Category Archives: Opinion

Under Obama, P.O.T.U.S. Takes On A Whole New Meaning

Under Obama’s presidency P.O.T.U.S. has come to mean “Piss on the United States”.  From the very beginning of his administration he has complained about the actions of the United States and how defective the constitution is in it’s limitation of governmental intrusion in its citizens’ lives.  He has befriended and empowered foreign dictators and excluded and insulted America’s allies.

 

Under the anti-American presidency of Obama our nation has cast aside the rule of law and the idea of a limited government operating under the umbrella of the constitution.  He has systematically undermined our military and our ability to defend ourselves.  He has ignored laws intended to keep illegal aliens out and has established programs to encourage illegals to come here and receive welfare as soon as they arrive.  He has pretended outrage at the exposure of scandals (like the IRS abuses) but lets the idea of punishing those who abuse the law and mistreat their fellow Americans evaporate as soon as the press looks away, and they always accommodate him by doing just that.  He has greatly increased joblessness and negatively impacted healthcare in America with the implementation of Obamacare, and this legislation also has caused a direct negative impact on the introduction and development of life-saving new products and drugs, while providing a big windfall profit to big pharma, which backed Obamacare and is Obama’s big pal.

 

Obama’s EPA has been hard at work presenting new regulations that will kill thousands of more jobs and make life for all Americans less comfortable and more expensive.  The new EPA administrator has promised to assure less fuel for our cars and more expensive coal-generated power to our homes and businesses via a push for regulations on “global warming” or “climate change”, or some other phrase these lying fools utilize to scare us into living poorer lives and allowing them to take over more control of our everyday living.

 

And while our beloved president is out playing golf, or vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard, our foreign diplomats and being killed in Libya, and our Secretary of State is threatening red-line punishment with immediate and severe attacks on Syria, and then limited short attacks, then seeking congressional backing to attack, then halting any congressional vote on the issue, and then allowing one of the most evil powers in the world, Russia, to resolve the situation that Obama started by shooting off his lying mouth, thereby further humiliating America.  And in the meantime, Iran remains one of the most dangerous nations in the world with its development of nuclear weapons, and a big ally of Syria, and nothing is done to stop Iran’s threat of nuclear proliferation, which could have been nipped in the bud if Obama had given some assistance to Iran’s citizens’ green movement when they rejected the evil their government was performing, but of course, Obama will do nothing to halt Islamic extremists, so now a new threat to Democracy and peace is well on its way to completion, and Obama pisses once more on America and its citizens.

 

As The Supreme Court Betrays America, All The Upstream Political Dams Are Breaking

When one lives on a river one learns to pay attention to how the dams upstream are holding, because if the dams upstream fail, the resulting deluge will be released and there is no way to stop it as it takes out your life and home.

Below will be references to metaphorical political dams intended to make the point that our society is literally falling apart under Obama’s deluge of liberalism/progressivism.

The lesser political dams upstream can be related simply to how our governmental authorities behave when laws are broken by the government itself.  An example could be when the IRS singles out Obama’s opponents and denies Republicans the same tax benefits common to liberals; or when we know the Secretary of State was accepting large personal donations from foreign governments in exchange for favorable State Department rulings; and when she illegally destroyed emails on her illegal server to cover her criminal tracks.  No one in the Obama administration will lift a finger to punish these wrong-doings.  And how about the constant lying drumbeat from Democrats about the Republican war on women, and the Republican efforts to deny the vote to black citizens.  Any honest person would admit that this is just filthy talk, but liberals are not honest.

Then come the medium size political dams of liberals’ repeated attempts to deny Americans their second amendment right to own arms to defend themselves; repeated attempts to force homosexual marriage down our throats; the insistence that we accept the tens of thousands of illegal aliens crossing our borders as merely being immigration reform; the unending EPA regulations which are contrary to the enabling legislation Congress passed (but no one seriously tries to stop them); the global warming brigade that seriously suggests that warming deniers be judged to be insane and made criminals (when common sense would tell anyone who cared to apply logic and their own senses that the oceans are not rising and that a predicted rise of one degree in temperature in fifty years is a good thing, not a bad one, because it would lengthen the growing season slightly and provide more food).

Another medium political dam that is being torn down finds the left attacking police forces across the country and leaving the population very much exposed to crime as the police back off from the dangers of their job in the face of public outrage and violence at their supposed excesses.

But the main political dam formerly holding back the hordes who have been damaging the lesser dams has just failed us a second time: the Supreme Court is all in on Obamacare and has used their own opinions, instead of legal reasoning, to finally shove the Affordable Care Act down our throats.

The political dams are breaking all along the river of life in America, and when you consider that the federal government, which is the primary wrecker of the dams that protect America from total destruction, is broke and that the stock market is now riding a new bubble equal to that of 2008, we’re all in big trouble.

Most people, especially the young who grew up in an era of plenty, have no idea where their liberties and their comfortable lives come from.  They have lived so well for so long that they believe that air conditioners and iPods and markets packed with food are the norm and simply the way life is, but their great grandparents could tell them that living in the U.S. today is a miracle compared to past times, and it could be lost in the blink of an eye if the traditional political dams that protected our nation from excesses and subversives all fall down.

 

Healthcare Ruling-Government Control Expands With Language

This week the Supreme Court struck another major blow to common sense and the English language. In a ruling upholding the subsidies afforded policies purchased on the federal insurance exchange, the SCOTUS opened a veritable Pandora’s Box of legal interpretation, and expanded power not only of the judiciary, but of the federal government itself.

2015-06-26-b1f429b7_largeSeven times throughout the Affordable Care Act (ACA) references are made to policies or individuals who are “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act…” In each case, the context is citing policies purchased through insurance exchanges established and operated by the respective states. But the court ruled the actual legal language, and even the context, didn’t matter. What mattered was the “intent” of the congress. So reading “tea leaves” now has greater weight with our legal system than the literal words of legal documents!

To be clear, the case was brought to the court on that very issue, whether the literal meaning of the words of the statute were legally binding. The decision was not regarding the efficacy of the ACA, or whether it’s feasible. The decision was on whether the law could be interpreted to support federal subsidies for states with no insurance exchange or only those states that had established their own exchange.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority decision, conceded that a strict reading of the Act clearly meant only policies purchased through individual state exchanges were eligible for federal subsidies. He wrote, “While the meaning of the phrase…may seem plain when viewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable in light of the statute as a whole. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.”

109044_600The Court has historically ruled on constitutionality of statute. With this decision, however, the Court has clearly become a proactive partner with Nancy Pelosi’s 111th Congress in writing the wholly inappropriately named Affordable Care Act. Seven times the Act described, in context, that subsidies would be available through Section 1311 sanctioned State Exchanges. Yet the Court by a 6-3 majority became a partner in writing the law, ex post facto, by redefining a key component of it.

Obviously, legislative intent is now more consequential than legal wording. This means that even legal documents generated by the government, which establish the rule of law by the selection and utilization of specific words and phrases, will not necessarily be judged based on what they actually say, but what the intent was. And since intent can be interpreted far beyond the scope of actual legalese, taking the government to court on any matter of law will now be a potentially arbitrary and spurious crapshoot.

To illustrate the absurdity of such a notion, imagine if the same principle applied to our legal documents regarding wills, property ownership, and child custody issues. If the Supreme Court’s logic, or illogic, were to be applied to our legal documents, what they say literally becomes inconsequential, for the intent is what is meaningful, not the words. We can claim that we didn’t intend to break the law when charged, but that doesn’t matter. But if we broke the law, what our intent was becomes inconsequential. Yet now the government claims the plenipotentiary authority to claim intent matters more than the actual law, and the language that created it. A government should never be able to do what an individual citizen can’t.

2015-06-26-b8f7c82c_largeIt’s common to take such a cavalier attitude towards what people or organizations say or write. They can say something, and then apologize for it, claiming that wasn’t their intent. But for government, this is a new low. It now has legal precedence to make the same claim with regard to statute and laws, if their intent was different than the actual wording of a law!

Justice Antonin Scalia illustrated the absurdity of the ruling in his dissent. “I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them…

“Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Court’s interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government….Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State…

“The Court has not come close to presenting the compelling contextual case necessary to justify departing from the ordinary meaning of the terms of the law. Quite the contrary, context only underscores the outlandishness of the Court’s interpretation. Reading the Act as a whole leaves no doubt about the matter: ‘Exchange established by the State’ means what it looks like it means.”

This ruling is not dissimilar from the 2012 ruling upholding the mandate of Obamacare. That ruling sustained the Act by identifying the “mandate” as a “tax.” It would appear with two major SCOTUS decisions upholding the Act, the only way it can be deemed constitutional is by the Court’s new precedence of reinterpreting and changing what the words actually say, legally. In other words, jumping through logical and linguistic hoops to make it so. As Senator Rand Paul said, “This decision turns both the rule of law and common sense on its head.”

The omnipotent authority of the government over individual lives is now complete, when words can mean whatever the government chooses to make them mean. Alexander Hamilton, upon the founding of the nation, declared, “It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” When government can arbitrarily change, reinterpret, and alter statute, after the fact, it is no longer just, or limited. It is totalitarian and hegemonic!

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Is The Jefferson Memorial and American Flag Next?

Jefferson Memorial

It started with Dylan Roof’s murder of nine people in a church. Since it was South Carolina attention was immediately drawn to the confederate flag that flew over the state house. Governor Nikki Haley agreed to take it down.

Rush Limbaugh mentioned that the liberals would be suggesting that the American flag be removed next. I blogged about it yesterday and now Louis Farrakhan is suggesting that the American flag be removed because it represents slavery.

Now some are arguing that the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. should be removed because Jefferson owned slaves.

CNN anchor Ashleigh Banfield this week questioned whether the Jefferson Memorial should be taken down because Jefferson owned slaves. “There is a monument to him in the capital city of the United States. No one ever asks for that to come down,” Banfield said.

Fellow anchor Don Lemon responded by saying Jefferson represented “the entire United States, not just the South.” But he added: “There may come a day when we want to rethink Jefferson. I don’t know if we should do that.”

I agree with the blogger  Joseph Watson on the InfoWars site who compared taking down the Jefferson Memorial to the logic of Islamic State terrorists “who have spent the last year tearing down historical statues and monuments because they offend their radical belief system.”

If they want to remove the Jefferson Memorial does this mean we tear down Mount Vernon, Washington’s home in Va. because he owned slaves? Do we tear down  the Washington Monument?

At the University of Texas, Austin, a public statue of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, was reportedly vandalized this week with the words “Black Lives Matter” and “Bump the Chumps.” Another Davis statue at the Statehouse in Frankfort, Ky., has come under scrutiny, with some calling for the work of art to be taken down.

Students at the university have started an online petition advocating removal of the statues, saying “it is impossible to reach the full potential of an inclusive and progressive learning institution while putting an idol of our darkest days on a pedestal.” Hey guys I hate to tell you this but has anyone told you that the reason we study history is not to repeat the past mistakes? A knowledge of the past is an aid to the future.

A Confederate monument in Charleston, S.C., was vandalized this week with the words “Black Lives Matter,” according to the Post and Courier newspaper. Black lives matter? Since 2012 6000 blacks have been killed by other blacks

This is really, really getting out of hand now. This is exactly what ISIS is doing in the Mid Eastern countries. Are we like them now?

Amazon nixes selling the rebel flag, but continuing to sell Nazi memorabilia, Walmart is selling Castro and Iranian flags,but not the rebel flag.

Black Panther leader Malik Shabaz is calling for “killing of all slave masters.” Dylan Roof said he wanted to start a race war and it looks like he is going to get his wish if this keeps up.

Speaking of Roof, I was perusing his manifesto to find out what makes this guy tick and  do what he did and thru all his rantings and ravings and madness he did make a few  valid points about slavery that isn’t  mentioned much. He mentioned how not all slaves were treated bad as we have been told and there were many instances where slaves cared for and loved their masters. There were also black slave owners too. Here is a passage from his manifesto: Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished.

I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. 

One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didn’t even allow whipping on his plantation.

I remember hearing about that myself and in the book Uncle Tom’s Cabin (is that still available anymore?) they portray good slave owners and bad ones like Simon Legree. The term “Uncle Tom” used today comes from there referring to the black slave who was friends with his white master. Walt Disney’s movie “Song of the South” also depicts good slave owners who treated their slaves well. I understand that is not available in the U.S. anymore.

But today people don’t look at things like that. All they see is black and white, rich and poor and what they can get and want everything handed to them. What a pity.

Time to remove Jefferson memorial too?

Hillary to Speak at Event Named After Slave Owners…

FARRAKHAN: ‘WE NEED TO PUT THE AMERICAN FLAG DOWN’…

NEW BLACK PANTHER: ‘FINISH THE MISSION, KILL SLAVE MASTERS’…

AMAZON nixes rebel flag, continues selling Nazi memorabilia…

Authors may need to change covers… 

APPLE Removes Civil War Games From App Store…

WALMART sells Castro, Iranian flags…

Many memorials to Confederates, other slave holders: What happens to them?

New Orleans mayor says time to tear down statue of Robert E. Lee…

Group demands removal of confederate site in Orlando…

Film critic calls for ‘GONE WITH THE WIND’ to be banished to museum…

RightWingWatch Attacks Alan Keyes and Themselves

RightWingWatch is a frothing-at-the-mouth liberal protectionist organization so it’s no suprise that they attacked Alan Keyes for his comments to Newsmax. It’s also no surprise that they stupidly proved his concerns in the same comment.

Take, for example, Alan Keyes, who told Newsmax host Steve Malzberg yesterday that he does not believe that the shooting was racially motivated but was actually an incident of pro-gay, anti-Christian violence. Keyes, a Republican politician and conservative activist, said that he has personally experienced more animosity due to his religious beliefs than to his race, so concluded that the massacre must have been caused by religious hostility and thus is the latest example of the supposed “persecution” of Christians in America.

Keyes’ comments are questionable considering the symbolism and statements issued by Dylann Storm Roof during the attack, but one major statement that RWW tries to refute is that Keyes has felt more animosity due to his religious beliefs than due to his race. RightWingWatch is proving his point.

While Keyes’ makes a controversial, and at this time unproven, point, RWW attacked him because of his account of religious persecution. Just as I am unable to understand the oppression that a black man might feel during his life, RWW has no ability to understand if Keyes’ did or did not feel oppressed due to his religious beliefs. Christians are increasingly being castigated for their beliefs.

By saying that Keyes’ persecution is “supposed” means that they do not understand the pressure that Christians are under in today’s America.

Obama is hosting dinners where he invites anti-Isreali cohorts to his personal table:

President Barack Obama hosted two radical anti-Israel activists, Riham Osman and Batoul Abuharb of Houston, Texas, on Tuesday night. They both had the honor of sitting at Mr. Obama’s exclusive “President’s Table” at the annual White House Iftar dinner. Both have publicly stated that they consider Israel and its leadership to be sponsors of terroristic acts.

Michelle Obama told a group of mulsim girls at a London school  “when I look out at all these young women, I see myself. In so many ways, your story is my story.”

When will the first lady be visiting an all-girls Christian school and sharing that same message. Will the President soon be offering his table to Christian or Jewish leaders? Maybe Keyes has more right than wrong on his comments.

The article seems to unapologetically claim that only affronts against race are important. Many identify on higher levels than the color of their skin.

The NEW WORLD ORDER SOCIALIST PARTY Controls America

 

Demomcrat Logo

The united states of America is ruled by one political party. It has a donkey wing and an republican logoelephant wing, both pledging allegiance to the NEW WORLD ORDER cabal of globalist billionaires headed by former Nazi George Soros. Soros got his start to billionaire status by selling fellow Jews to the Nazis and taking their possessions for himself.

Soros now seeks to destroy our nation and rule as a minion of Satan himself as he sold his soul many yearsGeorge Soros ago and was undoubtedly promised a kingdom as Jesus was nearly 2,000 years ago. Jesus refused but Soros accepted the offer it appears.  Soros has the money and lack of morals it takes to pay politicians and judges to get his evil way done to the detriment of liberty. His paid minions are trying to destroy Christianity as God’s people are the only roadblock to the control he seeks and they (Soros/Satan) will stop at nothing to accomplish the goal of the total destruction of the Christian way of life in America. The unlimited funding of immoral causes such as the homosexual Gestapo agenda, the murder of unborn children through abortion, and the support, both financially and physically, of the invasion of Godless criminal illegal aliens and moslems shows his disdain for the rule of God and the Constitution.

Both wings of Satan’s political party Il Duce Obamahave assisted Soros and his puppet, fuehrer barrack Obama, in their quest to turn this nation into just another third world satanic toilet of depravity, slavery, poverty, and misery. The homosexual activists are too deceived to realize that they are being used to implement their own destruction, now and in eternity. They are told they have the “right” to impose their immorality on “intolerant bigots” who follow the Word of God and see homosexuality as sin. God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the same attitudes and activity but the homosexuals call that a myth to justify their immorality to themselves. The donkey wing is unabashedly open about their disdain for God, booing Him loudly and proudly at their 2012 convention. The elephant wing blatantly lies to Holy bibleChristians to get their votes and, once elected, goes right back to supporting evil and making excuses by calling themselves “bi-partisan”, inclusive, and diverse” while joining the donkey wing in calling Christians vile names. Very few people in government today have any regard at all for the “law of the land”, Constitution 2the Constitution of the United states of America and that fact both angers and saddens me.

As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord!!!!! I ended my affiliation with the elephant wing of the NWOSP due to their despicable behavior at the 2012 Oklahoma state and national conventions where they violated parliamentary procedure and their own “party rules” to disenfranchise the Ron Paul faction they saw, rightly, as a threat to their treacherous ways.

People say we were not founded as a Christian nationBible n Flag Picture but that is not true. While it is true that this nation was not founded as a theocracy, God and the Judeo-Christian faith were an integral aspect of the plan and lives of our founding fathers.

It is time to abolish this federal government that has become a satanic agent and start over as a “shining city on a hill” as our nation was once and needs to be again. Ronald Reagan once said that “if we ever forget we are one nation under God we will be a nation gone under”. This nation has abandoned God and is well on its way under today. Only a return to God and His morality can save this nation now but it appears no one in government and many citizens of today want that to happen. I daily pray for God to raise up a Gideon to lead the USA back to the road to the promised land established by God and our founding fathers.

I submit this in the name of The Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

June 26, 2015

 

Majority Decision in King v. Burwell Eviscerates Separation of Powers

According to the Fabian socialist-based government in George Orwell’s 1984, war is peace and freedom is slavery.

And according to the democratically-conscious Chief Justice John Roberts Supreme Court, a fee is a tax and state means federal.

The Court’s 6-3 ruling in King v. Burwell upholding the legality of subsidies in states that refused to set up a federal exchange is hardly shocking in consideration of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, but it is nevertheless disheartening.

Even as Jonathan Gruber’s important role in the construction of the legislation becomes more evident, the Court bent over backwards to accommodate the legislature’s supposed oversight in using imprecise language.

Gruber, of course, revealed the unspoken secret of the law- that is was written so states that failed to set up exchanges would be taxed without receiving any of the benefits, a scare tactic meant to raise the specter of public anger and force Republican governors into complying:

Roberts, however, in affirming the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the subsidies were legal, went to great lengths to ignore the public record of fact and accommodate the stated intent of the administration, claiming in his opinion:

“we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

There is absolutely no legal rationale in this decision; there is instead sycophantic sophistry. Yet, the Court’s decision to interpret the Act in a way that clearly goes beyond the plain language of the statute does not respect the role of the Legislature; it supersedes it, continuing a precedent established by the decision to call the individual mandate a “tax,” despite the clear insistence by the Obama administration that this was not the case.

The Court’s decision by itself is troubling, but the majority’s rationale is even more so because it is a complete evisceration of the separation of powers and vastly re-interprets the meaning of judicial review, which was established as the primary responsibility of the Court in Marbury v. Madison.

There has been much talk of the King v. Burwell ruling being purely about statutory interpretation. This was obliterated by the centrality of Congressional intent to Robert’s ruling.

But, the Court’s guidance by statutory interpretation is in itself problematic. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained the necessity of the chief judicial body being guided by the Constitution above other duly enacted laws:

“A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents..”

The original intent of the judicial branch, as laid out by Article III and further defined by Marbury v. Madison, is strict Constitutional interpretation. Its articles and clauses are the lodestone for the justice’s rationale. But the introduction of case law and precedent caused the Court to drift away from its purpose.

The Court’s two rulings upholding the ACA are a tidal wave, pushing the power of the justices into new territory. They have invested themselves with interpretive powers that too closely mimic those given solely to the legislature.

But then, maybe James Madison was merely imprecise in his language when he laid out the carefully delineated system of checks and balances in the Constitution.

 

Bobby Jindal Not Indian-Enough For Liberals

Recently the Washington Post expressed the opinion that Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has lost his Indian-ness, thereby, by suggestion, making him a bad candidate for president (of course any candidate on the Republican side is a bad candidate, but liberals like to be creative in their dislikes so they look at important things, like the language, religion and the skin color of the candidate and concentrate on that). However, Obama is African-American enough for the Washington Post because he hates America and its constitution (Obama’s own words were “Fundamentally transform America”), but Jindal isn’t Indian enough because he outspokenly and specifically does love America and its constitution.

Stated differently, the criteria for liberals is that if you hate America, as Obama obviously does, then you’re a good candidate, but if you love America you shouldn’t even run.  And when the attitude about America is combined with dark skin pigmentation, you just multiply the candidate’s worthiness or unworthiness by ten.  Only haters of America need apply, and do not consider the character of the candidate as Martin Luther King suggested, but look only at his/her race and ethnicity.

The smoke screens that liberals throw up to muddy the electoral waters is amazing.  The issue is not about skin color or national origin as the liberal racists insist. The issue is about defending the constitution and keeping Americans of all colors, races and religions, whether male or female, free and prosperous, and liberal candidates fall short of the mark every time. Liberals see skin color first and all else comes second in their opinion.

The question of “whiteness” has recently been front page in the news.  Rachel Dolezal is a white woman who claimed to be black and took that identity, and Dana Dusbiber forbids the literature of Shakespeare be taught in her class because he was too white.  Because Obama was the first black president and proved to be a complete, lying, incompetent fool, liberals are very touchy on the subject of skin color because they don’t want a Republican president with dark skin showing their guy up by being a success, so they jump on any flaw they find, even if it’s irrelevant.  Libs don’t like dark-skinned people who act “white”.  It will be difficult for liberals to continue to divide the population along racial lines if someone like Jindal becomes president, but with the Washington Post’s recent article they are laying the ground-work to continue the “struggle” should Jindal be elected.

Bobby Jindal’s biggest sin is that he claims to be only American and not of hyphenated origin, and that’s not the attitude liberals want to hear.

Populism, Racism and the Left

Somehow, as seems to be the case with every tragedy that occurs in America, the tragic murder of nine people in South Carolina by a racist murderer has been hijacked for political gain. Any Republican who doesn’t publicly repudiate the Confederate flag as a symbol of segregation and oppression and call for its immediate removal from South Carolina government grounds is a Jim Crow-loving racist, or something.

Never mind that the flag flies on the grounds of a memorial for confederate soldiers or that the law requires a two-thirds majority in the legislature to be removed. Facts are an impediment to political grandstanding and are therefore run over by the brute force of emotionalism.

What is now known colloquially as the Confederate flag has become a symbol of rebellion and individual sovereignty to many. To many others, it is a symbol of hatred and oppression. There is truth to both of these things. But, what is frequently overlooked in the contention is the incontrovertible fact that it’s merely a piece of cloth which cannot be imbued with any emotion, negative or positive.

Whatever emotional overtones people choose to place in the flag does nothing to change its composition as a piece of material. It is not the flag that is harmful; the real danger is in bigots who transfer their monomaniacal hatred into the flag as a banner. To pretend otherwise diminishes the responsibility of criminals in their actions, and this is an insult to their innocent victims.

Since certain actors, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has decided to use this tragedy as a fundraiser, insist on creating a national polemic out of this issue, it is important to counter their inanities with facts.

The sometimes-radical sovereignty attached to the Confederate flag is often attributed to right wing populism. But, left wing populism, which has existed in the South for a much longer time, has a much richer and more mainstream vein of racism running through it.

First, it is worth mentioning that what is today known colloquially as the Confederate flag is but one of many iterations used throughout the Civil War. The Southern Cross design resembles both the flag flown by General Lee’s North Virginia army and the Second Confederate Navy Jack. (For a more complete history, see radio host Buck Sexton’s explanation.)

Second, though the Confederate flag does not fly before South Carolina’s state house, it did under the tenure of Democrat governor Ernest Hollings. Various other Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have flown the flag as a sign of Southern pride throughout the recent decades.

Again, the flag in itself is innocuous; unhinged maniacs, even though they adopt it as a symbol, are solely responsible for their actions. But since Democrats insist on making this a populist issue, it’s important to point out their hypocrisy.

The Dixiecrats, and their most famous member, 1948 presidential contender Strom Thurmond, are known for their belief in segregation. Their party platform, which interestingly also called for social and economic justice, flatly states, “We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.”

But racism has played a much more integral part of populism in the South. Rooted in the belief that new powers threatened traditional way of life, American populism, which has been almost exclusively to the left until the conservative resurgence of the 1970s, is almost constitutionally racist. Whether against the threat of cultural upheaval from European immigrants or racial integration, or directed against the Oriental railroad builders, populist oratory by famous and influential national figures like Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan and Father Coughlin contains overt racial messages.

Modern Democrats, of course, are not responsible for the excesses of their ideological forebears. But, by ignoring this past, and putting the spotlight wrongly on Republicans, they err. Racism is not right or left. It is a collectivist ideology, evil because it judges groups on meaningless characteristics rather than individual merit.

 

 

 

What Don’t Liberals Understand About Prosperity And Taxation? Plenty!

The kerfuffle several months ago about Burger King moving its headquarters to Canada in order to avoid the astronomical taxation rate in the U.S. illuminated the mental attitude of liberals.  Instead of understanding that businesses voluntarily established themselves in, or relocated to, the United States during the 20th century when taxes were low and prosperity was the norm, thereby correctly deciding that lower taxes lead to a more prosperous country and a higher standard of living for its citizens, liberals would rather heap shame on Burger King and similar companies and call them unpatriotic for moving their headquarters to a foreign country with a lower tax rate. The charge of non-patriotism goes to the heart of what big-government liberals don’t understand about a corporation and its fiduciary duty to its employees, customers and stakeholders: to make as much profit as possible via the sale of the company’s products or services.

 

Directly related to a corporation’s fiduciary responsibility to conduct business responsibly is the government’s Constitutional responsibility to assure its citizens’ liberty and security. Thus, it’s as obvious as the next gaff on Joe Biden’s lips, that Obama and his liberal cohort in Congress and the EPA don’t understand their own duty to protect American citizens (examples: Obama was surprised by the military might of  ISIS and  admitted that he had, and apparently still has, no strategy or plan to eliminate them after a year of daily security briefings in which their threat was clearly described to him; consider also the threat to America’s economy and its physical and fiscal health presented by Obama’s open border along the southern United States; denying Americans the right to select their own healthcare and forcing Obamacare on us) and to assure an ecomony that allows our citizens to work, save and prosper.

 

America is being ruled by fools who are horribly wrong for the intentional destruction they are doing to the greatest nation on earth. Maybe it’s a divine gift that Obama is now forced to deal with ISIS by using the military force he despises, and should have exerted months ago as a real commander in chief would have, and in so doing he is now, hopefully, limited in the next series of steps he intended to take in his “fundamental transformation of America” and making the United States just another socialist basket case.

“White Privilege”? The Only Privilege I See is “Liberal Privilege”

The liberal press has made much ado recently by coining the phrase “white privilege” to account for there being more white people firmly in the middle class than black or brown people (of course liberals ignore the fact that Asians, as represented by their share of the population, greatly out-represent whites in the arena of earnings).  But what is most evident is the massive privilege given to anyone of the liberal stripe, and here are a few examples:

 

Liberal Political/Economic Privilege

Just out of college Chelsea Clinton gets a six-figure income from NBC and now has a 10 million dollar Manhattan penthouse. Did she work and earn this lavish living?  I thought Hillary was going to put a halt to this unfair high living for those in a position of influence with powerful people.

 

Liberal Environmental Privilege

Al Gore, John Kerry, the Clintons and their liberal pals in the United Nations and elsewhere get to own multiple homes and fly around on private jets while being considered saviors of humanity, while everyone else is told to live in cramped quarters and take the bus or walk.

 

Liberal Governmental Privilege

Hillary can disobey the law and destroy government emails from her illegal server and no one in government shows any concern, and the press just moves on to Rubio’s parking tickets.

Bill Clinton can abuse women and lie about it under oath while he’s occupying the Oval Office and it’s a ho-hum event.

Hillary’s lack of attention to security in Benghazi as Secretary of State got four American employees of hers killed, but never mind.

 

Liberal Trans-Race Privilege

The white Rachel Dolezal uses her abilities to pretend to be black and take charge of an NAACP branch, thereby denying real blacks a chance to get recognition and advance themselves.  But being a liberal protects Dolezal from any criticism and scorn from the press.  Shouldn’t a white pretending to be black in order to dominate blacks be considered racist?  I’m just asking.

 

Liberal Black Privilege

Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson and Walter E. Williams, among many other black conservatives, are scorned for their opinions and called sell-outs, but Sharpton and Jackson are above reproach.

In Chicago and Baltimore blacks kill blacks every day and white liberals just yawn.  I guess they think these lives don’t matter.

 

Liberal Legislative Privilege

Liberal welfare legislation has destroyed many lives, both black and white, by creating endless dependence on government hand-outs, and discourages those on welfare from getting a job and being independent of government, and even when Democrat liberals are honest enough to admit that this human destruction has occurred under their guidance they will not propose getting rid of the laws that further their power hold on votes.

Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and New York City, among other cities with high crime and high murder rates and disgracefully high welfare roles are all Democrat enclaves in which Republican and conservative ideas are ignored, but Democrats are never blamed for the outrageous conditions they have created.

These People Are Mental Cases; End Of Story

I woke-up this morning, looked in the mirror and said “What do you feel like today Chris, do I feel like a woman or a man? Do I feel like a black man or a white man? So I said to myself, I feel Lithuanian today, so that’s what I will be today.”

It seems that in today’s society we can be whatever we feel like, it doesn’t matter what God made us or how we were born, we can just make it up as we go along. If a man thinks he is a woman, there is something mentally wrong with him, same with that white woman who thinks she is black, she is mentally wired wrong, something or someone screwed her up along the way. Instead of helping these people, the Liberal mind says we should just let them live in La-La land. I bet there are more stories about this woman that will prove even further that she is a mental case.

How many ways can a Liberal mind find to screw-up our society? Seems like Trans-Racial is the new term Liberals want us to accept. Well there is no such thing as Trans-Racial, just like there is no such thing as Trans-Gender, you are born what you are and that’s it, if you think you are something else, check yourself into a rubber room. There is no doubt that Rachel Dolezal has a mental problem, but what will our screwed-up society do? Probably give her a Reality Show.

Need more proof of how screwed-up our society is: Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, a lesbian couple from California, claimed their 11-year-old son Thomas didn’t want to be a boy. Thomas, who prefers to go by “Tammy,” wanted to be a girl. So his mothers gave him hormone treatments to delay puberty so that he could fully “transition” into a female through surgery when he is old enough.

To make matters worse they let him decide who he was sexually at the ripe old age of 3. If you are reading this and you think that there is nothing wrong with it, than you need to be fitted for a rubber room as well. I am sure these mentally ill women are just trying to push there lesbian lifestyle on that poor kid, after all at age 3 who even knows anything about different genders. Where are the child abuse charges against these two women? Oh, I forgot, this happened in California, need I say more.

I don’t know how this happened, but this country is turning into one big funny farm, it seems the inmates are running the place. Some where along the way right became wrong and wrong became right, we are truly living in an upside down world, God help us if it continues.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

BlackfaceThis is one man’s opinion.

Lanny Davis, Pimping For The Clintons-in-Trouble, Again

In the 1990s when Bill Clinton was in a series of misconduct and legal-sexual troubles, his pal Lanny Davis was seen repeatedly defending ole Bill and letting us know that lying is actually a good thing, that a trailer-trash woman made him do it, and that Ken Starr was a sex fiend for digging up all of the dirt on our Billy.

The sleaze of this fool man who defended Clinton during the presidential years would upset your stomach, but now the old Lanny-meister is back at it again, only this time he’s defending Hillary in advance of her becoming a nominee for president in order to get a good run at it and build some momentum, because she’ll need someone to repeatedly defend her during the entire span of her presidential run. If Lanny were to wait to start pimping for her after she becomes the Democrat nominee he probably wouldn’t have a job any longer because without a 24-hour a day effort of twisting logic and rationalizing about the dumb or improper things that she does daily (forget what she did or didn’t do in Benghazi and with her illegal email server tucked away in her bedroom) she’ll likely never become even the Democrat party nominee. She has too much baggage and will burn out.

In fairness, our legal system is based on everyone deserving legal representation, and the social representation Lanny Davis provides for the Clintons is understandably necessary, because the idiotic Clinton duo (and with Chelsea now residing in a ten-million dollar penthouse in Manhattan and joining the Clinton Initiative, she’ll likely join the cause and make it a trio) really do need help stepping over the messes they’ve dropped everywhere they go.

Political Correctness, Statism and the Rule of Law

Modern government embodies nothing so much as Don Quixote. It assumes a mantle of morality- protecting the rights of the minorities who cry discrimination and disenfranchisement- and rides off to the rescue without bothering to look at whether the societal giants it tilts at are monsters or just windmills.

Unfortunately, it is real people, many of them business people just trying to live according to their own view of morality, who are hurt by the government’s chivalric histrionics.

This is the result of statism, a perverse twisting of natural law and individualism, which bestows consciousness upon government.

Social contract theory recognizes, in a state of nature, individuals have inherent rights, but are engaged in a constant battle to protect these and their property as there is no overarching organ that has the authority to punish man’s transgressions against his fellow man. This, John Locke explains in the “Second Treatise on Government,” makes men “willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties and estates.”

The reciprocality of rights — an understanding that the individual desire to live in security ought to engender respect for the same feeling in another — is explained in “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” by Adam Smith: “Every faculty in one man is the measure by which he judges of the like faculty in another.”

These dual ideas do not abrogate the absolute nature of rights. They act as a sort of sluice-gate, ensuring a smooth flow, so that the free exercise of liberty impedes no man with honest intentions.

This, however, requires total neutrality — a government that is value-judgment blind. It has a strict code of justice and reacts to actions that violated its tenets. It does not wring its hands about social consciousness and the plight of the disenfranchised. Government, in order to mete out just reparations for wrongs done must derive resources from somewhere and prioritize need, and since it’s a public entity, this means taking from one group in order to provide for another.

Essentially, government is cognizant. It functions as an individual because crafts legislation with a specific outcome in mind, which means it has a purpose, or will. It has become a living being.

Now, like any other sentient creature, it is bound and compelled by natural law, the first rule of which is to survive and the second rule of which is to thrive.

But, in such a system, there is no redress of grievances. There is only power in the executive, legislative and judicial branches concentrated in the hands of a biased authoritarian figure whose consciousness—dreams, desires, failings—have been transferred to government’s organs. The legal process is now a sham, a personal tool. Rule of law does not exist because all individual are not equal before the law. There are groups whose attributes make them more deserving in the eyes of the government, thus putting them in greater standing with the law than others.

The inevitable end result: rapaciousness, death and suffering on a mass scale. Stalinism and Leninism and their evils are not perversions of some greater ideological good, as modern democratic socialists like to claim. They are the inevitable end result of such thinking.

This is not rational self-interest. This is barbarism, a state of anarchy. But, it is moral. Property rights are the true heart of natural law, and the heart of property is the concept of “I.” Statism transfers self-identity from its rightful place- the individual person or business, whose excesses are checked by discretion in the hands of neighbors and consumers- and places it into an all-powerful entity that cannot be held accountable because it has a monopoly on force.

While America has not yet reached the point of Stalinist purges, nor is it anywhere close, there is no doubt that political correctness has abrogated equal justice and led to certain groups being viewed differently in the eyes of federal regulations. This is a softer tyranny, yes, but just as dangerous to anyone who believes in natural law and individualism.

Are there any absolutes left?

Watching the new stories this week and noticing how all the older stories like the Baltimore riots, the Iranian no-deal, and so on get kicked to the back burner.

The news cycles are dictated by so-called “news sources.” They put out and harp on what they believe is most important to society as a whole and they couldn’t care less what society really thinks is important.

Technology is one of the biggest fears to the hard Left. It leaves residue… of speeches that should only be heard by certain groups, statistics of long ago (climate change, freeze, heating)., comments like “what difference does it make” and “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” and the most memorable “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor,” until he was caught and then he said, “Let me be clear (ya right!) I said if you like your doctor AND he is part of the plan you can keep your doctor.” With flip-flopping, wordsmithing, and backtracking like that, I have to ask are there ANY absolutes?

I’m a homophobe if I don’t agree that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is OK. I move to hater status if I take it to the next level with, “I don’t agree with same sex marriage.”

And I’m a racist if I don’t agree with just about anything the Left says I should like, accept, and approve of!

The words racist, homophobe, and hater all have a specific meaning and, according to years and years of definition, are to be applied to very specific situations. It used to be, if you were labeled with one of those word, you needed to check yourself! They have now become a simple bullying tool for the Left to get the weak-spined, thin-skinned Conservatives to bow to their wishes.

Remember strength comes when you bow only to truth!

In our world, we now teach our kids that there are no more boys and girls. Gender neutrality is good because it gives you time to figure out what gender you want to be when you get older. Oh, and you can CHANGE it any time you feel like! I’m sure that doesn’t cause any confusion at all!

Colleges are now also asking that you not call each other Miss or Sir, young lady, or young man. But they also haven’t really given any clear direction as to what to call them or how to know. Is there a marker, a bandana, a wrist band, or t-shirt perhaps? More no definitive lines.

Read more at: CONFUSED

« Older Entries Recent Entries »