Another Blog From Neosecularist.com

Archive for April, 2012|Monthly archive page

The Threat Of “Back Room” Abortions Does Not Justify The Continuation Of Legal Abortions; A Preamble To War…

In abortion, politics, pro-life, states rights on April 30, 2012 at 5:46 pm

Socialist Bernie Sanders (Ind. VT) has entered the “war on women” charade with a very direct response to conservatives and the pro-life movement.  Says Sanders:

“We are not going back.”

What does Sanders mean by that?  He asserts:

“We are not returning to the days of back-room abortions…we are not going back to the days when women could not have full access to birth control…we are not going back to the days of wide-scale domestic violence, [talking about the Violence Against Women Act]…further, not only are we going to protect and expand those laws which deal directly with women’s rights…”

That some women, once Roe vs. Wade is overturned and states begin to enact legislation to protect unborn children from abortion procedures, may feel compelled, driven, cornered into a “back room” abortion situation is not enough to legitimately or logically keep legal any procedure that unnecessarily kills an unborn child.  Women already have full access to birth control and contraception through the law.  In other words, no one is passing laws to prevent women from accessing birth control or contraception.  However it is not the prerogative or responsibility of taxpayers to pay the cost for women.  And if a woman cannot afford the cost herself that in no way diminishes, or amounts to, a lack of access.  Domestic violence is a serious issue, but do we really need another heavy, expensive layer of federal bureaucracy like the Violence Against Women Act, when these issues can be resolved more effectively, more efficiently at stale and local levels?  Like “hate crimes” laws, the Violence Against Women Act is another example of a needless, cumbersome, purely political, and politically correct, driven, ideological agenda that does nothing to prevent or stop domestic violence, but it sure puts a hell of a lot of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of liberal organizations and lawyers groups.

Sanders continues his directness:

“The right-wing in this country is waging a war against women and, let me be very clear, it is not a war that we are going to allow them to win.  But if they want political warfare, we must expand the field of battle, and we must be on the offensive.”

And let this be a message to Bernie Sanders, the Democrat Party, and all liberals:

We, conservatives, are pushing forward as well, with our political war, fighting against the war on the unborn, the assault on the U.S. Constitution and American freedom, the personal attacks on our character, our beliefs and our morality (of which liberals can challenge – anytime).  And let us be very clear – we’re not going back either.  We’re not going back to a time when abortion on demand was politically impossible to counter; we’re not going back to a time when it was easy to break into America and long remain, and where liberals would provide to these criminal aliens a sanctuary and a protective status; we’re not going back to a time when liberals could erode and degrade America’s military and military might, prowess and reach anywhere in this world; we’re not going back to a time when liberals, through media outlets and through the public education system, were able to get away with denigrating American history, America’s true founding and the facts concerning our founding fathers, America’s Constitution, American freedom and liberty and what it actually means to be an American; and we are not going back to a time when it was easier for liberals to put America’s sovereignty in jeopardy.  We also are expanding the “battlefield”.  And we, not liberals, are, and will remain, on the political offense.  You (liberals) want to fight a (political) war with us (conservatives) – bring it on!  We couldn’t be more excited, more eager, more ready, more resolved to win.  And – we will win.  Wanna put a wager on that?

Advertisements

Liberals Are Being Hanged By Chinese Activist Chen Guangcheng

In abortion, politics, pro-life on April 30, 2012 at 9:19 am

If a Chinese activist was ever apprehended in China for promoting women’s “right’s” or any such nonsensical liberal causes, liberals would naturally be up in arms and demand Obama, or whoever was President take extreme action against China, wouldn’t you think?  But what are liberals supposed to do with Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng, who, up until the time he escaped, was being held prisoner against his will in his own home by the Chinese government.  The liberal dilemma?  Chen is no mere, no ordinary champion of human rights.  And he is certainly not the type of human rights champion liberals ever support.  In fact, liberals despise champions like Chen on a daily basis, calling these type of champions anti-woman.  You see, the kind of activism and human rights campaign Chen had been arrested by the Chinese government for was for his involvement in trying to stop his own government into forcing women to undergo forced sterilization and forced abortions.  (All party of their one-child per family law that liberals support because it is also population control)  So you can see how this puts liberals in a very serious quandary.  Chen was trying to stop abortions from happening.  How does that look on a liberal’s resume’ should he or she show any support, or have any compassion, for anyone who tried to stop the killing of unborn children?  And how do liberal’s react to this news; and how do they want U.S. government to handle this very delicate situation?  (Delicate only to liberals, because on the one hand Chen is a human rights activist, but on the other hand he is advocating for a position in the absolute contrary to what liberals support themselves.)  Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. propagandist, Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) says:

“Our instincts are to cheer him on and use this case to dramatize the flagrant human rights abuses that occur in modern China. We expect our government to take a vigorous stand against the Chinese Communist Party.  However, we must not sensationalize this affair. If Chen’s saga devolves into an “us versus them” clash of hegemonic resolve, it will affect America’s relationship with China for years to come.”

No, indeed, do not “sensationalize this affair”.  Because to do so would endanger liberals in America, and put them squarely at odds with their militant pro-abortion stance and their militant pro-abortion agenda here in America.  Chen is all but throwing the noose around the necks of liberals, tightening, squeezing the rope and hanging liberals with their own hypocrisy.  He has completely put liberal hypocrites, like Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) in serious panic mode, and increased their stress level a thousand fold.  Liberals, because of who they are, must support Chen because he is a human rights activist, but they will not support him as vocally, as passionately, as outwardly as they would if Chen was fighting for gay rights in China, or for better wages and working conditions for Chinese workers.  Liberal hypocrites will only put on a facade, feigning intrigue and concern for Chen, but really hoping Chen simply, mysteriously, vanishes so they, liberal hypocrites, like Tom Doctoroff (Doctoroff?) don’t have to deal with this sticky and most awkward situation any longer.  Because if liberals start supporting activists all the way over in China who advocate stopping abortions and sterilizations, what happens when the news of that support gusts into America and Planned Parenthood gets winds of it?

There Is Only One Value That Defines Being An American Citizen – Sovereignty!

In illegal immigration, politics on April 29, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Let's see how easily I can manipulate you into the dark realm of pseudo-Christianity by misusing the Bible and pretending to be a Christian. Atheists and liberals love that!

Nothing, not a common ethnicity, color, faith or anything else binds Americans closer together than being American citizens.  Without sovereignty, there is no distinction of who is an American citizen and who is not.  Without legally recognized borders there is no demarcation line that separates America from any other country (Mexico and Canada being the only two countries America borders).  Without that demarcation line, anyone can walk into America, freely, unvetted, undocumented, unknowingly.  Ironically, try walking out of America by that same route and see what happens.

Jim Wallis, always a liberal, very rarely an actual Christian, denounces Arizona’s SB1070 bill as blatantly un-Christian and counter to Christianity.  And Christians like Wallis (who is more a counterfeit Christian), who preaches, ironically, Christianity to the same atheists, socialists and anti-Americans and anyone who actually despises Christianity as much as they despise America, spews his version of Christian rhetoric to these anti-Christians, enabling them to be even more militant and anti-Christian, and anti-American, much the same way a drug dealer enables a drug user to become more addicted to drugs.  He writes in his “quick fix” for the Arianna Nation (HuffPost):

“It is our common faith commitment, not the color of our skin, that unite us on the need for comprehensive immigration reform and in opposition to patchwork punitive legislation like we have seen in states like Arizona and Alabama.  At the core of our Christian commitment is to love our neighbors and to speak out for and defend vulnerable and marginalized people. The Bible shows a special concern for those it refers to as “the stranger,” what today we would call an immigrant. Because immigrants are often vulnerable to exploitation or discrimination, Christians should go out of their way to show both empathy and kindness to them as well as speak out for justice on their behalf.  SB 1070 violates all of these principles and as a result families, churches and communities are being ripped apart. The goal of the legislation is to make life unbearable for undocumented people in an attempt to get them to “self-deport.”  is unconscionable. It encourages mistrust and racial profiling through making anyone with brown skin or an accent automatically a suspect. And, it hurts Christian ministries that believe they should help those in need whether or not the needy can show their papers.”

One’s faith, and one – A Mexican – having the same faith an another – an American – does not make the Mexican an American any more than it makes the American a Mexican.  These “strangers” as Wallis refers to illegal aliens being (and for which he misinterprets the Bible for being “migrants”) are people who have entered America illegally.  The Bible does not in any way condone illegal immigration as the counterfeit Jim Wallis would have us believe.  And if Wallis is so hell-bent on damning “legislation intentionally designed to increase the suffering of any of God’s children” as being “unconscionable” then he damn well ought to oppose Obamcare and any legislation that would seek to redistribute (steal) the wealth of one person and give it to government so government can redistribute a very small portion of that wealth (keeping the largest portion for themselves as a service fee) to everyone else in such a way that makes everyone equally poor and dependent on government.  Of course conservatives would rather illegal aliens “self-deport” than have that cost deferred to the taxpayers in the sum of millions of dollars rounding up, processing, jailing, housing and feeding those illegal aliens, until they are deported forcefully by law.  Nothing hurts Christianity more than counterfeit Christianity.  And nothing hurts America more than weakening, destabilizing and removing its sovereignty.  Do that, and just as with the brand of counterfeit Christianity being peddled by Jim Wallis, America, and what it means to be an American will be nothing more than – a joke.

“Pansy Ass” Dan Savage’s Bizarre, Bullsh*t, Anti-Bullying, Vulgar, Obscene, Foul Word-Laced Lecture To High School Students

In bullying, homosexuality, politics on April 28, 2012 at 3:16 pm

Dan Savage is gay.  We, conservatives, do not condemn him, or anyone else for that, nor do we have any interest in his private life.  However we absolutely condemn Savage, and anyone, gay or straight, who, in public and in front of high school students, justifies being a bully, and spews anti-Christian rhetoric (and insists on uses vulgarity to do it) based on their own personal hatred for the Bible, and what they perceive to be anti-gay sentiments in the Bible that might have been relevant thousands of years ago, but which have no bearing anywhere in America today or in Christian communities around the world.  Savage was supposed to be giving a lecture to students on anti-bullying, not on pro-bullying.  Using the Christian Bible, and the laws and codes that existed thousands of years ago within specific religious communities, but for which neither apply in Christian or Jewish law today, shows what an absolute coward Savage is – and a hypocrite himself.  Would Savage ever invoke the Qur’an, which not only condemns homosexuality, but actually still kills Muslims for being gay?  Where in the Christian world, and where in America, does American law allow for the killing of gays?  So, the man who once was bullied for being gay is seeking his revenge by being a bully himself?  Not only is that an incredibly foolish double standard, it shows how truly intellectually dishonest Savage is about his anti-bullying plight, which appears to be nothing more than a charade, a ploy and a deceptive tactic to worm his way into public venues to speak ill of the Bible he feels condemns him and is the reason why he was once bullied.  So some Christians oppose homosexuality based on Leviticus and other “one-liners” in the Bible.  Any attempt to make law, in America, based on otherwise outdated and obsolete rules of conduct would be unconstitutional and would not pass mustard.  Dan savage knows that.  Christians know that.  Who is Savage kidding?  Or, better yet – who is Savage degrading more with his inflammatory, bullsh*t rhetoric?  Christians?  Or Gays?

So – Women Whose Husbands Oppose Abortion Ought To Refuse Them Sex? Is That About Right?

In abortion, politics, pro-life, women on April 28, 2012 at 1:44 pm

Or - if you don't let me kill my unborn child, you'll never have sex with me again! (Photo: Women.com)

A new strategy is being deployed in the so-called “war on women”, which liberals insist is a “war on a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception, but in which we really know is code for abortion rights, and the right of women to kill their unborn children.  Arianna Nation (HuffPost) S.S. Blogger, John Blumenthal, calls on all women who happen to be married to Republican men, or whose husband will vote Republican (and vote against Barack Obama) to stop having sex with them until they have a 180 degree change of heart and vote for Barack Obama, who is guaranteed to ensure the slaughter of unborn babies continues.  Some campaign strategy!  Is bowing to a woman’s “prerogative” to retain the right to kill an unborn child worth the price of “admission”?  And – how exactly does that work if the wife is a Republican and the husband is a Democrat, like Mary Matalin and James Carville?  Can anyone imagine Carville demanding Matalin support abortion or he won’t have sex with her?

No sex for/with Carville? Somehow I'm O.K. with that!

Blumenthal uses a non-sequitor in comparing abortion rights with a fictional play, Lysistrata, in which a woman withholds sex until the Peloponnesian War ends.  So, Blumenthal, who is a liberal, after-all, compares a very real war on unborn children to that of a fictional telling of a real war?  They say truth is stranger than fiction.  In this case the “truth” that liberals want women to deny their husbands sex until they support abortion is just as strange as the fiction that the “war on women” really has anything to do with a woman’s right to access birth control and contraception.

U.S. Has No Idea What To Do With Children Crossing Into America Illegally – By Themselves?

In children, illegal immigration, politics on April 28, 2012 at 11:38 am

Is it just because this article comes from the Arianna Nation (HuffPost), and has no references, no citations or links that makes this story so irritatingly ridiculous?  Or is it just because it comes directly from the Arianna Nation itself that makes it so ridiculous?  Children are crossing into America all by themselves, illegally, says the article, and have been doing so for years.  But now, there has been a surge in the numbers and America doesn’t know what to do with them.  That last sentence ought to be a question, but we will leave it as is.  How in the hell could any government not have an inkling as to what ought to be done with children that come into America, by themselves, and illegally?  Think of it like going to the store with your child, and where she runs off and disappears the moment you turn your back.  What do you do as a parent?  Walk out of the store and leave the store to care for the child, or find proper lodging for her?  Do you leave all responsibility of your child to the store?  And – what does the store usually do when it finds a child alone, by itself, without parental supervision?  Does the store take over responsibility of the child, and the cost associated with that responsibility?  Of course not, they would be sued, to say the least.  Not to mention it also would see a “surge” in “lost” children (not too surprisingly) running around their store.  Now – imagine the cost to American taxpayers for all the children illegally crossing into America by themselves.  What’s that got to be, and what does it cost the longer we retain them?  So – back to the store and its dilemma.  What does it naturally do?  The store gets the name of the child and announces over its PA system “so-and so is looking for her mother, can she please come up to the front counter and get her”.  If no parent presents themselves, the store turns the child over to police.  Well, why isn’t America doing that?  Or, in other words, why isn’t America getting the names of these children, the countries the have left to come illegally to America and then go directly to that countries embassy or “consular”, leave the children in their hands to care for as both sides work together to return the children to their rightful country of origin and their parents?  Why are children who are coming into America illegally automatically America‘s concern and responsibility, and why should American tax payers be left with the bill?  Whose problem is this really?  And if more of the cost burden was put directly and squarely on the shoulders of the children’s own governments, how soon would we see this problem simply “resolve” itself?

Anti-Gun/NRA Group A Terrorist (Of The Mind) Organization

In crime, guns, politics on April 28, 2012 at 12:53 am

Is brainwashing a form of terrorism?  As part of its “Social Justice Week“, Jones College Prep, out of Chicago, IL. brought in the Black Star Project, a “Chicago-based community organizing group” to talk to students about gun violence and gun control.  What the students were not aware of was that the conversation on gun control would be completely one-sided, and any dissenting views would not be tolerated.  In fact, to attempt any rebuttal to their contrary was quickly, decisively and very rudely shut down.  The main purpose, the only purpose, as it turned out, why this organization came was to inform the students that guns are bad, and only bad people own, or would think to own, guns, and they (the students) should protest gun ownership in Chicago, including the conceal and carry law being debated.  In other words, the Black Star Project, its leader, Phillip Jackson, and his “co-presenter”, Camille Williams, were there to indoctrinate, manipulate and brainwash these students into becoming anti-gun protesters.  It was Williams who became belligerent with students when questioned and “made several inflammatory statements about gun ownership and the National Rifle Association. She claimed the NRA is indifferent to gun violence. She also asserted she has received emails from the NRA and/or its members claiming she is “going to hell” for her advocacy and “these porch monkeys deserved to die,” referring to black children killed by guns.”  Of course, despite efforts to have those emails released, that has not yet occurred.  The NRA supports the Constitutional right of all Americans to own guns and works to ensure that right is protected, while Williams works to undermine that right, and has made it her job, literally, to indoctrinate young, impressionable college students into the anti-gun movement with lop-sided and deeply falsified information.   Her racist rant about the NRA wanting blacks to die is ridiculous, and says nothing to all the many home owners who own guns and have had to use them in self-defense to protect themselves and their families while at home – many of them black.  Even some of the students understand that.  But when one student told Williams she supported gun ownership because “if you take away guns from regular citizens, the criminals and the police are the only ones who have them, so…”  Before the student could finish, Williams interrupted and held up a list with the names of young Chicagoans killed by guns.  “How many of these kids on (the list of dead) here are able to carry a gun?” Williams demanded to know.  The question not answered was – how many law-abiding gun owners are in the habit of committing murder with their guns, compared to law-breaking criminals who also have guns, undoubtedly stolen, and unaccounted for?  Williams completely disregards the fact that it is the criminals with guns that are the problem, not the law-abiding gun owners.  The reason?  Because Williams does not want anyone to own a gun.  Gun ownership is the equivalent of independence, and that does not help Williams’ cause, which is to get everyone depended on big government.  And what better way to do that than to start brainwashing them right at the age they can begin voting.  So – isn’t brainwashing a form of terrorism, or at least a technique widely and oft used by terrorists?

Ever Dreamed About Having Sex With The Dead? Well, The Egyptians Have, And Now Their Dream Could Be A Reality…

In hoaxes, necrophilia, politics on April 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Egypt is, or its isn’t, pushing through a proposal, the so-dubbed “farewell intercourse” law that would allow husbands whose wives have died to have sex with their corpses up to six hours after their death.  Yummers!  The story is all over the internet, and although there is not yet any confirmation of its actual authenticity, would it surprise anyone if Egyptians would try to pass such a law?  According to The Inquisitor, Egypt is “set to lower the age of marriage in Egypt to 14 and taking away the absolute right of women to education and employment.”  We already know that Egypt, which is dominated by radical Islam, and now a radical version of the Muslim Brotherhood, is not pro-West or pro-America.  We also know that its radical version of Islam revolves around male domination, which includes keeping women and girl from being educated, having a job, learning to read and wrote, to vote or to have any rights at all, including the right to live after having been raped.  So, why would it be such a great leap if, say an Egyptian man married a 14 year Egyptian girl who happened to die giving birth and her corpse was just too much for him to resist?  Perhaps we now have a fuller understanding as to why they want Sharia law in America.  These people have not had any respect for woman or females of any age for a thousand years or more!  Does anyone really expect them to start respecting woman now?  What is the real leap in “logical” Islamic thinking and philosophy about having sex with one’s dead wife?  They don’t respect women in life, why would they respect women in death?

Anti-American Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Has A Serious Problem With American Sovereignty, And With Telling The Truth

In illegal immigration, immigration, politics on April 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm

It should not come as any surprise that anti-American Los Angeles Mayor, Antonio Villagairosa opposes SB1070, the Arizona anti-illegal aliens/immigration law currently being debated by the Supreme Court.  He makes his insane comparison to immigrants legally coming to America through Ellis Island and those illegally entering America through the southern border with Mexico and cannot see the vast difference between the two.  Well, he does see the difference, but he won’t tell you, or his multitude of illegal alien supporters and supporters of illegal aliens.  Says Antonio, “The American experience is an immigrant experience. Throughout our history, immigrants from every corner of the earth have come to America in search of freedom and opportunity. Each new immigrant generation has made unique contributions to our national greatness – from building the great cities of the 19th century to founding the great technology companies of the 21st century.”  The immigrants that came to America through Ellis Island did not sneak in, they came in with papers and were immediately processed and documented.  The aliens coming into America through the southern border with Mexico are sneaking in, they have no papers and they are, and they remain undocumented?  Where are the similarities?  Antonio Villagairosa is as disingenuous as can be.  All anti-Americans are that way.  Either America has sovereignty or it hasn’t.  If it does, then America has the right to keep out, and to put out, those people who are not citizens or who have no business, or legal right, to be here.  If America has no sovereignty, then what exactly makes an American citizen an – American citizen?

You Being Unemployed Is Surest Way For Obama To Get Your Vote (So Obama Is Betting)

In Barack Obama, politics, taxes, Unemployment on April 27, 2012 at 11:09 am

Is it any wonder why Obama hates working class Americans?  For Obama to win reelection, he needs you to vote for him.  You are more unlikely to vote for Obama if you have a job, than if you are unemployed.  That is what Chaka Fattah insists, and ultimately what Obama and the Democrat Party truly believes.  With only so many dead people, illegal aliens and cartoon characters he can get away with adding to his voting list without drawing too much suspicion, the last block of voters he can draw from are those voters that are unemployed and dependent on government for a check.  This number continues to grow, and grow, and grow.  Obama is betting that the unemployed will be more susceptible, more gullible, more desperate, and thus more willing to surrender their last vestiges of self-worth and vote for Obama because he will support them financially.  And by “he will support them financially” that is understood to mean YOU, dear taxpayer, the working class American struggling to make your own living for yourself and your family.  YOU, dear taxpayer, support the unemployed.  YOU, dear taxpayer, are providing the necessary funds Obama needs to redistribute to unemployed Americans, to keep those Americans unemployed, so that they will vote for Obama and keep YOU, dear taxpayer, paying for, and subsidizing, unemployment in America.  Obama hates you, the working class American as much as he needs you, and your taxes to buy the votes he needs to get reelected.  YOU, dear taxpayer, although you will probably vote against Obama, will nonetheless do more to support Obama and his reelection bid than you will, or could, ever imagine.  This might be considered the ultimate “Obama’s Revenge” against the working class citizens of America he so despises.  And seethe and rage all you want.  What, if anything, do you think you can do about it?  YOU, dear taxpayer, are only the working class.  Your numbers are dwindling, while the unemployment numbers are increasing.  Soon, the unemployed of America will be the majority.  Remember the movie “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers“?  Now you know exactly what Obama and the Democrat Party are trying to do to America, and how they are doing it.  So a word of caution, just like in the movie – Don’t YOU fall asleep this November 2012 election!

Hillary Clinton Could Reboot Her Presidential Bid By “Sticking An Unbent Paperclip Up Her Urethra”

In comedians, politics on April 26, 2012 at 1:53 pm

Actually, Jon Stewart made that “joke” on his HBO Comedy Center program about Mitt Romney.  But one has to wonder if he would ever make such a “joke” like that about a Democrat female running for President.  He probably would use that on Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, or any conservative woman running for President or any political office, we know that.  But where does Stewart get off making such crude jokes like that about anyone at all?  Hillary, of course, is not running for President this time around, but there is strong indication she may try again in 2016.  Will Stewart still be around then to use the “paperclip up the urethra” joke?  Will Stewart’s program still be around for him to use as a vehicle for his vulgarity?  Would Stewart have the same “courage” to tell Hillary Clinton to stick a paperclip up her urethra to reboot her Presidential bid as he apparently has in telling Mitt Romney?  In the spirit of “equality” among the sexes, shouldn’t he?  Or will he do as all cowardly liberals (which Stewart is) do and keep attacking conservatives with the same vulgarity, the same hypocrisy, the same sexism, as they decry conservatives engaging in, without much evidence to back it up?  Another question is – just where does Stewart get these jokes from, his staff, or does he pull them out of his own…

The TSA Is A Danger To American Freedom, A Comfort To Real Terrorists

In politics, TSA on April 26, 2012 at 12:17 pm

It’s happened again.  Another child has been accosted by the TSA at an airport and made to be patted down for weapons, drugs, bombs, explosives, and whatever else the TSA thinks little children may have concealed on, or in, their person.  They can’t, and we certainly cannot allow them, to racially profile people at the airport who may be more likely to be terrorists, but we can certainly allow the TSA to stop little children, old women, the handicapped, etc., and pull them to the side and pat them down?  When did it creep into TSA thinking that little children could be terrorists?  When did that meeting take place?  Was it right after, or during, the same meeting they discussed the uncomfortableness about stopping Muslim-looking people waiting to board a flight?  And did they come to the conclusion that it would be better to stop little children, the elderly and handicapped who probably could not speak up for themselves, or who would be more terrified to do so?  In the meantime, we still do have real terrorists plotting real terrorism against America and American buildings.  If the TSA is not going to stop them from boarding a flight because they are afraid of being accused of racial profiling, what the hell is the point of having, and spending the millions of dollars we do on, the TSA if all they are going to do is stop, and pull to the side little children and people who are otherwise defenseless and cannot speak up for themselves?  By doing this, the TSA is putting in danger our American freedom and giving more aid and comfort to our true enemies.  Or – are little children, the elderly, and the handicapped our true enemies?

Mobile, Alabama Mob Attack Against Owens Was Racial, And “Justice For Trayvon Martin” Was A Motivating Factor

In black racism, hate crime, politics, Trayvon Martin on April 26, 2012 at 10:35 am

Terry Rawls was arrested for taking part in the Matthew Owens beating (click photo for story)

An arrest has been made in the Matthew Owens mob attack that left him in critical condition.  A man by the name of Terry Rawls has been arrested.  According to witnesses, the attack was really only between Owens and Rawls, who have had a verbal war, or sorts, going on for three years.  On the day of the attack, apparently some kids were out in the street playing basketball and Owens confronted them.  The kids went back and told their parents, and they all gathered together and went to see about Matthew Owens.  Now the scene is set.  We have our mob of 20 black attackers going to confront Owens because he “fussed” about some kids playing basketball in the street.  (Is that the best and most appropriate place to play basketball or anything else?)  Allegedly racial slurs were slung – but the article does not say who slung them.  In any event tensions escalated to the point were this mob of 20 blacks stopped their verbal assault and began to physically assault Owens with “paint cans, pipes and chairs”.  Also, witnesses claim a women screamed from her car as she was leaving, “That’s justice for Trayvon”.  Now, here we have an instance where there are witnesses, but they are being dismissed.  Yet, there are no witnesses to the Trayvon Martin killing (expect George Zimmerman, who admits killing him, but in self-defense), and yet conclusions have already been drawn about Zimmerman’s guilt.  Let’s assume, for a moment, that the witnesses who made that claim were mistaken.  What was the motivation for 20 blacks to beat up one white person?  Because he told some kids not to play basketball in the street?  Yikes!  How many times do any of us see kids doing something they ought not to be doing because it is dangerous to them and could damage someone’s property?  Wasn’t there a time when we could tell kids to get off the street without worrying about being killed, or near to it,  and they did get off the street?  And their parents scolded the kids for being out in the street, not the person who told them to get off the street?  Or does that only happen on “Leave it to Beaver”, or a television program from the wholesome 1950’s?  And why, if there had been tensions between Owens and Rawls for three years, did it take a mob of 20 blacks to bring it to a climax?  Neighbors do have words with one another over issues. And apparently he and Rawls had had physical altercations before, and police were called, but charges never filed.  What was it about that particular day, that was different from any other day in the previous three years this has been going on?  In other words – had the Trayvon Martin incident never occurred, would a mob of 20 blacks really have gotten together and beat the hell out of a white man because he told their kids not to play basketball in the street?  But Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, rejects the notion that this crime was in any way racially motivated, or even a hate crime, or spurred on by the Trayvon Martin incident.  So too does Corporal Chris Levy, who is with the Mobile Police Department.  He said, “I can tell you without a doubt 100 percent that the Trayvon Martin case was not the motivating factor.  That 100 percent, it is an ongoing incident between people who have been fighting for a few years now.”  Really?  Let that be a lesson to any of you to think twice when you confront kids out in the street playing basketball, or any game, and doing things they ought not to be doing out in the street because it is dangerous and they could get hurt, and/or damage the cars out there.  First check and make sure they are the same color as you.  (You might still get beaten up, but at least race cannot be claimed as a factor)  And second, make sure there hasn’t been another Trayvon Martin incident in the news for a while that the kids’ parents can use as an excuse and as “justice” when they come to beat you up.  When the day comes when it is a mob of twenty whites beating the hell out of a black, and where one of them is “allegedly” shouting “that’s justice for Zimmerman”, can we expect a mayor, a police officer, anyone of authority, to insist “100 percent” that race and racism was not a motivation or a factor?  And if they did, couldn’t we expect to see that mob grow just a little bit overnight?

Twenty Blacks Beat Up Lone White – But Mayor Says It’s Not A Hate Crime…

In black racism, hate crime, politics, Trayvon Martin on April 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm

Matthew Owens was allegedly beaten by a vicious mob, after which someone uttered the words, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."

Mobile Ala. – Mathew Owens was left in critical condition after being beat up by a a mob of twenty blacks.  Mobile Mayor, Sam Jones, stands committed in his belief that the attack was neither a hate crime, nor had anything to do with race itself.  This, despite the fact that some of Owens attackers allege Owens had spewed racial slurs at them at the time.  Now, which is it?  Either Owens did in fact taunt a group of blacks with racial slurs, who in turn violently attacked him, or Owens was attacked by a mob of blacks simply for being white, and it really is all part of the “Justin for Trayvon” mentality.  Said Jones, “Wait for the facts as far as we’re concerned right now. But, I would caution people to not jump to conclusions right now. This is really very divisive in communities throughout the country, and I don’t think we have any reason to be divisive here because I don’t see any evidence of that.”  It sounds as though Mayor Jones (who is black) is trying to deny reality.  Namely, a group of blacks beat up a white person.  In Jones book, that doesn’t constitute a hate crime, a race issue or racism.  Even the caption in the photo showing Owens in critical condition, and which can be found in the article is skewed.  It says “allegedly beaten by a vicious mob”.  There’s no “allegedly” about it.  The blacks in the “vicious mob” not only do not deny beating up Owens, they give reasons why they did it.  Mayor Jones begs us to “wait” and to not “jump to conclusions” at the same time millions of blacks around America already have in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident.  The article goes on to say “Owens reportedly has a long rap sheet in the area, the station reported. He’s been booked on charges of assault, domestic violence, harassment and public intoxication in the past.”  Just like Trayvon.  But somehow we must accept that Zimmerman is guilty.  If we are supposed to accept Zimmerman is guilty, without the facts, why are we supposed to wait to form an opinion as to whether this mob of blacks is guilty?  Just like Zimmerman, they too admit they did it.  What’s the difference?

What’s The Difference Between Breaking Into America Illegally And Breaking Into One’s Home Illegally?

In illegal immigration, immigration, politics, states rights on April 25, 2012 at 2:01 pm

Someone breaks into your home and starts stealing your belongings; your money, your jewelry, your art, your furniture, etc.  Would you have the audacity to stop them?  Would you call the police?  Would you seek to have them prosecuted and punished?  If you wouldn’t seek to stop illegal immigration into America, (a sovereign nation and “home” to 300 million legal residents), why would you feel differently towards your own home (also your sovereign domain) being robbed?  When illegal aliens break into America they steal things too, and not just the “jobs Americans won’t do”.  They also steal our identities, they steal money from education funding when they enroll their children in public schools using our tax dollars, they steal money from the food stamp program, SNAP, etc. when they use that system to buy food with our tax dollars, they steal money from the housing funding when they are given shelter to live using our tax dollars, they steal money from healthcare funding when they use public hospitals paid for with our tax dollars, and they even steal our political elections when they illegally vote for the politicians who pander to them and promise them amnesty.  Just as the home invader broke into your home to obtain something of yours, something of value, for him/herself, so too do illegal aliens break into America to obtain something of value for themselves, and in doing so they took something of value away from you, from all of us.  The Supreme Court is hearing argument of Sb 1070, Arizona’s “controversial” illegal immigration law.  It appears Arizona will win, which means illegal aliens, and their legitimacy in America (or at least in Arizona), will lose.  What Arizona is trying to do, by protecting its sovereign territory, (in this case a state) is no different from what a home owner would do, or seek to do, to protect their sovereign territory (in this case a home).  Yet, millions of home owners who probably would seek to defend their property, their own sovereign domain, still insist that trying to stop illegal aliens from breaking into America is tantamount to bigotry and xenophobia and racism.  Why do these Americans reject the legitimate sovereignty of America?  And  – would they just as readily, just as passionately, relinquish the sovereignty of their own homes to the people who would desire to rob them?  Would they do it if it was an illegal alien robbing them?

The “Occupy” Movement Of Today Is The KKK Of Yesteryear

In black racism, Occupy protests, politics on April 25, 2012 at 9:36 am

Rapper Jay Sun (Click Photo to go to story)

Decades ago, when the KKK had a following, and was able to infiltrate politics, business and law enforcement with its incendiary message of bigotry, discrimination and hate, and where its membership was in the millions, if not in full dress garb, then in spirit, it was a force not to be reckoned with or ignored.  Enter 2012 and the “occupy” movement.  This scum is no better than, and just as worse as, the KKK.  Why they are able to get away with the hostile, threatening language they use is a chilling and horrifying testament to how deeply they have penetrated themselves and their message  into the same groups of people once in league with the KKK.  Rapper, Jay Sun, speaking at the “Occupy the Justice Department” event tells his audience that if he is arrested not to march on his behalf but to “start killing m—– f—–s”.  Well, isn’t that a lovely sentiment from an otherwise “peaceful” protest rally organized to counter against the “evil rich” businesses and corporations of America?  And just who does Jay Sun want killed?  Anyone?  He failed to mention any specific names.  Remember Ted Nugent made some pretty wild and outlandish comments directed at Barack Obama, and was investigated by the Secret Service.  Has anyone investigated Jay Sun, or will he get a pass?  And what about Pam Africa, who also spoke at the rally?  What was her “wonderful” message of “hope and peace” for the audience to absorb?  “Don‘t push for nothin’ you ain’t prepared to do.  We cannot be up on stage talkin’ s**t, that you gonna do something that never f***ing materialize.”  At least they admit they are “talking s**t”.  They certainly aren’t talking about anything uplifting or inspiring are they?  Or does the idea of killing m***** f*****s make you proud to be in, or support, this racist, bigoted, hateful, anti-American movement that is virtually indistinguishable from the KKK in its rhetoric, its tone and its civility (Of which there is none)?

Could This Picture Of Trayvon Martin Be Worth A Thousand Pardons To George Zimmerman?

In George Zimmerman, photography, politics, Trayvon Martin on April 24, 2012 at 11:46 pm

This image is the photograph the late Trayvon Martin used to represent his Twitter identity in late 2011, under the screen name "T33ZY_TAUGHT_M3." Although the Twitter account was deleted, The Daily Caller retrieved it from the social analytics website PeopleBrowsr. The upper-arm tattoo in the image matches one in a close-up photograph on Martin's MySpace page. (Image: Twitter)

Would the MSM dare show this “adult” picture of Trayvon Martin to its liberal audience?  (Click the photo to read the full story)  For tens of millions of Americans who get their news daily from the MSM, have they seen this rather unflattering and vulgar photo of Trayvon Martin?  Would the MSM ever show this photo, or would they keep on showing older photos of Trayvon, during more “innocent” times in his life?  The liberal MSM has, from the very beginning portrayed Trayvon Martin as the victim of a hate crime; a sweet, lovable, innocent young teenage boy who could not possible commit a crime of any kind, or hurt or harm another living human soul.  The photographs they have used of Trayvon have all been taken from when he was a young teenager. An angelic little boy who could not hurt a fly.  That is what the MSM is saying, subliminally, when it distributes this older photo of Trayvon.  Compare that to the photograph the MSM frequently rehashes of George Zimmerman, Trayvon’s killer.

Zimmerman looks tired, disheveled, mean, gravelly, dirty, nasty, guilty!  That is exactly what the MSM wants everyone to believe, regardless of what the evidence has to say.  And look at this oft rehashed photo of Trayvon and Zimmerman side by side:

Do you see what the MSM is intentionally doing, implying, planting in your head by showing these two photos side by side?  The MSM is saying, “Look, this big, mean, nasty George Zimmerman over here on the right murdered this sweet little boy, Trayvon Martin, on the left.”  But what the MSM is not telling you is that that sweet little boy had done a lot of growing up since the time that photo was taken.  None of that in any way indicates Trayvon’s guilt, and Zimmerman’s innocent, or vice-versa.  However, neither does portraying Zimmerman as an evil white man who murdered the little black boy in the red shirt represented in the above photo automatically indicate Zimmerman’s guilt.  The MSM is playing a shell game with its audience, switching photos, shuffling them around, hiding others, all in the hopes it can pull the wool over your eyes and make you believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder, whether he actually is or not.  The trial has yet to begin, Zimmerman is out on bail and even now the myriad death threats against Zimmerman keep pouring in.  All because of how the MSM has reported on this tragic and disturbing incident from the beginning by portraying Trayvon as the victim and Zimmerman as a cold-blooded murderer, without any evidence, as of yet, to back it up.  The photo of Trayvon giving his middle finger may not be enough to clear Zimmerman, but the shoddy and unprofessional and blatantly biased journalism and media coverage by the MSM just might be enough to set Zimmerman free, if no pertinent evidence can be introduced.  And what is that going to mean if, down the road, sometime after Zimmerman is freed, new evidence pops up to prove Zimmerman actually was guilty of killing Trayvon in cold blood, not in self-defense?  There will be no double jeopardy for Zimmerman, who cannot then be tried a second time for the same crime, but there sure as hell ought to be double trouble for the MSM, and double more after that.

Black On White Crime And The Sound Of Crickets Chirping

In black racism, hate crime, politics on April 24, 2012 at 7:55 pm

Black on white crime – it happens.  And whether it happens in public, and in broad daylight in front of witnesses, if it was to happen right in front of a news camera, with the camera rolling, would the crime still be recorded and reported?  It makes a BIG difference to the liberal MSM whether the crime is white on black or black on white.  A white on black crime is NEWS; it’s a hate crime; and it justifies, from the MSM point of view, the continued charge of white “raaaacism!”  So, why, when it is a black on white crime, and specifically a hate crime, intentionally committed by a black person on a white person solely because the victim is white, are these incidents ignored by the liberal MSM?  Why is there never the charge, by the liberal MSM, of black “raaaacism!”  More than likely because it paints blacks in a bad and negative light.  The same bad light, ironically, the liberal MSM enjoys painting whites in every time a white person commits a crime against, or says or does something of a racist nature to, a black person.  We need to start taking black on white crime just as seriously as we take white on black crime.  We do not expect race-baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to come to the defense of white victims against their black attackers, as they do with black victims against white attackers, and as they are doing (over-hyping) with the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case.  And as it turns out, neither of these race-baiting thugs have done that to date.  There are more than enough of us in media that can cover these black on white hate crimes without Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton interfering.  However, we damn well ought to expect media outlets, and that includes the liberal MSM, to do its job and report on these incidents with the same passion, the same human interest and compassion, as they do when it is a white on black crime.  By not doing so, it is unwittingly, perhaps, giving cover and shelter to these racist criminals who are attacking whites. and providing these thugs with the courage to continue attacking whites, knowing little will be done to bring these incident to the public’s attention.  Or – is it that the MSM really doesn‘t have any compassion, any empathy, any interest whatsoever when a black person commits a violent crime against a white person?  Would it surprise anyone if the MSM didn’t?

Hispanic…Latino…Mexican – If You Could Save Money On College Tuition, Wouldn’t You Wish You Were An Illegal Alien Too!

In Hispanics, illegal immigration, Latinos, politics on April 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm

Looking to attend a college in Colorado this fall?  Are you an American citizen?  Too bad for you if a just passed Colorado House Education Committee bill (pdf version of SB-15 here) passes the real test in front of the entire state House and Senate and makes it way to Colorado Governor, John Hickenlooper.  Also called the ASSET bill, or Advancing Students for a Stronger Economy Tomorrow, the bill, although it is expected to die before it reaches the Finance Committee, would lower the instate college tuition costs for illegal aliens who want to attend college in Colorado.  From the article:  “If the legislation were to pass, an undocumented immigrant [liberal code for illegal alien] attending University of Colorado at Boulder would pay approximately $10,000 annually, compared to $8,000 annually for an in-state tuition paying student or nearly $30,000 annually for an out-of-state student.”  So, just by virtue of being and living in Colorado, albeit illegally, a student would save twenty thousand dollars compared to an actual American citizen from say Arizona, who is considering that college.  Supporters of this type of legislation note that it’s not the fault of these kids for being here illegally, and therefore they should not be unduly burdened by having to pay higher college tuition costs.  However, in doing so, what is Colorado saying to actual American citizens who might want to attend a college in the state of Colorado and can afford the cost, but will be rejected in lieu of an illegal alien, and those actual American citizens who might want to attend a college in Colorado but cannot afford the out-of-state tuition cost, but will be stigmatized and discriminated against for being American citizens? Is the state of Colorado really doing this out of the goodness of its heart, or are they doing it as a way to pander to Hispanics and Latinos, and other Americans who support illegal immigration (a publicity stunt).  In other words – if Colorado was really doing this in the name of education itself, (and to make attending college in Colorado easier for everyone who wants a Rocky Mountain education) why wouldn’t Colorado simply pass legislation (cutting taxes, regulations, etc. on Colorado colleges), that would make it easier for colleges in Colorado to lower their tuition costs for all students in such a way that would provide real economic and financial benefit/relief for everyone?  Why single out a specific group; why must that group be illegal aliens; and how does providing a lower tuition cost for illegal aliens “strengthen” a community?  The opposition will say “Well, just naturalize the children of illegal aliens brought here and that would solve everything”.  Would it?  Or would that only encourage more illegal immigration to America?  If Americans are not able to attend college because they cannot pay for it, how does it make sense to focus on illegal aliens instead of, more so, and before, Americans by making it easier for them to go to college ahead of Americans?  Or, to put it another way – how is America benefited more by making it easier for illegal aliens to attend college than actual American citizens?

Arianna Nation (HuffPost) Appalled Federal Tax Dollars Going To Save Babies From Being Killed; Still Fine With Taxes Going To Kill Them

In abortion, politics, pro-life, taxes, women on April 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

Killing unborn children in the womb using federal tax dollars makes the Arianna Nation coo with delight.  But a crisis pregnancy center that is using federal tax dollars to save unborn children from being killed in the womb angers and outrages, and mortifies, the very liberal, very pro-abortion, Arianna Nation.  There may be, however slight, some legitimacy to this “concern”, for you see, this crisis center, The Life Center of Midland, TX, according to the article, demands all its volunteers be Christians, and prove they are by writing in the church they worship at and the name of their pastor for a reference in their application form.  On their pdf. application form it does have a place with a “Church Reference”, but whether or not it is actually a prerequisite is dubious.  The Life Center, in its mission statement, does acknowledge its core Christian beliefs, and all applicant, staff and volunteers, are expected to adhere to that statement.  That The Life Center would make such demands, and receive federal tax dollars, is making liberals, and the Arianna Nation uncomfortable and queasy.  On the other hand – does anyone really believe liberals would be less appalled with using federal tax dollars to prevent a child from being killed in the womb if The Life Center did not have any religious language in its mission statement or on its application form?  Or, to put it another way, would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a pro-life atheist crisis pregnancy center was receiving federal tax dollars to save unborn babies from being aborted?  And even more provocative – would liberals be as indignant and outraged if a very religious, but very pro-abortion, pregnancy crisis center was receiving federal tax dollars and directing women to abortion clinics to kill their unborn children?