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.

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.

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?

Terrorist Nadal Hassan's judge thrown off case

I saw this story a few days ago and have been stewing over it since then. I wasn't even sure I would write this because it fills me with too much anger to properly express with words.

First off, this Islamic terrorist (just because the White House doesn't call him that doesn't mean the rest of us with a brain won't) has YET to even be properly tried. I mean, his act of terrorism took place in 2009! That's three freakin' years! At this rate, we'll colonize Mars before this trial concludes.

And what is the big holdup? The terrorist's beard.

He's in the Army. The Army doesn't allow beards. He's not allowed to have a beard because he's in the Army.

It's a 2+2=4 thing...and yet, it's caused a delay that makes air travel look speedy by comparison.

He didn't have a problem shaving every day for his entire Army career, yet now he's thrown away his razor in order to be a good Muslim. So was he a bad Muslim for his entire life until now? Was murdering innocent people the event that made him into a good Muslim?

And now the judge who ordered him to shave or be shaved (rightfully so) has been thrown off the case, and the entire beard issue will be brought up again...whenever it is the Army appoints a new judge to the case. All the while our taxpayer dollars go to this farce. But I guess when a terrorist attack is labeled as "workplace violence" by our government leaders, it only makes sense to expect the whole thing to be a clown show.

Full story here.


But at least, as Craig Andresen points out at The National Patriot, the Army just confirmed that it is ok to display religious symbols on government property. Just in time to put up those Christmas displays!

The new Cheka

"Bolshevik Freedom"

Shortly after the October Revolution of 1917 which formed the first Socialist Soviet Union in Russia, Vladimir Lenin created "The Whole-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage," or Cheka, for short. It was the first of a succession of Soviet state security organizations, initially formed to fight against counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs.

Cheka created 5 classifications that those counter-revolutionaries fell into:
1. any civil or military servicemen suspected of working for Imperial Russia;
2. families of officers-volunteers (including children);
3. all clergy;
4. workers and peasants who were under suspicion of not supporting the Soviet government;
5. any other person whose private property was valued at over 10,000 rubles.

At the direction of Lenin, the Cheka performed mass arrests, imprisonments, and executions of "enemies of the people". In this, the Cheka said that they targeted "class enemies" such as the bourgeoisie (the upper-middle class), and members of the clergy. The first organized mass repression began against the libertarians and socialists of Petrograd in April 1918. Over the next few months, 800 were arrested and shot without trial.
Within a month, the Cheka had extended its repression to all political opponents of the communist government, including anarchists and others on the left.

Many victims of Cheka repression were 'bourgeois hostages' rounded up and held in readiness for summary execution in reprisal for any alleged counter-revolutionary act. Lenin's dictum was: that it was better to arrest 100 innocent people rather than to risk one enemy going free. That ensured that wholesale, indiscriminate arrests became an integral part of the system.
The proceeding crackdown on all who opposed, or were accused of opposing, was given the name "Red Terror."

The stated purpose of the Red Terror was to eliminate counter-revolutionaries who belonged to former "ruling classes". Martin Latsis, chief of the Ukrainian Cheka, explained in the newspaper Red Terror:

"Do not look in the file of incriminating evidence to see whether or not the accused rose up against the Soviets with arms or words. Ask him instead to which class he belongs, what is his background, his education, his profession. These are the questions that will determine the fate of the accused. That is the meaning and essence of the Red Terror."

Grigory Zinoviev declared in mid-September 1918: "To overcome of our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia's population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated."

In short, the Cheka was the power that forcefully attempted to stamp out all political opposition to the new communist government. They policed labor camps; ran the Gulag system; conducted requisitions of food; subjected political opponents to torture and summary execution; and put down rebellions and riots by workers or peasants, and mutinies in the desertion-plagued Red Army. During the Red Terror, they killed between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.

In America today, our government is changing. We have elected and re-elected our first Marxist president. The same socialistic ideas that were established by Lenin in 1917 Russia are now beginning to be implemented here. The same ideologies of class warfare and uniting the poor against the rich are being spread by our leaders, just as they were by Lenin and the Soviet leaders of 1917. And just as in 1917, there are groups that oppose such socioeconomic changes. However, in today's world, a violent oppression of such opposition like the one instituted by the Russian Cheka would be immediately condemned...especially in a place such as America. Not saying that a future violent oppression won't happen here, but as of now, it would not be tolerated. And so, a new Cheka is needed in order to progress socialism here (and the rest of the "civilized" world).

In America, the Constitution makes suppression harder than in other parts of the world. The First Amendment protects against the type of censorship that was instituted by Lenin early into the Soviet reign that closed down all newspapers critical of the régime and prevented all state papers from writing anything derogatory about the government. The 2nd Amendment protects the people's right to own weapons, which makes violent suppression harder. Again, not saying that those won't be done away with in a future America, but as for now, they still stand to protect against government suppression to opposition.

But today a new Cheka has been formed. It is no longer a physical arm of the government, as it was in Russia. The American Cheka exists directly in the minds of the American people. It's quite brilliant actually. Instead of a quick revolution, like in Russia in 1917, the move towards socialism here in America has been a slow one. Ronald Reagan warned about it 40 years ago when he quoted the Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas, saying, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." The slow socialist revolution here in America has also slowly introduced the new Cheka. This new Cheka has been implanted into the very souls of Americans for the past 40 odd years. It started in the schools. The removal of God, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance from the public schools has since spread into all aspects of public life in America, slowly building the new Cheka. All aspects of opposition to the socialist movement have been weeded out of our minds over the past 40 years, and now there is a whole generation of people who have been groomed to be part of the new Cheka. It is no longer the government that wields the oppressive power for the "revolution;" it is the people themselves.


Let's revisit those classifications of counter-revolutionaries created by the original Russian Cheka.
1. Any civil or military servicemen suspected of working for Imperial Russia.

In today's America, the Justice Department has classified returning veterans as threats to national security, citing instances of soldiers traumatized by war having mental breakdowns and turning their weapons on the general public. While this occurrence happens rarely, the public has been warned to be wary of all military and ex-military personnel.

2. Families of officers-volunteers (including children).

Most military families (including children) support fully the military and those who are in it and, due to their inner knowledge of war and the importance of our military to our freedom, hold conservative values about patriotism, warfare, and the necessity of a strong and active military. Those ideas are today being labeled as "war-mongering" and a strong military is viewed as unnecessary.

3. All clergy.

Perhaps no other group of people has been as demonized in current America as has the "overtly religious." Organized religion has been deemed "old-fashioned" and even foolish in an ever increasingly secular society. Organized religions' stand against abortion and gay marriage has served as a rallying cry to label all who hold such beliefs as "intolerant extremists." In today's America, religious has become synonymous with intolerant, and so is mocked and railed against.

4. Workers and peasants who were under suspicion of not supporting the Soviet government.

In today's America, all people who are considered a certain social, ethnic, or economic group are expected to support one way of thought...today it's the Democrat way...all the time, no exceptions. With the advent of a black man as that Democrat, that perception is intensified. Any person of a minority race (or any woman) who supported Mitt Romney for President was vilified in the most vilest of ways.

5. Any other person whose private property was valued at over 10,000 rubles.

Barack Obama has introduced the class warfare of Marx to demonize the wealthy in America today. An increasing number of Americans want to "tax the wealthy" and movements such as Occupy Wall Street are instilling the idea that the rich are the problem. It reached such a frenzied point in the campaign season that Mitt Romney was being criticized for being a successful businessman.

The very same groups who were singled out as opponents to socialism in 1917 are being singled out today. The very same people who were targeted by the original Cheka are being targeted by the new Cheka. Although today, the new Cheka will not bust down your door in the middle of the night and haul you off to a gulag or shoot you. The new Cheka, cultivated in American minds for over 40 years, will oppress you verbally, mentally, and emotionally. The new Cheka lives under the mask of tolerance; it's why those claiming to be the most "tolerant" will lash out in the most intolerant manner towards anyone with a different view. It's because they are not really tolerant, they are the Cheka. The new Cheka has been raised in the minds of the populace; it IS the populace. The new Cheka does the same job as the old Cheka, they only do it in a more subtle manner. And they've disguised their true motive so well that the common person now in America is part of the Cheka. From celebrities to media to teachers and professors, the wave of the new Cheka has swept through the American people until it has overtaken the majority.

Now it does it's work, oppressing any who oppose the rise of socialism here in America. It will label you as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, backwoods, old-fashioned, unintelligent, foolish, Islamophobic, extremist, and any other derogatory name it can think of. It will seek to brand you as something so terrible that no one should ever listen to anything you say again. It will seek to silence you, to intimidate you, to isolate you, to abrogate you, to shut you up any way possible. It still follows Lenin's dictum. That's why anyone who would criticize President Obama is called a racist; it would rather label 100 innocent people as racists than let one person free to speak against it's rulers. Wholesale and indiscriminate targeting is still an integral part of the system. The new Cheka does the exact same job as the original Russian Cheka from 1917: to weed out and indiscriminately eliminate any political opposition. And just like Grigory Zinoviev said in 1918, it's goal is to carry the majority into socialism and annihilate the rest. Although this time it won't do it through the force of violence, it will do it through the force of the populace.
That is the new Cheka. This is the new Red Terror.

I can no longer take Muslims seriously

As of now, I can no longer take Islam as a serious religion. Muslims have taken this "cultural sensitivity" thing WAY too far. Now they are upset about the cross on Swiss airplanes. A new Swiss Air ad translated as "The Cross is an asset" (or something like that) has insulted Muslims who are claiming that it's a direct attack on Islam. These Muslims are claiming that the ad touts a clear message of Christian superiority.

First off....even if it was intended as a Christian message that still doesn't mean Muslims have a right to protest it. Christians (as well as Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and any other religious or non-religious groups) tolerate Muslims adherence and propagation of their religion along with every other belief, religious or otherwise, in the world. People all around the world allow Muslims to live out their beliefs freely...and even when such beliefs include disgusting acts such as female genitalia mutilations. Because a part of respecting others beliefs is tolerating those beliefs even if you don't agree with them yourself. If Muslims can't get that...if they can't follow the same path of tolerance to others' cultures and religions, then they cannot be taken seriously. If you can't live and let die, then you can't be allowed to sit at the world table. Intolerance of every other religion and culture is NOT the acceptable way to live and act. Everyone else in the world gets this; Muslims need to be treated no differently. Live your life and let others live theirs or shut up about your own!

Second off....SERIOUSLY!?!? It's the freakin' Swiss flag for pete's sake!! The Swiss flag has a cross on it. The Swiss airline is the national airline of Switzerland. The Swiss airline WILL have the Swiss flag on it. If you can't handle that, how can I take anything you say or do seriously? What next? Ban the Swiss flag? The Swedish flag? How bout the Israeli flag? Why don't we just remove any and all symbols that aren't related to Islam?? Because that's where it's headed...that seems to be what the Muslims want and the only thing they'll be happy with. It's time to stop pandering to people based on their "feelings." Every other person in the world is taught that "sticks and stones will break your bones but words can never hurt you." Muslims are taught to break bones with sticks and stones when words hurt them. And until they can learn to "get over it" when they become insulted, just like everyone else in the world, then I can no longer view Islam as a serious religion. If you can't act like an adult, then don't expect me to treat you as one.

Full story here.

Urine testing for tobacco?

Ever see the movie Demolition Man? Where anything bad for you is illegal. Yeah, that's where we're headed.

I just learned that a local hospital will now be urine testing applicants for traces of tobacco. If tobacco is found, the applicant will not be hired. This is beyond ridiculous to me. I can understand testing for illegal drugs...but to test for tobacco is at least an intrusion into people's private lives and at worst discrimination based on a private choice. I get cigarettes are bad for you and hospitals promote health. But cheesburgers, bacon, and caffeine are also bad for you if overindulged upon. Should we start urine testing for caffeine? Should we ban people from working in a hospital if they eat one too many bacon cheeseburgers? How about if they are regular skydivers?

And what if someone has a cigar at a friend's bachelor party or celebrating the birth of a child? Should they not be allowed to work in a hospital because they occasionally have a cigar? Apparently some hospitals think so. What a crock.

The ACLU has gotten involved, which is good. Normally the ACLU is on my bad side for doing something idiotic, but in this case I support them fully. They are saying an employer shouldn't be rejecting people from work based on personal choices. I agree. When will the P.C. policy stop? When everything is illegal? Why don't we treat people like thinking, reasoning beings and then let them decide what actions they will or will not engage in? If we're gonna ban people from working because they engage in unhealthy activities, than they better start banning people from work based on sexual activity. Promiscuity has been found to lead to an increased rate of STD's. That's unhealthy.
See. Once you start banning one thing, you're gonna have to ban it all. And that's just gonna suck. But it's on it's way. First it's cigarettes and large sodas, soon it'll be coffee and cheeseburgers. And though I wouldn't miss coffee, I don't wanna live in a world without cheeseburgers.

This is where it's headed.