No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.

~*~

The thing we need to focus on about the founders is that, given the social structure of their time, they were revolutionaries who brought liberty into a world where it hadn’t existed, to everybody — not all equally instantly — and it was their progress that we need to look at.

As one would expect, the MSM has made a lot of this request to the Tennessee legislature and, as one would also expect, the Liberals and their minority tenants are frothing at the mouth over it.

But are the requests of these TEA Partiers requests for historical revisionism or merely for a restoration of the curriculum as it was before the oikophobic Liberals corrupted the school systems with their own pernicious form of anti-American revisionism?

I know what the history curriculum was when I was in school and I know it didn’t hide the fact that the Founding fathers were slaveholders. It also didn’t make that, or any other societal flaw, the focus of the classes either.

That’s not, however, how history is taught in most states these days. The Liberals got control over the curriculum years ago and shifted it to focus on the negatives instead of the achievements of Americans. I can’t say for sure though that this is case in Tennessee or, if it is, how egregious the current curriculum is.

Restoration or revision? Frankly, I don’t know. Either seems possible.

Take her recent outburst on illegal immigration as an example:

We have 12 million undocumented immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity,” she said. “And that it would be harmful – the Republican solution that I’ve seen in the last three years is that we should just pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all.

– Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D.-Fla.)
Chairwoman, Democratic National Committee

She’s quite right. The GOP does believe that illegal immigration is a crime and that illegal immigrants should be shipped back to their own countries after they served the appropriate prison sentences for their crimes, which often include identity theft and document fraud along with the crime of illegally entering the United States.

She’s quite right. We have approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in this country that are part of the backbone of our economy and this is not only a reality but a necessity if we are to continue to operate large segments of our economy in the manner that we’ve always been accustomed to.

Of course, most people would actually understand that any phrase with the adjective “illegal” in it would be, even discounting the concomitant infractions, criminal in nature. Apparently not the DNC’s chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz though. She seems to prefer to portray being shock at the Republicans wanting to protect our borders and enforce America’s laws.

That the DNC’s Chairwoman, representing the Democrat Party, has a problem with- and chooses to vilify the GOP for wanting to enforce American immigration laws is of only minor concern though. It’s to be expected; our culture is rife with phrases that explain the Dems’ support for illegal immigration – phrases such as, “Undocumented Democrat” and “D.O.A – Democrat On Arrival.”

Democrat Voter Drive

This, however, is a very small matter and, as a moral failing, pales beside Wasserman-Schultz’s greater evil, her support for human trafficking and de facto slavery.

It is a sad and shameful fact that segments of America’s economy, especially the agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and low-end service segments, are heavily based upon the use of a labor pool that is paid a mere pittance and worked in a fashion that no American would tolerate and that would be illegal if it were applied to Americans.

The average illegal immigrant, often working as much as 70 hours a week, makes just under $6000 per annum and has no benefits whatsoever. Nor do they have any practical recourse to abusive or unsafe working conditions. That is slavery in a very real sense, though few illegal immigrants are branded or collared.

I loath and despise illegal immigrants because of the crime, disease, and filth so many of them bring to my country, but that doesn’t mean I condone their enslavement in all but name.

That the DNC’s Chairwoman thinks that this is a necessary part of the backbone of our economy is beyond reprehensible and disgusting. I’m forced to wonder if the Democrat Party has, in last century and a half, moved as far from being “the Party of slavery” as we’ve been previously repeatedly told.

~*~

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

The Fatal Sequence Known As The Tytler Cycle

Progression through the Fatal Sequence that leads to the death of all democracies a smooth and measured march towards entropy. It seems, if history is any judge, to happen in fits and starts with societies staying at one point then lurching forward again.

Interestingly, the Tytler Cycle was no part of Lord Woodhouselee, Alexander Fraser Tytler’s written works though it does perfectly fit them, especially his Universal History.

Where America is within the Tytler Cycle is open to some debate. This is, in no small part, because of a trend started in the latter half of the twentieth century to divide and fragment America for the dubious sake of cultural diversity. America being now more than one People is at multiple points in the cycle – but all are further along the path back to Bondage than Liberty –> Abundance.

Can we move backward along the path of the Tytler Cycle? I think it’s possible. Will we as a people do so? I doubt it; it doesn’t seem to be in human nature to do so.

As the whole of humanity knows, Muslim males fear women. These mockeries of Man’s rampant and persistent “culture” of pedophilia, fondness for demanding female genital mutilation, disgusting abuse of- and violence towards any woman with a shred of dignity, and their staunch refusal allow them any right under Shari’a prove this fact.

Some would erroneously claim that the Muslim vermin hated women but they would be wrong. Subjugation that overt and that fierce is not born of hatred; it is born out of a deep and abiding pathological fear.

The question devolves to why do Muslim males fear women? I think there might be a simple answer to that question.

A Muslimah Walks Her Slave To The Market

Islam is submission; that is even the transliteration of the Arabic word, Islam, which is a verbal noun that is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means “to accept, surrender or submit.” Indeed, the Arabic word for slave, Abd is based upon the same root as their word for worshiper, Abid.

As a culture of slaves, utterly unsuited and unwilling to accept the responsibilities of any higher station, they do so live in terror of a change in ownership and shifting from being Abdullah (Slave of God) to Abdul Koos (Slave of Pussy).

Good Abdullah Might Get 72 Virgins After Death.
Good Abdul Koos Get…

Try as they do, I’m fairly sure they’re doomed to wear a new collar and pay “lip service” to their mistresses as opposed to the master created for them by their Pedophile Prophet.

Are We There Yet? Is It November Yet?

Can we just get to the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections, kick these jackasses out of office, and maybe, just maybe, get on with the business of restoring some measure or vestige of sanity to America?

President Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein believes and espouses that the State owns your body and can, at what it considers sufficient need, use it how it  wishes to, up to and including harvesting your organs without your permission.

In his eyes we’re all merely meat for the State.

Some disturbing and salient points from Worth Reading:

President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”

“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”

– Aaron Klein

Now Obama’s followers and Liberals in general would dispute the validity of the the sources for this post. They favor only sources within the Obama-approved MSM and absolutely despise the original source of this material, World Net Daily. Sadly for them, I actually perform independent research on the material I post and Cass Sunstein did actually commit those disgusting thoughts and beliefs to published paper.

To be fair to the Liberals, I’m not overly trusting of World Net Daily either. They do not cite sources, as if they were themselves a primary source. Given the current regime, that would be doubtful.

As is often the case with intelligent psychopaths, Sunstein does carefully work around the edges of what he wants to enforce. Much like President Obama, he is fond of maintaining enough “nuance” to uphold plausible deniability and therefor claim that any outrage leveled at his evil is merely a “false rumor.”

Sunstein was quite careful to couch his desires as one of several options. He put it forth as the “Routine Removal” option, alongside the “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” option used in some foreign nations. What is telling though to anyone that is trained to read for meaning and intent is that Sunstein had little to say against harvesting the organs of the dead and dying by fiat, whereas he had much to say against either the current “Explicit Consent” methodology or the “Presumed Consent” option.

This is an established technique for espousing controversial and/or evil ideas in a manner that both makes those ideas seem more reasonable and writer less strongly in favor of them, and hence less controversial or evil himself.  The more vile or unacceptable idea – the one truly being suggested – is put forth alongside two or more other, more palatable alternatives and thereby is presented as a possibility with equal weight as the acceptable ideas. The then writer or speaker elaborates on all of the practical problems with the more acceptable ideas while limiting his or issues with the suggested vile or unacceptable idea to those of beliefs or ideologies.

Given the times and Sunstein’s employer, perhaps I should have spoken simpler and just said that he presented a “nuanced” case for the State owning Americans’ flesh.

This is exactly what Cass Sunstein did by putting his idea of  “Routine Removal” of terminally ill patients’ and the recently deceased organs, alongside the “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” option; he attempted to grant his desire to harvest organs from sick Americans and our dead by fiat as course of action that had equal validity to the other ways of increasing organs for transplantation.

Then Sunstein goes on to showcase all the practical problems with both “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” options, whereas all that he has to say against his obviously preferred “Routine Removal” is that people would complain about it because it violated a “generally held principle.”

[sic]…many people would object to a law that allows the government to take parts of people’s bodies when they have not agreed, in advance, to the taking. Such an approach violates a generally held principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies.

– Cass Sunstein
Nudge, pg. 179

Combine Cass Sunstein’s views on who owns your body and its organs with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s Complete Lives System, which details a merit-based approach to healthcare rationing, and you can begin to put together a potentially horrifying future for Americans if ObamaCare is allowed to be enacted upon us.

Is this post inaccurate? Needlessly scary? Overly hyperbolic? Nothing but fear-mongering? You’d all better hope that it is so, or do something  to this stop scenario from happening.

When President Obama’s chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein believes that we’re all meat for the State, and President Obama’s special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has already made plans for determining what relative value to place on individuals, the framework for atrocity has certainly been created.

Would such atrocities actually take place though? Maybe, maybe not and, in no case but the most extreme, would it happen all at once; it would come, if it were going to,  in seemingly easy to swallow, plausible phases.  It would also depend a great deal upon just how bad things get in America over the next few years and how well silenced we are by the government.

Worse has happened elsewhere though, and similarly vile and horrifying things are happening elsewhere right now. It would be foolish hubris to think that it couldn’t happen here.