Archive for the ‘Men’s Issues’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Libertarian or Conservative? Well, we warned you…

May 27, 2012

The seemingly never ending grab for power by the big government insatiable authoritarian types is an ongoing and never ending situation. Now, we have this to deal with…

CONGRESS DOUBLES DOWN ON AMERICAN DETAINMENT AS NEW BILL PROPOSES TO STRIP AMERICANS OF CITIZENSHIP

URGENT: A new bill before Congress proposes authority to strip any American of their citizenship – and God-given rights – if they are merely suspected of a hostile attitude toward the state.

TELL CONGRESS: WE WILL NOT TRADE OUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR TYRANNY! – SELECT HERE

Pundits and politicians keep repeating the same mantra, “no rights for terrorists,” but ask yourself, who defines terrorist and why should that opinion strip any American of their God-given Constitutional rights? What happens when the government decides the enemy is YOU?

Senators Joe Liebermann and Scott Brown are joined by Representatives Dent, Altmier and Latta in proposing the “Enemy Expatriation Act.” This proposed act, (HR 3166 and SB 1698), seeks to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, (8 USC 1481), to add the following text “To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”

To many, this language seems benign. First of all, the use of the word “national” seems to give the impression that the proposed punishment would only apply to American citizens who were “nationalized,” i.e. not citizens by birth. However, when we examine the language of 8 USC 1481, we find the law defines a ‘national’ as “A person who is a national of the United States whether BY BIRTH or naturalization.”

TELL CONGRESS: WE WILL NOT TRADE OUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR TYRANNY! – SELECT HERE

Now for the term “hostilities.” What exactly constitutes a “hostility” and/or a “hostile action”? After all, 8 USC 1481 already quite clearly defines who should have their citizenship stripped – anyone who commits actual formal treason and/or who takes up arms against the US. Why the need to add a single undefined word to this age old section of the US Code?

It appears, as with so many other things, this Congress chooses to simply leave the term “hostilities” open to interpretation. And herein lies the danger.

Ambiguity in the law is always dangerous. Considering the fact that Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security has already defined returning veterans, 10th Amendment supporters, pro-lifers and anyone with a 2 week supply of food as potential “rightwing terrorists,” this new ambiguous language leads directly to the likelihood of stifling our Constitutional right of free speech by labeling such speech and action as “hostile” and therefore punishable as “terrorist” and treason. As George Orwell famously penned, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” Indeed, it appears that Senator Liebermann and his fellow conspirators agree.

TELL CONGRESS: WE WILL NOT TRADE OUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR TYRANNY! – SELECT HERE

Finally, let’s take a look at the proposed placement of the new language to be added to the existing US Code. While the existing US Code mentioned above does require a conviction of treason before citizenship is removed, the manner in which this new language is added means that the necessity of a conviction does not apply, in statutory terms, to the new language. In other words, if this new bill passes, no conviction will be necessary to strip Americans of their citizenship. Rather, all that will be required is an accusation of “hostility” by a Federal Government agent and voila, your citizenship is gone. The Government is then at liberty to treat you in any way they so choose in accordance with the laws of war. Waterboarding for praying in front of an abortion clinic, anyone?

This unconscionable landslide removing our civil liberty in exchange for the false lie of security must be stopped. This so called “Enemy Expatriation Act” is nothing more than NDAA Part II, when a tyrannical Government doubles down on shredding any concept of Habeas Corpus and the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution – civil liberties paid for with the blood of our forefathers.

Benjamin Franklin warned us not to trade our liberty for the false promise of security. Yet the power mongers in Congress just keep trying.

TELL CONGRESS: WE WILL NOT TRADE OUR LIBERTY FOR YOUR TYRANNY! – SELECT HERE

We are rapidly approaching a time when the culmination of unconstitutional laws can and will be used against us. Under a pro-abortion president will we be rounded up and incarcerated for sidewalk counseling at abortion clinics? Under a “hawk” president, will antiwar protestors be locked in Guantanamo for merely holding picket signs and shouting their objections? This sounds extreme, but such legislation and seemingly benign rulings are exactly what have imprisoned legions of political dissidents throughout history and across the globe. Why should we imagine that we are immune to such tyranny? THIS BILL MUST BE STOPPED! HABEAS CORPUS MUST BE RESTORED NOW!

SOURCE

 

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

Comparision / Contrast: AKA holding your nose when you vote

January 29, 2012

We Americans are about to yet again have to hold our collective noses when we vote in the coming election.

One thing is clear, and that is that Obama must go. His attempts at undermining American sovereignty. His just plain lousy choices for advisers and people in high office such as Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder being the best examples. His idiotic handling of energy and economic issues, crony capitalism, and the list just goes on forever make his removal from office a no brainer. His inexcusable use of the military as an election tool just tops off the cake.

So, what are we left with? Yet another chorus of decidedly poor choices. Let’s take an observation  them through the looking glass of the Bill of Rights.

Mitt Romney

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate. Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue. While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”[1]

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms. “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”[2]

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns. The Boston Herald quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”[3]

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire. In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps. But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

[1] Mitt Romney in the 2002 Massachusetts Gubernatorial debate.  Part of the quote can be read in this article at Scot Lehigh, “Romney vs. Romney,” Boston Globe (January 19, 2007) at:

http://mittromney4potus.blogspot.com/2007/01/context.html

“Romney signs off on permanent assault weapons ban,” July 8, 2004, at: http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=14812

[3] Mitt Romney, quoted by Joe Battenfeld in the Boston Herald, Aug. 1, 1994.

Newt Gingrich

Prior to the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia had earned an A rating with Gun Owners of America.  But that all changed in 1995, after Republicans were swept to power and Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

The Republicans gained the majority, thanks in large part to gun owners outraged by the Clinton gun ban.  And upon taking the reins of the House, Speaker Gingrich said famously that, “As long as I am Speaker of this House, no gun control legislation is going to move in committee or on the floor of this House and there will be no further erosion of their rights.”

His promise didn’t hold up, however, and his GOA rating quickly dropped to well below the “C-level.”  In 1996, the Republican-led Congress passed the “gun free school zones act,” creating criminal safe zones like Virginia Tech, where the only person armed was a murderous criminal.  Speaker Newt Gingrich voted for the bill containing this ban.[1]

The same bill also contained the now infamous Lautenberg gun ban, which lowered the threshold for losing one’s Second Amendment rights to a mere misdemeanor.[2] Gun owners could, as a result of this ban, lose their gun rights forever for non-violent shouting matches that occurred in the home — and, in many cases, lose their rights without a jury trial.

While a legislator might sometimes vote for a spending bill which contains objectionable amendments, that was clearly NOT the case with Newt Gingrich in 1996.  Speaking on Meet the Press in September of that year, Speaker Gingrich said the Lautenberg gun ban was “a very reasonable position.”[3] He even refused to cosponsor a repeal of the gun ban during the next Congress — despite repeated requests to do so.[4]

Also in 1996, Speaker Gingrich cast his vote for an anti-gun terror bill which contained several harmful provisions.  For example, one of the versions he supported (in March of that year) contained a DeLauro amendment that would have severely punished gun owners for possessing a laser sighting device while committing an infraction as minor as speeding on a federal reservation.[5] (Not only would this provision have stigmatized laser sights, it would have served as a first step to banning these items.)  Another extremely harmful provision was the Schumer amendment to “centralize Federal, State and Local police.”[6]

Final passage of H.R. 3610, Sept. 28, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml . Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) warned his colleagues about the hidden dangers in H.R. 3610, and in regard to the Kohl ban, noted that it would “prohibit most persons from carrying unloaded firearms in their automobiles.”

See Gingrich’s vote at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll455.xml .

[3] Associated Press, “Gingrich Favors Handgun Ban for Domestic Abuse Convicts,” Deseret News, Sept. 16, 1996.  The full quote reveals how much Speaker Gingrich had adopted the anti-gunners’ line of thinking:  “I’m very much in favor of stopping people who engage in violence against their spouses from having guns,” the Georgia Republican said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think that’s a very reasonable position.”  But the fact that this gun ban covers misdemeanors in the home is primary evidence that NON-violent people have been subjected to lifetime gun bans for things like:  shouting matches, throwing a set of keys in the direction of another person, spanking a child, etc.

[4] See H.R.1009, “States’ Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1997,” introduced by Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-ID).

H.R. 2703, March 14, 1996 at: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll066.xml .

S. 735, April 18, 1996 at:  http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll126.xml .

Both the above assessments are from Gun Owners of America

Clearly, neither candidate is a real friend of the Bill of Rights, and especially of the Second Amendment. Both are hell on taxes after all the whitewash has been removed. Both support the taking of fundamental rights away from people forever for less than felonious behaviors. Both believe in government running your personal day to day lives. Both are supporters of big government authoritarianism. Both are unacceptable, period…

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, wordpress blogs, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

A History Lesson, so to speak…

January 19, 2012

I have a very good friend. His name is Leo, and I will leave it at that. he follows the blog, and will reveal his full name if he so chooses to do so.

Leo, is a genuine all American BAD ASS.  In the Viet Nam War Leo did his duty, and then some. Three, count them three Bronze Stars with “V” Device, as well as a Silver Star. He also picked up a couple of Purple Mary’s along the way. He pulled a woman and her two kids out of a canal in Georgia I think it was. That had run off the road, and were in danger of drowning. He took a hit in the lower leg from a Water Moccasin in the process. That tagged him with “The Soldiers Medal.” He’s also got a Combat Infantry Badge with? Three stars for God’s sakes! Leo, is / was an AIRBORNE RANGER!

Which brings me too the point of this post. Leo and I were talking one day and the subject of slavery came up. I received one hell of an education that day. Oh, I somehow forgot to mention that Leo, is a Black Man…

What follows, is stolen from my good friend Texas Fred. It is a review of the dressing down that I received from Leo that day.

Here in Texas we take our holidays, traditions and heritage quite seriously.

Confederate Heroes Day in Texas

Confederate Heroes Day is a Texas State Holiday created by Chapter 221, Senate Bill 60, of the 63rd Texas Legislature. Approved June 1, 1973 and Effective August 27, 1973, this bill deleted June 3rd as a holiday for Jefferson Davis’ birthday and combined it with Robert E. Lee’s Birthday, January 19th. It is the last holiday in the State of Texas dedicated to Confederate Veterans. We as “Sons of Confederate Veterans” are dedicate to the preservation of this holiday, the defense of the Confederate soldier’s good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles which he loved and which we love also, and those ideals which made him glorious. We celebrate this day in remembrance of those gallant individuals who bravely defended their families and their homeland in the war for southern independence. SOURCE

350x314px

Some say we fly the Confederate Flag because we are racists and haters. Those people are what I like to call WRONG. Hatred and racism have NOTHING to do with pride and our heritage.

I grow frustrated by those that insist the War Between the States was a war fought over the issue of slavery, it was not. Many still refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression.

So, let us examine some Confederate history, MYTH vs FACTS, and a bit of REAL history concerning those many myths as they are properly taken to task in the following:

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispel some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH – The War of 1861 – 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT – Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, “Why not let the South go in peace?” To which he replied, “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government?” Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.

MYTH– Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT– Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, Grant stated “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased – they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called “Emancipation Proclamation” of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!

MYTH– The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT– NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portuguese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products made from raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee history. History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.

MYTH– The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT– Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.

The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.

The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.

The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.

MYTH– The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Stars & Bars”.

FACT– A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the “Stars & Bars”. The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the “Southern Cross”.

MYTH– The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT– The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that vilify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.

MYTH– The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT– No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it’s commodities. It wasn’t until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.

MYTH– Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.

FACT– While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.

MYTH– The South revered slavery.

FACT– A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it’s servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.

MYTH– The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT– Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.

MYTH– Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT– Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.

MYTH– The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT– Quite the contrary. These despicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE – NOT HATE.

MYTH– The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT– This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendants of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.

The SCV – Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK. SOURCE

You can’t get a much more comprehensive, in-depth explanation than that.

Photobucket

Additional Reading: Gen. Robert E. Lee: January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
 
This entry was posted in Confederate Heroes Day and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, War, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

The great debate… Sort of…

September 8, 2011

The much anticipated Republican Presidential candidates debate was, well, for myself a lot of hooey that didn’t cut to the chase. It reminded me more of a game of dodge ball in that Romney and Perry pretty much stole the show. My lasting question being, “who squirmed be best?”

I seriously have to wonder about these people. Between obamnycare, and illegal immigration I have doubts about both the leading candidates. Then we have the Social Security red herring issue. Look folks, it’s a rip off that I myself am going to have to live with just because of how many times I have seen the sun set in the west. That does not mean that Americans should be saddled with this big government rip off forever, and allowing the democrats to frame that debate leaves me wondering just how much true leadership really exists within the Republican Party. Tell you what? Perhaps the Republicans should once again co-opt the Libertarians positions and strategies on that issue. Those from back in the day when the Libertarians still had brains, and were indeed the Party of Principle.

On that note: All of you that so hate the Libertarians, the philosophical Libertarians, not the LP whack jobs? Take a look at the real positions taken by the TEA Party folks… Looks an awful lot like the LP platform from the eighties... Complete with a serious lack of real leadership!

Even after all the bally hoo, I still see no real plan to:

  • Get the economy back on track in a meaningful way.
  • Restore the Bill of Rights and Constitution as it was meant to be.
  • Reestablish American pride and exceptionalism.
  • Restore the faith of the people across the world in America as a bastion of freedom and liberty.

As much as I admire many of those running for the office of President I have serious doubts about most of them.

 

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Well, well, well… Here we go again!

June 6, 2011

Politics. It’s an ever interesting field for many, and it does have a direct impact on our lives. What do you look for in a politician?

Are you a “bring home the bacon” supporter type? As in what will this or that person do for my home area?

Perhaps you are a singular social issue type. Mysandry (male hating sexist that believes that a woman can do no wrong.) Or you beat dead horse’s over gay rights, and look for insinuations or attacks at every opportunity based upon a belief. Then toss out red herring’s as though they are facts..?

Perhaps you are really into the Constitution and Bill of Rights? (Yup, I plead guilty to belonging in this group!)

Then there are always those that are going to save the world. After all, why should some have more than others..? Why are some more powerful than others, and so on goes the line. All Gore and the man made global warming extremist’s are a fair example of this group. Even if they are going to get rich by proclaiming themselves our saviors…

Are you an anarchist pretending to be a libertarian? A Libertarian with a solid streak of anarchist inside of you..?

Believe in pure democracy? That the majority position should always rule? Does the Utilitarian come out in you more often than not?

Just food for thought…

 

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

2012 is Coming Folks…

June 6, 2011

My good friend and fellow blogger Texas Fred has yet again hit one out of the ball park. This one is so good that it simply has to be shared. Please hit the links to really get the flavor of this article.

I have a blogging buddy out in California that goes by the handle of *wirecutter*. His blog
Knuckle Draggin’, is rude, crude, socially unacceptable in some circles, brutally honest and absolutely hilarious, in a SICK sort of way. Needless to say, I LOVE IT!

This is one of his posts that is not unacceptable, not in the circles I run in, it is that brutally honest thing I just mentioned. Please read 2012 is coming, folks and comment here, and on wirecutters blog too!

2012 is Coming Folks

An old West Virginia Hillbilly saying: Ya can’t get the water to clear up until you get the pigs outta the creek.

*If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?*

*If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head? *

*If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who’s side he was on? *

*If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? *

*If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed? *

*If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him? *

*If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? *

*If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ? *

*If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? *

*If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? *

*If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn’t you have had second thoughts about his capabilities? *

*If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk. *

*If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn’t you have winced in embarrassment? *

*If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?*

*If any other of our presidents’ administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? *

*If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? *

*If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have ever approved. *

*If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved? *

*So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

*Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 24 months — so you have that much time to come up with an answer .*

*An’ how about all those vacations he & Michelle take constantly, (with a more than a full entourage’) paid for by American tax-payers? *

Every statement and action in this post is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

Wirecutter and Knuckledraggin’, not for the weak hearted… But I really feel a distinct kinship with the guy! :P

If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you’re not a racist, you’ll have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you’re not an idiot!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 6 Comments »

Voters Unhappy with Congress; and other things of note

May 18, 2011

Voters are, again, not so pleased with Congress, so says USA Today / Gallup poll. (Wednesday May 18,2011, front page USA today, by Susan Page.)

No kidding..? My, my, I never would have guessed that… Seems that the peoples mandate was in fact ignored by many that reside in hallowed offices in foggy bottom.

Just say what people want to hear, and go on about your merry ways.

Well folks, that, is specifically what the TEA Party is all about. Make it local, and in their faces, period. All this national TEA Party noise simply ignores why people joined together in this movement against higher taxes and ever expanding government. Government that intrudes on your life, right at home… Texas Fred does a great job exposing threats such as intrusion by government under color of law HERE.

Perhaps greeting politicians locally that are failing with a pot of tar and an opened down pillow will open their collective eyes..?

On to other things.

Seems that Emergency Rooms are still going the way of the passenger pigeon. Yet, the various stories that I have read, or watched on the news have been quite politically correct, and refuse to acknowledge one of the primary causes of closures nationwide. Use by illegal aliens, and others, of Emergency Departments for primary care; with no intent whatsoever of paying for the services rendered. It’s called fraud people, plain and simply put.

The Socialist scum head of the IMF get’s popped for alleged sexual assault. All fine and good; however as pointed out by Michael Savage on his show the other evening no proof is needed in this day and age for a woman to be able to destroy a man simply based upon her complaint of sexual or domestic battery. Sorry Michael, but you did not lead the charge. Do a search of “mysandry.” Better late than never though, and welcome aboard!

The middle east… What a mess to say the least. I’ve been calling for Dear Leader Gadhafi’s head to adorn a fence post for more years than I care to admit to. But just who will run the place after he has been ousted..? More Muslim Brotherhood types? Simply exchanging one despot for a group of despots is no solution. Same thing goes for Syria. While we are at it (examining ) the region. The U.N. will be voting on recognition of the Palestinian National State soon. Since epic fail obama, and his cronies are forever kissing the butts of Arabs / Muslims I suppose we can all guess what sort of support Israel will get from the U.S. on this issue of great importance. What’s yet another friend tossed under the bus..?

The Queen visits Ireland. Land of my forefathers never forget “Bloody Sunday.” But at the same time don’t allow Erie to whither because of old grievances.

The economy continues to falter, while the administration continues to tell us all how great things are becoming. This is a recording… (or so it seems!) If this lie can be pulled off, the epic fail obama is indeed assured a second term, and the destruction of America will be at hand.

That’s all for now folks.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Immigration, Law, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, War, Wordpress Political Blogs | 3 Comments »

Do ask, do tell

December 9, 2010

From the Patriot Post we have;

Do Ask, Do Tell?

The only legitimate DADT survey is…

“A good moral character is the first essential in a man…” –George Washington

New Unit Service Patch

Now that Republicans have temporarily halted Barack Hussein Obama’s effort to increase income taxes, let’s see what they can do to stop his effort to undermine the moral character of military combat units.

By way of defining the so-called “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) debate, let me say that it is not about the sexual habits of consenting adults. This debate is about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy.

In order to provide context for this debacle, here is a brief background.

One of Obama’s earliest campaign coming-out pledges was his promise to “end discrimination against gays and lesbians” who want military jobs. That “discrimination” was enacted by the Clinton administration and codified as law in Section 654 U.S. Code Title 10, which states, “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”

On 12 October this year, DADT policy was subject to an injunction by U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips in California. Phillips, a Clinton appointee, ordered the Department of Defense “immediately to suspend and discontinue any investigation, or discharge, separation, or other proceeding, that may have been commenced” under Section 654.

However, because the Obama administration wants full faith and credit for ending the policy, they actually asked Phillips for a stay of her injunction, which she denied. Obama then appealed to the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed to enter a stay so Obama could reclaim his political turf. U.S. appellate courts have consistently upheld this law.

In response, a homosexual advocacy group, Log Cabin Republicans, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate (overrule) the stay. In mid-November, SCotUS refused to lift the Ninth Circuit’s stay.

In the meantime, trying to beat the courts to the punch so Obama could curry favor with one of his most fervent constituencies, his DoD appointees released a “survey” which they claim justifies lame-duck Senate action to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” before the 112th Congress (with a strong House Republican majority and six more Senate Republicans) is seated. (Soon-to-be-Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s House had already voted to repeal on 27 May of this year.)

“Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally,” Obama said this week.

There is no question that Obama, given the beating he’s taken from his heretofore stalwart Leftist cadres on his broken promise to raise taxes, desperately wants to “win” the DADT debate, even though less than one percent of forced military discharges are related to sexual orientation, and the majority of those are, according to DoD, “uncontested and processed administratively.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates lamented that there is a “very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat” and noted that such a “disruptive and damaging scenario” would be “most hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance.”

So if the courts, instead of Obama, lift Section 654, it would be “hazardous to military morale, readiness, and battlefield performance”?

That is quite a revelation from an administration, which, in the Leftist tradition, seeks to use judicial diktat to amend the so-called “living constitution” and wholly subvert Rule of Law as established by our Founders.

For the record, the reliability of that voluntary DoD survey as a catalyst for revoking Section 654 is, at best, highly questionable. Of the 400,000 surveys that were distributed to military personnel and their families, only 115,000 were returned. That does not constitute an authentic statistical study with a genuine margin of error.

Questionable reliability notwithstanding, the Leftmedia’s reports implied that 70 percent of respondents answered that open homosexuality would either have a positive or mixed effect on morale. However, those same results could just as accurately have been reported as 70 percent of respondents answered that open homosexuality would either have a negative or mixed effect on morale. In fact, 30 percent answered “positive” and 30 percent answered “negative,” while a plurality answered “mixed.”

Gates did, however, admit that there was a much higher level of “discontent, discomfort and resistance to changing the current policy” among combat specialty units and the Service Chiefs, and added, “These findings do lead me to conclude that an abundance of care and preparation is required if we are to avoid a disruptive and potentially dangerous impact on the performance of those serving at the tip of the spear in America’s wars.”

To that end, I would argue that the only legitimate DADT survey that matters would be a scientific survey of frontline combat forces, warfighters, not rear echelon support personnel. Indeed, if our fighting forces exist for the purpose of winning wars, then unit cohesion and combat readiness must be sacrosanct. Any new policy that would be a “disruptive and potentially dangerous impact” on those essential attributes must be opposed.

By no means am I suggesting that Uniformed Service in a National Guard Armory in Kansas is any less honorable than serving in the Korengal Valley in eastern Afghanistan, but it is much less dangerous.

Complicating matters for Obama is the little-reported fact that, while he is advocating for homosexuals in the military, one who made it through the screening process, PFC Bradley Manning, is facing charges for unauthorized use and disclosure of classified information (UCMJ Articles 92 and 134). Manning will likely face charges of treason after taking it upon himself (with the “moral support” of his “self-described drag queen” partner) to release volumes of classified reports to WikiLeaks info anarchist Julian Assange, who himself may also face charges of espionage if he is extradited to the U.S.

George Washington, Commander of the Continental Army and our first Commander in Chief, offered this timeless observance: “The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality.”

Unfortunately, our current CINC’s national policy positions are a reflection of his corrupt, capricious and unprincipled private morality.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

 

And let us not forget the Ballad of the Pink berets!

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Law, Men's Issues, Military Science, Politics, Stupid is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized, Warfare, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Assault weapons and the truth: Here we go again..!

December 2, 2010

The Obama administration is moving into high gear in putting gun-control advocates into important government positions. The administration’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Andrew Traver, should be of particular concern. His attacks on the civilian use of so-called assault weapons raise real questions about his willingness to distort the truth for political purposes. The person nominated to be the nation’s top gun cop shouldn’t use inaccurate descriptions to scare people into supporting gun control.

Mr. Traver is the special agent in charge of the BATFE’s Chicago field division. Therefore, he knows what was covered by the federal assault-weapons ban that sunset in 2004. But in November 2009, NBC interviewed Traver and reported: “Traver says the power and randomness of the heavy caliber, military-style weapons make them so dangerous not only to people, but to police. They’re so powerful, body armor can’t withstand a hit, and they’re so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.”

SOURCE & SNIP

And further…

The list of problems with Mr. Traver’s claims is very long. If he really believes that these weapons fire unacceptably “heavy caliber” bullets, he is going to have to ban virtually all rifles. Small-game rifles — guns designed to kill squirrels and rabbits without destroying too much meat — typically fire .22-caliber bullets, which are only slightly smaller than the .223-caliber bullets fired by the M16 (used by the U.S. military since Vietnam) and the newer M4 carbine (used in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars). Deer-hunting rifles fire rounds that are very similar to those used by the AK-47.

Speaking of M16s, M4s, and AK-47s, Traver is correct when he states that the guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban were “military-style weapons.” But he fails to note that this really just deals with style — the cosmetics of the guns, not how they actually operate. The guns covered by the ban were not the machine guns actually used by the military, but civilian, semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 may look like the guns used by militaries around the world, but it is different. It fires essentially the same bullets as deer-hunting rifles at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.

On penetrating body armor, Mr. Traver leaves out one important detail: Rifles in general are often able to penetrate body armor simply because their bullets travel faster than those fired from handguns. The same can be said for going through the walls of houses. But if he had said that deer-hunting rifles can often penetrate walls and lower-level types of body armor, it is unlikely that his comments would have generated the same fear.

Unfortunately, Mr. Traver has done more than make clearly inaccurate claims about so-called “assault weapons.” He has supported banning .50-caliber rifles, regulations that would force many gun shows to close down, the Chicago handgun ban, and repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, which protects sensitive trace data from being misused in frivolous municipal lawsuits against gun makers. He also worked with the Joyce Foundation, which has funded gun-ban groups such as the Violence Policy Center, on the “Gun Violence Reduction Project.”

The fact that Mr. Traver uses the same misleading claims as groups such as the Brady Campaign shouldn’t make it too surprising that gun-control groups are applauding his nomination. Nor is Traver’s nomination very surprising after President Obama appointed two strong anti-self-defense members to the Supreme Court. But Mr. Traver’s nomination is dangerous. Making up claims about guns to demonize them is beyond what is acceptable for someone who wants a position in which he will be regulating American gun ownership.

— John R. Lott Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor, an economist, and the author of More Guns, Less Crime, the third edition of which was recently published by the University of Chicago Press.

More of the same from the nanny government types that ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Now, as a retired Paramedic I can tell you a truism. Get smacked between the eyes with a single shot twenty gauge shotgun, or a fully automatic M2 Fifty caliber machine gun, the result is the exact same thing. You got smacked to death, period. So stop blaming calibers.

“Assault” weapons..? Hey creeps I got a question for you. Why is it that you want to ban effective weaponry to American citizens when the bad guys; be they terrorist’s or criminals don’t bother with things like background checks, or proper training (Mexican Drug Cartels aside.) and buy black market “Choppers” (Full Auto AK47’s) but think that Americans shouldn’t be allowed similar effective weapons..?

The answer is indeed oh so obvious. You “Hate America First.” As well as all things American. Such as refusing to bend a knee toward oppression, kneeling firing position notwithstanding.

Since I support the Minutemen, and other similar groups that support Freedom and Liberty I will in all probability be branded a racist.’ That is after all, what the hell you people do when you cannot argue anything at all based upon logic or reason.

After all, you lost the “sexist” angle when so many women started buying weapons to defend themselves and their families from leftist’s goons… Not from me or others like me. Those folks are often, defined as Social Services, and the BATFE. Best watch out when you go out to destroy a family these days. After all, you never know when that Cop standing next to you is an “Oath Keeper.”

Keep the fire burning friends. As in our newly elected Taxed Enough Already butts. No more of the same old game. No more compromise when Liberty and Freedom are at stake.

PERIOD!

I have no faith whatsoever, in the Country Club Blue Blood Republicans.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Blogroll, Czar Wars, Domestic Violence, Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Immigration, Law, Local Politics Colorado, Local Politics Wyoming, Men's Issues, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

Early Christmas Wish’s…

December 2, 2010

Dear Uncle Fred. I know that you are busy so I figured that I’d get my wish list in early so as not to be too much trouble rounding these neat toys for big boys up for me.

I know, some might not be considered politically correct. But, oh well, when were we ever?

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Humor, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Men's Issues, News, Politics, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »