
     From Trotsky to Chomsky, advocates of socialism have believed that if  we would simply allow a particular set of specific circumstances to fall into place, guided by a specific group of particularly chosen rulers, then socialism would blossom into a beautiful Utopian wonderland where all needs are met and all faces are smiling.
     Flash forward to 2016 and we see the freight train of socialism barreling down the tracks in the form of Bernie Sanders and/or Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama as the conductor.  The momentum and speed of it's approach is impressive and intimidating to say the least.  But for all it's hype and popularity, this train will crash because it's tracks end at the solid granite mountain-face of human nature.
     This is not a prediction that Sanders or Clinton could not possibly win...they absolutely could.  It's simply my understanding that win or lose, their ideology will always lead to the same place...slavery.  Not in the form of blacks submitting to the desires of all-powerful plantation owners, but in the form of citizens submitting to the desires of all-powerful government.
     Like the plantation owner who maintained order among his "stock", a socialist government needs to do the same thing.  When a slave needs food, water, clothing, shelter, or medical attention, he had better be worth the investment to the plantation owner, otherwise he/she will do without.  
     This is the same crude "social contract" philosophy used to seduce people to the "dark side" known as socialism.  The common thread between slavery and socialism is power.  Whoever happens to have it will be in charge until someone with a bigger stick comes along and takes it.  Keep in mind that a bigger stick does not equate to intelligence, sophistication, common sense, compassion, fairness, morality, kindness, understanding or mercy.
     This is typically where the discussion actually starts.  The socialist will make a comparison to "corporations" holding power over the "little guy".  A compelling concept...except.  A corporation does not have the power to put me in jail or order a troop of armed men to break down my door at three AM.  If a "little guy" like me does not like what one corporation is doing, I have options.  I can do business with any number of other corporations, or none at all if I wish.  
     I am not compelled by force of law to comply with anything a corporation might want me to do.  If Microsoft orders me to purchase their product, I can tell them to "pound sand", and Bill Gates is powerless to do anything about it.  But if Barack Obama orders me to purchase a health care policy...I must submit, comply, give-in, bend over...etc.  The fact that I have always paid my doctor's bills on-time means nothing.  The fact that I have rights means nothing.  The fact that I had better plans for that money means nothing.  Such is slavery.

     The socialist will tell you that corruption is one of the hallmarks of capitalism.  Actually, corruption is a hallmark of human nature.  More specifically, corruption is a hallmark of nature in general.  The animal kingdom is not usually known for it's democratic principals.  
     Regardless of anyone's brand of governance, there will always be the risk of corruption.  Under capitalism, you might bribe someone for a variance in a land deal.  Under socialism, you will have to bribe someone to get anesthetic for you child's dental surgery.  Corruption is perfectly comfortable festering in the heart of any type of ruler or society.  If you want to end corruption, you're going to have to end life in it's entirety.  Option "B" might be to put the "corrupt" in jail, let the animal kingdom do it's thing, and move on with your life.

     Some would consider "theft" to be a form of corruption.  It's hard to imagine something more corrupt that the theft of one's ambition.  When you are dependent on someone, you are at their mercy...and they know that.  Over time, that becomes your understanding of life.  You have no desire to advance, because you know there is a penalty for straying from the prescribed metric assigned by the ruling class.  You justify this existence by accepting the "greater good" guilt trip, and the "our experts know better" mantras you've been fed since birth.  
     As a result, new advancements are not made, and inspiration is kept "in check" so as to maintain order among the population.  After all, if the ruling class wants to stay in power, enjoying all the benefits of their position, they can't have the people getting all "uppity".  Logic dictates that anything that might typically "inspire" someone to think outside the box will need to be tightly regulated.  This includes music,  art, dance, education, magazines, the Internet, blogs, social media, speech and you guessed it...movies and books.  The term "Orwellian" is so much more appropriate as a synonym for irony.