Red Blooded American Boy

Archive for the ‘children’ Category

Liberal Hollywood is voicing its support of a child rapist.  Shamefully, they parade their double-standard for one of their own.  Even Whoopi Goldberg called the actions of Roman Polanski not really, “Rape, rape.”  These are the sick who support organizations such as “Nambla.”  These actors in Hollywood are so repulsive.  They think our children belong to them with their vicious sexual desires. 

Lets do something really American.  Lets vote against Hollywood with our wallet.  Instead of going to see a movie, getting a rental or buying a DVD just download the movie off the internet.  Better yet, read a book to your children.  Then pray none of these people do not come anywhere near your kids.  Maybe if they are less profitable, there inexcusable opinions will stay in their own shallow, sick brains.

As an Eagle Scout myself, I am appalled by your treatment of the fellow Eagle Scout, Matthew Whalen.  Granted, he did violate some sort of school rules and should have some level of punishment.  But, you know that such a fine young man could have been given something less harsh than a protracted suspension.  Despite the abuse by you and others in the school system, Mr. Whalen is holding his character up.

Your behavior is a reflection of the current mentality that the “state” has power over the people.  As such, you have sown a seed and taught Matthew Whalen a very valuable lesson.  He has been educated to resist the authority of the state because it will always penalize the innocent and reward the guilty.  He is kind and compliant person now at such a young age.  But, when he grows into an adult he will not surrender and will not yield.
 
I would recommend you uphold this “zero tolerance” rule in place.  A spineless individual such as yourself has sent a revealing message to all the school children in your district.  You have announced that you are a weakling that only has the fortitude to hide behind the cowardly authority of a desk.  You are what “Dirty Harry” calls a – punk.

             — Sent today via email to: ggoodwin@lansingburgh.org

When Toy Story 3 eventually comes out, this poor doll made by “American Girl” will surely be in the cast of toy misfits.  After all, only snotty little rich kids would want a doll that replicates a homeless child and costs $95.  When the kids get tired of feeling sorry for them, they will find another toy to victimize (play with).  Like their liberal parents, sympathy will only entertain for a short time until a better dependant is found.  Then the doll will really be homeless – rotting in a landfill somewhere.

The real name of the doll is Gwen Thompson.  The story line behind the doll is a nightmare and reads like an episode of Gangland.  Contrary to popular belief, this doll is not another love-child of John Edwards.  At least as far as we know.

In reality, the people behind Gwen are sick and twisted.  They are setting up a generation of children to feel guilty for their good fortune.  The other indirect lesson from this street doll is that everyone is a victim, and that someone is to blame.  In this case, the father is the bad guy.  I wonder how many good providing fathers bought this piece of art for their kids?

Most importantly, toys such as this stifle the imagination.  Child toys should be a smaller representation of the world around us – without circumstance.  This way, children can learn about what they see in the world in a way they understand.  When you put a doll with a history in front of a child – that ruins it.  A child should make up the doll’s story as they play with it.  That is what we call fun.

Since we are on the subject of liberal toys.  Here are other popular liberal doll names you can expect to see:

• Syphilis Sally
• Wall-street Willy
• Blind Bob
• Gay Gary
• Racist Ricky
• Hooker Hanna
• Republican Robert
• Black Bubba
• Murderer Marvin
• Poor Peter
• Amputee Andrew
• Decapitated Dillon
• Tea party Tim

I was so busy searching for a job today, that I almost missed the declaration of “National day of service and remembrance” by the ME-ssiah.  At first glance, this sounds like a great way to “give back.”  But, when you get past the shallow statement and dig into the content of this bellowing, a different presentation emerges. 

In this national day, why does the word “service” come before “remembrance?”  What are the priorities of this event?  It appears that remembrance is an after thought only preceded by the word, “and.”  Service to the community is now more important than memorializing those who voluntarily and involuntarily lost their lives in an act of terror. 

If I wanted to give service on 9/11 then it would directly benefit those affected by that infamous day.  Why not do something like send the parentless children on a trip somewhere in America.  They could visit and experience another part of this country that their parents died for.  Send the kids to ride a trolley in San Francisco, see the Grand Canyon or ski on the mountain slopes of Salt Lake City, Utah! 

The purpose this “service” is to distract away from the real purpose of the event.  If we are so busy doing something unrelated to the event, it will become easier to forget about 9/11.  In a few years 9/11 will become a community day instead of a memorial event.

Folks, 9/11 is not about all of us.  It is about those victimized by the event.  The Democrats and Obama Administration need to stop trying to minimize the personal aspect of this event by making it about “everyone.”  This event is personal and should never be forgotten or reengineered into something else that history will not recognize.

A brilliant report links frequency of sex with the quality of sperm a man produces.  The longer the soldiers wait for action, the more likely they are to encounter injury from training and other exercises.  Daily intercourse was shown to keep the boys battle-ready. 

Oddly, the study mentioned how men reacted to the news.  Older men appeared more worried, while younger men were pleased.  This feeds into the stereotype that younger men are like ravaging dogs regarding sex, while old men shun away from it.  If you are too old to have sex, then you are too old to have children.  Grow a garden — not more kids, please.

Another point mentioned that telling men to perform leads to undue stress.  This, in turn reduces the man’s virility.  If being told to have sex causes stress in a relationship, then there are already problems beyond fertility.  Consider it nature’s way of naturally preventing children from being born in a unstable environment. 

I have an even better and more comprehensive home report from 15 years of marriage.  The first, and most important way to build a great army is to: love.