The Capitulation and Downfall of the Boy Scouts to The Radical Gay Agenda

Would you let your 12-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an 18-year-old boy?

I was driving in to work earlier this week, listening to a local talk show, when I did something I almost never do. I called in.

The subject was the decision by the governing board of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to allow openly gay adults to serve as den leaders, scoutmasters, and camp counselors.  How could I resist?  I am an Eagle Scout, and I have a book coming out next week called Scarlet Letters that deals with this larger subject.

When the producer screened me about my stance, I decided to hold off on more complex issues like freedom of assembly and the historical scout requisite to be “morally straight” and focus instead on the pragmatic.

I told him that as an Eagle Scout, I can attest to the cross-generational intimacy of the scouting experience.  Young boys, older teens, and men share a lot of private time.  They swim together, shower together, sleep in the same tents together.  On the everyday level, I told him, I would worry about the Jerry Sandusky factor.

The producer flipped.  “Are you saying that all gays are pedophiles?” he shot back angrily.  “No,” I said, “but would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?”

He didn’t get my drift, so I had to explain it.  For a man to find an adolescent sexually attractive is not pedophilia.  It is human nature.  Pedophilia means an attraction to pre-pubescent children, eleven or younger.  To join the BSA, a boy must be at least eleven.  The Scouts have always encouraged older adolescents to assume intermediate leadership positions.  So it would not be unusual for an eighteen-year-old to share a tent with twelve- and thirteen-year-olds.

In her classic 1990 book Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia, herself a lesbian, wrote at length about the “beautiful boy of homosexual tradition.”  That attraction has underscored much of Western art for the last 2,500 or so years.  Writing twenty-five years ago, Paglia felt free to say the obvious.

That much said, gay men may have no more attraction to adolescents than straight men do.  For instance, in his autobiography, Roman, director Roman Polanski expressed shock that “I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love.”  By “making love,” he was referring to the drugging and anal penetration of a thirteen-year-old girl.  He saw that as perfectly natural, as, apparently, did much of Hollywood.  Its denizens gave Polanski a standing O when he won an Oscar years after fleeing the United States.

Whether gay men have more or less attraction to young adolescents is beside the point.  What they do have is more access.  Now, in an act of institutional madness, BSA board members are licensing that access.  They are putting the gay male in a position in which no one in his right mind would put a straight male.  The sane answer to the question, “Would you let your twelve-year-old daughter sleep in a tent with an eighteen-year-old boy?” is, and always will be, “Are you nuts?”

What will the leadership tell the parents when the first semi-sanctioned cases of statutory rape come trickling in?  More to the point, perhaps, what will the leadership tell the attorneys representing those parents?

The Catholic Church has already faced this quandary.  Despite the headlines, only in rare instances was pedophilia the issue.  The real problem was the age-old one of allowing homosexual men unfettered access to unsuspecting adolescent boys.  The Church screens much more carefully now.  As a religious institution, it can get away with doing so.

It seems ironic that the left was hammering the Catholic Church for its lack of vigilance at the same time it was hammering the BSA for its excess.  This seeming contradiction makes sense when one understands that the left’s endgame was never to protect children or to advance gay rights.  The endgame is to destroy by whatever means necessary the traditional institutions that undergird Western civilization.

Regardless of how the various church groups respond to the new BSA directive, the left has won this battle.  Its foot soldiers have broken the feeble resistance of the governing board and eliminated the real Boy Scouts of America from the field.  Scout leadership was no better prepared for this war than the French were for theirs in 1940.

From now on, at the top, at least, collaboration will be the name of the game.  Within a generation, the Vichy wing of the BSA will collapse under the weight of its own pointlessness, and the resistance will fight on, even if without uniforms.

Be prepared!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/would_you_let_your_12yearold_daughter_sleep_in_a_tent_with_an_18yearold_boy.html#ixzz3hTyFsgI8

 

Black Lives Matter. Really? Tell that to the Perpetrators of Black Crime.

Blacks crush blacks

 

SAY WHAT?????
How the distribution of perpetrators of violent crimes perpetrated against blacks would look in a perfectly diverse, multicultural utopia:

How a naif might think the distribution looks based on the perpetual cherry picking and gross omissions served up by the major media:

Piggybacking on the 2012-2013 NCVS numbers crunched by Heather Mac Donald, how the perpetrator distribution against black victims of non-homicidal violent crime actually looks:

A picture is worth a thousand words, and this is a handy one to pull out of a back pocket every time a SWPL or race hustler yammers on about how some individual case of white-on-black violence serves as a microcosm of American society as a whole (while ignoring the 27 instances of black-on-white violence that occur for each single case of white-on-black violence).

Just 1-in-10 black victims suffer at the hands of non-Hispanic white perpetrators of violence. This even though whites comprise a majority of the population.

Proximity, of course, plays a substantial role in shaping the distribution. The Obama administration’s drive to push NAMs out of the inner cities and into white suburbs will, as one of its many aftereffects, lead to an increase in interracial violence. As a consequence, a few more blacks will suffer at the hands of whites and a lot more whites will suffer at the hands of blacks. Diversity + Proximity = War.

Still, if #blacklivesmatter, it seems curiously ineffective and inefficient to focus almost exclusively on a small minority of cases in which blacks suffer if the objective is to reduce said suffering.

Whites are, in fact, less likely to perpetrate acts of violence against any of the groups measured–whites, blacks, Hispanics, or others–than their numbers alone would predict under the (flawed) assumption that propensity for criminal violence is distributed evenly across racial groups.

Blacks, on the other hand, at 13.2% of the population, are more likely to perpetrate acts of violence against members of all other groups than would be predicted under an egalitarian assumption based on their share of the population alone.

The Boy Scouts Rapid Descent into Madness: Unleashing Gay Pedophiles to Abuse Young Boys

Boy Scouts PSA

It does not matter the argument that anybody can come up with, allowing gay scout leaders is a terrible decision.

RTR3WCZI-1024x682

You can’t have homosexuals put in charge of young boys. Gay men obviously find other men sexually attractive, considering the fact that gay men are a very small minority of the population, one could assume that finding partners is a bit more difficult than finding a partner of the opposite sex. So now you have gay men who are in charge of a group of boys in a unsupervised environment. It’s like putting a fox in the chicken coop.

Look, you hear about school teachers having sex with their students regular basis, the majority of which are high school students. What makes anyone think that a homosexual will keep their hands off of young boys? This decision on the part of the Boy Scouts of America will destroy the lives of countless boys, mark my words within 6 months the news of scout leader abuse will hit the headlines. 

Any parent who has a kid in the Boy Scouts or is preparing to get their kids involved, I suggest you remove them from the program immediately. I live in one of the most conservative states in the country and a local news station interviewed a man who is gay and is planning on volunteering to be a scout leader, the man was not only out of the closet, he came out flaming. The thought of having someone like that as a leader for any of my kids turns my stomach. Thank goodness my kids are raised, but my nephews and grandsons are not and I will be damned if I will let them be involved in a program that could potentially ruin their lives.

It is my hope that enough people feel the way that I do and the Boy Scouts lose thousands upon thousands of scouts, maybe then they will understand that Americans are not willing to have their kids subjected to the homosexual lifestyle of a gay scout leader, and their decision to appease the LGTB community was a resounding disaster.

From A Nod to the Gods: http://anodtothegods.com/

End Time Prophet George Orwell was Right

That Clicking Sound

When I came into the world, the idea of the state rounding people up because they had bad thoughts or showed signs of having bad thoughts was the basis of Cold War. The Ruskies did that sort of thing. Free countries did not do those things. That’s why we fought Hitler and Tojo, so people couple be free of that sort of tyranny. It looks like I will exit a world, however, where crime think is as normal a sunshine.

A three-year-old child from London is one of hundreds of young people in the capital who have been tipped as potential future radicals and extremists.

As reported by the Evening Standard, 1,069 people have been put in the government’s anti-extremism ‘Channel’ process, the de-radicalisation programme at the heart of the Government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy.

The three-year-old in the programme is from the borough of Tower Hamlets, and was a member of a family group that had been showing suspect behaviour.Many of the government’s counter-extremism measures typically relate to older children and adults – buy very young children can be referred if authorities are concerned about the effect of their families on them.

In the past, police have gone through the family courts to bring care proceedings in cases involving these children, and measures have included taking away the children’s passports, to make it harder for them to be taken overseas.

With figures obtained from the London Assembly, the Standard found out that London accounted for around a quarter of all ‘Channel’ referrals nationwide since the start of 2012.

Since September 2014, 400 under 18s, including teenagers and children, have been referred to the scheme.

It’s a funny thing about this world. There are no results that don’t lead to the demand for more state control. The government imports millions of Muslims, resulting in domestic terrorism and the default solution is even more state power. Reversing course and rolling back a policy is never an option. In fact, you can be thrown in prison for suggesting that Britain stops importing Muslims.

The startling thing to me is that no one finds any of this strange. The reporting is not quite enthusiastic, but you get the sense that the reporter thinks this is a good thing. How is it possible to reach adulthood and not see the connection between this sort of thought policing and just about every dystopian science fiction movie every made?

It goes back to what I wrote at the start. You come into the world accepting it as it is, because it is all you know. Young people don’t pay much attention until they get into the world. That means most of the reporters these days think the custodial state is just the way the world works. Giving a little more power to the game wardens so they can police the populace probably does not strike them as a big sacrifice.

It’s the one thing I think Orwell got right. People will put up with an enormous amount of abuse from their rulers. It’s not just the threat of violence either. People adapt and they adjust. Before long it is just what passes for normal. The ratchet clicks and people adjust. A new generation comes along full of optimism, the ratchet clicks again and they adjust. It’s only on your way out can you appreciate how many times you’ve heard the ratchet click, but then it is too late.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Forget Illegal Immigration. That’s Just a Smokescreen for the Real Problem: Legal Visas and Green Cards By the Millions.

New California: Mass Immigration Turning Virginia Blue

ap_ap-photo592-e1437959845108-640x435

The birthplace and final resting place of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson—and once one of the most reliably-red of red states—is being rapidly turned into a progressive stronghold.

These changes are not the result of an inside agency, or a natural evolution in political thinking, but rather the result of one of the most impactful yet least-discussed policies of the federal government.

Each year the federal government prints millions of visas and distributes these admission tickets to the poorest and least-developed nations in the world.

A middle-aged person living in parts of Virginia today will have witnessed more demographic change in the span of her life than many societies have experienced in millennia.

A census study entitled “Immigrants in Virginia,” released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: “Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.”

Read it all here: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/26/new-california-mass-immigration-turning-virginia-blue/

 

This islamic Evil is not Hard to Figure Out. It is Spelled out plainly in the koran. There is NO moderate islam. Only islam.

Understanding the Tennessee Jihadist

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/understanding_the_tennessee_jihadist_.html#ixzz3gYmbrBhg

Obama and Leftists Have an Evil Plan to Force Upon America

The ‘Fundamental Transformation’ of America’s Neighborhoods

America is now learning that on the painful road to ‘fundamental transformation,’ Barack Obama has plans to diversify suburbia. The president’s suburban justice plan is one where HUD tracks the racial and religious composition of American neighborhoods and then, doing away with the choice of established populations, makes changes to reflect Barack Obama’s vision for a fairer, more equitable nation.

The policy that accomplishes this progressive goal is aptly dubbed “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH). A 2013 FOX News article titled “Obama administration using housing department in effort to diversify neighborhoods” claims that in conjunction with the federal government HUD will remake neighborhoods using data gathered from a “discrimination database.”

In turn, “zoning laws, housing finance policy, infrastructure planning and transportation to alleviate alleged discrimination and segregation” will be determined by government decree.

The progressive utopian assumption must be that people become smarter or richer based on where they live. Simply put, rather than respect the theory of social evolution, liberals continue to blame zip codes for the economic demise of those they imagine would otherwise be the fittest. Thus, to solve shared problems that have nothing to do with geography, the Obama transformation team is moving forward with the plan to usher low-income people into the midst of middle- and higher-income classes.

That’s why, as part of the liberal quest to establish heaven on earth, every American will be forced to live in a neighborhood designed by government totalitarians. Meanwhile, those who “spread the despair” around will continue to peacefully dwell in exclusive enclaves paid for with wealth they’ve pilfered from the pockets of those whose lives they’ve made miserable.

And here’s how it will happen: the federal government will track neighborhoods according to race, class, and ethnicity. Then, the feds will descend, rezone the area, and proceed to transform American suburbs into the equivalent of Venezuela. The hope is that flooding established communities with lower-income people that represent the racial, religious, and economic makeup of the government’s choosing will result in the ultimate exorcism of injustice.

Sound impossible? According to an article in the Seattle Times titled “Get rid of single-family zoning? These conversations shouldn’t be secret“, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray’s advisory committee on housing’s co-chair drafted a letter that said this “We can still be a city for everyone, but only if we give up our outdated ideal of every family living in their own home on a 5,000 square foot lot.”

Can anyone say eminent domain?

For those who still don’t get it, this is not about hardworking black and Latino Americans buying and moving into white neighborhoods where they are welcome to live as free citizens, this is about the government socially engineering what they perceive to be WASP neighborhoods with a deluge of third-world types and refugees from Muslim countries who, once here, open bodegas and build mosques.

And if that’s not disturbing enough, after the complexion, religion and language of a neighborhood has been altered to the government’s liking, according to the 64-page White House Task Force (emphasis on force) on New Americans April 2015 “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents: A Federal Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant and Refugee Integration” prospectus, Barack Obama has plans to safeguard against the residents balking. To make sure “newcomers” are greeted in a friendly manner, Obama’s blueprint proposes the imposition of “Welcoming Communities.”

Question: How does government strong-arm a community to be welcoming?

At any rate, Obama maintains that if an unauthorized, unsanctioned hardworking but undocumented person has a family and wants to stay in America, instead of an ‘illegal,’ he or she should be characterized as a “new American.” For those of us presently having our neighborhoods overrun with undocumented intruders, that excuse is sort of like saying if a home invader has a family and empties the dishwasher and runs the vacuum after raiding the jewelry drawer, homeowners should view home invasion in a positive light.

Meanwhile Barack Obama has a double-spiked fence encircling his residence.

Either way, the president’s goal is to “further strengthen the federal government’s integration efforts by making them more strategic and deliberate.” That step requires “[e]nergetic AmeriCorps VISTA members” be dispatched into American communities to “implement local integration plans.”

For those who are unfamiliar with AmeriCorps, they are the domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps. AmeriCorps members are recruited and supported by the federal government and AmeriCorps is defined as a “civil society program.” The government determines what a ‘civil society’ is and then ObamaCorps, er… I mean AmeriCorps troops are enlisted to enforce liberal diktats under the guise of community service.

Then there’s AmeriCorps VISTA. Rest assured that if poverty-fighting AmeriCorps VISTA is being asked to report in, poverty is coming to middle class neighborhoods and according to Obama’s transformative federal plan, economic destitution is about to be equitably allocated.

And if brown-shirt and patent leather-booted community organizers marching lockstep through American suburbs weren’t enough to chill your block party beer keg to the core, in addition to guaranteeing that newcomers have preferential access to housing, healthcare and education, arbiters of the civil society will also serve as Refugee Job Developers whose business will be to advance “immigrant-focused career-pathways programs.

In an environment where 92 million Americans are currently out of the labor force, AmeriCorps responsibilities will include “identifying and partnering with local employers willing to hire newly arrived refugees with limited English skills.”

Translation: the federal government’s goons have been given the mission to ensure that low-skilled newcomers be given employment opportunity preference over citizens whose blood, sweat, and tears built this soon-to-be-remade nation.

Then, as an added bonus, after the communities are fully organized, AmeriCorps will spend time installing government-funded “community solar” panels, which, among other things, will use taxpayer monies to save the planet while providing clean solar power to renters or others with limited financial means.

And so Obama’s remodeling of America is progressing along nicely. Illegal aliens, who swarm over the border like ants at a picnic have been granted the kinder, gentler moniker “new Americans” and based on the makeup of long-established communities HUD is currently indicting neighborhoods for bias.  In addition, plans are also being made to bus into the suburbs cultures and peoples who have already declared that they have no plans to assimilate.

After that, the only hurdle left is seeing the day when illegal “new Americans,” like a modern-day Ruby Bridges, are escorted around town by community organizers/solar panel installers who, on behalf of President Obama, will be also charged with the job to coerce the conquered receiving community to be more welcoming.

Jeannie also hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/the_fundamental_transformation_of_americas_neighborhoods.html#ixzz3fxbzXOWB

 

The Civil War, The Confederate Flag, and other Truths You Probably Did not Know

The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered By Chuck Baldwin

Published: Thursday, July 9, 2015
Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century–long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? Check it out.

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown–albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery–so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people–even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence–policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy–and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully-integrated southern army. I bet your history book never told you about that.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully–just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant–after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag–the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish.  The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:

The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.

© Chuck Baldwin

 

The Clock is Ticking. People are Sick and Tired of DC and the Political Elites.

“Payback’s a Bitch”: Rural Wisdom and the Gathering Storm

ConFlag The furor over the Confederate flag, think I, has little to do with the Confederate flag, which is a pretext, an uninvolved bystander. Rather it is about a seething anger in the United States that we must not mention. It is the anger of people who see everything they are and believe under attack by people they aren’t and do not want to be—their heritage, their religion, their values and way of life all mocked and even made criminal.

The talking heads inside Washington’s beltway, in editorial suites in New York, do not know of this anger. They do not talk to people in Joe’s Bar in Chicago or in barbecue joints in Wheeling. They are cloistered, smug, sure of themselves. And they are asking for it.

We are dealing with things visceral, not rational. Confusing the two is dangerous. Hatreds can boil over as syllogisms cannot. The banning of the flag infuriates, for example, me. Why? Although a Southerner by raising, I would far prefer to live in New York City than in Memphis. Yet I value my boyhood in Virginia and Alabama. My ancestors go back to the house of Burgesses, and I remember long slow summer days on the Rappahannock and in the limestone of Athens, Alabama.

When the federal government and the talking heads want to ban my past—here, permit me to exit momentarily the fraudulent objectivity of literature—I hate the sonsofbitches.

A lot of people quietly hate the sonsofbitches.

To them, to us, the Confederate flag stands for resistance to control from afar, to meddling and instruction from people we detest. It is the flag of “Leave me the hell alone.” And this Washington, Boston, and New York will…not…do.

A surprise may be coming.

What is the anger about? Most visibly, but far from uniquely, race: the illegals, the Knock-Out game, and Washington’s protection of both. The racial hostility that pervades the country today is largely the doing of the talking heads and its perverse social policies. The rancor is unlike anything I have seen.

Curious. When I was a lad ages ago, I thought well of Brown vs. the School board. Southerners said that integration would never work and they were right, but what came before was just wrong. I thought so then, and I think so now. I favored the civil-rights acts. I reluctantly favored affirmative action (I was very young) thinking it meant a hand up instead of an entitlement. I wrote hopefully of the prospect of educating blacks.

But look what happened. We now see forced hiring of the incompetent as a right, endless accounts of blacks destroying shopping malls, burning cities, brutally attacking whites in gangs, and the giving to blacks of anything they want because they are black. You don’t like the Confederate flag, Jesse? Why then, it must go. Whatever you say, Jesse.

It wasn’t this way, but it is now. It is getting worse. But there is far more than race.  We now are compelled to live in a national sexual-freak show. Day after day after day the media are full of trans-this and trans-that, of homosexual marriages, all thrust in our faces, a parade of prancing peculiarities demanding and demanding and demanding. People who dare not say so are sick of it.

It isn’t viciousness. I don’t know anyone who wants to persecute the erotically baroque. Poofters in particular are usually bright, productive, decent people, and do not attack whites in wheel chairs with hammers. Yet I weary of their endless tedious concerns. I say, go. Go with God, but for God’s sake go. Or just shut up. That would do as well.

I, we, will be told, “But Fred, homosexuality is natural.” So is hemorrhagic tuberculosis. So is sadism. So is genocide.

Any sexual predilection can be called natural, and arguments can be made for all of them: Polygamy, or marriage with a sheep, or copulating on a public bus, or sex with girls of nine years. (How about, “Sex is natural. Children are erotic: Don’t they play doctor? Little girls are only afraid of it because of puritanical conditioning by society. Oral sex feels good, and adults do it, so why not…? Why shouldn’t her father gently teach her….” And so on.)

And crime is out of control, protected by a President and Attorney General with whom we, so many Americans,  have nothing in common, who dislike us,  and who want to disarm us and flood our country with illegal and incompatible aliens.

Do  you think that wanting a gun is silly? Last week I started getting emails: “Chuck got shot.” On Breitbart I found that Chuck De Caro, a journalist and friend for so long that I forget how I met him, had checked into a motel in Albuquerque with his wife, whereupon an armed dirtbag tried to rob them and perhaps worse. I suppose that a white couple in their sixties must have seemed a soft target. Oops. It wasn’t a swell career move. Chuck is ex-Special Forces and a longtime war correspondent. Threatening his wife doesn’t fly well with him.

Anyway, Chuck apparently had other ideas about being robbed and perhaps killed.  He also had a handgun. In the ensuing gunfight, he was hit several times and rushed to the hospital. Chuck will be okay, the dirtbag less so. He escaped to the parking lot, where he decided to lie down and bleed to death. A good choice. The news stories didn’t describe the perp, which meant…. Decaro

This gem, Tomorio Walton, is, or was, a career criminal and was, of course, on parole. Can you guess why so many of us want guns and carry permits? Characteristically I had to find the photo in  the Mail Online, an English paper.

Then there is the de-Christianizing of the country. Religion, both historically and currently, is a potent thing. Play with it at your risk. It is not always  really a matter of religion. Many of us, I among them, are not believers but value Christmas and its traditions. But no. We must not have nativity scenes or sing Christmas carols on public streets. Easter-egg hunts are unconstitutional. Mommy Washington doesn’t like them, and we have to do what Washington says.

Unless, of course, one day we don’t.

We are winding a spring.

bloody-beatdown

Standard beatdown of white man by black mob at Fourth of July in Cincinnati. Almost a daily occurence. The media will hide it. This is not a part of my culture. Why do we put up with it?

Stoking the flames under the pressure cooker is the unending, ever-tightening control of every aspect of life by Washington. People inside the city’s beltway, a venue I know well, do not understand what they are playing with. They are sure that they know best, and they are going to make us toe the line.

Federal bureaucrats  tell people in Casper, Laredo, and Knoxville what they can and cannot teach their children in the schools, what religious practices they may have and what their children may eat. They set curricula, determine to whom bakeries must sell cakes, decide who can marry what, and with whom we must associate.

I could go on. There is quiet fury about open borders, the forced acceptance of criminal aliens, of 100,000 Somalis by Minnesota, the endless wars, the declining standard of living, the insane censorship (say “nigger” and your career of thirty years ends) and the ungodly surveillance. Washington pushes, pushes, and pushes, thinking that with just enough pressure, we will all come to kowtow.

What if one day we don’t?

And there is governmental corruption, the sense—“realization,” I would say—that Washington is entirely in the hands of the arms manufacturers, of the Israeli lobby, of big pharma and ethnic lobbies and, well, anyone who bribes Congress. Elections are a sham, serving only to decide the division of the spoils for eight years. All decisions of importance are carefully kept out of the public’s hands.

Maybe Washington will always get away with it. Maybe it won’t. White Americans are an obedient and passive people, easily cowed, but maybe enough will prove enough. Maybe things will blow. Maybe jurisdictions will just ignore the feds, as begins to happen.

But it is dangerous. The economy declines, people out of college can’t get jobs, the ghettoes simmer, automation surges across the board, and one day soon we will have cutbacks in the entitlements. When groups begin competing for dwindling resources, things will get ugly. It could explode. It really could. You might be surprised how many people out there think, “Bring it on.” Not a good idea, but we go that way.

Tick Tick. Tick.

From Fred on Everything: http://fredoneverything.org/paybacks-a-bitch-rural-wisdom-and-the-gathering-storm/

Those Who Value Liberty and Freedom Must Resist. Our Lives Depend Upon it.

Standing Up to the Ruling Class

by Angelo M. Codevilla July 4, 2015

What citizens can do to resist the ruling class’s redefinitions of moral and cultural norms.

“To learn who rules over you, find out whom you are not allowed to criticize.”— Voltaire

If you’re wondering what Americans can do as our ruling class sets about enforcing its redefinition of marriage, start by looking back at what it did to the citizens of Indiana when their legislature raised the possibility that someone might object to joining in celebrations of homosexual marriage. Support for homosexual unions was incidental to the insistence of the likeminded folks atop society’s commanding heights on punishing Indiana. What incurs their ire has less to do with any substantive matter than with the American people’s resistance to honoring their fantasies. These fantasies can be reversed without notice. (Obama opposed homosexual marriage until 2013.) But dissenting from any of them — whether about race, or sex, or science, or anything else — risks ostracism and disqualification from earning a living.

Indiana’s Republicans, its churches, and conservatives in general pled for the liberty to speak and act according to religious faith. They did not and do not argue the worth of the Judeo-Christian religious beliefs that the ruling class deems odious. This has proved to be self-defeating. Appeals for tolerance of all beliefs in the name of America’s traditional freedoms fail because they concede the ruling class’s assertion of its own moral-intellectual superiority, as well as its underlying assumption that good and evil, better and worse, are just other words for its own likes and dislikes.  The ruling class’s component groups jointly dismiss America’s traditional liberties because they aim to replace them with their own primacy. Having seized the power to redefine liberty, our rulers tighten their definitions around their opponents’ necks like nooses. Since their desire for primacy has no limit, they can’t stop tightening. The norms that they demand that we honor help sustain each constituency by letting its members feel good about themselves while looking down on others. Their “dignitary interests” (to use Justice Kennedy’s term for who must be honored vs. those who must submit to being vilified) simply trump those of others. This is why the ruling class demonizes any questioning of its demands’ substance by imposing modern equivalents of the slave-era “gag rule.” They wage identity politics as war.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420743/truth-safeguards-liberty

A word of Hope

tumblr_nl7s2mZQmd1thfeewo1_500

“My message, unchanged for more than fifty years, is this: God loves you unconditionally, as you are and not as you should be, because nobody is as they should be. It is the message of grace…A grace that pays the eager beaver who works all day long the same wages as the grinning drunk who shows up at ten till five…A grace that hikes up the robe and runs breakneck toward the prodigal reeking of sin and wraps him up and decides to throw a party no ifs, ands, or buts…This grace is indiscriminate compassion. It works without asking anything of us…Grace is sufficient even though we huff and puff with all our might to try to find something or someone it cannot cover. Grace is enough…Jesus is enough.” ― Brennan Manning, All Is Grace: A Ragamuffin Memoir

“You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.”

No Truce With the Left

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left’s useful idiots. It’s only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they’re wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don’t like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe’s Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that’s the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power. That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn’t disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won’t work. There’s no ‘agree to disagree’ possible here. He’s picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists ‘care’ about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It’s the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he’s ready to  kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he’ll be laughing at them again.

There’s a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the ’cause’.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can’t find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.

These changes have the mad logic of a byzantine ideology behind them, but to the ordinary person their definition of progress seems entirely random.

A Socialist a century ago considered factories progressive instruments of the future and men in dresses a decadent reactionary behavior. Now factories are reactionary pollution machines of globalization and men in dresses are an oppressed victim group who have transcended biology with the power of their minds.

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other class enemies cannot possibly ‘progress’ enough to be acceptable to the left because it identifies progress with political conformity. A tolerant and progressive Republican is a contradiction in terms.

If he were truly tolerant and progressive, he wouldn’t be a Republican.

The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can’t attack you, they’ll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

The left’s social justice program is really a wave of these purges which force their own people to hurry up and conform to whatever the Party dictated this week. Examples are made out of laggards on social media to encourage the rest to stop thinking and start marching in line. As Orwell knew well, these shifts select for mindless ideological zombies while silencing critical thinkers.

Yesterday we were against fighting Hitler. Today we’re for it. Retroactively, we were always at war with Oceania. Retroactively, Bruce Jenner was always a woman. Retroactively, Obama was always right about Iraq, even when he appeared to be making the wrong decisions.

These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

The constant shifts create their own version of future shock. They leave people baffled and uncertain. Society no longer seems to resemble what they knew, even though the real society of men and women has not really changed much, only the media’s presentation of it has. But a beaten down mass of ordinary people now imagines that the country is filled with gay men and trannies. They accept that what they thought was common sense no longer applies and that it’s someone else’s country now.

And that is the prize that the left dearly wants. Surrender.

The left’s media machine makes its madness seem cool even though behind all the agitating young things are a bunch of bitter old leftists. But the madness is a means, not an end. So is the facade of revolutionary cool to each shift.

The Futurists of Russia vowed to heave the past “overboard from the steamship of modernity”. But when the Revolution came, the classics came back into the libraries and the Futurists were forced to stop drawing triangles and make their art conform to the conventional structure of a totalitarian state.  The time of change had ended. Once the left was in power, the future became a lot like the past.

You can’t accommodate the left on social issues. You can’t accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can’t do it. Period.

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It’s not about gay marriage. It’s not about cakes. It’s about power.

More fundamentally it’s about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.

From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html