Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The Fallacy of Comparing Donald Trump to Hitler

Anyone that uses Hitler and the NAZIs as an example of a partisan demonetization is beyond ignorant, and has obviously done no independent research (read a book!). One fact is the German people were unbelievably oppressed by the The Treaty of Versailles. The Germans also preferred a strong centralized government and viewed Democracy as weak form of government, preferring a reactionary government that can quickly respond to problems without the need for a consensuses. The US was founded on the US Constitution, which is the rule of law; the American people know no other, nor will they accept any other form of government. No one person, no matter how popular, can place themselves before the law, without eventual consequences and their ouster (the structure of the Constitution was specifically designed not to allow any absolute dictator, group of people, or king from taking over). The left is rioting and resulting in the destruction of property, injury and even deaths. Yet you are concerned about Trump? If one opens their eyes and see which party has been pushing the boundaries of more governmental control against the will of the people. WE have a President that touted pushing "collective solutions", which by definition rob the citizenry of indivual rights.

 One thing that has not considered or discussed is the US is a representative republic with numerous safeguards including the separation of powers, that guarantee no one branch, primarily the Executive branch can overstep their authority. Even Obama, who continually pushed past his authority as President was held back by the Judicial Branch. Many of the people that voted for Trump were outraged becasue the rule of law (the strongest pillar of our representative republic), was being subordinated by the Obama Administration and his DOJ. It should be interesting to note that Obama promised not to try and legislate via executive actions and then we went and used them liberally to bypass congress.

There is also the false belief that Democrats somehow are the savior of black America, when nothing could be further than the truth. Let's not forget that Southern Democrats, continued to resist seeing the freed slaves as equal human beings (something the Republicans championed long before the civil war), well into the 1960s, and then not until the Democrats abandoned the south, claiming a new found morality by championing the civil rights legislation they had blocked for decades. The end result is blacks are now trapped in government run plantations, run by Democrats. These Democrat segregated cities have high murder rates (if a black male between 15 and 35 dies, there is a 48% probability it was the result of being murdered, being the primary cause of death in this age group), low wages, high unemployment, high crime (which leads to higher incarceration of blacks), poor education; but the worst is almost total dependence on government handouts, which is the result of welfare system. This Democrat experiment in social engineering destroyed the black family structure as it paid more money to families  without  a father/husband living at home . The demands and cries for help, to be delivered from these hell holes fall on Democrats deaf ears, except when they need their voting block every two years.

Finally, any discussion of NAZI tatics would not be complete without the Brown Shirts (The Sturmabteilung or SA). Their purpose was to respond to neighborhoods and squash and rersistance to the NAZI movement, using violence and terror. If one looks at the US today, one sees, not the right, but the left is perpetrating violence and terror. There is video evidence that members of the Democrat party would pay homeless and/or mentally ill people to try and disrupt Trump rallies. Then you have convincing evidence that an admitted NAZI sympathizer, George Soros is paying bus loads of primarily black agitators to again disrupt Trump rallies. And since Trump won the election, Soros has continues to bus these agitators to various cities resulting in violent demonstrations that have resulted in injuries and deaths. Of course none of these agitators even remotely resemble the violence and inhumanity of the NAZI's, but much like the Communist Party of the 1950s, the Democrat party has now become an exclusive club that demands strict adherence to an agenda; an agenda that has the purpose of denigrating indivual rights with the promise of central control from an elite and forced equality, paid for by the working middle class, which, it turns out was the end game of ObamaCare.        

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Trump; A Contrived Puritanical Outrage in a Non-puritanical World.

An article in the Santa Cruz  Sentinel Faith Section was right when it commented how the Trump's man speak is a contrived puritanical outrage in a non-puritanical world. Set the Puritan Outrage Aside — Here Are Ways You can Actually Help Women As usual such a tact trivializes the real horrors that women face in today's world such as  exploitation, drug dependence, human trafficking, leading to sexual slavery (nothing that can remotely be considered consensual). Today's Democrats are acting out to "a couple of crass comments" like "lily-white handkerchief swooners". The fact is some women are attracted to rich, powerful and/or famous men and offer up their sexuality to be part of their lives; talking about it, even in a crass way, does not victimize these women as long as these sexual interactions are  consensual (ie what these women will let you do...) . However this is far and away different from women who, due to poverty, drug abuse,  and/or living in oppressive nations, are forced into human trafficking and sexual slavery. Let's not trivialized the suffering of these women,  in the  name of nothing more than demonizing a political opponent during an election.

Trump; A Contrived Puritanical Outrage in a Non-puritanical World.

An article in the Santa Cruz  Sentinel Faith Section was right when it commented how the Trump's man speak is a contrived puritanical outrage in a non-puritanical world. Set the Puritan Outrage Aside — Here Are Ways You can Actually Help Women As usual such a tact trivializes the real horrors that women face in today's world such as  exploitation, drug dependence, human trafficking, leading to sexual slavery (nothing that can remotely be considered consensual). Today's Democrats are acting out to "a couple of crass comments" like "lily-white handkerchief swooners". The fact is some women are attracted to rich, powerful and/or famous men and offer up their sexuality to be part of their lives; talking about it, even in a crass way, does not victimize these women as long as these sexual interactions are  consensual (ie what these women will let you do...) . However this is far and away different from women who, due to poverty, drug abuse,  and/or living in oppressive nations, are forced into human trafficking and sexual slavery. Let's not trivialized the suffering of these women,  in the  name of nothing more than demonizing a political opponent during an election.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Obama and Hillary Clinton; Conman/ Con- Woman, Incompetent and Fascists

The following is a response to pair of liberal letters to the editor, this one from the elitists;
 The first;  A revelation from the current election campaign has been generally overlooked. For a democracy to succeed, its citizens have to be well educated, and in particular develop the ability of critical thinking, distinguishing facts from fiction. The fact that millions of our citizens can be deceived by a presidential candidate who is a con artist underscores the failure of our educational system.

The definition of a conman is someone that promises one thing and delivers either something else, something inferior or nothing. Considering Obama failed to follow through with any of his campaign promises and knowingly lied to the American People about his now failing government control of medical care in the US, Obama is certainly one of the biggest conman that has ever been. With Hillary being a congenital liar and ready to continue the Obama juggernaut, in she wins the presidency we will be replacing a conman for a con-woman. While Trump has tweeted some questionable facts, if he did not live up to his agreements, he would not have been so successful; this is what happens in the real world. If you are not dependable you will fail. In politics, being undependable to the people is sometimes a prerequisite, where lies are called having misspoke, or as Hillary said when called on not being a victim of sniper fire, "I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement". WHAT? Being undependable is especially important when you are a Democrat promising more than one can ever deliver. With all his faults, Trump is not a politician and actually knows that the people want, rather than the likes of the Democrats telling the people they are too stupid for self government, so the government must ignore the will of the people, as Americans need to be coerced to give up their indivual rights, their culture, their love of country, their borders, their sovereignty and their right to self government, all in the name of globalism, as we bow to world governance. To paraphrase Harry Truman, Trump may be a son of a bit@h, but he's the peoples son of a bit@h, and not part of the political elite that wants to put an end to American exceptionalism.

The second is a liberal ignoring his own progressive embrace fascism, while falsely accusing him of the same, as he also demonizes Trump for his lack of political correctness;  If Trump represents anything it is Fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world. If that is what half of the US voters support then we are like Germany in the early 1930's and will suffer the consequences of our ignorance.

If any politician represents, "fascism, misogyny, sexism, triteness, immaturity and a total lack of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US and the effect US policy has on the world", it is the Obama, the Democrats and Hillary Clinton. By all measures Hillary is an elitist, who not only "lack(s) of knowledge of the problems faced by the citizenry of the US", the evidence is she really doesn't care. The world is a much more dangerous place than it was 8 years ago, the result of Obama's incompetence. But his incompetence is a globalist agenda driven, while Hillary's incompetence continues to be driven corruption, with her seemingly unending need for wealth and power. It's interesting to note that Hillary rarely runs on her record as a senator and Sec. Of State, but rather demonizes Trump lack of political correctness, calling out his supposed xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and Islamophobia.

Most toss the word "fascism" around without really knowing what it means; it is not Nazism. Fascism is a close relationship between the government and the means of production. Benito Mussolini, considered one of the great socialist writers, saw fascism as a method to give an economic generator to socialism (nationalization of the means of production usually failed to produce national wealth, becasue the government had taken over as was trying to run the means of production ie manufacturing, even though they had no expertise or experience in production. Fascism allows the original non-government entities with expertise to remain running the means of production, but maintains control through regulations). We already see that Hillary has accepted millions from the corporate America, and there is little doubt their "donations" will be returned 10 fold.

Fascism also needs a strike force to respond to those that threaten the government and/or their control of the means of production. Prior to Obama the US did not have a civilian national security force, but now we do with the huge expanse of Homeland Security; "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama So Obama has laid down the framework with back office deals and numerous regulations, both designed to remove impediments to production while maintaining control of the economy.

The question is not will US voters vote to support an oppressive government, instead the question is will US voters continue to allow the growth of oppression that has been but in overdrive by Obama and will no doubt be continued by Hillary Clinton.

Thursday, September 1, 2016

Sitting during the Star Spangled Banner is a Gesture of Ignorance

The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are f
The police did not cause the deplorable conditions that blacks must endure in Democrat run cities; it is the end product of Democrat social engineering and failed policies. Blacks today are forced on to "Uncle Sam's Plantation"* due mainly to their dependence on government and the destruction of the black family. The end result is high crime, to which the police are sent to keep order; but the Democrats and black racebaiters like Al Sharpton, try and do a very good job of transferring the anger to the police that are just doing their job. The reality is some 95% of blacks shot by police are armed, while the leading cause of death of black males is homicide by other blacks. IOW the problem is based in the government social engineering that paid black families more if the father was not living in the house and the Democrat propaganda that blacks can't make it in a white world, that blacks don't have to follow the law, and the police are slaughtering unarmed blacks by the thousands (again completely untrue). And the 49er that refused to stand for SSB, rather than making a statement of protest, he is making a statement of ignorance.

*Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation" Star Parker http://townhall.com/columnists...

SSB is and always has been a tribute to our brothers in arms, that fought, and the many that died, to win and preserve the freedom and liberties we as Americans have enjoyed since we declared our independence in 1776. To not honor our national anthem is to piss on the graves of all those that gave everything (and are unfortunately still giving), so we can live free. 

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Hate Speech, Gabby Gifford and Democrat Hypocrisy

With the left falling all over  themselves trying to demonize Trump for his numerous off the cuff and non-politically correct comments, the left can not help itself railing against hate speech, even though it is so much the pot calling the kettle black. All one needs to do is look at the hateful and racist comments by Black Lives Matter, which is the only group in these contemporary times, who's real hate toward the white race and the police who's rhetoric has actually resulted in the shooting death of numerous police officers; just like slavery and eugenics,  real hate always comes from Democrats.

The Democrats' cry of Trump hate speech, has resulted in the left trying to lead us back to 2011when Democrats tried to reason that the wounding Rep Gabby Giffords and shooting deaths of 6 others by  a paranoid schizophrenic, was the result of political rhetoric by Sarah Palin, which they demonized as hate speech (apparently hoping that their trumping up of Sarah Palin hate speech was soundly debunked by facts of the case).  For one thing the murderer not only had a long standing hatred of Rep.Giffords, but also President Bush (43). The point being that the hate speech against President Bush while in office was legendary in it's vitriol; Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate 
(5) Bush Derangement Syndrome: Before it fades into history, the liberal hatred of President Bush should be recalled. Codepink, Michael Moore, rap stars and Hollywood comedians hurled vitriol against the President. A movie was made about his assassination. But as an example of violent rhetoric, special attention should be given to remarks made by New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who later apologized for describing fellow Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer as “the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the President’s eyes if he could get away with it.”

The idea that any political rhetoric led to the shooting of Gabby Gifford is in itself hate speech by the left. The truth is the murderer of 6 people, that also shot Gifford was a paranoid schizophrenic who had threatened to kill Gifford 4 years prior the the shooting and of course well before Sarah Palin's political rhetoric. Further the same murderer also killed judge John Roll (nominated by President George H.W. Bush), a individual liberty/ limited government (Constitutional Liberal) that was often compared to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. This placed Judge Roll in direct opposition to the Obama Juggernaut, as he had already forced the rewriting of a far less intrusive Brady Bill than originally written (weakening the federal DOJ bullying for states to conform to the Brady Bill) and had already given a 'preliminary ruling' against a case that would have permitted Holder's Federal DOJ to seize citizens' assets without cause. Judge Roll has also received many death threats, usually from the left, which led to the belief by many that Roll was just as possible a target of the shooter as Gifford. Was Judge John Roll the actual target of the Giffords' shooting?
Perhaps those making that charge have forgotten the hatefulness and violent words coming from their own. Top 10 Examples Of Liberal Hate
"(1) Palin Derangement Syndrome: The Left’s obsessive hatred of Sarah Palin is well-chronicled and is often accompanied by violent rhetoric. Let these three examples suffice: (1) Keith Halloran, a New Hampshire Democratic candidate, said on a Facebook thread that he wished Palin had been aboard the Alaska plane that crashed, killing five including Sen. Ted Stevens; (2) Another New Hampshire Democrat, Timothy Horrigan resigned from the state legislature after writing this gem on Facebook: “Well a dead Palin wd be even more dangerous than a live one.. . . she is all about her myth & if she was dead she cldn’t commit any more gaffes”; and (3) foul-mouthed comedian Sandra Bernhard warned Palin she would be “gang-raped by my big black brothers” if she tried coming to New York."

Friday, August 12, 2016

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 

is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Christians are Just as Violent and God Awful as Muslims; No they are not

It is amazing the depths the left will go trying to legitimize their flawed world view; in this case it is the demonization of Christianity, it is classic Saul Alinky: never argue the liberal world view on it's merits, rather demonize your opponents to try and silence them.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Hitler was a murderous, narcissistic psychopath that talked of his Christianity  in a primarily Christian Germany, until he was elected Chancellor, and then immediately renounced Christianity. In it's place he created a new religion based on the worship of him and the state, the left says the horrors of WWII  is somehow the result of his Christianity. Do you know that Hitler put thousands of priests and pastors in the Dachau concentration camp?     

 "Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the Nazis very early. Thousands of Catholic priests and Christian pastors were forced into concentration camps. A special barracks was set up at Dachau, the camp near Munich, Germany, for clergymen. A few survived; some were executed, but most were allowed to die slowly of starvation or disease.http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/NonJewishVictims.html"

As far as the KKK, in the post Civil War America, over 95% of the citizenry was christian; from the North anti-slavery citizens to the south pro-slavery/ Jim Crow citizens, even most the newly freed previous slaves were converted to Christianity. The KKK was originally created by Southern Democrats to terrorize blacks, not becasue they were Christians, but becasue the Southern Democrats were racists.

Sunday, June 19, 2016

Weaons Bans? Do the Math

There are those that really believe that a ban on the future sales of semi-auto mag fed rifles. would suddenly cause Islamic terrorist to stop their killing, or at least mitigate their killing, but they can't explain how that would work. First SAMFR account for less deaths than any other weapon, so even if all these SAMFR suddenly disappeared from the US, it would have practically no affect on gun crimes. However, that is not the plan, as the ban would only affect future sales, leaving 3-4 million of these rifles available. It is simply a war on reality that such a ban would save any lives for a very long time to come; if ever; and this not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is universally accepted by anyone the can look at these issues objectively, Following this ban there are usually laws that would require those with SAMFR to register them, but since the sole purpose of this registration is for later confiscation, the compliance level where it has been tried is less than 5%. My question is simple, I ask anyone that is for a banning SAMFR, to explain how it would stop any criminal from acquiring one. And it is not so simple as a ban would limit the number of SAMFR available to criminals and terrorist. In the US there has been 14 deadly Islamic terrorists attacks, some of which didn't even involve a SAMFR, however even if one assumes that that each attack SAMFRs, that would mean that over 6 years, 28 assault rifles used. Even if one accepts that the number of Islamic terrorists attacks will will increase to double the current rate, a ban would need to stop 10 SAMFR @ year (or 100 over the next 10 years) out of the 3-4 million available, to fall into criminal Islamic Terrorists hands; that doesn't include the estimated 1000's of SAMFRs (specifically Russian AK-47's since Obama's ban) smuggled into the US. We also know that with relatively free/open borders, if Americans want something and are willing to pay the price, someone will make them available (look at alcohol use during the Prohibition, and the failure of stopping illegal drug use).

Gerry Grimes stated; "Now, would banning them stop all future mass murders — absolutely not. Would it significantly reduce their death/injury toll — absolutely". However the poster doesn't explain how this "absolutely" would happen. To even mitigate the killings done by Islamic terrorists, would necessitate, 10 of the remaining millions SAMFRs left in circulation from falling into the wrong hands; it's ludicrous. Since Islamic terrorists and mass killers usually have very well planned attacks, the fact they may have to spend a little more time finding the right weapon, will certainly not mitigate the lethalology. Once it becomes obvious that ban on future sales accomplished nothing, the next push will be to confiscate SAMFRs, as it is the only reason the government would wants to register these rifles in the first place) rifles still in civilian hands (which also explains the historic near zero compliance), However, regardless of the oppressive nature of anti-gun zealots, it is pretty much accepted that any gun confiscated program would cause such civil unrest, that the deaths resulting from Islamic terrorism in the US, would be dwarfed by a factor of a 1000 or 10,000, making the saving of lives by banning SAMFRs, a moot point.

We know now that US intelligence had identified the last two Islamic terrorist attacks, but due to political correctness, they ignored them, instead their pushing for gun bans that have no past record of of working.  It's almost like the Administration is simply waiting for these Islamic terrorist attacks, so they can use them for fodder to ban guns, As Maureen Dowd would say, Sick Sick Sick!

Saturday, June 18, 2016

When the People Ignore the Law

A ban on the future sale of Semi-Automatic Mag Fed Rifles (SAMFR), would have no affect on public safety; even if it actually stopped the citizenry from accruing these rifles, and a terrorist was locked into using only a SAMFR, there would still be 3-4 million SAMFR available to buy, beg, borrow or steal. Further thousands of these rifles are bought by law enforcement every year, and as we have seen in Salinas, stealing weapons from the police continues to be a big problem; and of course the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment. If we want to stop the violence we need to concentrate on the criminals and terrorists, not guns. As mention France has strict assault rifle possession bands, but that didn't stop the massacres on French soil. The Administration needs to get serious about protecting the us from Islamic Terrorism. Instead DHS has orders not to concentrate on Muslims and a prohibition of investigating mosques, unless a member ask them to. The result is the the US did a good job of identifying suspected terrorist, but were stopped from maintaining their investigation becasue of political correctness.

But there is a larger issue; and that is current owners of SAMFR and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds have simply decided not to comply with these anti-gun laws. Connecticut instituted mandatory registration for SAMFR, compliance was less than 5% and it was also discovered law enforcement officers were the main culprit. Los Angeles and Colorado instituted a law that forbid hi-capacity magazine ownership, compliance in Colorado was less than 5 % and in Los Angeles it was 0%. In a Democracy, the vast majority of the people need to voluntarily comply with the laws (punishment is only meant for the less 1% that are sociopaths). If not, a large section of the population will ignore the law, the result of which is devastating to a representative government.
So what are we fighting for? Let our country's investigative agencies do their job! Don't tie their hands with rules of engagement based on political correctness! The anti-gun zealots tell us he have a gun violence epidemic, when gun violence has been on a decline since the 1970 (50%). The fact that SAMFR continue to be the least used firearm in criminal activity should be a clue that those calling for their ban are not doing so to increase public safety.

Friday, June 10, 2016

Trump and the Post Alinksy Era

The fact is both Democrats and Washington Republicans don't have a clue why Trump keeps picking up voters (a new poll now shows 37% of voting Latinos plan to vote for Trump). The reality is, if you don't view Trump through a politically correct prism, he is more comical than anything else; it has been rightly said that political correctness has eliminated humor. The left has been pushing this self censoring BS. For 40 years, since the left embraced the Saul Alinsky, the left no longer treats conservatives as the party with a different world view, instead the evil, xenophobic, racists, bullies, liars (etc). "RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.")  And never admit that you opponent has any positive traits, “Can you imagine in the arena of conflict charging that so-and-so is a racist bastard and then diluting the impact of the attack with qualifying remarks such as “He is a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband”? This becomes political idiocy".

But the narrative has gotten too long in the tooth, and is now simply ignored by a majority of Americans (the left apparently forgot about RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.). Further the end result has been a government that ignores controls placed on government by the US Constitution, individual rights and wants of the electorate; all in the name as the need of the greater good; a euphemism for the oppression of collectivism. Further the main stream media pretty much ignores the torrent of lies that have come from both Obama and Hillary Clinton all the while demonizing Donald Trump. What you see is a very angry electorate that rabidly distrust politicians and the main stream media. The result is the more criticisms and personal attacks Trump gets, the more voters he garners. The end result is the left is at wits end becasue they have no plan "B", as all they have is lies ("Never admit to a lie or to having been wrong about something"), demonization and personal attacks, but we are now entering a post Alinsky era where the people have stopped listening to politicians and the media (in other words the people are no longer letting the left define their reality), and are looking for a candidate that has a worldview more sligned with their own, based on American exceptionalism and love of country.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Transgenderism is Likely a Mental Disorder

It is difficult to fathom why our President is expending so much political will in trying to mainstream cross dressers. The fact remain that not only is transgenderism deviant behavior it is believed to be closely related another dysphoric condition called 'body integrity identity disorder' where an otherwise healthy person one or more limbs of one's body do not belong to them or a person suffering anorexia that has a much distorted view of their own body. Dr Paul McHugh who holds the position of Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry for John Hopkins University identifies transgenderism as mental disorder,“’sex change’ is biologically impossible,” said (Dr Paul) McHugh. “People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women..for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.”  Transgenderism is a Mental Disorder A 2003 Study from Sweden "...suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism. In other words, even when transsexual sexual reassignment surgery, the dysmorphic feeling that they were born the wrong gender had little affect on their general well being, still pathological preoccupied with their gender.

 Dr McHugh has good reason for his beliefs, the truth is there should be no argument that transsexualism is a mental disorder as it is defined as such in the Psychiatric DSM-IV ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition: DSM-5). 302.85 Gender Identity Disorder in Adolescents or Adults

Gender Incongruence (in Adolescents or Adults) [1] A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2 or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]

1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]

2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17]

3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender

4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)


The sad part of this is the real victims of this push to make transgenderism main stream are the young boys who's parents are pushing them into pushing transgenderism. It is well known that children tend to be gender neutral, ie boys dressing up like mom. However they normally out grow this stage spontaneously if left alone, and it is child abuse to promote anything otherwise. What is also just under the surface is how patriarchal transgenderism is. The primary victims are women and young girls. These is the gender that is being put upon, forcing them to endure sharing a locker room and showering with men with men genitalia; something that is not only unwelcome but can be dangerous if these man are predators

Let is also be known that there is no country that allows such things. Yes, there are unisex bathrooms but they are not the norm and have a warning displayed. Further the transsexual's have also stated they do not want separate bathrooms, they want to use what ever gender bathroom they identify with; they do not want accommodation they want full acceptance. It should also be noted that this has nothing in common with homosexuality, where gays and lesbians have no desire to share bathroom and locker rooms with the opposite sex;  as Dr McHgh said "Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder."

So why is the left and President Obama so intent on pushing this. The answer is simple, the collectivist must be able to change and define social norms and values at will. 

This is allowed when we let progressives set the standard for right and wrong and allow for such social engineering, for fear of being called a racist or phobic. In reality the left created these values, when they created political correctness, and then they use political correctness to justify these perverted standards; standards that run counter to the legitimate values that define a cultural. The end result is the governments legitimizing deviant and criminal behavior under a false banner of individual rights. 

 Once this is done, the powers that be can route out all differential cultures and values to create the world governance being pushed so hard by President Obama. Hopefully President Obama has finally over reached,  so there finally be cultural and values push back rather blind acceptance and obedience to the social engineering of the left; and the action taken will portend our future for decades to come.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Historically Fascism was Derived from the Left and Socialism

Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Totalitarianism, all fall under the heading of collectivism; big government viewing the citizenry as a single entity and providing for the collective with what the Intelligentsia decides their common wants and needs without any consideration for the individual, and whereby taking care of the collective by controlling everything in their lives. This is opposed to a government of the people, by the people and for the people; remembering by definition the protection of individual rights is a protection from government. The concept of fascism was developed by Benito Mussolini, considered by historians as being one of the most influential socialists of the 20th Century. Fascism was designed to address what he saw as the weaknesses in socialism, and that when the socialists nationalize businesses, the socialists in charge actually know very little about running them. So fascism is the government pairing with business, kept in government control by overseers and strict regulations, to maintain the production rates prior to government nationalization. Further like socialism, there is no one kind of fascism, it is a robust system as was seen in it's various in Spain under Franco, Italy and Germany; one thing they all share is the abolition of Democracy. The point being that the left champions collectivism, which is based on the belief that individual rights need to be done away with in the name of saving and preserving the collective; that the government needs to control the citizenry for their own good..

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to mitigate collectivism by protecting individual rights, but even our founding fathers recognized, that no matter what restrictions are put on government, it was doubtful their new country would last more than 200 years as the progression of government tyranny is just to difficult to to withstand.

Thursday, March 24, 2016

Islam; the truth is inescapable

Recently ISIS released a video, which contained the quote,  "Every Muslim who is well aware of the history of Islam, knows that the holy war against infidels is an integral part of Islam, and those who read history would know." Regardless of the source, this truth is still inescapable.

Islam is a very compartmentalized religion. The vast majority of Muslims, like most people in the world simply want to live a peaceful life and raise a family; this being accomplished through the five Pillars of Islam. Another part is Islam comes with it's own criminal justice system that is pretty much inconsistent with any sovereign country not ruled by Sharia law (the vast majority of Muslims support Sharia law over other criminal justice systems regardless of the country where they live). Then there is the jihadist; the holy warriors that police the world for those that defame the Prophet Mohamed and/or Allah and promote the forced spread of radical Islam. "If the person who defames him (the Prophet Mohamed) is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed." While the peaceful Muslim does not necessarily condone the jihadist (some 25% when polled actually do) most are of the belief, that while they disagree with the violence of radical jihadists, one should not criticize their religion in front of unbelievers (and make no mistake, radical jihadism has always been a recognized part of Islam). I also find it remarkable if not naive when the left asked what the West has done/ is doing to anger, when the answer is the very existence of the West and it's promotion Democracy, individual rights, liberty and a liberal education; all of which are viewed as a direct assault against Islam.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

The Misdirection of Gun Restrictions

A liberal blogger asked the question, "How many people have died from gun violence because Republicans put the NRA profits above public safety?" If one looks are crime statistics and historical evidence, the answer would be none, because the people die when the crime rates are high, and there is no evidence that the massive increase of gun ownership has resulted in an increase in gun crime, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. Like the issue of background checks, there is no evidence that the gun restrictions would protect anyone or increase public safety. While the left has done a good job of associating guns to crime, the reality is gun violence follows crime rates, not the other way around.

Throughout the country, whether a state had strict restrictions or not, gun violence and homicides fell about the same rate of 50% over the last 20 years, while gun ownership nearly doubled. It is easy to pass laws and demonize guns, but much harder to actually to have real affect on violent violence. The anti-gun zealots say universal back grounds checks are logical and make sense, which on the surface does seem so, the problem is background checks have ever been shown to lower crime rates. Further the system is so flawed that some 80% of those flagged when trying  to buy a gun, are flagged in error. Is this the kind of system that should be expanded?

The same with assault weapons ban. One might buy into the argument that assault weapons and large capacity magazines have the ability to shoot more bullets and kill more people, yet their use in crimes (along with use of any rifles), continue to be very rare; less than shotguns, while their number in the US has climbed to 4-5 million. As a matter of fact, if all the assault weapons disappeared from the country, there is no evidence that it would have any impact on gun violence and/or gun homicides at all; it's simply a scam. Again it is the left simply creating an emergency and divisive issue and pretending they are on the side of public safety, while nothing they are proposing has ever prevented or lowered the amount of gun crimes and/or gun homicides; the problem is not guns, it's crime; and crime is way down so gun crimes are way down. It's that simple.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Meet Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser; Self Hating Arms Dealer and Gun Owner Hating Zealot

The following article was published in the NYT by what may be  is one of the most condescending anti-gun zealots in a long time; he also appears to be a self hating arms dealer, "Despite what the N.R.A. says about people, not guns killing other people, there is no consumer product as lethal as a gun. But walk up to a guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief. Ask him why he just plunked down $600 and he’ll stare at you again. He bought that gun because he likes buying guns — it’s as simple as that. He may mumble something about the 2nd Amendment because that’s what he’s been told, but if you think picking up a gun is any less impulsive than buying any other nonessential consumer item, think again." A Gun Dealer talks About Guns

Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser  statements seem designed to show gun buyers/ owners as brainless trend following idiots (based on his description of his gun buyers, it really sounds like the only people that buy guns from him are know nothing liberals that have no idea why they are buying a firearm, it’s just seemed a cool thing to do). I for one have never heard a gun owner mumble when asked why he owns a gun(s), be it for self defense, hunting or target (milk jugs included) shooting. I can surely agree that if you “walk up to a (conservative) guy (and it’s still almost always a guy) who is lovingly caressing the gun he just bought and tell him that what he’s holding is a lethal weapon and he’ll stare at you in disbelief,” as the conservative will think the woman asking the question (and it’s still almost always a woman) must be a liberal tune; the fact that a firearm is a lethal weapon is the very reason it was bought for gods sake!! Further one wonders what liberal socioeconomic circles the author runs in where one would have the money to impulse buy a $600 gun, they way most of us pickup a key chain flashlight while waiting at a checkout line. In the final analysis, when you hear a liberal say they believe in the 2nd Amendment (like it’s alien spacecrafts) and they only believe in common sense gun safety (like banning assault weapons when it is pretty much agreed the use of any rifle in a crime is so rare as to be an anomaly). The truth behind all this appears to be liberals continually trying to drum up a gun emergency where none exists; fortunately it has become common knowledge that gun crimes/homicides have been steadily falling for over 20 years, which is why the majority of Americans put gun control near the bottom of their list. But liberals still want to make it a decisive issue so they can try to use guns to discredit conservatives in elections.

Mike Weisser ends his article saying the best course is to trick gun owners into believing that anti-gun laws by liberals are only to protect the 2nd Amendment and make it easy to continue to by guns.

"Rather than considering them as participants in a modern morality play, they need to be engaged as consumers who, above all, don’t want to lose their ability to quickly and easily purchase guns. The trick is to convince gun owners that by helping to find ways to protect us from gun violence they won’t lose what they love. But that’s a conversation of a very different kind.

Liberals call these "ways to protect us from gun violence," common sense gun laws; what is not discussed openly is that liberals believe that it is only common sense to disarm the public and ban firearms. So that is their real end game.  

Friday, January 8, 2016

Citizenry Pushing Back on Unpopular Gun Restrictions

All those that want an Australian type of gun confiscations should consider these three facts.

1) Unlike Australia (and every other country in the world) the people do not have a 200 year history of a Bill of Rights that constrains the Federal Government, resulting in a citizenry believing that gun ownership is a right and not a privilege, dictating gun ownership, shall not be infringed by the government.

 2) In Australia the popularity for gun confiscation was 90%; a huge percentage considering the small fraction of Americans want to disarm themselves.

 3) In Australia 1 in 5 owned guns; of the 3,000,000 guns only 600,000 were turned in voluntarily. In the US gun there are a 100 times more guns with ownership exceeding 1 to 1, with some 350,000,000 guns.

So the reason that the gun restrictions in Australia works is becasue it is the will of the people, so the majority comply.  In the United States it is the opposite, where liberal politicians are governing against the will of the people and trying to push gun bans and restrictions on a very suspicious citizenry. As an example, in September of 2011 the citizenry of Colorado recalled two state legislators (the first time in Colorado history) and a third did not run for election, after they pushed through a slate of, what turned out to be, very unpopular anti-gun laws. The most contentious was a mandatory  turn in/ magazine confiscation law that would a million of previously law abiding Coloradans into criminals over night. Further in Connecticut, another unpopular law demanded owners register their assault weapons with the state or face confiscation and arrest. The law was all but ignored, plus it was also discovered that at least 68% of the police officers in the state owned an unregistered assault weapon. It appears the state is now taking a wait to prosecute tactic, charging only those when the police discover a violation during their routine calls for service. And in Los Angeles, a new law (similar to the Colorado law) required the turning in of magazines with a capacity over 10 rounds, but not one magazine was turned in.

What liberals tend to ignore is a law has to to has voluntary compliance to work. In other words, just passing a law does not mean it will be followed, and if it is not, there is little the state can do about it, bar some unreasonable punishment which is forbidden by our Constitution. This is the danger of legislating against the will of the people. At the point the people say no, there is a real danger that the current leadership will loose the peoples respect, and the current governance will collapse due to a nullification by the people of  their permission to lead.

There are many skewed studies design from the beginning to cherry pick information to show that gun availability results in gun crimes; the primary statistical issue is correlation does not equal causation, in other words it's very difficult to determine cause from effect. http://www.latimes.com/busines... However, any study on guns needs to stand up to the FBI statics that gun homicides have been spiraling down (by 50%) in the last 20 years, while gun ownership has skyrocketed; yet based on this information Peter Gelblum is horrified; that's hard to figure (hey thousand of people are not being killed, isn't that a good thing?) unless Peter simply hates guns under any circumstances. Here are some other facts; of all homicides blacks are the victim 50% of the time (although they are only 13% of the population) and 80% of black male adults die from homicides. Further some 80% of of non-suicide violent gun deaths is a result of gang violence and a majority is black on black crimes in poor black urban communities. These Democrat run ghettos are the only places bucking the trend of reduced gun violence; and these cities have the strictest gun regulations in the country. Yes, these thugs can go across the borders where gun regulations are not as strict, but FBI studies tell us that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are not purchased legally or stolen; most are acquired in an underground black market. Even if guns are obtained in such a manner, it does not explain why the violent crime rate is much lower where the criminals are supposedly going where guns laws are less strict. As far as background checks, again the FBI and ATF have released information that 93% of guns denied through background checks are false positives

The there is call for a so called ban to "automatic" or assault weapons; automatic is being used in-correctly as these non-military grade rifles are semi-automatic. The reason liberals use the terms automatic and semi automatic interchangeably, is first because it really piss@s off gun people and second, to promote misinformation to the ignorant masses of liberals. This is becasue if the masses were to find out the truth, that workings of a semi-automatic rifle is essentially the same as every pistol ever made going back to 1911 (or before), and that not only are these rifles rarely used in crimes, (certainly less than shotguns) even though there are some 4-5 million in the hands of the law abiding citizenry, the FBI has acknowledged that another assault weapons ban would have absolutely no affect on reducing homicides and/or violent crimes (just as what didn't occur during the last ban). Then the liberal masses might start asking; Well if that is true, why not try something that has a chance of actually reducing violent crimes? It is simply the left making a mountain out nothing (a strawman), and making a great noise of how they want to save the citizenry with this ban, so they can claim the morale high ground, when in reality the entire issue is just a smoke screen to divert attention away from the Democrats utter failure in creating cities that are no more than hellholes, that are killing off blacks in record numbers.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

There Is No Gun Emergency to Respond To (and other Democrat propaganda)

 Gun violence and homicides have been in a downward spiral since 1992; homicides have fallen off so much that suicides out number them 2 to 1; 20,000 out of 30,000 violent gun deaths. It is also well known that the accessibility of guns does not drive gun violence, rather gun violence follows crime trends and crime trends as I said are way down. But that has not stopped Obama and the Democrats from creating a gun crime emergency strawman. The current executive orders are symbolic at best and would not have stopped any of the recent high profile gun murders such as Newtown shooting in 2012. Obama's message to congress,  "pass something; anything" on guns, was an attempt to get congress to buy into this Democrat election year charade; a political strawman built on our nation's sorrow and mourning of the dead children of Newtown; it is as despicable as it sounds and with a tear in his eye, Obama executive orders are at best symbolic and at worse a political ploy to further his agenda.

The Democrats continue to play to the liberal (ie PC) uninformed.

1)They believe that restricting the sales of guns to lawful citizens will reduce gun violence and guns cause crimes; even though as gun ownership has increased, the crime rate has fallen (a assault weapon ban is necessary even though they account for fewer homicides than shotguns). Like the presidents message to congress by Obama; do something; anything (regardless if it has any affect, becasue it's all for show).
2)They believe Islam is a religion of peace even though there is violent jihad, slavery, misogyny and apostasy in the Quran and other Islamic scripture; and ignores the fact that radical Islam is responsible for pretty much all the terrorists violence in the world today.
2b. They believe that Islamic radical jihad is based on retaliation, rather the Quran's promise of a world Caliphate (as if the Clinton Administration did some wrong to the Islamic world the resulted in 911) and 1400 years of Sunni-Shiite warfare.
3)They believe the First Amendment is flawed because it allows diverse belief systems to be voiced, it also allows hate speech and micro-agressions, which they see as a problem unless it comes from a liberals mouth.
4)They believe that Democrats are not responsible for the slavery that caused the Civil War and the continued racism during reconstruction through Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation and poll taxes. Even if the Republicans magically became the racists party that the Democrats were (when Republicans made gains in Presidential elections, the Democrats still controlled most of the state houses in the south through the 60's, 70's and 80's), after 100 years of abolitionists policy and the forcing of civil rights on a racist south, it does not erase the historical damage done to the black psyche by Democrats, that continues even today in the Black Lives Matter movement. They don't see how the Democrats continue to oppress the black community by making it totally dependent on welfare, gave more money to families without father in the house and rewarded young women when they became unwed mothers, and segregated them in high crime low income urban cities they control.
5) There is more, but most of all "they always blame America first"