Duck Dynasty Reducks

by Brad Nelson   12/26/13
I stand with the Duck Dynasty boys if only to stand against the Gay Nazis and this new form of blacklisting, as pointed out by Lee Habeeb.

And I can appreciate the story of Phil Robertson: He is a former bad-boy (drugs, violent acts) who found Jesus and invented a commercially-successful duck call…and then made it big on TV. This would seem to be the consummate American success story.

But is living out your family life on a cable TV show what Jesus would do? Is commercial success – on television in these smarmy pseudo-reality shows – to be the measure of who we are? Apparently so, because losing one’s place from this mass-mind pinnacle (for whatever reason) seems to be the be-all, end-all – at least according to the satellite chattering class in the media.

I suppose it is a hopeful sign that Phil himself has not offered the usual apologies for having his own thoughts and has a higher Authority for his life than A&E and public opinion. That is indeed refreshing. And we must all stand up against this gay fascism wherever it raizes its ugly head.

But, Jesus, Phil. Get a haircut. These “family” shows have come a long way from Ozzie and Harriet.
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (768 views)

Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.
This entry was posted in Blog Post and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Duck Dynasty Reducks

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    We can stand with the thought police, or stand against them. Neutrality amounts to standing with them, since it’s the lack of sufficient opposition that enables them to operate. As I pointed out (in a response to Jonah Goldberg’s article on the subject in the current NRO listing), anyone who blogs regularly should be on the side of free expression — and thus firmly against the thought police, be they from GLAAD, the SPLC, the NAACP, or any other such group.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      As I pointed out (in a response to Jonah Goldberg’s article on the subject in the current NRO listing), anyone who blogs regularly should be on the side of free expression — and thus firmly against the thought police, be they from GLAAD, the SPLC, the NAACP, or any other such group.

      That’s no doubt why they had another stupid article by James Pethokoukis which could be summed up as, “Ahh, the debt is no big deal.” Where do they get these guys? Me thinks there is a little “diversity” affirmative action going on at NRO. Free speech in action. RINOs get equal time, I guess.

      Here we don’t have free speech. I’ve stated before that I won’t have this site be a piece of blank poster board for Leftists to scribble their sound-byte graffiti upon. I’ve been around the block a few times. I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I know that there are legions of Leftwing kooks out there on Jihad (sometimes paid) in order to try to beat down your average, normal, and decent American. And, in my experience, good people are too easily cowed by these people.

      That doesn’t mean that I think we should try to be free from difficult or contrary opinions. But when people offer little more than slogans or bumper-sticker logic, they have one of two options: Go elsewhere or STFU and learn something. Our job here is to try to enlighten people about the dangers of Cultural Marxism and the benefits of America, as founded.

      I will not allow this site to fall to the Alinsky tactic of “Use their own rules against them.” I’m for free speech, but I didn’t just fall of the turnip truck. I’ve had scads of experience dealing with trolls, kooks, and just behind-the-keyboard angry people who just want to take their angst out on someone else. There are many people who cannot stand it if the see other people who are not unhappy as they are.

      The Gay movement is a fascistic movement. If a gay person wants to get on here and give his or her point of view (and are not simply a mindless mouthpiece for some gay activist group), I’d be glad to have him. In fact, I asked this one really cool gay dude who had an article at American Thinker if I could publish some of his stuff. I haven’t heard back yet. But being gay is by no means an impediment for having an opinion here. As he says at his site:

      Also, we lacked the voice of people who aren’t ex-gay, but just “gay with a critical lens” — that is, people who claim gayness as their home terrain but also speak in commonsensical, witty, down-to-earth ways about how much ridiculousness goes on in the gay world. There are tons of us out there who aren’t going around saying, “I’m cured!” but who also have too much bluntness to pretend that gays are some Potemkin Village of appropriateness and primness the way GLAAD tries to claim.

      We need to work some of this stuff out by talking. Many people are simply trapped in their sound bytes, left or right (but mostly on the left). And people on the left, in particular, are entirely misinformed about conservatives. And if there are some misconceptions to be cleared up on the other side of things, then fine. This site is for honest and at least minimally articulate people to discuss such things.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I share your hostility to the militant homosexual movement (note that I generally avoid using “gay” as a personal protest at their hijacking of the word). An interesting point made by Ann Coulter (particularly with regard to the group GOProud) is that most homosexuals have no interest in marriage (I suspect that only a small percentage have married, and some of those have divorced since then). This is primarily a concern of the militants, whose goal is mandated approval. It reminds me of the handicapped activists who demanded that proposed port-a-johns in NYC be handicapped-accessible even though the city provided them with transportation, so they didn’t need it. But the activists demanded this as a “right” regardless of pragmatic concerns, and in the end only a couple were set up because of that useless demand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *