Well according to Muslims at a conference in Norway...it's all of them.
Allen West posted this on his website. Apparently, the media has been using the term incorrectly to describe only a small number of Muslims. Glad they cleared it up for us!
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Saturday, October 26, 2013
That's The Plan, Man!
Once I discovered that our president, Barack Obama, is a Marxist, it put most of his Administration's decisions into focus.(Just for the record, the words Marxist, Communist, and Socialist are interchangeable. Ideologically speaking, they're the same thing. For all the idiots who continue to criticize people who call Obama a communist because "they don't know the difference between Socialists and Communists": try reading books instead of burning them. When you say that, all you do is confirm that you have no idea what you're talking about.) I suppose another term that could be used to describe Obama and the goals of his Administration is totalitarianism. That is, complete government control over all aspects of American life.
Wherever the ideology comes from, the goal is the same. Total government control. The Democrat-Socialist Party is all about this control, whether we're talking about healthcare or regulations or anything else that party is pushing. Unfortunately for them, the Founders of this nation valued individualism over collective control, and the Freedoms they protected in the Constitution reflect that and hinder total government control. Which means Socialism can't be instituted quickly, like it has been in most Socialist nations. The Constitution prevents it.
Which is why the goal of Socialists has been to slowly infiltrate the American system; from schools to political parties, socialism disguised as liberalism (as Ronald Reagan predicted) has ensconced itself into just about every aspect of American life, in so much as now the very leaders of our government are naked socialists, seeking to fundamentally change America into a Socialist nation under totalitarian control.
And as the Constitution stands in the way of that, it must be changed or eliminated. Now in order to do that, the American people themselves must agree to it. Something that at one time seemed impossible. And so how will the leaders of our government accomplish this? Well they will have to change American life itself. Socialized medicine will help with that. But also, the leaders know that in order for the people to agree to change our Constitution, the government must be able to provide something that the people need and can't get without government help. Which is why the two main sociological differences you will see under this Administration will be 1) entitlements, and 2) violence.
It's a simple idea really, following common sense and logic...though I understand those are becoming rarer. But in order to control the people, you need to control distribution to people. I don't think I need to go into detail about the rise of entitlements in this nation. But the other way to get people under total government control is to allow the decay of civilization to such a point that the people will cry out to the government for help. The rise of violent crime is not seen as a political tool, unlike entitlements, and is easier to deny as such. But it is, and can be, used as such. By crushing the economy, allowing the violent to live off entitlements, and discouraging the prevention of violence, society will quickly become more violent. Enough violence, and enough Americans will acquiesce to whatever government wants so long as they also stop the violence. It is to this end that we see our Department of Justice not only discouraging investigations into criminal activity (illegal immigration for one), but also being involved in activities that will end up making life here in America more dangerous. The proliferation of weapons among criminal elements being one of those activities. And tonight I read that I'm not alone in this conclusion.
Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee (and thus endlessly investigating government scandals), in the middle of another weapons scandal involving the now Orwellian Department of Justice, said he is beginning to believe the Obama Administration is allowing bad things to happen just so they can push their agenda. In a nutshell, that they are using violence as a political tool. Issa said:
Of course they are, Mr. Issa. Because that's the plan.
Wherever the ideology comes from, the goal is the same. Total government control. The Democrat-Socialist Party is all about this control, whether we're talking about healthcare or regulations or anything else that party is pushing. Unfortunately for them, the Founders of this nation valued individualism over collective control, and the Freedoms they protected in the Constitution reflect that and hinder total government control. Which means Socialism can't be instituted quickly, like it has been in most Socialist nations. The Constitution prevents it.
Which is why the goal of Socialists has been to slowly infiltrate the American system; from schools to political parties, socialism disguised as liberalism (as Ronald Reagan predicted) has ensconced itself into just about every aspect of American life, in so much as now the very leaders of our government are naked socialists, seeking to fundamentally change America into a Socialist nation under totalitarian control.
And as the Constitution stands in the way of that, it must be changed or eliminated. Now in order to do that, the American people themselves must agree to it. Something that at one time seemed impossible. And so how will the leaders of our government accomplish this? Well they will have to change American life itself. Socialized medicine will help with that. But also, the leaders know that in order for the people to agree to change our Constitution, the government must be able to provide something that the people need and can't get without government help. Which is why the two main sociological differences you will see under this Administration will be 1) entitlements, and 2) violence.
It's a simple idea really, following common sense and logic...though I understand those are becoming rarer. But in order to control the people, you need to control distribution to people. I don't think I need to go into detail about the rise of entitlements in this nation. But the other way to get people under total government control is to allow the decay of civilization to such a point that the people will cry out to the government for help. The rise of violent crime is not seen as a political tool, unlike entitlements, and is easier to deny as such. But it is, and can be, used as such. By crushing the economy, allowing the violent to live off entitlements, and discouraging the prevention of violence, society will quickly become more violent. Enough violence, and enough Americans will acquiesce to whatever government wants so long as they also stop the violence. It is to this end that we see our Department of Justice not only discouraging investigations into criminal activity (illegal immigration for one), but also being involved in activities that will end up making life here in America more dangerous. The proliferation of weapons among criminal elements being one of those activities. And tonight I read that I'm not alone in this conclusion.
Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee (and thus endlessly investigating government scandals), in the middle of another weapons scandal involving the now Orwellian Department of Justice, said he is beginning to believe the Obama Administration is allowing bad things to happen just so they can push their agenda. In a nutshell, that they are using violence as a political tool. Issa said:
"When you have the attorney general's own offices being informed about a very dangerous person exporting hand grenades and converting AK-47s into machine guns and they let him continue as part of not, Fast and Furious, but a completely separate failure, I think what you see is an administration that I'm beginning to think really did want to let bad things happen in hopes they would get [an] assault weapons ban. The dots are being connected more and more to these kinds of actions."
Of course they are, Mr. Issa. Because that's the plan.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Islamic Terrorist Nadal Hasan and the P.C. Police
First off let me just explain that my computer is on the fritz, so postings will be few and far between, unfortunately. And yet there are so many things to write about. The continued chaos in Egypt as the Muslim Brotherhood ravages Christians, secularists, and anyone else who would prefer not to have Sharia Law forced upon them...increasing black on white violence here in America, which all seems to be part of the socialists' plan...and today the guilty verdict for former Major, currant POS Nidal Hassan. Or however you spell his name. Normally a stickler for accuracy in my postings, I won't even bother to find out how to spell his name because he doesn't deserve even the slightest considerations, frankly.
Yet all of these stories have a common thread: political correctness.
Here in America, violence within the Black Community is all but ignored. The P.C. Police make sure that anyone who dares bring it up are quickly labeled as racists. Mentioning that Islamic Extremists come from Islam gets you quickly poo-pood as a bigot. And anyone who pulls out the common sense view that Gun Free Zones only make life safer for criminals is silenced as someone who must hate children. Yes, in the P.C. World little makes sense and logic is quickly washed away. Yet our world is becoming more and more "P.C."
Which is why I wanted to rant about Major Muslim Filth Bucket a little. It was the Army's PC policies that allowed him to murder and maim real American heroes. It was political correctness that failed to recognize that this ugly pedophile worshipper may in fact be trying to follow in his idol's footsteps by killing innocent people with no provocation. It was political correctness that forbade further inquiry into this follower of Satan's minion while he scribbled "Allah be praised" on all of his official reports. It was political correctness that made part of Fort Hood into a Gun Free Zone which allowed this moon god worshiper to know his targets would be unarmed. It was political correctness that labeled his terrorist attack as "workplace violence" so he could keep getting paid but his victims couldn't. And it was political correctness that allowed this follower of cowardice to keep his beard against Army regulations during his trial so as to not upset his fake god. Somehow, the idiots who adhere to political correctness think that the other cowardly, dirty, stinking Arab a-holes that want to kill us will want to kill us if we upset them. Hey morons: THEY ALREADY WANT TO KILL US!!!
The Muslims who adhere to strict Muslim law and want it imposed on the entire world already hate you, me, and every other American, Jew, and anybody else not following their strict brand of Islam. They even kill other Muslims...so it's not like reason plays a big part in their psychosis. Yet the moronic P.C. Police live in a fantasy world where everyone can live hand in hand and sing kumbaya around one magic fire just as long as we say and do the exact right thing. Well, anyone with half a brain knows that is nothing but stupidity...so it's time to cut the stupidity out of our lives. Because if not, political correctness will kill us all.
As for Nidal Hessan...well he wants to die a martyr, so I say go and ahead and make his day. Only first, he should have his beard forcibly shaven with a rusty saw. And then, he should have his head removed with the same rusty saw. Make a video of it. Put it on the internet. If terrorists want to be made martyrs, we should make that happen...in the most degrading and painful way possible. Cover them in pig urine, chain them naked in the desert sun to let the animals eat them alive. If they wanna die, we should help. After all, why can't we play the same game the cowardly Muslims do? Oh right, because we're P.C.
Yet all of these stories have a common thread: political correctness.
Here in America, violence within the Black Community is all but ignored. The P.C. Police make sure that anyone who dares bring it up are quickly labeled as racists. Mentioning that Islamic Extremists come from Islam gets you quickly poo-pood as a bigot. And anyone who pulls out the common sense view that Gun Free Zones only make life safer for criminals is silenced as someone who must hate children. Yes, in the P.C. World little makes sense and logic is quickly washed away. Yet our world is becoming more and more "P.C."
Which is why I wanted to rant about Major Muslim Filth Bucket a little. It was the Army's PC policies that allowed him to murder and maim real American heroes. It was political correctness that failed to recognize that this ugly pedophile worshipper may in fact be trying to follow in his idol's footsteps by killing innocent people with no provocation. It was political correctness that forbade further inquiry into this follower of Satan's minion while he scribbled "Allah be praised" on all of his official reports. It was political correctness that made part of Fort Hood into a Gun Free Zone which allowed this moon god worshiper to know his targets would be unarmed. It was political correctness that labeled his terrorist attack as "workplace violence" so he could keep getting paid but his victims couldn't. And it was political correctness that allowed this follower of cowardice to keep his beard against Army regulations during his trial so as to not upset his fake god. Somehow, the idiots who adhere to political correctness think that the other cowardly, dirty, stinking Arab a-holes that want to kill us will want to kill us if we upset them. Hey morons: THEY ALREADY WANT TO KILL US!!!
The Muslims who adhere to strict Muslim law and want it imposed on the entire world already hate you, me, and every other American, Jew, and anybody else not following their strict brand of Islam. They even kill other Muslims...so it's not like reason plays a big part in their psychosis. Yet the moronic P.C. Police live in a fantasy world where everyone can live hand in hand and sing kumbaya around one magic fire just as long as we say and do the exact right thing. Well, anyone with half a brain knows that is nothing but stupidity...so it's time to cut the stupidity out of our lives. Because if not, political correctness will kill us all.
As for Nidal Hessan...well he wants to die a martyr, so I say go and ahead and make his day. Only first, he should have his beard forcibly shaven with a rusty saw. And then, he should have his head removed with the same rusty saw. Make a video of it. Put it on the internet. If terrorists want to be made martyrs, we should make that happen...in the most degrading and painful way possible. Cover them in pig urine, chain them naked in the desert sun to let the animals eat them alive. If they wanna die, we should help. After all, why can't we play the same game the cowardly Muslims do? Oh right, because we're P.C.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Democracy at Work in Egypt
As the Egyptian president, Mohammad Morsi, is told by the military that his rule is over, millions of Egyptians celebrate in the streets. This, my friends, is what democracy looks like. Since his election, Morsi has consolidated more power to himself and his Muslim Brotherhood. The result has been less, not more freedom, in Egypt. And today the people of Egypt have risen up and declared that they will not allow authoritarian rule.
I have been shocked by the reporting of this by the Western news channels. Most are painting this as an illegal military coup that has stripped Egypt of democracy. Shep Smith even said that democracy didn't last long in Egypt. A CNN reporter said Israel will be upset with this, as will many Western countries. (Yeah, I'm sure Israel prefers the man who "Amen'd" a prayer to destroy the Jews to be ruler of Egypt) Most are upset because Morsi was democratically elected, and believe that the people of Egypt should just live him for 4 more years. Well let me clue you in on to what the Egyptian people would have to deal with. Christians imprisoned. Muslim minorities beaten to death. Freedom repressed.
To Americans and other Western countries, deposing an elected president may seem extreme. But you need to remember that in Egypt, there is no set Constitution laying out the laws of the land no matter who is in charge. After Mubarak was deposed, the laws of Egypt were open to change. And Morsi changed them to reflect a more extreme Islamic belief. His Islamic Constitution was not what the people of Egypt voted for and it was not what they wanted. His refusal to meet with and listen to Minority Groups was not what the Egyptian people expected. So yes, Morsi may have been democratically elected, but he was so based on the promises he made to listen to all the voices in Egypt, not just the extreme Islamic ones. And he failed to live up to those promises, and to make Egypt a better place to live. And so democracy in action is playing out in front of our eyes...and Morsi's oppressive regime is gone. Democracy is messy, but it is far better than tyranny. I applaud the Egyptian people on their stand for liberty, for one and all. Let the world take note: this is democracy!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
The NSA and the Nazis: Lessons from History
The NSA spying program, recently revealed, is troubling on many levels. The most troubling, however, may just be Americans lack of concern over it.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll shows majority ok with NSA spying.
The most disturbing thing about the above poll is that in 2007, the same poll showed that a majority of Republicans/Conservatives favored domestic spy programs while a majority of Democrats/Liberals opposed them. So basically, it seems that Americans don't care if their government spies on their communications just as long as they support the person in charge. You know who else didn't care if their government spied on them? The Germans in 1933.
History is full of important tips for how we should handle our present...actually that's pretty much the point of recorded history. Unfortunately, too few people pay attention to history for it to make much difference. And most people decry any kind of historical point if it involves Adolf Hitler. It seems that most people think that Adolf Hitler was the worst human being to ever exist and so want to erase him from history, and our minds, entirely. I disagree. I think Hitler was the worst human being to ever exist and so I want to learn about the things he did so that we can prevent them from ever happening again. Forgetting Hitler is the first step to letting another one rise.
Still, as soon as many people hear a comparison to Nazi Germany they cry foul and chastise me for even making such a comparison. Here's why they shouldn't. And why every American (heck, every human) should be concerned about the NSA and other government programs designed to spy on citizens.
On February 27th, 1933, the German parliament building, called the Reichstag, was burned to the ground. To this day, no one knows exactly who started the fire. (Some claim the Nazis themselves did it.) But German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party leaders nonetheless blamed it on the Communists. They said that the Communists were planning a revolution against the German government and that the Reichstag Fire was supposed to be a sign to Communist terror cells all over the country to begin a wave of attacks. Within 24 hours of the fire, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Expression were all suspended. The majority of German citizens gave up these rights without a second thought. It was necessary, they said, in order to prevent the terrible attacks the Communists were planning.
School teacher Louise Solmitz justified it by saying, "[The Communists] wanted to send armed mobs into villages to commit murder and plunder. Hostages would be taken from the Middle Class. Wives and children of police officers used as human shields."
Brunswick resident Elizabeth Gebensleben added, "This ruthless intervention by the government may appear strange, but we must clean up. The Communists have to disappear."
And author Sebastian Haffner described the attitude of most Germans with this: "All of [the people I talked to] are very interested in the question of who really started the fire, and more than one of them hinted that they had doubts about the official story. But none of them were bothered that from now on their telephones would be tapped, their letters opened, and their desks broken into." [Emphasis mine]
Thousands of people associated with the Communist Party were imprisoned across Germany, without evidence or trial. Simply being a member of that political party was enough to get you arrested, indefinitely imprisoned, or worse. Yet the majority of German people approved of the invasive measures of the Nazi government and applauded the round up of the Communists. After all, the government was only doing it to protect its citizens. And giving up some degree of privacy is worth it in order to be safe. Plus, as long as you weren't a Communist, you had nothing to worry about. The German people were ok with it.
All you have to do is replace the word communist with the word terrorist and you have the America of today. Shall we continue our view of history to see how it worked out for the Germans?
On the 23rd of March, 1933, the German parliament voted to pass the Enabling Act, basically making Adolf Hitler dictator. After all, it was a time of national emergency, and the Nazis would be better able to protect the citizens from Communist terrorists if Hitler didn't have to constantly go through the German parliament. Again, the German people applauded the move. One said, "We cry with happiness and joy! All traces of resistance have been eliminated. Enthusiasm grips the entire nation! We can hardly believe that our beloved Fürher stands alone at the head of the Reich!"
Sebastian Haffner described the following months like this: "Church bells ring; children wave flags. There are daily parades. The people have become used to cheering, even when there's no reason for it. It is reason enough that people who distance themselves from the Nazis are tortured to death daily with steel whips and electric drills."
The German people enjoyed a prosperous year. Most had high hopes for their future and the future of their children. They were unconcerned with reports of political dissidents being targeted by the police and government. They cared less about the government spying on their communications. They celebrated the arrests of the Communists and believed they were living in a better Germany than they had been a year ago. 1934 looked like it was going to be a good year. For some, it was anything but.
In 1934, the Nazis began their eugenics program. Weeding out "undesirable genetic traits" was a key to this. And so the German government began surgically preventing anyone with undesirable traits from breeding. Over 400,000 Germans were forcibly sterelized for such "genetic flaws" as blindness, deafness, epilepsy, homosexuality, mental depression, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and physical deformity, among others. Including suffering a nervous breakdown, as one factory worker explained to her friend: "I have been informed by writing that I am to be rendered infertile. I reject this decision. I cannot understand why they want to sterilize me since I've done nothing wrong. Anyone could have suffered from a nervous breakdown."
Suddenly, having the government listening to your phone calls and reading your mail didn't turn out to be such a minor thing. The government knowing private details about their citizens made it a whole lot easier for them to determine how to handle them. Accusing the government of crimes in a letter could get you arrested. Asking your sick aunt how she was doing over the phone could get her sterilized. There was no place to hide.
I know, I know...it couldn't happen here. Well do you honestly think that the German citizens thought that the things that happened to them would in 1933? Do you think that Germans with epilepsy thought that they would be forcibly sterilized? Do you think that German Jews thought that they would be slaughtered? They didn't, as author Erich Ebermayer explained in 1933: "We are having lunch with a law professor and his wife. They are both Jewish. The amazing thing is that this clever, charming woman is not at all opposed to the Nazis. On the contrary, she lectures us on the outstanding qualities of Adolf Hitler, on the greatness of the age which we are allowed to witness, on the national rebirth. And she is firmly convinced that no harm whatsoever will come to educated Jews in Germany."
What do you say, American? Firmly convinced that no harm whatsoever will come of the government spying program? Firmly convinced that "it could never happen here?" I hope and pray that you are right. But history tends to disagree.
The most disturbing thing about the above poll is that in 2007, the same poll showed that a majority of Republicans/Conservatives favored domestic spy programs while a majority of Democrats/Liberals opposed them. So basically, it seems that Americans don't care if their government spies on their communications just as long as they support the person in charge. You know who else didn't care if their government spied on them? The Germans in 1933.
History is full of important tips for how we should handle our present...actually that's pretty much the point of recorded history. Unfortunately, too few people pay attention to history for it to make much difference. And most people decry any kind of historical point if it involves Adolf Hitler. It seems that most people think that Adolf Hitler was the worst human being to ever exist and so want to erase him from history, and our minds, entirely. I disagree. I think Hitler was the worst human being to ever exist and so I want to learn about the things he did so that we can prevent them from ever happening again. Forgetting Hitler is the first step to letting another one rise.
Still, as soon as many people hear a comparison to Nazi Germany they cry foul and chastise me for even making such a comparison. Here's why they shouldn't. And why every American (heck, every human) should be concerned about the NSA and other government programs designed to spy on citizens.
On February 27th, 1933, the German parliament building, called the Reichstag, was burned to the ground. To this day, no one knows exactly who started the fire. (Some claim the Nazis themselves did it.) But German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party leaders nonetheless blamed it on the Communists. They said that the Communists were planning a revolution against the German government and that the Reichstag Fire was supposed to be a sign to Communist terror cells all over the country to begin a wave of attacks. Within 24 hours of the fire, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Expression were all suspended. The majority of German citizens gave up these rights without a second thought. It was necessary, they said, in order to prevent the terrible attacks the Communists were planning.
School teacher Louise Solmitz justified it by saying, "[The Communists] wanted to send armed mobs into villages to commit murder and plunder. Hostages would be taken from the Middle Class. Wives and children of police officers used as human shields."
Brunswick resident Elizabeth Gebensleben added, "This ruthless intervention by the government may appear strange, but we must clean up. The Communists have to disappear."
And author Sebastian Haffner described the attitude of most Germans with this: "All of [the people I talked to] are very interested in the question of who really started the fire, and more than one of them hinted that they had doubts about the official story. But none of them were bothered that from now on their telephones would be tapped, their letters opened, and their desks broken into." [Emphasis mine]
Thousands of people associated with the Communist Party were imprisoned across Germany, without evidence or trial. Simply being a member of that political party was enough to get you arrested, indefinitely imprisoned, or worse. Yet the majority of German people approved of the invasive measures of the Nazi government and applauded the round up of the Communists. After all, the government was only doing it to protect its citizens. And giving up some degree of privacy is worth it in order to be safe. Plus, as long as you weren't a Communist, you had nothing to worry about. The German people were ok with it.
All you have to do is replace the word communist with the word terrorist and you have the America of today. Shall we continue our view of history to see how it worked out for the Germans?
On the 23rd of March, 1933, the German parliament voted to pass the Enabling Act, basically making Adolf Hitler dictator. After all, it was a time of national emergency, and the Nazis would be better able to protect the citizens from Communist terrorists if Hitler didn't have to constantly go through the German parliament. Again, the German people applauded the move. One said, "We cry with happiness and joy! All traces of resistance have been eliminated. Enthusiasm grips the entire nation! We can hardly believe that our beloved Fürher stands alone at the head of the Reich!"
Sebastian Haffner described the following months like this: "Church bells ring; children wave flags. There are daily parades. The people have become used to cheering, even when there's no reason for it. It is reason enough that people who distance themselves from the Nazis are tortured to death daily with steel whips and electric drills."
The German people enjoyed a prosperous year. Most had high hopes for their future and the future of their children. They were unconcerned with reports of political dissidents being targeted by the police and government. They cared less about the government spying on their communications. They celebrated the arrests of the Communists and believed they were living in a better Germany than they had been a year ago. 1934 looked like it was going to be a good year. For some, it was anything but.
In 1934, the Nazis began their eugenics program. Weeding out "undesirable genetic traits" was a key to this. And so the German government began surgically preventing anyone with undesirable traits from breeding. Over 400,000 Germans were forcibly sterelized for such "genetic flaws" as blindness, deafness, epilepsy, homosexuality, mental depression, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, and physical deformity, among others. Including suffering a nervous breakdown, as one factory worker explained to her friend: "I have been informed by writing that I am to be rendered infertile. I reject this decision. I cannot understand why they want to sterilize me since I've done nothing wrong. Anyone could have suffered from a nervous breakdown."
Suddenly, having the government listening to your phone calls and reading your mail didn't turn out to be such a minor thing. The government knowing private details about their citizens made it a whole lot easier for them to determine how to handle them. Accusing the government of crimes in a letter could get you arrested. Asking your sick aunt how she was doing over the phone could get her sterilized. There was no place to hide.
I know, I know...it couldn't happen here. Well do you honestly think that the German citizens thought that the things that happened to them would in 1933? Do you think that Germans with epilepsy thought that they would be forcibly sterilized? Do you think that German Jews thought that they would be slaughtered? They didn't, as author Erich Ebermayer explained in 1933: "We are having lunch with a law professor and his wife. They are both Jewish. The amazing thing is that this clever, charming woman is not at all opposed to the Nazis. On the contrary, she lectures us on the outstanding qualities of Adolf Hitler, on the greatness of the age which we are allowed to witness, on the national rebirth. And she is firmly convinced that no harm whatsoever will come to educated Jews in Germany."
What do you say, American? Firmly convinced that no harm whatsoever will come of the government spying program? Firmly convinced that "it could never happen here?" I hope and pray that you are right. But history tends to disagree.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Government Collecting Data on ALL Americans
I first saw this a few months ago, and really just filed it away. I don't believe everything I see on the Internet. But with today's breaking news that the NSA has been collecting phone records, emails, and Internet posts, this guy's story becomes not only believable, but credible. The government is watching you. And violating the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, will enough people care? That is the real question.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
The Star-Spangled Banner by Madison Rising
I know the Marxists controlling our government are whittling away the greatness of our once proud country. But the reason Marxists attempt to squash religion is because little things can cause a great deal of inspiration. And a little bit of inspiration can be a powerful thing. While America is being destroyed by idiots on the West Coast and the East Coast (and by a few in the middle) the fire of freedom has yet to be extinguished in a great deal of Americans. And America will never truly die if She resides in our hearts, regardless of where this country heads.
To that effect I offer you perhaps one of the best renditions of our National Anthem, performed by a rocking young band who's goal is to fan the flames of American patriotism. Facebook even tried blocking this band's videos, claiming it was just a "glitch" when enough people rose a stink. Now, thanks to Facebook's liberal tendencies, many more people have heard about this band and are sharing their songs. This is Madison Rising with a rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner that will bring a tear to any patriot's eye. Enjoy, and God bless the USA!
To that effect I offer you perhaps one of the best renditions of our National Anthem, performed by a rocking young band who's goal is to fan the flames of American patriotism. Facebook even tried blocking this band's videos, claiming it was just a "glitch" when enough people rose a stink. Now, thanks to Facebook's liberal tendencies, many more people have heard about this band and are sharing their songs. This is Madison Rising with a rendition of The Star-Spangled Banner that will bring a tear to any patriot's eye. Enjoy, and God bless the USA!
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Britain is No Longer Free
"The sun never sets on the British Empire."
At the height of it's power, that phrase was used to describe the greatness of Britain and the vastness of it's Empire. Today, we are witnessing the sunset of British sovereignty. After the vicious murder of the soldier in a suburb of London by Muslim attackers who promised to never stop killing Brits until they get rid of their government (presumably replacing it with Sharia Law), the response of the British government has been quick and telling.
Two things shape my opinion. One, the British Prime Minister made a statement telling soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public. Just take a minute to think about what that means. In that situation, any normal leader should say, "We condemn this attack, we will not stand for it, and we won't allow it. We promise to keep our people safe here in our own country."
But he didn't say that. Sure he condemned the attack and said they won't stand for it...but he completely left out the part about Britain protecting it's citizens in their streets. In fact, he said the opposite, just not in so many words. By telling soldiers to not wear their uniforms in public, he was basically telling all of Britain that their government was now unable or unwilling to protect them, and that they should take proactive approaches to not become victims; namely, hiding from the enemy.
The other thing that confirms my fears is the story of the Newport shopkeeper who displayed a shirt in his store with the words: "Obey our laws, respect our beliefs...or get out of our country." This man quickly received a visit from the police telling him to remove the shirt from his store or face arrest. Apparently someone told the police that the shirt offended them, and so they forced the man to remove it because it offended racial sensibilities. Which is something since it said absolutely nothing about race whatsoever. Think about it for a second.
"Obey our laws."
Well isn't that what people are supposed to do?
"Respect our beliefs."
Well that could be called tolerance. Don't we live in a tolerant world now? Yet someone was offended at those basic principles of society...and so the police got rid of them.
And those two stories tell you all you need to know about the state of Britain. The government has admitted that it won't or can't protect it's citizens on their very streets and that their laws and beliefs won't be protected either. For almost a thousand years England stood as a sovereign nation, and the British Empire was perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen. But the sun is setting on Britain. And it's being replaced by a crescent moon. In ten years, Britain will be a Muslim country; complete with Sharia Law, women not being allowed to go to school or even leave the house without a male escort, and 12 year olds being married off to 50 year old men who will treat them worse than any animal. Its feckless government and foolish leaders have all but assured it, and it's ignorant populace won't realize it until it's too late. Their liberal policies and political correctness have led to their demise, and it's only a matter of time before the name 'Britain' serves only as a warning to the rest of the Western World. A warning that we would be wise to heed.
At the height of it's power, that phrase was used to describe the greatness of Britain and the vastness of it's Empire. Today, we are witnessing the sunset of British sovereignty. After the vicious murder of the soldier in a suburb of London by Muslim attackers who promised to never stop killing Brits until they get rid of their government (presumably replacing it with Sharia Law), the response of the British government has been quick and telling.
Two things shape my opinion. One, the British Prime Minister made a statement telling soldiers not to wear their uniforms in public. Just take a minute to think about what that means. In that situation, any normal leader should say, "We condemn this attack, we will not stand for it, and we won't allow it. We promise to keep our people safe here in our own country."
But he didn't say that. Sure he condemned the attack and said they won't stand for it...but he completely left out the part about Britain protecting it's citizens in their streets. In fact, he said the opposite, just not in so many words. By telling soldiers to not wear their uniforms in public, he was basically telling all of Britain that their government was now unable or unwilling to protect them, and that they should take proactive approaches to not become victims; namely, hiding from the enemy.
The other thing that confirms my fears is the story of the Newport shopkeeper who displayed a shirt in his store with the words: "Obey our laws, respect our beliefs...or get out of our country." This man quickly received a visit from the police telling him to remove the shirt from his store or face arrest. Apparently someone told the police that the shirt offended them, and so they forced the man to remove it because it offended racial sensibilities. Which is something since it said absolutely nothing about race whatsoever. Think about it for a second.
"Obey our laws."
Well isn't that what people are supposed to do?
"Respect our beliefs."
Well that could be called tolerance. Don't we live in a tolerant world now? Yet someone was offended at those basic principles of society...and so the police got rid of them.
And those two stories tell you all you need to know about the state of Britain. The government has admitted that it won't or can't protect it's citizens on their very streets and that their laws and beliefs won't be protected either. For almost a thousand years England stood as a sovereign nation, and the British Empire was perhaps the greatest the world has ever seen. But the sun is setting on Britain. And it's being replaced by a crescent moon. In ten years, Britain will be a Muslim country; complete with Sharia Law, women not being allowed to go to school or even leave the house without a male escort, and 12 year olds being married off to 50 year old men who will treat them worse than any animal. Its feckless government and foolish leaders have all but assured it, and it's ignorant populace won't realize it until it's too late. Their liberal policies and political correctness have led to their demise, and it's only a matter of time before the name 'Britain' serves only as a warning to the rest of the Western World. A warning that we would be wise to heed.
Friday, May 17, 2013
The Boys (and Girls) Who Cried Racist
In the very off chance that you don't know the story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, I'll give you a brief rundown.
A long time ago, before cars and iphones, there was a boy who lived in a small village who tended the sheep for his family. One day, bored and lonely, the boy yelled, "Wolf! Wolf!"
The townsfolk came running out to the field to save the boy from the carnivorous beast. But there was no wolf. The boy had lied. The townsfolk were annoyed.
The next week, the boy yelled, "Wolf!" again. Again the townspeople came running out to the field. But again the boy had lied. The people were angry.
The next week the boy did it again. Only half the townspeople came out this time, and they were angry again.
The next week the boy did it again. Only his family ran out to the field this time.
The next week he did it again. Only his mom came out to help him from the fictitious wolf.
The next week, an actual wolf showed up in the field. As it charged at, attacked, and drug the boy away, his screams of "Wolf! Wolf!" were ignored by all.
When Barack Obama became president, the word "racist" suddenly became the most used word in the English language. (Well maybe, like, second. To the word "like.")
Anytime someone criticized anything Obama said or did they were accused of being racist. If you didn't think a community organizer had the qualifications to be president; you were racist. If you didn't think Obamacare was a good idea; you were racist. If you didn't think the murder of four Americans was because of an Internet video; you were racist.
Racist...racist...racist.
It went from the obscure, to the main stream, to the surreal. Chris Matthews declared the words "Chicago" and "urban" to be racist. Multiply nouns of every size, shape, and definition suddenly became "racist." Words that had been used in a non-racist way for hundreds of years suddenly became "racist."
Now I went to a school in an inner city Pennsylvania town. I had friends of every race, creed, denomination, and disposition. Racism, to me, is one of the stupidest things on the planet. Judging someone based on a purely physical characteristic that they had nothing to do with (People don't choose what color they're born as. If so, I wouldn't be pasty white) is completely asanine. So to suddenly be called racist for my political beliefs, or hatred of Chicago style pizza (Seriously, toppings go on the OUTSIDE of the pizza. That's why they're toppings, and not innings) upset me. I was incredulous that believing the Constitution should be followed was racist. I was distraught that believing Marxism would only lead to tyranny was racist. I was angry that believing the death of Osama bin Laden should be credited more to the Navy Seals that actually did the killing than to a president who sat comfortably drinking bottled water on the other side of the world was racist.
When someone said my beliefs were racist, I reacted. I read the articles, listened to the newscasters. I didn't wanna be called racist, because I'm not racist.
Five years later....and the word "racist" has as much meaning to me as the word "wolf" did to everyone in that town. I saw a headline today declaring that criticism of President Obama has its roots in White Supremecy. I didn't even bother to read the article. The word "racist" has no effect for me anymore. And it has no effect anymore for millions of Americans who used to hate being called racist because they weren't. Now it's just a sad, pathetic exclamation for people who have no other ways to protect their sad, pathetic ideas. The boy who cried wolf was destroyed by his lie. And the credibility of the boys and girls who cry racist is being destroyed by their idiocy. So go ahead and call us racist. Because the more you do, the less people will pay attention to you.
A long time ago, before cars and iphones, there was a boy who lived in a small village who tended the sheep for his family. One day, bored and lonely, the boy yelled, "Wolf! Wolf!"
The townsfolk came running out to the field to save the boy from the carnivorous beast. But there was no wolf. The boy had lied. The townsfolk were annoyed.
The next week, the boy yelled, "Wolf!" again. Again the townspeople came running out to the field. But again the boy had lied. The people were angry.
The next week the boy did it again. Only half the townspeople came out this time, and they were angry again.
The next week the boy did it again. Only his family ran out to the field this time.
The next week he did it again. Only his mom came out to help him from the fictitious wolf.
The next week, an actual wolf showed up in the field. As it charged at, attacked, and drug the boy away, his screams of "Wolf! Wolf!" were ignored by all.
When Barack Obama became president, the word "racist" suddenly became the most used word in the English language. (Well maybe, like, second. To the word "like.")
Anytime someone criticized anything Obama said or did they were accused of being racist. If you didn't think a community organizer had the qualifications to be president; you were racist. If you didn't think Obamacare was a good idea; you were racist. If you didn't think the murder of four Americans was because of an Internet video; you were racist.
Racist...racist...racist.
It went from the obscure, to the main stream, to the surreal. Chris Matthews declared the words "Chicago" and "urban" to be racist. Multiply nouns of every size, shape, and definition suddenly became "racist." Words that had been used in a non-racist way for hundreds of years suddenly became "racist."
Now I went to a school in an inner city Pennsylvania town. I had friends of every race, creed, denomination, and disposition. Racism, to me, is one of the stupidest things on the planet. Judging someone based on a purely physical characteristic that they had nothing to do with (People don't choose what color they're born as. If so, I wouldn't be pasty white) is completely asanine. So to suddenly be called racist for my political beliefs, or hatred of Chicago style pizza (Seriously, toppings go on the OUTSIDE of the pizza. That's why they're toppings, and not innings) upset me. I was incredulous that believing the Constitution should be followed was racist. I was distraught that believing Marxism would only lead to tyranny was racist. I was angry that believing the death of Osama bin Laden should be credited more to the Navy Seals that actually did the killing than to a president who sat comfortably drinking bottled water on the other side of the world was racist.
When someone said my beliefs were racist, I reacted. I read the articles, listened to the newscasters. I didn't wanna be called racist, because I'm not racist.
Five years later....and the word "racist" has as much meaning to me as the word "wolf" did to everyone in that town. I saw a headline today declaring that criticism of President Obama has its roots in White Supremecy. I didn't even bother to read the article. The word "racist" has no effect for me anymore. And it has no effect anymore for millions of Americans who used to hate being called racist because they weren't. Now it's just a sad, pathetic exclamation for people who have no other ways to protect their sad, pathetic ideas. The boy who cried wolf was destroyed by his lie. And the credibility of the boys and girls who cry racist is being destroyed by their idiocy. So go ahead and call us racist. Because the more you do, the less people will pay attention to you.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Of Intolerance and Bravery
In the event that you live under a rock, a monumental and momentous event occurred a few days ago: an NBA player announced he was gay. Not being a die hard NBA fan, I had never heard of Jason Collins before two days ago, as I'm sure few did. He is a 34 year old free agent that has played for 6 different teams and is currently unsigned. Basically, he's a mediocre player who's playing days may have come to an end. Now I don't mean to treat his accomplishments lightly; anybody who plays professional sports is in a very low percentage of a very talented group. I just wish to paint the picture as adequately as I can. In over 700 games, he averaged 3 points and 3 rebounds a game. He was no superstar, to which everyone can agree.
Yet despite his obscurity as an athlete, once he announced that he was gay, he became instantly famous. His name is in every newspaper (or more likely nowadays, website), he's being talked about on all the news channels, and the social media world is exploding with his story. As the first professional athlete from the "Big 4" (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball) to announce he's gay, he is being hailed as a hero. Some are comparing him to Jackie Robinson. He even got a phone call from the president, who is proud of him. He is the new American hero; cited for his bravery, courage, and personal strength.
I'm certainly not going to denigrate Mr. Collins. I don't know the man and so won't speak about his personal character. By all accounts, he's a nice guy. And I would speak out against any vile or negative remarks made about him if that were poured upon him. But just as he doesn't deserve insults, he also doesn't deserve this effusive praise being heaped upon him. I don't know his personal reasons for saying he's gay, but I do know that he has become an instant superstar. He's probably received a few book deals by now, he's been invited for countless interviews, and he is being raised upon a pedestal. Was Jackie Robinson given that? Jackie Robinson was personally and publicly reviled; he received death threats in every town he played in. He was given hatred. Jason Collins is receiving very little, if any, of that. Does it take courage to become a public hero? Or to receive praise and compliments? How brave does one have to be to announce that they are gay in a society that openly approves and applauds the gay lifestyle? I doubt Mr. Collins was unaware of the fame his announcement would bring him, just as Jackie Robinson was aware of the infamy his decision would bring him. And predictably, any who refuse to applaud Mr. Collins' choice of bedmates are being verbally butchered as intolerant bigots. Chris Broussard may lose his job over it.
Yet there is another American, who this very day sits alone in an Iranian prison cell, possibly suffering from internal bleeding due to severe beatings he has gotten from the guards, simply because he refuses to denounce his Christian faith. Saeed Abedini is very far from his wife and children, treated worse than any animal, because of his religious beliefs and for no other reason. This man, an American citizen, rotting in solitary confinement because of his God given right. You see, when the U.S. Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers said the rights protected by it are God given. Which means that all people are given them...not just Americans. Other countries may not choose to recognize those rights, but all people are given them by God Himself. And so today, as Jason Collins is treated like a hero and his detractors villified as intolerant, Saeed Abedini is being tortured to death because he refuses to give up his God given right. And as President Obama is making speeches about and phone calls to Jason Collins, he is doing nothing for Saeed Abedini. So I ask you, what takes more bravery? Where does the true intolerance lie? Is it with the man praised for an announcement, or for the man dying for his faith with little fanfare far away from his home? Today, who is the real hero?
Yet despite his obscurity as an athlete, once he announced that he was gay, he became instantly famous. His name is in every newspaper (or more likely nowadays, website), he's being talked about on all the news channels, and the social media world is exploding with his story. As the first professional athlete from the "Big 4" (football, baseball, hockey, and basketball) to announce he's gay, he is being hailed as a hero. Some are comparing him to Jackie Robinson. He even got a phone call from the president, who is proud of him. He is the new American hero; cited for his bravery, courage, and personal strength.
I'm certainly not going to denigrate Mr. Collins. I don't know the man and so won't speak about his personal character. By all accounts, he's a nice guy. And I would speak out against any vile or negative remarks made about him if that were poured upon him. But just as he doesn't deserve insults, he also doesn't deserve this effusive praise being heaped upon him. I don't know his personal reasons for saying he's gay, but I do know that he has become an instant superstar. He's probably received a few book deals by now, he's been invited for countless interviews, and he is being raised upon a pedestal. Was Jackie Robinson given that? Jackie Robinson was personally and publicly reviled; he received death threats in every town he played in. He was given hatred. Jason Collins is receiving very little, if any, of that. Does it take courage to become a public hero? Or to receive praise and compliments? How brave does one have to be to announce that they are gay in a society that openly approves and applauds the gay lifestyle? I doubt Mr. Collins was unaware of the fame his announcement would bring him, just as Jackie Robinson was aware of the infamy his decision would bring him. And predictably, any who refuse to applaud Mr. Collins' choice of bedmates are being verbally butchered as intolerant bigots. Chris Broussard may lose his job over it.
Yet there is another American, who this very day sits alone in an Iranian prison cell, possibly suffering from internal bleeding due to severe beatings he has gotten from the guards, simply because he refuses to denounce his Christian faith. Saeed Abedini is very far from his wife and children, treated worse than any animal, because of his religious beliefs and for no other reason. This man, an American citizen, rotting in solitary confinement because of his God given right. You see, when the U.S. Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers said the rights protected by it are God given. Which means that all people are given them...not just Americans. Other countries may not choose to recognize those rights, but all people are given them by God Himself. And so today, as Jason Collins is treated like a hero and his detractors villified as intolerant, Saeed Abedini is being tortured to death because he refuses to give up his God given right. And as President Obama is making speeches about and phone calls to Jason Collins, he is doing nothing for Saeed Abedini. So I ask you, what takes more bravery? Where does the true intolerance lie? Is it with the man praised for an announcement, or for the man dying for his faith with little fanfare far away from his home? Today, who is the real hero?
Friday, March 22, 2013
AAP says Gay Marriage good for kids, but is it really?
The American Academy of Pediatrics made news this week by coming out in support of Gay Marriage, stating that it is fine for children to grow up in a home with a same sex couples. Their reasoning? "'On the basis of a review of extensive scientific literature.'" In other words, they found "scientific" literature that backed up their already formed belief and used that as proof that their belief is right. This is what passes for "science" nowadays.
But the "literature" they based their outcome on only took into account things like small children not caring who gives them food, as long as someone gives them food. And that seems to be pretty much common sense. But what about older children; teenagers; young adults? Those people still considered "children" yet developing adult tendencies based on their lifestyle. Did anyone actually bother to question adults who became fully grown as children of two same sex parents? Well I'm glad you asked, because someone did!
While most studies of children's well being inside same sex households focuses on young children, there are studies that have focused on the now adult children raised by same sex couples. And those studies conclude that:
"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children...to be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family."
But of course, I could be doing exactly what I accused the AAP of doing: choosing a study purely because it validates my belief. Well, don't take my word that this study (actually two studies) is legit. Take Robert Oscar Lopez's. Mr. Lopez was raised by a lesbian couple, so he has firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be raised in a homosexual household.
Mr. Lopez described his childhood like this:
"To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.
Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.
Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays."
Mr. Lopez goes on to explain how he (along with the majority of children raised by homosexual couples) considered himself to be bisexual...yet in the gay community bisexuals are met with "a mixture of disgust and envy" and are even seen by some as a threat to the "gay narrative" since they can choose to be gay or straight. And so the children of gay couples grow up alienated and shunned from both the straight and gay communities...in essence making them total outcasts.
Mr. Lopez says that after his mother died he dropped out of college (where the LGBT community told him that he was lying by saying he was bisexual instead of gay) and became involved in the underground gay scene where he says "terrible things" happened to him.
Mr. Lopez's view of the aforementioned studies, which surely holds more weight than my own, is summed up like this: "Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they [children raised by homosexual couples] gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."
Mr. Lopez believes these studies are important for the welfare of children being raised in homosexual households, as do I. Yet he also acknowledges that the "gay movement" is doing all it can to suppress such findings. And so today we hear about the AAP and any number of other groups coming out in support of gay marriage based on their own findings, but we never hear about the studies like these that form a different conclusion.
We say we all care about the safety of our children...but when it comes to gay marriage, our society seems to choose political correctness over sincere research into how it may actually affect them in the long term. I admit that true scientific research may indeed show that being raised by a gay couple doesn't affect kids any differently...but at this point we seem very far from true and honest research. Without an open discussion with scientific findings from both sides, we never will really know if we are condemning certain children to a life of misery. And isn't determining that far more important than personal beliefs or political correctness?
But the "literature" they based their outcome on only took into account things like small children not caring who gives them food, as long as someone gives them food. And that seems to be pretty much common sense. But what about older children; teenagers; young adults? Those people still considered "children" yet developing adult tendencies based on their lifestyle. Did anyone actually bother to question adults who became fully grown as children of two same sex parents? Well I'm glad you asked, because someone did!
While most studies of children's well being inside same sex households focuses on young children, there are studies that have focused on the now adult children raised by same sex couples. And those studies conclude that:
"Taken together, the findings of the NFSS disprove the claim that there are no differences between children raised by parents who have same-sex relationships and children raised in intact, biological, married families when it comes to the social, emotional, and relational outcomes of their children...to be raised in an intact biological family presents clear advantages for children over other forms of parenting. In particular, the NFSS provides evidence that previous generations of social scientists were unable to gather: that children from intact, biological families also out-perform peers who were raised in homes of a parent who had same-sex relationships. Therefore, these two new studies reaffirm—and strengthen—the conviction that the gold standard for raising children is still the intact, biological family."
But of course, I could be doing exactly what I accused the AAP of doing: choosing a study purely because it validates my belief. Well, don't take my word that this study (actually two studies) is legit. Take Robert Oscar Lopez's. Mr. Lopez was raised by a lesbian couple, so he has firsthand knowledge of what it's like to be raised in a homosexual household.
Mr. Lopez described his childhood like this:
"To most outside observers, I was a well-raised, high-achieving child, finishing high school with straight A's.
Inside, however, I was confused. When your home life is so drastically different from everyone around you, in a fundamental way striking at basic physical relations, you grow up weird. I have no mental health disorders or biological conditions. I just grew up in a house so unusual that I was destined to exist as a social outcast.
My peers learned all the unwritten rules of decorum and body language in their homes; they understood what was appropriate to say in certain settings and what wasn’t; they learned both traditionally masculine and traditionally feminine social mechanisms.
Even if my peers’ parents were divorced, and many of them were, they still grew up seeing male and female social models. They learned, typically, how to be bold and unflinching from male figures and how to write thank-you cards and be sensitive from female figures. These are stereotypes, of course, but stereotypes come in handy when you inevitably leave the safety of your lesbian mom’s trailer and have to work and survive in a world where everybody thinks in stereotypical terms, even gays."
Mr. Lopez goes on to explain how he (along with the majority of children raised by homosexual couples) considered himself to be bisexual...yet in the gay community bisexuals are met with "a mixture of disgust and envy" and are even seen by some as a threat to the "gay narrative" since they can choose to be gay or straight. And so the children of gay couples grow up alienated and shunned from both the straight and gay communities...in essence making them total outcasts.
Mr. Lopez says that after his mother died he dropped out of college (where the LGBT community told him that he was lying by saying he was bisexual instead of gay) and became involved in the underground gay scene where he says "terrible things" happened to him.
Mr. Lopez's view of the aforementioned studies, which surely holds more weight than my own, is summed up like this: "Offered a chance to provide frank responses with the hindsight of adulthood, they [children raised by homosexual couples] gave reports unfavorable to the gay marriage equality agenda. Yet the results are backed up by an important thing in life called common sense: Growing up different from other people is difficult and the difficulties raise the risk that children will develop maladjustments or self-medicate with alcohol and other dangerous behaviors."
Mr. Lopez believes these studies are important for the welfare of children being raised in homosexual households, as do I. Yet he also acknowledges that the "gay movement" is doing all it can to suppress such findings. And so today we hear about the AAP and any number of other groups coming out in support of gay marriage based on their own findings, but we never hear about the studies like these that form a different conclusion.
We say we all care about the safety of our children...but when it comes to gay marriage, our society seems to choose political correctness over sincere research into how it may actually affect them in the long term. I admit that true scientific research may indeed show that being raised by a gay couple doesn't affect kids any differently...but at this point we seem very far from true and honest research. Without an open discussion with scientific findings from both sides, we never will really know if we are condemning certain children to a life of misery. And isn't determining that far more important than personal beliefs or political correctness?
Monday, March 11, 2013
Now We Know
As Senator Paul stood on the Senate floor for just under 13 hours, fighting to bring attention to the erosion of our rights as Americans, he was joined by fellow senators. But only a handful. 14 Republican senators stood behind, and with, Rand Paul as he tried to defend the Constitution. Only 1 Democrat senator did. 15. 15 (16 including Paul) out of 100 chose to go against their parties, president, and the status quo in order to try and make sure Americans retain their rights. That is a staggering number. Yet many of us have believed for a long while that most of our representatives in Congress are sell outs. Now we know who they are. Republican or Democrat, it does not matter. What matters is our Constitution which defends our Freedom. Either you are fighting for it, or you are fighting against it.
Those fighting for it include: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), John Thune (R-S.D.), John Barrasso (R-Wy.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).
The Blaze also reports that Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) was in attendance and supported Paul’s filibuster by bringing the senator a thermos and an apple, a likely reference to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” However, Kirk, who recently returned to the Senate after suffering a stroke, did not speak during the filibuster. The Blaze article also has a full list of the other 32 Republican senators who did not choose to join the filibuster.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was the only Democrat to support the filibuster, much to the chagrin of liberals who, whaddaya know, also don't want drones killing Americans without due process on U.S. soil. The ACLU and John Cusack were discouraged at the lack of Democrat support.
I think we all are a little discouraged that the men and women we elect to defend our rights are willing to so easily sell us down the proverbial river, but at least now we know who we can trust to stand up for us and who we can't. My advice: Don't ever vote for anyone not on that list again. Rand Paul's filibuster may not have achieved much, but it has exposed the dirty politicians from the (relatively) clean ones. Now we know who to trust. And as G.I. Joe taught me: knowing is half the battle.
(It should be noted that a number of representatives from the U.S. House also attended to support the filibuster, but I have yet to find a definitive list of who as of yet. If I do, I will update with it.)
UPDATE: In an op-ed Paul wrote for the Washington Post, he included the members of Congress who stood with him during his filibuster. Sixteen House Republicans showed up in the Senate to show solidarity. They are: Louis Gohmert (TX), Thomas Massie (KY), Justin Amash (MI), Ron DeSantis (FL), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Garland Barr (KY), Trey Radel (FL), Michael Burgess (TX), Jim Bridenstine (OK), Raul Labrador (ID), Keither Rothfus (PA), Paul Gosar (AZ), Steve Daines (MONTANA), Bill Huizenga (MI), Richard Hudson (NC), and David Schweikert (AZ). It should also be noted that Senator Angus King, an Independent from Maine, also stood on the floor in support of Paul.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Rand Paul - The Last American?
"Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans?"
That is the crux of what was an almost 13 hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul that began just before noon yesterday and ended well after midnight tonight. A rare "talking filibuster" by Paul held up the confirmation hearing of CIA head nominee John Brennan, but the filibuster had little to do with Brennan himself and everything to do with the frightening drone policy that is being implemented by the Obama Administration. Rand Paul asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer. Does the Executive Branch of our government have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drones, and if so, by what guidelines? Senator Paul was driven to hold up Senate proceedings until he was given an adequate answer to that simple question...and he may have done so well into tomorrow if not for the need of a bathroom break. (For the life of me I don't know how he made it nearly 13 hours without one!) His numerous requests for an answer to that simple question were all ignored or skirted by the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and John Brennan. And so Paul held up the Senate to make it known that this is an important issue, maybe the most important of our time. Because if the Executive Branch can ignore the 5th Amendment, then it can ignore them all and we are two steps away from outright dictatorship.
Because of the length of the filibuster, the issue was brought to light. Infamously liberal groups like the ACLU and the Huffington Post agreed with Rand Paul. Yet, I fear that the answer to the question above is a deafening 'yes.' The majority of Americans are too complacent with our rights. As Greg Gutfeld said, President Obama has been gifted with the most distracted society since Ancient Rome (and we all know how that turned out). Instead of Bread and Circuses we have Beyonce and Siri. I believe history does repeat itself. And I'm also starting to believe Mark Twain was right in saying that nothing can be done to stop that; that man's nature only leads to the repeating of history's mistakes. Looking at today's America, how can one come to any other conclusion? Rand Paul may very well be the last American standing.
That is the crux of what was an almost 13 hour filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul that began just before noon yesterday and ended well after midnight tonight. A rare "talking filibuster" by Paul held up the confirmation hearing of CIA head nominee John Brennan, but the filibuster had little to do with Brennan himself and everything to do with the frightening drone policy that is being implemented by the Obama Administration. Rand Paul asked a simple question that deserves a simple answer. Does the Executive Branch of our government have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drones, and if so, by what guidelines? Senator Paul was driven to hold up Senate proceedings until he was given an adequate answer to that simple question...and he may have done so well into tomorrow if not for the need of a bathroom break. (For the life of me I don't know how he made it nearly 13 hours without one!) His numerous requests for an answer to that simple question were all ignored or skirted by the President, Attorney General Eric Holder, and John Brennan. And so Paul held up the Senate to make it known that this is an important issue, maybe the most important of our time. Because if the Executive Branch can ignore the 5th Amendment, then it can ignore them all and we are two steps away from outright dictatorship.
Because of the length of the filibuster, the issue was brought to light. Infamously liberal groups like the ACLU and the Huffington Post agreed with Rand Paul. Yet, I fear that the answer to the question above is a deafening 'yes.' The majority of Americans are too complacent with our rights. As Greg Gutfeld said, President Obama has been gifted with the most distracted society since Ancient Rome (and we all know how that turned out). Instead of Bread and Circuses we have Beyonce and Siri. I believe history does repeat itself. And I'm also starting to believe Mark Twain was right in saying that nothing can be done to stop that; that man's nature only leads to the repeating of history's mistakes. Looking at today's America, how can one come to any other conclusion? Rand Paul may very well be the last American standing.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Martial Law in the U.S.? All signs point to yes.
I haven't really written much here lately, because I haven't found much worth writing about. The news stays relatively the same: the United States is slipping into a Communistic third world dystopia. The Democrats are working hard to strip Americans of freedoms. The Republicans are feigning dismay while quietly pushing for the same. Only a handful of Congressmen and Women are actively trying to slow the decay.
But it's a pointless fight.
This country was predicated on the will of the people. It still is to a degree. But the majority of U.S. citizens are either too concerned with what celebrity wore what to what award show or too uninformed about what's going on within our government to understand just where we seem to be headed. For the small amount of citizens who are aware and concerned, there's not really anything new to them and not really anything that can be done to change it. So, I for one, have been concentrating on more personal matters. I believe a lot of us are these days. We're keeping our family and friends close and our supplies closer. It's funny how those who are actively preparing for any number of disasters are looked upon as fools...yet if/when it hits the fan, who's going to be the fool then?
As to where exactly we are headed, well I can only point to the signs. The signs like the Indefinite Detention clause in the NDAA (which Obama has given his word that he will never use...forgive me if I'm unswayed), that gives the government the legal right to arrest and hold any American citizen for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. That means they don't ever need proof to lock up citizens for life.
Then there's the Drone Strike controversy in which the White House has said that they have the legal right to kill American citizens with drones...again, without any proof needed. And more disturbing is that John Brennan, the man Obama wants to be the next head of the CIA, has refused to answer whether they could use drones on Americans on American soil.
And I'm sure by now most have heard about the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of 2 billion rounds of ammunition...a majority of that hollow point bullets that are NOT used for simple target practice because of their price. However, a new story is the $2 million worth of "No Hesitation" targets that the DHS has purchased for its target practice. Those include an old man, a pregnant woman, and a child. Now why on the good green earth would the government need targets of pregnant women and children!?? They've said it's because they need to prepare their new recruits for their new job. So apparently their new job will be shooting at American citizens, including women, children, and the elderly.
A year ago if you would have told me that the United States government was preparing for Martial Law, I would have laughed in your face. Now, all a thinking man can surmise is that that is exactly what they are preparing for. Why, when, or how is anybody's guess. But as of right now, all signs point directly to Martial Law. Only a fool would be unprepared.
But it's a pointless fight.
This country was predicated on the will of the people. It still is to a degree. But the majority of U.S. citizens are either too concerned with what celebrity wore what to what award show or too uninformed about what's going on within our government to understand just where we seem to be headed. For the small amount of citizens who are aware and concerned, there's not really anything new to them and not really anything that can be done to change it. So, I for one, have been concentrating on more personal matters. I believe a lot of us are these days. We're keeping our family and friends close and our supplies closer. It's funny how those who are actively preparing for any number of disasters are looked upon as fools...yet if/when it hits the fan, who's going to be the fool then?
As to where exactly we are headed, well I can only point to the signs. The signs like the Indefinite Detention clause in the NDAA (which Obama has given his word that he will never use...forgive me if I'm unswayed), that gives the government the legal right to arrest and hold any American citizen for an indefinite amount of time with no trial. That means they don't ever need proof to lock up citizens for life.
Then there's the Drone Strike controversy in which the White House has said that they have the legal right to kill American citizens with drones...again, without any proof needed. And more disturbing is that John Brennan, the man Obama wants to be the next head of the CIA, has refused to answer whether they could use drones on Americans on American soil.
And I'm sure by now most have heard about the Department of Homeland Security's purchase of 2 billion rounds of ammunition...a majority of that hollow point bullets that are NOT used for simple target practice because of their price. However, a new story is the $2 million worth of "No Hesitation" targets that the DHS has purchased for its target practice. Those include an old man, a pregnant woman, and a child. Now why on the good green earth would the government need targets of pregnant women and children!?? They've said it's because they need to prepare their new recruits for their new job. So apparently their new job will be shooting at American citizens, including women, children, and the elderly.
A year ago if you would have told me that the United States government was preparing for Martial Law, I would have laughed in your face. Now, all a thinking man can surmise is that that is exactly what they are preparing for. Why, when, or how is anybody's guess. But as of right now, all signs point directly to Martial Law. Only a fool would be unprepared.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What the heck does THAT mean!? Obama's 23 Executive Orders on Gun Control raise some questions
Yesterday President Obama declared his 23 Executive Actions on Gun Control. Executive Orders are originally intended to be used to clarify and direct laws passed by Congress, not to bypass Congress by making laws (which is highly unconstitutional....and yet is sometimes done by the president) so these are not laws, just orders from the President to help make laws more effective.
However, I'm not gonna talk about each order and what it does or does not actually say...because frankly I don't speak in political-ese. Most seem transparent enough. Yet there are a few that cause giant question marks. The 23 Orders are as follow.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health
Again, most seem transparent and appropriate. Then there's numbers 14 and 16. Now what I'm about to say borders on the paranoid and I'm not entirely sure I'm not just being paranoid. (Isn't it interesting how Obama is doing things so crazy that talking about them makes you feel crazy?? I have a friend who posted a lot of Obama information on his Facebook page before the election, and he told me that he was called a conspiracy nut by at least 3 people...even though what he said was well documented as true if you did a little research. So at least I know I'm not the only one.)
Number 14 directs the Centers for Disease Control...yes, the CDC...to research causes and prevention of gun violence. Now why on the good planet Earth would that job be given to the CDC??? The CDC, in case you happen to be Patrick Star, is the federal agency designed to protect and promote public health and saftey in the United States. Mostly they focus on infectious diseases. Now I suppose you could say that being shot is unhealthy and therefore the CDC could be in charge of trying to keep people from getting shot...however that seems like a stretch. Now this may just be paranoia because I'm in the middle of a Fringe marathon, but somehow it just doesn't make sense that this research should be the CDC's jurisdiction. So why have them do it? I think we may have gotten our answer to that today. Today Obama asked Congress for $10 million dollars to be allocated to the CDC for this "research." That's a lot of research. Now I don't know how much it takes to figure out if people seeing violent images repeatedly has anything to do with violence...but I'm pretty sure $10 mil is overkill. (This is why our country is broke, btw.) So why the hell does Obama want the CDC to have this money then?? Now I have no idea what secret projects the government works on. I'm not naive enough to believe that governments don't work on secret initiatives that may be, well, nefarious may be the right word. I'm also not educated enough to know just what those projects are, so I won't posit something just for the heck of it. It just reminds me of the part in 'Independence Day' where the old guy responds to the question of how does the government pay for something like an Area 51 by saying "you don't really think it costs $1,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, do you?". Makes you wonder what the CDC is really up to, doesn't it? Wonder if it has anything to do with those FEMA camps I keep hearing about.
The other order that stood out as unusual is the 16th. Now just what the hell does that mean!? I understand that it, along with the 17th have to do with questioning and reporting people who may have violent tendencies and who owns guns, clarifying that doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't prohibit doctors from asking (or telling) about gun ownership. But....why the hell is it there in the first place?? I mean, why does a doctor need to know if their patient owns a gun? I understand that they could then report someone that they feel is unstable...but what I don't get is how a doctor is going to find out if a person owns a gun or not. Because here in America we like a little phrase "none of your damn business" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Unless.....what if in the future, when Obamacare is the rule of the land and doctors are basically employees of the government, that doctors must ask that question. And what if, just what if, a patient who refuses to answer is withheld treatment until they disclose whether they own a gun or not?? Now maybe this is just my wild imagination running course, but I really see no other reason for that order. Doctors have no business asking personal questions that do not pertain to medical issues...and unless I'm eating the lead bullets daily which is giving me lead poisoning...doctors have no business asking me about what I own. That seems so basic and simple that it causes Order 16 to stand out like a 30 year old at a Justin Beiber concert. Like I said, most of these are transparent enough to not raise any eyebrows, but then those two seem to make such little sense that it makes me, at least, wonder.
However, I'm not gonna talk about each order and what it does or does not actually say...because frankly I don't speak in political-ese. Most seem transparent enough. Yet there are a few that cause giant question marks. The 23 Orders are as follow.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health
Again, most seem transparent and appropriate. Then there's numbers 14 and 16. Now what I'm about to say borders on the paranoid and I'm not entirely sure I'm not just being paranoid. (Isn't it interesting how Obama is doing things so crazy that talking about them makes you feel crazy?? I have a friend who posted a lot of Obama information on his Facebook page before the election, and he told me that he was called a conspiracy nut by at least 3 people...even though what he said was well documented as true if you did a little research. So at least I know I'm not the only one.)
Number 14 directs the Centers for Disease Control...yes, the CDC...to research causes and prevention of gun violence. Now why on the good planet Earth would that job be given to the CDC??? The CDC, in case you happen to be Patrick Star, is the federal agency designed to protect and promote public health and saftey in the United States. Mostly they focus on infectious diseases. Now I suppose you could say that being shot is unhealthy and therefore the CDC could be in charge of trying to keep people from getting shot...however that seems like a stretch. Now this may just be paranoia because I'm in the middle of a Fringe marathon, but somehow it just doesn't make sense that this research should be the CDC's jurisdiction. So why have them do it? I think we may have gotten our answer to that today. Today Obama asked Congress for $10 million dollars to be allocated to the CDC for this "research." That's a lot of research. Now I don't know how much it takes to figure out if people seeing violent images repeatedly has anything to do with violence...but I'm pretty sure $10 mil is overkill. (This is why our country is broke, btw.) So why the hell does Obama want the CDC to have this money then?? Now I have no idea what secret projects the government works on. I'm not naive enough to believe that governments don't work on secret initiatives that may be, well, nefarious may be the right word. I'm also not educated enough to know just what those projects are, so I won't posit something just for the heck of it. It just reminds me of the part in 'Independence Day' where the old guy responds to the question of how does the government pay for something like an Area 51 by saying "you don't really think it costs $1,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, do you?". Makes you wonder what the CDC is really up to, doesn't it? Wonder if it has anything to do with those FEMA camps I keep hearing about.
The other order that stood out as unusual is the 16th. Now just what the hell does that mean!? I understand that it, along with the 17th have to do with questioning and reporting people who may have violent tendencies and who owns guns, clarifying that doctor-patient confidentiality doesn't prohibit doctors from asking (or telling) about gun ownership. But....why the hell is it there in the first place?? I mean, why does a doctor need to know if their patient owns a gun? I understand that they could then report someone that they feel is unstable...but what I don't get is how a doctor is going to find out if a person owns a gun or not. Because here in America we like a little phrase "none of your damn business" and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Unless.....what if in the future, when Obamacare is the rule of the land and doctors are basically employees of the government, that doctors must ask that question. And what if, just what if, a patient who refuses to answer is withheld treatment until they disclose whether they own a gun or not?? Now maybe this is just my wild imagination running course, but I really see no other reason for that order. Doctors have no business asking personal questions that do not pertain to medical issues...and unless I'm eating the lead bullets daily which is giving me lead poisoning...doctors have no business asking me about what I own. That seems so basic and simple that it causes Order 16 to stand out like a 30 year old at a Justin Beiber concert. Like I said, most of these are transparent enough to not raise any eyebrows, but then those two seem to make such little sense that it makes me, at least, wonder.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Obama needs the New Cheka to push his Gun Control plan
The news of the day is Obama's speech on his plans for gun control. I confess I didn't watch or listen to this speech (I can't stand the halting manner in which he speaks; it really annoys me) but I have been reading snippets here and there.
One particular passage stuck out to me. In his speech, Obama entreated the people to be involved in his plan:
“This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘Enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,' then change will come," he said. "That’s what it’s going to take."
And, in fact, that is what it's going to take. A few months ago, I wrote about the New Cheka in America, and how their goals are the same as the original Russian Cheka: to silence all opposition.
In America, our Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment in this case, is a hindrance to setting up a tyrannical governmental system. The Founders intended it to be that way. A president, or a Congress or judge or any other person in position of leadership in America, cannot simply do away with the Constitution. If Obama wanted to simply ban all guns, like other leaders have (in attempts that failed to prevent crime btw), he couldn't just go ahead and do it. If all members of Congress wanted to ban all guns as well, they still couldn't do it. In order to physically change the constitution, it requires more. It requires the people's consent. Which is why Obama is calling for it. And is why the New Cheka will seek to demonize any who oppose it.
Make no mistake, the New Cheka still works for the government. They just do so in an unofficial capacity. They will seek to influence the very thoughts of every American. It's not as hard to do that these days. Celebrities have become the mouthpiece of the New Cheka, and thus, the government. And seemingly everyone who gets a camera in front of them becomes a celebrity these days. They will bombard us with calls for gun control. You've seen that they already have. It's even affected my father, one of the most conservative people I know. He agreed with an assault gun ban, saying people don't need those for protection when a handgun will do. Once I explained that the 2nd Amendment is not about self protection (or hunting) but it's about being able to fight against what may become a tyrannical government, he changed his mind. But that's how easily the Cheka can influence the people.
For all those who will say that this isn't an attack on the 2nd Amendment or that we don't need certain guns, you suffer from a case of myopia. If we agree to give up assault weapons today, will we agree to give up handguns tomorrow? When we agree to give up handguns, what if a future president decides he wants to be a dictator and force all of our children to work in labor camps? Will we deprive them of a means to prevent that future today, or will we work towards it by agreeing to strict gun control? Will we exchange our children's future safety for our own today?
Obama says this isn't about doing away with the 2nd Amendment. But it is about chipping away at it. And chipping away at something over time ends up being the same as doing away with it. The New Cheka will seek to influence the people to see things Obama's way. In America, the people must give up their rights. Will we?
One particular passage stuck out to me. In his speech, Obama entreated the people to be involved in his plan:
“This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, ‘Enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,' then change will come," he said. "That’s what it’s going to take."
And, in fact, that is what it's going to take. A few months ago, I wrote about the New Cheka in America, and how their goals are the same as the original Russian Cheka: to silence all opposition.
In America, our Constitution, particularly the 2nd Amendment in this case, is a hindrance to setting up a tyrannical governmental system. The Founders intended it to be that way. A president, or a Congress or judge or any other person in position of leadership in America, cannot simply do away with the Constitution. If Obama wanted to simply ban all guns, like other leaders have (in attempts that failed to prevent crime btw), he couldn't just go ahead and do it. If all members of Congress wanted to ban all guns as well, they still couldn't do it. In order to physically change the constitution, it requires more. It requires the people's consent. Which is why Obama is calling for it. And is why the New Cheka will seek to demonize any who oppose it.
Make no mistake, the New Cheka still works for the government. They just do so in an unofficial capacity. They will seek to influence the very thoughts of every American. It's not as hard to do that these days. Celebrities have become the mouthpiece of the New Cheka, and thus, the government. And seemingly everyone who gets a camera in front of them becomes a celebrity these days. They will bombard us with calls for gun control. You've seen that they already have. It's even affected my father, one of the most conservative people I know. He agreed with an assault gun ban, saying people don't need those for protection when a handgun will do. Once I explained that the 2nd Amendment is not about self protection (or hunting) but it's about being able to fight against what may become a tyrannical government, he changed his mind. But that's how easily the Cheka can influence the people.
For all those who will say that this isn't an attack on the 2nd Amendment or that we don't need certain guns, you suffer from a case of myopia. If we agree to give up assault weapons today, will we agree to give up handguns tomorrow? When we agree to give up handguns, what if a future president decides he wants to be a dictator and force all of our children to work in labor camps? Will we deprive them of a means to prevent that future today, or will we work towards it by agreeing to strict gun control? Will we exchange our children's future safety for our own today?
Obama says this isn't about doing away with the 2nd Amendment. But it is about chipping away at it. And chipping away at something over time ends up being the same as doing away with it. The New Cheka will seek to influence the people to see things Obama's way. In America, the people must give up their rights. Will we?
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Rumblings of Dictatorship
Hey all. Hope everyone had a great Christmas and holiday break! I got a sinus infection for Christmas, so have been a little out of it the past couple of weeks. There seems to be so much going on it's hard to keep track of it all. One thing that remains certain is Obama's paving the way for a future American dictator. A lot of people seem to think Obama wants to be dictator himself. I disagree with that, but I definitely think he's setting the stage for a future dictator to emerge.
Stolen with honor from Monkey in the Middle.
.........................................................................................................................
Wild Bill for America sounds the warning! Red flags every where. There are some disturbing trends coming from the White House. Americans beware. With a Cowardly Congress, a complacent Supreme Court, Obama is gathering the power of a dictator.
Stolen with honor from Monkey in the Middle.
.........................................................................................................................
