Nostaligia for the Plantation, a review

Folks, I just went back to look at something I had posted way back in 2008. This was during the campaign, before we knew what we know now. And boy, does it seem apt now.

I thought it might be interesting to look back and see it under new light.

Excerpt:

How far have the Democrats fallen? Barack Obama likes to be compared to President Jack Kennedy, but let us remember that Kennedy extolled Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

The Obamas are peddling the exact opposite message from the Kennedys! The Obamas are telling the voters: “Vote for the guy who will give you stuff for free. Vote for the guy with the handouts.” The destructiveness of this perspective is obvious. It’s like Obama wants to be the national crack dealer. “Vote for me, man, I’ll make you feel good. I’ll give you some rock for Free. We’ll tax the rich the guys to pay for your fix!”

And liberals will defend this by making quaint and absurd statements that actually compare Obama to Jesus: "Jesus was a community organizer; Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The second issue that comes to mind was John McCain’s visit on ABC’s The View. I mentioned this in yesterday’s blog, but it seems worth mentioning again, in the context of the new Michelle Obama quote. In a exchange between McCain and the women co-hosts about what kind of judges he would appoint, McCain said he would appoint constitutionalist judges. Most commentators focused on the perceived ignorance of Whoopi’s question—an issue I addressed yesterday.

But I want to focus more on the comments of co-host Joy Behar, below:
Goldberg: “Do I have to worry about being returned to slavery because certain things in the constitution had to be changed?”

McCain: “That’s an excellent point, Whoopi, {loud audience applause for Goldberg} I thank you.”
Goldberg:“I got scared!”

Joy Behar: {laughing} “She saw herself back on the plantation! Don’t worry, honey, we’ll take care of you, us white folk we’ll take care of you!”

{Black Co-host Sherri Shepherd reacted by actually hiding her head in apparent embarrassment.}Analyze Behar’s response in conjunction with the previous comments of Michelle Obama:

Michelle Obama:“Vote for the guy who serves your personal interest.”

Joy Behar:“Don’t worry, honey, us white folk, we’ll take care of you.”Can it be any clearer, folks?
Can’t you people see the inherent racist and infantile dogma that is being sold to you like snake oil? At the same time Democrats blast capitalists for “selfishly” striving for success and amassing personal wealth, they contradictorily offer excuses and compensation for failure, and encourage the populace to hold their cap in their hand and wait for Uncle Sam to give them their due. Instead of demanding self-respect and responsibility of our population, the Democrats are selling indulgences, governmental pardon for irresponsibility, laziness, and victim mentality. Hell, let's say it like it is: the leftists are subsidizing stupidity and laziness instead of demanding that people take responsibility for their actions and use their God-given talents to achieve success!

It is a political form of the psychological regresso ad uterum—the return to the womb—which, in the terms of Black society, now appears to be a longing for a return to the “Massa’s” patronistic protection, a nostalgic yearning for the Plantation.

Corpus Cristi versus Ticked Off Trannies

There is gay outrage this week because of the proposed screening of “Ticked-Off Trannies With Knives”, a film by Israel Luna is promoted as a “campy homage to the exploitation films” in which “a group of transgender women are violently beaten and left for dead,” but then “the violated vixens turn deadly divas.”

Apparently the idea of transgender women being attacked "for being who they are". The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has demanded that the film be removed from the Tribeca lineup.

"GLAAD has since seen the film in its entirety and can report that the title is far from the only problem with this film. The film, its title and its marketing misrepresent the lives of transgender women and use grotesque, exploitative depictions of violence against transgender women in ways that make light of the horrific brutality they all too often face."

GLADD continues its criticism:
"By marketing Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives as a "transploitation" film, by using the word "trannies" (a pejorative term for transgender people) in the title of the film, by casting transgender women in some roles, and by citing the murders of Angie Zapata and Jorge Mercado in the trailer, Israel Luna has attempted to place his film squarely within a transgender narrative.
However, while some of the actors in the film identify as transgender, the characters are written as drag queens, “performing” femininity in a way that is completely artificial. "

{Note: yeah, that makes perfect sense, because whenever I find out that someone born male who has their tallywacker removed and a vagina created, it would never occur to me to think that they are 'performing femininity in a way that is completely artificial'. There's nothing more natural than a male willfully having his genitalia removed so he could become a female.}

"Transgender people are a marginalized and vulnerable minority in our culture, subjected to horrific hate crimes and pervasive discrimination. Relatively few media images of transgender people exist, so every media image becomes essential in educating audiences about transgender lives and working to eliminate the discrimination and violence they face.

In this context, it is irresponsible and insulting to make a film that serves up graphic anti-transgender violence as a "hook" for an homage to B-movies of the 1970s. "

Yeah, I can see why they are upset. Seriously. Here you have a group that is misunderstood, misrepresented, and often finds itself the target of bigoted attacks. It does seem very inconsiderate to write such a film, and gosh darn it, I wish this kind of thing would stop.

Now that that's settled... I would like to sing the praises of a wonderful play, "Corpus Christi", being promoted in Tarleton State University in Stephenville, Texas.

This play sounds so sweet and could not possibly offend anyone. You see, it explores the life and times of Jesus Christ, except that it is in a modernized form, in which the "thinly veiled Jesus figure" is a boy named Joshua.

Oh, and he struggles "to confront a hostile environment"--just like Jesus did--except that the hostility Joshua suffers is because he just happens to be a homosexual.

Yes, that's right. It's a play about Jesus as a homosexual. And his best buddies, the good old apostles--you guessed it--they're all gay too! Will there be locker room fun? You'll have to attend to find out!

Director John Otte chose "Corpus Christi" as the final project for his advanced directing class. "I chose this play to direct and produce because I am a Christian," who, may I add, also just happens to be gay.

"It is being said often that this play is a direct attack on Christians -- their faith and their deity," Otte said. "It simply is not true. He is my savior as well, and I was raised in an extremely faithful and religious home."

That's nice, Mr. Otte, because no one in their right mind would be offended by the portrayal of their Messiah as a homosexual high school student! Pshaw!

And YET, not everyone is thrilled! The pastor of the local Hillcrest Church of Christ, David Harris, says: "It infuriates me that somebody would be given a platform to be able to demean and degrade the son of God...I'm angry about it, and every Christian should be."

Now, all sarcasm aside, is this not a wonderful situation?

On the one hand, you have a film maker who decided to recreate the campy slasher movies of the '70s but include a bunch of "trannies" as the victims-turned-heroes, and his stereotypical portrayal of transgendered women just doesn't ring true, and to these gays it seems "exploitative" to portray them being victimized.

And yet, on the other hand, you have homosexuals who are perverting the image of Jesus Christ and the apostles, making them gay--which is considered sinful by Christians--and this we are to accept as "art" with nary a whimper.

To be fair, "Corpus Cristi" is intended to be a heartwarming play to "bring people together". And why shouldn't it, when Jesus is portrayed as--get ready--"The King of Queers"?

Why would that upset Christians?

Shouldn't gays see the offense they are perpetrating on one of the world's great religions? Is this not yet another example of the kind of constant abuse that is heaped upon Christians by liberals, atheists, and now homosexuals? How many "Piss-Christ" type of blasphemies do Christians have to endure before this ends?

I ask you: when do you expect to see a play based upon "Gay Muhammad"? What do you think would happen?

To conclude, there's not much to say, except "you can dish it out, but you sorry bunch of over-sensitive pansies can't take it."

Let the anti-capitalist illegal immigrant rot in a North Korean jail

Just a short note.

You may have heard about Aijalon Mahli Gomes, an American from Boston who left America and ran off to North Korea, where he illegally crossed the border--thus becoming an illegal immigrant in the Socialist Republic of North Korea.

He was arrested and now will be tried for his illegal entry into that socialist paradise.

Irony: According to Reuters News, Aijalon Mahli Gomes left the USA because he no longer wanted to live in a capitalist society.

I wonder if he's started to rethink his naive, dangerous, and stupid belief that socialist nations are Utopias now that he's rotting in a North Korean jail.

In my opinion, The US State Department should not invest ONE second in obtaining his release. He wanted a socialist experience, and now he's finding out what it's REALLY like.

Let him rot in a commie jail!

When idiots speak truths, redux.

This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.

Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.

We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.

In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.

But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.

Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?

So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?

“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.

He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."

You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.

Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.

One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.

MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.

Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!

I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.

The threats against conservatives

CNN’s Lou Dobbs has reported recently that a gunman fired a shot at his home while his wife was outside the home and entering her automobile. Dobbs stated that the mass media and pro-immigration groups such as LULAC and the National Council of La Raza have “created an atmosphere and they’ve been unrelenting in their propaganda” against him, a statement that appears to connect their activities and the life-threatening attack against his family. The shot was not an isolated event; it “followed weeks and weeks of threatening phone calls.”

As pointed out by NewsBusters author Jeff Poor, the Obama administration has been alerting the nation to their perceived threat that conservative rhetoric could lead to violence. But the attack on the Dobbs family reveals a very real threat that Liberal rhetoric also may instigate violence against individuals speaking out against the Obama administration policies.

Given these facts, one would assume that Dobbs’ assertion would be headline news—at the very least at CNN. Yet a visit to CNN.com homepage found no references to the events. What’s more, a search within the CNN pages returned not a single article on the attack. Think about that: one of CNN’s premier anchors and managing editors received death threats and even had a shot fired at his home, yet CNN did not apparently find that noteworthy!

While the attack on Dobbs is both concerning and shocking, CNN’s silence on the issue is stunning. One cannot imagine that CNN would remain silent if a right-wing nut threatened the life of, and fired shots at, CNN minority reporters such as Soledad O’Brien. So why the silence about the threat to Dobbs? Is it because Dobbs has taken a stance that is contrary to the clearly Liberal political stance that CNN now espouses? Could the network that has tasked O’Brien with “Black in America” and “Hispanic in America” find Dobbs’ anti-illegal-immigration stance so distasteful that they think he brought it upon himself or somehow deserves assassination?

During his October 28th radio program, talk show host and FOX commentator Glenn Beck discussed the constant threats against him, and went so far as to inform his audience that he actually considers the possibility that “something might happen” to him, that “they” might even try to shoot him, but then clarified that he believes that if something were to happen to him, “they would probably be more subtle about it”. Hinting at what he meant, he reassured his audience that he is “not suicidal, and my brakes work just fine.” In other words; if he turns up dead due to “suicide” or “brake failure”, you, loyal listeners, should suspect foul play.

Has America really reached this point? Can it be that the hyperbolic propaganda and hatred by the left toward conservatives and independents has reached such a fevered pitch that they can actually rationalize the assassinations of “dangerous” influential news anchors and talk show hosts?

The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare

President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.

If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.

The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.

Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.

Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.

That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!

Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.

• Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
  
• Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
  
• Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
  
• So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.
  

The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.

And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."

More Obama Stupidity

More stupidity in the Obama speech Let’s talk a moment about the $3800 fine that penalizes people who choose to NOT carry health insurance.

According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”

“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.

But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!

This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Otherwise, where does it stop?

I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.

Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.

And of course, the cause célèbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!

I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.

Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.

Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.

When homosexuals guard the gate

In one of the most bizarre and offensive twists to the war in Afghanistan, new photographs revealed embassy guards engaged in heavy drinking and lewd sexual acts, such as licking each other’s nipples, grabbing each other's testicles, apparently buggering each other anally, and pouring alcohol down the backs of other guards and drinking it from the buttocks of other guards.

ABC News reports:
“Private security guards at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul were pressured to participate in naked pool parties and perform sex acts to gain promotions or assignment to preferable shifts, according to one of 12 guards who have gone public with their complaints.”

Photos of the behavior have been released that show naked men engaging in sexual “play” with other men. As a result, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says that “the alleged lewd behavior of guards at the US Embassy in Kabul is ‘offensive’ {and} inexcusable’.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has requested an investigation into the behavior.

Ironically, the one aspect of this issue that has gone unmentioned is that the offensive behavior was not just “lewd”; it was homosexual. At the same time the Liberals and the Obama administration have been talking about overturning the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military that would allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military, America has just suffered a tremendous disservice by men engaging in homosexual behavior while they were supposed to be guarding our Embassy.

Not only will this serve as a tremendous propaganda boon for the Islamist extremists who want to portray America as a sinful nation, it will also damage the reputation of the US military and civilian guards, even though apparently no US military were engaged in the acts. This type of orgiastic indulgence is not an exception to homosexuality: it is quite typical of it.

These incidents should serve as a warning to everyone. This is exactly why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve “openly” within the military.

Yet again, American values have been embarrassingly undermined by the Liberal tolerance of homosexuals.

Euthanasia as a solution for Health Care Rationing

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” The Hippocratic Oath

I was shocked, although not surprised, to learn that the medical profession in Netherlands (Holland) has not only legalized euthanasia, but has expanded its use recently. Shocked, I say, because it is horrific to think that the medical profession, which once swore by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, has adopted values that are in direct conflict with the oath. But I was not surprised, because this seems to be a logical outcome to the liberal philosophy that has taken control of much of Europe, and whose “humane” attempt to provide affordable access to medical care has been tempered by the practical need to reduce costs.

And what has been the logical, although horrific outcome? Euthanasia has become an acceptable alternative to expensive treatment.

The story was exposed to me by the great conservative radio host, Mike Gallagher. I wanted to verify the veracity of his statements, so I began to search, and found no shortage of corroborating articles.

What had started out as a “humane” ending of suffering for the terminally ill morphed, over time, to include an ever widening list of conditions. Recently, doctors there have even begun to euthanize the elderly, and children.

In “Euthanasia in the Netherlands”, I read a personal story about a man whose Dutch parents returned to their homeland to visit relatives, and shrugged off a story about a woman who chose euthanasia over treatment for depression following the death of her last son. Her physician did not even try to treat her depression: no, he decided she wasn’t depressed, just deeply saddened by her loss, and had the right to die—with his assistance, of course—instead of finding a new reason to live at the ripe old age of 50.

The author pointed out that many survivors of the Holocaust had managed to find new meaning in their lives after the loss of their entire families, but that was apparently unimportant. He reports:

“Over 50% of Dutch physicians admitted to practicing euthanasia, most often on cancer patients. Only 60% kept written records of their euthanasia practice and only 29% filled out death certificates honestly in euthanasia cases…”

While that statistic alone was alarming, I then confirmed that “Only half of Dutch doctors report euthanasia, report says.” In 2001, the study focused on 5500 deaths, of which 41% to 54% of those cases were patients that had been euthanized.

Proponents of the practice will rally to say that these cases provided a humane ending for individuals suffering chronic pain, with terminal illnesses, who chose to end their lives under their own terms. But that, it turns out, is not always true.

80% of Dutch now support euthanasia, in a nation that, during World War II, resisted Nazi orders to euthanize patients, actions that later resulted in the hanging deaths of Nazi “war criminals”.

But today, the practice is so widely accepted, doctors have begun to euthanize many others. In his article, “The Dutch way of Death” (2001), Richard Miniter points out that, in 1990 alone, of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died, 11,800 were “killed or helped to die” by their doctors. An estimated 5,981 people were killed by their doctors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT—according to the Dutch government.

But if that was not shocking enough, prepare yourself: “other groups that are put to death involuntarily: disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Some 8% of all infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors, according to a 1997 study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal.”

These facts prompted the Catholic Association of Doctors and Nurses to issue a statement protesting the decision of Groningen University Hospital to euthanize children under 12 when their pain is “intolerable, or if they have an incurable illness.”
“The ‘decision proposes a death solution in situations which could be addressed by modern palliative care”, and “raises the suspicion of a financial interest of the public authorities, since it decreases the 'burden' of prolonged and expensive care in clinical conditions for which any extension of life duration is considered meaningless.’ The association continues; ‘it opens the door on a national scale to the 'mercy killing' of other mentally incompetent persons, to be eliminated without their consent for reasons based on an external appreciation of their quality of life."
In “Now They Want to Euthanize Children” Wesley J. Smith explains that, “In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the ‘consent’ of parents.”

"In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it ‘termination of the patient without explicit request’.
It is now considered a form of discrimination against the chronically ill to deny them assisted death because they will be forced to suffer longer than those who are terminally ill and it is considered bias to force endurance of psychological pain when it is not associated with physical illness. The next step, non-voluntary euthanasia, is then justified by appealing to our social duty to care for patients who are not competent to choose for themselves. "

Smith sums up the horror quite eloquently:

“It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.”

“Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act. If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn't it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?”

You may well ask what this has to do with us here in the United States.

According to the authors, a primary driving force in this barbaric shift from euthanizing only as a means of ending insufferable pain and misery to euthanizing patients ranging from the mentally disable, to Alzheimer’s patients, to the depressed, was the implementation of Socialized Medicine. The financial costs of treating the sick grew to the point that society might rebel against the ever increasing taxes necessary to support it. The government began to ration care, and pressured doctors to make decisions that would reduce care to those for whom it would not heal, in order to reduce costs.

Bureaucrats, in a single payer system, have been given the power of God over the public. Their actions now echo the policies of the Nazis, whose efforts to “strengthen the strain” resulted in the mass murder of millions across Europe in order to weed out the weak, the feeble, the retarded, and the incurably sick—not to mention those whose ethnic background was simply “unacceptable”.

It is logical to conclude that, as genetic testing for inherited diseases improves to the point that fetuses and babies can be identified as carrying the genes that will trigger future illnesses, doctors may decide to euthanize otherwise healthy infants or abort fetuses simply to avoid even the remote possibility of having to treat them in the future.

How liberals dismiss racial discrimination

What in the world is “Hispanic” or “Latino”, anyway?

My wife, who immigrated to this country (legally) from Venezuela and is now a US citizen (and conservative Republican, I’m proud to say), recently ran into an interesting conflict with her “Chicana” boss. This boss took issue with my wife and another Latina teacher, a Chilean working here legally on a visa, because they discovered some problems with the program that was negatively impacting the “Hispanic” children.

When they naively went to their boss, who was the principal who formed the program and so is “married” to the program and is sensitive to criticism, offering suggestions about some changes that could be made to improve the program, she exploded. From that moment on, she began to display a hostility toward them that at times included only lightly veiled attacks on their nationality and immigration status—both of which fall under workplace ethnic discrimination protections.

A number of commentaries by the principal caught our attention for being ethnically discriminatory. But her ultimate act, asking my wife and the other teacher about their immigration status, really alarmed us. The principal had seemed disappointed when informed that my wife was a US citizen. At first, we didn’t understand why she had asked, or why she had been disappointed by the answer. Shortly afterward, we discovered that the principal had called Human Resources to demand that the other teacher—the one working on a visa—be kicked out of the country the day after the school term ended. (She was told that she didn’t have that authority, and that her contract ran through July, so she could not be forced to leave the country).

The situation deteriorated to the point that grievances were filed, the principal punished both teachers with “Non-Renewal with Cause” recommendation to the district, which in turn blacklisted them both. (Come to find out, 11 teachers had left the school the year before out of frustrations built up over time centering on the exact same issues. Two of those teachers were also blacklisted and had to move across the state to find work--both of them were Hispanic...).

The most interesting exchange occurred when we met with another Chicano from within the district, in order to explain our problem. We outlined the commentaries and steps taken by this Chicana principal, and clarified that we felt these two teachers were the victims of discrimination based upon ethnicity and immigration status. His response? “Mrs. Gonzales (not her real name) is a Latina, and you are Latinas, so it’s not possible for her to discriminate against you based on ethnicity!”

My shock was not that anyone could say something so ignorant: it was that a so-called “Hispanic” could harbor such a shallow and clearly fallacious opinion. Let me clarify.

What is “Latino”? What is “Hispanic”? On US documentation, these terms are used interchangeably as an ethnic or racial choice. But this is patently absurd. “Hispanic” comes from a term referring to the Iberian Peninsula, also known as Spain today, and implies that persons belonging to this group share a common language, known popularly as “Spanish” but which is, in reality, Castellano, or a dialect thereof. Mexicans and Chicanos take offense at being called “Hispanic”, because they resent being classified as part of the ethnic group that includes the Spaniards who colonialized Mexico. Likewise, “Latino” is a term implying that the individual is part of a group whose linguistic origins are “Latin Based”—for this reason, Brazilians and even Portuguese can be lumped in with Spaniards, Mexicans, Venezuelans, etc. Ironically, Italians and French are not included in the grouping.

But these definitions are based upon Linguistic, rather than ethnic or racial traits. Latin Americans can be Black, Asian, Native American, or European, racially. So to try to say that everyone who is “Latino” is ethnically homogenous is as absurd as saying that everyone who speaks English is white.

What’s more, anyone who knows anything about Latin Americans knows that, while they constantly deny the existence of racism in their countries, they regularly exhibit behaviors that belie that claim. Mexicans openly despise Guatemalans or Hondurans, who in turn despise each other as well. If you win the trust of Costa Ricans, you may be regaled with stories about how horrible Nicaraguans are. And everyone in Latin America treats Argentines as the “Polack” of every joke. In short, hatred for ethnic groups is often disguised as “nationalism”, but it still is based upon ethnicity.

When I asked him if it would be racism if a Spaniard hated Mexicans, he quickly responded “Yes.” When I asked him if it would be racism if a white Cuban hated black Cubans, he also nodded affirmatively. So when I asked him if a Mexican hated a Venezuelan, would that be racism, he paused, clearly startled by the implication. He didn’t want to answer. “And how about a person of Chicano descent who hates blacks, or Puerto Ricans, or Cubans? Isn’t that racism?”

The point here is that while it is convenient for Latinos to claim that they are not racist, and to deny that they can discriminate against each other, the truth is that it is a regular occurrence.

He tried to wiggle out of the predicament by throwing me a curveball. “But it’s only racism if the person is in a position of power.”

“So if a Latino police officer hates Blacks and abuses his power, is that racism?”
“Of course.”
“And if that police officer was a white Cuban, and abused Mexican immigrants, racism or not?”
After a pause… “Yes.”
“So if it’s a Chicana principal with the power to destroy a career, and abuses her teachers based on their ethnicity?”
No answer.

Does it surprise you to find out that the gentleman in this story is a Democrat Union Representative and a hard core liberal?

And thus we illustrate an undeniable truth: People of color can be racists, abuse their power, and victimize other people—even of their same “ethnicity”. But Liberals will never admit it. And when a Latino is victimized by another Latino, Liberals will simply ignore the racial undertones and allow the abuse to continue.

So much for protection from ethnic discrimination!

Immigration Lawyers should not be above the law.

Imagine, for a moment, two scenarios involving lawyers giving legal advice.

In the first, lawyers are contracted by the government to provide legal advice on the limits of interrogation for terrorists who may have important information that could prevent an imminent attack.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “The law prohibits the use of interrogation techniques that fall under the definition of torture. Torture, according to our law, is defined as acts of Intent that meet characteristics X, Y, and Z, where the conditions are 1, 2, and 3. In order to use more forceful techniques and yet not violate the laws, you would have to do Alpha through Zed. If you do this, then the techniques your interrogators have requested would NOT violate the law.”

In the second scenario, an illegal immigrant approaches a lawyer and tells him that he entered the country illegally, was caught and given a court date.

The lawyer reads the pertinent laws, then states: “You should not appear before the court, because they may arrest you and deport you. Continue to hide.”

The first scenario describes the well-known circumstances surrounding the Bush administration’s lawyers who advised the President about how to adapt interrogation techniques in such a way as to still use some coercive methods while not violating torture laws. As a result, Liberals are in an outrage, and are demanding prosecution of the lawyers who wrote the opinion.(*)

The second scenario is a real incident I found in the June 11th edition of the Spanish-language Viva! Magazine published by the Denver Post, in a section called “Escribe y Pregunta Sobre Migración” (Write and Ask about Immigration), written by immigration attorney Rafael Salgado.

In the advice, a Honduran man claims to have “immigrated” (illegally) to the United States, was caught and given a court date. He sought legal advice, and another immigration attorney instructed him to NOT appear before the court. In brief, an attorney clearly directed the man, who had already violated US laws by sneaking into the country illegally, to flaunt US laws AGAIN by ignoring the court summons.

The man then informed Mr. Salgado that he had married a Puerto Rican citizen (and therefore a US citizen), and had fathered a baby with her. They want to re-open the case, but Mr. Salgado instructs the immigrant to NOT attempt to reopen the case, because “if you knew you had to go to court and didn’t go—upon the advice of a lawyer—and they gave a deportation order, you do not have much possibility of reopening the case. And if you request reopening the case, you will have to tell them where you live, give them your personal information and domicile address, and the risk is high. I advise that you do not do it and way to see if Congress approves a migration reform.”

In this scenario, we have a man who violated the law once of his own volition, again upon the instructions of an immigration attorney, and who is about to continue in violation of the law thanks to the advice of a second attorney.

It is difficult to imagine a clearer example of hypocrisy of the liberals. How is it possible that they promote the prosecution of lawyers who gave advice about how to proceed with interrogations in a manner that would be consistent with the law, but not prosecute lawyers who blatantly advise their clients to violate the laws?

The American Bar Association has published a set of guidelines that states, in Model Rule 1.2(d) holds that, "A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent."

Clearly, these immigration lawyers are violating the Model Rule 1.2(d). And this practice is surely very widespread among immigration lawyers, as this is certainly NOT the first time illegal immigrants have been advised to go to ground and not appear before the court.

In this example, we are confronted with the oft-cited double standard, a set of rules of behavior that are expected of US citizens—especially conservative Presidents and their legal advisors—and another that applies to illegal immigrants and their immigration lawyers.

(*): Additional Information: In the case of Lynn Stewart, the lawyer who represented the "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel-Rahman in New York and was convicted (1996) of obstruction of justice and providing material support to terrorism when she transmitted instructions from the Sheikh to his Egyptian followers to resume attacks, it should be noted that George Soros' Open Society Institute also donated $20,000 to Stewart's legal defense fund in 2002. In 2009, Soros stated that he believed the investigation into the Bush lawyers should be expanded to include Vice President Cheney's involvement.In other words: he defends lawyers who helped terrorists, and wants to prosecute officials that combat it.What team is George Soros on?

Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom

Gun Control Lies, Truths, and the False Presumption of Ethnically-Based Wisdom

Forces within our nation appear to be on two simultaneous and radically divergent paths. On the one hand, a number of states are passing laws that expand citizen gun-ownership and carry rights, such as the one in Texas that gives the go-ahead for concealed-carry permit holders to tote their weapons on colleges. Similarly, on the national level, a recent Senate measure would allow loaded guns in national parks. On the other hand, “progressives” continue to push to limit gun-ownership and increase the difficulty of the average law-abiding citizen to own guns.

In my previous articles I have discussed the illogical opinions and laws about assault weapons bans, and the second amendment rights that afford all (non-criminal) citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I continue to be interested in this topic and educate myself because the “Progressives” continue to try to find ways to end-run around the constitution. I believe the nomination of Judge Sotomayor is yet another covert attempt to accomplish that goal.

So I decided to take on the Progressives’ primary excuse why guns should be banned: Civilized societies that ban guns experience fewer homicides, less violence and enjoy a lower crime rate.

But is that true?

I found a fascinating and enlightening study published by bepress Legal Series, entitled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence” by Gary Mauser and Don B. Kates.

In this 117 page, highly researched and cited article, the two authors undertook the exact analysis I had wanted to perform and their findings cut the Progressives off at the knees.

For example, Progressive often cite the low crime rate in England and praise the strict gun bans in place in that country. Kates and Mauser document that this is not the case at all.

“The peacefulness England used to enjoy was not the result of strict gun laws.
When it had no firearms restrictions [19th and early 20th Century] England had little violent crime, while the present extraordinarily stringent gun controls have not stopped the increase in violence or even the increase in armed violence.... Armed crime, never a problem in England, has now become one. Handguns are banned but the kingdom has millions of illegal firearms. Criminals have no trouble finding them and exhibit a new willingness to use them. In the decade after 1957 the use of guns in serious crime increased a hundredfold.”

They continue:
“In the late 1990s England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on handguns and many types of long guns. Hundreds of thousands were confiscated from owners law abiding enough to turn them in. Without suggesting this caused violence, the bans' ineffectiveness was such that by year 2000 violent crime had so increased that England had the developed world’s highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the U.S.”

Let that soak in a moment: Despite the strict gun bans in England, the violent crime rate in England actually surpassed that of the United States in 2000!

The authors extended their research to cover thirty six countries and found that, in the countries with the strictest gun ban laws, violence did not decrease. To the contrary, violent crimes were lowest in countries where gun ownership was highest.

“Nations with higher gun ownership rates do not have higher murder (or suicide) rates than do those with lower gun ownership…Consider the wide divergence in murder rates among Continental European nations with widely divergent gun ownership rates. (Actually, those nations with least gun ownership generally seem to have the highest murder rates.)”

“The non-correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of
statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of ‘homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty-six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990- 1995’ to gun ownership levels showed ‘no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate.’ Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which ‘no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.’…Thus it is not just the murder rate in gun-less Russia that is four times higher than the American rate; the Russian suicide rate is also about four times higher than the American.”

Instead, they came to the conclusion that violence is determined by a number of social factors, and that a society that is prone to violent expression will have higher rates of violent crimes, and that tools—or weapons—chosen by the criminal are irrelevant. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill.”

They then come to the conclusion that “one reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals, (and this is especially true of murderers) ‘almost always have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior.’ So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob or murder. By the same token violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians.”

If you cannot stomach the opinions of these two American lawyers, consider the opinion of a retired English Police Officer who helped pen one of the premier studies of English gun control. “Done by a senior English police official as his thesis at the Cambridge University Institute of Criminology and later published as a book, it found (as of the early 1970s): Half a century of strict controls has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of [handguns] in crime than ever before. No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less [in England before 1920] when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction.”

Here in America, the bias of opinion by primarily liberal journalists and editors results in a bias in published articles. Gun crime receives inordinate attention by the media, while violent crime committed by other means is often overlooked. But the headlines are everywhere, if we choose to look: Man murders wife and kids with Bush-Axe. Woman suffocates her own son. Spider Man 3 actress hangs herself. Parents of 9 year old boy stabbed to death in front of him.

In a more recent article published in 2009, Mr. Kates writes that “Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes.” Kates reviews the March 21st murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon. Mixon was “a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation”, who “epitomizes the futility of ‘gun control,’ or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults.” Kates points out that, while Progressive organizations such as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns allege that “most murders are committed by previously law-abiding citizens,” the Mixon murders were “not an anomaly.”

To the contrary, “felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced.” Restricting the access to guns for law-abiding citizens will not significantly reduce crime. As Kates illustrates, “the United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. ‘Gun control,’ therefore, only ‘controls’ those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. Arguments for gun control rest on deceptive claims such as Americans are deluged by literally dozens of supposedly scholarly articles asserting such falsehoods—but with no supporting references. For there are none.”

It is important to spread this information at this time, as President Obama attempts to get Judge Sotomayor confirmed for the supreme court, because while she was on the Second Circuit Appeals Court—and she has publicly admitted to thinking that appeals courts are “where policy is made”—she opined that the Second Amendment is not a “Fundamental Right”, and therefore “does not apply to the states”. In other words, in keeping with Obama’s support of gun control laws, states can individually restrict gun ownership.

This same judge was also recorded stating that, as a Latina woman, she would probably have greater wisdom than her white, male counterparts. Overlooking the overt racist content of that statement, we find that her activist interpretation of the constitution puts in question that presumed “wisdom”. As was pointed out in a Washington Times article about Sotomayer’s opinions, The ‘Empathy’ Nominee; “The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the ‘richness’ of her experience comes to believe it should be.”

We are able to turn the tables on Judge Sotomayor in this particular instance. Being the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants to the country, perhaps she is not fully steeped in the history of our nation. It may be important to note that she is also a member of the "radical" political group called La Raza, which has connections with groups advocating for the separation of several South Western states from the United States. It's difficult to see how membership to that organization could be considered "wise".

Maybe she lacks a deep understanding of the reasoning behind the second amendment, and dismisses the wisdom of our white male founding fathers. These same intellectual giants, who clearly enumerated the Second Amendment to protect our individual right to keep and bear arms, feared that in the distant future, activist judges might interpret the existence of a list of “Fundamental Rights” enumerated in the Bill of Rights to mean that any “rights” not contained therein could be considered to be something other than “Fundamental”, and thus to be abridged.

For this reason, they included the Ninth Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In other words, Judge:

The Second Amendment is not up for dispute, cannot be abridged or limited, and your arrogant presumption that you were gifted extraordinary wisdom based upon your color and anatomy is false.

A wonderful comment from "rto"

I was reading a story about the behavior of the Whitehouse press corp who apparently refused to turn off their cellphones and repeatedly interrupted the buffoon Whitehouse press secretary known as Robert Gibbs. The article itself was interesting and amusing. But within the readers' comments was a little nugget from "rto", no more detail provided. I liked it, and thought I'd post it so it might be read more widely. Kudos to the mysterious "rto".

Barack Obama:
A “reverend and mentor” who GD’s America...
A wife who has never been “proud” of America...
A man who runs on transparency – then seals his college records to prove it...
A man who claims citizenship – then hires a team of lawyers to secure it...
A man who would attempt to destroy another life – simply for asking a question he should have answered...
A man who campaigns on eight years of runaway spending and a deficit – then quadruples it in less than 100 days...
A man who bans lobbyist – then attempts to hire one...
A man who condemns cheats and dishonesty – then appoints one to run the treasury...
A man who vows to find all of the tax cheats in this country – but fails to turn around and confront one...
A man who has never held a job – but the most important one in the world...
A man who feels hard work should pay – for those who choose not to work…
A man who’s ability to speak – is dictated by his ability to read….
A man who feels government can solve the problems it faces – while addressing everything but the problems it created…
A man who signs a contract – but does not read it....
A man who runs a government – the opposite way he runs his home…
A man who preaches “equality for all” – then targets 5% unequally...
A man who pledges to reduce the tax for 95% then raises them for 100%...
A man who feels all have the right to own a home – even if they cannot pay for it….
A man who speaks of responsible behavior – then throws a party every Wednesday night....
A man who tells me to show fiscal responsibility – then borrows and spends money he doesn’t have....
A man who loans my money to a bank – then refuses to allow that bank to repay me my money....
A man who loans my money to a car company – then gives majority ownership to the autoworkers union who bankrupted it...
A man who supports failure “in” this country – while promoting failure “of” this country...
A man who speaks of practical solutions – using impractical methods…
A man who shows me nothing for my money that he spent – and tells me it’s “my patriotic duty” to give him more...
A man who has never run a business – but would like to tell me how to run mine...
A man who would operate the highest office in the land – similar to the way the mafia operates the lowest...
A man who pledges allegiance to the constitution – then nullifies and voids a perfectly legal contract protected by it...
A man who follows the belief that upholding the immigration laws of America – is unpatriotic and unAmerican...
A man who turns his back on this countries friends – while embracing this countries sworn enemies...
A man who is willing to provided for those who attacked this country – while degrading those trying to defend it...
A man who would even think of not providing for this countries fallen – after his order fell them...
A man who “voices” free choice – then systematically seeks to silence the voiceless...
A man who pleads for God’s blessing of America – then destroys the greatest gift ever given to it....

When government owns the press

Life is full of ironies.

I remember the grand days of the GOP, when Reagan stated so astutely that “Government is not the solution to our problems; Government is the problem.” For a wonderful period of time afterward, the fashion was to reduce government, and by the end of the Clinton era, the Democrat President and the Republican Congress and Senate had reduced government enough that we actually had a budget surplus.

After the September 11th attack, however, the Republicans suddenly forgot their roots and decided that we needed new bureaucracies to “keep us safe”. That was the first irony. The pendulum began to swing in the opposite direction, heralding a return to the era of big government. The ultra-liberal Obama administration is taking this to its orgiastic conclusion, and we now see a promise of massive, intrusive government, massive spending, and massive debts. Oh, and of course, massive taxes to pay for it all.

We’re informed that “It’s patriotic to pay taxes.”
Then we are told that “higher taxes will stimulate the economy because the government won’t have to borrow so much, there will be more private capital available for investment, so interest rates will go down.”
“All this government spending will stimulate the economy and we will see record growth,” they promise.
“We have no intention of running the automobile industry,” said the Obama administration, as they “rescued” the company, declared that they owned it, fired the executives, cut their advertizing budgets in half, gave majority stake to the Unions that did not own sufficient stock to warrant this gift, and violated the constitutional protections of the shareholders by bullying them in the bankruptcy negotiations.
“We don’t want to nationalize the banks,” they soothed, while gobbling up one after another, controlling their boards, refusing to allow the banks to repay the money, and tinkering in their internal policies.

But now we have some great news to celebrate. Washington State has approved a bailout of its newspapers! Yes, it’s true. And isn’t it glorious?

No, they won’t be actually giving the papers money. You see, in these challenging times, the Seattle Times can’t compete with online news sources. They are going to collapse, just like the Rocky Mountain News and others before them. Sound the bugles, the liberals have come riding over the hills with—irony number two—a 40% tax cut.

Wait a minute. Aren’t tax cuts the hallmark of Republican policies?

Well, why stop there? As Conservatives have been saying, if you want to stimulate the economy, cut corporate taxes! Don’t stop with the newspapers, cut the taxes on the auto industry! Cut taxes on the medical industry! Reduce the costs of doing business and watch how they grow.

The flip side of the tax cut for the newspapers is something that should alarm us all. I heard a radio commentator state that the newspapers should never be given “government money”. In reality, they are not being given “government money”, but rather are being allowed to keep a greater share of their own money. But the perspective is clear: they are being given “government money”.

If a newspaper receives money from the government, how can it possibly continue to be an independent watchdog of those same politicians that gave them the funds?

I’m sure we will be calmed with promises that “we have no intention of owning the newspapers, controlling their content, or restricting their editorials.”

And we would believe them because they have already demonstrated their noble intentions with the auto and banking industries.

If anything, we already were witness to the voluntary prostration of the news media to the socialist agenda during the 2008 elections. We are witness to their continued unwillingness to ask tough questions of Dear Leader Obama. We see how they verbally berate, assault, insult, and malign conservatives, invoking accusations of treachery, vulgar references to oral sex, and misogynist denigrations of innocent women who dare to express their values.

So why should we be concerned that these same papers are now accepting bailout bucks from the socialists?

Go back to sleep, people. There is nothing to see. Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez has already closed down opposition channel RCTV, forcing them to broadcast from Colombia, and now promises a “little surprise” as he prepares to shut down the last free television network, Globovision.

But that would never happen here. This is America. OK, sure, Chavez is a socialist, and Obama is a socialist, but Obama is a nice guy. We can trust Dear Leader with our freedoms.

Miss America, or Miss Gay America?

Carrie Prejean won the battle. She can keep her title as Miss California USA, and remain the runner up for Miss America. Too bad, Perez Hilton! Your vulgar tirades and obscene insults not only did not prevail, but they left you (and your gay cohorts) with a black eye.

It sounds like it’s just too much to handle for Shanna Moakler, the Miss USA Director who had been campaigning behind the scenes to have Donald Trump kick Prejean out. Why would she do that?

It turns out that Moakler didn’t approve of Prejean’s traditional view of marriage, and the fact that the scandal provoked by Perez Hilton’s bigoted attacks on Prejean turned Miss California into the de facto poster child for traditional marriage. Moakler rankled at the fact that Prejean began speaking at events that opposed gay marriage, a cause for which Moakler is a champion.

Moakler resigned today, saying:
"Since the press conference yesterday, I had a chance to think about what has taken place, and I feel that at this time it is in my best interest to resign from the Miss California USA organization…I cannot with a clear conscience move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth."

A description of the role of Miss America (from the Miss America website), reads:
“Today, Miss America travels approximately 20,000 miles a month, changing her location every 24 to 48 hours. She tours the nation reaching out to support her ideals, committed to helping others. Miss America is more than just a title. She is a woman who reflects a tradition of style, sophistication and service.”

Note that Miss America reaches out to support her ideals—not some prescribed set of ideals that are imposed upon her. If the newly crowned Miss America, Katie Stam, were incapable of fulfilling her duties, then Miss Prejean would step in to replace her. And in that case, she would be free to promote her ideals, which obviously include promoting a traditional definition of marriage.

So Moakler’s resignation is a clear protest that, unless Miss America represents her personal ideals, she refuses to support it, and is removing herself like the narcissistic brat she is. In her myopic view, which she shares with the gay rights fanatics, there is only one right way of viewing this topic, and it’s her view. Her opinion is the right opinion, she presumes to have the moral high ground, and cannot associate herself with any heretics who disagree with her. Miss Prejean must appear to her to be as offensive as a White-Supremacist or a Neo-Nazi.

This arrogance cannot be disregarded as unique: it is emblematic of the intolerance of the entire gay-rights movement, because it is so closely aligned with the actions and offensively stated beliefs of Perez Hilton.

The great irony is that Hilton has been allowed to remain, and was even encouraged by Trump to return in the future. A few semi-topless images of Miss Prejean warranted a full investigation into her worthiness as a “Miss America” representative, and yet Hilton’s disparagement of Miss California as a “dumb bitch” does not draw even the slightest criticism?

In short, the message is clear: men who like sex with women but who disrespect women are disgusting misogynists, but men who like sex with other men and disrespect women are—as Keith Olbermann put it—“intellectual titans”. And only women who approve of men who like men are worthy of the crown.

Perhaps we should rename the contest: The Miss Gay America Pageant.

Not even queers should be allowed to denigrate women

In my previous blog, Hate Speech and Secret Agendas, I exposed the Left’s contradictory “values” that have been on display as they regularly complain about the “insulting” or “degrading” comments made by some members of the Right, while looking the other way as their own leaders and icons make similarly insulting comments.

Since the writing of that article, yet another incident has occurred to prove my point.

When Miss California Carrie Prejean responded to the question about gay marriage posed to her by gay activist beauty judge Perez Hilton, she bravely answered that she believed marriage should remain defined as the union between a man and a woman. We all know about Perez Hilton’s vile response, in which he posted a video blog calling her a “dumb bitch”. Hilton not only refused to apologize, but instead said:

"I called her the 'b' word, and hey, I was thinking the 'c' word," Hilton said during an MSNBC interview.
Where are the outraged feminists? We now have liberals calling both Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean a cunt, and not a word of protest.
What’s more, the issue arose during the Miss America pageant, which purportedly attempts to portray women in a positive light, showing them not only as alluring and beautiful, but intelligent and strong. When the pageant owner, Donald Trump, intervened, he decided that Ms Prejean had spoken honestly to a tough question posed to her and should not be punished for that. In fact, he pointed out that her response was identical to that of the beloved Dear Leader, Barack Obama.
But then he also said that he would “love” for Perez Hilton to return and act as a judge in the future.
Are you kidding me?
This is the same queer Perez Hilton who posted the following image on his blog with an ejaculating penis pointed at her mouth:



I have never been so disgusted with the feminist movement in all my life. No man, not even a queer, should be allowed to denigrate women in this manner and be greeted by such resounding, complicit silence.

Shame on the feminists. Shame on the queers. And shame on Donald Trump for allowing it to continue.

Hate Speech and Secret Agendas

This past week, Britain’s Home Secretary Jacqui Smith published a list of 22 people who have been banned by the government since October due to their “extreme behavior” or speech. While this list did contain the names of a number of actual terrorists, it also included that of Michael Savage, conservative American talk show host who is for his libertarian bent.
Smith explained her decision by saying that "it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country."
Having listened to perhaps a half dozen of Savages programs, I have a fairly limited exposure to his “rants”, but enough to be able to comment that, in my experience, I have never heard Savage say anything I would consider qualifies him as an “extremist”. He regularly criticizes liberals, but also vents on Republicans whom he believes are not living up to conservative or libertarian ideals. He vehemently denies having ever called for any violence, and I have never heard him do so either. According to the Huffington Post, Savage has called the Quran a “book of hate”, among other things, and responds to the accusations that he is a dangerous extremist by saying: "She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech?”

But perhaps facts are unimportant to liberals in power: what matters is the “feeling” they get when listening to people whose opinions they don’t share. And when they hear these opinions, rather than agreeing that it constitutes part of the individual’s constitutional rights of freedom of speech, they instead seek to shut down the discussion. In this case, Smith continues that Savage is "someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause intercommunity tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country".

What is interesting in this quote is not that Savage is promoting violence, but that rejection of his speech might “cause intercommunity tension or even violence”. Really? Who exactly would be likely to respond violently to his statement that the Quran is a “book of hate”? Oh, that’s right; the same people who murdered Theo van Gogh: the Muslims.

In our country, the First Amendment to the US constitution was written to protect the individual’s right to speech—especially speech considered by some to be “offensive”. Why? Because the founding fathers were reacting the tyranny of a government that prohibited speech that offended the powerful and was perceived to threaten the status quo. Perhaps the queasy English still cannot stomach powerful language, which is why the books of Jonathon Swift were once banned. Fear of a reaction to speech by groups that react violently to criticism has led the UN to consider banning any statements that “offend Islam”. Beware the global thought police knocking down your door someday lest your statements offend someone in another part of the globe.

Given their way, liberals would have this policy of banning speech also apply to a wide range of “protected” groups. Here in the USA, liberals are pushing to expand “hate crime” legislation to cover a wide variety of groups based upon their sexuality. Reacting to the pressures of the pro-gay constituency, House Judiciary Democrats are promoting HR 1913. This bill would specify protections for anyone victimized by a hate crime to include “sexual orientation”, without limitations on the definition of “sexual orientation”. The idea is that homosexuals should be protected from any sort of criminal victimization including negative, insulting or degrading comments about their sexual orientation. But when some conservatives realized that this would also grant protections to folks whose sexual orientation included pedophilia, they tried to amend the act to exclude that and a few other sexual proclivities—and these proposed changes were rejected.

According to an article published in WVW News, “No homosexual, whether he be into sado-masochism, bestiality, transvestism, necrophilia (sex with the dead), or pedophilia, should consider himself outside special protection.” In fact, no person with those orientations and many more would be excluded.

In short, by definition of a “Hate Crime”, a person does not just have to perpetrate a violent act against a protected group, because “Hate Speech” is also a Hate Crime. Therefore, any speech deemed by the elite to constitute Hate Speech would be covered and would be punishable.

A definition of Hate Speech given at Wikipedia includes the following:
“Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.”

So what does this mean for you and me? If we were to say, for example, that “pedophiles are monsters”, the champions of diverse sexual orientations could say we were “degrading” pedophiles, our language could be qualified as “hate speech”, and that we had committed a “hate crime”. To say that necrophiliacs—yes, people who find it fulfilling to have intercourse with corpses—were “disgusting creeps”, we again would have committed a crime. What about zoophiles (people who have sex with animals)? They would also be protected.

Mind you, the speech does not have to promote violence or even use insulting language to be considered by some to be Hate Speech. There are cases were individuals who simply stated that they believed homosexuality to be immoral or perverted were accused of a Hate Crime. And in the pro-queer hysteria that is energizing the liberals, even if speech does not pass the threshold of a punishable Hate Crime, it can trigger virulent attacks against the individual, such as in the recent case of Miss California, Carrie Prejean. Responding to a question about her opinion about Gay Marriage posed to her by Miss America judge Perez Hilton, Miss Prejean honestly stated that her religious and personal beliefs led her to believe that marriage should be between a man and woman. For that simple response, Hilton posted a blog video calling her a “dumb bitch”. While on MSNBC with Keith Olbermann, Michael Musto even said that he knew that Miss Prejean was “formerly Harry Prejean, a homophobic man who liked marriage so much he did it three times” and underwent surgery to get her “penis” cut off, while Olbermann insulted her by saying “she is not only just a boob, but a fake boob.”

Last time I checked, women were also protected from misogynist Hate Speech—but apparently not if it comes from a gay, or a popular liberal talk show host. The hatred in their opinions that spurted from their lips was utterly undeniable and was the most offensive Speech from the left since Obama supporters sported t-shirts reading “Sarah Palin is a cunt.”

This stunning example of hypocrisy is just the tip of the iceberg, and hints at a disturbing trend of the injustice and oppression to come.

In recent years, another bastion of traditional values that has come under attack is the Boy Scouts of America organization (BSA). Their offense: they reject homosexuals participating in the organization. The liberal, pro-queer media has portrayed their position as a clear example of homophobia, In his article, “Pedophile Priests and Boy Scouts”, David Kupelian writes:
“In the last year or so, many Americans, organizations and corporations have withdrawn their financial and moral support from the Boy Scouts of America, marginalizing and condemning the organization as bigoted and hateful. Many United Way chapters have ceased to fund the BSA, some local governments have declared it to be discriminatory, and, toward the end of his presidency, Bill Clinton signed an executive order used by a federal agency to try to evict the Boy Scouts from federal lands.”

He explains that, while the public in general has correctly chastised the Catholic Church for not taking drastic steps to curtail the sexual exploitation of children by Priests, the liberals have attacked the BSA as “homophobes” because they actually did take steps to protect the boys in the organization. Kupelian explains, “Historically, the BSA has had a serious problem with sexual offenses by male leaders against Scouts – so serious that prevention has become a major preoccupation, with constant leader screening and training, the ‘two-deep leadership’ requirement and programs for Scouts to identify warning signs of inappropriate advances by adults.”

So the BSA is attacked and vilified for taking preventative steps to prevent homosexual exploitation of the young boys in the organization, while the Catholic Church is contradictorily attacked for NOT taking similar preventative steps!

Kupelian then reveals a shocking analysis. The mainstream liberal media has misreported the “Church scandal” in such a way as to hide the disgusting truth that the majority of pedophile cases were homosexual. They did this by incorrectly lumping cases where heterosexual priests engaged in inappropriate activity with women as “pedophilia”, in order to increase the percentage of hetero-pedophilia and disguise the rampant homosexual proclivities of many of the Priests. He writes: “Stephen Rubino, a lawyer who has represented over 300 alleged victims of priest abuse, estimates 85 percent of the victims have been teen-age boys. And Catholic psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, who has treated many victims and offending priests, agrees with that figure, noting that 90 percent of his patients are either abused teen-age males or their priest abusers.”

Other investigations come to the same conclusion. " ‘Overwhelming evidence supports the belief that homosexuality is a sexual deviancy often accompanied by disorders that have dire consequences for our culture,’ wrote Steve Baldwin in, ‘Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement,’ soon to be published by the Regent University Law Review.” How rampant is the problem?

" ‘The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering,’ said Reisman, who was the principal investigator for an $800,000 Justice Department grant studying child pornography and violence. ‘Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.’"

Before you come to the conclusion that this is “Hate Speech” promoted by conservative Homophobes, consider the following citations from the article:
• The Journal of Homosexuality recently published a special double-issue entitled, "Male Intergenerational Intimacy," containing many articles portraying sex between men and minor boys as loving relationships. One article said parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home."
• In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
• Larry Kramer, the founder of ACT-UP, a noted homosexual activist group, wrote in his book, "Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist": "In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it."
• In a study of advertisements in the influential homosexual newspaper, The Advocate, Reisman found ads for a "Penetrable Boy Doll … available in three provocative positions. She also found that the number of erotic boy images in each issue of The Advocate averaged 14.
• Homosexual newspapers and travel publications advertise prominently for countries where boy prostitution is heavy, such as Burma, the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

We can now understand the motivations for why the pro-gay activists want to include protections in HR 1913 for Pedophiles and other perverts: because, from their perspective, “they are us”, so to speak. And, were they given the power they so desire, they would label the research discussed above as “Hate Speech”, the authors could be prosecuted as criminals. The liberals speak with forked tongues, condemning “pedophile priests” on the one hand, but demanding that anyone who slurs queer pedophiles be prosecutable for having committed Hate Crimes.

***UPDATE***
Barely two hours after posting this blog, I found the following interesting news:
Facebook urged to remove Holocaust-Denial Sites. "Attorney Brian Cuban, brother of Dallas Mavericks team owner Mark Cuban, has been trying since last year to have the pages of groups with such names as "Holocaust: A Series of Lies," and "Holocaust is a Holohoax" removed from Facebook." He continues: "There is no First Amendment right to free speech in the private realm," Cuban said. "This isn't a freedom-of-speech issue. Facebook is free to set the standard that they wish."
Really? As repulsive as Holocaust Denial is, and I find it pretty disgusting, I find it interesting that we are told that there is "no First Amendment right in the private realm". So Facebook is "free to set the standard that they wish"?
Why then was the same standard not applied to the dating service eHarmony, which did not want to create a parralel homosexual dating service? After months of pressure and attacks that the owners were homophobes (there's that word again), eHarmony was sued and finally caved in, after being sued for being exclusive.
The left has exposed its contradictory values yet again.

Can Obama raise Solis from the Dead?

This is funny… from a Bloomberg article.
“The first case was seen in Mexico on April 13. The outbreak coincided with the President Barack Obama’s trip to Mexico City on April 16. Obama was received at Mexico’s anthropology museum in Mexico City by Felipe Solis, a distinguished archeologist who died the following day from symptoms similar to flu, Reforma newspaper reported. The newspaper didn’t confirm if Solis had swine flu or not.”
He must have died from a heart attack after meeting The Messiah. A deadly “Obamagasm”, if you will.

French President Sarkosy challenged Obama to walk on water...I challenge him to raise Solis from the dead.

If Obama is everything his followers claim him to be, surely he can perform the same miracle that Jesus performed when he brought back Lazarus.

Come on, Barry. You can do it!

Are we headed toward a second civil war?

I can’t express how worried I am—and I think you should be, too. We have a very serious problem, it goes beyond parties. We are in grave danger, it’s not an exaggeration, not just right-wing fear mongering. The constitutional violations keep mounting, starting with some of the ones the liberals worried about (such as abuse of executive privilege, warrantless wiretaps, a move toward a police state, pre-emptive military strikes), but the conservatives are also correct that the uncontrolled expansion of the government, the massive spending, the intent to control the means of production, banks etc. We are sliding toward a fascist state, I never believed we’d get to this point but over the past 15 years a slow slide has converted into a rapid decent. I worry about what will happen, what kind of country this can become for my kids.

I’ve been mocked and ridiculed for saying that we might be on the way to a civil war, because it sounds insane to say that. But the radical increase in military-class gun and ammunition sales indicates that there is a massive movement building to arm up in preparation for civil unrest. Yesterday’s declaration of state sovereignty by the Texas governor is serious business. If other states join the call, a movement toward secession may start. That will be the rallying cry and I have no doubt that tens of thousands of armed volunteers will respond, flocking to Texas. If Texas makes a move in that direction, you’ll see Alaska join. I hear that the people are talking openly of a revolt. They are increasing their arsenals, organizing, and preparing for a major conflict. The Tea Parties are a symbolic and peaceful action, but we must keep in mind the historical significance: in colonial days, these were the acts that galvanized the colonists into rebellion.

The spark that triggered open warfare was the “shot heard round the world”. To review: the British government had levied heavy taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, which had just ended. These taxes impacted the people heavily on goods they wanted and needed desperately. In protest, they organized rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party, dumping British goods into the harbor—a criminal act of civil resistance. The British got worried, and made moves to disarm the colonists, and formed a plan to seize the provincial stores of munitions at Concord. Spies warned the colonists of the impending action, resulting in the famous ride of Paul Revere. The Minutemen turned out to resist, the British fired on them, and the outrage spread across the colonies, resulting in the Revolutionary War.

The Constitution was written with these events in mind, hence the Second Amendment: the people are the militia who has the right to remain armed to defend against tyrannical governments.

Today’s conditions are shaping up very similarly. The outrage is deepening and spreading. Even the Federal government appears to be worried; that’s why they published the 9-page report warning of “right wing extremists”. The appearance of “tea parties” and the creation of groups such as “Minutemen” along the US-Mexico border are cultural reverberations of the previous conflict that are gaining ground. We should never ignore those. In 1775, Colonists dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party. Why is that important? It was a symbolic image evoking the recently ended French and Indian wars. At that time, it must have been an outrageously provocative act, because it showed a kind of solidarity with the Indians who had fought against the British.

The Russian analysts who are predicting a split within the United States are not far off. Oil rich states like Texas and Alaska really have very little interest in being part of the United States. The citizens love the country, and would like to stay a part of it, but only as long as it continues to resemble the United States of America as described in the Constitution. Unfortunately, as our government continues to morph into a “fascist state”, the citizens of more traditional, conservative states will begin to feel less solidarity with it.

Keep in mind, there will be massive support in the South among whites to revive the confederacy: the Confederate outrage against federalism is alive and well. In the South this will lead to a horrendous race war, because the blacks will obviously react fearfully to this movement, but they won’t just migrate to other states.

Here’s a prediction: the outrage we are witnessing now is going to grow exponentially. It will be focused on the two parties equally, opening an opportunity for third party candidates. Initially, most people are happy with that notion. The common thought is that we need a fresh approach; “we have to break the backs of the two parties”. But the benefit of two parties is to consistently promote centrist candidates. As much as I dislike Obama, as much as you disliked Bush, it can get worse, MUCH worse. This is how Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez were elected; the electorate vote was not split in two, but in thirds or even quarters. So you can actually elect a president in that case with as little as 34% of the voting electorate. How easy is it to get one-third of the electorate radicalized?