The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Hispanics/Latinos Without A Mind Of Their Own Is A Terrible Thing For Liberals To Waste

A Latino or Hispanic with a mind of their own is very dangerous indeed – for Democrats and liberals.  Dangerous because they tend to be more affluent, more educated, more financially stable, more firmly rooted in their families, their communities, in Americanism itself and supportive of  the original intent of the U.S. Constitution – and also very much legal American citizens with pro-American, pro-conservative attitudes who are more apt to vote Republican.

On the other hand, a Latino or Hispanic without a mind of their own is a terrible thing for a Democrat or liberal to let go to waste.  That is why Democrats and liberals always, always, pander, beg, prep their tongues and humble themselves before whatever orifice they need to lick to make Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own feel they are needed, important and special by promising them amnesty, free money, free education, free housing, free health care, free food, and gosh darn it these mindless, robotic Latinos and Hispanics, who don’t have a mind of their own will go into the voting booth each election cycle and pull the lever, punch the card, press the place on the screen that says vote Democrat.  Even a Latino or Hispanic without a mind of their own can surely differentiate between a “D” and an “R”, can’t they?

What liberals want us to believe is that unless Romney plays the “amnesty card” or the “DREAM Act card” he will not win enough of the Latino and Hispanic votes he needs in order to beat Barack Obama in November 2012.  And to believe that is to believe that all Hispanics and all Latinos are just as shallow, just as corrupt, just as disingenuous and just as criminally-minded as are Democrats and liberals.  Also, to believe that is to believe that all Hispanics and Latinos really want from America is a free ride.  How gullible do Democrats think we, conservatives, are?  How gullible do Democrats think Hispanics and Latinos are?  And – just how many Latinos and Hispanics need to be gullible to secure and lock up the Democrat vote this 2012 election?

S.S. Latino Blogger for the Arianna Nation (HuffPost), Kristian Ramos, is counting heavily on the gullibility of Hispanics and Latinos, and counting on more of them without minds of their own to  look instead at all the pretty little pictures, colors and shiny objects Democrats dangle over their heads to enamor them, lure them, bait them, hook them and entrap them, and reel them in to the Democrat basket where they will flop around helplessly until Democrats release them back into the sea that is the American populace – but only if they vote Democrat.  Otherwise, Democrats will leave them flopping around until the inevitable happens.

Ramos wants to know if Romney “will ever reach out to Hispanic Voters”.  If by “reaching out” Ramos means “prepping for a tongue lap dance” as Democrats do, then no, Romney will not sully himself as Democrats so readily and eagerly do.  And for Romney’s “snobbery” Ramos believes Hispanics and Latinos will not vote for him.  As if all Hispanics and Latinos need to be bathed in, and caressed by, a politician’s pandering and schmoozing tongue.  Perhaps that is the case with Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own.  But why would any Hispanic or Latino enjoy the feeling of a Democrat tongue lapping when that tongue Democrats wag and wiggle in front of them is razor sharp, diseased and laced with political poison?

Romney’s campaign outreach to Hispanics faces deep structural and policy deficits. His campaign does not have the necessary tools to present his best case to Hispanic voters. From a policy standpoint, his stance on the DREAM Act is complicated at best and his embrace of the Ryan Budget puts him at odds with Hispanic voters on education and Medicare.”

In other words – Romney won’t be corralled into the Democrat lie that all Hispanics and Latinos really want out of America is a free ride.  And that frustrates Ramos who knows that the more Hispanics and Latinos there are with minds of their own will vote for Romney, despite the fact that Romney will not support amnesty, the DREAM act or any type of free ride legislation scam and trap Ramos wants Latinos and Hispanics to fall for and become addicted to, and dependent upon from cradle to grave.

Ramos insists Romney’s numbers among Hispanics and Latinos are “sagging”.  This is simply not so.  Ramos also gets his information about Romney’s supposedly “sagging numbers” from another highly questionable and dubious source – the media!

What “media” pray tell could that be?  The biased, prejudiced, pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty, liberal, anti-American MSM perhaps?

Ramos thinks Hispanics and Latinos will feel slighted, insulted and dehumanized by Romney’s “self-deportation” statements he made recently.  However, Ramos misses two important facts.  One – Hispanics and Latinos with minds of their own can clearly see through the Democrat lies and pandering, and won’t be fooled into believing Romney is anti-Hispanic, anti-Latino.  Two – Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own are not intelligent enough to know when they are being slighted, insulted and dehumanized (and conned) to begin with.  Remember, all Hispanic and Latinos without minds of their own see are those pretty pictures, colors and shiny objects Democrats dangle overhead.  But they are merely illusions and mirages; intangible, unreachable, unattainable; unrealistic campaign promises, in other words.

How much of a mind does a Latino or Hispanic, or anyone, need to have to see through self-serving Democrats and liberals who only want their votes and are willing to do anything to court, pander and secure those votes, no matter how dirty, how disingenuous, how anti-American it is and they need to be?  How much of a mind does a Latino or Hispanic actually need to have to see that Republicans and conservatives do not view them as the mindless, robotic dummies Democrats do?  S.S. Blogger, Kristian Ramos, only believes Hispanics and Latinos without minds of their own are the key to a Democrat and Obama win this 2012 election.  Will he be right?

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?

Kent State “Massacre” Not As Important/Relevant Or “Popular” To America History

In 1970 four people became casualties of an anti-war movement sweeping across America.  Two, Allison Krause and Jeffrey Miller, were specifically protesting, while two others, Sandra Scheuer and William Knox Schroeder, were merely walking to their next class.  For Sandra and William a deep, sincere tragedy indeed, but – how do their deaths inspire an Arianna Nation S.S. writer, Jesse Kornbluth, to say that these four deaths are “the most popular murders ever committed in America“?  And if he is to call the killings “murder” would he also lay blame for those murders on the protesters themselves?  You could probably count your chickens before that happens.

After-all, it was a very violent protest.

May 1st – Trouble exploded in town around midnight when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at cars and breaking downtown store fronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long, more people had joined the vandalism and looting.  By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and transient people. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them.  (This from the very liberal and progressive, not a loyal supporter of conservatives or conservatism, Wikipedia)

If anything, the Kent State Massacre was a precursor to what we are seeing in America today with the “Occupy” crowd, and their violent anti-American terrorist-style activities.  And the deaths of these four people, especially the deaths of Sandra and William, were directly caused by the protesters themselves, not police, as liberals, like Kornbluth, would romanticize.

Police have a duty and a responsibility to keep order and civility.  When a large crowd of people become violent and out of control and begin vandalizing property, hurling rocks and beer bottles at police, which can be just as deadly as a bullet, what the hell are police supposed to so?  Stand there and let the vandalism continue?  Allow themselves to be sitting targets and possibly killed?  This police force had families, wives and children, of their own too.  Did the Kent State protesters ever give that any consideration?  Do any protesters give that the least bit of consideration?  Do the Occupy protesters of today give that any consideration?  Or are these types of violent protesters, by their very nature, by their own insatiable arrogance and corruptibility, their yearning for destruction and chaos and disorder, blind-sighted to reality?

The Kent State Massacre (and “massacre” is the wrong word to use.  They were deaths, at most killings, two of which, Allison and Jeffrey, could be considered justified.) may have had an impact on America, (a mere ripple in the water at best), but it is not as meaningful, as important, as worth remembering, and certainly not as “popular” as say the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, or any U.S President.  Nor was it in the same league of monumental importance (the sizematic consequences equivalent to a magnitude 10 earthquake or the impact left in the wake of the meteor which killed off over 90% of life on Earth 65 millions years ago) as was the first shot fired that started the American Revolutionary War or the American Civil War.  When we attribute misplaced empathy for violent protesters we justify their actions and embolden future agitators.

May 2 – City officials and downtown businesses received threats while rumors proliferated that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university.  (Also from the very liberal Wikipedia)

Had it not been for the extremely violent nature of the protesters, what happened at Kent State could have been avoided entirely, and Sandra and William could both be alive today.  Where is the commentary on that?  Nobody, at least in the liberal media, ever blames the protesters directly for the destruction, the mayhem, the millions of dollars in property damage they themselves cause.  Where is the commentary on that?

Why on Earth would anyone consider the deaths of four people, two of whom were contributing protesters, “the most popular murders ever committed in America”?  Obviously Kornbluth has intentionally disregarded an incredible bulk of American history, and he is hoping we will do the same.

Says Kornbluth:

“Kent State is America’s Tiananmen Square.”

Except the protesters at Tiananmen Square were not the least bit violent.  Kornbluth does an evil disservice comparing the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests with the Kent State “Massacre”.

And Kornbluth opines:

“It looks as if the killings at Kent State are moving inexorably from tragedy into history.”

And that is exactly where it belongs – as a side note, a footnote, relegated to a section of American history under the category of Vietnam Era Protests.  Because if we continue to give credence and credibility, empathy and sympathy, support and over concern for, and a media outlet to, dead protesters who commit, who participate and engage in, acts of violence and terrorism against America and American interests, we do more to further their insane cause and provide them with an unnecessary platform, a gateway into the minds of other impressionable, uncertain, doubtful American youths looking for something, anything they can latch onto to secure their own fifteen minutes of fame; to be heard, to have a voice, to be, and to amount to, something, even if that something is anti-Americanism.  That is the epitaph of the Kent State “Massacre”.

Liberals and Democrats justify the violence of the protesters at Kent State just as they justify the violence of the protesters of the “Occupy” movement.  How many more Americans are justifying their participation in the “Occupy” movement, and their violent behavior, because of Kent State, all the anti-American Vietnam War protests, and all the violent, chaotic, disruptive, uncivilized, vigilantist, anarchist, anti-American protests since?  How many more Americans (American youth in particular) have renounced their allegiance to America because of what happened at Kent State, what they have been falsely educated to believe about the Vietnam War and because they are emboldened and inspirited by Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Shultz and Barack Obama to be and to become even more violent?

Was the Kent State “Massacre” really worth four dead people to protesters trying to protest America’s involvement in a war they disapproved us being in?  Or were their deaths a “necessary evil” that helped put the spotlight on an unpopular war?  If you could ask them (those that protested at Kent State), if they could turn back the clock and prevent the protests at Kent State from ever occurring if it would mean saving the lives of Allison, Jeffrey, Sandra and William, – what would they say?  What would Kornbluth say?  And what then would Kornbluth have left to turn to decry as the “most popular murders in America”?

Chen Guangcheng: The Pompousness Of China Demands America Be Even More Pompous

With the 2012 Presidential election mere months away, would Barack Obama be daft enough to offer an open apology to China for aiding Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, whose only crime was speaking out about the horrors and inhumanity of forced abortions in China?  Would Obama, by this apology, thereby provide Republicans their own opportunity to attack Obama on what would be his incredible weakness and insensitivity on human rights abuses?  Doesn’t the escape of Chen, and the U.S. involvement in protecting and shielding him from Chinese retribution, box, even intern, Obama into a corner he himself cannot so easily escape?

Either way, Obama is going to piss a lot of people off.  Either the Chinese government, if he doesn’t apologize.  Or – his entire pro-abortion, pro-population control, Democrat/Socialist base if he does apologize.  Will Republicans and conservatives be smart enough to use this issue to excoriate Obama and Democrats, by exposing how insincere and hypocritical Democrats and liberals really are when it comes to human rights abuses – if those abuses are the result of so-called “dissidents” being involved in acts of saving and protecting human life in the womb?

Whatever Obama does (and in all rationality that will not include an apology) there is, and there remains, far too much “ceremony” and “dance” between the United States and China going on in regards to Chen Guangcheng and that apology China demands – and the ridiculousness of that apology.

Indeed, there is, peculiarly and suspiciously, far too much nonsense and shuffling of feet, and of hands in pockets, between America and China on a range of human rights issues.  China has even censored Chen’s escape from its own people.  Obama is feeling the pressure from all sides to do something for Chen; something which will undoubtedly further antagonize China.  But to wash his hands of Chen at this point would further destabilize, demoralize and demonize Obama’s reelection bid.

Chen has since left the U.S. Embassy with the assurance from China both he and his family would not be harmed.  Even that begs the question – what kind of a government engages in psychological terror against its own people by threatening to bring harm to one’s entire family for the crimes of that one family member?  And, what is China’s word really worth?

And – is it moral to allow some Chinese (and with a population over one billion, “some” is meant to represent millions) to be, and to continue to be, abused and to have their rights, their dignity, their humanity stripped away from them because America is afraid of antagonizing China to the point its shuts its country, and its money, off completely from America?

If China is engaged in such horrific practices against its own people (which there is clear evidence it is); if America is aware of it (which America is); if an “aware” America ignores these abuses, whatever reasons America would offer for turning a blind eye, what does that say about the morality of America?  To put it blatantly, America needs to stop sucking up to the Chinese for their money and the money they use to buy American debt.  America needs to abandon any fear it has with regards to the Chinese military and its capability, including its nuclear prowess.  America needs to put aside China’s power as an economic force in this world.  Or, is China’s military, its economy and its money, and the money China uses to buy our debt, worth allowing China to continue, unhindered, abusing its own people?  Is it worth buying time, hoping diplomacy will eventually win out and China will see the senseless cruelty it has heaped upon its own people?  How many more of China’s citizens is America willing to “throw under the bus” in that meantime?

It is China who owes America an apology for bribing U.S officials to look the other way when it commits human rights abuses against is own people.  It is China who owes its own people an apology for the human rights abuses and atrocities it has committed against them.  And it is the U.S. government who owes Americans an apology for accepting billions of dollars in blood money in exchange for being so complacent.

It is a fallacy that America needs China’s money, or that America needs China to bail out America’s debt.  Our debt crisis can be solved through proper fiscal restraint.  It certainly won’t be solved by printing more money, tacking that money onto the national debt and having China continuously buy that debt, in effect buying an even larger piece of America.  The debt owned by China is staggering enough already.  But – what happens if diplomacy between China and the U.S breaks down because of America’s involvement in helping Chen escape further persecution?  America loses an investor?  Is that a big deal?  Or, to put it another way – is keeping China as an investor worth the continued human rights abuses China systematically, intentionally commits upon its own people?

Isn’t about time we did have leaders with the tenacity and gall to stand up to China?  Or do we respect leaders more when they keep theirs mouths shut, their eyes closed, in exchange for all the money China invests in America?  No!  America need leaders who can openly, courageously, frankly and forcefully, address the human rights abuses in China directly, with less pomp and more pompousness of its own.

Wouldn’t Obama be better to dis China, work first on getting reelection – get reelected – then he can have the luxury all second term Presidents have in that he won’t have the worries associated with campaigning or offending anyone because he is a lame-duck President?  At that point he can work to regain Chinese-American relations, whatever that means in the face of continued human rights abuses.  That, assuming Obama wins.  If he loses (presumably to Mitt Romney) then Chen, and Chinese-American relations become someone else’s problem.  But at least Chen, and his family, would have been saved from whatever punishment China might have exacted upon them.  Isn’t that worth the gamble of slighting China for the next nine or ten months?

Anti-Americans Say Drop the “I” Word; Pro-Americans Say Drop The False Pretenses

If you lived outside of America, and you wanted to enter America, and were willing to do it illegally, would you do it merely for the purpose, the recognition of, being a human being, or more of a human being than you may feel you are now in your current locale?  Or would you do it, more logically, in order to find and secure a better life for yourself?

Supporters of Illegal Aliens are pushing a new anti-America propaganda scheme called “Drop the I-Word”.  In their view, the “I” word is illegal and it is in reference to illegal aliens and those illegal aliens that cross over into America illegally (that is to say without either the permission or knowledge of the United States Government.  Hence – illegally), insisting that illegal aliens are “human beings” and that alone entitles them to be in America and to be granted American citizenship, or at least all the rights American citizens have even if they are not actually American citizens.  The intent of this anti-America group is blatant, obvious and damning, and that is to further weaken the sovereignty of America and to literally melt, dissolve and absorb our entire nation, its geography and it borders, into that of Mexico so that becomes indistinguishable, invisible and irrelevant.  Try doing that with the Mexican-Guatemalan border!

Nobody denies that illegal aliens are human beings.  However, neither are they automatically American citizens if they happen to be lucky enough to sneak into America, illegally, and not be caught.  Anyone who does that ought to have their opportunity to be an American citizen permanently revoked.  Every nation on Earth, and that includes America, is a “nation of laws”.  (Even lawless nations like Syria, Iran and North Korea.)

Yet – millions of people, many of whom are Americans, don’t want to see it that way.  These people, who despise the prosperity of America, and those people who have become prosperous in America, will do everything and anything they can to undermine the legitimacy of America and of our Constitution and to steal the wealth created and earned by Americans through legal and honest means, and work to prevent poor and middle class Americans from having the same, or any, opportunities to rise up and realize their own economic and financial successes.

How is America made better if everyone is made, and made to be, poor?  Or does that just make everyone feel better, to be united in poverty, and an equal share of that poverty, and wholly dependent upon government to survive?  Because that is exactly where anti-American groups, which include any and all groups affiliates with, supportive of, and advocates for the “Drop the I-word” campaign are trying to take us all – and that includes Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.

They hate the word illegal when it is applied to people sneaking/breaking into America, and yet they would use illegal in reference to all the wealth created and earned by millions of Americans, in particular that wealth created and earned through and from Wall Street.  Somehow, in their warped and idiotic, and narrow-minded, view trespassing onto, and into, America without authorization or permission is not illegal, but making, creating and especially earning wealth in America is, and ought to be, illegal.

The same anti-America crowd that despises wealth because they are convinced, wrongly so, that that wealth was generated off the backs of poor people (illegal alien migrants included) who sweated and toiled long, exhausting, back-breaking hours, making little money for themselves, in order for some Americans to attain that wealth is the same anti-America crowd that supports illegal immigration into America, calling those people not illegal aliens but human beings in search of a better life for themselves and their families.  Does anyone for a moment really accept the notion that being a human being ought to grant anyone immediate and permanent access, and citizenship, to America?

How is anyone (legal American and illegal alien respectively) supposed to attain wealth or any sense, any vision, of financial and economic freedom in America if wealth, and becoming wealthy, in America is made illegal because not everyone can, or will attain wealth, or the same amount of wealth?  In other words, anti-America crowds are literally seeking to ensure no one person in America (legal citizen or not) has more wealth than any other person.  Ironically, that may be the one factor, the one defining draw-back to illegal immigration into America, once people from other countries realize that even if they do break into America, and are successful at remaining hidden, they will never attain any wealth being here because wealth itself, and wealth creation, has been made illegal.  And then we will see whether or not being an American citizen, to illegal immigrants, is the same as being a human being, or worth it to them just to be defined as human beings, if there is no money in it.

What would the rationale be for breaking into a country in the hopes of better opportunities if all those opportunities are either illegal, or, because no one person is able to attain any more wealth than another, made worthless?

The greatness of American is that it affords (and in how it affords) any American citizen with freedoms and opportunities unlike, and unique to, any other nation on Earth.  When the right policies (low taxes, tax rates and regulations) are put in place, where every American has the same, and equal, opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families, it does not matter if you were born into poverty, or born in another country and immigrated legally to America – everyone has a fair and balanced opportunity to succeed.  Not everyone does, of course.  But does that mean we penalize all Americans, even those Americans who are on the verge of success, from succeeding and realizing the American Dream?  Or should all Americans be forced to fail because some Americans do?

The Democrat Party, and Barack Obama, have worked to destroy the American Dream, and while they have managed a few successes, they have not fully been able to implement their entire redistribution of wealth agenda.  Illegal immigration and illegal aliens are one of the weapons the Democrat Party is using to combat wealth in America by driving down the standards of living for, and the wages earned by, American citizens.  If illegal aliens will work for less, then obviously that is an incentive to hire illegal aliens.  It is also an incentive to keep wages down for everyone.  They (illegal aliens) also vote Democrat.

The whole “Drop the I-word” campaign is a canard and being orchestrated under very false, very dangerous, pretenses.  It is meant to both legalize, and legitimize, all the 12 to 20+ million illegal aliens that are now in America, and to usher in millions more people from, although mainly Mexico and Central America, anywhere in the world.  And, to a great extent, keep the Democrat Party in power.  Remember – illegal aliens vote Democrat.

But, if being an American citizen has no more value placed on it than simply being a human being, why do so many tens to hundreds of millions of people around the world want to be Americans if all it means to be an American is to be a human being, but a human being in perpetual poverty and servitude to government because wealth, and wealth creation, has been made illegal?  Isn’t that the whole reason why they are escaping their own country to come to America?  And – who wants to be, who cares about being, a human being if all it means to be a human being (aka an American citizen) means living under repressive and oppressive conditions such as those the Democrat Party wants to implement under the guise of wealth redistribution?

America cannot let in everyone who wants to come in, and America certainly cannot allow just anyone to enter without being thoroughly documented, vetted and processed.  What country on Earth would ever do that, and why is America the only country on Earth expected to do that?

There is only one reason, and one reason alone, why anyone wants to come to America, legally and illegally.  Is that reason really just to be a human being?  If they can’t be “human beings” in their own countries, because their own countries are oppressive and repressive, how does making America as equally, or more, oppressive and repressive by making wealth, and wealth creation, illegal an incentive to immigrate to America legally and illegally?  And – will being an America citizen matter at all to anyone, including Americans citizens, once there is no distinction between being an American citizen and being a citizen of any other nation in the world if to be an American citizen is to be, and to remain in, an equal share of perpetual poverty and servitude to government?

If, and when, that ever happens we will all be trying to escape into Canada.  Can you ever imagine that?

Treat Captured Terrorists Like Terrorists – Not Like A New Born Baby Or The Family Pet

Now might be the best opportunity available to become an anti-American terrorist, if you listen to anything the Arianna Nation (HuffPost) has to say on the matter of prisoner “torture” and enhanced interrogation techniques, which include water-boarding and sleep deprivation.  And on that note, just how many anti-American terrorists does the Arianna Nation continuously give aid and comfort to by writing anti-American trash every day?

The point of the so-called “torture” techniques is obvious to anyone with a drop of American blood in them: to extrapolate vital and timely information from captured combatants (terrorists) and use that information to save many more lives, as many as possible, from being murdered.  For any hot-blooded, anti-American, anti-Western terrorist wanna-be, the chance to kill American soldiers is hard to pass up.  If we (America) were actually to give up on these techniques, which are used selectively and deliberately on very specific individuals, and used very rarely anyway, wouldn’t that do more to embolden terrorists?  In other words, if a terrorist knew, in the back of his head, that all the while he was killing Americans he was not the least bit worried about being captured because if he was, there would be a nice, comfortable, cushy bed in a big room waiting for him; a nice hot meal, three times a day; a shower and a toilet; a lawyer, paid for by American taxpayers; even a Qur’an and a prayer carpet (for the Muslim terrorist).

There is a difference between a captured terrorist who we are holding, and a captured prisoner of war.  An enormous and fundamental difference that the Arianna Nation, and liberals in general, do not seem, or want to seem, to see or understand or differentiate between.  Terrorists are not fighting for a country but for an idea.  Terrorists are not wearing their country’s military uniform or waving their country’s flag or banner.  They are wearing whatever garb they happen to have in their personal wardrobe, and ideally clothing that can easily conceal explosives.  Terrorists are not operating on direct orders from a legally recognized national leader, President, dictator, etc.  Rather, terrorists are taking their orders from another terrorist higher up, who, in turn is taking their orders from another terrorist higher up the ladder, and so on until it reaches the top terrorist.

Conversely, a prisoner of war is understood, by definition, to describe a soldier apprehended who is wearing their country’s military uniform, who is fighting for, and on behalf, and sanctioned through, their country’s government; and who is fighting on direct orders from their country’s top leader, whether that be its President, dictator, or whoever is legally recognized to be running the country.  And we do have rules on how to treat those prisoners, and valid reasons as to why we treat prisoners of war with less hostility and more respect than we do with terrorists, even though in both cases, whether it be the terrorist or prisoner of war, they are both trying to kill American soldiers.

The Arianna Nation has described the enhanced interrogation techniques as “worthless” because:

A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats is expected to find there is little evidence the harsh “enhanced interrogation techniques” the CIA used on high-value prisoners produced counter-terrorism breakthroughs.”

This, despise the fact that there is not only even less information to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that treating terrorists with human compassion and a deep and abiding respect actually deters others from becoming terrorists, but that in doing so – that is, in treating terrorists more humanely, more kindly and considerately, more pleasantly, tenderly and lovingly, we are actually encouraging more people to become terrorists because, and it all goes back to this – for any hot-blooded, anti-American, anti-Western terrorist wanna-be, the chance to kill American soldiers is already too irresistible and hard to pass up, even knowing that being captured may very well include “torture” techniques being used on you to extract vital information we think you may know (whether you do or not) about your band of terrorists, their whereabouts, their activities and what they have planned next and where they will carry out their next terrorist attack.  How, and why, in the hell is a terrorist expected to give up this information if, instead of throwing a towel over their head and submerging them in cold water, we place a three coarse meal in front of them and provide them with legal counsel at our own expense?

Liberals are sympathetic to terrorists, especially those terrorists that are anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy.  The only real difference between a liberal and a terrorist is that terrorists carry out what liberals only dream and fantasize about carrying out.  Not convinced?  Look at the “Occupy” movement.  They are planning some rather impressively radical activities which are coming closer and closer to being defined as terrorism.  So, in a sense, liberals are beginning to move from the “dream” stage to the reality stage of terrorism and actually becoming terrorists.

We have to do something with the terrorists we capture.  And we have to make every attempt possible to extract whatever information these terrorists might know about their band, and about any upcoming attacks.  Why does doing this incense liberals and make them uncomfortable, and uncomfortable to be Americans?

It may be true that you can “catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”.  And it may also be true that “one hand helps another”.  It may also be true that “one act of kindness comes back to you threefold”.  However, we are dealing with terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up, and as many innocent women and children and elderly as they can for what they believe in.  And what they believe in all pertains to the after-life, not life on this planet.

But, when we are able to capture one of them, put a towel over their head and submerge them in cold water; when they feel death gripping them, and earthly life slipping away, slowly, agonizingly, under that duress they begin to appreciate this life all the more, and are not so eager to join their fellow comrades who have already made it to the after-life.  It is at that moment where our military has the best opportunity available to gain valuable information and prevent another terrorist attack from occurring, and save lives.  Why would we squander that opportunity because it makes pathetic, worthless liberals, like those affiliated with the Arianna Nation, uncomfortable and sad to be Americans?

Until the day comes when our military abandons the “take no prisoner” mentality, literally, we will continue to take prisoners.  When we are at war with terrorists, who are not fighting on orders from their government, who are, for the most part, operating in small tight-knit bands, who do not recognize, accept or even acknowledge the Geneva convention rules for engaging in war, why in the hell should America or our allies extend to them (the terrorists) the benefits, perks, the courtesy and privilege, all at the expense of the American taxpayer, of being a prisoner of war?  How does providing more safety and security to the terrorist benefit America more, and provide more safety and security to America, than it does the terrorist?

Is Martin Luther King’s Dream Dead?

When are we going to actually start judging people by “the content of their character” in America and not by the “color of their skin”?  The recent attacks of blacks against whites, the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident, and the whole “justice for Trayvon” mentality washing over America right now is good indication that we still have a long way to go.  Of course, it does not help “race” matters to have race baiters and hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton egging people on.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have the New Black Panther Party openly put a bounty on the head of George Zimmerman and be allowed a free pass from the federal government.  Nor does it help “race” matters to have Louis Farrakhan and the so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright spouting their anti-white rhetoric.  All of this has culminated into creating an angry black mob attack against a white man whom people in authority are saying has absolutely nothing to do with race, racism, or Trayvon Martin.  Are we, black and white, really that stupid to believe that?

(From Society Bytes)

Mobile, Alabama Mob Attack Against Owens Was Racial, And “Justice For Trayvon Martin” Was A Motivating Factor

An arrest has been made in the Matthew Owens mob attack that left him in critical condition.  A man by the name of Terry Rawls has been arrested.  According to witnesses, the attack was really only between Owens and Rawls, who have had a verbal war, or sorts, going on for three years.  On the day of the attack, apparently some kids were out in the street playing basketball and Owens confronted them.  The kids went back and told their parents, and they all gathered together and went to see about Matthew Owens.  Now the scene is set.  We have our mob of 20 black attackers going to confront Owens because he “fussed” about some kids playing basketball in the street.  (Is that the best and most appropriate place to play basketball or anything else?)  Allegedly racial slurs were slung – but the article does not say who slung them.  In any event tensions escalated to the point were this mob of 20 blacks stopped their verbal assault and began to physically assault Owens with “paint cans, pipes and chairs”.  Also, witnesses claim a women screamed from her car as she was leaving, “That’s justice for Trayvon”.  Now, here we have an instance where there are witnesses, but they are being dismissed.  Yet, there are no witnesses to the Trayvon Martin killing (expect George Zimmerman, who admits killing him, but in self-defense), and yet conclusions have already been drawn about Zimmerman’s guilt.  Let’s assume, for a moment, that the witnesses who made that claim were mistaken.  What was the motivation for 20 blacks to beat up one white person?  Because he told some kids not to play basketball in the street?  Yikes!  How many times do any of us see kids doing something they ought not to be doing because it is dangerous to them and could damage someone’s property?  Wasn’t there a time when we could tell kids to get off the street without worrying about being killed, or near to it,  and they did get off the street?  And their parents scolded the kids for being out in the street, not the person who told them to get off the street?  Or does that only happen on “Leave it to Beaver”, or a television program from the wholesome 1950’s?  And why, if there had been tensions between Owens and Rawls for three years, did it take a mob of 20 blacks to bring it to a climax?  Neighbors do have words with one another over issues. And apparently he and Rawls had had physical altercations before, and police were called, but charges never filed.  What was it about that particular day, that was different from any other day in the previous three years this has been going on?  In other words – had the Trayvon Martin incident never occurred, would a mob of 20 blacks really have gotten together and beat the hell out of a white man because he told their kids not to play basketball in the street?  But Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, rejects the notion that this crime was in any way racially motivated, or even a hate crime, or spurred on by the Trayvon Martin incident.  So too does Corporal Chris Levy, who is with the Mobile Police Department.  He said, “I can tell you without a doubt 100 percent that the Trayvon Martin case was not the motivating factor.  That 100 percent, it is an ongoing incident between people who have been fighting for a few years now.”  Really?  Let that be a lesson to any of you to think twice when you confront kids out in the street playing basketball, or any game, and doing things they ought not to be doing out in the street because it is dangerous and they could get hurt, and/or damage the cars out there.  First check and make sure they are the same color as you.  (You might still get beaten up, but at least race cannot be claimed as a factor)  And second, make sure there hasn’t been another Trayvon Martin incident in the news for a while that the kids’ parents can use as an excuse and as “justice” when they come to beat you up.  When the day comes when it is a mob of twenty whites beating the hell out of a black, and where one of them is “allegedly” shouting “that’s justice for Zimmerman”, can we expect a mayor, a police officer, anyone of authority, to insist “100 percent” that race and racism was not a motivation or a factor?  And if they did, couldn’t we expect to see that mob grow just a little bit overnight?

What the hell do we have to do in America to revive King’s “Dream”?

Originally posted on Society Bytes:

Would the MSM dare show this “adult” picture of Trayvon Martin to its liberal audience?  (Click the photo to read the full story)  For tens of millions of Americans who get their news daily from the MSM, have they seen this rather unflattering and vulgar photo of Trayvon Martin?  Would the MSM ever show this photo, or would they keep on showing older photos of Trayvon, during more “innocent” times in his life?  The liberal MSM has, from the very beginning portrayed Trayvon Martin as the victim of a hate crime; a sweet, lovable, innocent young teenage boy who could not possible commit a crime of any kind, or hurt or harm another living human soul.  The photographs they have used of Trayvon have all been taken from when he was a young teenager. An angelic little boy who could not hurt a fly.  That is what the MSM is…

View original 477 more words

Get Over It! Mutilating Girls Is Not Just A Rite – It’s A Right! (Or Do You Beg To Differ?)

"happy" girl undergoing FGM

Accept itmutilating girls, in their teens and barely out of the womb, cutting and slicing their genitals with a precision learned over hundreds of generations, sewing them up tight until their wedding night, and leaving  only a small opening for them to pass urine and blood, is a rite of passage and a right itself that cannot be challenged.

Another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Live with it – taking a girl to an undisclosed location, against her will or not, to a private room where other woman are “waiting”; undressing her, prepping her for the “doctor” without her fully understanding why; lying her down and utilizing the other women in the room to hold her down, (blind folding her if necessary); and, without any anesthesia or anything to dull the pain, plunging the sharp instrument into her fleshy and sensitive genitalia to remove that part of her anatomy associated with “sin” is a practice that cannot be infringed upon.  It happens in America too

And another "happy" girl undergoing FGM

Ignore itthese girls who undergo female genital mutilation (FMG) are not your children writhing in excruciating pain and unbearable agony, screaming out in terror for their mother, somebody in that room, to stop what they are doing to them.  What goes in that room, to that girl, stays in that room, and is none of your business.  They have a right to privacy without you trying to intervene to stop it or them.  These people have the right to continue this thousands of years old practice unimpeded, unhindered by you, and over your, biased objections.

Who are you to think you can prevent it?

Either the above is absolute fact, or it is not.  If it is absolute fact, then untold millions more girls will be forced to undergo female genital mutilation for generations and generations to come, while untold, undocumented, numbers of those girls will die, either from blood loss, severe trauma, or any number of health related infections.  If it’s not absolute fact, if it’s just that much wrong, if you are just too undecided, wavering between honoring a “sacred, traditional and religious rite” and what more and more people around the world, including those people living within societies that practice FGM, are realizing is a “human right” to not be mutilated for being female, watch this video:

Ladies and gentlemen – we as human beings have but two options in dealing with the issue of female genital mutilation.  One, we can indeed ignore it, live with it and accept it, shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves that this practice is not of our culture, not of our traditions, not of our religious teachings, not a part of our social norms and therefore none of our business.  Two, we can throw all that nonsense to the wayside and make it our business.

If we choose the latter, do we have the courage to take on a very powerful element in this world that will become, not merely insulted, but very violent and attack us should they feel they, and their religious ideals and practices, are being threatened?  Female genital mutilation is not done for one single health related reason.  It is purely religious, and predominately, vastly so, an Islamic practice.  Are we prepared to attack that part of Islam, or any religion, that supports, compels and commands their female populations have their genitals mutilated and sewn up until they are married to ensure they remain chaste and pure and virgin?

Conservatives support males and females abstaining from sex until marriage, but there is not a serious American conservative that supports FGM.  It is an atrocity; an abomination; an inhumane practice.  One in which either needs to be put to a stop from within those societies that practice it, or (if they refuse, or cannot do it without additional aid) from those societies that find FGM so abhorrently unnecessary, so unwarrantably, excruciatingly painful and agonizing an ordeal, and diametrically opposed to all rational, reasonable and medical advice and knowledge.

We have no qualms entering a society to provide food, clothes, medicine, education and other services.  Why on Earth would we be uncomfortable entering a society to protect girls from being tortured by having their vaginas mutilated, cut apart and sewn up because the male population of that society dictates it be done to ensure virginity?

We have no qualms calling into question, and ridiculing, ancient religious practices once performed by the predecessors of Christianity, Catholicism and Judaism, but now scorned and abandoned and outlawed by the vast, vast majority of its modern-day descendants.  Why on Earth would we be squeamish about calling into question, and ridiculing, current religious practices that continue to mutilate, and kill, girls that have no basis in any religious teachings, but which serve solely to keep in tact the concept of a male dominated society?

If female genital mutilation is more a crime against humanity than it is a rite of passage, then we ought not be so overly worried or concerned about insulting those people, societies and cultures that engage in this atrocious practice.  It is they that need the wake up call.  It is us that must sound the alarm.

Either we can get over our apprehensions, our insecurities and fear of retribution, and start pushing for very harsh and unbearable sanctions, restrictions, and other calculated pressure, on those societies which still practice female genital mutilation, or – we can get over the fact that this practice is still extant.

Millions of girls around the world about to have FGM done to them are awaiting our decision.  Scores, and hundreds of millions more girls, not yet born, will want a decisive answer as well.  The wait may have been funny in Caddyshack. 

Is the wait funny in real life?

(This poll is multiple choice)

  Related articles

Experimental Blog Published; “Society Bytes”

A new blog has been published, still in the experimental stages, called Society Bytes.  The goal of the blog is to write numerous, smaller articles on a wide array of topics that will not bury the lead story found on The Neosecularist.  It may last, it may not.  One post has been published so far – 17 Reasons To Vote For Mitt Romney, Defeat Barack Obama.  It is hoped that this blog will serve as another creative source for intelligence and reason on the conservative side.

Dog Dismembers Two Month Old Child; Abortionist Dismembers Two Month Old Fetus – What’s The Difference?

Here’s a sad and disheartening story out of Summerville, S.C. – a two month old child has been killed, dismembered, by a family dog.  It’s a tragedy that tugs at the hearts of any parent.  But – why is it when, instead of a family dog, or wild animal, doing the killing, it is an abortionist doing the killing, and the dismembering of a fetus –  that kind of a story does not horrify the same people who become horrified and saddened over the death of a two month old child?  In other words, what is the difference between a “family dog” killing and dismembering a two month old child, and an abortionist killing and dismembering a two months old fetus, or a fetus at any stage of development?

When a pet, however tame, in a moment of “wildness” injures or kills a child – isn’t it routine to “put down” (kill) that pet?  We would never consider doing that to an abortionist, would we?  The animal, on the one hand, which commits the injury, or killing, of a child does not do so with premeditated  intent or knowledge that in doing so it will ultimately harm the child.  The abortionist, on the other hand, when it kills and dismembers the fetus from the womb, absolutely does do so with premeditated intent and with the knowledge that in doing so they will ultimately be causing the death of the unborn child.

Why is it moral to kill the animal for doing something it does not know, does not have the capacity to know, is going to result in the injury or death of the child, or person, it attacks?  And – why is it moral to allow an abortionist to do something to a fetus, an unborn child, knowing, and having the capacity and intelligence to know, full well that what they are doing is killing the fetus?

The same people who would argue the position of “Well, the child is two months old and already out of the womb”, and who use that as reason enough to justify the difference are the same people who support partial birth abortion.  In other words, does a child have to be fully out of the womb before it is afforded legal protection and status as a human being?  And is that why supporters of abortion so vigorously support any method of killing the unborn child, even partially delivering it; then killing it; then removing the rest of the corpse from the womb?

There is only one difference between a dog, any animal, injuring and/or killing a child/person and an abortionist killing an unborn child in/partially out of the womb.  The abortionist is doing it knowingly, intentionally and with the full knowledge of what they are doing will result in the killing of the unborn child.  (The abortionist is also doing it knowing they will be paid for their services.)

Why do we tolerate the abortionist killing the unborn child?  Why do we “put down” the animal for doing, ultimately, the same thing as the abortionist?  The abortionist, or the animal – which is the more ravenous and wild?

There Are Cuts On George Zimmerman’s Head, But – Who Put Them There?

How did these cuts find their way atop George Zimmerman’s head?

Real? Fake? From Trayvon? Or from Zimmerman himself?

This photo of cut marks on top of George Zimmerman’s head was initially, and intentionally, kept from the public by the liberal MSM who, in its biased and slanted journalism wanted Zimmerman to be absolutely guilty, without question, of killing Trayvon Martin.  Now that this photo has been published, and millions of Americans have seen it, what conclusions can we draw?

Either Trayvon did this to Zimmerman, or Zimmerman did this to himself.  On the other hand, even if Trayvon did do this to Zimmerman, did Trayvon do it as the aggressor, or was he actually defending himself against Zimmerman?  In other words, was Trayvon attacked by Zimmerman, because Zimmerman sincerely thought Trayvon was threatening him and Zimmerman feared for his life?  This may very well be an example where both Trayvon and Zimmerman were acting in self-defense, or where they both perceived they were acting in self-defense because neither really knew the other person’s intentions.

Due to a complete misunderstanding, there may not have actually been an aggressor, if both Trayvon and Zimmerman thought they were defending themselves from being verbally and physically threatened and attacked.  What that would mean is that neither Trayvon nor Zimmerman is legally guilty of committing a crime, because, from a serious misunderstanding, each person thought they were being, or going to be, attacked and physically harmed, and rather than second guessing the other person’s motives, each one went on the defense.

What ramifications could that possibly have here in America, if neither Zimmerman or Trayvon is guilty?

Whether Or Not Romney Is “Conservative Enough” Ought To Be Irrelevant To Conservatives

Mitt Romney is a conservative.  In light of the fact that Barack Obama is a liberal, just how conservative Romney is pales in comparison to just how liberal Obama is.   Conservatives control the House, they may control the Senate after 2012 as well, or at least gain more seats.  A Romney win, with a conservative House and a conservative Senate, or having gained more seats in the Senate, is far more important to conservatives and conservatism, and to America, than quibbling over just how conservative Romney really is.  Is Romney a liberal?  If not, then he must be a conservative.  He is not a moderate. Why are we wasting time debating Romney’s conservatism when we ought to be uniting behind him because he is the better choice over Obama?

The same people “frightened” over Romney being a Mormon are the same people who are frightened by Obama and the policies he has enacted over the course of his Presidency.  Which is more frightening?  Romney being a Mormon?  Or – Obama’s policies?

The same people who challenge Romney’s conservatism are the same people who challenge Obama’s legitimacy as President and as an American citizen, and his policies.  Which is the better and more pertinent challenge?  Romney’s conservatism?  Or  – Obama’s policies?

The same people who insist Romney is not conservative enough, are the same people who insist Obama is too liberal.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney, who may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?  Or  – Obama, who is too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who fear Romney will not push for conservative policies with as great a fervor as they believed Rick Santorum, or other Republicans, might have, are the same people who fear Obama would push for more liberal policies in his second term.  Which is the better alternative?  Romney pushing for conservative policies, even if they are not deemed “conservative enough” for some conservatives?  Or – Obama, who would push for more liberal policies deemed too liberal for all conservatives?

The same people who worry Romney, as President, will let them down by not supporting, more vigorously, more courageously, conservative issues, policies and legislation, are the same people who are now worried because of the issues, policies and legislation Obama has supported.  Which is less worrisome?  Romney supporting some conservative issues, policies and legislation, and supporting some more vigorously and courageously than others?  Or  – Obama, who supports zero conservative issues, policies and legislation, nor would he in his second term, and who supports liberal issues, policies and legislation very aggressively, very vigorously?

The same people who oppose Romney as the Republican nominee for President, and as President, because he is a Mormon, are the same people who oppose Obama being President because they either believe he is a Muslim or an atheistic/counterfeit Christian President.  Which is less unsettling?  Romney, who is a Mormon, and someone who upholds the same values as conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?  Or – Obama, who, regardless of whether or not he is an atheist, a Muslim or a Christian, upholds values diametrically opposed to conservative Christians, Catholics and Jews?

There is no logical reason for conservatives to oppose Romney on the basis that he is not “conservative enough”.  He is more conservative than Obama, and that should be the more, and the most, important criteria than anything else, and Romney as President ought to make all conservatives more comfortable than Obama as President.

Why is it worth it to any conservative to quibble, to squabble, to debate just how conservative Romney is, compared to Obama?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see Obama reelected to a second term because Romney may not be conservative enough for some conservatives?

Why is it worth it to any conservative to see America taken down an even darker and dangerous path, all conservatives agree Obama would in his second term, than it is in seeing Romney beating Obama in the 2012 election and having that much more of a chance to change that path to a better and more brighter one, simply because Romney may not be “conservative enough” for some conservatives?

Is Romney a RINO – Republican in name only?  Not only is there is no evidence to this, Romney has clearly stated his positions on the issues throughout the debates.  Romney is clearly a Republican, and a conservative Republican, in his politics.  Is Obama a DINO – Democrat in name only?  Not only is there no evidence to this, Obama has clearly demonstrated that he is a Democrat, and a liberal Democrat, and supports, with a passion, Democrat positions and issues that every other liberal supports.  Which makes conservatives less anxious?  Romney, even if he is a RINO?  Or  – Obama, who has 3 1/2 years worth of a track record supporting a very liberal agenda, and who will continue that agenda into a second term?

Which is the better use of time and energy for conservatives?  That time and energy invested quibbling over whether or not Romney is “conservative enough” to be President of America?  Or  – that time and energy invested in standing behind, and with, Romney, for President of America over Barack Obama?

Need Another Reason To Flip The Finger To Public Education And Home School Your Kids?

Watch this video and then decide on the state of public education and the “value”, the necessity of public schools over private or home schooling.

Not a day goes by, it seems, when some public school somewhere does something so incredibly stupid, and gets away with it.  How many more reasons do we need before we start to demand more accountability for the public schools we pay for?

Psychopath Sandra Fluke; Her Spoiled Little Brat Syndrome

Being 30 years old has not stopped Sandra Fluke from acting a lot like a spoiled little brat.  You know, the child that doesn’t get her way so she throws a tantrum until she does get her way; the child who always points her finger to another person and lays blame on them for an accident she committed herself; the child who will lie and lie and lie until she gets her way.  That’s Sandra Fluke!

Sandra Fluke enrolled into Georgetown University for one reason, by her own admission, solely to make her case as to why the religious university ought to provide contraception to its students, and why it ought to be provided for free.  Sandra was smart enough (psychopaths generally have a high intelligence level) to know that Georgetown would rebuke, rebuff and flat-out deny her “request”.

Enter the contraception mandate and Obamacare.  An opportunity came along for Sandra to put Georgetown’s thumbs to the screws, so to speak, by engrossing herself in a public forum to humiliate and embarrass the university in front of congress, in a way she believed would cause Georgetown to fold and buckle under an immense pressure from the students of Georgetown, from congress and from the American public.  This flagrant display was intended to be her masterpiece.  Why then, did it not go as planned?

What Sandra hadn’t counted on was the fact that conservatives in America are far more powerful, far more influential, far more organized than she ever gave us credit.  She also did not factor in that a majority of Americans oppose Obamacare, which includes the contraception mandate and forcing religious institutions to provide services and procedures that go against their moral and religious convictions.  (Psychopaths, while highly intelligent, are also exceedingly arrogant and full of themselves.  Too conceited to pay attention to, or look beyond, their own ego.)

This miscalculation, which has been a major backlash against Sandra, against Obamacare, against liberalism, has caused Sandra to become even more outspoken, and deeply entrenched in her own lie – that she is merely fighting for contraception for students who need it for health and medical issues like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis”, which she reiterated at an event at Georgetown University.

But we are not talking about contraception for  “a lot of medical issues.”  That has never been the debate, and that has never been what Sandra herself has been fighting to achieve for female students at Georgetown.  Sandra has always been fighting for free contraception for use in promiscuous sex, which, sadly, many people engage in.  And while conservatives are not about to enter into a debate as to whether consenting adults, or even teenagers, ought to be prohibited by law from engaging in promiscuous sex (it’s futile and we recognize American citizens have the right have sex with whom they choose), we, as conservatives, are very willing to make certain that those men and women who do engage in sex, for the sake of sex, do so on their own dime and accept the consequences of that decision.

Sandra Fluke, among other liberals, opposes that.  She demands that, while consenting Americans of all ages have a fundamental right to have sex with whom they choose, they ought to have those choices subsidized by American taxpayers and institutions that provide healthcare and health related services, including religious institutions.  As conservatives, we obviously strongly and absolutely disagree with that.  In doing so, however, we are by no means attempting to say that women with health issues, clearly and specifically diagnosed by a professional and competent doctor, ought to unduly suffer because she cannot afford the cost of the medication she needs to help offset the pain and suffering.

But – is that really why these students/women are using contraception?  To offset enduring and persistence pain and suffering?  And, could there be some other medication they could take, other than contraception or birth control that helps alleviate and end the pain?

Here is the problem with that.  Sandra specifically targeted Georgetown University.  She enrolled in it, and paid the cost of tuition and all expenses included, which was over $40,000/year.  Why did she have to enroll and spend that much money simply to shed light on a compelling issue that affects not only female students at Georgetown, but millions of American women?  And – why Georgetown?  In other words, if all Sandra was trying to do was find a solution to how women with otherwise less of an economical means could pay for contraception and birth control and have it provided for them for legitimate and specific health issues – why the elaborate scheme of enrolling in Georgetown?  Why the long-about rouse of thinking she had to be a student of Georgetown in order to be heard?

Obviously Sandra had an ulterior motive.  It had to be a religious college, for one; and it had to be a prestigious one so that when it caved under public pressure (per Sandra’s plan) the smaller, less prestigious, less noteworthy religious colleges would feel compelled to cave as well.  And not only religious colleges, but all religious institutions that provide healthcare.  Sandra delved into this complex strategy to discredit religion itself.  What else makes sense?  That part of her plan failed.

And what do psychopaths usually do when a part of their plan fails?  They dig in deeper.  Sandra is no exception.  That is why she is back at Georgetown still insisting the college needs to provide contraception and birth control to students because:

Most students don’t realize that contraception coverage will not be on their insurance when they arrive at Georgetown.  We’re used to having contraception readily available.”

This is an another incredible statement coming from Sandra.  What she is saying is that “most students” are not researching Georgetown University as thoroughly as they ought to before they decide to send in an application for enrollment.  Is that really true?  Also puzzling, and damnably so, is the fact that if a student can afford the high cost of enrollment, why then could they not afford the small pittance of the price for birth control and contraception without having to beg for it to be subsidized by the university?  And why, if Sandra is only urging for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” is she not insisting, publicly, that she would accept Georgetown University’s prohibition on these when used only for sex?

Sandra is demanding Georgetown provide birth control and contraception, free of charge to all students, regardless of why they actually want it.  How does that make sense?  And who picks up the cost if Georgetown is forced to acquiesce?  Wouldn’t that have to be passed on to all Georgetown students in the form of higher tuition and other costs associated with being  a student as Georgetown?

Said Fluke:

“Prevention of pregnancy is a public health need.  When we’re talking about public policy, we need to look at reality, rather than [Church] ideology.”

In other words, Sandra is not really advocating for birth control and contraception for “medical issues” at all.  That is a cover story for her real intentions.  Sandra really is, and always has been, advocating for women to engage in promiscuous sex (all part of the women’s liberation movement and liberal feminism) and for “prevention of pregnancy” that often results in that sex, i.e. – abortion.  And she is demanding the cost for the “prevention of pregnancy” be picked up by Georgetown, which she has known long before she actually enrolled, opposed such a policy.  Sandra knew, long before she enrolled at Georgetown, that it is a religious college with a strong commitment to its religion.  Sandra sought to break that strong bond.  She is still trying.

Sandra has never once denounced the use of birth control and contraception for non “medical issues”.  If she was challenged directly to take a position; if Sandra was challenged to assert whether or not she is merely in favor of Georgetown University having a better health plan and coverage for those students who actually and legitimately are suffering from real “medical issues” like “ovarian cysts, hormonal imbalances, endometriosis” – would Sandra be willing to concede Georgetown’s right in prohibiting birth control and contraception for all other “issues”, like promiscuous sex and to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Knowing that, is where we can begin to unravel the mystery that is the psychopath, Sandra Fluke.  But only if we press her to answer the right questions.

Want To Watch A Black Woman Get Cut Into Pieces For Human Consumption?

In America this would not pass mustard.  In Sweden, however, this passes for amusement.  Racist?  Or, harmless art?

A “War On Women”? Then Let It Be An Armageddon! And Let These Women Feel Our Intense Wrath Reign Hellfire And Damnation Down Upon Them…

Sharpen your wits and your tongues – liberals insist there is a war on women.  On the one hand it’s absurd, but the more we (conservatives) attest to its absurdity, the louder liberals cry “war on women”.  They own the MSM and so have the ability, through their puppet stations and wide variety of media outlets, to drown out the opposition – which is us.  (That market, by the way, has been diminishing for many years.)  On the other hand, liberals are emphatic in their insistence that a “war on women” truly exists, and is being waged on women, by conservatives, specifically.  Who are we, then, to quibble over trivialities?

Liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war intentionally designed to either remove by degrees and increments, by huge chunks or eliminate altogether in one fell swoop, the legal right women now have with regards to, as liberals call it, reproductive health decisions.  (Conservatives understand the myriad code words, phrases and lingo liberals use.)

What liberals are really saying when they claim a “war on women” exists is that conservatives are trying, and often succeeding at unprecedented levels liberals never thought could be possible, to make illegal what is now legal, and has been legal since 1973.  Namely, the legal right to have an abortion.  Abortion – also known as the killing of unborn children.  That is what all this hub-bub and hullabaloo is all about.  Women – liberal women – want to retain the right to kill unborn children at will and in privacy.  And damn anyone that tells them they can’t do that!

Abortion is only a legal right, and only intact as long as there is a majority support for it in legislatures which, and by legislators who, are elected to pass and abolish laws.  But no law is set in stone, even liberals know that.  And it’s interesting to note that liberals, with the exception of abortion, reject the notion any law is “set in stone”, including, and especially pertaining to, our Constitution.  Nothing is untouchable, so far as liberals are concerned, except abortion.  “Separate but equal” was set law for many decades, longer than Roe vs. Wade has been around.  That was overturned, rightly, of course.  But Roe vs. Wade, of which liberals and feminists just celebrated the 39th anniversary, contest is set in stone.  Can anyone name any other law liberals attest is also set in stone?

Now, we – those of us who are pro-life – have but two options:

One – we can acquiesce to liberals; we can accept that abortion is set law, well established, well grounded, stare decisis; we can remove our vocal and physical presence and simply walk away; we can tie our hands behind our backs and turn a blind eye; we can ignore what we know is happening behind closed doors in privacy, roughly one million times a year across America; we can abandon morality, ethics, common decency and common sense and sensibility; we can make all the pretend excuses we want for our silence, to replace and to fill the vast void, the nothingness left from our absence.  Liberals would love that.

Two – we can grow some courage, stand up and fight.  We can meet liberals on the battlefield and make war with them, crush them, annihilate them, bury them underneath the weight of their own fallacies, their own hyperbole, their own arrogance, their own hubris!

We are not at war with women to take away their right to:  vote, work, get an education, read and write, walk in public without a male escort; marry whom they choose.  We are not at war with women to make them:  less equal to men in any sense of Constitutional law, the dominion of men in any sense of the definition, “barefoot and pregnant”, homemakers and housewives, miserable.

But we are at “war with women” if, and because, liberals have defined this “war on women” as a war against abortion, and to end abortion in America.  In that sense – liberals are absolutely right, damn right, about there being a “war on women”.  Who are we, pro-lifers, to deny that war does not exist?  Who are we to reject that “war on women”?  Hold your head high and embrace it!  Revel in it!  Relish it!  Embroil yourself in it!  Fight!

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!

Gangs Aren’t The Only Ones Glamorizing Murder, Or Proud Of Themselves For Murdering

Some people are more prone to murder than others.  Gang members, having grown up living in and around a circle of violence, probably all their lives, see death and the killing of others for the sake of their gangs as normal as eating and breathing.  We – we who actually are as normal as eating and breathing – look upon the actions of gang members with derision, disgust and outrage.  We tend to support laws that make it hard for gang members to operate.  And we certainly support laws that punish gang members when they do commit crimes, especially violent crimes like murder.  We certainly do not look upon murder by gang members as justification for the lifestyle they lead.  Nor do we look upon murder by gang members, who murder rival gang members, as justification for having crossed into one another’s “territory”.  In fact – do we ever look upon murder committed by gang members with understanding, compassion, empathy, sympathy or justification?  Do we ever seek to protect the “rights” of gang members to kill one another?  Do we ever attempt to grant “rights” for gang members to kill one another?  If not – why?

If gang members must kill one another to survive in their own world; if gang members must kill one another to show superiority and who is in, and who has, “control”; if gang members must kill or risk being killed themselves (a sort of self-defense); if gang members must kill one another to preserve the integrity and the “health” of their gangs; if gang members killing one another is mostly a “private” affair between one gang and another; if gang members killing one another is only hurting themselves, and that is the decision they “choose” to live by – then why are any of us so overly concerned whether or not gangs members are killing one another?  Why do we waste time, energy and taxes dollars trying to stop gangs from operating by arresting them, putting them on trial and then in jail?  Why do we pass all types of restrictive legislation that makes it harder to be in a gang, and to make committing a crime while in a gang, especially murder, more harsh, more difficult, more painful?  And – why, when one gang member kills another gang member, do we call that, of all things – murder?  Isn’t that a bit hypocritical, all things considered?

All things like the fact that there are millions of people who have committed murder, who have never been in a gang, and who have the full support of many millions more people, including politicians, judges, entire courts millions of people who will never be arrested, prosecuted or serve one day in jail for having committed murder.  And – many of whom who would not only not hesitate to commit murder again, but would openly brag about it, defend it, celebrate it!  After-all – they too have grown up surrounded by a culture that supports what is otherwise, morally and ethically, at least, murder, even if they, just as gang members, don’t see it that way.

What is the real difference between gang members who commit murder on a street corner or in a back alley and these people who commit murder in a place located near a street corner, and sometimes also in a back alley?

Of Course Liberals Will Welcome Any Call For Reparations For Trayvon Martin (As Long As There’s Lots Of Money In It)

An “ambulance chasing” civil rights group in Florida is overjoyed and elated to hear that at least one member of the United Nations, Navi Pillay, is calling for reparations for Trayvon Martin.  It is presumed that the “reparations” is monetary in nature, and that it would go to Martin’s family.  How much actual money it would amount to, or from whom (George Zimmerman?) it would come was not stipulated.  This is wise because it gives people enough time to look into Zimmerman’s finances and make certain he has enough money to be a worthwhile target for reparations.  After-all, it is only important that Zimmerman be a chump, not his change.

Of course, reparations could come from the state of Florida.  But, if from the state of Florida, where oh where does Florida (this is a tough one) get the, ahem, money it needs to, ahem, cough up to the, ahem, “victims”?  Ahem!  Yes, there certainly is a lot of sticky, gooey phlegm built up in this United Nations-civil rights partnership.  It’s awful sick, at any rate.  We all ought to wash our hands of it, with lots of anti-bacterial disinfectant.  But, you know –  once you get the United Nations on your hands, it’s almost impossible to get off of your hands.  (You thought Pontious Pilate had a tough time washing his hands.)  In fact it is almost as hard getting the United Nations off of your hands as it is in getting the United Nations off of American soil.  Yes, the United Nations is one of those stubborn stains on world history, and on American soil, that will not so easily disappear.  Or, to put it another way, the United Nations is a lot like mother-in laws.  (It’s just too bad this isn’t the 1970’s – that statement would have  been so much more relevant /or funny).

Said Pillay:  (Who, by the way, you will be happy to know has made her remarks about reparations for Trayvon Martin while on “a visit” to Barbados.  Oh?  That doesn’t make you happy to know that?  Well, forget about it, then.  Pretend she instead made her remarks from a cold, dank prison cell where we hope all United Nations members will ultimately be interred.  But, still – Barbados?  What do we have to do to get a trip to Barbados?  Oh, right – be in the United Nations.)

“Justice must be done for the victim.  It’s not just this individual case, it calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this.  In this particular case it was the family itself, their distress that became known to the general public – once again people pressure that has drawn attention to this case.  It shouldn’t be so.  The law should operate equally in respect of all violations.  So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

“And of course reparation for the victims”?  This is the United Nations.  These people have their heads up their asses – and they still can’t find their asses.  (At least now we know what we have to do to get a trip to Barbados – walk around with our head up our ass, if you couldn’t figure out where that was leading.)

By what right, what authority, has the United Nations in butting into American law like it butts into its own, well, never mind…

Barack Obama?  Their ego may be as inflated as Obama’s, and it is a wonder with all that helium filling Obama’s and the United Nations empty skulls why neither have not floated off into space.  For Obama, could it be the weight of the national debt that is keeping him grounded?  He ought to be grounded for all the trouble he has caused America, American business, American taxpayers, American citizens and especially American Idol.  The United Nations ought to be grounded too.  In fact, it ought to be underground – deep underground, like in China!

In the meantime, J. Willie David, President of the Florida Civil Rights Association (that’s the “ambulance chasing” civil right group aforementioned ) issued a statement:

“We believe that the United Nations involvement can help prevent another Trayvon Martin situation in other counties across the world.  The shooting death of Trayvon Martin and Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law have created a worldwide movement that calls into question how justice is delivered to victims of color.”

Has there ever been a time when the United Nations butted into anything where that interference actually helped?  Where is the United nations in Egypt?  In Iran?  In Syria?  In North Korea?  In Afghanistan?  In Obama’s campaign for reelection?   Or, perhaps they are already there, and that is the reason for all the upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling.  (The upheaval, chaos, panic, disorganization and name calling was more for Obama’s campaign than it was for the countries listed.)  If David thinks having the United Nations in his corner is a benefit, he ought to take a look at what the United Nations has done to all the other corners.  Like this corner, for example.

If the United Nations really wanted to help out somewhere, and do some good, it ought to butt into the one place in all the world that truly needs all the help it can get – namely the United Nations itself.  And since we know where the United Nations is not in, we rightfully ask where the United Nations is in.  But that just brings us back to the United Nations having its head up its ass, and we already covered that.

Yes, by all means, just throw money at the Trayvon Martin incident and see how many “victims of color” do not become “victims”, as if one life will be saved by this.  And since the United Nations thinks it has jurisdiction over the United States, and American citizens, and since thinking is all the United Nations does (it is not very good at it, by the way), the Florida Civil Rights Association (the “ambulance-chasers”) can at least be comforted knowing the United Nations is thinking about justice for “victims of color”.  Because there will be no actual reparations.  That is as much a scam as is the United Nations itself.

And while the United Nations, and the Florida Civil Rights Association think about reparations for Trayvon Martin, how much actual thought is being put into preventing another Trayvon Martin incident from happening?  How many murders have there been of  “victims of color” in the past few minutes?  Does that answer that question?

Post Navigation


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: