Tag Archives: progressives

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor June 8th

sncl_logocdn

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 8th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Matt K Lewis from the Daily Caller and The Week talks with Taylor about his article on reforming conservatism. Also Taylor and Liz talk NSA and whatever else comes to mind.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

What Obama’s “Bulworth” Comment Shows About Us

bulworthtaylor

bulworthtaylor
Almost forgotten within the whirlwind of last week’s columns and news stories covering the Obama Administration’s scandals was a piece from The New York Times discussing the “onset of woes” he’s had to deal with. Various aides told The Times on, and off, the record how the President is doing all he can to make sure his second term agenda gets accomplished. They also mentioned how Obama is frustrated and “exasperated “with Washington, something which isn’t new to anyone who’s watched one of his news conferences.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

 

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

 

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

 

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

 

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

 

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

 

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

 

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

 

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

 

 

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

 

 

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

 

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.


 

A Thank You Note to “Progressive” Hero Dr. Kermit Gosnell

gosnell

Dear Dr. Gosnell,

Before I really get going here, let me just say I’m sorry the “progressives” have abandoned you, that they’re pretending to condemn your bloody work. That must be hard; after all, they supported you for decades until your gruesome activities were brought to the light and started to harm their “babies are parasitic clumps of cells” narrative. Of all the things you so richly deserve, being betrayed by those who continue to support your fetus jihad isn’t one of them.

Anyway. This may sound odd coming from me, as I have spent my entire adult life fighting ferociously for the rights of the lives you so happily exterminated, but I do want to tell you “thank you”. Seriously.

A freezer in Gosnell's clinic stuffed full of human remains.

A freezer in Gosnell’s clinic stuffed full of human remains.

Thank you, Kermie, for showing America the realities of the “choice” many of them support. As you know, the Left works tirelessly to cover up the realities of kill houses like yours. They operate a pro-abortion propaganda machine that rivals anything put out by Kim Jong-Un. And just like the North Koreans, Americans who favor abortion eat up the lies like candy, too brainwashed and blind to notice the foul taste in their mouths. But then your crimes against humanity were brought to light and fence sitters especially were forced to examine exactly what it was they were championing. The far Left, of course, pretends to condemn you while continuing to support exactly what you did and how you did it, but those monsters are unreachable anyway. You’ve opened the eyes of misguided, but otherwise rational individuals. So thank you.

Thank you for demonstrating what thinking people have always known, that the “war on women” comes from the Left. You took filthy gosnelladvantage of poor, vulnerable women in crisis situations. You maimed them. You gave them diseases. You performed medical procedures on them surrounded by filth. You even killed them.  You showed America that abortion isn’t about “womens’ rights”, but about profit at the expense of innocence. Along these same lines, you also showed the many what the few have always known; it’s the Left and specifically abortion proponents who are perpetrators of extreme racism. Not only were the majority of the babies you slaughtered black, but when you had the occasional white patient, you treated her infinitely better than her minority counterparts because, what was it you said? “That’s the way the world works”? Something like that. I’m paraphrasing. But the point is, Margaret Sanger would be proud. The Left is proud. You revealed their true colors. So thank you.

Thank you for being the poster boy of media bias. Your case was hardly a blip on the mainstream media’s radar because the (hopefully) fatal damage you did to the Left’s pro-abortion/anti-life agenda really terrified them. The water they carry for Obama and his brand of far left ideology is already so heavy, and then you came along and added obstacles that may well end up to be insurmountable. So thank you.

Mostly, thank you for finally being arrogant/careless/evil enough to get caught. You are a modern day Dr. Mengle. Yours is the kind of evil that makes Satan himself scratch his head in confused awe. While it took far too long and far too many women and babies suffered and died under your heinous “care”, at least your reign of terror has been stopped and now people are aware of how your counterparts operate. Your loathsome practices may be the wakeup call America needed to begin reversing its cavalier attitude toward the extermination of innocent life. So thank you.

Give my regards to Satan when you’re rotting in hell next to Hitler,

Stevie J. West

 

“progressives” in American Politics

the_unified_democrat_republican_platform-460x307

republican-democrat-battleWhile “progressives” have existed in both major American political Parties for over a century, in recent years “progressives” have consumed the Democratic Party’s structural hierarchy while simultaneously increasingly insinuating themselves into the ranks of Republican Party leadership. This has led to a blurring in the minds of the American voter of the distinction between the two. Combine that blurred distinction with the growing reality that members of both Parties are increasingly interested in keeping their own powerful positions, replete with benefits comparable to royalty, and it becomes dangerously less possible to distinguish between them.

When Republicans sound and act like Democrat-light and Democrats hijack the rhetoric of and abduct issues from the Republican Party, how can the voter reasonably expect to decipher the difference?

The American political system has been corrupted by self-interested career politicians far more interested in their own political survival and the accompanying feeding from the public trough than they are in looking out for the interests of the American voter.

Americans need to realize that the Republican versus Democrat political paradigm, if not dead, is on failing life support.

Being a Republican no longer consistently means standing for constitutionally limited affordable government, lower taxes and a free market the_unified_democrat_republican_platform-460x307capitalist economic system. Today’s Democratic Party is definitely not the Party of John F. Kennedy. The Party of “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country” has become the Party of steal from the productive and control the redistribution of that wealth to a government dependent class which cries out “give us more free stuff.” In the interest of getting themselves re-elected, members of both political Parties have moved in the direction of giving away “free stuff,” be it in the form of Welfare and Food Stamps to the inner city poor or in the form of subsidies and tax breaks for special interest groups eager to be on the receiving end of crony capitalism.

In the twenty first century, the contemporary political paradigm in America is no longer Republican versus Democrat. It is Americans versus “progressives.”

If you are a “progressive” you are not an American, and if you’re an American you will never be a “progressive.”

Upon what foundation can such an assertion be made?

Today, the political philosophical divide in the United States lies between the intent of America’s Founding Fathers and the intent of “progressives”, who favor the Marxist view. The Marxist view is directly, fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the uniquely American view.

America is the birthplace of freedoms that allows everyone the right to own private property.

How would Americans react if, after years of struggle to make their mortgage payments, they finally owned their own home, then, what they thought was an American government “informed” them that their home did not belong to them after all, it belonged to “all of the people” and Americans had to follow government mandates to allow strangers to live on their property and in the home they had long labored to purchase…whether they liked it or not?

declaration-of-independenceThe American idea, the shot heard round the world, is that the people can govern themselves. By the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God Americans are entitled, by virtue of their humanity, to the maximum amount of Individual Liberties consistent with law and order, and to the Right of private ownership, not the least of which is the Right to own and decide for themselves. Where to live, what to do for a living, what to eat, where their children will go to school, what motor vehicle they will drive, what healthcare plan and which doctors work best for them. These Liberties and Rights are to be equally protected by a constitutionally limited, representative government that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

America’s Founding Fathers declared that all men are created equal; that in effect, all men are kings, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They believed that a self-governing people could thrive without the “benefit” of having an oligarchy ruling over them.

A system which allowed “common people” to own property without first obtaining permission from a “divinely ordained” ruler – the American US Constitution - We The Peoplesystem – was a radical departure from centuries old norms. As originally designed by its Founding Fathers, America was a place where anyone could come, work hard, earn money, save those earnings, purchase property and elevate themselves and their posterity to a level that had hitherto been unattainable where individuals remained shackled by the constraints of older political systems. America was the place where undue government interference did not prevent individual achievement.

The “progressive” idea is that an all-powerful centrally planned government, with extreme hostility towards private ownership, forces redistribution of wealth in the name of social or economic “justice”. In order to ensure “fairness”, an oligarchy of self-imagined, self-appointed “intellectual elites” will control businesses, industries and people who are incapable of governing themselves.

These “progressive” ideas are European in origin, not American.

By fleeing Europe, America’s settlers rejected Europe’s failed ideas in pursuit of a better future. A future where their dreams and ambitions were no longer restricted by the outmoded constraints imposed upon them by the European socio-economic class structure.

For over two centuries America has been an unprecedented success where a five thousand year leap was possible. Since its birth America has been a beacon to freedom seeking people because the American idea is the better idea.

Among Americans there is no debate that the United States of America is by far the most inventive, productive, prosperous and charitable nation in the history of the planet. Among “progressives,” America is populated by backwards thinking, greedy, evil bigots who need to be “enlightened” and shown the error of their ways by their “progressive” superiors.

There has yet to be put forth one rational, logical argument to support abandoning the highly successful American idea in favor of European ideas that are currently failing in Europe itself.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/progressives-in-american-politics/

Love. Early American Style.

“progressives” in The Media

George Stephanopoulos

The Edward-R-MurrowAmerican mainstream media has long been sympathetic to the “progressive” cause. For decades they have made subliminal editorial decisions regarding their reportage in favor of “progressive” concepts and candidates. They, along with teachers, professors, Hollywood producers, screenplay writers and actors have slowly, carefully but consistently nudged American thought farther to the left.

Case in point: Edward R. Murrow, who was a member of the John F. Kennedy administration and later awarded the Medal of Freedom by Lyndon B. Johnson. Murrow is best remembered for TV news reports that led to the censure of a pro-America Senator Joseph McCarthy. The memory of Murrow is championed by “progressive” outlets such as Brian WilliamsNewsweek Magazine and NPR. The “progressive” former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann considers Murrow his idol. Members of today’s “progressive” media and “progressive” academia view Murrow’s name as synonymous with journalistic excellence.

By the year 2008, once the nomination of Barack Hussein Obama as the “progressive” Democratic Party’s candidate for president was secured, the “progressive” Party Pravda, also known as the American mainstream media, moved beyond the subliminal (and sometimes not so subliminal) bias they had manifested for decades and entered the realm of advocacy.

Make that “progressive” advocacy.

Media bias against Conservatives and in favor of “progressive” concepts and candidates is nothing new. Look at what they did to Joseph Mcchris_matthewsCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Dan Quayle and Andrew Breitbart.

However, in today’s world their tactics have exceeded bias and grotesquely mutated into deifying “progressivism” while vilifying Conservatism. Look at what they have done for Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. Look at what they have done and are doing to Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Allen West, Mia Love, Tim Scott, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz and Benjamin Carson.

At each and every available opportunity, the “progressive” Party Pravda has eagerly jumped to wrongly suggest that every violent public occurrence was likely committed by a potentially dangerous, Conservative right wing Tea Party extremist type. For example, take the cold-blooded Gabby Giffords shooting, the tragic Newtown Connecticut murders and the Boston Marathon Islamo-fascist terrorist bombing.George Stephanopoulos

Meanwhile, what did the “progressive” Party Pravda do to truthfully report what happened in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/2012, when four Americans were left to die? Did they level with America and disclose that the Obama administration was involved in a massive presidential election year cover-up or did they knowingly and willfully repeat White House talking points in order to aid and abet Obama’s re-election? How about the Department of Justice’s ill-advised, ill-fated Fast and Furious gun running operation which intentionally put semi-automatic weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels, where those weapons were involved in the slaughter of hundreds of Mexican civilians and a U.S. Border Agent? Do Americans know the real unekatie couricmployment numbers and why the reported numbers are artificially low? How many Americans know that the U.S. Senate, under the so-called leadership of “progressive” Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) consciously neglected to pass a budget in four years? Do they know about the gruesomely bloody late term abortion/murder trial in Pennsylvania of Kermit Gosnell? What do they know about the death toll in Syria’s ongoing civil war?

The “progressive” Party Pravda is government controlled media telling the American public what “progressive” politicians want them to think, want them to focus on and where their attention should be directed.

Trusting information disseminated by the “progressive” Party Pravda is a fool’s errand. They are not to be trusted. They are hiding the truth wolf-blitzerabout America’s political system, the federal government’s centrally planned “progressive” controlled academic agenda, the degenerative nature of American popular culture, and intentionally misleading the public about events, facts, figures and the importance of adhering to and restoring America’s exceptional values and historic traditions.

Thanks largely to the “progressive” Party Pravda’s reinforcing wrong headed ideas being infused into the minds of the voting public by academia and pop culture, Americans are seemingly unaware of the shift in America’s political dynamics. They are oblivious to the swing away from the now obsolete century plus old Republican versus Democrat political paradigm.

Watch Episode 1 for free

“progressive” Origins

woodrowwilson

teddy-roosevelt-laugh-350x233The “progressive” movement in America first appeared during the late 19th century in response to so called “robber barons” such as Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan. The “progressives” saw what to them was unbridled capitalism being practiced by these men and deemed it to be injurious to the well-being of the masses. Early “progressives” included Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft were Republicans. Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were Democrats.Taft

The American “progressive” movement leaned heavily upon and was greatly influenced by the Fabian Socialist Society in England. The Fabian Socialists contribution to the “progressive” movement was the idea that their goals could be achieved most successfully if their society worked to re-mold the world nearer to their heart’s desire gradually, using tactics of harassment and attrition, and striking full force only when their moment was at hand. This strategy was employed by their namesake, the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who used it in combat against the superior military forces of Hannibal and the Carthaginians.

woodrowwilsonThis strategy, also known as gradual inevitability, has been one of the cornerstones of the “progressive” movement in America. Instead of attempting to over-reach for their long term goal to subjugate the American public in one fell swoop, thereby ensuring that the electorate of a country founded upon the pillars of freedom and liberty would roundly and soundly reject their ideas, they decided to take on a seemingly insurmountable task in small steps that were both more easily hidden and more easily digested by the Republic.

The federal income tax began in 1913, courtesy of “progressives” William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson. Thanks to the unyielding activism of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who browbeat the United States Supreme Court into accepting his legislation against their better judgment, Social Security was launched in 1935. Medicare and Medicaid came into being in the year 1965 courtesy of Lyndon Baines Johnson and his Great Society agenda. Thanks to the concerted efforts of numerous “progressives” in both houses of Congress, who reached secretive backroom deal in the dead of night, twisted arms and employed the parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation in the Senate, they, along with the Barack Hussein Obama White House were able to pass “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” commonly known as Obamacare, which was signed into law in 2010.

This is an accurate description of a gradual “progression” toward the inevitable goal of an expanded government taking increasing control over the lives of individuals.

The next powerful influence on the “progressive” movement in America was the Frankfurt School.franklin-delano-roosevelt

The Frankfurt School was an openly Communist group formed in 1923 during the pre-Nazi Germany Weimar Republic. After Adolph Hitler came to power in 1933 the Frankfurt School knew that if they stayed in Germany Hitler would kill them for being Communists. They then fled Germany to escape that fate and were welcomed into the United States by “progressive” President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

From the Frankfurt school, “progressives” in America assimilated the concepts of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness. Cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness were the driving force behind the 1960s cultural-revolution in the United States.

Cultural Marxism is an offshoot of Marxism that maintains that human behavior results from culture, instead of heredity or race. Cultural Marxists promoted the idea of racially organizing non-whites in concert while asserting that for white people, race does not exist. Cultural Marxists promoted the impairment of white people, race-based affirmative action, globalization, coded speech, censorship, diversity, anti-Western education, dysfunctional sexual norms, the mass immigration of Third World populations into Western countries, multiculturalism over a nation rooted in common ancestry, and elevating non-Western religions above Western religions. Cultural Marxism advocates the idea that whites, instead of giving birth to white babies, should marry interracially or adopt non-white children.

Critical Theory is destructive criticism of the main elements of Western culture: Christianity, morality, capitalism, conservatism, authority, family, patriarchy, hierarchy, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism and convention.

Political correctness was and remains another key element. The basis of political correctness is: when addressing the general public, present your beliefs attractively. It’s a matter of being “sensitive” to other people. Use words such as “tolerance” and “diversity,” asking: “Why can’t we all just get along?”

Political correctness in the USA was championed by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960s adolescent sexual revolution. He was the one who coined the expression “make love, not war.”

By using the Fabian Socialist strategy of gradual inevitability in combination with the tactics of cultural Marxism, critical theory and political correctness, “progressives” in America discovered a prescription with which to lethally poison America’s political system, academic atmosphere, mass media information delivery infra-structure and popular culture while attacking America’s exceptional values and long standing traditions.

Revolution is coming.

Can we cut the Sensationalizing…PLEASE?

The fundamental premise of most federally elected officials is that tightening their grip around the throats of the people will improve society.

I would encourage each of them to spend some time with a dog.  The harder one pulls on the leash of a dog the more it strains to be free.  Ultimately the dog pulls itself loose from the collar and runs wild, or it shies away in fear at every encounter.

Dogs are not much different from people, really.  Every living creature desires life and liberty.  It is the nature of living beings.

Yet, for thousands of years men of authority have failed to learn that one simple lesson that the powers of their office are inseparably connected to persuasion, not to compulsion.  “One more regulation” seems to be the eternal mantra of those that would be masters.  “If at first control does not work, tighten the leash” appears to be the follow-up.

God declared, “Thou shalt not kill”!  In the intervening years since that monumental and spectacular pronouncement mankind’s appointed masters have written ten thousand laws to enforce the Ten Commandments.

In recent years the consummately conspicuous contraptions of control have been “hate crimes”.  These are a set of laws adding subtly distinctive punishment to thoughts.  This breed of punish focuses on controlling the thoughts as well as the behavior.

Terrorism is one of those popular “hate crimes”.   It gets particular mileage for those that would be gods over the otherwise godless.  The right brand of labeling makes, in the eyes of the beholder, a crime more vicious.  It’s vileness rest on the motivations of the perpetrator.

We tend to used extraordinary descriptive words to explain the conduct of those whom are motivated by their beliefs. In the case of Tsarnaev’s, they are guilt of murder.  A trial will be legitimately held to determine the certainty of that.  Likewise it will determine the fate of the younger of the two.  Society, via mostly through our elected officials seeking to be extraordinarily offended, label their actions as terror.  Yet, Gosnell is guilt of murder. He is guilty of far more murders.  Some stories suggest him crimes against humanity have been as extensive as the “terrorists” of September 11, 2001.  The terms “terrorist” or “legal abortionist” do not alter the facts about their conduct. They are murders.

They committed violence against a natural right and ought to be punished, not rehabilitated. Their motivations (create terror, or, enhance the lifestyle of a woman) may be relevant for discussion and planning for the future, but those motivation do not alter the fact that they are murderers and ought to be punished, in the course of proper and lawful jurisprudence.

The nature of the victim, the vastness of their wicked thoughts ought not determine the depth or breadth of their punishment.  Politicians are a breed of self-conceited dictators.  Just as they seek special favor for their paying supporters, they warp their thinking into special brands of crime for enemies that likewise offend those same supporters.  It matters not what principle may be at heart.  It matters only if their pride can be satisfied among those that would buoy them up.

Giving a special name to an age-old crime does not categorize it into a form of vileness.  It only segregates the crime into a platform for self-indulgence by those who would exercise control over others.

Bill Maher and Bob Russell Agree: Hell Has Just Frozen Over

Obama's Gestapo

I wrote a blog article  a while back pointing out how Barack Obama (Osama bin Obama) is putting the finishing touches on turning America into a police state. I have caught a lot of flak for my views, and have been called paranoid and a fear monger for pointing out the things I see happening to my America.   It seems pretty clear to me what is happening and I know many people agree with me on this while others disagree to varying degrees.

What really surprised me was to hear Bill Maher agree with me.  To me, Bill Maher has always been a left-wing pompous jerk, with no semblance of reality apparent in anything he had to say.  When I saw this video clip I was astonished to say the least.  Bill Maher saying the same things I have been saying???  Maher must have lost his marbles or my ears were playing tricks on me!!!  But as I watched the clip I began to see something in him that changed my perspective.

I saw Maher stick to his guns when he got pushback, undeniably on shaky ground but pushback none the less, from those trying to dismiss his premise.  I was also surprised that Maher actually got some support from a member of the panel.  The lady, Anna Smith, was right there with him and rightly pointed out that much of this has been happening for a long time, although on a smaller scale, such as the “stop and frisk” she mentioned.  Not beingAnna Deveare Smith from New York, I was not aware that this was a common practice.  It is wrong and should be stopped.

What didn’t surprise me was Robert Traynham from MSNBC supporting the police state.  Obama is at the top of the police state command and gets the support of an MSNBC liberal, no surprise there.  As a side note, I wonder if Traynham would be so supportive if George W. Bush was in charge right now and a brown-skinned Muslim was the target of this manhunt.  Maher, also a liberal through and through, was adamant about his point and showed pictures and a video of the state of a militarized police force that is not designed to write a traffic ticket.

This makes me wonder about Maher.  With his stand on this police state issue he brings a rationale that is normally missing from his “I hate everything about America” shtick.  The one thing I have learned over the years is that liberals, the true “died in the wool” liberals, have a utopian view of the world in general and in America in particular.  Maher appears to be one of these.  I have never thought of him as even remotely patriotic, or even a true American, but this gives me a different perspective on him.

The true liberal looks to an idealistic utopia that is impossible to obtain, but they have that goal and believe down deep in their hearts that it can be accomplished.  All that is needed is the right group of people to make it happen.  It seems Maher is one of those utopian true believers.  From this video I believe he really thinks his view of America can become a reality.  It can’t ever work because mankind is terribly flawed and those like Obama are beyond flawed, flawed to the point of being downright evil.  I believe Maher originally saw Obama as the person that could pull off the utopia he envisioned but is now seeing what Obama’s agenda entails, and it frightens him. He said this is “very troubling” to him.  It is beyond troubling to me but I get his point.

Many people make the mistake of looking at Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Napolitano, Holder, and their ilk as liberals.  They aren’t liberals, they are Marxists, and in Obama’s case a Muslim Marxist.  They aren’t looking for some kind of utopia where everyone benefits equally and contributes equally.  They are looking to establish a Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia style dictatorship with them in charge and everyone else bowing to them.  I believe this is the reality that Maher has finally seen for what it is.  I saw and heard disappointment and shock in Maher’s expression and voice.  He seems to have come to a realization that what he thought Obama would do isn’t what Obama is doing.

Maher made the same case I have been making, but didn’t get the same kind of backlash I have received, at least not yet.  He made point after point about the actions of the police and stayed the course when others tried to intimidate him into accepting the necessity of what they did in Boston.  I heard liberals defending a police state atmosphere and telling Maher that the police state tactic is for our own good.  Hearing liberals defend a dictatorship astounds me and Maher rightly rejected their premise outright.

He rightly pointed out the case of the gunfire aimed at the boat Tsarnaev was hiding in.  He commented that they wanted him alive yet fired a sustained volley of bullets in their zeal to “take this kid alive” so they could question him.  If they wanted him alive why did they fire so many shots, and how did they manage to miss him with that many shots fired?  Trigger happy cops seem to be the normal thing these days.  I have written about that also, pointing out the number of innocent civilians who have been killed by the police without just cause, with the explanation of “oh, it was a mistake”.  That isn’t very comforting that I could be killed “by mistake” and those who kill me go right on out to do it again without any concerns about their actions.  Maher also pointed out that Tsanraev was given his Miranda rights way too early, thereby losing valuable information that could lead to the arrest of co-conspirators.

He agreed Miranda rights should be given but the law says 48 hours and the Obama regime jumped right in to make sure no information would be forthcoming.  Maher found this to be irresponsible and dangerous.  Again, Bill and Bob are on the same page.

I found myself watching this clip and seeing myself sitting in Bill Maher’s chair, saying the exact same words and making the exact same case.  As scary as that is, I find it refreshing at the same time.  Maher is ultra-liberal and I am ultra-conservative.  I have always seen he and I as polar opposites politically yet we see this situation from exactly the same perspective.  That is frightening yet encouraging on a level that goes far beyond liberal/conservative ideology.  When two people as diametrically opposite as Maher and myself agree totally something is terribly wrong, or something is very right, in our nation.

If someone would have told me a week ago that I would be in agreement with Bill Maher I would have told them, “when that happens you will know Hell has frozen over”.  Well, I guess it must be cold in Hell today because I find myself standing side-by-side with Bill Maher on this Boston bombing situation.  As frightening as that is it gives me hope that America just might survive.  When two people like Maher and myself see what is happening and come to the exact same conclusion I know that I am not as far out in “tin foil hat” country as some would like to convince me I am.

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

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

May 1, 2013

 

 

 

President has Personal Discretion in Government Shutdown

GovtShutdown

This was originally posted April 09, 2011 during that threat of government shutdown. It’s regrettable the American people are rounding this corner again. The sharp contrast of lost standards from a mere two-years ago reflects how Obama has effectively “nudged” a serious deterioration of American expectations. This is a most shameful course of action for any American President.

The president has enormous personal discretion in deciding ‘who’ and ‘what’ gets paid during a government shutdown. He can use that discretion to turn a government shutdown into a favorable or unfavorable event for The People; or, as has been the case with this president, to use it against The People to propagandize his own political gain. Legal authorities have suggested this behavior is impeachable. Bring it on.

Those certain to be paid without interruption are the politicians: The White House, Congress and their staffs. Most of us don’t know that “furloughed” federal employees are typically paid retroactively anyway. Of late we’ve been told federal employees were furloughed only to find they didn’t work but they did continue to receive pay. This sheds a glaring light on Obama’s self-serving propensity for imposing harships on people of an entire country, purely for sake of his personal pleasure and propagandizing political gain.

The big question in 2011’s government shutdown was, how does an American President possibly justify denying pay to troops who are defending our country; and to our most vulnerable elderly who’ve built it? Who among us could possibly condone such acts?

Prior administrations have generally accepted that the following services remain uninterrupted:

Services funded by permanent appropriations that don’t expire; and some services funded by annual appropriations, “if there’s a reasonable and articulable connection between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

Services that legally require new appropriations, having expired during a shutdown, can be extended, such as “national security, law enforcement and medical care for those already in hospitals, as well as some that many might find both surprising and infuriating, like ‘the conduct of foreign relations’.” Services requiring new appropriations are the government services most typically subject to shutdown. This president has proven his decisions as anything but “typical.”

Stan Collender of Capital Gains and Games of Roll Call, a political and economic news source, wrote President has the Upper Hand in a Shutdown.” The article discusses a president’s wide range of personal discretion (excerpted below). It is appalling how much Obama has so radically altered this rationale from a mere two-years ago when first reported:

The Obama administration will have enormous discretion in other ways. Whole departments, agencies and programs are not automatically exempt just because they fall into one of the categories, it will be up to the White House to decide which activities will be conducted if a shutdown actually occurs.

The administration is also free to reject precedents for reasons that include economic and technological changes, new programs and functions, political hardball, and more.

The bottom line about a federal government shutdown is simple: The president has far more room to maneuver and is in a much better position to take control of the situation than Congress. As Clinton showed in 1995 and 1996, when he reclassified some programs several weeks into the fight so that they could operate despite originally being on the shutdown list, the White House even has the ability to change its determinations.

The same information was consistently available from a variety of news sources, the below excerpted from “Administration Paints Picture of Possible Government Shutdown” by Kimberly Schwandt of Fox News:

The Obama administration clarified the scope of the potential government shutdown saying that it would impact about 800,000 employees and stop services like IRS paper filling and returns, and close institutions like the Smithsonian.

A senior administration official also said that military personnel would continue to earn money, however they wouldn’t actually receive it until the government is funded again. They’ll be receiving full pay checks until April 8.

There are two areas that guide who will stay working. Government activities will stay open that:

1) Have alternative funding – like user fees or appropriations that aren’t renewed every year.

2) Are necessary for safety of life and protection of property.

Here’s a snapshot of what else stays open and what closes during this potential shutdown:

800,000 federal employees (the same as 1995) the official says is the “vicinity” of workers who would be affected.

Military members will continue get paid through April 8th, but after that are only earning and will get money when the government is funded again.

What services will be suspended? IRS filings with paper claims won’t be processed and audits will also be stopped. Electronic claims will continue. Small business loans and Federal House Administration mortgages will also be halted. (The official noted that FHA had 12 percent of housing market in 1995, and now it’s up to 30 percent)

Another excellent source is by Ed O’keefe at Federal Eye entitled “Government Shutdown: Facts and Figures.” These linked articles provide important, additional information about what is and is not typical in government shutdowns.

In 2011 I wanted to know why Obama, at his personal discretion, routinely opted not to keep paychecks going to our Troops overseas and during his “Kinetic Military Action?” Did he forget he’s supposed to be their “Commander In Chief” and the responsibilities that job truly entails? Did he ever know? Or is it as simple as it seems: Obama only knows how to use those around him in appeasing himself?

Given the countless lies this administration told in trying to ramp up fake consequences of the Sequester, we no longer have to ask these questions. If by now you are not indignantly insulted by the fools this president plays us, nothing can help. These are Obama’s personal choices. It cannot be any more clear than it is why he’s making personal choices that are directly aimed at denegrating us as a people. It is what it is. He is what he is.

Chris Dorner & Jake England: Mass Murderers or Folk Heroes?

Chris Dorner

With all of the support given to Chris Dorner after his murder spree I find myself looking for a person I can call a hero for “standing up for himself”.  I found him in Tulsa, Oklahoma of all places.  The Tulsa story didn’t get the same publicity Dorner Chris Dornergarnered but the story is essentially the same.  Dorner is in the process of being canonized by leftists across this nation for murdering people who had nothing to do with his firing from the Los Angeles Police Department over questions of conduct.  I don’t know for sure why he was fired, and no one probably ever will know as the truth won’t be allowed to see the light of day.  The Los Angeles Police Department will cover their tracks and whitewash the affair, as will supporters of the actions taken by Dorner.  No one cares what the truth is, only that their side wins.  It doesn’t help that the LAPD took to tossing a hail of bullets at anyone driving a pickup truck in California without bothering to find out who was in the vehicle, but that is another issue.

The fact of the matter is that Dorner is a mass murderer, plain and simple.  There is NO excuse that can be made to justify what he did, or is there?  I find the justifying circumstances in the Tulsa case I mentioned to actually be more valid and horrendous than in Dorner’s but the killer here isn’t being made into a folk hero.  WHY, you ask???  I will get to that in a bit.  Right now, let’s review the Dorner case.

Dorner was fired from the LAPD, ostensibly, for reporting the misconduct of another officer, breaking the “code of silence” imposed on law enforcement. Not unlike the “code of silence” imposed by the Mafia and their subordinate and successive gangs is it?  This goes back and forth enough to make one’s head spin.  I heard a blip on television of Marc Lamont Hill, a “professor” at Columbia University, actually calling Dorner a hero.  I don’t understand why any television “news”Marc Lamont Hill outlet would put this simple-minded racist, Marc Lamont Hill, on the air and allow him to spout the trash he spouts.  It also boggles my mind that this quack is teaching kids, or rather indoctrinating them.  Hill called Dorner a “modern day Django”. Django, it seems, is a movie about a black man “having fun killing white people”.  To “Professor” Hill, Dorner is a hero for going out and killing white people who had nothing to do with his situation.  Sure, that makes perfect sense.  After all, killing white people because they are white is not a racial hate crime is it?  Every childhood movie hero of mine made his fame by killing innocent bystanders because of the color of their skin, yeah right!!!!

Now back to the Tulsa killings in April, 2012.  Jake England should also be considered heroes Jake Englandby “Professor” Hill.  They went out and avenged the senseless murder of England’s father by a black man.  England killed blacks because a black man killed his father.  Seems perfectly rational when you go by the “Professor” Hill theory!!!!  All England did was “avenge” a wrong done to he and his family.  Since a black man committed the offense, black people, not anyone in particular just any black person, should pay the price of revenge.

According to the standard set by “Professor” Hill and all of the other left-wing nuts, any action taken is acceptable if justified by “having been wronged” by a group or class of people.  The little caveat of “while I don’t condone killing innocent people” just doesn’t quite work for me when it is tacked on in front of praising a mass murderer. “I don’t condone killing innocents” either but England suffered much more than Dorner, and by Hill’s theory, had even more justification to commit the acts he committed.  It shouldn’t matter that the five people he shot had nothing to do with his father’s murder, they were black and that should be enough, using the “Professor” Marc Lamont Hill theory.

Our Republic is going downhill fast, due in part to the kind of rationale shown by “Professor” Hill and the other nuts who justify Dorner’s actions.  There is always a perfectly rational explanation for anything that is done by a black person or a Marxist with a “cause”.  If Timothy McVeigh had been black or a leftist he would have been hailed by the left as a “modern day whoever” for killing innocent civilians as revenge for the actions of Janet Reno and Bill Clinton in the Ruby Ridge (Randy Weaver and family)  and Waco (Branch Davidian) murders.  I don’t remember any conservative applauding McVeigh for killing 168 people, including many children, who had absolutely nothing to do with either of the Janet Reno murder scenes.  McVeigh is simply considered a mass murderer by people from both political spectrums, as he should be.

People getting on television and trying to justify the unjustifiable due to a particular political spin is reprehensible, to coin a word popular with liberal/progressives.  Cold blooded murder is not justifiable under any circumstances yet we find justification every time a liberal/progressive supported group or person commits any horrendous act.

This “my side is always right” attitude we see from the left is destructive in more ways than one.  It justifies bad behavior on any scale by using a false flag argument that revenge is acceptable when the cause is one they agree with.  We are seeing the left condone the use of drones to kill American citizens who have a belief in the Founding Fathers and the Constitution of thConstitutione United States of America because they don’t like anyone to the right of Marxism.

The difference between the Dorner and England cases is miniscule in the commission of crimes but vast in the reaction from those who seek to destroy liberty in America.  To use a cartoon I saw a few days ago, “taking away my guns for a crime committed by someone else is like taking my car away because someone in another state drove drunk”.  There is another one about the neighbors and the number of kids they have but I won’t use it.  I don’t drink alcohol and I don’t go on murder sprees so why should I be punished for the crimes of others?  The attitude of the left is one of subjugation to their agenda and this is no different.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 19, 2013

US Constitution: Transitioning Our First Amendment from Freedom of Religion to Freedom to Worship

United Nations

<< This article was updated on November 13, 2013 >>

Freedom of Thought or Consciousness is dangerous to a free society. However, political correctness is suppressing an individual’s free exercise of religion. This practice actually suppresses the First Amendment and promotes Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom to Worship appears similar to Freedom of Religion but they are actually on opposing ends of the spectrum. For over 60 years, our nation and our legal system has slowly adopted this UN Human Right to Freedom of Worship over the free exercise of Religion.

The US Constitution protects an individual’s right to openly practice and express their religious beliefs. The First Amendment states,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Our federal government and media are at war with Christianity. As the Westboro Baptist Church, Jeremiah Wright, Terry Jones and pedophilia priests are poster children of Christianity, Christians have succumbed their religion freedom. The demonization has created a void in society and other deities’ are introduced as substitutes. Christianity’s moral foundation emphasizes individual responsibility to God as well as to society at large. Movie stars, politicians and activists are now providing this moral foundation to our society.

In his 1941 State of the Union address, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced freedom of worship with his “four human freedoms.”

After his death, Eleanor Roosevelt continued his legacy as she chaired the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights. FDR’s Four Freedoms became the foundation of the United Nations. During a dedication of Four Freedoms Park last October, Ban Ki-Moon (UN General Secretary) proclaimed these freedoms as the United Nation’s founding vision.

UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The potential for abuse that exists in the difference between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Worship is best exemplified by the Healthcare mandate ragarding abortion and contraception. This mandate differentiates between the mechanical practice of religion and belief within that religion. They deemed the physical act of entering a church is worthy of first amendment protection., the belief system underlying that is protected.

When someone’s free speech is suppressed for fear of offending someone else, we have truly lost our Constitutional right. This Human Right (as opposed to our individual right) suppresses religious influences on thought and conscious. Article 18 of the Declaration of Human Rights actually exemplifies intolerance. When someone’s free speech is suppressed due to offending someone else, we have truly lost our Constitutional right.

Organizations promote freedom from religion and “Free thinkers”. Meanwhile, public schools and city councils are sued for their religiously affiliations, mostly for the practice of Christianity.

New religious affiliations have crept into our society such as atheism, agnosticism, Patheism, worship of Mother Earth and humanism. These religions must respect Judeo-Christian expression if they expect their own practice to be respected.

Religious alternatives are being promoted within our society. Environmental groups push religious views such as Pantheism or the worship of Gaia. In 1971, our nation introduced Earth Day. In 2009, the United Nations designated April 22 as International Mother Earth Day. We should all love our planet, respect it and celebrate it but it should not be worshipped as a religion.

The Supreme Court and others have boxed religion as defined as a separation of church and state. We have accepted atheism which is a religious choice just as Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It is the religion of no religion which has been advanced by countless court decisions in violation of the first amendment. The Supreme Court declares school prayer and nativity scenes unconstitutional. Church leaders cannot defend the right of religious people to exercise their freedom in the public square. We are losing our Constitutional rights and becoming a secular, progressive autocracy under Human Rights.

Christianity receives much good that do not get publicity, none to the degree the abuses receive. The practice of religion has seen much abuse. The medieval harshness of Sharia Law is incompatable with many accepted norms within our free society. Under Afghan law, punishment of Proselytism, conversion from Islam to another religion, is punishable by death. This is Freedom to Worship. This is not a reason to reject religion. This is a reason to correct any shortcomings while maintaining moral primacy and societal decorum.

In the twentieth century. disastrous political/military campaigns are driven by progressive, humanist, atheists. Dictators such as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao were ruthless, fanatical atheists. They believed in the collective good was the ultimate goal. These agendas have killed millions of people. People should not be forced to conceal their faith when in the public arena. We must combat the state sponsored atheism being pushed upon society.

Should we force an environment of intolerance so free thinkers have an environment to exercise worship, or one that tolerates other practice of religions? If we become responsible for other’s thought and consciousness, this oppression will not stop at religion.

Karl Rove: The GOP’s Progressive Woodrow Wilson

karl-rove-mug

 

“Architect” Karl Rove is a progressive disaster to the Republican Party: He’s pushing to destroy the Tea Party and American conservatism in order to install his version of politics that mirrors Woodrow Wilson.

There’s not much difference between Wilson and Rove: Wilson wanted control over the Democrat Party and the American people abiding by his will.  Rove is doing the exact same thing: Controlling the GOP vote by putting RINO candidates up against Tea Party candidates in order to destroy conservatives.

Rove  decides GOP primary winners,  not voters.  Rove chose the 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates:  John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both decisions failed and the GOP was defeated like Waterloo on steroids.

Yet, Rove is hell-bent on choosing the 2014 and 2016 GOP candidates and preventing Tea Party candidates from getting on ballots. And the GOP machine does not care: Its goal is power, not constitutionalism.

The result: The GOP is failing because it keeps bringing this power-hungry, overweight knife to the political gun fight.

Despite Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC proving a dismal failures, the GOP refuses to learn lessons and listen to its conservative base. Instead, the GOP wants Rove to move ahead with his Wilsonian-style plan: Decide the candidates people need as president, Senate and House leaders.

 

9781451694932_p0_v1_s260x420

 

To pull off this anti-Constitution, strong-arming-the-people plan, Rove set up the Conservative Victory Group, another progressive-style Pac to choose candidates, and further to the point, advise candidates on what they can and cannot articulate.

 

Karl-Rove-puppeteer-460x307

 

Rove’s plan was laid out in the New York Times:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

 

Notice Rove’s goal: “protect Senate incumbents” from Tea Party candidates and “counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates.” In other words, down with Mia Love Tea Partiers shaking things up, no Todd Akin slip-ups allowed on ballots, and defeat upstarts like incumbent Rep. Allen West, whom Rove could not “discipline” and “impose” his GOP power.

Rove’s ideology is similar to British constitutionalism where leaders, not the people,  pick prime ministers and MPs, and decide laws as they go. That was Woodrow Wilson’s ideology. Is it any different than Rove picking candidates? Worse, is that any different than Wilson’s desire to abolish the Separation of Powers?

No, Rove has never called for abolishing Separation of Powers so presidents have parliamentary-style control.  However, if party leaders control votes, prevent people from deciding primary candidates, party leaders control Congressional leader’s votes, and Separation of Powers dissolves, and the House and Senate belong to party leaders, not voters.

To cover his fat rump, Rove made radio talk show rounds, backtracking his bashing the Tea Party.  Big deal! Rove believes he is the architect of politics and he’s attempting to design America’s leadership.

Rove assumes he knows what’s best for the people, as Wilson himself believed. Rove is Woodrow Wilson in every sense of the Progressive Movement: Mold the party, voters, and America’s future to party leadership command, not the Constitution. How is that “consent of the governed?”

There is nothing conservative about Rove’s Conservative Victory Party or Rove.

Wilson said choose elite candidates best suited for making the people’s decisions. Candidates must do the thinking for the people, because citizens are too inept at making individual decisions.

Wilson said: “Governments are what the politicians make them…:”

[T]here should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness.

 

Rove too wants to “make” the government.

Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of Senate Conservatives Fund said of Rove:

This is a continuation of the establishment’s effort to avoid blame for their horrible performance in the 2012 elections. They [the GOP] blew a ton of races up and down the ticket because they recruited moderate Republicans who didn’t stand for anything. Now they want to use this new PAC to trick donors into giving them more money so they can lose more races.

 

Hoskins is correct.  Rove helped destroy GOP conservative Florida Rep. Allen West by refusing to help West win reelection and stop the redistricting of West’s seat.

Rove trashed Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin as “thin-skinned,” claiming that if no one speculates “about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her.”

It sounds like chunky skin, who was adamant Palin would run for the 2012 presidency, is not only off beam with erroneous predictions, he’s jealous of popularity that may possibly destroy his power.

Rove demonstrated disloyalty to Rep. Michele Bachmann when Bachmann demanded answers to why Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin-Weiner was Hillary Clinton’s top aid with high security clearance in the State Department. GOP leaders Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Speaker John Boehner condemned Bachmann. Rove took the RINO side against Bachmann.

When it comes to breaking Constitution law to grant illegals amnesty, Rove tramples the Constitution for the Hispanic vote. He is empowering Tea Partier-turned-RINO Senator Marco Rubio, whom Rove says has “The framework of the proposed reforms highlights the persuasive powers of Sen. Marco Rubio.”

Notice the phrase “persuasive.”  Rove wants “persuasive” leaders making voter’s decisions. That is what Wilson wanted:

“Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises… Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.

 

This is exactly what Rove is doing with conservative voters who must reject what will surely destroy conservatism if “We The People” don’t stand up and fight Karl Rove.

Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is progressivism. His record demonstrates he’s not a Republican, he’s a left-wing progressive in GOP clothing molding the GOP into his image, just as Wilson did with Democrats and America.

 

Mr. President: If you had a son … ?

fatherless2

Have you wondered why there’s an inexplicably dead silence among media and politicians when it comes to America’s fatherless children? The discussion is always about “women’s rights” or “a woman’s right to choose” or the struggles of “single mothers.” A politician’s rhetoric is as if children are the lone conception thus responsibility of immaculately impregnated women. The seemingly few men who want the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood are just as slighted as overburdened mothers and parentally under-nourished children are.

[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?

At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.

Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.

For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?

Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.

America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness

By John Renken

(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively.  I don’t think for a second  that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground.  The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!

… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation.  When we look at our educational  system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The  Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in  high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look  up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood  have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood,  rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are  being raised without their biological dads.

Read full article here.

A Citizen Challenge

tsunami

Chances are you haven’t heard (and won’t hear) about this Federal report from the Liberal media.

Two days ago the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its Annual Audit of the United States Government for fiscal years 2011 – 2012. The government’s own conclusion is this:

“… Absent policy changes – the Federal Government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path.” (Minute 00:35)

That means – if the Federal Government does not stop the wild spending – the U.S. dollar will collapse.

tsunamiThis is like telling people on a beach, “Hey, a tsunami is coming and if you don’t move you will be killed.”

But the beach folks say, “I like it here, I’m not moving,” and eventually the wave comes in and kills them.

That’s exactly what’s happening now.

We The People are allowing this.

Only We can change this.

The best Talking Points I’ve heard in a long time:

Video Courtesy of MrFeshamon & YouTube

Illogical Extremism of the left

10-big-killers

A-SXD03CUAAIpT3.jpg largeRecent events prove beyond reasonable doubt that members of the institutionalized “progressive” left are more than enthusiastic about attacking guns and gun owners.

True to their Alinsky roots, they are ready, willing and eager to demonize gun owners and Second Amendment proponents by disparagingly using the term “gun lobby” to describe them.  It is no secret that they are openly hostile to the Constitutionally protected Right of Americans to keep and bear arms.

They are also primed and ready when it comes to attacking Capitalism.  “progressives” persistently promote the notions that guns kill people and that Capitalism is inherently greedy and corrupt.

By applying this illogic to other situations, it would be required to conclude that computers keyboards are responsible for misspelled words and silverware causes obesity in America.

It would be quite entertaining to hear a “progressive” attempt to relay, in minute detail, the sequence of events on that monumental day when an unattended gun jumped up all by itself and shot an innocent child.

It would be equally fascinating to hear a “progressive” convey exactly how an economic system, without the benefit of human involvement, engaged in illicit price gouging, ponzi schemes or criminal quid quo pro transactions.

The fact of the matter is, the way a gun shoots anything is by a human being picking it up, aiming it and pulling the trigger.  The problem is not the gun, it is with the killer behind the gun.

In similar fashion, the only way any economic delivery system leads to unlawful behavior is through the involvement of the criminal mind.

The answers are not found in gun control or ending Capitalism.  The answer is to catch the perpetrators of the crimes and lock them away from society.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/illogical-extremism-of-the-left/

Give the Gift of Courage

« Older Entries Recent Entries »