Archive for July, 2010

Peace Has Become A Sin

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Politics, Society on July 18th, 2010

The Gadsen Flag - Don't Tread On MeIn these quickly darkening and degenerate days Americans are under siege from the Leftists – the Liberals and Progressive – who live within our nation but are no true part of it just as a cancer may be within the body but is not of the body.

The Left is quick to attack Americans. They do their worst to paint us as racists, bigots, selfish oafs, and anything other lie that they can dream up.

These viscous verbal assaults, along with the low-grade but consistent use of physical violence, are based upon fear, however, far more than they’re based upon the hate and/or loathing that the Left feels towards America and American.

One need look no further than to how these Liberals and Progressives, along with their minority tenants, responded to the town hall meetings during the run-up to ObamaCare or the Tea Party protests to see that this true. They are terrified of our anger because they have no recourse to it.

Americans need to either shrug off these slanders or embrace them as a motivation and a guide book to how to purge the body of America of the diseased tissue within it. To do otherwise is to become complicit in the crimes that these Leftists seek to commit against America, the Civilized World, and humanity as a whole.

The 19th century Dutch politician and theologian, Abraham Kuyper, said it better than I ever could.

When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith.

— Abraham Kuyper
Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader

That is how it must be if we are to save America from depredations of the Leftists and prevent President Obama’s followers from enacting his plan to “fundamentally change America.” Battle must be our calling; peace has become a sin because that peace is paid for by loss and corruption of our nation and the future of our children and our children’s children.

To those who would name me “extremist” I say, paraphrasing Barry Goldwater, “Extremism in the defense of America is no vice; moderation in pursuit of American liberties is no virtue!”

Remember though that not all wars are fought solely with the open clash of men and arms. War, even within the mortal realm, is fought on many planes and in many ways, not all of which involve physical violence and many of which employ it in only small, targeted amounts. It is war nonetheless and American must steel themselves to offer up sacrifices of blood and treasure upon the alters of America if we are to have any hope of victory.

If we can do that though, I believe we will achieve victory for our progeny because our enemies, as evidenced by the nature of their fears, do not have the faith and the will to do similarly.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down. 😉

Those 7 Dirty Words

Posted in Politics, Society on July 17th, 2010

Comedian George CarlinThe seven dirty words are seven words in the English language that were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves – television or radio – in the United States. Comedian George Carlin first listed them in 1972 in his monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television”.  The words were avoided in scripted material, and”bleeped out”  in those rare instances in which they were used.

That sort of censorship was true then in 1972, and it remained largely true throughout the intervening years, but it looks like it has now changed, possibly dramatically.

On Tuesday, July 13, 2010 a federal appellate court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech. This is a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio. For now, the court’s ruling will likely end the commission’s campaign to keep the airwaves clean of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of punitively large fines.

From the Wall Street Journal:

A federal appeals court threw out the FCC’s rules on indecent speech Tuesday, in a big win for broadcasters that could lead to a new Supreme Court test of the government’s power to control what is said on television and radio.

A three-judge panel of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policies violate the First Amendment and are “unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here.”

The decision doesn’t mean broadcast TV and radio shows will now be littered with profanity, because advertisers and viewers would likely complain. But the ruling will likely end, for now, the commission’s campaign to cleanse the airwaves of even spontaneous vulgarisms with the threat of hefty fines.

“I think the notion that broadcasters are going to be dropping f-bombs in prime time is ludicrous,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. “If we wanted to do that we could do that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.,” when FCC indecency standards don’t apply.

Ashby Jones and Joe White discuss the ruling by a federal appeals court that struck down the FCC’s indecency policy. The court said the agency’s efforts to punish broadcasters for allowing “fleeting” expletives was “unconstitutionally vague.”

The judges found that the agency’s decision to sanction broadcasters’ airing of one-time or “fleeting” expletives is unconstitutional, and suggested the FCC’s broader indecency enforcement efforts are unconstitutional as well.

Fox along with other broadcasters sued the FCC in 2006 after the agency said the networks had violated indecency rules when airing “un-bleeped” profanities of celebrities during live televised events and levied heavy fines and penalties against them. Since the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York affirmed the broadcasters’ lawsuit President Obama’s FCC will have to take this the US Supreme Court if they wish to continue continue to police the language used in broadcast media as they have been doing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dems Fear For Themselves

Posted in Politics on July 12th, 2010

Jackass BrayingRecently a group of Democrat Governors gathered in Washington DC to complain to President Obama’s administration about his regime’s lawsuit attacking Arizona’s new immigration law, SB 1070.

These Democrat Governors really don’t want the White House to address anything regarding immigration, a topic they consider “toxic,” at this juncture. They’d like the President to focus on the economy instead.

President Obama’s legal attack upon Arizona and the American people scares the shit out of them and they’re no longer willing to follow The One in blind and silent lock-step anymore.

As reported by Fox News:

Democratic governors expressed “grave” concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,'” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The Arizona law, which is facing a U.S. Justice Department challenge, requires police to question people about their immigration status while enforcing other laws if there’s reason to suspect someone is in the country illegally.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat, was quoted by the Times as saying. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

Of course it’s sadly typical that these Democrat Governors’ “grave” concerns are over how President Obama’s attack upon Arizona will affect their and other Dems’ election / re-election chances instead of over how such an attack, especially if successful, will negatively impact the safety and security of the men, women, and children of America, or over how it is an attempt to usurp greater authority for the federal government.

Don’t get me wrong though; this isn’t a purely Democrat failing. Placing their own continued employment in political office over the needs of the nation is a common failing of politicians from both parties in America. The Democrats are just a bit more brazen when it comes to speaking of it.

Queers Say Don’t Ask!

Posted in Politics on July 11th, 2010

One of the More Disturbing Faces of Gay Activism - Of course it's from a Gay Pride parade which have always been an insult to common decency and to the bulk of the LGBT communityIt seems that various queer activist groups are having a hissy fit over the US Military’s new questionnaire regarding the possible repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT).

To these groups’ collective consciousness it’s wrong for the Pentagon to even ask the men and women serving in the military how they might respond to openly gay servicemen.

Given the nature of such agendists, this isn’t surprising in the least, but it’s certainly worthy of note and derision.

Gay rights organizations are up in arms over a Pentagon survey on the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” claiming that some of the questions put to U.S. servicemembers are “homophobic.”

The surveys, emailed to 400-thousand active duty, national guard and reserve forces includes questions like;

“IF A WARTIME SITUATION MADE IT NECESSARY FOR YOU TO SHARE A ROOM, BERTH OR FIELD TENT WITH SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICEMEMBER, WHICH ARE YOU MOST LIKELY TO DO?

* TAKE NO ACTION
* DISCUSS HOW WE EXPECTED EACH OTHER TO BEHAVE
* TALK TO A CHAPLAIN OR MENTOR
* TALK TO A LEADER TO SEE IF I HAVE OTHER OPTIONS
* OTHER

“IF DONT ASK DONT TELL IS REPEALED AND YOU ARE ASSIGNED TO BATHROOM FACILITIES WITH OPEN BAY SHOWER WITH A GAY OR LESBIAN SERVICE MEMBER…?_

* TAKE NO ACTION
* USE SHOWER AT DIFFERENT TIME

There’s also a question asking servicemembers if a gay or lesbian member moved into military housing with a same-sex partner, would they pick up their family and move out.

Jim Miklaszewski
MSNBC’s First Read, July 9, 2010

That’s right; the agitators and professional grievance-mongers leading a large swath of the queer advocacy groups want people to believe that a questionnaire issued by the Pentagon to 400K+ members is homophobic because it asks military personnel how they might respond to the realities of living, serving, fighting, and dying alongside openly homosexual servicemen and women.

Yeah, I know; most claims of homophobia by queer activists are, like most claims of racism by Black activists or the claims of Islamophobia from Muslim vermin, something to be ignored.

Sometimes. though, ignoring such problems, like ignoring a growing tumor, just allows the cancer to spread unchecked. It’s sometimes necessary to cut or burn out the diseased flesh so that the body may survive.

Apparently our military, charged with defending the lives of the American people, isn’t supposed to be allowed to try to determine if repealing DADT will negatively impact national security and in what ways, if any at all, it might do so – or at least so these treasonous queer activists rant.

NOTE: As an American and a veteran I’m passionately and virulently opposed to DADT, as I’ve posted before on this blog.

[Sic] … Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. It is predicated upon unconstitutional ideas and, as such, should have been struck down by the Courts years ago. Sadly, they have to-date failed to do so, though the SCOTUS has not yet deigned to hear any case regarding it.

From the US Constitution, supposedly the highest law of the land:

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.

–- US Constitution, Second Amendment

That the right to “bear arms” was intended by our Founders to mean the right to bear arms in the common defense, i.e., serve in the military forces of America, can be deduced from the concerns over the original 2nd Amendment. The Constitution makes it quite clear that such a right exists for every American and it shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say, “except for sodomites,” which would have been the term used at the time.

— jonolan
Asking And Telling

That doesn’t mean that I’m going to turn a blind or forgiving eye to rabble-rousers and grievance-mongers from within the LGBT community who want to deny the military the right to determine how repealing such legislation and the underlying ban on openly homosexual people serving in the military it was meant to ameliorate will affect military discipline and operational efficiency.

Selection Criteria

Posted in Humor, Society on July 10th, 2010

All creatures in the Gods’ world have their own selection criteria when choosing a mate. We humans may, over the span of the last century, have largely separated sex from reproduction in the course of our daily lives but, in our instinct-driven hind-brains, we’re all still small, hairy, primates seeking to reproduce and propagate our species.

When we’re “sizing up” a potential sexual partner we’re all, at least subconsciously, applying our reproductive selection criteria to the subjects of those potential liaisons.

Gender-based Reproductive Selection Criteria
Men & Women’s Sexual Selection Criteria

Of course the selection criteria that is applied is gender-based and quite different between men and women. 😉