I see no reason why American and other men should be fighting these wars while Muslim refugees are coddled in safety and comfort.
My proposal is that these military age men should be drafted and returned to their countries to fight against those who drove them out. Something akin to the French Foreign Legion should be formed. This army should be professionally officered, trained and equipped with the best that can be provided. Then they can be sent to fight for their homelands in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.
If an able bodied man agrees to serve, then his family should be provided with assistance. But if an able bodied man refuses induction, then he and his family should be denied any assistance and invited to leave.
I see no reason why American and other men should be fighting these wars while Muslim refugees are coddled in safety and comfort.
It should not have been a surprise. My health insurance (Medicare Advantage, HealthNet SeniorCare) plan dropped my physicians, so I signed up for a Humana plan which the representative assured me included the physicians and medical center I use. That was in October, 2014. Then, the last day of December 2014 I was informed that an upcoming appointment would not be covered by my insurance. I then discovered that, between mid October and November, the plan I signed up for had been changed to drop all the physicians that I wanted. A complete bait and switch screw job. Maybe this would make a good class action law suit. At any rate, I’m now having to pay $2,500 more per year than I expected in order to keep the doctors I prefer.
Undoubtedly I’m among millions that have been harmed by this monstrosity called ObamaCare. The sad thing about it is that the Republican Party, which should be resisting this with all of its might is doing nothing. The U.S. government does almost nothing useful or of value to me — just taxes and hassles me with restrictions and regulations. It just gets worse with every passing year. 75% of what the federal government does is not only unconstitutional, it is completely wasteful and useless. We’d all be better off of have that 75% completely eliminated.
I consider myself a patriot. I served in combat as an artillery forward observer in Vietnam. I then thought the extra scars I took home were a minor price to pay for living in a free and prosperous country. But it seems that every year I can remember the country becomes less free and less prosperous. Fewer people consider “duty, honor, country” to be serious obligations of citizenship. In fact, I think most consider these words to be an embarrassment. We’ve witnessed a downhill slide culminating — no, just continuing — with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid/Holder/Sharpton/Jackson Democrats/socialists with little of consequence to resist them.
Is it really this hopeless?
Does this quote from an article about Argentina in the Financial Times sound familiar?
Ms Fernández’s approval rating has sunk to 33.5 per cent as Argentines are fed up with inflation estimated at 25 per cent, foreign currency shortages, corruption scandals, administrative incompetence and sagging business confidence. Polls indicate the government could lose its Congressional majority at midterm elections on October 27.
Just substitute Barack Obama for Ms Fernandez and America for Argentina and you have a good description of where our current government is headed.
The following story well illustrates the fact that the most dangerous threat to our freedom is the bureaucracy. This is because bureaucrats will do whatever their supervisors tell them to do. When the person in the boss’s chair changes from a servant to the people to a vicious tyrant — a Hitler or a Mussolini or a Stalin or a Tojo — the bureaucracy will just continue to do whatever they are told to do; no matter how vile, inhuman or ugly. The most vile government actions in history are all supported by an unquestionably obedient bureaucracy, whether this consists of blocking citizen access to parks for political reasons, or moving masses of people to gas chambers for political purposes.
In this case, armed park rangers at Yellowstone Park behaved like Gestapo toward visitors on the event of the so-called “government closure.” See this: Gestapo-tactics-meet-senior-citizens-at-Yellowstone And again, this.
While these politically motivated inanities are not the world’s worst abuses of power they do tell us something about the Obama administration’s attitude toward the people. Additionally, this hints at the potential for terrible things that might come from a government that has been frantically arming itself with billions of rounds of ammunition, thousands of automatic weapons, and hundreds of armored vehicles deployed to “civilian” agencies around the country.
Don’t think for a moment that “It can’t happen here.” Because unless informed and armed citizens wake up, tyranny can and will happen here.
The memorial structures and parks in Washington D.C. and elsewhere belong to the people, not to the government. The WW-II memorial celebrates the accomplishments of the soldiers who fought the war and the current government can’t take any credit, whatsoever, for that.
The behavior of the Obama administration, Harry Reid and his Democrat thugs in closing off these parks and monuments is at best shameful and at worst a disgrace. They have no right at all to do this. So why to they do it? They do it because a) they can, and b) because they think their political opponents will be blamed. That’s about as low as you can get, even in by Washington standards.
The federal government has partially shut down. All “non-essential” personnel have been granted a vacation. Should we panic, should we riot?
It’s a perfect opportunity to ask yourself what impact the shutdown has on you personally. What activity of the federal government were you benefiting from before the shutdown that you now miss? What if those “non-essential” federal employees were laid off rather than furloughed? It might save you some taxes and some aggravation.
What it really proves is that most of what the federal government does is useless, expensive and wasteful. We’d be much better off if the government was reduced in size and mission by at lease 75%. Maybe more. These “non-essential” employees are, indeed, non-essential if not wasteful burdens on the country.
The following article describes a poll in which purportedly 59% of Americans want women to be in included in the draft. click here This, combined with the movement to include females in combat roles is to me incomprehensibly ugly. See previous postshere and here and here
As explained in the article the enthusiasm for a female draft is strong among democrats (80%) and women (61%), and weaker among republicans (53%) and men (35%).
Let’s face facts. Women and men are different, not equal, not equivalent. The proper criteria for including anyone in the military should be to improve the effectiveness (lethality) of the forces, not to promote some equality of the sexes social theory.
What’s going on here? Have American men become so unprincipled, woosified, feminized, and cowardly that they would support this proposal? How could this be only 69 years after an American draft army invaded Europe on D-Day? Doesn’t this generation of American men have any pride? Any sense of duty? Any sense of decency?
The bottom line is that any culture that sends its female children, sisters, daughters, and mothers out to defend itself in battle has entered a state of barbarism.
Could that really be the United States of America? Or is this just the USA under Obama and the democrats? Whatever it is, it’s the ugliest, most vile development I’ve encountered in my entire lifetime.
Today I had a chore to retrieve a new 1099 from SSA on behalf of my elderly mother. A call to the 800 number yielded the conclusion that they couldn’t help me. I had to go to the local office, from which an employee could call my mother on the phone to get authorization for me to receive a copy of the 1099. The SSA says that they don’t recognize powers of attorney! Why the hell not?
Upon arrival at the SSA office I was immediately approached by an armed security guard. He asked if I possessed firearms, pepper spray, bombs, etc. I said “no.” I asked what was the purpose of this high-security and the guard said, “This is a FEDERAL facility.” OK, but it didn’t make much sense to me. I took a number and sat down on a steel bench to wait my turn. The hour I waited gave me time to observe several things. First, the guard was hand-searching every woman’s purse as she entered. Second, there were numerous signs posted which warned of penalties for attacking a government employee or carrying contraband into a FEDERAL establishment. The wall was also plastered, here and there, with signs saying “Please do not stand here.” The only reason I could discern is that these were blind spots in the surveillance camera coverage. In short, the place is run like a jail — and everyone entering is suspected of being a criminal. This was a government bunker.
My visit concluded, after an additional half hour of waiting, with a visit to “the back”. I was escorted to a fairly large room with I’d guess 25 cubicles. I observed that only 5 or so were occupied. So, either the building plan over-estimated the need for office space and furniture, or the empty desks represented “slots” in the budget (money that could be spent on anything the bureaucrats desired as long as there were no employees to pay). The upshot is that if the desks had been occupied, I wouldn’t have had to wait so long. Or it’s just more evidence of government waste and mismanagement.
I admit that the employees in the bunker were all pleasant and patient — but did it have to take so long? Why are FEDERAL facilities increasingly becoming bunkers. Who are these people afraid of? You and me, I guess.
Has anyone in Congress actually read the 1,000+ pages of the comprehensive immigration bill written by the so-called “Gang of Eight”? Whether you believe in immigration reform or not, you should consider what this bill actually says.
You are encouraged to spend a little time with someone who has actually read the bill. The Daily Caller provides the interview below:
Based on ammo purchases, it looks like your friendly federal government is planning to kill everyone in America — several times over! That’s 1.6 Billion rounds of hollow point ammo, 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and 2,000 armored vehicles — all for use by “civilian” agencies? Come on, people. Wake up. This is crazy, but it’s also real.
And don’t forget to play the clip at the end of the article — comical but complete!
Read how that reeking pile of dog-shit, John Kerry, compares families of Boston bombing victims to families of Islamists Killed By Israel During Raid On Gaza Flotilla.
This mess needs to be scraped off of the sidewalk.
It’s now clear that pressure cookers were responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings. We should not stand for this terrorism any more. It’s obvious the solution to the problem is to ban pressure cookers. Since the U.S. Constitution says nothing about the right to own pressure cookers, this shouldn’t be too difficult. The victims deserve a vote right away.
There has been enough experience to show that N. Korea’s communist government can not be negotiated with — it doesn’t work. Offers of aid or trade have been tried and have not, and will not benefit us in any way. Negotiation with these people is futile and perhaps worse, it gives them a reason to continue their bad behavior. So the biggest DON’t is DON’t negotiate with N. Korea.
What then should be done?
1. Announce that we will use any and all missile launches from N. Korea as an opportunity to test and hopefully perfect our missile interception capabilities.
2. Equip S. Korea and Japan with nuclear missiles capable to striking N. Korea. Do it now.
3. The Chinese communists will be pissed. Tell them to get on board with a program to overthrow the Kim regime in N. Korea.
4. Make every effort to communicate directly with the N. Korean people and encourage them to overthrow the Kim regime.
Direct threats of nuclear attack, whether from N. Korea or Iran or elsewhere should be dealt with directly and strongly, not timidly. To give a nuclear adversary even the slightest hint of weakness might encourage an unwise and reckless action by the threatening party.
Government red-tape ruined this citizen.
Depressing, isn’t it?
The Wall Street Journal article referenced here lays out in plain language the intellectual property thievery the Chinese Communist government is perpetrating against the U.S. and other western countries. This does serious damage to our society and our prosperity. Also see Fox News clip below:
It deserves severe counter-measures. How about a cruise missile down the chimney of that Red Army facility from which these attacks emanate? Maybe not that, but I’m pissed. You should be too.
See also: China Disintegrating.
One can see some excuse for the Department of Homeland Security to have some arms and ammunition, but what about the Social Security Administration and the Department of Education? Should each of these be stockpiling millions of rounds of ammunition? They claim it’s for training, but listen to Mark Levin’s comments, in which he says that during the Iraq War the military expended 5.5 million rounds per month. DHS has stockpiled 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition, enough for 24 years of Iraq style War! The only possible explanation of this is that the government is planning for a contingency in which they will have to kill a lot of Americans.
See below Mark Levin on why are government agencies buying huge amounts of ammunition
If you don’t believe that government is out of control and a real threat to your personal liberty, take a few minutes to review video and the link below. (Courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.)
This outrage is almost beyond belief.
The Titanic was sure to sink. There were not enough lifeboats to accommodate all the passengers, so the crew and the male passengers agreed that the women and children should go first into the life boats. A few terrified and cowardly men tried to get into the life boats, but were restrained by other men.
This is my vision of a civilized society. We save our women and children.
Another version, this time under the moral rules of the liberal democrats of today.
The Titanic was sure to sink. There were not enough lifeboats to accommodate all the passengers, so the crew and the male passengers, being stronger than others aboard, rushed for the life boats, trampling women and children as they went. There was, after all, an equality of the sexes, no obligation of one to protect or respect the other. As for the children, they were irrelevant.
This is the dilemma of war in a civilized world:
The war was a vicious one. Henry lay in the protection of his fox hole, watching the road ahead for enemy movements. A woman and her child walked toward him. He froze. Could the woman be carrying a hand grenade or a pistol? Most likely not, he concluded, because she had a child with her. Henry held his fire.
The liberal, “women are no different from men” version a few years later:
The war was a vicious one. Henry lay in the protection of his fox hole, watching the road ahead for enemy movements. A woman and her child walked toward him. The U.S. forces had long since trained women as combatants. Enemy forces had done the same. This strange woman was most likely an enemy combatant as well. Henry had a fleeting thought of his Mother, his sister, his wife and his daughters. He hated to do it, but this was, after all, a savage war. Henry flicked the selector to automatic, pulled the trigger and killed the woman and child.
This was my training while growing up:
You are a boy feeling rowdy. You’re told sternly, “Boys DO NOT EVER hit a girl.” The girls skip rope.
This is the liberal, “no difference between the sexes” instruction:
Hey, you are a boy. Boys are the same as girls but need to be changed. Shame on you for even thinking of hitting someone. An older boy comes over and smashes you in the chops. You cry and do nothing. Two girls in your class engage in a hair-pulling, fist punching match.
Women in combat via liberal social engineering:
Sally gets pregnant and has a child. Her neame is Cynthia. Child care is hard work and it’s doubly hard to find a job that will let her take care of Cynthia while working. Sally moves in with here grandmother. She decides to join the army to get an education and some income. The army assigns Sally to a combat position as an ammunition truck driver. She is distracted one day by menstrual cramps. Her truck runs over a mine and Sally is killed instantly. Sally has not only become a casualty of war, but she has created an orphan, named Cynthia, to be cared for by a grandmother.
As a young man I was taught a few simple courtesies:
When walking with a woman, take the road side of the sidewalk. When entering a building hold the door for a woman and take off your hat when you enter. On a bus or train, yield your seat to a standing female passenger. These were how a man shows respect and admiration for women, any woman. Now why would we do that? We do that because we rely on women to bear and rear our children. We do that because, in a civilized world we believe that women have a special, high value. Without the unique qualities of our women we’d be a savage society.
So does the liberal ideology that there’s no difference betweeen the sexes make sense? Does adding women to combat make our military more effective? Does stripping women of their special courtesies and legal considerations make us more civilized? What does this all do to our children? Should we want to pair military casualties with the creation of orphans? This is a descent into savagery any way you cut it.
Speculation has Obama appointing that stinking pile of dog-shit , that traitor John Kerry as Secretary of State. As a combat veteran who served in the same area, the Mekong Delta and at the same time-frame as Kerry, who accused U.S. forces of committing war crimes, I take this as a personal insult from our so-called president. Would the Senate really confirm this liar? I suppose so, given that he’s one of their own and most of them have not served in the military.
What’s next? The appointment of Hanoi Jane Fonda as Secretary of Defense?That would be entirely in character.
Let’s face it. The election just past has been analyzed to death by class and race categories. The Obama campaign is entirely about class and race. Obama is a mulatto, black enough to qualify by choice as black. He appeals to blacks on the basis of his race. He talks about class all the time — the whole election was saturated with talk about “the middle class” from both sides. But nobody talked about the Lower Class. And the Upper Class was also missing — substituted was the “rich,” the “millionaires” and the “billionaires,” who were defined as those people making $200,000 or more per year. So lets get real about this stuff and not worry about who it might offend.
First, the Lower Class: The lower class consists largely of blacks and a significant proportion of Latinos who’ve decided to adopt black habits and attitudes. Lower Class Blacks are chronically unemployed, on welfare, in jail and on parole. That’s just a fact. And the black family structure has been so devastated by modern black culture that 75% of black children are born out of wedlock. Where are the black fathers of these children? Out smoking crack, stealing and laying about. Is there anything to be admired in a culture where the main musical genre is represented by “gangsta-rappers” whose musical vocabulary is dominated by terms such as “ho” (Whore), Bitch (mother, grandmother, sister, girlfriend) and “Nigga” (Somebody tell me what that means to the black fans of this filth). Is there anything to be admired about a culture that denigrates education and insults those who are ambitious achievers by calling them “white,” “honkies” and “Uncle Tom’s?” Is there anything to be admired in a culture where less than 50% of the children graduate from high school?
Not all blacks belong to this lower class. In this sense it isn’t about race at all. It’s about culture. Barack Obama, although not a member of this economic class, appeals to the lowest impulses of this cultural segment. He celebrates vulgar black cultural icons such as thug-rappers in White House parties. He tells members of the lower class that their malaise isn’t their fault and promises goodies and handouts to lessen their misery, and they lap it up. After all, many of them do vote.
So while blabbing unceasingly about the so-called middle class, both campaigns never even mentioned the “Lower Class.” Were they ashamed to admit that in America such a category even exists? Or were they afraid to let the discussion illuminate the predominant racial composition of this Lower Class and all this implies?
Now the Upper Class: Neither campaign uttered the words “Upper Class.” In Obama’s vernacular these were the “millionaires and billionaires earning over $200,000 per year.” In Romney’s vernacular these were “the well to do earning over $250,000 per year.” Why not call them the Upper Class? Well that might imply that these people are the well educated, the financially successful, and the socially sophisticated. In Obama’s Marxist world these people got into the Upper Class by exploiting the people in the classes below theirs. So they shouldn’t be dignified by the adjective “Upper.” In his world view there’s nothing admirable about people who achieve more than their peers, unless they be Hollywood celebrities (preferably black ones), entertainers (preferably black ones) or sports stars (preferably black ones). Whereas in Romney’s case he feared having himself identified as a member of the Upper Class of high achievers and rich people. No matter his language, it didn’t work for him under the barrage of Obama’s leftist smear machine. He was and is a member of the Upper Class, which is where most of our successful politicians come from and continue to reside. Those that deny this are fools or liars. The Democrat politicians’ instinct to pose as people from humble, if not impoverished origins is an ugly leftist mannerism that I suspect most educated/informed voters see right through.
Race and Republicans: Fifty years ago the black culture consisted of mostly intact families. (The out-of-wedlock birth rate among blacks was less than 25% compared to 70+% today.) Economic conditions were poor due to some extent to segregation in the South and racial attitudes in the North. However, in the aftermath of World War II blacks were making progress after having their opportunities expanded in war industries and through migrations North and West. Although educational achievement lagged, there was hope. The country was awakening the idea that black people deserved equal opportunity and fair treatment in voting, education, and justice. The civil rights era had dawned under a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower. The most vocal opponents to civil rights legislation and desegregation were Southern Democrats such as Robert Byrd, “Bull” Conner, and George Wallace, among many others. Robert Byrd, a Democrat icon in the U.S. Senate was even a member of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK). It is significant that at that time Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican, as was his father.
Subsequent to the passage of civil rights legislation, including court monitoring of state voting laws, court-ordered bussing of school children, quota-based hiring policies, came massive welfare expansions of the Kennedy, Johnson years. The black family structure was ripped apart and drugs and criminal activity among black men landed a large proportion of them in prison. The Democrats told them that they were not at fault, that their condition was caused by white racism and oppression. This mantra of the left continues unabated today under the supervision of President Obama and the lawlessness of Eric Holder, the supposed enforcer of the laws.
President Reagan’s successful reform of the welfare system, for a time, promised progress for impoverished blacks by encouraging employment, responsibility and self-esteem, and discouraging life on the dole. But activism and resistance from the left has caused the diseases of low expectations, victim mentality and an attitude of entitlement to persist among blacks. Not surprisingly their economic progress and educational achievement has languished.
The upshot of this is that the Republican message of enterprise, opportunity, responsibility and self-reliance does more good for blacks than the Democrat message, which is that blacks are not capable of competing in education, enterprise and leadership — so they most be sheltered and shepherded by wise liberals who will take responsibility for their welfare. The effective but never expressed message is that blacks are not capable of self reliance. They must be coddled by lowered standards, quotas and preferential government programs. So how is it that black people apparently respond at the ballot box to the Democrat message in preference to the Republican one? Are the Democrats correct in concluding that black people lack the mental capacity to make it on their own? Do blacks, themselves, accept that characterization? If not, that’s an opening for future Republican campaign themes.
Which brings us to the question of Latinos. First the question has to be asked: are Latinos a race? Or are they defined by a culture? Is race a defining characteristic, or is it the Spanish language that binds them together. Or should they be bound together at all? I’d argue that, once again, it’s a cultural and not a racial issue. Having spent several years in Mexico and Latin America I can assure you that “Latino” isn’t a race. In fact, most Latin Americans are acutely aware of class, some based on economic status, and some on ethnicity, in this case native Indian ancestry. But to define all Spanish speakers as a race makes not sense at all. Tell that definition on a white-skinned Spaniard and see what reaction you get.
So how do the Democrats leverage Latinos into their coalition? Well, for the Lower Class, mostly young Latinos who have adopted what is essentially a black cultural identity I guess that explains it. But a large proportion of the Latino population is in fact enterprising, educated and family oriented. Theirs is not a lower-class culture. It is not credible that they accept Democrats’ pandering appeal to the ignorant in the lower class. The only explanation is that Republicans haven’t grasped the reality that they can appeal to that segment of the Latino population that is culturally middle-class or upper-class. Many Latinos here in the Southwest (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas) have lived self-sufficient lives since long before they became part of the U.S. Millions of others who immigrated here were then limited by language and education from wage jobs. Instead they turned to the free enterprise opportunities and built businesses and professions. They have thrived on American freedoms and opportunities. The Republican’s mistake has been to buy into the Democrat’s characterization of Latinos as a whole, being lumped in with the lower-class black population. If I were a middle class Latino who built a retail business or service from the ground up, as so many have, I’d be offended by this. Comparatively few of our Latino residents were illegal border crossers, so Republicans should not treat the whole community as questionable Americans. The political emphasis on illegal immigration paints this inaccurate picture. It is wrong and it is politically harmful. Surveys have shown that a large proportion (perhaps a majority) of legal citizens of Mexican origin resent illegal immigration as much as anyone else.
There are several politically relevant points to all of this. The first is that race matters very little in this discussion. What matters is culture. Culture, not economics or race defines class. The Marxist economics based definitions of class used by Democrat politicians to pander to one class while demonizing another are completely contrary to American culture and history. Have Americans now succumbed to the Marxist notions that the Lower Class (poor people) is somehow noble and the Upper Class (rich people) is evil? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the Democrats’ Marxist ideology is supported by the indoctrination of children in government educational institutions and the leftist print and electronic news media. This notion is completely toxic and Un-American. Republicans must fight back against this Marxist ideology with an all-American message of progress, opportunity and prosperity through freedom for all.
The idea that those who will govern the country can or should emerge, as if by magic, from the Lower Class is patently absurd. Lower Class culture is neither admirable nor accomplished. We should wish for it to be improved and uplifted, not emulated and celebrated. Our elected public servants should be selected from the most admired among us. That means that public officials should have proven their metal as private citizens by rising into the Upper Class, and from there be selected by voters.
Republicans must first make up their minds not to emulate Democrats by pandering, especially not pandering that glorifies Lower Class culture, such as it is, or demonizes the Upper Class. Our message must be that a ladder of progress is available to all Americans of every class and culture. All it takes to get ahead in this country is willingness to climb that ladder — upward, from wherever one finds himself. We should stress that high achievement and wealth is to be admired and strived for by all who have that ambition. Republicans should be promoters of the idea that in America we don’t really have classes — we all belong to an admirable American class, the most privileged in the world. Race should be politically irrelevant and any temptation to pander to ethnicity should be quashed.
I’m enough of an idealist to still hope that there’s light at the end of the tunnel, and enough of a realist to realize that it won’t be easy. But giving up on the American dream of freedom, enterprise and opportunity isn’t an option.
The American people have decided to flush their liberties down the toilet. They have voted for a future of dependence. They have voted for a low-life president, for the niggerization of their government and their culture. This is the victory of the mooches, the takers, the self described victims, the 47%.
What’s coming? Obamacare, crushing taxes, reinstatement of the Death Tax, decimation of the Bill of Rights, including national gun control, internet censorship, all-encompassing regulation of business, in a word — the complete destruction of treasured liberties.
Look ahead to the U.S. government seizing all of your retirement assets in exchange for 2% Social Security Bonds in order to back up the exploding U.S. debt. Look ahead for the president to try and amend the Constitution to allow a third and a fourth term in office. Look forward to America being a third-rate international power, dominated by China, and perhaps a coalition of Arab/Islamic dictatorships led by Iran.
The majority of voters in this last election either didn’t realize the consequences of their votes, or they don’t care. It’s among the darkest days in all of my 69 years. And I find it hard to believe that my fellow Americans could be so dismissive and uncaring about their liberties.
The following video by Pat Caddell, a former Democrat pollster is the most powerful indictment of the mainstream press that I’ve heard lately. It is depressing. It is a serious disease. Thank goodness we still have independent alternative sources of information via radio talk shows and the internet. Without these we’d be completely blind, deaf and enslaved. But don’t hold your breath. If Caddell is right this alternative too might soon disappear.
The solution, says Caddell, is for Republicans to get some backbone and push back. Call out the lies and the liars. Name names and don’t be cowed. These people are cowards. Don’t be intimidated by them, don’t try to be loved by them. They have poisoned a valuable institution of American liberty, and they must be reformed. It can be, and must be done.
Yesterday I went to see the new movie, 2016: Obama’s America, based on the work of writer Dinesh D’Suza. The movie convincingly details D’Suza’s theory that President Obama’s upbringing has made him a third-world style anti-colonialist/anti-imperialist who believes that America has to be brought down to the level of the average U.N. country — militarily, economically, diplomatically, and intellectually. This mentality, so common in the third world, maintains that the rich, successful Americans and Europeans achieved all their success as a direct result of exploiting the colonies’ resources. So based on this perceived injustice, Obama hates America, its history, its institutions and its world leadership. And his actions as president prove it.
The movie theater was completely packed. When the movie ended there was complete silence, not a person stirred for at least 30 seconds, then the whole audience broke into sustained applause. We’re told that the movie has risen to #3 on the charts in spite of the limited number of theaters, the limited showings and the lack of publicity.
I hope this is an omen for the upcoming election.
Addendum: Here’s another view of Obama’s background, his relationship with Communist Party USA member Frank Marshall Davis, who Obama refers to in his book as just “Frank.” See for yourself here.
In several prior posts I’ve predicted that China will eventually come apart at the seams. This is a country ruled by a brutal, corrupt dictatorship, with a banking system based on lies, and a real-estate situation more volatile even than that of the U.S. in 2008, growing discontent and a culture that permits poisonous baby formula and other toxic products to be produced and sold. A small minority of its vast population has achieved a western level of prosperity, while a majority still plows fields bare-footed behind oxen.
Now the evidence of decay and impending collapse is beginning to leak out. A recent article in WorldAffairsJournal.org describes declining economic performance and rising popular unrest and concludes as follows:
China is perhaps the most volatile society on earth, where even traffic accidents, like the one in Xian on Friday, cause rampages and riots with unmistakable political overtones. Therefore, top leaders, such as the hated Zhou Yongkang, know what is at stake now that the economy has begun to stumble. The Communist Party is at greater risk as each new indicator points to harder times—which is when people get desperate and stop fearing the government.
We Americans and Europeans are fools if we believe that China is the future of the world economy. It is a toxic dump based on lies, deceipt, and corruption. The sooner we remove our manufacturing base from China the safer we’ll be from the economic collapse and bloody revolution that is certain to come. Maybe soon.
This week’s foaming-at-the-mouth violent reaction to Rep.Tod Akin’s comment about “Legitimate Rape” is evidence of social insanity. Both democrats and republicans reacted like rabid dogs in attack mode. Now, one can argue about the wisdom of calling some cases of rape “legitimate” and some not. But to bust a gut over the mere mention of the subject is insane.
There are words and concepts that political correctness designates as automatic triggers for the mad-dog response. When Larry Summers, a much admired democrat, who was then President of Harvard, said that in his opinion, [paraphrasing] “women are not equally represented in science and engineering disciplines because their brains are not wired for that kind of work” — well, the world exploded around him. How dare he even think such a thought! When a Las Vegas Bookie, Jimmie the Greek, observed that negro athletes had a biological advantage of strong leg and buttock muscles the world reacted as if he was the reincarnation of Hitler.
So let’s see. Here are some concepts that trigger the mad-dog response: 1) There are biological differences between the races, 2) there are innate differences in capabilities, motivations, and behaviors between men and women, 3) a white man insulting a black man by calling him a nigger is racist and a punishable human rights violation, while the same insult by a black man is simply a cultural artifact, 4) expression of distaste for the “gay” agenda and lifestyle, 5) and it goes on and on.
If I call your newborn baby ugly you’ll take offense. It would be better for me to zip my lip and swallow. But if I go ahead and say it and you are a reasonably well mannered person, you’ll probably just ignore the comment and hope you never encounter me again. But if I say that some claims of rape are bogus or exaggerated, i.e., not legitimate, then you may have the mad-dog response and will want to claw my eyes out.
In some Muslim societies they have have very strict attitudes about blasphemy. When someone commits blasphemy he or she is subjected to the blind rage of the community and is often as not stoned to death. So where’s the difference between the rage produced by blasphemy in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and the mad-dog response to certain PC trigger words?
We’d have a much more civilized and peaceful world if the virtue of tolerance were emphasized and practiced. The PC concept of words that invoke rage and mad-dog reactions and self-censorship does not fit a civilized society. It is a characteristic of savage societies which have such taboos and violent reactions against those who transgress.
And as to abortion, that has no legitimate role in the national political debate. It’s none of the federal government’s damn business one way or the other.
What’s going on here? Why have govenment agencies such as SSA, NOAA, and DHS ordered enough lethal ammunition to kill every living American 5-times over? What is the purpose of this armament? It can’t be used in war. Hollow point bullets are banned from use in war by international treaty. So who is going to fire them? Against whom do our government agencies, including Social Security Administration intend to use these bullets?
This question needs to be answered by a congressional inquiry and made known to the American public. So far no answers have been forthcoming. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is real. Send your congressional representatives a question. Ask them why and against whom the non-military government agencies are arming themselves. Do it now.
Bashar Asad’s government has used its military forces to destroy its own citizens. They protest, he sends in the army to shell their cities. It’s about the most vicious, ugly example of tyranny I can imagine — short of the Communist butchery in Russia and China, and the Japanese rape of Nanking prior to WW-II. Could similar savagery by a government toward its citizens happen here in the USA? Apparently the U.S. government is already anticipating the possibility.
NOW, a U.S. Army sponsored think-tank (“Small Wars Journal”) has produced a study that envisions a Tea Party inspired insurrection in Darlington South Carolina and how the U.S. Army should deal with it, i.e., PUT IT DOWN BY MILITARY FORCE. The people of Darlington, you see, invoke the principles of the Declaration of Independence and dare to replace the present governing authorities with those chosen by and representative of the people. Of course, the authors of the study say that these citizens are inspired by anti-immigrant, racist ideas and they are armed and violent — as all tea party participants presumably are!
Could this be President Obama’s vision of a military force effective on American soil? Is this the logical extension of the Department of Homeland Security’s metastasis into everyday life from origins in airline security? Are these people for real? Yes, apparently they are.
READ THIS CHILLING REPORT:
‘Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland a “vision” of the future’. Then tell me if you don’t think American liberty is threatened by Washington.
My frustration boils over. It seems to me that for my entire 69 years, as long as I can remember politics and government, things have become ever more ugly. By that I mean that government has become larger, more intrusive, more burdensome, and more expensive. My first political recollections was riding along in the front seat of my father’s Model-A Ford, seeing a campaign sign – Truman for President – and hearing my father say: “That son of a bitch, Harry Truman.” It was only years later that I realized my father’s frustration over how much damage FDR had done to America as a free country. It wasn’t until after the Eisenhower administration that I realized that the government isn’t an honest entity — that most of what government does and says is based on outright lies and deceit.
Later, in 1966, I proudly enlisted in the U.S. Army to fight in Vietnam against the brutal communists. I believed this was an honor and a duty and remain proud of my service. Others disagreed. The country by that time was losing its character, and under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson the government became ever more bloated, expensive and intrusive. I remember Johnson imploring the government to spend more money more rapidly to fight recession. What a cruel joke that was. The economy languished but the government grew and grew.
I’m certain that a lot of my fellow citizens feel as frustrated as I am, this in spite of some people I know who figure, “I’ve got mine, so why should I even care about the debt, the loss of liberties, and the economic mess?” There have to be some among us who are willing to stand firm against this ever-expanding menace we call the U.S. Government. So why can’t our elected congress back this down to something sensible? Play a speech, video below, on the House of Representatives floor by Representative Kelly. Shouldn’t the congress do something sensible for a change and remove these burdens rather than continue to pile them on? Kelly was speaking on behalf of HR4078, a bill to freeze regulations in place. How about a bill to rip out those and other regulations in their entirety?
See and hear the speech:
It is citizens like us who vote for representatives that become gods, kings, and princes when they get to office. They march up the glorious marble steps of the U.S. Capitol building and, can you blame them for swelled heads, they begin to think they should run the country. But they’re only elected to run the bureaucracy — a big difference indeed.
And if you don’t think Kelly is talking about Jackass regulations, wait until you read about Idiot Obama’s latest brainstorm. To Wit,
have a regulation that school punishments must all be apportioned by race, regardless of the behavior of individual students!! WHAT?
The insanity has gone too far. Maybe that’s the reason that the liberals are talking gun controls once again. They fear the citizens. These citizens are frustrated with excessive government power and intimidation. They realize, deep down, that the reason for the second amendment is the potential for military (the 2nd Amendment mentions “militia”, after all) use of weapons by citizens, not for hunting and target shooting, but against the repressive elements of a feared future government. We all hope it never comes to that, but we need to guard the second amendment in the meantime.
P.S. If some government spy is logging this article and I meet Janet Napolitano’s definition of a potential domestic terrorist, go to hell. You’re wrong. What I am is a proud, patriotic American who doesn’t appreciate seeing his country’s traditions and fundamental values destroyed by a gang of meddlesome liberal busybodies.