Sunday Sermon: “And I looked and behold, a pale horse. And his name that sat on him was Death. And Hell followed with him.”
The first track of the last album of his life.
“Whoever is unjust let him be unjust still
Whoever is righteous let him be righteous still
Whoever is filthy let him be filthy still
Listen to the words long written down
When the Man comes around”
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen.
From American Digest:http://americandigest.org/
Found at Nice Deb
Found at Nice Deb
Found at Theo
Found at Theo Spark
Quarterback Robert Griffin III, who leads the Washington Redskins on Sunday to their first home playoff game in more than a decade, isn’t an ordinary rookie, according to teammate DeAngelo Hall. According to ESPN commentator Rob Parker, Griffin isn’t an ordinary African American.
“Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother?” Parker infamously asked last month. It’s strange how the question on nobody’s mind suddenly becomes the question on everybody’s mind once a cretin appears in front of a television camera. “I keep hearing these things,” Parker continued. “We all know he has a white fiancée. There was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which, there’s no information at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper as to why he has an issue.”
If only Griffin had executed dogs or used the nom-de-herpes “Ron Mexico” he might have escaped Parker’s racial naughty list as deftly as he escapes defensive ends. Instead, he graduated from Baylor a year early, places God at the forefront of his life, and conducts himself as a gentleman on and off the field.
Fifty seasons after the Washington Redskins became the final NFL team to integrate, there’s still an ugly expectation for blacks to behave badly. Few common denominators exist between ESPN’s Rob Parker and the late Redskins owner George Preston Marshall. But the notion that African Americans conform to the stereotypes assigned to them seems one that this odd couple could have agreed upon.
Jeff Davis, biographer of the NFL’s most important commissioner, noted in Rozelle: “When he formed the Redskins in the ’30s, Marshall, an avowed racist who never changed his views, drew the color line and, in league councils, forced his fellow owners, especially [Chicago’s George] Halas and Pittsburgh’s Art Rooney, to not hire black players.” Davis perhaps lets the other owners off the hook here. Surely they had free will to defy Marshall, particularly when he was a neophyte owner in the 1930s. But it’s certainly true that Marshall spearheaded the de facto ban on African Americans that governed the NFL from 1934 through 1945.
Racial snobbery is so unlike football. African-American players were present at the creation of the NFL. Native American hero Jim Thorpe served as the league’s first commissioner. Fritz Pollard, who led the Akron Pros to the inaugural NFL championship in 1920, became the league’s first African-American coach in its second season. By way of comparison, the National Basketball Association saw its first black head coach in 1966 and Major League Baseball waited until 1975 for a black manager.
Long after the Rams reintegrated the league as a condition of its lease of the Los Angeles Coliseum in 1946, Marshall stubbornly refused to sign black players. When a reporter queried the owner in 1960 about when he might desegregate his roster, Marshall quipped, “We’ll start signing Negroes when the Harlem Globetrotters sign whites.” Alas, the Globetrotters won while the pale-faced Redskins played the Washington Generals of the NFL for many, many years.
In 1963, a year after the Redskins integrated, Martin Luther King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech just a few miles west of DC Stadium. A half century later, it’s strange not just that the speech’s modest sentiments still evoke controversy but who finds them controversial.
Griffin unwittingly stirred this maelstrom by conceding that he preferred to be judged as an individual rather than as a member of a group. “For me, you don’t ever want to be defined by the color of your skin,” Griffin remarked. “You want to be defined by your work ethic, the person that you are, your character, your personality.”
Robert Griffin, and hundreds of other African-American players as virtuous but not as famous, proves just how wrong George Preston Marshall was for embracing stereotypes. The occasional thug athlete proves just how wrong Rob Parker is for embracing stereotypes, too.
From The AMerican Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/04/black-like-me
Easier said than done. Personally, I’m more worried Obama will resort to executive orders than anti-gun bills passing both the GOP-held House and Senate.
The White House and gun control supporters are gearing up for a whirlwind month, with plans to pass reform legislation before outrage over the Sandy Hook massacre has a chance to fade.
While the fiscal cliff has dominated Washington’s attention in recent weeks, lawmakers and activists are laying the groundwork for their big push. Vice President Joe Biden, tasked with heading a commission to investigate gun violence, has been quietly meeting with experts, interest groups, and public officials and is expected to release a set of recommendations within weeks. Boston mayor Thomas Menino, co-chair of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told the Boston Herald this week that an optimistic Biden had assured him that Obama would sign legislation “by the end of January.”
“We had been led to believe their report would come by end of January, but we’re hearing they may want to have something out by January 15, even quicker than expected,” Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, told TPM.
House Democrats are moving ahead with their own plans as well. On Friday, Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), chair of the newly created Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, announced the appointment of 12 vice chairs, including Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), the body’s leading voice on gun control. According to a Democratic aide, the group plans to release its recommendations in early February and is already organizing public hearings on the issue.
One of Obama’s crowning achievements.
(CNSNews.com) — During fiscal year 2012, the U.S. government spent a record $80.4 billion on food stamps, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a $2.7 billion increase from FY 2011. (Fiscal year 2012 ran from Oct. 1, 2011 through Sept. 30, 2012.)
According to the Monthly Treasury Statement that summarizes the receipts and outlays of the federal government, $80,401,000,000 went towards SNAP during FY 2012, which was a $2.7 billion increase from $77,637,000,000 in FY 2011.
The SNAP program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which also runs other food assistance programs under the auspices of the Food and Nutrition Service Agency.
In total, nearly $106 billion was spent on food assistance in 2012, with $18.3 billion that went to “Child Nutrition Programs.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis: “Millions Of Jobs Were Saved” By Extending Unemployment Benefits…
Only in Obamaland does paying people not to work = Jobs.
Via Zero Hedge:
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis made her ubiquitous post-NFP appearance on CNBC this morning and spouted the usual propaganda. However, while discussing how wonderful the ATRA was, the seemingly slap-happy Solis noted how great the fact that emergency unemployment benefits were extended for millions of people was – and that thanks to that (and the magic of the Keynesian multiplier), millions of jobs were saved. So, to sum up, paying people not to work, saved millions and millions of jobs? Indeed America, indeed.
From Weasel Zippers:http://weaselzippers.us/
mooslim Shit Heads Trying to Brain Wash America Into Thinking islam is “Nice”…What an Evil Bucket of Pure Shit
CAIR’s latest publicity stunt to get more of their executives on TV, newspapers etc.
If people wanted to experience real jihad they could go live with Christians in Nigeria where they are shot and hacked to pieces on a daily basis by radical Islamists.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — Buses in San Francisco are carrying messages of jihad, but it’s not what you might think. It’s a campaign to educate residents about the real meaning of the word. It’s a campaign that began in Chicago and has now reached the Bay Area.
One statement on the side of a Muni bus reads: “My jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What’s yours?”
It’s part of an educational campaign created by CAIR — the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The group has put 35 ads on buses rolling through the streets of San Francisco.
“The intention of the campaign is to educate our fellow Americans about what the word jihad means,” said Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Bay Area office for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said, “A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”
We asked some Muni riders if they knew the definition of jihad. Most of the answers we got were “a religious war” and “a holy war”.
Miriam Webster also defines it as a holy war, but it lists a second definition — one that Billoo says is much more appropriate.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
It’s disrespectful to link movie violence, but not disrespectful to attack law-abiding gun owners for crimes with which they have no connection.
Via Breitbart News:
Director Quentin Tarantino isn’t happy to be fielding questions about the societal impact movie violence may have during his publicity push for “Django Unchained”.
The film, which features the director’s signature hyper-violence, is drawing criticism in the wake of last month’s horrific school shooting in Connecticut. Tarantino became irritable this week when an interviewer tried to get his views on the relation, if any, between movie violence and real-life atrocities such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
In an interview with National Public Radio, the “Django Unchained” director, who got annoyed answering the question, said the true issue is about gun control and mental health rather than violence in movies.
“I think it’s disrespectful to … the memory of the people who died to talk about movies,” Tarantino said. “I think it’s totally disrespectful to their memory.” Tarantino said his stance on movie violence “hasn’t changed one iota” over the past 20 years.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Predictable update to this story.
(Arab News) — The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has slammed caricatures of the Prophet (peace be upon him), published in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, saying it incites hatred and intolerance against Muslims.
OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu expressed concern at the publication of the comic book series on the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
Ihsanoglu said the publication went against the norms of responsible journalism and was tantamount to abuse of the right to freedom of expression. He added that incitement and advocacy of hatred and intolerance on religious grounds signified by this publication was in contravention of international human rights laws and instruments.
He called on the magazine to abide by the provisions, particularly those in the European Union (EU) context, on incitement to hatred and violence. He urged the authorities in France to take appropriate action against the magazine.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
My opinion: OIC should go fuck off.
And she’s dead serious (yes, that is a woman).
Via Warner Todd Huston:
[F]or those unaware, a conservative project of sorts has been underway in New Hampshire since 2001. The idea is that Americans of conservative ideals are to move to New Hampshire, gather in communities, run for office, and work to drive the state toward libertarianism and conservatism. It is called the “Free State Project” and adherents are called “Free Staters.”
These Free Staters figure that the state’s motto, “Live Free or Die,” should really mean something and it is these citizens whose freedoms legislator Chase wants to oppress.
In her December 21 post, Chase wrote that, “Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today.”
“In the opinion of this Democrat, Free Staters are the single biggest threat the state is facing today. There is, legally, nothing we can do to prevent them from moving here to take over the state, which is their openly stated goal. In this country you can move anywhere you choose and they have that same right. What we can do is to make the environment here so unwelcoming that some will choose not to come, and some may actually leave. One way is to pass measures that will restrict the ‘freedoms’ that they think they will find here. Another is to shine the bright light of publicity on who they are and why they are coming.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Reformed crooks say the New York newspaper that published a map of names and addresses of gun owners did a great service – to their old cronies in the burglary trade.
The information published online by the Journal-News, a daily paper serving the New York suburbs of Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, could be highly useful to thieves in two ways, former burglars told FoxNews.com. Crooks looking to avoid getting shot now know which targets are soft and those who need weapons know where they can steal them.
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?
“What they did was insanity,” added Shaw, author of “License to Steal,” a book about his criminal career.
The newspaper published the online map last month alongside an article titled, “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood.” The map included the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.
While the paper ostensibly sought to make a point about gun proliferation in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the effort backfired. A blogger reacted with a map showing where key editorial staffers live and some outraged groups have called for a boycott of parent company Gannett’s national advertisers. Ironically, the newspaper has now stationed armed guards outside at least one of its offices.
“They just created an opportunity for some crimes to be committed and I think it’s exceptionally stupid,” said Bob Portenier, 65, a former burglar and armed house robber turned crime prevention consultant.
Professional burglars are always looking for an edge, and like most folks, they read the paper, said Portenier.
“Criminals are always looking for opportunity and words travels through the grapevine – burglars trade secrets and when you see something like that in the paper, that’s is something burglar’s are going to talk about,” Portenier said. “‘Did you see in the paper where all these people have guns and their addresses?’ and that kind of stuff, they’ll say.”
While some burglars may use the newspaper’s information to avoid guns, Portenier said others will target homes with guns. The newspaper’s decision could even lead to legally-owned guns proliferating on the street, he said.
“That’s one of the first things we’d check out – guns are on the top of the list of what you want to steal,” he said. “They can walk out with a shotgun and a couple of handguns and sell them on the street for $300 or $400 a pop. They can sell them to a gangbanger who ends up killing someone.”
Frank Abagnale, who was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 film “Catch Me if You Can,” and is perhaps the most famous reformed thief to ever earn a legitimate living by offering the public insight into the criminal mind, called the newspaper’s actions “reprehensible.”
“It is unbelievable that a newspaper or so called journalist would publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners, including federal agents, law enforcement officers and the like,” said Abagnale, who noted that he grew up in the suburban New York area served by the Journal-News. “This would be equivalent to publishing the names of individuals who keep substantial sums of money, jewelry and valuables in their home.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
A guest post by The Reverend David R. Graham, A.M.D.G.
“What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.”
The Church and the churches are not the same. The churches more or less express the Church, which is the Spiritual Community, Bride of Christ, Pure and Elegant, but they are not the Church, as their more or less impurity demonstrates.
During the late 19th Century, the Germanic movement called Liberal Protestantism sought to remake Christianity as palatable to Erasmus’, Rousseau’s and Voltaire’s heirs in scientific humanism, aka, Marxism, which is historiography and planning on the horizontal (male) axis alone, ignoring or bending horizontal the vertical (female) axis.
To accomplish which, Liberal Protestants had to collectivize the thinking of theologians, clergy and laymen: turn Christianity into an expression of Marxism. Charging and converting scientists and humanists into Christians was not their goal. Liberal Protestants wanted to be wanted. Scientific humanism then was ascendant, where still it is, at least as a beneficiary of public and private finance and esteem.
Today no difference exists between thinking in the churches and thinking in, say, the university, media and government. All are collectivist, none is independent. All follow talking points handed down from a leftist political party, none swerves into private investigation of assertions. All believe what they see and hear in media, none suspects media as mouthpiece of university and government.
That is collectivization. Once it was called group think. Now it is called news you can use. Facts. Truth. Choices. For your benefit, no less. Fair and balanced.
There was a brief rebellion against Liberal Protestantism towards the middle of the 20th Century. It was called Neo-Orthodoxy. Barth, Brunner and lesser lights led it. They sought to restore the vertical (female) axis to usage and succeeded, partially and briefly.
When Neo-Orthodoxy reached America from its Germanic roots, it was taken up by Reinhold Niebuhr at The Union Theological Seminary in New York City, an affiliate of Columbia University. Niebuhr was a communist clergyman and labor union agitator with a huge, dominating personality and a wonderful, nimble gift of gab. Niebuhr turned the vertical (female) axis reintroduced by Barth and Brunner on its side so that it paralleled and then merged with the horizontal (male) axis.
(Remarkably, he criticized Liberal Protestants for doing exactly that. Niebuhr was not a self-critical or self-correcting man.)
Niebuhr considered this an accomplishment. His colleague at Union, Paul Tillich, did not. Tillich pointed out that Niebuhr never learned his theology and Niebuhr acknowledge that perhaps, indeed, he had not.
Barth’s and Brunner’s Neo-Orthodoxy was, in any case, top-heavy with Mohammedan-like, inscrutable and intractable “transcendent” dicta and diktats. And so, unsustainable.
With prominent politicians, including Hubert Humphrey, Niebuhr helped found Americans for Democratic Action. It was – still is – a vehicle for running the vertical axis of life as if it was horizontal and bringing American education, media and government into aggressive, messianic, collective conformity with scientific humanism, aka Marxism. Holding those three entities together was seen as the way to control the population and the course of events totally. Collectivism is the method of totalism (aka absolutism, totalitarianism).
Niebuhr anticipated in North America so-called “Liberation Theology” in South America. Both were collectivist, one from Liberal Protestantism (Niebuhr was German Reformed [Calvinist]) and one from Roman Catholicism. Both were generated in academe, which, post-Marx, is almost uniformly leftist.
Liberal Protestant collectivism (aka scientific humanism/Marxism) first made large-scale political force in the United States through Woodrow Wilson, a moral and intellectual superior, in his own mind, of the “common man” – and therefore the empowered director of affairs – if ever one breathed.
Marx was a theologian and a student of Hegel, as was Kierkegaard. The two successfully criticized Hegel’s totalistic system, despite its realistic elegance, but from different directions and with different results. Kierkegaard identified the vertical axis of the unexpected (paradox), which nullifies total systems. Marx identified the vertical axis of free (from historical determinism) intentional purpose (telos), which, also, nullifies total systems.
However, whereas Kierkegaard maintained paradox as an expression of the vertical (female) axis, Marx bent over telos to conform with the horizontal (male) axis. This made Marxism evil and predicts the genocide and misogyny of Marxists in education, media and government.
What Marx did earlier, Niebuhr did later. What Niebuhr did later, James Cone, at Union since 1969, continues through disciples such as Jeremiah Wright and “Barack Obama”: genocide and misogyny.
Collectivism is not a Christian idea or doing. It belongs to Marxism, not Christianity. Yet, the churches have been in its thrall since the middle years of the 20th Century. Since the later years of the 20th Century, the churches are indistinguishable from academe, media and government. The three sectors think alike, promoting government (collectivism/communism) as the universal answer to and refuge from VUCA.
The churches now are willing auxiliaries of government social engineering agencies, media/government propaganda technicians and academic troublemakers. They are secular organizations standing profanum, outside the door to the Sanctuary of the Holy.
No vertical axis. No femininity. No self-correction. No Church, only churches.
The parable of the good Samaritan is not a demand for forced charity. It does not promote collectivism by government edict, income redistribution at the muzzle of a gun. The nature of government is, essentially and rightly, penal. That is not the subject of the parable of the good Samaritan. Nor is its subject smug moralizing about charity.
The parable of the good Samaritan describes personal, voluntary and anonymous charity as desirable. Repeat: PERSONAL, VOLUNTARY, ANONYMOUS. The parable is descriptive, not prescriptive. Nor does it demand charity.
In fact, the parable of the good Samaritan is not about charity. The parable answers the question of who is the brother, that is, who is one’s equal in God’s eyes. It is not about charity. It is about living in gated “communities” and having armed personal security details. The parable condemns those activities. It’s about rich acting smug, superior to and separate from ordinaries.
The parable of the ten talents, on the other hand, does promote, directly and unequivocally, the Pauline, Christian principle, “No work, no eat.”
The voice of Hebrew and Christian Prophetism does not exist in the churches since at least the 1930s. It has been driven out by collectivists. Or, one may say, perhaps more accurately, it has seen historical developments transcend the churches in the direction of universal prayer and concrete Spirit. Religionless, omni-local, agile, unpredictable (as always), definite, practical and moral.
Two Avatars of the Lord have stridden the earth during the last two hundred years – one the x axis, one the x and y axes – and a third is coming – the y axis – I guess (!) in or before the next decade of the 21st Century:
Bear All And Do Nothing;
Hear All And Say Nothing;
Give All And Take Nothing;
Serve All And Be Nothing.
From Camp of The Saints: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
SOME THINGS THAT MAKE LIFE A JOY TO LIVE…A FINE FIREARM…A NICE WATCH…A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN…FINE FOOD…A GOOD BOOK…A GOOD GLASS OF WINE…A GOOD CUP OF COFFEE…A REALLY SHARP CAR…
OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF REASON
BY: DANIEL GREENFIELD
Below is an excerpt of the article.
But the West has been headed out of the territory of reason for some time now. Its truths have become ideological beliefs. Its goals have become the self-worship of its own symbols, size for the sake of size, and centralization for the sake of centralization. There is a mingled horror and longing for the savage and the barbaric, as civilization appears to have lost its meaning. The leadership cries “Onward to a united world” on the one hand, and “Back to the caves” on the other. That confused melange boils down to a cultural intelligence which has lost the awareness of its own contradictions. High tech environmentalism, soft wars and valueless money are all symptoms of that same intellectual degeneracy.
The rise of China is directly tied to our own irrationality. The People’s Republic of China has become rich and powerful by serving as the reservoir of our contradictions. We wanted cheap products, no pollution, high wages and generous benefits. All these things are not compatible, so we outsourced our manufacturing to China and pretended that we could have it all. But all we got were cheap products, and the country we outsourced them to got the jobs and the national prosperity. We wanted to spend money without worrying about where it came from. Again we turned to China. And like the grasshopper and the ant, we sang and played all summer, while the ants worked and prepared for the winter.
We used China to escape the limits of reality, but there is no escape. Only temporary vacations from consequences. The PRC has made its own choices. It has chosen to compromise the lives of its people in order to amass wealth and industry by selling our own knickknack designs back to us. Now a generation of Chinese is preparing to reap the harvest of that industry. While we are in debt to that same industry. In debt to the banks who loan us the money with which we buy Chinese products and the government which collects taxes in order to repay China for the entitlement programs. And the banks are in debt to the government which bailed them out with China’s money. And the government is in debt to China.
The People’s Republic of China is no model of reason, but it understands choices better than we do. It left Communism behind in all but name, in order to gain wealth and power. And we left our wealth and power behind in all but name, in order to gain Communism.
Read it all at Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
POWER TO THE PEOPLE
BY: DANIEL GREENFIELD
Below is an excerpt of this excellent article on gun control.
The 2nd Amendment is a very different creature. The controllers would like to turn it into a group right. Replace the home rifle with an IOU for membership in the National Guard or a cell phone from Carlos Slim that will allow you to dial 911, unless the dam breaks or the earth quakes or the service goes. And they would equally like to turn the 1st Amendment into a right to say the things that are socially beneficial, while outlawing speech that is not socially beneficial.
In Europe, free speech means speech that is in the public interest, not speech that undermines the public good. That latter kind of speech can get you a trip to a jail cell. And that is the only kind of speech that can exist in group rights. When the group comes first, then the individual is the last one on the line. When rights serve the group, or the idealized arrangement of groups meant to provide the perfect statistical balance between skin colors, genders, lack of genders, and choice of partners, then the individual has no rights except as a member of Team White, Team Black, Team Gay or Team Badly Confused.
A gun is an individual thing. It’s hard for a group to own a gun. You can give Team Gay, Team Union or Team Korean Men in Wheelchairs a cell phone link to a central network of law enforcement support services, but a gun is a thing that an individual buys and learns to use. It is not a network, but an object, its power does not come from pushbutton access to a plea for government aid, but from the skill and courage of the individual. Gun power is merit based.
Read it all at Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
Is the ink from the autopen even dry yet?
ED SCHULTZ: All right, who’s got the leverage in two months? (alluding to another looming battle over the debt ceiling)
MAXINE WATERS: Well, you know, the Republicans are talking about, what all they’re going to do with these tax cuts. The president has said we cannot cut our way out of a deficit and he’s absolutely correct. The first thing that we’ve got to do is look at where we still have unfairness in the tax system and make sure that the people of influence, the billionaires and the millionaires and the corporate interests are paying their fair share. And I believe that whether we’re talking about the financial speculation tax or the elimination of the carried interest or defense spending, we’ve got areas that we could look at to get fair share so that we’re able to take care of the basic needs of this country rather than going to Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and focusing on those areas as the only place that we can get more revenue.
From Weasl Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
A Politically Incorrect Guide to ‘Sexual Orientation’
By Matt Barber
It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world … ~ The Kinks
Through the secular-”progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites.
First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then they added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s cross-dressing. You know, fellas like 45-year-old Clay Francis (aka, “Colleen”).
Mr. Francis enjoys macramé, long walks on the beach, wearing lady knickers and showering fully nude with 6-year-old girls.
Because it’s illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity,” and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, this brave bellwether of the persecuted LGBT victim-class has secured the “civil right” for him and other men to fully expose themselves to your daughter in the locker room at Olympia, Washington’s Evergreen State College.
But slow down, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.
But to make sure they didn’t miss anyone, pooh-bahs over at Child Corruption Central added a “Q” to the “sexual orientation” mix. In case some fifth-grader in Ms. Adamsapple’s health class gets the urge to “taste the rainbow” (and I don’t mean Skittles), the catch-all term “questioning” was tacked on.
Gotta meet those recruiting quotas.
According to the “gay” activist group GLSEN, sexuality is “fluid” and “may change over time.” Unless, of course, you’re already “gay,” and then change is impossible, fixed and immutable. Like that hotel in California, “You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
Nobody said it’s supposed to make sense.
Still, because “progressives” aren’t progressive unless they’re progressing toward progress, this nonsensical alphabet soup of sexual deviancy has ballooned to a marvelous “LGBTQQIAAP.”
The latest word salad in the counter-”heterosexist” war against “heteronormativity” (yes, they consider these real things) is “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Allies, and Pansexual.”
In Canada, they’ve added “2S” which means: “Two-spirit. The visionaries and healers of aboriginal (sic) communities, the gay and lesbian shamans.”
I just can’t believe these closed-minded bigots left out members of the mistreated “BDSM” community (Bondage, Discipline, Sadism and Masochism). That’s OK, I guess. Being mistreated is their whole shtick, right? Or maybe they’re covered under “P” for “pansexual.” That means, more or less, that if the mood strikes, you’ll take a roll in the hay with anyone or anything in any way imaginable (or unimaginable).
Speaking of rolls in the hay, don’t put away your alphabet soup decoder ring just yet. It looks like we’ll soon be adding another “B” to the mix.
The late “gay” activist icon Frank Kameny – a pervert before his time – endorsed the practice of bestiality a few years ago. He called sex with animals “harmless,” saying that “as long as the animal doesn’t mind – and the animal rarely does – I don’t mind, and I don’t see why anyone else should.”
So we’ve further lowered the bar from “consenting adults” to “consenting adults and hoofed mammals.” How does that work? Bestiality is OK, but “neigh” means “neigh”?
In today’s frenzied struggle for unfettered sexual license cleverly couched as “civil rights,” we shouldn’t be surprised, then, that oppressed peoples representing all form of “sexual orientation” are lining up for their slice of “equality” pie.
Yes, even, um, animal lovers. According to a recent report by Florida’s Gainesville Sun, for instance, “Lawyers representing a Marion County man accused of sexual activity with a miniature donkey have filed a motion asking a judge to declare the Florida statute banning sexual activities with animals unconstitutional.”
“Carlos R. Romero, 32 … is accused of sexual activities involving animals, a first-degree misdemeanor, after he allegedly was found in a compromising position in August with a female miniature donkey named Doodle.”
First of all, I was offended by the article’s insensitive use of the term “miniature donkey.” I believe, if I’m not mistaken, the preferred nomenclature is “little horse.”
Still, I was especially struck – though not surprised – by the legal arguments Romero’s lawyers ponied up. They claimed “that the statute infringes upon Romero’s due process rights and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.”
“By making sexual conduct with an animal a crime, the statute demeans individuals like Defendant (Romero) by making his private sexual conduct a crime,” they wrote.
Right. The statute demeans Romero.
“The personal morals of the majority, whether based on religion or traditions, cannot be used as a reason to deprive a person of their personal liberties,” the attorneys wrote.
This line of argument is directly from the homosexual activist playbook – the rationale adopted by the majority in the landmark Lawrence v. Texas case. In Lawrence, the U.S. Supreme Court manufactured, for the first time in history, a constitutional “right” for men to sodomize each other.
So why not Doodle?
In his characteristically brilliant dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia forecast exactly what’s happened in the decade since: “State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices,” he wrote. “Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.”
Once our culture decides, as a matter of course, that all morality is relative, all bets are off. Once we determine, as a matter of law, that people are entitled to special privilege because they subjectively define their identity based upon deviant sexual proclivities and behaviors, moral, legal and cultural anarchy are inevitable.
The brave new world is upon us.
Image: A Miniature Donkey, San Francisco Zoo – Children’s Zoo; author:Steven Walling; Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license
Watchdog: 10 Most Corrupt Politicians
By Clash Daily
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2012 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:
• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
• Secretary of Energy Steven Chu
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice
• Attorney General Eric Holder
• Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
• Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
• President Barack Obama
• Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
• Rep. David Rivera (R-FL)
• Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius
Obama’s Gun Control Presidential Threat is Impeachable Offense
By Clash Daily This weekend the President of the United States declared war on legitimate gun owners who have the protection of the U.S. Constitution under their Second Amendment rights. Barack Obama informed the host of Meet the Press on the December 27th show and its viewing audience that he would use the full authority and “full weight” of the presidential arsenal of his office to unleash the dogs of war against legal gun owners.
The threat is real, because if one considers the nature of Obama’s cavalier attitude toward upholding or even recognizing the legitimacy of the authority of the U.S. Constitution, he has little regard for it. He has ignored the 10th Amendment regarding state’s rights, the Second Amendment regarding gun rights, and even laws passed by congress, like the Defense of Marriage Act. His presidency has been a renegade take-over and emasculation of the very constitution he swore to uphold.
The course of action is clear for the Congress of the United States: the President of the United States has decided to pursue a direction that even the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 and 2010 cases, has concluded is legally without merit. The president believes through his actions that the Second Amendment can be marginalized, and with the full consent of a weakened congress, that gives in to his pressure as it did on January 1st with the Fiscal Cliff bill.
What is left to wonder for Americans to weigh about the need for impeachment proceedings as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing left to debate, to discuss, to bargain or barter over. An assault on freedom and the constitution regarding gun rights is not open for negotiation or for misinterpretation.
Impeachment hearings are a serious step for any congress to consider, and it takes a matter which is defined by the U.S. Constitution as impeachable offenses for judiciary hearings to be undertaken by the House of Representatives.
Three sitting presidents have been investigated by congress, which had impeachment charges brought against them, beginning with President Andrew Johnson in 1867, Richard Nixon in 1974, and Bill Clinton in 1998. In each of the cases, the three presidents attempted to thwart either the will of the legislative branch, lied to the legislative branch or mislead the legislative branch in open and contemptible violation of the law.
Yet, in each case there was not an attempt to openly circumvent the constitutional authority of congress or eliminate constitutional protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, as Obama has engaged in. This sitting president has engaged in such actions as defined by the Constitution’s framers as well as those states that approved this essential American document.
The impeachment investigation by congress is a critical and necessary first step:
“Those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. …Thus, the impeachment power of the House reaches “those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust,” according to the Washington Post’s “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment”.
The betrayal of the public trust is a key component that elevates Obama’s conduct, both past and present, to this impeachment threshold. By engaging in continuing dismissive conduct regarding selective enforcement of the laws of the United States he bears congressional investigation. He has therefore “betrayed the public trust”, by these actions that the framers of the U.S. Constitution felt warranted impeachment of the nation’s highest constitutional officer.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” ~ Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
Let the first action of the new congress be one which serves notice on the re-elected president, that due to high crimes and misdemeanors you are so charged with Impeachment!
Image: The Senate as a Court of Impeachment for the Trial of Andrew Johnson; source: Harper’s Weekly, April 11, 1868; author:Theodore R. Davis; United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division; public domain/copyright expired
Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.
If we are to believe the information presented in this article, approximately 82% of Norwegians would voluntarily put on a t-shirt displaying a verse from the Bible and wear it in public. I wouldn’t know the corresponding number for a hate-filled verse from the Quran, but my guess is that that figure would be a lot more modest.
Although I’m not a religious person, I find it strange that so many people consider it embarrassing to be caught leafing through a Bible. I have read both books and it wouldn’t bother me one iota to be seen reading any of them on a bus, train or in any other public area for that matter.
However, I would probably consider throwing myself in front of a moving train if I were ever forced to read the entire series of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’.
The translated article from Dagbladet:
There is only one type of prose that Norwegians find more embarrassing to be seen with in public than the Bible
And no, it’s not erotic-housewife literature.
The Bible was one of the bestselling books in Norway last year, but few want to be seen reading the book in public, writes Vårt Land [Our Country — Christian Newspaper].
According to a survey by Norstat carried out on behalf of the NRK-produced entertainment program, “Brille” [“Reading glasses”], 18 percent of the respondents stated that they would prefer not be seen reading a Bible in a public area.
Only the gossip magazine ‘Se og Hør’ [“Look and Listen”] is more embarrassing. 20 percent replied that they did not want to be caught with that particular magazine in public.
Many of the respondents admitted that it would be less embarrassing for them to be discovered reading the erotic-housewife novels “Fifty Shades of Grey”. Only 8 percent of the respondents answered that they would prefer not be caught immersed in the erotic world.
The author Hanne Ørstavik, who was involved with the translation of the new Bible, is surprised. She thought that Norwegians were more sophisticated when it comes to matters related to religion.
“Today society is more pluralistic, and thus has more voices. We are also much more exposed to the great religions of the world these days.” She is baffled as to why some consider it embarrassing to read the Bible.
From Gates if Vienna: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/
Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s latest divide-and-conquer attack on the Second Amendment has made even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) a sucker for the argument that private citizens do not need high-capacity magazines. These include not only 30-round rifle magazines, but 17-round magazines for handguns like the Glock.
Why does anybody need a high capacity magazine? If Senator Manchin were to educate himself by, for example, attending Front Sight’s four-day defensive handgun class, he would learn the two primary answers:
(1) Failure to stop the aggressor, and
(2) Multiple aggressors
Failure to Stop
The classic .38 caliber revolver, with a capacity of six rounds, was the standard sidearm of the United States Army during the Moro insurrection in the Philippines. The Army found at least one dead Army officer with an empty sidearm, and his head split open by a machete or similar weapon. They also found the soldier’s killer, who had finally bled to death. Six rounds of .38 were therefore not enough to convince even one determined attacker.
Police instructor Masaad Ayoob’s The Truth About Self Protection adds an incident in which a female police officer saw a crazed gunman murder a woman, who then shot her as well before she could do anything. “She lay helpless as she watched a neighbor empty a .22 rifle into the killer; the neighbor then had to club the madman down with the empty rifle, again and again, before he succumbed.”
Ayoob does not report the size of the .22′s magazine, but the Moro insurrection exemplifies why even a 30-round rifle clip might not be enough to stop a crazed and determined attacker, such as one hopped up on a drug like PCP. “He had 32 Krag balls through him and was only stopped by the 33rd bullet — a Colt .45 slug through both ears.” The Krag-Jorgensen’s 30-caliber cartridge was far more powerful than the .22 in Ayoob’s example, but not sufficiently powerful to civilize this particular attacker even when fired in mass.
Colonel Jeff Cooper’s To Ride, Shoot Straight, and Speak the Truth adds the case of a man who was prosecuted for shooting his attacker eight times with a .380 automatic pistol. The prosecutor admitted that the dead man had been the aggressor, but argued that the shooter had taken the law into his own hands by continuing to shoot an adversary who had “obviously” been disabled. Cooper, whom the defense called as an expert witness, cited a suicide in which “the deceased shot himself amidships four times with a .380 Webley. Presumably the first three hits did not convince him.”
The .45-caliber Automatic Colt Pistol was the Army’s specific solution to the “failure to stop” problem in the Philippines. A single hit from a .45 caliber bullet will (per Cooper) stop the aggressor 95 percent of the time. This does not mean, however, that 7 or 8 rounds are enough for all conceivable defensive scenarios. Front Sight teaches students to change magazines in (ideally) less than two seconds. The other issue that Senator Manchin fails to recognize is that of multiple attackers.
Gang Bangers and the Knockout Game
Front Sight’s 4-day defensive handgun class included scenarios with multiple aggressors, including four gang bangers on a street and five or more in a house (along with innocent bystanders). Front Sight’s standard doctrine is to fire a controlled pair into an aggressor’s thoracic cavity and, in the event of failure to stop, another into his cranio-ocular cavity to take out his central nervous system.
In the street gang situation, though, one shot is fired into each gang member due to the need to economize on both time and ammunition; only those that don’t go down (or flee) then get “seconds.” You might conceivably stop four gang members with seven or eight rounds of .45 ACP; that is what the cartridge was designed to do. A small man or woman who can handle only a 9 mm comfortably might not be able to end the incident even with 15 or 17 rounds, unless he or she can make the far more difficult head shots. It is particularly telling that most police officers carry either .45s or high-capacity 9 mm sidearms.
Then there is the knockout game, in which a street gang selects a victim at random, knocks him or her down, and then maybe beats him or her to a pulp. Here is an example that involved six individuals; only one struck a blow, but the others seemed to approve. Although the Web page and the book it promotes focuses on black racial violence, there is similar Caucasian-on-black crime, such as that perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. In any event, if there are six (or more) bad guys, you are obviously going to need far more than six bullets.
The anti-Second Amendment camp may argue that the teacher who was assaulted in this video would not have had time to defend himself with a firearm or anything else, because his attacker hit him by surprise. (While use of a firearm in response to a fist might normally be considered excessive force, multiple aggressors, even unarmed ones, create a disparity of force situation that might indeed justify a lethal response. The same applies if a single unarmed aggressor is much younger, bigger, and/or stronger than the victim, e.g. a teenage punk against a senior citizen or woman.) This is where the five conditions of mental awareness, as taught by Front Sight, come into play.
States of Mental Awareness
The knockout game victim was in what Front Sight calls Condition White, which means he was not paying attention to his surroundings. Front Sight recommends living in Condition Yellow. This does not mean a state of paranoia but it includes, for example, not getting too close to alleys or other positions from which you can be ambushed. It also means looking around you when you are handling your car keys in a parking lot. Violent criminals often avoid people who are clearly alert; they, like all predators in the animal kingdom, don’t want to take a chance with anybody or anything that might hurt them.
Condition Orange means you have identified a potential threat. Had the teacher been in Condition Yellow, he would have seen the six young males in time to recognize them as such. Condition Orange can prevent a confrontation before it even becomes a confrontation. You don’t get hurt, and you don’t have to explain to the police why you hurt somebody else.
Condition Red means a known threat is in front of you. In the case of an imminent “knockout game,” you have laid out in your mind how you are going to put the gang bangers down if they escalate to Condition Black by initiating hostilities.
Senator Feinstein’s latest attack on the Second Amendment relies entirely on public ignorance of firearms and their legitimate uses, and this ignorance extends even to many people who support the principles of the Second Amendment. Education is the cure for ignorance and Front Sight, along with Gunsite (founded by Colonel Cooper) offers some of the best.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
‘No Ma’am’: Letter From US Marine To Dianne Feinstein Goes Viral
‘No ma’am’: Letter from U.S. Marine to Dianne Feinstein goes viral
The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/dianne-feinstein/2013/01/02/no-ma-am-letter-us-marine-dianne-feinstein-goes-viral#ixzz2Gv087BqY
DEFENDING THE WESTThe end of America: Why Romney lost WND, January 1, 2013
Exclusive: Pamela Geller traces death of the republic to 2 short words
The United States of America was created as an independent nation whose founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Freedom. Ayn Rand said that “freedom, in a political context, means freedom from government coercion.” America was the first moral government based on individual rights, the nation of the Enlightenment.
In this age of Obama, that ideal has been tossed aside for … “free stuff.”
I have, for some time, struggled with the new reality: America void of her reason, existing without the reason for her existence, her morality. It did not seem possible. And yet what now seems impossible is that America ever was. As we revert back to the age of the primitive, the fact that America happened at all is nothing short of a miracle.
The United States of America was the rational man’s shining hour.
Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, N.J., recently wrote an analysis of the 2012 presidential election that is the best thing I have read on Romney’s election loss and the broader question of the loss of America.
“It is a different world,” wrote Pruzansky, “and a different America. Obama is part of that different America, knows it, and knows how to tap into it. That is why he won.” What kind of different America? Pruzansky’s explanation is devastating: “Romney lost,” he writes, “because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate. The notion of the ‘Reagan Democrat’ is one cliché that should be permanently retired. Ronald Reagan himself could not win an election in today’s America. The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff.”
It is impossible to compete against “free stuff.” As Pruzansky explains: “The adults among the 47,000,000 on food stamps clearly recognized for whom they should vote, and so they did, by the tens of millions; those who – courtesy of Obama – receive two full years of unemployment benefits (which, of course, both disincentivizes looking for work and also motivates people to work off the books while collecting their windfall) surely know for whom to vote; so too those who anticipate ‘free’ health care, who expect the government to pay their mortgages, who look for the government to give them jobs. The lure of free stuff is irresistible.”
And given Obama’s relentless hostility to Israel, Pruzansky says, “this election should be a wake-up call to Jews. There is no permanent empire, nor is there is an enduring haven for Jews anywhere in the exile. The American empire began to decline in 2007, and the deterioration has been exacerbated in the last five years. This election only hastens that decline. Society is permeated with sloth, greed, envy and materialistic excess. It has lost its moorings and its moral foundations. The takers outnumber the givers, and that will only increase in years to come.” His conclusion for American Jews is stark: “We have about a decade, perhaps 15 years, to leave with dignity and without stress.”
What was once unthinkable is now not just thinkable, but entirely possible. When I was a child, I remember sitting in the backseat of the family car listening in on my parents’ conversation. I am not sure what led to the following exchange, but I never forgot it. My father said, “Nothing is forever.” And my mother said, “Nothing?” He repeated: “Nothing.” And my mother thought for a moment and asked, “Not even America?” He said, “Not even America.”
At that time the idea that America could fall was inconceivable to her (and to me). America – freedom – was forever.
But that is not so. And scarier still is the tenuous status of Jews in America. It’s hard not to draw parallels to persecuted Jews in once-friendly nations and their subsequent persecution, expulsion and slaughter. To think that Poland was once the Israel of Europe. Millions of Jews made Poland their home and had a long history there of over a thousand years. And in three short years … complete annihilation.
German Jews, meanwhile, were so very vested in the motherland they considered themselves Germans before Jews. They were war heroes for Germany in World War I.
How long do Jews have in Obama’s America? How long before we can’t walk down the street with a kippah or a Star of David? This is already reality for Belgium Jews, Swedish Jews and French Jews. Large portions of Norway are already Judenrein.
Proud Jews at Berkeley or the University of California Irvine can give you a glimpse of how things can turn, quickly, in America as well. Now that America itself has turned, everything is up for grabs.
“To be a socialist,” said Josef Goebbels, “is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.”Read the restFrom Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/