I've been called unpatriotic

Well I had an interesting thing happen to me today. I was accused by a liberal in my office of being unpatriotic…because I expressed the hope that Obama’s policies would fail!

Let’s examine some of those policies shall we?

He wants to unilaterally disembowel the US military, and in so doing leave us vulnerable to our enemies.

He wants to eliminate any restriction on abortion whatsoever.

He wants us to become more like socialized Europe.

He seems intent on building a mountain of debt so high that we can climb all the way up to the moon!

He’s determined to bring about socialized medicine, despite the evidence that it lowers the quality of healthcare AND even restricts access to it.

He wants to bring about a welfare state the likes of which the world has never known!

He wants to extend government into every facet of our lives such that Big Brother controls us like never before.

His minions are determined to gut the 2nd amendment and disarm the American people.

His plans include getting as many Americans dependent on government as possible to enhance his and his party’s power base.

He wants to pander to his “poor” constituents by punishing big business with taxes, knowing full well that businesses don’t pay taxes; they pass it on to their customers!

And finally, he wants to punish productivity with taxes, and reward laziness with entitlements.

Now I wasn’t shocked that a liberal would defend Obama. I guess what shocked me was the rapidity in which the insults became personal. Call me unpatriotic? Wow!
I spent 7 years in the Marine Corps for crying out loud!

I’ve heard military service described this way: It’s like writing a blank check to Uncle Sam for everything, up to and including your LIFE if need be. That’s unpatriotic?

I guess I am expected to show my loyalty to a MAN. Well F*CK that! I pledged my loyalty to the Constitution, the same Constitution that Mr. Obama and his minions are trampling daily!

As far as I’m concerned the man will NEVER have my allegiance. Nor will ANY politician who makes it their business to ignore and disdain the US Constitution.

A Nation of Cowards - Jeffrey Snyder

This excellent article was first published in the Fall of 93, so some of the information is a bit dated. But conceptually - it's awesome!

Some excerpts:

One who values his life and takes seriously his responsibilities to his family and community will possess and cultivate the means of fighting back, and will retaliate when threatened with death or grievous injury to himself or a loved one. He will never be content to rely solely on others for his safety, or to think he has done all that is possible by being aware of his surroundings and taking measures of avoidance. Let's not mince words: He will be armed, will be trained in the use of his weapon, and will defend himself when faced with lethal violence.

In truth, a state that deprives its law-abiding citizens of the means to effectively defend themselves is not civilized but barbarous, becoming an accomplice of murderers, rapists, and thugs and revealing its totalitarian nature by its tacit admission that the disorganized, random havoc created by criminals is far less a threat than are men and women who believe themselves free and independent, and act accordingly.

Our society suffers greatly from the beliefs that only official action is legitimate and that the state is the source of our earthly salvation. Both liberal and conservative prescriptions for violent crime suffer from the "not in my job description" school of thought regarding the responsibilities of the law-abiding citizen, and from an overestimation of the ability of the state to provide society's moral moorings. As long as law-abiding citizens assume no personal responsibility for combatting crime, liberal and conservative programs will fail to contain it.

The laws proscribing concealed-carry of firearms by honest, law-abiding citizens breed nothing but disrespect for the law. As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.

Okay...now go read the whole article.

HR 45 is a real threat to your 2A rights

I have almost reached the point of complete despair when it comes to expecting the political process to produce anything but new threats to our liberty. These days hoping that we can get the attention of the politicians via calls and letters is like hoping that pigs will fly!

But while there's still a smidgen of hope, go ahead and call or write whichever corrupt and unethical jackass that happens to be your legislator, and demand that he/she does not support this anti-liberty bill.

Read the details (and be nauseous) over at GOA

The Anti-gun Male

By Julia Gorin
Originally published at JewishWorldReview

Let's be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable -- so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle -- in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Continue reading...

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation - by Starr Parker

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living
inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on
capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others..

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

Support your local police (yeah right!)

As spoken by the preminent government interventionist

John Maynard Keynes

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."

THIS is something you MUST watch

Intelligent Design versus Evolution debate

I was privileged to attend Tuesday night’s debate at Jacksonville University billed as Evolution vs. Intelligent design. I was pleased on several counts. First, the quality of the debaters and the civility of the overall exchange were exemplary. And second I can happily report that the Truth was well represented in Professor Paul Nelson’s position. For the benefit of those not fortunate enough be seated center stage on the second row, I am referring to the position of intelligent design.

The supreme irony that became apparent as the event unfolded was that the school of thought which has long billed itself the representative of science and enlightenment, presented an argument that was practically devoid of scientific merit, whist the camp of so-called superstition and religion gave a superb presentation of scientific fact and emotionless reason.

FSU philosophy professor (and part-time Darwin worshiper) Michael Ruse was clearly a skilled debater with a well-developed sense of comic timing, and a demonstrated mastery of the witty rejoinder.



But it must be said by any objective observer that he gave short service to his camp’s position that the matchless complexity of the biosphere is the result of mindless natural forces. He and his ilk are ready to consider any and all possibilities regardless of the statistical improbability; all save one possibility: that intelligence may have played a part in the present state of the biological universe. Because to admit intelligence simply points the seeker to the begged question of “Who”, which most of us would naturally assume to be …dare I say it? God! I hesitate because of the obvious discomfort that Professor Ruse began to display at any point where his and our consideration were involuntarily pointed upwards.

Oh he did fine in his lengthy (and wholly irrelevant) dissertation on the history of the debate where his sole point seemed to be the need to carefully label the various Christian parties as either “traditional” or “conservative/evangelical”. But I thought I detected from my second row seat almost a trembling in him when he uttered the latter of the two. I hyperbolize slightly for literary effect, but in truth Dr. Ruse position was best summed up as:

- The entire Intelligent Design argument is nothing more than Christians with an agenda!
- There just cannot be the possibility of anything supernatural (God)
- The various schools of biblical interpretation actually is a factor to be considered (I’m not kidding!)
- A veiled inference that ignorant southern Americans have had a disproportionate role in the debate thereby lessening its validity as debatable in the first place
- The debate at large is really only in America – the implication being that Europeans are above such plebian considerations and there must be something wrong with America that we would still give any thought to a God figure

But again…the perfect counterweight to the smoke and mirrors of Ruse’s presentation was the factual and unemotional position espoused by Professor Paul Nelson of Biola University.



He remained focused and factual, and consistently rested his positions on scientific observations, whether it was the extraordinarily complex sequence of chemical reactions necessary for blood to clot, or the inexplicable development of irreducibly complex physiological systems like the eyeball. He was at once unflappable and imperturbable throughout the pointed questioning of hostile audience members and the emotional see-saw displayed by his opponent.

I struggled to keep my cool – but Professor Nelson showed no sign of losing his. Where he simply stuck to the merits of his position, I would have probably devolved into counter-pointing the inanities that masqueraded as debate coming from Mike Ruse.

I would have pointed out the hypocrisy of saying the opponent’s camp is motivated by an agenda as if an entire lifetime of cheerleading for Godless evolution was simply the natural result of impartial and unbiased interest.

I would have made the point that whether St Augustine was a traditional Christian and not a conservative Christian has exactly no bearing on the merits of either evolution OR intelligent design. I kept wondering if Professor Ruse had ever heard the phrase “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.

I was definitely not convinced that Professor Ruse’s sole beef with America was limited to Diet Pepsi. I have a sneaking suspicion that Christians, and particularly southern American Christians are a lot lower on his list than Diet Pepsi. But again, I failed to see how the venue of the debate, or the nationality of the opponents, had even one iota of bearing on the issue at hand. I was moved to an involuntary outburst when a man stood up and gave the following observation:

Paraphrased: I was raised and educated on the evolutionist (atheist) side of the debate. But today I am a Christian, as well as being a medical Doctor and molecular biologist. I was eventually swayed by the incredible complexity and phenomenal order of the natural universe. And by the way, I’m proud to be an American.

To Professor Paul Nelson I want to say “You did a fine job Dr.”

To Professor Michael Ruse I would like to say “Professor you unwittingly validated an aspect of my own personal theory regarding the agenda of those in your camp. I believe that you are motivated to exorcise God from every corner of the universe in order to free yourselves from any feelings of guilt for the oftentimes immoral lifestyle you so often pursue (I am speaking collectively). Your gleeful embrace of sex and sexuality at every point in the discussion belied your real goal: which female college senior might be sufficiently beguiled by your shallow veneer of charm and wit.

More truth in 2 minutes than most of the SHEEPLE can handle

You're correct Dr Paul. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between capital and credit, and you cannot re inflate the bubble once it's burst. We have indeed come to end of an era...but some folks are too stupid, or too ideologically blind to see it.