The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “silly laws”

Control Liberals, Not Guns

In the aftermath of the Colorado massacre that left a dozen people dead during a midnight showing of  “The Dark Knight Rises”, liberals from under every rock are emerging, as they always do during such devastating moments of violence, and demanding more gun control laws to keep guns away from, and out of the hands of, those of us who are responsible, law-abiding American citizens.  The big plot hole in their story, of course, that makes it so unbelievable, is that the people killed in this massacre were not killed by a responsible, law-abiding American citizen – were they?

In other words, if murder by guns in America really were carried out by responsible, law-abiding American citizens, liberals would have an unbreakable argument.  The fact that gun violence and murder is carried out exclusively by irresponsible, law-breaking  American citizens (and sometimes by illegal aliens) shows that liberals have another, more diabolical, mischievous, dangerous and anti-American agenda they are attempting to pull on the American public.

Taking guns away from responsible, law-abiding American citizens will not save one person from becoming another murder statistic by a gun.   But – allowing responsible, law-abiding American citizens to carry/conceal may very well help to prevent some murders.  Certainly, guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens, can do more to hinder and thwart and halt a potential criminal with a gun from carrying out a cold-blooded murder.

Are liberals really concerned about the level of gun violence in America and the murders committed by guns?  The reason why the answer to that question is emphatically and resoundingly “No” is due to the fact that liberals only concentrate on removing guns from the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens.  Whenever cold-blooded murder occurs (which is every day in America), and in particular when it is gangs carrying out the murder, liberals never call for more gun control laws to prohibit gang-bangers and other criminals from obtaining and using guns.

Of course, it is much easier to prevent a responsible, law-abiding American citizen from obtaining and using a gun, and perhaps that is one reason why liberals shy and cower away from demanding more gun control, restrictions and penalties on and for criminals who use guns.  The only response we hear from liberals on this issue is for more tax-payer funded police to patrol the streets; more tax-payer funded government programs and services to curb, “assist”, those in so-called poverty from being led down a path to criminal behavior.  In other words, while liberals blame conservatives for gun violence, liberals never actually blame the criminals themselves who use guns to commit their crimes.  And when criminals do commit crimes, liberals blame conservatives.  Make sense?

Never once do liberals demand that criminals own up to their own mistakes, or demand criminals take responsibility for their own criminal actions and criminal behavior, or even acknowledge that criminals are capable of knowing right from wrong.  Liberals say it’s society’s fault for why someone becomes a criminal and uses a gun to commit a cold-blooded murder; thus, more tax-payer dollars needs to be invested to find out why people turn to criminal activity and to prevent criminals from “being born”.  It’s all a sham, and conservatives need to keep up a very aggressive fight against this anti-American insanity.

Owning guns is an American right, and one in which our founding fathers were committed to ensuring for at least two extremely important reasons.  First, they were concerned, rightly, about America being attacked again by Britain or from another enemy and it was absolutely imperative that Americans be ready at a moment’s notice to take up arms in defense of American interests.  Hence, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  Obviously if one did not own a gun, there was a very good chance that “one” probably didn’t know how to use a gun either, which would have made them absolutely useless “at a moment’s notice”.  People who own guns, at least back it the time of our founding, know, and knew, how to use them.

Secondly, the right to bear arms was heavily influenced by the fact that some English kings, like James II, attempted to disarms his Protestant citizens, which would have made those citizens far more vulnerable to being attacked and killed by an over zealous King and his army.  The founding fathers wanted to ensure American citizens would not only be ready to defend America from its enemies, but also for American citizens to protect themselves, their families and their property.

Obviously, the “well-regulated Militia” part is somewhat obsolete.  However, the ability, and the right, for each American citizen to be able to protect themselves, their families and their property is not obsolete.  When liberals get their way and, by law, are able to keep guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens, who would use their guns to defend themselves, their families and their property from criminals who would seek to harm and kill them, liberals will have successfully made every American citizen that much more vulnerable to being attacked by criminals, who will not have any fear of retribution when attacking them because a criminal with a gun in his hand will always have the upper hand against a responsible, law-abiding American citizen who has no way to defend himself.  How does that make sense?

Liberals who demand gun control are the real threat to America, to American sovereignty and to American independence, to us, our families and our property.  Control them; muzzle them; make liberals and liberalism in America illegal, not guns.  A gun in the hand of a responsible, law-abiding American citizen wields an enormous and awesome power which has resulted in America remaining as independent as it has since its founding.  If and when we lose that right, how does that make us more secure and more independent?  And, how on Earth does confiscating guns from responsible, law-abiding American citizens take away even one gun from one criminal?  When liberals can answer that, maybe they will have a legitimate argument.  Until then – stand your ground against the criminals, and against the liberals who would seek to make you and your family more vulnerable to the criminals.

Owning Guns Is A Constitutional Right. And Now, More Than Ever, It Is Every American Citizens Duty To Own Guns

Can one be a pro-American patriot, but anti-gun?  No.  Or, to put it another way – how can anyone support less personal independence and more government dependence, oversight and control over all Americans and still call themselves a patriot?

For those of us who are American citizens, responsible, law-abiding and of legal age and do not now own a gun – now is the perfect opportunity to go out and buy one.  For those of us who already do own one or more guns – now would be the ideal time to buy another.  Buy guns for yourself, first, and then, in spirit, for your family, your friends, your neighbors; for America; for our American Constitution; for the love of America and for our deep-rooted patriotism in America.

Do this – before sniveling, cowardly, entirely wrongheaded, and dangerously so, liberals, sinister in all things malevolent, begin to sway the ignorant masses of Americans that, sadly, do exist, and are not at all knowledgeable in our Constitution or our history, and through this ignorance are able to brainwash enough Americans into believing that the only way to prevent another Colorado massacre is to tighten gun control and to pass laws than further restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Says the irrational liberal – “How is buying more guns going to help prevent another massacre?”  Says the rational conservative – “How is removing every last gun from every last responsible, law-abiding, American citizen of legal age going to prevent another massacre?”

When anti-American, anti-second Amendments Rights liberals purposely, by law, remove guns from the hands of law-abiding American citizens, or make it much more difficult for us to obtain guns, what they are saying by their actions is that all Americans, regardless of facts, are criminals.  As gun laws become more stringent, making not only owning a gun more arduous, but going through the process of obtaining one, there becomes fewer and fewer gun owners.  Is that a good thing?

Well, as there becomes fewer and fewer responsible American citizens of legal age owning guns, how does that affect the criminal element in America?  The answer?  It doesn’t.  In the sense of obtaining guns, criminals will always have plenty of pathways, avenues and opportunities to illegally obtain weapons and to use those weapons on law-abiding American citizens who are now not armed themselves because, as law-abiding citizens they follow the law, whether they agree with it or not.

Liberals hate the Second Amendment because it provides direct power to the people, rather than to government.  The second Amendment allows every American citizen to take the law into their own hands and to defend themselves, their families, their property, etc, in a legal manner, in the event they are being threatened from someone else who means to do them serious harm.  Liberals, by their very grotesque nature, despise any type of independence among the people, believing instead that people ought to be ruled by government; that when trouble looms, they ought to simply call 911 and wait for government to come to their rescue.

As we, who are true patriots know, this is absolute BS.  Isn’t it ironic – and isn’t it utterly pathetic – that liberals will always use massacres, like the one in Colorado, to push their anti-American, anti-Second Amendment Rights fringe agenda, while at the same time, for all the thousands of murders that occur in our nation every year, committed by ruthless, deviant, evil criminals who have no respect for law or for humanity, this same liberal trash never once demands that guns be removed from their hands, or to make owning or possessing a gun, if one is a criminal, much more difficult, and punishable by steeper fines, etc.?

In fact, whenever a criminal murders someone in cold blood, liberals blame the NRA, conservatives, the Tea Party, Republicans and anyone who supports the Second Amendment.  But liberals never blame the actual criminal.  Nor do liberals blame the criminal for their actions, but rather they blame society at large for somehow having forced or compelled a criminal to use a gun in an irresponsible way that wound up taking the life of another human being in cold blood.

It’s all a charade, however.  Liberals need to get guns out of the hands of every American citizen.  How they accomplish that is irrelevant to them.  If they can succeed by frightening people into believing that guns kills people, and that guns themselves are the issue; that if guns were removed from society, that would end the problem of gun violence in America – if liberals see that angle working, they will continue to run with it.

Again, since we know that is all BS, and since we know that liberals have an agenda, which is not hidden, but which is rife will evil intent, to remove every last gun from the hands of every last responsible, law-abiding America citizen of legal age, we, as pro-Second Amendment Rights, pro-American patriots must have the courage to stand our ground.  We who love our country, our Constitution, our freedom, our way of life (still unique to anywhere else in this world) must hold firm and not allow liberals any ground to trample us or our rights.  Don’t tread on us!  Don’t tread on the U.S.!

The best way to thwart liberals in their anti-Second Amendment Rights agenda, and to prevent more unnecessary cold-blooded murders is to increase the amount of guns in the hands of responsible, law-abiding American citizens of legal age.  What are we waiting for?

Obamacare – Robert Reich Wants SCOTUS To Commit Treason (It’s What He Would Do, Anyway!)

UPDATESupreme Court Commits Treason!!!!

With the United States Supreme Court poised to make their decision on Obamacare just hours away now (if you are reading this on Thursday, June 28 2012) there isn’t a single political pundit who has not yet weighed in with their thoughts on how the court will render its verdict.  Include Robert Reich (or Reichhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh for you Rush-a-bes out there) in that un-chlorinated cesspool of disease and squalor, rabidly infectious with misinformation and lies, called the MSM.  Reich is of the opinion the court will side WITH Obamacare, and he lays out several reasons why, all of which are both bogus and garbage.  But one thought he has laid out is absolutely treasonous, and for that, he ought to be fully excoriated and drummed out of America permanently.

What did Reich say that was treasonous?

Chief Justice John Roberts is — or should be — concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the public’s mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle.”

Yikes!  Did Reich really say he hopes the Supreme Court will abandon its sworn duty to uphold, even acknowledge, the Constitution and decide in favor of Obamacare anyway (despite the fact that it is un-Constitutional) because if they don’t, the people might look upon them unfavorably?

Indeed, that’s exactly what Reich said.  And, to a degree, we can understand exactly where Reich is coming from – the MSM media, that is, which is more unpopular right now than it has ever been.  Never mind the actual quality of news content, it’s rating, ratings ratings!  So it must be all about ratings with the Supreme Court too, says Reich, and the Constitution be damned.

Reich thinks SCOTUS will be swayed by the few people in America who want Obamacare upheld in its entirety.  That may very well be true will Ginsberg, Kagan and sotomayor, all of whom are very liberal Justices, and judicial activists, and support looking outside the Constitutional, and even looking outside of American law altogether to what other countries are doing.  And while it is un-Constitutional for Supreme Court Judges to do that – that still doesn’t stop them.

The Supreme Court can’t afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government.”

Robert Reich, like everyone else in the lame-stream media wants the Supreme Court to take its marching orders from them, rather than what is actually written in the Constitution with regards to the powers vested to the Supreme Court.  What Reich won’t ever acknowledge, because it goes against liberal ideology and principal, is that the Supreme Court is not set up in the same way as say American Idol, the X factor, America’s Got Talent, etc.,  In other words, the Supreme Court is not a popularity contest, and it is not about acquiring the most, and highest, positive ratings.  The Supreme Court neither makes laws, nor does it decide laws based on how many people’s feelings will be hurt.  The Supreme Court was set up to ensure the Constitution was at all times upheld.  Period!

It doesn’t matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Court’s impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

Reich is absolutely correct when he says “The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation”.  What is strange and confounding and damning is that the legislation in question is un-Constitutional, and Reich doesn’t seem to give a damn about that.  Or, to put it another way, how is siding with Obamacare, specifically the mandate that every American buy health insurance or face steep fines and penalties, upholding the Constitution?

As conservatives, and as Americans, we fully expect Obamacare to be struck down.  We also expect at least two Supreme Court Justices will side with Obamacare.  And for any Supreme Court Justice to side with a law that is blatantly and patently un-Constituitonal, that is, and must be, an impeachable offense.  It no secret liberals want Scalia thrown out.   Why shouldn’t we, as conservatives, demand tyrants that refuse to stay within the boundaries of the Constitution be dismissed, on their own power or ours?

Obamacare is an absolute mess, filled with new laws and powers bestowed upon government, granting it an extension of authority it was never designed to have, but which will have to be funded either through higher taxes on all of us, or through printing more and more money and tacking that expense onto the national debt .  We probably still don’t know every last disastrous detail.   Remember, we had to sign the bill into law first, before we could read it?  Remember who said that?

Is it really worth committing treason to uphold Obamacare?  We already know the purpose of Obamacare was not to ensure the health of all, or any, Americans.  Obamacare was set up specifically and directly to grow the size, the scope and the power of government, and to force us all to be that much more dependent on government and to become that much less independent for ourselves.  It’s un-Constitutional and its treasonous.  We’ll soon find out how many justices have committed treason shortly.  How stupid do we have to be to not see just how dangerous Obamacare is to America and to all of us?  As stupid as Robert Reich?

Unsympathetic Public School Burns Two Girls Alive, Pathetically Hides Behind Liberal-Based Law

There are an infinite number of reasons why, if you have children in public schools, you should immediately remove them from that destructive environment and place them either in a private school setting or home school them.  And even if you don’t have children in public schools, or don’t have children at all – you still need to fight the public school system’s tyrannical, imperial, bureaucratic and liberal hold it has on America’s youth.  Why?

Two young Washington State girls were forced to endure five hours of agonizing hell outside under the sun for their school field day.  The result?  Each came home very badly sunburned because they – by state law – were prohibited from applying sun screen without a doctor’s note giving them permission to do so.  Pure, liberal-based, hyperbolic overreaction which continues to infiltrate the public education system and take control over every single aspect of a child’s life during the hours they are in attendance at any given public school.

When will parents have the courage to stand up and challenge these heartless, thoughtless, unsympathetic thugs and rogues who have long ago usurped power, stolen it away from parents and community, and continue to wield that power to make incredibly devastating, irrational and permanently disfiguring decisions that only benefit them, but do absolutely nothing to educate and to prepare children for their future when they become adults?

More children will continue to suffer needlessly at the hands of public schools so long as they are run by government and not the parents and community at large.  It is entirely inappropriate and un-American for parents not to have more of a direct say, more of a direct control and influence with regards to their own children.  In other words – more government involvement is not the solution to a child’s well-rounded education, more government is the problem to a child’s well-rounded education.

Liberalism is also guilty of crimes against school children.  What conservative, or conservative idealism, provides for such nonsensical, and criminal, rules and stipulations as preventing a child from applying sunscreen to their skin to prevent being burned?  It is liberalism, and liberal ideology, that is the root of this ever-growing, and ever-growing out of control, problem.  Kids can’t play dodge-ball or tag, or anything of a competitive nature in public schools any longer for fear of hurting the feelings of other children who might lose.

Liberalism has outlawed the entire concept of winning altogether over the issue of “hurt feelings”.  And it is liberalism which – although it would seek to allow public schools to take your child to an abortion clinic to have an abortion against your will and without your knowledge; would seek to provide your children with condoms so they might engage is “safe sex” rather than abstain from sex; would teach your children that America  was founded by, and continues to be, a hateful, racist, bigoted, misogynist nation – that same liberalism would prevent your children from taking an aspirin to reduce or end pain; to apply sunscreen protection to their skin to prevent being burnt alive by the intense heat of the sun; or otherwise have a zero tolerance policy towards anything they deem to be a threat to their overall control and manipulation over the students, without exception, regardless of reason or consequence to the students affected.

Don’t misunderstand – public schools are noble and worthy institutions, and they ought to persevere.  However, so long as they are being run, and controlled by, outside influences with ignoble agendas; so long as parents have little or no say, or knowledge about what or how their children are being taught; so long as children are being intentionally inundated with harmful misinformation, that education – that purposeful lack of a quality education – will only prepare them for a life of indentured servitude, enslavement and complete dependence to government and government agencies.

The real reason why sunscreen is needlessly and heedlessly banned from public schools, like so much else, is not to protect your children from harm, but to protect the control public schools want, and need to have, over your children.  The sunscreen ban is a smokescreen.  In other words – public schools need to have complete dominance over your children without you influencing them.  The only way for schools to do that is to enact inane, head-scratching policies like the banning of aspirin and sunscreen, and the banning of tag and competitive sports, and enacting a zero-tolerance policy that makes absolutely no sense – and that also now includes, and extends to, the feeding of your children in public schools, all of which is engineered and designed to take more control over your children away from you and place that responsibility upon the public school system.  Public schools do not want you to have any say in how your children are educated, or what goes in public schools.  In increments, and over decades, the public school system has managed to become your children’s real parents, mostly due to our own apathy.

Until we become less apathetic, and more hostile (in a constructive manner) with regards to how our children are taught and educated in public schools, and what they are taught, more and more children will continue to be burned (pun intended) by those very public schools.  Either take back control of your public schools, or continue to watch the overall decline of your children’s education and, thus, their lives as they move into adulthood.  Which will it be?  And remember – your decision affects not only your children, but America at large, all of us.  Because children really are the future.

What future will America have, what future does America have, if its youth continues to be brainwashed and manipulated by a liberal-based agenda that ever seeks to dummy down their education rather than build them up and strengthen them, their perspectives, and prepare them for adulthood?  How can any child grow up to be independent when all they know is complete dependence and reliance on government to take care of them?

Nancy Pelosi: The “Mind Numbingly Stupid” Iron-ing Lady, Part 2 (What Does Eric Holder, Voter ID and Racism Have To Do With It?)

Nancy Peloist ismind numbingly stupid“, and that is putting it mildly.  And Eric Holder has committed grave and serious actions against the best interests of America with regards to Fast and Furious.  For Pelosi to complain that all the attention the GOP is giving Holder, including demanding his resignation (Holder can keep his head, it is worthless to science for study, or any other field), that this ballyhooing among Republicans is nothing more than retribution for Holder’s involvement in the several voter ID lawsuits pending is beyond mind numbingly stupid.  It is yet another act of extreme desperation by Pelosi and the Democrat Party who continue to unravel and expose themselves for the literal know-nothing party they truly are.

Fast and Furious was a gun smuggling operation, coordinated during, and by, the Barack Obama Administration.  George Bush had nothing to do with it – he was well out of office after this monstrous, miscalculated scheme was carried out.  The idea was to sell guns with tracking capability to Mexican drug cartels, thereby learning where these cartels were located.  This plan flopped miserably and as a result, untold thousands of Mexicans have lost their lives in this seemingly endless drug war going on in Mexico, and a border agent, Brian Terry, has lost his life.  And leave it to one indignant Democrat strategist, Tamara Holder (who is white and of no relation to Eric Holder, who is black), to completely forget his name.  Imagine a Republican forgetting the name of Martin Luther King, and calling him “that guy” with the “Dream” speech”.  Yeah, that would go over well.

Eric Holder, again at the boot heel of Barack Obama, is engaged in a war, of sorts, with several states that have passed stringent voter ID laws.  How stringent?  How draconian?  These states, which include Florida and Arizona, have decreed, by law, that when a voter shows up to vote at any given poll they actually present identification before they are given a ballot.  Why?  That is the question Democrats and liberals ask, which is more proof they, and not Republicans and conservatives, are the real threat to American sovereignty.

Why, indeed!  Democrats are doing everything they can to make a mockery of America, American sovereignty and the entire voting process in America by their devil-may-care attitude to ensure, and make sure, anyone can vote (precluding those who are voting are voting Democrat), including enlisting the dead, the family pet, (remember Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler in the Wisconsin recall against Governor Scott Walker?), and in particular illegal aliens who are more apt to vote Democrat because Democrats are so desperately in need of every illegal vote in order to win elections.  And this is the real reason Obama is trying, un-Constitutionally, to usurp power for the express purpose of granting hundreds of thousands of young illegal aliens work permits.

It is also true that a disproportionate number of black Americans still do not have voter ID’s.  Despite the fact that most states offer these cards for free, there is still the contempt emanating from this group, egged on by race hustling garbage like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, about a poll tax, racism and intentional voter suppression.  All of which the Democrat Party, including the Iron-ing Lady herself, Nancy Pelosi, is taking full advantage of.

Says Pelosi, about the GOP’s attack on Holder’s credibility:

“I’m telling you, this is connected,” Pelosi said during a news conference Thursday. “It is no accident. It is a decision and it is as clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name … as he goes forward to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The “connected” part Pelosi is referring to is the increased criticism coming from the GOP over Holder’s unwarranted involvement in the voter ID lawsuits.  The “protect and defend” part Pelosi alludes to is over Holder’s, Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s willingness to defend and protect their voting blocks, whether those voting blocks are legitimate or not.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the right to vote to illegal aliens, or anyone who cannot identify who they are.  It is the right of every state to ensure the voting process is not tainted with corruption.  Democrats, and Pelosi, are standing in the way of justice, both in the Fast and Furious scandal and in every state’s right to enact voter ID laws.  Democrats and liberals seem to be mind numbingly immune to this reality.

With Eric Holder, and his head buried deep in the Fast and Furious scandal, Barack Obama and his head buried deep in fanciful cloud formations high above reality, and Nancy Pelosi with her head buried deep within her own self, (and we can take that to also mean her self-absorbed lifestyle, her haughtiness, and the fact that she seems to have attained some metaphysical high breathing in the rancid and putrid fumes of her own arrogance and conceit for so many years – for that is the fanciful way of putting it), and the fact that regardless of who the Democrat strategist is, they will always take the side of Democrats no matter just how mind numbingly stupid they behave, just what vision does the Democrat Party have in mind for America and the future of America?

Nancy Pelosi’s vision of America, based off the lucid images formed from those same fumes she has been inhaling for so long, is an America that has no border’s, no sovereignty and no voting restrictions, just so long as she, and Democrats in general, keep getting reelected and allowed to make and to pass the laws they need in order to pander to the people they need to, for the votes they need to get reelected, so forth and so on, ad infinitum.

That may indeed be good for Democrats and the preservation of the Democrat Party, but – how exactly does that benefit America, the preservation of America as a sovereign nation; and just how long can Democrats keep this charade up before the entire American Experiment falls apart and one or more rogue nations comes in to claim America for itself?  Or does anyone really think it is the wide expanse of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that protect America and keep America safe from hostile enemies?  How mind numbingly wrongheaded, and dangerous, is that!

There Is No Room In America For Illegal Immigrants (That Includes The Children)

President Obama has taken the “Won’t someone think of the children” argument to a new extreme low.  Once again Obama has shown his complete contempt for American sovereignty, having  usurped his Constitutional authority and power, side-winded congress and the law, waved his hand in the air and said, “Wallah”, giving (for the moment) the perception to young illegal aliens that they are now free and clear from deportation.  This is of course a canard and a stunt, solely for the purpose of increasing voters among those Hispanics and Latinos that favor amnesty, a pathway to citizenship, or what ever you want to call this insidious, this odious, this demented, nightmarish and outlandish reckless disregard for American law, common sense and common decency.

The problems with allowing teenagers, 16 and under, what is essentially full immunity from prosecution and deportation for being in America illegally are numerous.  The first and biggest problem is that it is a lie, and the multitudes of young illegal aliens who think they are now granted a full pardon, as it were, are in for a very rude awakening in the near future – after the election, and when Obama no longer needs to rely on theirs, or anyone’s vote, whether he remains President or not.  The un-Constitutionality of Obama’s gesture will be a hard slap in the face to these young illegal aliens who think they are now, and always will be, untouchable by law enforcement.  If you are in this country illegally and you are arrested – you will be deported.  You may have a small window of freedom, but only until after the 2012 election.  Then, reality, and law, will set back in.

There are millions of Hispanics and Latinos in America who have come here the responsible way.  That is, legally and through the long and arduous legal process.  How does anyone expect them to react to the news that for all their hard work, all their patience, all their sacrifice and dedication, and all the money they invested in becoming American citizens, a whole class of illegal aliens has “passed go” and gotten the “get out of jail free” card and will not have to pay any fines?  If we are to talk about alienation, we must include how utterly alienated and abandoned by Obama and his Administration, and the Democrat Party as a whole, those Hispanics and Latinos have become who came to America through legal channels rather than through illegal underground tunnels and other avenues and pathways.  Don’t you think they might be just a little bit insulted by Obama’s obvious pandering?

It’s true that some people who come to America illegally are brought by their parents at relatively young ages.  (As babies and very small children.)  It is also true, and a well documented fact, that many more children come to America illegally on their own.  Look here, here, here, here and here for a video called Children in No Man’s Land, which documents the plight of children who try to enter America illegally by themselves, and what ultimately happens to them.  In granting young illegal aliens a short reprieve from deportation, Obama completely overlooks this astounding fact that so many kids, 12 and over, are coming to America illegally by themselves.  Obama’s pandering to the anti-American sovereignty wing, a very small group of radicals, will only encourage more of this dangerous and irresponsible behavior from other kids, under 16, who now will think all they have to do to secure their own visas is to just make is across the border before they are caught.

And what about black Americans?  How well received has their reaction been?  With unemployment still about 8% nationwide, and unemployment among blacks double that, approximately 800,000 (conservatively) illegal aliens will be competing for jobs that are already scarce, making finding work all that more difficult, and compounded even more for blacks.  With a stroke of mighty arrogance, Obama has begun issuing work permits for all illegal aliens who came here as children, 16 and under, and who have not broken any other of America’s laws expect that one law in particular, which neither Obama nor the Democrat Party thinks is an actual crime.  Millions of Americans out of work, Obama’s Recession and Obama’s Economy stagnating still under the heavy weight of taxation and regulation, and yet somehow there is room in America, and the American workplace, for illegal aliens?

Apparently America is a wide open, wild and lawless frontier for illegal aliens, and that is just how Obama and the Democrat Party want it to remain.  At least, until after the election.  No matter how you look at it, Obama is intentionally throwing all Americans under bus to pander to the few radicals and anti-American sovereignty groups he thinks he needs in order to win reelection.

What can be lower than a politician – a United States President – using children as props and tools, and pawns, simply to score political points and secure another term in office?

Defy! Defy! Defy! Florida Voter Purge Will Continue, Defying Federal Warning…

Let’s face it, there aren’t many states with enough gumption and courage to tell the federal government and Eric Holder to go stick it.  Arizona, and now Florida, are two diamonds in the ruff when it comes to having the guts to stand their ground, stand on principles, morals, ethics and clearly a solid Constitutional footing.  In fact, it is the federal government, led by the very corrupt Eric Holder, who is usurping their power and acting un-Constitutionally.  Case in point, Florida’s determination to purge its voting records of individuals who have no legal right to vote.  Why would the federal government demand Florida, any state, cease and desist from such a common sense idea as eliminating unregistered, and illegally registered, voters from the roll of legal, eligible voters?

The Democrat Party controls Washington right now.  They need votes to stay in power and control Washington.  There are simply not enough legally registered voters in Florida that are going to vote Democrat.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Hence, Democrats look for votes wherever they can obtain them, never mind the fact these voters are dead, animated, or illegal aliens.  But, with this warning, what exactly does the government think it can do, or has the legal and Constitutional right to do?  In other words, isn’t this warning just their way (the Obama Administration) of crying wolf?

This brazen, open and public tyranny by Democrats is a clear indication of just how desperate they are for votes, and how arrogant and smug they are to think they are above the law and the Constitution.  But Democrats always think they are above the law.  And as for the Constitution, they never liked it to begin with; never had a use for it, and always saw it as an obstacle to their socialist agenda.  Are any of us surprised that Democrats would stoop this low for votes?

And if you thought Democrats couldn’t stoop any lower (shame on you for not believing just how low Democrats can go) they brought out that old race card thing in their endeavor to paint Republicans as the villains.  Being black or Latino, or non-white (any “minority”) does not guarantee you the right to vote on that basis alone, nor does it grant you some special or unique extra-Constitutional privilege.

If you think you are “disenfranchised” because you can’t get off your lazy butt and go register to vote (which is free to you in most places) you’re only deluding yourself.  You will not delude the Constitution, nor will you delude the votes of legal and eligible voters by your sinister motives, your lack of initiative.  If you can’t legitimately make it out of your house on your own power to go register to vote – get help in doing so.  On the other hand, if you can’t legitimately get out of your house to vote, and you don’t register to vote – how do you defend yourself, and how do you still end up casting your vote?

There is, of course, no racism involved with this purge.  No disenfranchisement, except with those people who don’t have a right to vote in the first place.  Those are the people we want to disenfranchise from the voting process.  Florida has every right under the Constitution to purge unregistered voters.  That the federal government, under the direction of Eric Holder, at the behest of President Obama (who is undoubtedly being coerced by the Democrat Party) would make any attempt to tell Florida it can’t, means that either Democrats think they have enough power in the courts to threaten Florida with legal action or, at this point, being as desperate as they are, they just don’t care and are going for broke.

Either way, it shows how undeniably corrupt they are.  It also shows how shallow they are, how weak, feckless, pathetic and worthless they are having to resort to the race card and racism as their fundamental argument.  Democrats have no merits with which to stand upon, and their two left feet only have them traveling in circles.

In a sense, it’s both heartening and reassuring to see the Democrats so publicly excoriate Florida without warrant because their argument is so baseless, so off the wall, so patently juvenile and offensive it shows Americans for who the Democrats really are.  Aside from ultra die-hard liberals, Democrats have little actual support among Americans as a whole.

Florida’s defiance is breathtaking and encouraging.  And conservatives ought to rally behind Florida and any state that would uphold their Constitutional duties in light of an errant, deceitful, reprehensible government that is sorely mistaken if it thinks it can actually get away with such un-Constitutional behavior.  We sincerely hope Florida will stick to it guns and defy whatever nonsensical warnings from the federal government.  And if the federal government wants to sue Florida – if it thinks it has legal recourse and a case – it can always try.  However, with the election right around the corner, can they afford, can they risk, any more bad publicity?

How Republicans Can Use Schumer’s, Dems “Ex-Pat” Tax Scheme To Benefit All Americans

Chuck Schumer, (D -NY), and Bob Casey, (D-Pa) are unveiling a new tax scheme, the “Ex-PATRIOT Act” or Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act.  But before Republicans roll their eyes and hammer their fists in anger, they would do well to take a moment and reflect at what a golden opportunity this “tax hike” could be for Republicans and how it could actually reduce the tax burden if Republicans are smart enough to use the Dems tax scheme to a new advantage.  How would they do that?

The Ex-Pat Act is in direct response to those Americans who have renounced their American citizenship, specifically to keep from having to pay the exorbitant taxes Americans are forced to pay under our draconian tax system.  The Act would impose a 30% tax “on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.”  The reason why Schumer, and other Dems, are proposing this, new tax, besides the obvious reason – their Democrats, and Democrats never met a tax hike they didn’t like – is to make certain that people who do renounce their American citizenship, like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who did renounce his American citizenship before taking Facebook public, would still be required to pay the tens of millions in taxes on his stock purchases he would otherwise owe as an American citizen, some 67 million dollars.

But – why should Republicans go along with this scheme, and how can Republicans use it to their advantage, and to ultimately reduce the tax burden?

Before Republicans throw the Ex-Pat Act into the Boston Harbor, they ought to sit down with Democrats and make a deal that would benefit all Americans and American business; and, while it would impose a hefty fine on American tax “traitors” (which we ought not be too concerned with, yet) the benefits of this tax could have dramatic implications if Republicans play their cards right.  But, of course, if Democrats balk, or refuse to compromise, then by all means we ought to support, with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, those Americans entrepreneurs and business risk takers that flee American and America’s outrageous and crippling tax system.

Behind those proverbial “closed” doors” Republicans ought to demand, in exchange for going along with the Ex-Pat Act, that both capital gains and corporate taxes be put in limbo (a moratorium) for a period of five years, after which both those taxes would come back at a competitive 9%, respectively.  Ideally both those taxes would be abolished all together, along with a host of other non-essential taxes (of which most taxes are).  However, until Republicans control all three Houses, and in particular, fiscal conservative Republicans who are determined to shrink the size of government, that is unlikely to occur.  But we can get the ball moving in the right direction.

One of the most important things we can accomplish in regaining control of our economy, and growing that economy, and in creating a plethora of new jobs, and new tax revenue, is to reduce the risk involved in owning and operating a business, investing in that business and profiting from that business.  It makes absolutely no common sense, or smart business sense, to have among the highest corporate and capital gains taxes in the world.  The more we can reduce these taxes, make them more competitive, more attractive for American businesses who have already fled to other nations to return to America, and even for foreign business to relocate to America, the more we can reverse our stagnant economy, which is, in essence in a coma and on life support right now.

Obviously there are other business taxes associated, and we will need to deal with those too, as well as the entire tax system.  But if we can do this one thing, put that five-year moratorium on capital gains and corporate taxes, in that five-year period we will see our economy rebound and grow with dramatic results.  New businesses will be created; current businesses will expand; all of which will need new workers to meet demands.  Millions of real jobs, with competitive wages and salaries will be created, putting millions of Americans back to work, and dropping to unemployment rate well below 5%.

We know exactly what Schumer and the Democrats are up to with their Ex-Pat Act, but before we pooh-pooh it, let’s use it to our advantage for real and meaningful tax change in our country.  Of course, the Democrats might just walk away from the table and scrap their tax scheme altogether.  That is a possibility.

So what?

Republicans are in a good position to retain the House, pick up more seats in the Senate (if not take that too) and Romney is looking pretty good in the polls right now against Obama.  This may be the Democrats one and only opportunity to increase taxes before the election, and, if Romney’s wins, the last opportunity for a very long time.  Would Schumer and the Democrat Party risk blowing such an opportunity?  Just how badly do they want to “sock it to ‘em” – those Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid, and to evade paying taxes?  Are we willing to find that out, or will we arrogantly squander a precious opportunity to cut taxes?

Marian Wright Edelman: A Disgraceful, Hypocritical, Liberal Black American Whose Racism Is “Poison In America”

Black on white crime happens!  Liberals deny it, flip their finger to it, don’t care about it.  Liberals, and even black liberals continuously overlook, reject and excuse black on white crime, and they certainly would not characterize black on white crime as being anything remotely the equivalent of a “hate crime”.  This garbage from liberals has either got to stop, or, so long as liberals ignore black on white crime, they need to be publicly challenged and we need to demand more accountability from them.  Are we up to the task?

Marian Wright Edelman, S.S. blogger for the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) spewing her venomous liberal, racist, anti-white hate mourns the increase of “hate” crime and “hate” crime groups in America, providing several examples – all of which are whites portrayed as the “hate” filled criminals.  None of which, however, reflects the growing trend of black on white “hate” crime.  Is there any surprise that a liberal – and a black liberal – would refuse to acknowledge the recent incidents of black on white crime?  Look here and here for more evidence.

Edelman uses neo-Nazi J. T. Ready as an example, along with the Tulsa killings, The Jackson killings and, of course, Trayvon Martin as prime examples of “hateful” white aggression against minorities.  Apparently, to black liberal, Edelman, the only victims of “hate” crimes are, or can be, blacks or other so-called minorities.  And the only perpetrators of “hate” crimes are, or can be, (European) whites.  Why liberals are so tolerant of black on white crime is anyone’s guess.  And why liberals are so tolerant of, and comfortable in, their own hypocrisy is another puzzle.

Which group does Edelman identity as, and agree with, being progenitors of “hate”?

t]he radical right grew explosively in 2011, the third such dramatic expansion in as many years. The growth was fueled by superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories, the changing racial makeup of America, and the prospect of four more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.

She takes this quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has already been expunged here.

Edelman writes:

What does it mean for the country our children and grandchildren are inheriting when there is so much poisonous divisiveness in the political and media culture and the number of hate groups is on the rise?”

Hmm.  It is the new black hate in America that is causing “divisiveness”.  Whites, especially conservative whites, are far more tolerant of blacks and other minorities than are liberals.  To put it another way – “What does it mean for the country our children and grandchildren are inheriting” (and what does it mean for our country, and the future of our country) when liberals, like Edelman, write, accept and condone “so much poisonous divisiveness in the political and media culture” when it comes to giving a pass to black on white crime, “and the number of” black on white crimes committed since the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident and the “Justice for Trayvon” phenomenon which has led to a “rise” in black “hate” and “hate groups”?

“Hate” crime is a liberal conception.  Its only purpose is to ensure whites are punished more severely, and their punishment is compounded and augmented, by the law when they commit crimes against minorities.  “Hate” crime laws, ideally, ought to be abolished by congress, or found to be un-Constitutional by the courts.  They absolutely ought to be found hypocritical by the public so long as “hate” crimes only apply to whites.  Liberals, like Edelman, so blinded by their emotions, and so overwrought by their emotional outbursts, and so full of themselves, their pathetic ideals, simply wave off any notions that “hate” crimes could be committed by blacks or other minorities against whites.  For that, liberals deserve every thoughtful, thought-provoking condemnation we can heap upon them.

Conservatives are very comfortable with sending whites who commit violent crimes against other people to prison for a very long time.  But – why should a white who commits a crime against a black have a longer prison sentence than a black who commits a crime against a white?  This double standard is in itself un-Constitutional, although the liberal courts will still, for the time being, uphold it.

What is “poison to America” are liberals and liberalism.  And it is black liberals, like Edelman, whose racist, anti-white, hypocrisy are even more poisonous.  These people must be exposed, outed and excoriated.  They deal only in emotions, and they do that for a profit and to profit themselves at the expense of others, of our Constitution and of our nation.

Americans, more and more, are waking up and realizing the filth coming from the mouths of liberals.  And liberals?  Well, they’ve always only had themselves to talk to, primarily.  As conservatives become more dominant in America, and liberals wane and diminish, the time is coming when liberals won’t even have themselves to talk to anymore, and the filth that is, that was, liberalism will wash away.

But as that time is yet in the future, we conservatives must busy ourselves in the art of tearing down every last vestige of liberal ideology, much of which is rooted in hypocrisy and double standards, but for which all of it is embedded in the vast and total emptiness, dark and eternal void, of emotions.  Emotional drivel is easy to tear down.  How easy is it to tear down a fact?

Are You Getting, Or Hoping For, A Tax Refund? Why That Is Such A Terrible, Terrible Thought…

Everybody hates to pay taxes.  We curse, we scream, we yell, we rant, we put it off until the last-minute.  And then we do our taxes, crunch all the numbers, add up all the deductions, breaks and credits, and breathe a sigh of relief, let out a little laugh, a snide chuckle as it were, and smile when we see that we have a chunk of money that the federal/state government owes us.  Finally – our government is giving something back to us.  A few hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars, on average.  What sweet satisfaction that is.  What sweet revenge on a government which has taken so much from us in that fiscal tax year.  What a – terrible, terrible place for any American taxpayer to find themselves in.  WTF!

You had such great plans for that tax refund, didn’t you?  You were going to pay off bills; take a vacation; buy a new car, a new computer,  a new something – but you were going to spend that money, splurge and go crazy on yourself, for yourself and have some fun.  You’ve been told for years, and perhaps for decades you’ve been under the tax refund delusion, that getting a tax refund is a positive, joyful, gratifying experience.  Now you are being told that is all a lie, a sham, a scam created by government itself no doubt.  You might be crestfallen, heartbroken, shattered.  And if you are receiving a refund this year, because you paid too much in taxes, all you can do now is suck it in, accept it, and rush to amend your filing status so that next year you OWE taxes to the government.  Wait, what?  Who is this crank?

Is this not making any sense at all to you.  Are you confused beyond belief?  Are you sitting there stumped, dumbfounded and seething with indignant rage because someone is telling you what a terrible, terrible mistake you are making in setting up your tax return in such a way as to OWE money, rather than receive a refund?  You still don’t understand how any of this all adds together, do you?

It’s elementary, really.  The tax refund you are hoping for, and hoping to be HUGE, is money that is sitting somewhere in a government fund, collecting interest for government, benefiting government, being used by government for whatever purpose government sees fit to use it.  That’s your money.  Why isn’t your money sitting in your bank account?  You have bills, debt to pay, and the refund you are hoping for, you are delaying paying off your debt on until you get that refund.  But you claimed ZERO, or ONE on your tax return, which means you are paying more in taxes to the government than if you claimed TWO or even THREE.  And if you had claimed a higher number, you would have paid less in taxes.  And if you were paying less in taxes, you could have paid off some or all of your debt before you filed your taxes, and certainly before the government got around to returning your money it owed you.  How much interest on that debt could you have avoided by doing it that way?  How much extra money, on the interest, could you have saved, if you could have had that extra money each month to pay down your debt and get it paid off sooner rather than later?

Maybe you don’t have debt.  (???? – Is anyone in that “predicament” these days?)  Well, you still wanted to buy that new car, new computer, new something – right?  You still wanted to take that vacation – right?  You still wanted to do something fun and exciting with all that money – right?  You still wanted to treat yourself, pamper yourself, indulge yourself, in yourself, for yourself – right?

Well – why the hell do you think you can’t do that unless you are OWED a refund?  In other words, by setting up your tax return so you keep more of your money, and in essence flip the finger to government, you could be setting aside your money each month and building up a nice pile for yourself, for when you do want to do that special thing for yourself, whatever that might be.  And – because it’s already in your bank account, and not sitting somewhere in a government account, you don’t have to wait for government to get around, which they are always sluggish about doing anyway, to returning your money to you.  Turn the tables on government and make government wait for the little bit you end up owing come tax time, just like they make you wait, and wait, and wait…

The dirty little secret, ladies and gentlemen, is that there is absolutely no reason for any taxpayer to hope for, or expect, or want a tax refund from the government.  It’s all been propaganda, a scheme, and a scam, devised and disseminated in such ways as to deceive you into believing you are better off with a refund rather than with another bill to pay.  As a taxpayer you actually want to OWE some money to government, not the other way around.  And until the federal income tax is abolished, (we can only hope) most of us who earn money from a job will have to pay a portion of those earnings to government.

How does it make sense to pay more up front and wait to get your money back on the government’s time (on government’s and your dime) when you could keep that money, your money, and make the government wait for the little bit you will end up owing it?  You’re not hurting government (you’re certainly not hurting its feelings) by paying less up front, and the rest at tax time.  You’re not hurting yourself by paying less up front.  You will not be penalized by government, or hunted down by a government official by not paying more up front.  So – why do it?

And, if you have always done it, hoping, expecting a refund, doing it for the refund, now that you know how futile, how fruitless, how non-beneficial to you that really is, will you still arrange your tax return for next year, and the years to follow so that you continue to pay more in taxes just to get a refund, when you now know how silly that is?  Why!

Obama Administarion Allows Scummy Warren Buffett To Keep One Billion Dollars In Taxes

I'm Warren Buffett, And I'm Too Rich, Too Arrogant, Too Important To Pay Taxes - But That Doesn't Mean The Rest Of You Shouldn't. You See, There Are Two Kinds Of "Rules" My Friends - Those "Rules" For Peasants Like You Who Must Pay Their Fair Share In Taxes, And Those "Rules" For People, Like Myself, That Have Connections In High Places And Are Not Really Expected To Pay Their Fair Share, Or Any Share, Of Taxes. (And, Unlike The Rest Of You - I, Warren Buffett, Won't Go To Jail.) I'm Warren Buffett - Thank You For Letting Me Con You Into Believing I Really Give A Damn About You. It's Truly Been A Pleasure...

To date, Warren Buffett still owes the federal government over one billion dollars in back taxes, from his Berkshire Hathaway company going back to 2002, and Buffett is hell bent and determined not to pay it back.  This, at the same time he is promoting the his “Buffett Rule”, a scam which would raise taxes on millionaires up to 30%.  While Barack Obama supports this tax, and praises Buffett for his “generosity” and “humanitarianism”, Obama has not demanded Buffett pay back the one billions dollars.  Hmm…

Warren Buffett is one on the richest people in the world; one of the “evil” rich “one-percenters”.  Well, he is rich, and he certainly is evil.  But despise the fact that he owes so much money in back taxes, Obama will not push Buffet to pay it.  Instead, he will go after the rest of us who are not as influential, as important, as connected.

Warren Buffett is a con-artist.  What else do you call a man who, on the one hand owes so much in taxes and refuses to pay it, and on the other hand is cheer-leading for a new tax that would force millionaires (undoubtedly other than himself) to pay more in taxes?

What else is strange is that Buffett’s tax evasion is out in the open.  Buffett is not trying to hide the fact that he owes over one billions dollars.  What that ought to tell you is that Buffett is so arrogant, so conceited, so confident that he is, and will remain, protected and sheltered by Obama and his administration, he can have the audacity to publicly demand rich people, including himself, pay more in taxes, at the same time he refuses to pay his own taxes.  What happens if the “Buffett Rule” becomes law?  Is Buffett going to pay that tax?  Or will he find a way to “creatively” move around his money like so many rich people are able to do?

The “Buffett Rule” need to be rejected and Buffett’s “Rule” (his reign) needs to come to an end.  He is scum, a pretender, a faker, and represents true evil.  He is using his wealth, which he able to shelter in ways the rest of us cannot do, his prestige and notoriety, his influences and contacts to ensure that he will ultimately pay less in taxes than the rest of us, including his own secretary.  Nobody wants to pay taxes.  But most of us understand we need to pay a reasonable and fair portion.  Warren Buffett, as greedy and as unscrupulous as he is, did not get to where he is, did not acquire as much wealth as he has, by playing by the rules the rest of us must abide by.  What makes anyone believe he would play by his own “Buffett Rule”?  What makes anyone believe he would  – pay it?

Liberal Women Paint The Killing Of Unborn Children With “Flowery” Buzzwords

Abortion, in America, is nearing its bloody end.  A bold statement perhaps, but liberals, and liberal feminists, are all too aware of what is going on in America, the political climate circulating around abortion and their inability to get around the fact that abortion is, always has been, and always will be – the killing of  an unborn child.  But that does not stop them from trying.

Abortion won’t end tomorrow, nor will it end immediately after Romney is sworn in as President.  But Americans are more pro-life (a term dreaded and despised by liberals) than they have ever been, and that trend will continue to grow.  To counter this shift, to delay it, to turn it back to the pro-abortion side, a new marketing scheme is underway to make you think that abortion is really all about “women’s health planning”.

Arianna Nation SS contributors, Vicky Kuperman and Erica Grossman write:

It’s [abortion] all about political “framing,” a term that is familiar to anyone who has even occasionally channel-surfed through C-SPAN. In the case of women’s rights, conservatives have historically excelled at cloaking their various agendas — primarily, their fierce opposition to abortion — in either sunny, feel-good terms (“pro-life” as opposed to “anti-abortion,” for example) or in graphic and shocking terms (“partial-birth abortion” as opposed to “late-term abortion”). In the end, these emotionalized buzzwords have enabled them to perfect a kind of moral hijacking, hitting their base in the gut, and rallying them through anger and fear.

Why would pro-abortion advocates have to go to such lengths to disguise abortion if a majority in America are pro-abortion?  We can clearly see how much Vicky and Erica disdain life in their mockery of the term “pro-life”, and how much they are in denial over the definition of “partial-birth abortion”.  Partial birth abortion is an exact term.  In other words, it describes exactly what is happening – the child is partially born (removed from the womb), but because its head is too large to fit comfortably through the birth canal, the doctor plunges a long, sharp probe into its skull and begins sucking out the brain and fluids, which deflates the head and makes for an easier passage.  That is what Vicky, Erica and every other damned, contemptible supporter of this procedure don’t want you to actually know or understand.  Hence, they “flower” the term and make it smell better to the unwary, the uneducated, the unknowing and unsuspecting people they have been able to brainwash.  “Late term abortion” they dub it.  Because most people who support abortion don’t actually know what abortion is, calling partial birth abortion simply a “late-term abortion” will not register with these people.

Liberals will indeed need a better marketing strategy if they want to continue brainwashing people into support the killing of unborn children.  What is ironic is, the more they attempt to distract and disguise what abortion really is with “flowery” rhetoric, speech, and buzzwords, the more they actually expose themselves and their agenda and how shady, how corrupt, how disingenuous they, and abortion, really is.

And if they think they can mask the killing of unborn children by calling it “women’s health planning”, this will be another surefire disaster for them.  They – liberals and liberal pro-abortion feminists – are engaged in a cover-up.  They are guilty of doing to, and for, abortion exactly what was being done for decades by the Catholic hierarchy with their pedophile priests in that each of the two realities – abortion and pedophilia  – were covered-up and disguised.  And just as abortion was re-branded and re-marketed, so too were the priests, who were moved from one parish to another, thereby creating a new and “clean” slate.  But the truth still lurked underneath the “flowery” revision of priest pedophilia just as much as the truth still lurks underneath the “flowery” renaming of abortion as “women’s health planning”.  A pedophile priest is still a pedophile priest; that he has been moved to another parish does not change that.  Abortion is still abortion; that it is called something else does not change that.

Of “women’s health planning”, Vicky and Erica say:

These words not only have the benefit of sounding neutral and caring, but they also checkmate conservatives from mounting a counterattack. After all, it’s hard to imagine Mitt Romney railing against a woman’s health and walking away from the podium intact.

Of course they could not be more deluded and more blinded by reality.  The “counterattack” has already been “mounted”, their agenda has been exposed as shallow and hollow, and they have been shown to be the frauds they are.  Conservatives can very easily promote women’s health without promoting the killing of unborn children.

Or – do Vicky and Erica, do all liberals, and pro-abortion liberal feminists, really believe that abortion, and having an abortion, promotes women’s health, and makes women healthier for having had one?  If they do, why aren’t they advocating that every woman have at least one abortion in their lifetime?   Mitt Romney is advocating against abortion in his Presidential bid.  Why isn’t Obama advocating for abortion in his reelection bid?

Preschool Is An Over Rated, Over Glorified Baby Sitting Service – Abolish It!

Liberals are up in arms with the The Ryan plan, which passed the House yesterday, but will probably die in the Senate.  One of the provisions in the plan that so irks liberals is, in attempting to reduce overall spending by eliminating unnecessary budget items and government programs, it appears that preschool funding is, in part, on the “hit list”.

The House is preparing to pass a Republican budget that would slash funding for Head Start, a federally funded program that provides a wide range of services to a million young children living in poverty and their families.  The House Budget Committee, would eliminate slots for about 200,000 children in 2014, according to an analysis by the National Education Association. Over the next decade, the NEA estimates, more than two million children would lose opportunities to attend Head Start centers as a result of the cuts.

Regardless of ones income, preschool teaches children absolutely nothing that they can’t learn at home from their parents.  All preschool is, is a babysitting service which taxpayers, through government takeover of education, flip the bill for.   There are no complex learning skills being taught to three and four-year olds.  Only the alphabet, reading and writing skills, coloring, playtime, nap time, potty training skills, the “love your neighbor” concept without the religious additive, etc.  Nothing these small children learn in preschool cannot also be learned at home, where, if preschool is not mandated by local or state law already, parents can save a lot of money that goes into preschool funding and school their own children so they are ready for grade school.

But that is the point of preschool, and why states take a keen interest in getting their political arms around it.  It’s all about the extra money they get from forcing parents to enroll their children in unnecessary schooling, like preschool.  Now, in an effort to defeat the Ryan budget, and to boost more federal spending for preschool, the MSM, is pushing the idea that low-income families will be harmed if the Ryan plan passes because the cuts made will eliminate “slots” the federal government creates for children of low-income families to enroll in preschool through Head Start and other taxpayer subsidized programs.

Of Head Start, Yasmina Vinci, who heads the National Head Start Association says:

“It’s good not just for kids, it’s good for the whole community.”

Not only do we know this to be absolute nonsense and BS, but the article goes on to prove our case in the next paragraph.

But despite the enthusiasm for Head Start, recent audits have shown the system is far from flawless. A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that half of all workers in the field of children’s services and a fifth of preschool teachers lacked high-school diplomas, for example. The survey counted workers for Head Start programs.

So not only is this another worthless government mandated program, but parents who send their children off to preschool to be taught their “ABC’s” and how to color and stay within the lines, but there is more than a fifty percent chance your children are being taught by someone who never graduated high school and probably not only has a hard time reciting their own “ABC’s” but probably cannot color within the lines themselves.

Whether or not parents wants to send their children off to preschool ought to be the parents decision, not government’s.  If parents find “value” in preschool – and the only real value preschool has is that it takes the kids off the hands of the parents for a few hours – if that is indeed your idea of “value”, that ought to be up to parents not government.  Maybe it’s good for families where both parents must work, but not so good for the children who are now being raised by teachers instead of their parents, which might just be the effect liberals in government had in mind from the beginning.

But unless these kids are learning trigonometry, Constitutional law, or something of a complex nature their own parents could not teach them, that only well-trained and professional educators could teach them (which takes more than the high school diploma more than half of these preschool teachers lack), it is a complete and absolute waste of tax dollars to be sending three and four-year old children to school where they learn nothing of any particular beneficial value, but do learn how bad and how evil our holidays are, like Valentine’s Day – which in some schools is known as “Caring and Kindness Day”, and St. Patrick’s Day, which in some schools is now known as “O’ Green Day”, (this is become of the religious nature of “saint” in both holidays) and other politically correct garbage as they are being baby-sat by people who haven’t a wit’s idea as to what they are doing.  Is it any wonder why nap time is such an integral part of preschool.  It’s not for the kids – it’s for the teachers.

No child ought to grow up in poverty.  But sending kids from low-income families off to preschool, instead of staying with their parents is the wrong approach.  It’s the wrong approach regardless of income.  Kids will do much better in grade school, and throughout their educational lives, and the rest of their lives, the more interaction they have with their parents early on in their lives, rather than being dumped into a government baby sitting program.

And if preschool was a private endeavor, instead of a public on, if government wasn’t seeing  penny of the money being made off these baby sitting services, is there any doubt they would find as many ways as they could to condemn them and shut them down?

Obamacare Has Been Defeated. Now What?

Whoa!  Hold your horses.  The Supreme Court hasn’t made its final decision yet.  Still…

And still…

And still more…

And still more (from the actual oral argument)…

Obamacare cannot legally stand up.  That does not mean it won’t.  It’s in the hands of nine Supreme Court Justices who are tasked with the very political and very politicized decision of doing the right thing, constitutionally, and angering some tens of millions of Americans.  Or, doing the wrong thing, and angering some more tens of millions of Americans, but in which every American will be unduly, unconstitutionally burdened.

Americans want health insurance, and they want affordable and easy access to it, especially when the time comes they actually need it.  Obamacare does not do that, nor was it ever designed to.  Government run healthcare, whatever it is called, is unconstitutional.  The debate we all need to focus on after it is defeated is – where do we go from here?  And the immediate answer is that we need to look at the states, and removing the regulations that prevent citizens from buying insurance from other insurance providers in other states.  Doing that will have enormous benefits in helping to create more competition which will drive up quality and drive down overall cost, including the cost for pre-existing conditions, which absolutely need to be covered by health insurers at affordable rates.

Putting the onus and responsibility of paying for healthcare on all American citizens by mandating they buy heath insurance, and fining them if they don’t is not the solution.  Better and more tangible solutions can be found in the free market.  After Obamacare is defeated, let’s not waste time whining about it or blaming people for its defeat – it was doomed for failure because it is unconstitutional.

Be proactive.  Millions of Americans who don’t have health insurance need it.  Millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions, who cannot afford the high cost of premiums, need to be covered now, not after they are dead.  The free market can solve these problems.  Playing politics can’t, or won’t.  Or – do you want to roll that dice again and see what happens?

Healthcare Insurance Ought To Include Pre-Existing Conditions; Government Ought To Butt In, Then Butt Out – And Stay Out!

The cost of treating someone with an advanced illness is a tremendous burden on one’s family as well as on one’s finances.  Compounding the problem, most Americans cannot afford to buy their own health insurance, and that needs to change.  No American ought to be forced to go without healthcare because they legitimately cannot afford it.  And no American ought to be forced to endure the pain associating with illness that goes untreated because they have been denied health insurance due either to an inability to pay for it, or because of a pre-existing condition – or both.

Doesn’t it make more sense to treat an illness as soon as possible, both for the benefit of the individual who needs to be treated, and because the sooner an illness can be treated (which includes bringing a condition under manageable control) the less overall cost there is in treating the illness when it becomes more advanced and needs more specialized medicine, more tests, more doctor and hospital visits?  Why do health insurers discriminate so viciously against Americans with pre-existing conditions and what can government do to reverse that without taking over health insurance altogether, and at the same time lower the cost of healthcare for ALL Americans, including those with pre-existing health conditions?

The United States Supreme Court is in the middle of hearing arguments over The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare, in which the government is arguing it can mandate and force all Americans to buy health insurance.  The Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare on this issue, because it (and we all know it) is unconstitutional for government to force Americans to purchase anything they don’t want to, including health care.  Part of Obamacare also provides that pre-existing conditions must be covered, and that no American can be discriminated against who has a pre-existing health condition.  Once Obamacare is reversed, Americans are back to the drawing board with regards to healthcare, and millions of Americans who now have pre-existing health conditions, who thought they would finally be covered with the health care they needed to help them, will find themselves out of luck.

Health insurance agencies will not cover people with pre-existing conditions because the cost of the premiums would have to be raised in order not to lose money.  Remember, healthcare institutions are FOR PROFIT agencies.  Just as bad is relying on government to provide healthcare to all Americans, including coverage for pre-existing conditions, because in order to do that the cost for such an expensive undertaking would have enormous consequences – very dire, very negative for all Americans.  Government is a NOT FOR PROFIT body, but if it runs health care – it ain’t doing it for free.

1.  Taxes would have to be raised on everyone to pay for government-run healthcare.  So the idea that healthcare would be free flies in the face of reality.  How much taxes would be raised is hard to tell, but as usually happens, it is small at first, and then is progressively raised over time.  In any event, we would all feel it in our wallets and pocketbooks.

2.  Taxing the rich, and rich corporations either exclusively or at a larger rates might sound appealing to Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet, and who would have a harder time with an added healthcare tax.  However, as we all know, when businesses are taxed, regardless of the size of that business, that tax is passed down to the consumer, so Americans still get stuck with paying taxes for healthcare even if government does not directly tax them for it.

3.  However, when government burdens business with taxes, the smaller the business is the more harm there will be, as small businesses cannot stretch their budgets to the same degree bigger businesses can.  This causes small business to lay off employees, creating more unemployment, more overall anxiety, more tension and more call from Americans for government to step in and help even more.

4.  It also creates greater hardships for small businesses who need a certain amount of employees to keep their businesses running, without which they cannot stay in business.  A catch 22 for small business is thus in play, who have tax and debt obligations to pay, or be fined and forced to pay even more.  So, lay off employees to pay the tax and debt, but risk losing their business anyway because with fewer employees, they cannot meet their contractual obligations, resulting in slowing and dramatically decreasing their cash flow, their credit and credibility in the business community.

5.  Now we are back at square one again, and neither have we solved anything, nor have we learned anything from the mistakes we repeatedly make over and over again.  Namely – government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem. And the more we grant power to government to resolve our problems, the more problems are created.

6.  In the process of trying to ensure all Americans with health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing conditions, mandated through government, and paid for by all taxpayers, directly and indirectly, we have caused more businesses to close their door, or lay off more of their employees, stop hiring, stop giving out raises and other bonuses, and we have brought our economy, which is struggling to crawl at the pace of a caterpillar, to a screeching halt.  And those Americans that needed health insurance, especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions, are again thrown under the bus.

The dilemma we are faced with is that ALL Americans need health insurance, and ALL Americans need affordable health insurance, and that includes, and ought to include, those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  How do we get to that point, where ALL Americans are covered with affordable health insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions:

•  without turning healthcare over to government;

  without government mandating ALL Americans be insured, or face steep fines for not having health insurance;

  without risking the quality of healthcare because the cost to treat ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions, is now more expensive to health insurers rather than the other way around;

•  without having the cost of healthcare rise dramatically and unexpectedly because the cost to insurers has become too much to bear, returning us back to the drawing board and having to look for more solutions?

It seems as though, if government would just butt in momentarily and remove the vast amount of restrictions, regulations and tax obligations, the bloated bureaucracy and other obstacles on both the healthcare industry itself and on investors and risk takers, all of which combined, are right now preventing them from either investing altogether in the health industry, or as heavily as they otherwise would but for the regulations and taxes, that would go a long way in helping solve the problem of how to attain quality, affordable healthcare for ALL Americans, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.  And just as quickly as government butts in, it ought to butt back out.

Two things are for certain.  One – Obamacare will be overturned.  Two – ALL Americans still need affordable healthcare insurance, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions.

The only uncertainty is – how will we resolve this problem, how quickly can we resolve this problem, without wasting time about who pays for what, who ought to pay for it, who ought to pay more for it and why, and how to get around the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Obamacare and turn healthcare over to government anyway?

If we are determined to have all Americans insured with quality and affordable healthcare, including those Americans with pre-existing health conditions – who ought not be left out of the process – isn’t the main obstacle in making that happen that group of Americans who insist this cannot be done expect by government mandate?

We know government can’t make that happen without raising taxes on every American, and on every American business.  And we know that still won’t be enough money to cover the cost of ALL Americans, including and especially those Americans with pre-existing conditions.  We know government will have to print more money, incur more debt and create higher inflation, thereby weakening the dollar and making the problem of affordable healthcare, and everything else in America, much, much worse.

Isn’t it time we gave capitalism and the free market system a try?  What are we afraid of losing if we do?

Why “Affordable” Health Care Is, And Will Continue To Be, So Expensive For Us All

Sandra Fluke is one more reason why we, in America, need more affordable, and better quality, private health insurance, rather than what she, and many others, are advocating, which is public health insurance provided/mandated through a government system which monopolies the industry.  Monopolies, by their structure and their very nature, do not create incentives to better or improve upon anything.  Rather, they allow the few people at the top running the show to set the prices, which always goes up, and to disregard the quality, which inevitably goes down over time.  It also allows for greater corruption and abuse within the system as well as collusion to keep prices higher than they would be under a private system where competition was allowed to flourish.  Without competition, no ideas are offered, no alternatives are expressed, no solutions to current problems are brainstormed.  Why would this not also be true of a government monopoly on health care?

Sandra Fluke welcomes government stepping in and providing her, and everyone else, with health care.  But at what cost?  In other words, whether that cost of health care is low, or “at no cost”, the idea that it is actually free is deceiving.  The case in point is Obamacare, which will force all Americans, and all businesses in America, to buy health care insurance exclusively through the federal government or face steep fines, the amount of which only the 1% can afford to pay.  As damnable as Obamacare is, and as unconstitutional as it is, it would be far more advantageous and beneficial if it was a replacement to Medicare and Medicaid rather than and addition to an already overburdened over stretched health care system the debt and liability of which is scores of trillions of dollars and growing (out of control) at a substantial rate.  And with Obamacare, what is the point of Medicare and Medicaid?

This all begs the question – what does anyone have against private health insurance?  If you answer, “because I cannot afford private health insurance”, then the next logical question is – why?  In other words, what is causing/driving the cost of private health insurance to stagnate in a price range, it is assumed, is higher than most Americans can afford to purchase?  And, for which is why so many millions of Americans support Obamacare, or the idea of some form of government provided, “low-cost” health care insurance that is neither low nor is it the best alternative?  If anything, Obamacare, any type of government provided health insurance acts in the same way a comfort food does.  It satisfies us, but is not really good for us, and ends up costing us down the road in ways we either did not anticipate or want to anticipate.  But the consequences are there, and they will need to be reckoned with.

As for the so-called “benefits” to small business?  The only reason for that is because health care is so expensive small businesses, by virtue of having a limited cash flow to work with, cannot provide most or all of their employees with health insurance, or with the types of insurance coverage big business can afford to contract with insurance providers.  Therefore, small businesses are left at a disadvantage.  However, with affordable, private insurance, that issue is eliminated.  That won’t happen until government gets out of the health care insurance business.  That won’t happen until more Americans become more informed about the advantages to private health care insurance versus the horrors of government-run/mandated heath insurance.  None of that will happen until we change the leadership in Washington.  That will, hopefully, happen in November.

Sandra Fluke has a personal agenda she is setting forth and laying out.  Namely she desires all women have access to health care, including contraception and abortion coverage, and she supports the “Affordable Care Act” which is the initiative that, through government health insurance, would provide her and all women with what she wants.  There are two problems with this that someone as “emotional” as Sandra Fluke is – as opposed to rational – is missing.

First, it is not “affordable”.  Either every American taxpayer is going to see their taxes go up substantially in order to pay for this, or the cost will be tacked onto the trillions of debt we currently owe.  If the latter, then we will see higher inflation, and for a longer period of time, because in order to pay off just the interest on that debt, prices on everything will need to rise.  Government can, and does, create money simply by printing it.  And in order to pay for Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, and all government health care run programs, government will need to continue printing money.  All that ever does is devalue the worth of  money which leads to higher and higher inflation, which leads to higher and higher costs on everything, including health care itself.  But also everything else we buy and need to buy, like food and gas.  So the idea that the “Affordable Care Act’ is “affordable” is ludicrous.  Women may be benefited, perhaps, but as monopolies go, there is no guarantee.  And as monopolies go, that benefit usually declines over time.  And while women are “benefiting” from “affordable” health care, they, along with the rest of us, are paying more for everything we buy in order to pay the cost of their “affordable” health care.

Secondly, if we actually devoted more time to debating the usefulness and advantages of private health insurance, it would do more to lessen and allay the negative stigma and fears so many Americans have about it.  It would also help to inform those people who are against it – because of its high cost – why more private health insurance will bring down that cost to levels that are real, rather than artificially, affordable, and why private health insurance promotes better and higher quality health care than government could ever do.  With private health insurance – and that means, for those who are unsure, health care we pay for ourselves and our family out of our own pocket, not our neighbors or fellow taxpayers – health insurance providers are forced (whether they want to or not) through competition to provide the people they insure with the best, the highest quality and most affordable health care they can offer, or risk losing their clients to another private health provider.  Is that hard to comprehend?

With private health insurance, there is no room for error.  Conversely, with public, government-funded health insurance, there is all kinds of room for error, and no incentive to correct any mistakes because the money being paid for health insurance, for the contracts, the salaries, the bonuses, of everyone involved in a government-run health care system, etc., will always be there, whether it is coming from the taxpayers or being printed out of thin air, to keep the system running.  That does not work in the private industry.  Hence, the money is real, it is worth something to the insurance providers, and worth more to them than money that is created artificially, and thus is worth the time, effort and energy to keep finding solutions to health related problems, finding better ways to provide health care and finding ways to keep the costs down and as low as possible.  Private health insurance encourages its providers to be and remain honest.  Government run heath care only encourages corruption.

Sandra Fluke, because of her advocacy for the “Affordable Care Act” is actually harming women more than she is helping them, and she is actually putting women’s health more in harm way, more at risk, than otherwise.  Whatever the “Affordable Care Act” will ultimately provide and cover will pale in comparison to what could be provided and covered through private health insurance.  Breast exams, cervical cancer exams, pap smears, colorectal exams, childbirth and all health issues related to women could be much cheaper, much less expensive, much more expansive in their service and quality, if private health insurers were better able to compete for new clients.  So long as the government has a monopoly, and a mandate on health insurance, that will not happen.

But if all Sandra is really seeking in the “Affordable Care Act is free contraception (for whatever purpose) and abortion coverage, which may or may not be covered by private insurance – and, in the case of abortion, may not be legal for any health insurer to provide  depending on its reason – then she probably does not care about the overall harm she is going to cause to woman down the road, or to all American.  Nor would she care about the cost, the burden of that cost, the effects of that cost on everyone, or how that cost is going to have to be repaid.

Sandra may be too emotional to want to listen to rationality and reality.  What about the rest of us?

Another Reason To Bust The Unions And Flip The Finger To Public Education

If anyone in America still thinks of unions as gallant, chivalrous knights fighting for workers rights against evil employers, will you please stop with such thoughts?  Unions now-a-days, as we all ought to know, are themselves the evil, corrupt, self-serving, arrogant thugs who do not like, do not accept, do not condone, do not work well with – competition!

In Culver City California unions are going after parents who volunteer at schools, it is assumed, to help students with their overall education.  The fact that they are doing this, and the unions are not getting any kind of cut has irked and annoyed these worthless thugs.  Now they are attempting to get their revenge on these parents by forcing them into a union where they will be forced to pay dues, but will not be allowed to have any kid of a voice or opinion in any matters.

Parents are cutting into the territory dominated by these unions and they feel very threatened.  These unions will not have anyone, including parents, break up the monopoly they have on public education.  But – who are the unions really looking out for here?

What the unions are doing, what the obvious outcome of this insanity will amount to, is that all the many children who now benefit from the tutoring they enjoy (and the student’s own parents must be pleased with) by local volunteers will disappear, and that option for those students will no longer be available.  What does that solve?

A wonderful gesture by the parents of Culver City, and all those who have volunteered, is being met with a gesture of another kind by unscrupulous, malevolent unions who loathe the idea that students are in essence receiving a free education.  Thus, the unions are doing what they do best – terrorizing the enemy.

Parents have rights in their communities which are being trampled on by the unions that also dwell within.  For all those volunteers who give of themselves, freely; for all those students who are grateful for the extra help; for all those teachers who also welcome the volunteers into the schools to take some of the pressure off of them; for every American who is sick and tired of these damned unions coming in and destroying communities and the rights of those communities, and then having the audacity to rip off those same communities through union dues and through the millions of dollars they receive via government from the taxes these communities pay to keep their communities running smoothly – it is time to bust these unions!  They are nothing more than con-artists on the city payroll.

Parents in Culver City are outraged over what the unions are trying to do to them, their schools and their children.  If the unions get away with it there, isn’t it safe to expect they will move into your community, where parents volunteer to help students with their studies?  And once the unions can get away with what they are doing in Culver City, does anyone expect they won’t find something else they can go after they feel is threatening their little “game”?  Their little “game” being to monopolize everything they can get their hands on, and then make you, the taxpayer pay for it, and pay into it.

Isn’t about time we finally busted these damned unions wide open?  Don’t we owe it to our children to do this before they, unions, bust our children’s hopes for a quality education?  Or is the only quality education the one unions decide for them, based on how much money they can scam off of these local communities?  When is going too far ever going to register with these thugs?  And how far are we willing to let them go before we do take action?

At The “Risk” (And Hope) Of Offending The Fish And Wildlife Department

Our U.S. government has a real problem with life and a respect for life.  Not only does it support abortion on demand and the killing of unborn children, but when an animal, say a bear, attacks a woman in Florida who went to go throw out some trash (dog waste, anyway), that same government says trap and kill the bear. Why is the answer always to kill the unwanted party?

The bear in question, according to the report, was protecting its cub.  So there is another issue government has a real problem with.  Our government has no respect for parental rights any longer, and that extends to animals as well.  On the human side government attacks human parents for how we raise our children, including how and what we feed them and how we school them, and in particularly if we want to home school instead of placing them in public school.

On the animal side, our government attacks the parental rights of a bear and her prerogative to protect her own cub.  As if a mother bear is any less sympathetic to her children than human parents would be if they thought their own children were in danger.  Does anyone doubt that if government could get away with it legally, they’d kill us, humans, for protecting our children as this bear did with her cub?  Obamacare may take care of that.

Now, it is impossible for humans and bears to co-exist with one another.  However, what can we expect to happen, and what can we expect the reaction is going to be from wildlife, so long as we, humans, continue to encroach upon their habitat?  There needs to be some balance between human habitat and wildlife habitat so that everyone can live comfortably and safely.  So long as humans slash and burn deeper into the untamed forests left remaining in America where wildlife (bears and such) live, naturally wildlife, the kind really dangerous to humans, are going to become as unwanted, uninvited pests into areas they once roamed but which now have been replaced with streets and roadways, and have had homes, schools, shops, etc. built where there once were acres and acres of trees.

Obviously humans and animals are not equal, nor are there any Constitutional rights set aside for animals.  (And no one is suggesting that happen)  However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have or show more respect and understanding for wildlife, even wild bears, wolves, foxes, and animals of that nature which often encroach upon human civilization.  If a wild animal is threatening us, our family, friends, neighbors, etc., of course we ought to step in, and all the better if we are armed, to protect, to defend one another, against the wild animal.

The Fish and Wildlife Department wants to trap and kill the bear as it is probably a real threat to humans and probably will attack again if it is not caught.  It begs the question – how much is it costing taxpayers to have The Fish and Wildlife Department conduct this stake-out?  And why, if the bear can be trapped, cannot it, and her cub, be relocated to another part of Florida, or somewhere it can live without being a nuisance to humans?  Even the woman who was attacked does not want the bear killed.

Is it a cost factor?  Is it just so damn easier to kill life than try to save it, to preserve it, to respect it?  Trillion dollar federal budgets every year of Obama’s Presidency and we can’t come up with a little extra cash to save life.  That is money well spent.

Whatever government policy is mandating the Fish and Wildlife Department kill this bear ought to be abolished and replaced with a more humane and animal friendly version that traps the animals, but relocates them to “greener pastures”.  Enough of the killing already.

Why Sandra Fluke Matters, And Why Her Bizarre Statements Hurts Feminism, Not Helps

Sandra Fluke has managed to epitomize both the Left in America and liberal feminism to an extent no conservative could.  She is a poster child for all that is modern day feminism, and all it will ever be.  That is not a compliment, by the way.  What Sandra epitomizes is the shallowness, and the filthiest, the most corroded, corrosive elements of feminism and liberalism.

She has done to herself what, if any conservative had attempted to parody, would be considered the lowest, meanest, dirtiest, most rotten and vicious attack on feminism and liberalism (and women), and what any feminist would label as sexist, anti-woman and misogyny – and she did it to herself in front of congress, and the American people. Sandra has shown herself, a feminist, as a scatter-brained twit and airhead with little to no real cognizant understanding of the real world. Or, in the real world, do the American people really want to pay for her to have all the sex she wants?

Sandra’s testimony has become one of the lowest of low points in feminism, and whether Sandra is the best feminism has to offer, there are no other feminists who have stepped forward to dispute and/or refute Sandra’s wild testimony.  And while all manner of liberals are coming to her aid, including Barack Obama, and offering words of encouragement and support to a young woman who has embarrassed herself, liberalism, feminism and Georgetown University, which has obviously done a very poor job at educating Sandra on how to effectively debate a point of view, very little coverage within the MSM is given to the fact that Sandra has made a public spectacle and fool of herself and of feminism.  She hasn’t done much for her own gender either.  But at least there are a number, and a significant number at that, of conservative women who do denounce Sandra.

Sandra has not yet detracted from her basic thesis that she deserves to have free contraception given to her because she cannot afford to pay for it herself.  Sandra, as an adult woman, has gone before congress, sat down and belched out a teary-eyed story of how difficult it is for her to engage in as much sex as she wants because she cannot access the amount of contraception she needs in order to satisfy and fulfill her sexual pleasures. College, Sandra says, is draining her financial resources so heavily that she is forced to curb her sexual appetite.  This really matters to Sandra, to many of her female friends at Georgetown, and to all liberal feminists.  Sex, and having sex, is more important to Sandra that anything else in her life.

Sandra also testifies that she is not alone; that there are other girls at her college who are having trouble purchasing contraception.  She even talked of one girl who had to walk away from a prescription counter because the price of the contraception, which this particular girl thought would be much lower, was more expensive, and more money than she had at the time.  Sandra talked about this girl, and the tragedy this girl was forced to endure, having to walk away from that counter and having to go back to her boyfriend (or whoever she was going to have sex with at the time) and explain to him that sex would be delayed, perhaps indefinitely.  It might have been priceless to see his reaction to the news he wasn’t “getting any”.

To Sandra, a liberal feminist, it is an outrage that she cannot be provided with as much free contraception as she wants.  This, apparently, is her reason, her only reason, for going to Georgetown University – a Jesuit college which does not provide on-campus contraception to its student body.  Sandra had hoped she could change that.  Sandra hoped that by testifying in front of congress she could expose the seedy underbelly of Georgetown University and its cold, anti-sex, anti-contraception outlook.  Sandra had hoped she could make a difference in her life, and the lives all the girls who attend Georgetown, and all the other nymphomaniacs who want, who need, sex but who cannot access the free contraception they need due to the stingy, niggardly, miserly attitude of the faculty at Georgetown University.

Sandra is an important reminder to all of us who love our daughters, and want our daughters to grow up to be real women, and real women of courage, valor, merit, and independence.  Sandra is important, and Sandra matters, because she shows us all what happens when we fail as parents and when we fail our daughters as parents.  Sandra matters because she is a wake up call to all of us with daughters who are soon to be off to college and must have the stamina and the fortitude to make decisions, to make the right decisions, for themselves.

Sandra reminds us all, as parents, that although our daughters will inevitably make mistakes along the way, if we have raised them right, if we have instilled within them a proper outlook and perspective on life and the real world, they will be able to amend those mistakes which they will make and carry on.  Sandra matters because she is a clear example of what happens when we neglect our daughters and their upbringing.  Sandra matters because there are millions of young girls on the edge of graduating high school, and while it is too late for Sandra, there is yet time for us, as parents, to prevent our daughters from making the calamitous fool of themselves as Sandra has done.

Sandra matters because she speaks for liberal feminism, and therefore expresses and exposes what liberal feminism really is, which is exceedingly base and depraved, void of morals, and replete with women, young and aged, who are more apt to snivel and feeling sorry for themselves, and blame a male dominated society for all their troubles and sorrows than blame themselves for what has gone wrong in their lives.

Sandra matters because she is the face of modern-day liberal feminism, whose ideas on birth control and contraception (and free access to it paid for by taxpayers), and on abortion are all driven by their mad lust for sex, and their need to equally compete for as much free sex as their male counterparts do.  That is why Sandra addressed congress, and why she compelled them to uphold the contraception mandate which would provide free birth control and contraception to sexually active girls like her.  Sandra’s entire thesis is that free contraception levels the playing field, and makes that playing field more equal.  And without free contraception, Sandra, all sexually active girls, are being deprived of not only a basic human need, but of equality and independence itself.  Without free contraception, argues Sandra, she and all young women will remain subservient to men because men do not get pregnant and do not share in the consequences of being pregnant.  Sandra argues that this is unfair, and the only way to make it fair is for her to be provided with free contraception.

Sandra matters because she reminds us that when we do fail as parents to instill in our daughters morals and ethics with regards to sex and our bodies, our daughters will grow up and becomes the next “Sandra Flukes”.  Sandra matters because it might one day be our daughter sitting before congress and making an absolute fool of herself in front of the entire nation.

Parents have many nightmares about sending their children off to college.  Should we have to worry about that as well?

More “Sharia Of The Mouth” From Muslims

If an America Muslim kills an American citizen who happens to, in that Muslim’s view, criticize or offend Islam, under Sharia law that killing would then be justified.  This is what some Muslims are pushing for in America as they attempt to incorporate Sharia law into American law.  When they say, for example, the importance of having Sharia law in America is because:

Sharia law guides Islamic life, from praying five times a day to fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and abstaining from pork, alcohol and sex outside of marriage…

This is merely a cover story, a ploy, a sham and a willful canard meant to sway and detract from the real ambitions of those Muslims who are trying to force the Islamification of America onto American citizens; to prevent, through law, any negative critique of Islam by legally protecting Islam from “insult” and “injury” with fines, imprisonment and possibly death.  The idea of executing an American citizen who offends Islam is not hyperbole.  Under sharia law, anyone who offends Islam can be put to death.

Remember the atheist who donned the zombie Mohammad costume?  He was attacked by a Muslim who had become offended by what he perceived to be an insult against Islam.  And although the Muslim was the aggressor, and the atheist was the victim of a horrendous crime, the liberal activist judge nonetheless threw out the case against the Muslim – and keep in mind that was without the aid of Sharia law.

American Muslims (who have devious and ulterior motives for America) don’t want Sharia law recognized in America, and in America law, as a means to “guide Islamic life”.  Nor does this insane, unconstitutional push by loony Muslims have anything to do with being able to “pray five times a day”, or “fast during the holy month of Ramadan”.  American Muslims can do that now.  They don’t need Sharia law for that.  What they do need Sharia law for is to punish, and severely, anyone who would “offend” Islam.  That is what this irrational and dangerous campaign is really all about.

One group of American Muslims is spending millions of dollars on billboard ads in cities across America to promote Sharia law in America, and to portray Islam as “peaceful” and “innocent”, and Sharia law a necessary part of their freedom of religion.

The campaign is a response to efforts to ban Sharia law over the last two years in state legislatures and on ballot initiatives, said Naeem Baig, vice president of public affairs for Islamic Circle of North America.

If this were Christians doing exactly what Muslims were doing, how far would they get in their campaign before the multitudes of anti-Christian zealots came out of the wood-works and hammered the organizers for trying to force their religion on Americans?  How long would it be before someone would invoke “separation of church and state”.  But when we do that with Islam, and Sharia law, we are somehow “Islamophobes.”

Says Baig:

“It’s a small minority of Islamophobes that are pushing the anti-Sharia bills, but it’s becoming mainstream. Now, even presidential hopefuls like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are talking about Sharia.  We see it not only an issue of Sharia but an issue of broader religious freedom.”

Baig is another one of these dangerous, radical Muslims who uses words like “Islamophobes” to describe a real fear that America is under assault from within by people who wish to undermine our culture and out society, and are trying to use the law in order to do it.  Sharia law consists of very strict, and non-negotiable, (that means no wiggle room) tenets and instructions for how to deal with anyone who commits an act which “harms” or brings “disgrace” to Islam.

Sharia law is the only law Muslims adhere to.  That is why, even in America, honor killings occur, and why American Muslims have no remorse for their actions.  They are merely following Sharia law – and Sharia law allows for, and protects, those Muslims who kill for the “honor” of their family and their faith.  They are, at least, protected from legal retribution in nations and states which are controlled by Islamic religious dictators and where Islam has a firm grip on its people.

Interestingly, those Muslims who demand Sharia law in America, themselves have no respect for American law, and even less for America itself.  Yet, they nonetheless would attempt to force their draconian view of law, and of crime and punishment, on us, demand we accept and respect Sharia law – and damn us for being “Islamophobic if and when we don’t.  There is something altogether disturbing about this.

Sharia law attacks come mostly from those fearing radical Muslims are introducing extreme interpretations of Islamic law, such as those practiced in Afghanistan under the Taliban, into American society.

Since it is not just the Taliban or Al-Qaeda that uses Sharia law to enforce its will on its people, that is a non-sequitor.  Or is the Taliban running Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and every other Islamic run nation and state in the world outside of Afghanistan?

America is governed by its Constitution, a unique document which, for over two hundred years, billions of people around the world have come to admire.  Still, and despite its powerful content, there are, and have been, any number of attempts to circumvent, to water down, to erode and to reinterpret this, one of the great achievements in human history; this bold statement which stands for freedom, liberty, prosperity and protections from governments and religions which, at various points in human history, have subjugated, enslaved, dehumanized and murdered its populations for having the audacity to want to live life with dignity and respect.

Sharia law does not allow anyone to live as, or to even be, a human being.  Not so long as it allows for the killing of human beings who might have an alternate view of Islam, or an opinion on any subject matter, Islam or otherwise.  Sharia law is there, and it exists, solely to enforce Islam on people anywhere Sharia law is the law.  And anywhere Sharia law is the law, radical, fundamental Islam will not be far behind.

And if that is untrue, then why else would those American Muslims who demand Sharia law be accepted in America as a separate law for them, care if Sharia law never does become accepted, and what other interest or need could they have in pushing Sharia law on America?  If Sharia is not merely a backdoor effort by American Muslims to let in radical, fundamental Islamic Jihadists whose motivations are to destroy America – why do those American Muslims feel they are hindered by American law and our Constitution in living their lives?

In other words – where in America can a Muslim not live their life, practice their faith – five times a day if they want – in peace, in freedom, in privacy?  What do we need Sharia law for?  Our Constitution already guarantees them freedom of religion.  Obviously that is not good enough for some devious American Muslims, and is not enough to satisfy them.  Because, ladies and gentleman, some American Muslims really want the legal ability and authority to literally get away with murder.  That is the only thing Sharia law provides for, protects and sanctions.  Well, that and the raping of women and little girls, and selling them to pay off debts or satisfy a dishonorable action one family member may have committed against another family.  “Little” things like that.

We are freer, and safer, in America without Sharia law.  We are freer, and safer, living under our current Constitution, which, among other rights, includes the right to criticize, even “offend” and “insult” other religions and religious values.  Or, do you beg to differ?  Do you dare?  Would you dare under Sharia law?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: