Imagine if you will going to the nearest maximum security prison and finding (on death row, of course), the most vile, dangerous rapist and murderer you can. Bonus points if he's also a pedophile and has beheaded thousands (not a few, not hundreds, but thousands) of people. Now imagine you let this scum of the earth out and start worshipping this low-life as a prophet of God.
Sound a bit far-fetched? I have just described the prophet Mohammad, the man muslims worship. Let that sink in for moment. Mohammad, the man who wrote the Koran (or Quran depending on your spelling) was one of the most violent warlords to come out of the middle east. This man beheaded anyone who would not follow him. He was also a rapist and pedophile. To this day, the order to behead anyone who refuses to worship this vile cretin stands, and is carried out.
Anyone who is not familiar with the history of Islam might want to at least look at this video (facebook login required): http://bit.ly/2kwvgpA and pay attention to everything. Get any legislators at the state and federal level to watch. Anyone know who this woman is? I have been unable to find her name.
I wrote to my Representative, Rick Miller. His letter back to me was as clueless as it was disheartening. These legislators seem to think Islam is a religion. But if I equate the following, folks would be understandably upset: Quran == Mein Campf; Mohammad == Hitler; Mecca == Berlin; Muslim == Nazi; Islam == Fascism. Yet there are more similarities than differences. I don't hear anyone worshipping Hitler. Had he declared Fascism a religion, nazis would be screaming for 1st amendment protection. Their "honor killings" would be being allowed under their beliefs to burn Jews in ovens. Tell me how muslim beheadings of anyone who doesn't accept Islam and become a muslim differ? Muslims demand freedom of religion so they can behead anyone who does not accept Islam. So, we need to give them 1st amendment protections to allow them to murder anyone who want to exercise their religious freedoms.
Until folks understand that Islam is a political ideology and NOT a religion, the sooner we can deal with the slaughter that has already begun in this country. Why can non-liberal news outlets find these massacres happening in our own back yards, but the mass media remains silent?
We are playing into their hands. We need to get people to wake up. Yes, I know some "moderate muslims" who tell me they believe in the Constitution and that Sharia Law should not be implemented here, the two are 100% incompatible. How much of that is taqiyya I don't know. I can tell you, when the fundamentalists come, I am sure that my muslim friend will tell me: I won't kill you, but the fundamentalists will if you don't convert. I am also sure he will stand with them when the time comes.
I implore folks to start taking a look at the Quran and Sharia Law. But I will provide a few passages for the lazy:
Koran 2:191 - Slay the infidels wherever you find them.
Koran 3:28 - Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.
Koran 3:85 - Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.
Koran 5:33 - Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.
Koran 8:12 - Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran. - I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Koran 8:60 - Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.
Koran 8:65 - The infidels are stupid; urge all Muslims to fight them.
Koran 9:5 - When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them. - ...slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...
Koran 9:14 - Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.
Koran 9:29 - Fight those who believe not in Allah ...
Koran 9:30 - The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.
Koran 9:123 - Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood.
Koran 22:19 - Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies.
Koran 47:4 - Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.
Koran 66:9 - Fight against the infidels and the hypocrites, and kill them.
FYI: hypocrites refers to muslims in name only who refuse to actually murder infidels. Only the disabled and infirm are given leeway to not join the slaughter.
The above passages are just a sampling and are rough translations, but are what muslims are taught in concept. They must force their religion on you and you must accept or die. Some useful few are allowed to pay a jizyah (protection tax or dhimmitude) for not converting, but a 50% tax is a bit onerous for most folks.
Just how many religions of peace do you know that call for any non-believers (infidels) to be beheaded? Remember, their prophet was a warlord who conquered lands by force and personally beheaded many people. How anyone can say this is a religion is beyond me. It is the most violent religion I've ever heard of. Muslims murdered many times as many people as Hitler, who looks like a boy scout next to Mohammad.
In 1979, while Jimmy Carter (D) was President, the Ayatollah Khomeini overthrew the Shah of Iran. This was no surprise to folks who understood that people in that region of the world have no respect for a leader who does not slaughter a bunch of folks regularly just to show his strength. The Shah made the mistake of listening to our Democrat President and stopped his slaughter of those who opposed him. This made it easy for Khomeini (then hiding out in France) to call for the Shah's own palace guard to rise up against him, which, because they saw the Shah as weak, they did.
If you believe that I am exaggerating in the least, keep an eye on Iran. They care not about our "sanctions" and will break any treaty as soon as they are ready. If we want to slow what is coming, we need to drop a nuclear device on Tehran. But as this is so repugnant to our Western way of thinking, it will never happen. So in the near future (certainly before any treaty we have with them is up) they will attack. Make no mistake, only the complete destruction/subjugation of the West is acceptable to them. I would say "war is coming" (taking off on the Game of Thrones "winter is coming"), but for those who are not in complete denial, you can see by looking at Europe that war is already here.
In fact, dare any mass media channel to do an expose on Dearborne, Michigan and it will become obvious, war is already here. They start with simple things like insisting on teaching Islam in the schools (to brainwash young minds), demanding burkas and modest clothing for all women (raping those that don't comply), and pushing for Sharia Law to be the law of their area (areas which keep expanging). They are patient. They've been at this for 1400 years, a few more won't make any difference.
Is there hope for America? Just one: legislators become convinced that Islam is a political ideology and outlaw its practice here forever. Otherwise, we'll see Islam as the only ideology here in my grandchildren's lifetime. That, for me, is a horrifying thought. Hitler's only shortcoming was not declaring fascism a religion or it would also be on the rise today. Denial only helps our avowed enemy. Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a political ideology of conquest.
A lot of people have heard of Islam but don't really understand what it is. Muslims, followers of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad, will tell you it is a religion. Most will also tell you that Muslims follow Sharia Law, a set of Laws laid out by the Prophet Mohammad in the Koran (or Quran, depending on your spelling).
But is Islam a religion or a political system? That fundamental question is the crux of the problem plaguing Western Nations at this juncture. It is important for America as the 1st Amendment guarantees four fundamental rights, among them, freedom of religion.
But the Islamic "religion" demands obeisance to Sharia Law which contradicts the US Constitution in many fundamental ways. Many muslims will tell you Sharia Law is above the Constitution (but without the Constitution, they could be denied the right to practice their religion and Sharia Law, a Law which denies religious freedom and demands everyone adhere only to Islam). And so it goes.
You can look up the differences between religion and politics, but that only muddies the waters as both are belief systems, one principally (but not solely) defines the individual relationship between God and man (religion) and one defines the relationship between men (political system, although it also includes economic and geographic elements). Problem is, these two overlap so much it is difficult to separate them this way, because religion also defines relationships between men, especially as all religions condemn certain activities such as murder, theft, adultery, et. al.
Perhaps it would be more beneficial to examine what religion and political systems are not. A political system does not define man's relationship to God. A religion, while defining social behaviors, does not define corporeal punishment for transgressions against other men or God (sins). It is the realm of a political system to define what corporeal punishment to exact for any given transgression. Religions do not define corporeal punishments, this is always left to God. And in every religion God is always more than capable of meeting out His justice when, where, and how He sees fit. He has done this with Sodom and Gamorrha, with Egypt when the Pharoah would not release the Jews, and any other occasion God saw fit (Noah and the Arc also comes to mind).
God, and any religion has never found the need to rely on man to exact punishment. The threat is always present, but to be meeted out in the afterlife unless God sees fit otherwise.
Not so with Islam. The Koran does exact punishments. Over 100 verses are dedicated to making war or otherwise punishing (usually with death) anyone who does not follow Islam. This makes all Muslims enemies of anyone who is not Muslim and does not follow Islam.
The Koran also states, that Muslims may lie to non-Muslims (infidels) in the furtherance of Islam. In fact, Muslims will even lie to other Muslims under many circumstances. The term for this deception in furtherane of Islam is taqiyya.
Previously, I alluded to the fact that Sharia Law (Muslim law based on the teachings of the Koran) was in conflict with the Constitution. In fact, it is completely and utterly contradictory to many facets of Western culture. Just to name a few, a woman is worth only one half of a man. Women cannot divorce their husbands, only a husband may divorce his wife. Women can be stoned to death for any of a number of "crimes" and in Islamic countries often are. Anyone who does not follow Islam must either be converted or put to the sword. Mohammad found that this did not sit well with large non-Muslim populations where Muslims had conquered, so allowed for useful citizens to pay a tax of 50% (jizyah or dhimmitude) of their earnings for the Islamic army (something else reserved to political systems). Sharia Law also permits arranged marriages of young girls to men (the girls are basically sold to the men, they have no say), the rape of non-Muslim women, and any number of other atrocities against women and infidels. Women also cannot go out unescorted by a male from their household or be uncovered in front of other men. This ranges from a head scarf (hijab) to full body covering with only slits for the eyes (burka). The latter interferes with facial recognition in our society. A woman cannot testify against her rapist, five men must testify against the rapist. And anyone speaking against Mohammad is to be executed.
To anyone from a Western culture, Sharia Law is a barbaric, inequitable, unconscionable set of Laws. But many Muslims and Muslim organizations are determined that Sharia Law WILL be the only law in the US (indeed, in the world). Some of those that have so declared include the leaders of CAIR (Committee on American-Islamic Relations) and some 60 plus other Islamic organizations. As Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to the US Constitution and many of us (all Veterans and most public officials) have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, these organizations and individuals have proclaimed themselves enemies of the US and all those who have taken said oaths.
War is a political, not religious undertaking (despite the Crusades, which were in response to Islamic attacks on the Catholic church). Nations must defend themselves. Make no mistake. We ARE at war. Islam has declared war on the US and all non-Islamic countries of the world. This is a war we must win at all costs. If this does not remind you of Communism, then you didn't live through the cold war.
It is imperative that US citizens understand that Islam is a political entity bent on the complete subjugation of Western Culture. It is a political system disguised as a religion. But our Constitution does not guarantee freedom of politics or freedom to attack the Constitution and our way of life. However, it is happening. Those that don't believe need to visit the no-go zones in Europe or even just go to Dearborne, Michigan. Women are warned to go heavily armed or not at all, and be prepared as you will have to defend yourself.
How many of you have ever heard a Muslim speak out against ISIS or Sharia Law? And you never will. Muslims may not condone violent attacks against infidels, but they will never condemn them. If they were to, they would be on the execution list. But more likely, they don't speak out because they don't actually condemn the attacks (see taqiyya above).
We need to demand of our legislators in Washington to declare the Islamic Sharia Law unconsitutional and unlawful to be practiced in the US now or ever in the future. That Islam is not a religion but a political system and as such unlawful. This will not sit well with many, but if it comes to a choice between the US Constitution and Sharia Law (which it will), we must already have declared Sharia Law null and void here. Muslims are demanding Sharia Law more and more, and it is being implemented in places like Dearborne. This infestation must be stopped before it takes hold or we will once again see war within the United States. We dealt with this once before with the spread of Communism, and we must deal with Islam in the same way.
In summary, while Islam looks and is touted as a religion, it is in fact a political system. The aspects of Islam that make it a political system are in the way it insists that the word of Islam is spread. All religions "spread the word" but only Islam demands conversion or death (i.e., world conquest). All religions deal with the social aspects of human interaction, but leave punishments up to God in the afterlife, except Islam, which prescribes physical punishments in this life, anything from losing a hand to stoning or being put to the sword for not accepting conversion. Conquest and physical punishments are the sole realm of political systems, not of religions. In this respect, Islam should be categorized along with Communism. Islam has more in common with Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism than it does with Christianity or any other religion.
Even since before the Election, the Democrats and the left in this country have been showing their true colors. Unmitigated hate and intolerance for anyone or anything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking. Our President, Donald Trump, since the day he won the election in November has shown nothing but his love and respect for this country and worked to improve the lot of ALL Americans has been the target of the lefts' unbridled rage.
Hatred and vitriol from Dems and the left that is inexplicable in its extremism and its incalcitrance has been his reward. So far, Donald Trump has done NOTHING new other than propose a wall to stem the flood of illegal immigrants tearing at the economic fabric of our society (not unlike walls many other countries have including the one Mexico has on it's southern border with Guatemala and the one between Israel and the Palestinian territory). But most of the left and particularly Democrats, who used to number among blue collar workers in this country, and were the most negatively affected by these illegal immigrants, revolted in November by electing Donald Trump. The agitators and haters, however, won't have it. Bankrolled by the billionaire ex-Nazi globalist George Soros, these lemmings scream profanities, vulgarities, and lies.
These agitators and haters are completely oblivious to anything resembling facts and intent on destroying everything that Trump does. I don't remember a single agitator out in the streets when Obama stopped Iraqi immigrants from coming to this country for six months in 2011, or when Jimmy Carter did, or when any of several other presidents enacted similar measures. In fact, they were raving about how great this was. Yes, Roosevelt's Japanese internment camps were wonderful unless you were Japanese-American. And if Obama had done what Donald Trump is doing now they would be ecstatic rather than vitriolic. The haters can't even take the time to read the Executive Order, calling it a ban on Muslims when the order does not contain the term Muslim anywhere in it.
Does this make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to any rational person. Illegal immigrants are dealt with swiftly and harshly in every country I know of except this one. Not enforcing immigration laws is the best way to destroy a country economically and socially. A country must first determine how many immigrants it can absorb, not just open the flood gates. Then, immigration officials let those at the front of the line in first in a measured way. No person can drink from a fire hose. But the haters insist we must. The human body can't take it, and our country can't take it. We need time to absorb, both economically and socially, these new arrivals. Illegals overtax both.
Refugees flooding in from parts of the world unused to our culture do the same thing. Our country is founded on the Constitution. Most countries where these refugees come from have no idea about our freedoms, they are used to the iron-fisted rule of Sharia Law. Many are indoctrinated in Sharia Law starting at the age of 3. But Sharia Law violates almost every article and tenet of our Constitution, our laws, and our way of life. Most Americans are incredibly ignorant of Sharia Law and what it entails. There is no "at best" with Sharia Law. Ask any veteran who has been to an area under Sharia Law and how women are treated. Can you imagine a woman who's been raped here trying to press charges and being told to provide the names of five (5) men who can testify on her behalf against her rapist and her testimony counts for nothing? I can go on for pages with the horrors I've seen perpetrated that are congruent with Sharia Law but incongruent with the US Constitution and our culture.
Anyone reading this believe murder should be condoned? Under Sharia law, it's not murder to kill an "infidel" (someone who does not believe in Islam). And to spare a family shame, honor killings are permitted. In one case I know of, a grandfather raped his 2 year old granddaughter. When the mother came home, she took the baby into the bathroom and drowned her so the family would not be shamed. That was the proper thing to do under Sharia Law. It was a female child, worth only half of what a male child is, certainly worth much less than the grandfather. No charges were ever pressed. What would have been the point?
I implore every thinking person to read up on Sharia Law and its implementation in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. This abomination must never be permitted here. Jihadists are bound and determined to convert the US to Sharia Law. They aren't just here to kill infidels. However, not every Muslim believes in Sharia Law, thus the need for vetting. Many muslims already in this country believe in the Constitution and that Sharia Law cannot coexist here. Just not all feel that way.
Even the US Army, while I was in Bahrain, had to remove females from driving duty, particularly if they would have had to drive into Saudi Arabia. It would have created an international incident to have a US military servicemember stopped, pulled from the vehicle by a group of Saudi muslims and have her beaten to death by the men for violating Sharia Law. So while our female soldiers protested not being able to do their jobs, while in Saudi, it was for the best.
We must be certain that we are not letting enemies of the Constitution pour into this country by the thousands. Doesn't matter if they are muslim or not. Anarchists would be as unwelcome. They must be willing to abide by the Constitution and state and federal laws. If they believe Sharia Law is the ultimate law of their God and all others are subject to it, they will never be able to assimilate into our culture. We will not change for them, and if they won't change to be here, they need not come here. I object to calling this "extreme" vetting. I don't consider it so extreme. It is more than reasonable.
We see what the unthinking left and Democrats are doing right now, but they at least hold most of our values (though they make it difficult to believe when they are calling for the implementation of Sharia Law, hopefully something they do only out of ignorance and not spite). Now imagine that all these people who are demonstrating didn't hold our values, but demanded everyone bow down to Sharia Law and renounce the Constitution and the un-Sharia laws of this country (i.e., most of them). The thought is so horrifying it puts Stephen King to shame. Makes him look like a writer of romance novels vice horror.
The unthinking left has no idea what they are doing. Just that it's not a leftist Democrat in the White House. If it were, they'd react differently. But schools these days are creating lemmings. Not even sheople. Sheople at least act in their own best interests when the wolves are attacking and hide behind the sheepdog. But lemmings rush headlong to their deaths with no thought for the consequences. Lemming hate for hates' sake, and that is what we are seeing every day. What self-respecting woman calls herself "nasty"? What self-respecting man wears a vagina on his head? What self-respecting person deliberately screams "he shall not divide us" in an effort to create as much division as possible?
The mass media didn't cover the peaceful "pro-life" march following the hateful, divisive pro-abortion march. It didn't fit their agenda. This, despite the pro-life march being much bigger than the pro-abortion march. Nothing. Dead silence. Part of the problem is the mass media is no longer the fourth estate. They are part of the leftist problem plaguing this country. It doesn't help that they don't distinguish between LEGAL and ILLEGAL, but only talk about immigrants. They invent terms like Muslim-ban to mislead and antagonize. Doesn't help that they invent lies. That they are staffed with fiction writers and spin doctors, not even people who understand psychological operations (psyops as we called it in the military).
Many of the Californians that are calling out Trump for wanting to deport illegals, though, upon finding out their city is a sanctuary city, are reversing course. Sanctuary cities? Great! Just not in my back yard. I think relocating suspected jihadists to Hollywood is a great idea, but I suspect something Hollywood won't allow. Again, not in my back yard.
So the hate and divisiveness continues. If the mass media stopped covering the haters, there'd be little news, just the stream of hate and vitriol on the social media, of the left reinforcing themselves. And the left itself is so deluded, they believe that breaking the law by aiding and abetting criminals is a "good thing." Years ago they all would have gone before a judge and be imprisoned.
I, however, continue to hold out hope for America and even the unthinking, unreasoning left. All they need is to be spoon fed something less hateful and they will blissfully follow like the lemmings they are, and things will calm down. Of course, this won't happen until George Soros' funding of protests and paying protesters stops. But it won't any time soon, because Trump.
I watched with disappointment over the past weekend at the "peaceful" protests put on by the "tolerant" left. I swear we're going to have to write a new dictionary to encompass the left's new meanings for these terms. Every hour, some news regarding the peace, elegance, and eloquence of the march reached my eyes or ears. But even the fake news (alternative truth?) media had a hard time putting a good face on this one.
A number of pundits circulated among the throng asking a very simple question: "what issue(s) are you protesting?" and most were met with blank faced stares or incoherent babbling. Perhaps my favorite was the woman who summed it all up with her sign that read simply: Fuck you fuckety fucking fucks. Ah the elegance. Oh the eloquence. And she got it all done without being overly loquacious. Clear, concise, coherent. The left has come so far. (Yes, my terminal is dripping with sarcasm).
Seriously, though folks, really? I understand you don't like the outcome of the elections. I understand not everyone agrees with Trump on all the issues. But pick an issue (fuckety fucking fucks is not an issue), state the issue, tell us what your stance is (and maybe include a concise why). I am open to reason. And on each issue I have an opinion (I also have a navel). More importantly, I can tell you why I believe the way I believe. Be it the 2d amendment, the UN, the illegal immigration issue, the health care issue. But I can speak plainly and clearly.
I also make my sentiments known to my congressmen. I write them (and none of what I write contains words like "fuck" or "you"). I don't make it personal, I tell them what I want them to support and why. I tell them we should defund the UN because the UN is little more than a soapbox for anti-US sentiment and not something I think we should be paying to hear. They do nothing for us. Boom. No he knows how one of his constituents feels. Same for the 2d amendment, which says in part "shall NOT be infringed" (my emphasis). Need I say more? I have added that guns have no place on aircraft as even an accidental discharge at cruising altitude would be catastrophic, and we do need to protect everyone on board. Reasonable and reasoned.
Yes, I do support the 1st amendment. I believe we have the right to assemble peacefully, the right to free speech, the right of the press, and the right of religion (but I temper this with the proviso that your religion cannot infringe the US Consitution or state or federal laws, which Islamic Sharia Law does). Honor killings? Really? Sorry, murder is murder, and that woman is equal to any man. Care to debate that with me?
The past few days protests (I was being facetious calling them peaceful) had nothing to do with women's rights or any other sane issue. I'd like to call your attention to history. Let's stick to the past century as it postulates enough examples to shed light on what is really going on. In 1907, the puppet-master Stalin (along with the Bolsheviks he stabbed in the back) organized the lemmings to stand in front of the sabers and pistols of the Czar's forces. They successfully overthrew the Czar of Russia. Once that was accomplished, Stalin murdered his fellow puppet masters (they had served their purpose) and established his iron-fisted rule.
Fast forward to the late 1930's. This time, just one puppet master succeeded where several were previously required. Hitler gained power in Germany and the rest is history. It happened in Cambodia (the Khmer Rouge), and other places whose names you may not remember. You'd think as many times as it has happened, someone would point out that history is attempting to repeat itself.
This time the puppet masters have names like Soros (former Nazi), Zucker (owns CNN), and Islam (the Imams with their jihadists). They've recruited the arrogant elite of Hollywood (duped is more the term, but I'm trying to be gracious), and have Democrat lemmings doing their bidding, providing cover for the violent protesters and the actual goal of the demonstrations. The puppet masters have the same goal, but each has their own end-game. One that doesn't involve us as other than their subjects.
Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working. The Trump administration does need to be sure it doesn't cross the line and become too heavy handed. This is what the left is trying to goad them into. Yes, the next few months will be challenging. But we need to challenge the left back and be ready to counter their "fuckety fucking fucks" with something a little clearer and more coherent. But don't rise to their bait. Americans are better than this. Or I'd like to think so.
As always, your comments, criticisms, witicisms encouraged.
I don't really know how, perhaps one of my "friends" is a dyed in the wool liberal, but on my facebook feed these 47ers posts kept popping up (I've blocked this obnoxious feed and reported it as fake news). I took a quick glance at it, the Huffington Post articles it pointed to, and some of the liberal comments and I'm stupified. It is obvious the Huffington Post and liberals need to stop reading nonsense and start looking around and thinking.
Well, I guess thinking really isn't their strong suit. They are still living in some alternate reality where black is white, gravity repels things, and think the world is coming to an end. Yes, the "Trump is a mysogenistic bigot and will destroy America" and crying Trump is in league with the KKK. The only nonsense I haven't heard them spout is that Trump has become the Grand Wizard. Just because the KKK supported Trump doesn't mean he's a KKK member or is even tolerant of them. But KKK support of Trump somehow morphed into Trump supporting them when he has said no such thing.
I'm kind of confused here. So Trump and all his supporters are racist. Let's examine that for a few sentences. Trump has appointed Ben Carson to be head of HUD. Either my TV and PC are having serious video issues or Ben Carson isn't white. Since when do racists choose non-white individuals to important posts like HUD? There are plenty of competent white males to choose from. Ditto for the mysogenist accusation. I would have thought his campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, would have put an end to that. For a mysogenist, Trump has surrounded himself with women. And by the way, from all accounts, Trump pays his women the same as he pays a man in the same position. What's wrong with this picture?
Well, the Russians hacked the vote and helped Trump. In fact, the only hacking found was done from an IP belonging to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Do the liberals know something they're not sharing? Perhaps DHS is a Russian agency now. Hillary was the one who sold our uranium to Russia, and Russia paid $2 million to the Clinton Foundation (which was used to fund Hillary's campaign). So how does this get morphed into Russia wanting Trump elected. My head is spinning.
I haven't even addressed ISIS. Funded by Hillary, supported by Obama, but Trump gets labeled an ISIS supporter. I can't even wrap my head around this. These lies are still being spread by the Huffington Post and being believed by liberals despite all evidence to the contrary. Amazing. Even someone with the IQ of a rock should be able to see the illogic in all the lies still being spread.
Finally, the ultimate lie: Hillary won the popular vote. No, I believe if you start by removing the Hillary votes from non-US citizens (some 2.6 million who voted in California alone), then find out how in Detroit, Hillary got more votes in 37% of Detroit's voting districts than there were voters who turned out and remove those stuffed ballots (where else did this happen?), you'll find Hillary was not really so popular, at least not with US citizens.
If it were up to me, I'd see news agencies fined $100,000 for each lie they publish. Huffington Post would be out of business tomorrow, and CNN by the end of the week. MSNBC would not be far behind, and by the time they were gone, the rest would likely decide that outright lying was not beneficial to them. But who knows, perhaps liberals would simply pony up to pay the fines as they ponied up money for Jill Stein to prove Hillary had ballots stuffed in Michigan and still lost.
I haven't seen division like this in my lifetime over a Presidential election, and I can remember back to the days of LBJ and allegations of folks buried on his ranch. But some folks, like the billionaires that own the media outlets, the Hollywood elitests, the George Soros of the world, and corrupt politicians, won't be happy until they start an armed insurrection. If they can't have it their way, they'd just as soon cut the baby in half. Just can't believe so many liberals are being duped into following them down this path of destruction based on lies.
Mainstream media in the United States has certainly shown everyone how out of touch and irrelevant they really are. It's now apparent to me that a large portion of the US, like myself, doesn't pay any attention to mainstream media. I caught a youtube.com submission with a British journalist on a mainstream media show where she called CNN the "Clinton News Network."
The Clinton News Network? Well that had to be embarassing. I was in shock that that was aired. I personally don't listen to any media in the US as I lost all respect for them years ago. They certainly showed their colors during this election. None gave any credence to Donald Trump's candidacy. Even on election night they were in complete denial.
I think many of us can relate. In fact, the majority of Americans -- all those who voted for Trump. For the majority, I think I can say that if CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS news teams were all fired or the news shows cancelled, few would miss them. I tune in BBC mostly. I've been waiting for an actual unbiased news program to come on the air. But I think the days of unbiased reporting are gone, though I hope they can be revived.
Do there exist any outlets that we can look to for unbiased, accurate reporting? One news source I always found to be both accurate and unbiased, and with good coverage of important events is the Christian Science Monitor. But I only really looked at them for coverage of foreign events, and I haven't read them recently. I may try a subscription just to see if they are any better than the spindoctors and liberally-biased "reporting" (and non-reporting of anything that doesn't further their liberal agenda) that is conventional outlets.
I am so disappointed in today's journalists (I use the term very loosely). The schools teaching them are doing them and us no service. Liberal universities churning out liberal journalists that only know how to spin news to a liberal agenda. They need to get back to teaching what unbiased reporting is. We, the American people need and deserve unbiased reporting. Not just what is reported, but also in the stories chosen to be aired. A number of times important news was "missed" by all major networks while they aired pablum. In a few cases, the ticker had more important news than what was being reported on by the anchors.
I expect over the next few years that the liberal media will continue to lie and spin all the good things Trump will do in an attempt to reverse course in 4 years. But if this election has shown me anything, mainstream America is not buying what they're selling. US mainstream media will become even more marginalized. We can only hope someone steps up to fill the void with actual unbiased, balanced, truthful reporting. I'll watch that. And I'll be watching out for that.
This week will prove extremely interesting. Most interesting will be the timing of the FBI arrest and indictment of Hillary Clinton on charges from misappropriation of government property to possibly treason and any number of racketeering charges in between.
The question now is not if, but when. The next question will be how many counts of how many different criminal charges exactly.
One also has to wonder where she will be tried. Personally, as much of this goes to her time as Secretary of State, and her position of trust within the US Government, I vote for a military tribunal (but it certainly won't be). With a military tribunal, she would get the fairest treatment. The service members she betrayed will give her a much fairer shake than she gave them. Also fairer than any civilian court possibly could. It is unlikely a civilian court could hear some of the evidence, so only the judge will hear it given its sensitivity, and a civilian court would not understand the severity or consequences beyond that of the deaths of intelligence assets and service members.
Unfortunately for her, members of a military tribunal would understand the consequences of her actions both on the US as well as it's reputation on a global scale. Meaning, her punishment would fit her crimes.
As it looks right now, the terms: Ephialtes, Quisling, Judas, and Benedict Arnold will soon be accompanied by Hillary Clinton.
How could this have happened? With wealth comes power and entitlement. Is this a problem? Insofar as Hillary used her position to manipulate many key players in Washington and even the press corps, absolutely. Negative press was surpressed. Even the timing of information from places like CNN (referred to by the right as the Clinton News Network) and PBS was orchestrated by Hillary. So much for our supposedly impartial news reported not by journalists so much as spin doctors under the guise of journalism.
This election shows just how low things have sunk in Washington. Republicans, terrified of their own shadows, sit on their hands doing nothing while tyrannical bullies like Hillary lay waste to America the Beautiful.
How do we fix this? Same way we fixed the Presidency under the 22d amendment. With fixed terms. We need to remove the rot within our system by insisting on fresh perspectives. Career politicians are not in our best interests.
Another method of ensuring that Congress act in our best interests include insisting that Congress "eat their own dog food." Obamacare? Would never have passed if Senators and Representatives were forced to use it like the rest of us are. And why is the IRS enforcing ObamaCare? Their mandate is tax collection.
Put limits on political action committees. Anyone who believes these PACs have the average American's best interests at heart are sadly mistaken. Unions and corporations that buy votes are not doing so to benefit their workers.
Limit Executive Orders and what the President can use them for. Executive orders should not replace legislation. EOs should not be used to get around Congress as President Obama has used them. If the President can't get a piece of legislation passed, there might be a reason for it. Circumventing the 2d amendment by making the sale of certain ammunition illegal is not only a bad idea, it effectively makes the President a dictator. We have 3 branches for a reason. The President is supposed to enact and enforce laws passed by Congress, not pass laws by Executive Decree.
We also need Congress to step up in certain areas. The 2d amendment means very different things in the Democratic Peoples Republic of New Jersey than in the State of Texas. I'm sure folks from any state would be enraged if they drove through NJ and were arrested and imprisoned because they had an out-of-state vehicle and and out-of-state license to drive. Yet that's what happens when someone has a firearm and tries to transport it through NJ. They are subject to arrest and imprisonment on firearms-related charges for the firearm they legally possess and can legally carry in their own state. How is this NOT a violation of the 2d amendment? This goes for NY and California among others. Anyone legally licensed to carry in one state should be able to legally carry in any other state. Why should this be any different from a drivers's license? Step up, Congress, and level the playing field.
This downhill slide needs to be stopped. It is untenable. The 2d amendment must mean the same in all states or it is meaningless. Ditto for the 4th amendment, which police officers have found ways to subvert. And we'll never be able to rely on the information coming from our news outlets as long as their political agendas come straight from one party or another (are you listening CNN?).
I am tempted to suggest that anyone who wants to run for public office should first have served at least 4 years of active federal service in the US military. This may not be a panacea, but it would go a long way to restoring faith in our democratic system. Writing a blank check to the US Government for up to and including your life, and being sent into harms way to protect this country gives one a very unique perspective on our freedoms. I trust my brothers and sisters in arms (past and present). I do not trust my legislators (sad to say).
If this Presidential election has taught us nothing, it should show us the value of integrity. The kind lacking in Washington. We need to bring it back. We need legislators who understand the American people and career politicians do not.
OMG. Hey, did you know Trump likes women? Wow, who'd have guessed? Probably a bunch of limp-wristed Hillary supporters. And like most men, in private with other men he is comfortable talking around, he even talks about men's favorite subject: women.
I'm certainly glad there are no tapes of some of the barracks discussions that took place while I was in boot camp in the Army. Some of those discussions made Trumps remarks sound like so much kindergarten "cooties" talk. Trump's remarks didn't cause my eyebrows to lift, even a little. Barely registered. I still can't understand what the bruhaha is all about.
Yet so many men are outraged for women. Their rhetoric rings hollow. My college-age daughter even asked me why folks are making a big deal about it. Granted, as the only female in her particular class (a male-dominated field), she is subject to hear things guys wouldn't normally say in mixed company. But as she put it, they're just a bunch of horn-dogs who haven't gotten laid in a while and won't for a while longer.
You do have to admit that Hillary couldn't have released this "scandalous" tape at a more fortuitous moment. A 10 year old (plus) tape she's been hanging onto for how many months? But did she really think it wouldn't backfire? As attorney of record in the cases where her husband, then Arkansas governor, was attacking women and she was making huge settlements with them on his behalf, it really is hypocritical of her.
Is there any evidence Trump actually grabbed anyone's genitalia? I think that would have come to light by now. But Hillary did all she could to hide her husband's sexual attacks. Most men who did what her husband did (that she did her best to cover up, so was obviously well aware of) would have become registered sex offenders.
This is a pattern of abuse. The Clinton's have flaunted the law their entire adult lives. Anyone who mishandled classified material as badly as Hillary would have long since been in prison (those who don't believe it happened must believe the FBI agent lied under oath to Congress when he said she did). But this entitled family does as it wants and isn't subject to the laws the rest of us are. Does anyone really want another entitled Clinton in the White House?
I've seen Presidential race after Presidential race. I've never seen one so devisive to a country. Both candidates are to blame. Neither has actually addressed any of the issues. No question has been answered to my satisfaction.
I do give credit to Trump on one thing: he at least found something positive to say about Hillary when asked. Hillary, who still believes most Americans are irredeemably deplorable, couldn't find one single decent thing to say about Trump. It is obvious what she thinks about most Americans. But that only has me even more convinced than ever that Hillary will NEVER be suitable Presidential material. I'm amazed she wants to represent a country of deplorables. Isn't she afraid we'll drag her down?
It is unfortunate we are stuck with probably the two worst candidates in history to choose from. And while there may be other choices on the ballot, it's like the head of the Presidential Debate committee said: one of these two will be president. So the other "choices" on the ballot may just as well be Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. Sure, you can vote for them. But even if they won the popular vote, the electoral college would only choose between Donald and Hillary.
We appear to be in an era where people have not been taught to think anything through, do research, gather facts, analyze facts, or in fact do anything but have knee-jerk reactions based on uninformed hysterics.
Texas recently passed a law often referred to as "Campus Carry". That is, they lifted the restriction on handgun carry on college campuses in Texas. The law also allowed private colleges and universities to "opt out" of this law (a very bad decision in my opinion), which most have done.
Of the several institutions of higher learning that I have looked closesly at (including the one where I currently work), I did some checking. These institutions (the leadership of which favored opting out), contacted staff, students, parents of students, faculty, etc., asking for their feedback. Of course the vocal minority wins out in these cases, particularly when the leadership favors them. What theses institution didn't do, of course (probably because it would not have helped their misguided cause) was conduct a proper survey.
They really needed to ask the following questions of all staff, faculty, and students and get answers to them:
1. Are you under 21? If yes, indicate, sign, and submit, the rest of the survey is irrelevant.
2. Do you own a handgun? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.
3. Are you licensed to carry a handgun? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.
4. Would you carry your handgun on campus? If no, indicate such and sign and submit, do not continue.
5. If the university requested you not to carry on campus, would you comply?
6. If you would carry on campus, would you only carry concealed if requested by the university?
A couple of universities I'm aware of that do not have graduate programs, would likely find the number of folks licensed to carry a handgun in the single digits (and would likely be primarily members of the campus police force who carry as part of their duties). Those who are confused by question 6 may not know that Texas passed "open carry" during the same legislative session that they passed campus carry. Former concealed handgun license holders no longer have to conceal the firearm, but may carry their handgun openly in an external holster (they still need to have a license to carry). I'll just note at this point that I haven't seen a single license holder I know going to an external holster.
Not having gathered any actual facts, and without so much as a single post showing anyone actually carrying a handgun on state university campuses, student knee-jerk reactions began. They decided to openly carry dildos on the outside of their backpacks, etc. Open display of such items is against policy of all universities as being in the category of lewd and lascivious behavior. Not sure how lewd and lascivious it is, but I certainly don't want a dildo waved in my face by some fanatical female student. I have no idea where that thing has been or how clean it is.
One would think that just because a law is passed doesn't mean society will suddenly change somehow. Not sure what they expect. Do they believe there will be shootings in the classrooms? They seem to think it will somehow stifle learning. I don't understand their concerns. If a law was passed that permitted nude bathing at the beaches, how many folks would suddenly yank off their suits much less begin having sex on the beach (not talking about the drink here, although alcoholic beverages are generally not permitted on public beaches either)?
The extreme reactions are so completely out of proportion to any actual risk that might be presented that it is obvious to me the students are being overzealous, possibly manipulated, by anti-second amendment zealots.
Without any actual data to go on regarding the campuses in question, let's start with the general population. Houston has approximately 6% of the population licensed to carry a handgun (according to DPS statistics). But this is hardly indicative of the population at the Universities. Their population is much younger, and many are under 21, thus cannot get a license to carry a handgun. So at most universities (at least the undergraduate population), students cannot carry. This leaves faculty and staff. Some of them may own firearms, but I suspect (and only suspect in the absence of any actual data) that these folks do not fall within the category of handgun owners and carriers.
So what are we really talking about? What is behind all this? These are the appropriate questions. Certainly these folks (primarily underage students) couldn't believe that unstable 14 year olds and other teenagers could legally possess handguns, or that the millions of law abiding citizens that do own and even carry handguns would suddenly go crazy on a university campus or anywhere else for that matter? It is my feeling (again, no actual facts because apparently no one has bothered with these annoying things) that knowing someone could carry on campus would make the campus safer. But who am I to say?
Regardless of any other facts, the supreme law of the land, which I also suspect few even know, much less could quote, states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I wonder what they think the word infringed means? Clearly, private universities in Texas have infringed constitutional law.
I was tempted to title this "Clueless Morons in Public Office" but not all politicians are this clueless. Former Assemblywoman Patricia Eddington (D) from the NY State Assembly and currently Town Clerk for Brookhaven, NY, gave a press conference in which she showed three bullets of different calibers. The bullets were normal bullets (at least in the film clip I saw from Channel 55, it was not apparent the bullets were anything other than normal full metal jacket (FMJ) rounds). She described them first as incendiary rounds with the incendiary on the tip, then went on to say they were "heat seeking" rounds.
Holy smokes, batman, heat seeking incendiary bullets! Whatever will we do? Has anyone else considered the possibility they would only seek on themselves? Do all anti-patriotic, anti-Constitution, anti-American politicians invent inflammatory nonsensical stupidity to present as "facts" to their constituents.
How about trying actual facts. Tracer rounds contain an incendiary that when fired, will show the bullets trajectory. The incendiary is not on the tip. These rounds are often used by soldiers at night to better see where their rounds are going. They are normally used every 5 rounds or so. The tips are painted either red, orange, or in the case of "dim" tracers, violet, but that's a marking so you know that they are tracers. Apart from the addition of a small amount of incendiary material to show the bullets trajectory, they are just an ordinary bullet.
To my knowledge (gee, I only spent 20 years in the US Army firing all kinds of hand-held and crew-served weapons), no "heat seeking" bullets exist. We have heat seeking missiles, but federal regulations prohibit these types of weapons in civilian hands. Normally, these would be fired at aircraft and seek out the jet engines' heat signature. I guess you can understand why civilians wouldn't normally be allowed to have these weapons. What possible reason would a civilian need to be firing a missile at a jet powered helicopter or jet aircraft for?
The point is, these ordinary bullets are not heat seeking. And if they're incendiary (i.e., tracer) rounds, so what? OK, I wouldn't suggest firing them at fuel tanks. Ditto for firing any rounds at fuel tanks. On the other hand, I don't ever recall seeing tracer rounds on sale at any of the outlets where I purchase ammunition. It's just not necessary. Serves no purpose, so why pay more for something that doesn't do any good (except signal everyone where the round came from)?
Reminds me of another film clip I saw with some US Senator all agitated talking about how these "assault rifles" (rifles now, not machineguns) could fire off hundreds of "clips" per minute. Huh? I've never heard bullets called "clips." I've heard of bullets referred to as rounds. And I've heard some folks refer to magazines (which hold bullets) as clips. So apparently, I'm as confused about what he's talking about as he is.
None of this is necessary. Guns are not dangerous. Clueless idiots spouting nonsense of which they know nothing are much more dangerous. All the more so because their target audience is as clueless as they are and believe them. I wish all these folks would just learn how to use Google, and get their facts straight. But I'm sure that wouldn't be as inflammatory as spouting nonsense to the masses. And aside from being clueless, it is irresponsible and reckless. This behaviour should not be tolerated in politicians. And swearing to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, when they have no intention of doing so it equally intolerable. Hey, Hillary, Australia already has what you want, please emigrate!
To many of us, particularly military veterans, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not only the supreme law of the land, but inviolate laws that apply to all. This document is what made America what it is: Land of the Free. Without it, we are nothing more than a cheap knock-off of any other 3rd rate country.
All military people, and indeed most of those holding a high public office, vowed to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We did not vow to protect the government of the United States. Let me be very clear about this: the US Constitution, not the US Government, is what true patriots hold sacred. Patriots love the United States of America (our country) and the US Constitution. We understand the difference between love of country and love of government. They are not the same.
Many of us who swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic despise those who are abrogating our rights under the various amendments to the Bill of Rights. Make no mistake, domestic enemies of the Constitution are still enemies of the Constitution. They need to be asked politely but firmly to endorse and support the Constitution or emigrate to a country without the rights they are fighting against. These domestic enemies of the Constitution have gone so far as to call patriots like myself terrorists. Well if you are a domestic enemy of the Constitution, then you are my enemy. But to label me "terrorist" to further your attacks on the Bill of Rights I find cowardly on your part. And I will fight you tooth and nail.
To my way of thinking, the Bill of Rights is very clear. The 2d amendment reads in part: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What part of that is unclear, Hillary? State of New Jersey? Brady Anti-gun Coalition?
Now these anti-gun nuts have smart lawyers who keep pointing to the first clause that introduces the 2d amendment that talks about a militia and insists we don't have one, so the entire amendment is pointless. I have never seen an entire contract thrown out in court just because one clause was deemed invalid. In fact, that clause is removed (as I did above) by the court, and the rest of the contract enforced.
We need to just get back to basics and push the federal government to enact laws reinforcing (not abrogating) our Bill of Rights. Bills that would force NJ and other states to accept that our law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, at all times, in all places. To be surrendered only under exceptional circumstances (like on an aircraft where the consequences of a firearms discharge -- accidental or otherwise -- in an aircraft at 30,000 feet would be catastrophic).
Those who don't love the Constitution and the Bill of Rights either don't understand it or just need to leave. Without the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there is no America the Great. They are the cornerstones of our freedoms.
I picked on the 2d amendment on purpose as it the one most under attack by our domestic enemies of the Constitution. But I have seen examples of the abrogation of all but the 3rd and 10th amendments to the Bill of Rights, and it sickens me. We are better than this. We are better people and a better country. But we are backsliding fast. We need to reassert our rights and ensure they are applied equally. This is how we keep America great, Donald. Not by building walls, but by getting back to those rights that were granted to every US Citizen under the Constitution.
I am so absolutely angry at the sheeple in this country, I want them all deported for stupidity and anti-patriotism.
I was at a college dropping off my #2 daughter this past weekend, and the school had activities to allay parents fears about leaving their precious child with the school. Well, my worst fears are well founded. Most parents left thinking their children were in good hands, my fear that they were left horribly unprotected was confirmed.
Guess I should explain. The Texas legislature saw fit to partially repeal the ban on handgun carriage in schools. Universities have been removed from the list of schools where you cannot carry self-protection. But they allowed private universities to opt-out and continue to prohibit weapons on campus.
Let's face it, not many students could carry on campus even if they wanted to. To get a CHL (concealed handgun license) in Texas, you must be 21 years old and pass a CHL class. On a campus of less than 1400 students (most under the age of 21 -- in fact, normally only seniors are in this age bracket), we're talking principally staff and faculty. And I personally know of no staff or faculty in any of the colleges I've been to who have a CHL. So basically, this college would go from 0 folks carrying weapons to 0 folks carrying weapons even if they did not opt out of campus carry.
So what's the problem? Well, two-fold really. The first is that the fact that no one is permitted to carry a concealed weapon on campus is not lost on the criminal element. The campus I work on is a perfect example of that. They routinely have students robbed on campus. They know no one but the conspicious uniformed police officers carry weapons. So, easy pickings. The second issue is a bit more insidious.
I have seen it many times before, mostly in other countries, but the cowardly sheeple here are promoting it. It's the surrender of freedoms we enjoy (or should enjoy) under the US Constitution that are slowly being eroded. Once surrendered, freedoms are NEVER given back. No government has ever returned a freedom to the people once they have willingly surrendered it.
Our forefathers meant for the Constitution to be the ultimate, sacred, irrevokable law of the land for every citizen. But the government is crafty. They have found ways to circumvent the Constitution. For example, if you want to fly today, you must surrender ALL your rights (Article 4, search and seizure; Article 2, right to bear arms; article 1, right to free speech; among others). In fact, the only rights you have today when flying are the right to shut up and be transported if and when the airline feels like it (at exhorbitant rates and paying through the nose even for water during the flight) and the right to die. Then they have the FSSA (false sense of security agency, the so-called TSA to allay the sheeple's fears) that, through sheer numbers should be able to stumble over a terrorist once a decade (although they never have, depite stumbling all over themselves). I'm waiting for the terrorists to decide they want to reign havoc once again. Trust me, it will be easily done (I know, I worked counter-terrorism for many years in the military).
We have been well-played by the terrorists. They have won. The sheeple have surrendered many freedoms for a modicum of security.
But I digress. What has prompted this rant is that during an informational session at the college, someone asked about campus carry and when the person in charge indicated that they opted out of the law, there was thunderous applause.
All I could think of was the Star Wars episode where the Galactic Senate forfeit their freedoms and appointed Senator Palpatine emperor (dictator) of the New Order (aka Galactic Empire). Yes, anyone who can see beyond their nose understands that once freedoms are given up, they will never be recuperated. But sheeple don't think.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1775, to the Colonial Governor. I will gloss over the fact that this is about money, not freedoms, but does ring strangely true here.
I doubt very much the cowards applauding the loss of an essential freedom understand its long-term consequences or the dire prospects for the future. They have been sold a bill of goods by a liberal media fueled by money from foundations that do not have individual liberties at heart. Hillary Clinton wants all Americans to be disarmed, doesn't believe anyone should be allowed to have a gun in their house for self-protection, doesn't believe the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, is herself surrounded by gun-toting thugs. Did I just call Hillary a hypocrite?
It's time to reaffirm the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and the Bill of Rights as inviolable rights of every US citizen before these liberties are lost forever. The way it's going, the US Constitution will become nothing more than a quaint historical document for elementary children to be told about and then told "but we did away with all that nonsense years ago."
Traitors and enemies of the Constitution abound. The worst part is, most of these traitors and domestic enemies of the Constitution have no idea what they are signing up for. But soon, airplanes won't be the only place all our freedoms are surrendered. They'll be surrendered when you buy a house, a car, or just want to live in the former "Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave", now just becoming a land of the formerly free and home of the cowardly sheeple.
When guns are outlawed only governments and criminals will have guns.
During the 20th century, over 162 million civilians were killed by their own governments, more than in all the 20th century wars combined*. In each case, extermination followed gun confiscation:
1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, 40-60 million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, and others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1956: Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977 one million "class enemies," unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.
1966-1976: China still had gun control. Millions of more "class enemies," still unable to defend themselves, were exterminated in Mao's "Cultural Revolution."
1990's: Rwanda established gun control. In 100 days in 1994, over 800,000 Tutsis, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated by machete-weilding Hutus backed by armed government militias.
Never again! We will never again be led like lambs to the slaughter, because in a moment of naive optimism we allowed ourselves to be disarmed!
People who tell me that could never happen here have their heads buried in the sand (or other dark, forboding place). Bet the people where the exterminations took place also thought it could never happen there.
I personally detest the enemies of The Constitution of the United States who would emasculate the 2d amendment, domestic enemies I swore to protect The Constitution from.
I think of sheep (I call most people sheeple as they act like sheep, they just don't stand around saying baaa), looking at fencing erected on the south and west sides of a pasture saying: it's so nice we're protected from the wolves. The wolves, on the other hand, are slavering at the prospect of easy pickings as they note how the sheep will be trapped and easily caught with the fence that's been erected on the south and west side of the pasture as they attack from the NE.
While I do not recommend the movie "Dead Pool" to anyone, one scene is telling: Angel grabs the bartender, holding him in the air, slams him against the refrigeration unit. Instantly, you hear the unmistakeable sound of some 30 handguns "lock and load" and know that Angel may need to rethink her tactic of strong arming someone with a lot of heavily armed friends.
I would also like to note that recently Australia and the UK passed some very stringent anti-gun laws. The three-fold uptick in murders following the enactment of said laws is telling.
An armed society is a polite society.
On a side note, do you know why the Japanese didn't invade the US following the attack on Pearl Harbor? They believed Americans all had guns in their houses.
* "democide" - a term coined by the late Prof R. J. Rummell who researched the numbers.
It's a simple question. Do you support the Constitution of the United States or not?
Most folks who know me know I spent 20 years of my life in the U.S. Army supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. I swore an oath to do so. I am retired (but can be recalled at any time) and do not consider my oath vacated. I am also 50% disabled. These were service-related disabilities. Disabilities I received while in service and doing what I could for our great nation and the Constitution.
I take extreme offense at those who slander me and call me a terrorist. Dan Gross of the Brady Anti-Gun Lobby Group called the NRA (National Rifle Association), to which I belong, a terrorist organization. I don't know where this anti-patriot coward who never served a day in his life gets off calling me a terrorist.
I also am astonished at the completely incoherent thought processes surrounding statements like "the Supreme Court of the US is wrong" in its interpretation that the second amendment to the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States protects an individuals' freedom to keep and bear arms. Who does it protect? The government? The Bill of Rights is all about individual protections. Yet liberal states are permitted to pass legislation prohibiting citizens to keep and bear arms. How is this possible? Have they seceded from the union?
The federal government needs to do something to reassert itself to these sessionist states that would deny its citizens their second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Anti-patriot cowards like Dan Gross need to be censured and sanctioned for calling true patriots terrorists. I worked in anti-terrorist units on anti-terrorist missions. I resent his remarks. He is lucky I do not possess the financial wherewithal to confront him in court. He owes me and a number of other US Military Veterans that belong to the NRA an apology.
Over 40 years ago, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I very firmly believe in our Constitution and its guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. I don't believe the oath I took upon entering the US Army terminated with my retirement. In fact, as I still receive a check from the US Army (for retirement), in my way of thinking the oath is as binding as the day I took it.
The Constitution as a whole, and as I see it, the spirit of our Consitution is to guarantee personal freedoms. The second Amendment to the Constitution, in a portion referred to as the "Bill of Rights", guarantees our right to keep and bear arms:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now I understand where the introductory rationale for this amendment can be confusing. We no longer have a militia. We have a standing army for the country, the individual states have their own National Guard. So is this amendment really applicable today?
Many anti-2d Amendment believers say this no longer applies, so people don't need to have weapons to protect the state. Our forefathers couldn't foresee many changes that have taken place. But historically, weapons have not been for protection of the state so much as personal protection.
Ah, but we have police to provide us protection. Or do we?
I would cite the various states and Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decisions regarding the police and individual protection:
Castle Rock v. Gonzalez (2005, SCOTUS docket 04-278)
Barillari v. City of Milwaukee (1995)
Bowers v. DeVito (1982)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989)
Ford v. Town of Grafton (1998)
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
Riss v. New York (1958)
Lynch v. NC Dept. of Justice (1989)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975)
So if the police do not have a legal obligation to protect individuals (according to the citations above), either the powers that be have determined we don't need, don't deserve, or will provide for our own, protection. Well, my children and my wife need to be protected from the more nefarious elements of our society. And they deserve it. I think most of you reading this will agree. Therefore it is up to us as individuals to protect ourselves and each other. Please feel free to correct me if you feel this is wrong, but bring a reasoned argument to the table. Anecdotal "evidence" and personal feelings are not welcome.
The first decision cited above has resulted in numerous state laws (many of which people do not understand at all), often referred to as Castle Doctrine. These laws vary wildly in their expectations and demands on their citizens. They are often referred to as one of either "Stand your ground" laws or "Retreat" laws depending on whether you are required to retreat until you can retreat no further before you can legally defend yourself, or if you can stand your ground and defend yourself wherever you are legally allowed to be (even outside your own property), and some include the protection of third persons on their behalf.
That is, in NJ, for example, until you have retreated to the furthest reaches of your house and cowered in a corner, you cannot protect yourself from someone who has broken into your house. And even then, in court, you will be required to show that you could not have gone even further (like digging a hole) to avoid acting in self defense. If your assailant dies, count on going to prison. In other words, why didn't you and your loved ones just die and get it over with?
A comparison of the third and fourth largest US cities:
Chicago, IL Houston, TX Population 2.7 million 2.15 million Median HH income $38,600 $37,000 % African-American 38.9% 24% % Hispanic 29.9% 44% % Asian 5.5% 6% % Non-Hispanic White 28.7% 26% Concealed Carry gun law NO YES # Gun stores 0 184 dedicated, 1500 other Homicides (2012) 1806 207 Homicides/100k 38.4 9.6
Granted, other factors could be taken into account. But the above is damning. I know for a fact most Houston breakins occur when the residence is unoccupied -- for good reason. The likelihood of confronting an armed homeowner is much higher in Houston and folks are legally permitted to stand their ground. No such fear in Chicago.
The crime rate in Sweden is one of the lowest in the world. In Sweden, military service is mandatory. At the end of their obligatory military service, they take their issued weapons home with them (they have to maintain them). With every house in Sweden armed with at least one weapon, any question why their crime rate is so low? Anti-second amendment advocates cannot explain this as their arguments are that citizens need to be disarmed for their own protection. Given that argument, Sweden should have the highest crime rate in the world, not the lowest. Every statistic I see contradicts the assertion that a disarmed populace is a safe populace.
Now, I do not see any reason why the average citizen would need automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction. That would be taking things to an extreme. I don't need to wipe out the entire block to protect myself and my family. I prefer a more targeted approach. But to take away my ability to protect my family against an armed assailant. Not happening (so I won't be moving to the communist states of NY or NJ any time soon). Couldn't anyway, they won't let my guns in. And if Texas ever goes the way of NJ, many of us will just have to become peaceful criminals.
In NY, prosecutors for Nassua County are prohibited from owning weapons. These are people that prosecute dangerous criminals. But they are prohibited from protecting themselves in their homes from these same dangerous criminals who may come to their homes to seek revenge. I cannot believe anyone is that naive that they would permit themselves to be disarmed in the face of the very real possibility of violence directed against their person. But, sheeple will be sheeple. Unfortunately, I believe the high crime rate in some of these areas can be directly attributed to the fact that criminals know they are safe -- from both the police (who won't arrive for at least 20 minutes in many areas) and from their victims who are legally enjoined from protecting themselves. Talk about a criminal's paradise.
Hypocrasy knows no bounds, though. "Gun safety" advocates don't advocate gun safety, only disarming the public. They have fought against gun safety classes for those who do own guns. Brady law advocates also want all citizens disarmed. Forget the facts: Then Press Secretary James Brady was shot during an attempt on President Reagan's life. The shooter was a known, wanted criminal who could not legally own or possess a gun in any state. A thousand Brady laws and complete disarming of the citizenry could not have stopped this attempt. Brady laws have nothing to do with stopping crime. Only preventing those non-sheeple, law abiding citizens from defending themselves against violent criminal activity.
Amazing. Passionate arguments are often persuasive to ill-informed sheeple who have no clue about weapons. Even our lawmakers who refer to "clips" when they mean bullets, show a complete lack of understanding of anything even related to guns and should not be introducing legislation about something of which they know not.
Personally, I would ban cars. Cars cause more deaths in the US than guns.
And by the way, the very term "gun violence" makes no sense. No gun is violent. No car is violent. People are violent. I was once attacked by a woman with her car (probably because she had no gun). She deliberately tried to run me down -- I ended up holding onto the hood for dear life afraid if I fell off, the tires might crush my legs (or worse). I heard no outcry to ban cars. In fact, the woman wasn't even arrested for attempted murder. I would have preferred to be shot at.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to live in states without onerous gun laws where I can provide my loved ones the protection the police and state can't or won't. And the last time I looked, neither I nor any of my guns have ever shot anyone just because we could.
Now, everyone is probably wondering what the first paragraph of this text has to do with everything coming after. Well, as I said, I vowed to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Anti-gun folks and their unreasoned arguments have been attempting to subvert the Consitution of the United States. Their agenda is, in my opinion, an attack on the very foundation of our country and should be stopped. All those favoring anti-gun laws are attempting to circumvent our freedoms. Those candidates that are anti-second amendment should not be supported or voted for. I encourage you to find out what your candidates platform is on gun legislation and those who support ammo bans and gun bans should be viewed for what they are: anti-patriotic. I served in the armed forces for 20 years. I am sickened to see what the sheeple of this country have allowed to happen. We didn't become great by being a nation of cowards, but we've been acting like cowards since 9/11. We have most definitely traded our freedoms for security. A sure road to a dictatorship. Just say no to gun control.
Late in the evening of 15 June, a band of Somali al-Shabaab Muslim extremists went door to door in the Kenyan village of Mpeketoni. For hours they held townspeople at gunpoint in their own houses asking religious questions. Those who could not or would not answer the Islamic religious questions were murdered. Some 48 non-Muslims were slain by this group.
The definition of genocide includes: (a) killing members of a group on the basis of race, religion, or national origin (paraphrased).
The Muslim extremist attacks fall well within the definitions of genocide as defined by the UN. This is what happened prior to and during World War II. Are we to stand by again while this happens just because it's not in our back yard?
I have refrained from comments on religion and religious groups for a reason. I have yet to find a religious sect or pious person that doesn't espouse hate, hipocrasy, intolerance, or xenophobia. But those who add genocide to the list are the most abhorrent of all.
The UN should definitely act against this group and bring them to justice before the International Criminal Court that has the charter to hear these cases. Since WWII, despite other acts of genocide, this court has, however, been particularly impotent.
I would propse that the UN send a multinational force, but in this case, justice would be better served if the force was composed solely of Muslims who are not extremists, as a show of faith to the world that not all Muslims feel all non-Muslims must die. In fact, true followers of Islam should be embarrased by the actions of extremists around the world.
Of importance in all this is not only to meet out justice to those who commit the acts, but to find out who the authors are behind these atrocities. As important as it is to capture the criminals to prevent future acts, it is just as important to find those religious icons responsible for the reprehensible teachings counter to Islam done in the name of Allah and ensure they are dealt with appropriately.