Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard one of the most ridiculous, not to mention stupid things I've ever heard. While watching "Cavuto" on Fox News, famed former New York Police Department detective Bo Dietl, commenting on the judge ruling the "no fly list" unconstitutional, actually said - and I quote - "In order to have freedom, you have to have some of your rights taken away." No, I'm not making that up.
I'm sorry, but wouldn't the taking of our unalienable rights be diametrically opposite the very definition of freedom? Mr. Dietl, you might have been a "legend" as a police officer, but in this case, you're dead wrong. Restricting the freedoms of everyone in order to have the possibility of catching a would-be terrorist isn't worth the price we'll all eventually pay. Do the Patriot Act and NSA spying mean anything to you?
Think about this for a few minutes: The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist. There are multiple reasons why, but here's at least one good reason for that - and this part is somewhat important - 90-year-old grandfathers and 5-year-old toddlers aren't likely to be terrorists! You want to know who is most likely to be a terrorist - a young Arab muslim male. *G*A*SP* If that shocks you, you haven't been paying attention to the world for, oh, the last four decades or more, which makes you part of the problem.
Why doesn't the TSA single out Arab muslim men? That's easy - political correctness. Nobody wants to bring up a certain dreaded phrase anymore, but the truth is, so-called "racial profiling" actually works. Yeah, I said it.
Crime statistics show that a certain person, in a certain place, at a certain time of day or night, is most likely committing crime "X" - whatever that may be. Racial profiling is applicable to all ethnicities, by the way. Does it mean that every person of whatever ethnicity actually is committing "X" if they're in that certain place at that certain time? Absolutely not, but statistically, the chances are very high that they are.
For example, if we look at the number of homicides committed in the United States between 1974 and 2004, 52% of offenders were black and 46% were white. Seems pretty equal, right? The kicker is that blacks made up only 12% of the total population during this time period, while whites made up 80%. It's difficult to argue against those kind of numbers, isn't it? Keep these numbers in mind when reading the next paragraph.
Psychologists use a test called the "Implicit Association Test" to test for bias in people. Once used to investigate race bias, participants of the test were asked to match up "good" and "bad" words with pictures of black or white faces. A majority of white participants made associations of "good" with white faces and "bad" with black faces. Care to guess how the black participants scored? Well, the black participants did the same thing. Even black people use racial profiling when dealing with members of their own race.
After 9/11, the United Stated government was quick to point out that not all muslims are terrorists, and that is certainly true, at least as it pertains to the active activism of most muslims. It is also true that not all terrorists are muslim, but in terms of international terrorism of the type that occurred on September 11, 2001, the actors are almost invariably younger, unmarried, muslim males.
Before people misunderstand, I'm absolutely not saying we should profile muslim men strictly because they are muslim. Being a muslim, however, should certainly be part of the equation, along with as many similarities shared with the 9/11 hijackers as possible. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
As for Bo Dietl and his inane comment - the only rights I intend to give up are exactly NONE, sir. We have given up far too many as it is, and the federal government has abrogated its responsibility to safeguard those rights in favor of violating those rights on an almost daily basis. You may be okay with that, Mr. Dietl, but a great many of us are not, and we're growing stronger every day. ~ Hunter
News, history, and opinion from a Constitutional Conservative viewpoint.
25 June 2014
24 June 2014
Political Correctness: The REAL Border Crisis
With the flood of criminal aliens - and yes, that's exactly what they are, criminals - crossing our border from Mexico and certain Central and South American nations, I've been seeing far too many comments from leftists calling conservatives "racists" and "haters," as well as a few more......strongly worded, shall we say......insults because we dare to decry what's happening. I think it's past time to address a few of them.
My personal favorite, but easiest to debunk, is the "if you're not 'Native American,' everyone here is an illegal immigrant." First, "Native American" is a complete fallacy. To accept that humans are native to the Americas requires one to disbelieve the theory of evolution and its belief that humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge. Two, there were no laws governing the immigration of peoples into what is now North and South America, therefore nobody emigrated here "illegally." Oh, by the way, I was born here in the United States, so in reality, I am a "Native American," and as I also have Cherokee and Creek in my ancestry, I have a claim to this land even if we play by the liberal's rules. Facts are such stubborn things, aren't they?
Don't get me wrong, Europeans committed heinous acts against the American Indians. The Americas were essentially stolen from the American Indians, but - and here's the important part - American Indians stole land from other American Indians. *GASP* Entire tribes were eradicated - not just by the Europeans - but by their own brethren.
Tackling the "racism" insult, I believe it's appropriate to point out that "American" is not a race. I'm really not sure if I can make that any more clear. America is an ideal more than anything else. No other nation of which I'm aware permits one to become a citizen and be considered just as much of a "countryman" as someone actually native to that nation. An American can't become French like a Frenchman can become an American. The Founders and Framers, in their customary brilliance, deliberately designed our system that way.
Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration and/or immigrants: Our issue is with illegal "immigration." Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how "inconsequential" that law seems to be to the apologists out there. We're not talking about going a few miles per hour over the speed limit here; we're talking about a major law which is supposed to have real consequences. When someone comes here illegally, they are essentially engaging in the theft of something that others worked incredibly hard to obtain legally for themselves and their families. Let's not mention the mockery illegals make of the legal immigrants and the laws of the United States.
Conservatives don't "hate" people either, on the whole. Hatred is exclusively the bailiwick of the Left. All one need do to verify that is look at comments from leftists on conservative pages and blogs. Their intolerance of views other than their own is legendary. I have been called racist just for being a conservative, a homophobe for believing in traditional marriage, an islamophobe for daring to point out what the main stream media refuses to - that muslims (lowercase to show disrespect) want to kill us if we don't convert to islam.
We, as Americans, from both the Right and the Left, are in danger of losing the greatest nation in the history of this planet. That may not bother the liberals, but it sure as hell bothers conservatives. It should bother all Americans, whether they be natural-born or legal immigrants.
It's not being lost due to an outside military force. No nation on the face of the globe has the power to stand against the United States (although I would argue that, under this administration, our global military power and effectiveness is steadily shrinking). This invasion of criminal aliens won't be the primary reason for the fall of the United States; it's more of a symptom of the illness. The sickness is the failure to enforce our laws for the sake of political correctness.
The first step the United States should take is to secure the borders and all other ports of entry into this country. There should be absolutely no possible way to enter this nation without authorization, or should be so ridiculously expensive to achieve as to make it literally worth waiting and legally immigrating. Liberals love to say we should accept Obamacare because it's the "law of the land." Leaving aside Obamacare's questionable constitutionality, what's also the "law of the land" is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I don't hear a single liberal speaking out in favor of that law. In fact, when democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they soon defunded the law.
The second step to solve this crisis should be to deport all illegals. No amnesty, don't pass "Go" and collect $200 - just get them out. We've done it before, we can do it again. The Border Patrol is much larger, by orders of magnitude, than its 1950's version, not to mention the huge advances in technology. There is no excuse for not deporting those illegals who are found, and political correctness be damned.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and breaking the law is breaking the law. We cannot, and should not, reward lawbreakers for thumbing their collective noses at our immigration laws. It is such a fundamentally simple concept to me that it's incredulous that so many people don't seem to understand.
To be a liberal, one has to be blissfully stupid, as well as willfully ignorant. They seem to have a deliberate mental disconnect from reality, but to claim, as liberals do, that racism and hatred motivates the desire to control immigration into the United States requires a suspension of disbelief that stretches credulity beyond the most fantastic tales ever told. I, for one, am tired of it. ~ Hunter
My personal favorite, but easiest to debunk, is the "if you're not 'Native American,' everyone here is an illegal immigrant." First, "Native American" is a complete fallacy. To accept that humans are native to the Americas requires one to disbelieve the theory of evolution and its belief that humans arrived via the Bering Land Bridge. Two, there were no laws governing the immigration of peoples into what is now North and South America, therefore nobody emigrated here "illegally." Oh, by the way, I was born here in the United States, so in reality, I am a "Native American," and as I also have Cherokee and Creek in my ancestry, I have a claim to this land even if we play by the liberal's rules. Facts are such stubborn things, aren't they?
Don't get me wrong, Europeans committed heinous acts against the American Indians. The Americas were essentially stolen from the American Indians, but - and here's the important part - American Indians stole land from other American Indians. *GASP* Entire tribes were eradicated - not just by the Europeans - but by their own brethren.
Tackling the "racism" insult, I believe it's appropriate to point out that "American" is not a race. I'm really not sure if I can make that any more clear. America is an ideal more than anything else. No other nation of which I'm aware permits one to become a citizen and be considered just as much of a "countryman" as someone actually native to that nation. An American can't become French like a Frenchman can become an American. The Founders and Framers, in their customary brilliance, deliberately designed our system that way.
Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration and/or immigrants: Our issue is with illegal "immigration." Breaking the law is breaking the law, no matter how "inconsequential" that law seems to be to the apologists out there. We're not talking about going a few miles per hour over the speed limit here; we're talking about a major law which is supposed to have real consequences. When someone comes here illegally, they are essentially engaging in the theft of something that others worked incredibly hard to obtain legally for themselves and their families. Let's not mention the mockery illegals make of the legal immigrants and the laws of the United States.
Conservatives don't "hate" people either, on the whole. Hatred is exclusively the bailiwick of the Left. All one need do to verify that is look at comments from leftists on conservative pages and blogs. Their intolerance of views other than their own is legendary. I have been called racist just for being a conservative, a homophobe for believing in traditional marriage, an islamophobe for daring to point out what the main stream media refuses to - that muslims (lowercase to show disrespect) want to kill us if we don't convert to islam.
We, as Americans, from both the Right and the Left, are in danger of losing the greatest nation in the history of this planet. That may not bother the liberals, but it sure as hell bothers conservatives. It should bother all Americans, whether they be natural-born or legal immigrants.
It's not being lost due to an outside military force. No nation on the face of the globe has the power to stand against the United States (although I would argue that, under this administration, our global military power and effectiveness is steadily shrinking). This invasion of criminal aliens won't be the primary reason for the fall of the United States; it's more of a symptom of the illness. The sickness is the failure to enforce our laws for the sake of political correctness.
The first step the United States should take is to secure the borders and all other ports of entry into this country. There should be absolutely no possible way to enter this nation without authorization, or should be so ridiculously expensive to achieve as to make it literally worth waiting and legally immigrating. Liberals love to say we should accept Obamacare because it's the "law of the land." Leaving aside Obamacare's questionable constitutionality, what's also the "law of the land" is the Secure Fence Act of 2006. I don't hear a single liberal speaking out in favor of that law. In fact, when democrats took control of Congress in 2007, they soon defunded the law.
The second step to solve this crisis should be to deport all illegals. No amnesty, don't pass "Go" and collect $200 - just get them out. We've done it before, we can do it again. The Border Patrol is much larger, by orders of magnitude, than its 1950's version, not to mention the huge advances in technology. There is no excuse for not deporting those illegals who are found, and political correctness be damned.
A criminal is a criminal is a criminal, and breaking the law is breaking the law. We cannot, and should not, reward lawbreakers for thumbing their collective noses at our immigration laws. It is such a fundamentally simple concept to me that it's incredulous that so many people don't seem to understand.
To be a liberal, one has to be blissfully stupid, as well as willfully ignorant. They seem to have a deliberate mental disconnect from reality, but to claim, as liberals do, that racism and hatred motivates the desire to control immigration into the United States requires a suspension of disbelief that stretches credulity beyond the most fantastic tales ever told. I, for one, am tired of it. ~ Hunter
19 June 2014
Political Food For Thought
The Washington Redskins have their trademarks revoked because their name is "disparaging to Native Americans." Leaving aside that there are no "native" Americans (human beings are not native to the Americas), and that the name "Redskins" is meant as an homage to the courage and dignity of the American Indian, not to mention that the overwhelming majority of American Indians don't have a problem with the name of the team, can someone explain to me how Redskins is magically offensive, yet the United NEGRO College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People somehow ISN'T?
Of course, there's also the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and a veritable plethora of college, semi-pro, high school, and elementary school teams with American Indian names. Will the ridiculousness called Political Correctness attempt to force all those teams to change their names as well?
The United States is suffering an invasion, for all intents and purposes, of criminal aliens, all of whom will, at one point or another, qualify for government assistance of some form, up to and including health care paid for by us, the taxpayers.
Yet as we "speak," as it were, the United States also has thousands of military veterans on waiting lists, some for months at a time, who can't get needed care from the Veterans Administration, an organization that had a $450 million SURPLUS in its budget last year!!! I'm the liberals out there consider this a fair deal, giving health care to those here illegally, but forcing the people who have willingly put their lives and limbs on the line for this nation, but I do NOT.
King DingleBarry and his Court keep pushing the notion that anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate chaos (or whatever name is in favor this week) is definitely "real" and the "science is settled" when none of the above is true. His Royal Lowness recently used a commencement speech he gave to rail against those of us who question it. Because that's the subject I'd want to hear about at my commencement.
Never mind that the "rising" temperatures actually stayed flat for the last 17 years, or rose almost imperceptibly, and that carbon dioxide, which is absolutely essential to nearly all forms of life on this planet, has a very tenuous connection, at best, to rising temperatures. Of course, we can't discount the role the sun may play in global temperatures, as most of the other planets in our solar system have experienced virtually identical rise in their temperatures as the Earth has before they leveled off, but why let facts interfere with the Left's agenda? Oh, lest I forget, the planet's polar ice caps recorded record growth this year. You know, the year after Mr. Super-scientist himself, Algore, predicted all of would be..........well, gone. Not that I want to put too fine a point on it or anything.
One department of the federal government runs the National Park system. It discourages the feeding of the wild animals residing in the parks, as it will lead to the animals growing lazy, complacent, and dependent on the handouts. Another department actively advertises the food stamp program, in other countries no less. Because as we all know, human beings would never grow lazy, complacent, and dependent on handouts, right? Say it isn't so...
Did you know the King DingleBarry has accrued more debt in a little over six years than all FORTY-THREE of his predecessors combined? It's entirely possible, if not probable, that he's actually spent more money than anyone in history, period. Chew on that for a while.
A Mexican official recently stated that illegal aliens crossing our border aren't committing a crime, they're just here illegally. I kid you not. Last I checked, committing a crime was the very definition of illegal. Maybe it means something different in Spanish?
Did you know that one of the requirements (for the crayon-eating liberals out there, that means a condition that must be met) for earning American citizenship is a working knowledge of the English language. That means you must be able to speak, read, and write American English well enough to get your point across. Why, then, are there citizenship oaths given in different languages?
These are but a few of the things that should cause you to think about the direction of this nation. Although I frequently poke fun at King DingleBarry - with good reason - I am well aware that the problems listed above, and so many more didn't start with him. They've been going on for years, if not decades. He has certainly exacerbated them, but most of these issues cross party lines. The establishment Republicans are no better than the democrats in most ways.
Most of the problems this nation faces stem from one thing - professional politicians. The Founders never intended for there to be a ruling class. In fact, such was anathema to them. All one need do is witness our first president giving up the presidency after two terms when there was no requirement to do so at the time. Until we impose term limits, and encourage people more interested in helping their fellow citizens than enriching themselves we're going to continue to face these, and worse. ~ Hunter
Of course, there's also the Cleveland Indians, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Atlanta Braves, the Atlanta Hawks, the Kansas City Chiefs, and a veritable plethora of college, semi-pro, high school, and elementary school teams with American Indian names. Will the ridiculousness called Political Correctness attempt to force all those teams to change their names as well?
The United States is suffering an invasion, for all intents and purposes, of criminal aliens, all of whom will, at one point or another, qualify for government assistance of some form, up to and including health care paid for by us, the taxpayers.
Yet as we "speak," as it were, the United States also has thousands of military veterans on waiting lists, some for months at a time, who can't get needed care from the Veterans Administration, an organization that had a $450 million SURPLUS in its budget last year!!! I'm the liberals out there consider this a fair deal, giving health care to those here illegally, but forcing the people who have willingly put their lives and limbs on the line for this nation, but I do NOT.
King DingleBarry and his Court keep pushing the notion that anthropogenic global warming, climate change, climate chaos (or whatever name is in favor this week) is definitely "real" and the "science is settled" when none of the above is true. His Royal Lowness recently used a commencement speech he gave to rail against those of us who question it. Because that's the subject I'd want to hear about at my commencement.
Never mind that the "rising" temperatures actually stayed flat for the last 17 years, or rose almost imperceptibly, and that carbon dioxide, which is absolutely essential to nearly all forms of life on this planet, has a very tenuous connection, at best, to rising temperatures. Of course, we can't discount the role the sun may play in global temperatures, as most of the other planets in our solar system have experienced virtually identical rise in their temperatures as the Earth has before they leveled off, but why let facts interfere with the Left's agenda? Oh, lest I forget, the planet's polar ice caps recorded record growth this year. You know, the year after Mr. Super-scientist himself, Algore, predicted all of would be..........well, gone. Not that I want to put too fine a point on it or anything.
One department of the federal government runs the National Park system. It discourages the feeding of the wild animals residing in the parks, as it will lead to the animals growing lazy, complacent, and dependent on the handouts. Another department actively advertises the food stamp program, in other countries no less. Because as we all know, human beings would never grow lazy, complacent, and dependent on handouts, right? Say it isn't so...
Did you know the King DingleBarry has accrued more debt in a little over six years than all FORTY-THREE of his predecessors combined? It's entirely possible, if not probable, that he's actually spent more money than anyone in history, period. Chew on that for a while.
A Mexican official recently stated that illegal aliens crossing our border aren't committing a crime, they're just here illegally. I kid you not. Last I checked, committing a crime was the very definition of illegal. Maybe it means something different in Spanish?
Did you know that one of the requirements (for the crayon-eating liberals out there, that means a condition that must be met) for earning American citizenship is a working knowledge of the English language. That means you must be able to speak, read, and write American English well enough to get your point across. Why, then, are there citizenship oaths given in different languages?
These are but a few of the things that should cause you to think about the direction of this nation. Although I frequently poke fun at King DingleBarry - with good reason - I am well aware that the problems listed above, and so many more didn't start with him. They've been going on for years, if not decades. He has certainly exacerbated them, but most of these issues cross party lines. The establishment Republicans are no better than the democrats in most ways.
Most of the problems this nation faces stem from one thing - professional politicians. The Founders never intended for there to be a ruling class. In fact, such was anathema to them. All one need do is witness our first president giving up the presidency after two terms when there was no requirement to do so at the time. Until we impose term limits, and encourage people more interested in helping their fellow citizens than enriching themselves we're going to continue to face these, and worse. ~ Hunter
17 June 2014
Professor Pens Op-Ed Piece And Coins A New Term - "Liberal Privilege"
Melvyn L. Fein Ph.D., a professor of sociology at Kennesaw State University, penned an Op-Ed yesterday in which he coins a new phrase - "Liberal Privilege." I copied and pasted Dr. Fein's brilliant Op-Ed here because it deserves to read in its entirety. Enjoy. ~ Hunter
Liberal privilege and the lies of the left
One of the current liberal cliches tells us “whites” are privileged. The color of their skin evidently bestows benefits others do not receive. They are therefore supposed to be grateful and defer to those who are less fortunate.
But in what does this “privilege” consist? Yes, whites have not been discriminated against the way African-Americans have. They have not been denied jobs or forced to drink from separate fountains because of the pigmentation of their epidermis. This is surely an advantage — but how big an advantage?
Charges of white privilege make it sound as if every Caucasian is automatically successful. The fact is most are not. Few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. The vast majority needs to work hard to achieve the objectives they desire.
Far more pervasive is “liberal privilege.” The very people who accuse others of not being sufficiently grateful for their status are guilty of taking their own advantages for granted. Liberals do not seem to recognize the special treatment they receive. They actually believe they are nicer and smarter than others as a result of having been allowed to get away with this conceit.
Liberals, because they are liberal, assume they are more compassionate than anyone who disagrees with them. From elementary school on, they are praised for their concerns about the welfare of others — even though this kindness is only manifested in verbal declarations.
Likewise, from the earliest grades, their teachers applaud their superior intelligence. Since they agree with the principles they are being taught and regurgitate them on cue, they are regarded as unusually perceptive. Critical thinking, although orally encouraged, is, in practice, punished.
And so liberals grow up in a bubble of self-deception. Their self-esteem is grounded in conforming to beliefs that do not accord with reality, but which nevertheless earn them gold stars and certificates of achievement.
Then they enter the real world. Yet for them, it is not altogether real. The books they read and the television shows they watch confirm their special status. Liberal newsreaders and authors assure them they are better than their conservative peers. Clearly, they are more generous and insightful than these relics.
If liberals decide to enter politics, the effusive praise is ladled on with a bucket. They quickly learn being liberal means they never have to say they are sorry. Whatever mistakes they make will be blamed on their opponents. That they have good intensions is sufficient to merit adulation, no matter what the outcomes.
Liberals can destroy the economy, but hey, no one could have done better. They can undermine the national security, but at least they were showing the appropriate humility. They can drive their country into bankruptcy, but this only confirms their compassion.
If one is a liberal, any nasty thing one might say about an opponent is passed over in silence. The cruelest invective is regarded as appropriate, given the sins of the target. Even vulgarity is excused because it emphasizes the understandable passion of the speaker.
If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”
Is this not privilege? Is it not a form of protection others do not obtain? Yet liberals consider it their due. They become huffy if their motives are questioned. Then they drive up truckloads of excuses they expect to be accepted without dissent. If this still doesn’t work, they attack their critics as playing politics (which, of course, they do not).
Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.
The Marietta Daily Journal - Liberal privilege and the lies of the left
Liberal privilege and the lies of the left
One of the current liberal cliches tells us “whites” are privileged. The color of their skin evidently bestows benefits others do not receive. They are therefore supposed to be grateful and defer to those who are less fortunate.
But in what does this “privilege” consist? Yes, whites have not been discriminated against the way African-Americans have. They have not been denied jobs or forced to drink from separate fountains because of the pigmentation of their epidermis. This is surely an advantage — but how big an advantage?
Charges of white privilege make it sound as if every Caucasian is automatically successful. The fact is most are not. Few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. The vast majority needs to work hard to achieve the objectives they desire.
Far more pervasive is “liberal privilege.” The very people who accuse others of not being sufficiently grateful for their status are guilty of taking their own advantages for granted. Liberals do not seem to recognize the special treatment they receive. They actually believe they are nicer and smarter than others as a result of having been allowed to get away with this conceit.
Liberals, because they are liberal, assume they are more compassionate than anyone who disagrees with them. From elementary school on, they are praised for their concerns about the welfare of others — even though this kindness is only manifested in verbal declarations.
Likewise, from the earliest grades, their teachers applaud their superior intelligence. Since they agree with the principles they are being taught and regurgitate them on cue, they are regarded as unusually perceptive. Critical thinking, although orally encouraged, is, in practice, punished.
And so liberals grow up in a bubble of self-deception. Their self-esteem is grounded in conforming to beliefs that do not accord with reality, but which nevertheless earn them gold stars and certificates of achievement.
Then they enter the real world. Yet for them, it is not altogether real. The books they read and the television shows they watch confirm their special status. Liberal newsreaders and authors assure them they are better than their conservative peers. Clearly, they are more generous and insightful than these relics.
If liberals decide to enter politics, the effusive praise is ladled on with a bucket. They quickly learn being liberal means they never have to say they are sorry. Whatever mistakes they make will be blamed on their opponents. That they have good intensions is sufficient to merit adulation, no matter what the outcomes.
Liberals can destroy the economy, but hey, no one could have done better. They can undermine the national security, but at least they were showing the appropriate humility. They can drive their country into bankruptcy, but this only confirms their compassion.
If one is a liberal, any nasty thing one might say about an opponent is passed over in silence. The cruelest invective is regarded as appropriate, given the sins of the target. Even vulgarity is excused because it emphasizes the understandable passion of the speaker.
If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”
Is this not privilege? Is it not a form of protection others do not obtain? Yet liberals consider it their due. They become huffy if their motives are questioned. Then they drive up truckloads of excuses they expect to be accepted without dissent. If this still doesn’t work, they attack their critics as playing politics (which, of course, they do not).
Nowadays, when publicly queried, liberals trot out focus group tested talking points. After this, they stonewall their questioner by changing the subject. But the full depth of their privilege is revealed when the pubic subsequently refuses to be outraged.
The Marietta Daily Journal - Liberal privilege and the lies of the left
14 June 2014
The Consequences Of Not Finishing What Was Started
By now, just about everyone in the world knows, or should know, that Iraq has been mostly overrun by islamic (lowercase for disrespect) radicals over the last several months. The islamic state of iraq and syria (again, disrespect) has gained control over vast swaths of territory. How did this happen?
Say what you want about the war in Iraq - we went in under false pretenses (we didn't), we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction (we did), Bush screwed up the war effort (he didn't - check the Rules of Engagement then versus now).
Whether or not you agreed with, or supported the war, the fact remains that we were there. We started something under President Bush, and while Bush definitely announced the end of major combat operations a tad.....prematurely, he certainly ran the war far better than King DingleBarry.
One conservative commentator recently said something to the effect that during the 2008 presidential campaign, all he remembers is Obama saying he would end the war in Iraq, but never once said anything about winning the war, and he was right. The Professional Prevaricator never said anything about winning. Well, he certainly accomplished that particular mission, as it were.
The problem with ending, but not winning a war, is that the ones who often pay the price for that failure are the ones who need help the most. The Iraqi "military" - although it hardly qualifies to bear that appellation, wasn't strong enough to turn back the tide they're now facing. Many units threw down their weapons, shed their uniforms, and ran away from the militants now taking control. They abandoned their own people to the mercies of those who have none.
Think about this for a minute or two - ISIS is so brutal and dangerous that even its "parent" organization of Al Qaeda - those terrorists responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans - has disavowed them. That should tell you all you need to know about the "mercies" of ISIS.
The United States has nothing more than a token force left in Iraq, and a great many of those are private contractors, and last I heard, those contractors' positions were completely surrounded by the new enemy. I pray for them. They're going to need God to get out of the mess that the Constant Campaigner helped create.
We have a president who's so disconnected from reality that he doesn't even realize it. He actually thinks - no, believes - not only that pulling our troops out of Iraq, but announcing the timetable was a GOOD thing. It truly doesn't take a military genius the caliber of Alexander the Great to see announcing a troop withdrawal of an area that hasn't been properly pacified would only lead to disaster.
While certainly not identical in nature, what's happening in Iraq right now is eerily similar to the end of the United States' involvement in Vietnam, but it's worse. Much, much worse. After overrunning Vietnam, the communists were content with killing their own people. They stayed in Vietnam. After ISIS finishes taking Iraq, does anyone seriously believe - other than King DingleBarry, I mean - that they'll be content with staying in Iraq. I fear that a victory by ISIS spells trouble for the United States, right here on our own soil. I, for one, will point the finger of blame squarely at Obama, mainly because he did not finish what was started. ~ Hunter
Say what you want about the war in Iraq - we went in under false pretenses (we didn't), we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction (we did), Bush screwed up the war effort (he didn't - check the Rules of Engagement then versus now).
Whether or not you agreed with, or supported the war, the fact remains that we were there. We started something under President Bush, and while Bush definitely announced the end of major combat operations a tad.....prematurely, he certainly ran the war far better than King DingleBarry.
One conservative commentator recently said something to the effect that during the 2008 presidential campaign, all he remembers is Obama saying he would end the war in Iraq, but never once said anything about winning the war, and he was right. The Professional Prevaricator never said anything about winning. Well, he certainly accomplished that particular mission, as it were.
The problem with ending, but not winning a war, is that the ones who often pay the price for that failure are the ones who need help the most. The Iraqi "military" - although it hardly qualifies to bear that appellation, wasn't strong enough to turn back the tide they're now facing. Many units threw down their weapons, shed their uniforms, and ran away from the militants now taking control. They abandoned their own people to the mercies of those who have none.
Think about this for a minute or two - ISIS is so brutal and dangerous that even its "parent" organization of Al Qaeda - those terrorists responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans - has disavowed them. That should tell you all you need to know about the "mercies" of ISIS.
The United States has nothing more than a token force left in Iraq, and a great many of those are private contractors, and last I heard, those contractors' positions were completely surrounded by the new enemy. I pray for them. They're going to need God to get out of the mess that the Constant Campaigner helped create.
We have a president who's so disconnected from reality that he doesn't even realize it. He actually thinks - no, believes - not only that pulling our troops out of Iraq, but announcing the timetable was a GOOD thing. It truly doesn't take a military genius the caliber of Alexander the Great to see announcing a troop withdrawal of an area that hasn't been properly pacified would only lead to disaster.
While certainly not identical in nature, what's happening in Iraq right now is eerily similar to the end of the United States' involvement in Vietnam, but it's worse. Much, much worse. After overrunning Vietnam, the communists were content with killing their own people. They stayed in Vietnam. After ISIS finishes taking Iraq, does anyone seriously believe - other than King DingleBarry, I mean - that they'll be content with staying in Iraq. I fear that a victory by ISIS spells trouble for the United States, right here on our own soil. I, for one, will point the finger of blame squarely at Obama, mainly because he did not finish what was started. ~ Hunter
What The World Seems To Ignore
23,148:
It's been 37 days since last I wrote one of these posts, and shock of
all shocks, there's been no let up from the followers of mohammed.
That's right – 256
attacks with
fatalities. That's
almost seven attacks per
day.
23,148: Seventy-one people, including a fourteen year old boy, killed in 6 known attacks committed over just three days since Tuesday, 10 JUN 2014. Almost twenty-four people per day mercilessly slaughtered by islamists.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure no Christians have killed anyone in the name of Christianity, so can someone please explain to me why Christianity and Christians are blamed for all the world's ills? I certainly don't understand how telling someone about Christianity is “forcing my religion on them,” but an islamist telling someone “convert or die” somehow isn't? Funny how that works.
Between 31 MAY 14 and 06 JUN 14, there were:
57 jihad attacks
13 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
821 dead bodies (that's just over 117 per day)
628 critically injured in these attacks
I've done these posts for a long time on Facebook before starting this blog, and I believe the killing of 117 people is a new record. A disgusting record, but a record nonetheless.
Let's look at the totals for just May 2014:
233 jihad attacks
26 countries
1883 dead bodies (averaging just over 52 people murdered in the name of allah [lowercase to denote disrespect] per day)
2137 critically injured
The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:
2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just over 44 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured
To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.
I have no patience for the people who say that the Inquisition was just as bad as islamic terrorism, especially given that anyone with half a brain, and five minutes can easily find this information online. The next time someone brings up the Inquisition, you now have the facts to refute their arguments.
I know some will say I'm “islamophobic.” That's fine; it's not true, mind you - but I can handle that. To those people, however, I submit this: A phobia is an “unreasoning fear” of something. With numbers like I've detailed above, you have to ask yourselves one question: Is it really “unreasoning fear” when their mantra is “Convert or Die”?
While islam and muslims may not be the only problem in this world – Russia's antagonism of Ukraine, China starting to flex its political muscles around the globe, the looming global economic crisis that will happen if the nations of the world don't get their profligate spending under control quickly – but they certainly are a significant one. The political correctness needs to stop. It's time to call a spade, a spade. Only when the world stands together and says, “Enough is enough!!!” will this cease to be a problem. ~ Hunter
23,148: Seventy-one people, including a fourteen year old boy, killed in 6 known attacks committed over just three days since Tuesday, 10 JUN 2014. Almost twenty-four people per day mercilessly slaughtered by islamists.
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure no Christians have killed anyone in the name of Christianity, so can someone please explain to me why Christianity and Christians are blamed for all the world's ills? I certainly don't understand how telling someone about Christianity is “forcing my religion on them,” but an islamist telling someone “convert or die” somehow isn't? Funny how that works.
Between 31 MAY 14 and 06 JUN 14, there were:
57 jihad attacks
13 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
821 dead bodies (that's just over 117 per day)
628 critically injured in these attacks
I've done these posts for a long time on Facebook before starting this blog, and I believe the killing of 117 people is a new record. A disgusting record, but a record nonetheless.
Let's look at the totals for just May 2014:
233 jihad attacks
26 countries
1883 dead bodies (averaging just over 52 people murdered in the name of allah [lowercase to denote disrespect] per day)
2137 critically injured
The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:
2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just over 44 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured
To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.
I have no patience for the people who say that the Inquisition was just as bad as islamic terrorism, especially given that anyone with half a brain, and five minutes can easily find this information online. The next time someone brings up the Inquisition, you now have the facts to refute their arguments.
I know some will say I'm “islamophobic.” That's fine; it's not true, mind you - but I can handle that. To those people, however, I submit this: A phobia is an “unreasoning fear” of something. With numbers like I've detailed above, you have to ask yourselves one question: Is it really “unreasoning fear” when their mantra is “Convert or Die”?
While islam and muslims may not be the only problem in this world – Russia's antagonism of Ukraine, China starting to flex its political muscles around the globe, the looming global economic crisis that will happen if the nations of the world don't get their profligate spending under control quickly – but they certainly are a significant one. The political correctness needs to stop. It's time to call a spade, a spade. Only when the world stands together and says, “Enough is enough!!!” will this cease to be a problem. ~ Hunter
11 June 2014
Delicious Irony, And Danny Glover Is A Tool
There's nothing like a little irony to lift one's spirits. Danny Glover (yes, that Danny Glover), will lead a rally this coming Saturday in San Francisco, and if you know anything about Mr. Glover's politics at all, you will not believe what the subject of this rally is.
The rally is being held by supporters of Assembly Bill 1839 in an attempt to pressure the California Legislature to offer larger tax breaks for the film and television industry. As it stands right now, California's program is smaller than Georgia's, Louisiana's and New York's rival tax break programs.
According to a flier sent out for the event, "Nearly 40 states and 30 other nations offered nearly $1.5 billion in tax incentives last year to lure jobs and wages out of California, and the percentage of films made in California has gone from 66% to 40% in just a few years." What makes that so ridiculously funny is no less than two members of the Assembly will be attending the rally. The bill has cleared the State Assembly 76-0, by the way.
Personally, I'm thinking that if California didn't tax anything and everything under the sun so exorbitantly, this might not be such an issue. Just throwing that out there.
Where does Danny Glover fit in, you ask? Mr. Glover is a well-known ultra-liberal, as in Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn ultra-liberal. This is the same man who has repeatedly spoken in support of the communist government of Venezuela, most recently in March of this year. Doesn't really sound like a "tax break" kind of guy, does he?
Think about that for a second - a man who actively supports one of the most repressive governments in the world now wants tax breaks from one of the most repressive, and regressive, state governments in the country. I guess tax breaks are only good when the ridiculously high taxes affect the "make-believe" industry. You and I, on the other hand, have to pay more, more, More, MORE.
I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone, though. Liberals are the quintessential "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites. The vast majority of liberals don't give as much to charities as conservatives, in either time or money, yet they're perfectly fine with the forced "charity" of government programs.
The irony of this is truly delicious, but the hypocrisy just turns my stomach. ~ Hunter
The rally is being held by supporters of Assembly Bill 1839 in an attempt to pressure the California Legislature to offer larger tax breaks for the film and television industry. As it stands right now, California's program is smaller than Georgia's, Louisiana's and New York's rival tax break programs.
According to a flier sent out for the event, "Nearly 40 states and 30 other nations offered nearly $1.5 billion in tax incentives last year to lure jobs and wages out of California, and the percentage of films made in California has gone from 66% to 40% in just a few years." What makes that so ridiculously funny is no less than two members of the Assembly will be attending the rally. The bill has cleared the State Assembly 76-0, by the way.
Personally, I'm thinking that if California didn't tax anything and everything under the sun so exorbitantly, this might not be such an issue. Just throwing that out there.
Where does Danny Glover fit in, you ask? Mr. Glover is a well-known ultra-liberal, as in Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn ultra-liberal. This is the same man who has repeatedly spoken in support of the communist government of Venezuela, most recently in March of this year. Doesn't really sound like a "tax break" kind of guy, does he?
Think about that for a second - a man who actively supports one of the most repressive governments in the world now wants tax breaks from one of the most repressive, and regressive, state governments in the country. I guess tax breaks are only good when the ridiculously high taxes affect the "make-believe" industry. You and I, on the other hand, have to pay more, more, More, MORE.
I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone, though. Liberals are the quintessential "Do as I say, not as I do" hypocrites. The vast majority of liberals don't give as much to charities as conservatives, in either time or money, yet they're perfectly fine with the forced "charity" of government programs.
The irony of this is truly delicious, but the hypocrisy just turns my stomach. ~ Hunter
07 June 2014
One Of The Most Disgusting Things I've Ever Heard About
For those who don't already know, my son was born a week before my twenty-third birthday. He was the greatest birthday present I have ever received, and not a day goes by that I don't thank God for His blessing. What makes the birth of my son even more special is that he was planned - planned because his egg-donor (the tamest of nicknames I use for his bio-mom) miscarried an earlier, unplanned pregnancy.
I was there when my namesake was born, and I was the proudest papa ever. I'm still the proudest father of one of the finest human beings I've ever had the fortune to know. I was the first to hold him, even before his egg-donor, and I almost didn't put him down for his first three days.
When my son was about six months old, his egg-donor decided she wanted to have another child. It was a feeble attempt to save a failing relationship, but we were just young, and stupid, enough to think that it might work. It didn't.
Four and a half months into the second pregnancy, the egg-donor, unbeknownst to me, decided she didn't want to be pregnant anymore. She told me she was going to visit her cousin one morning as I was leaving for work, but that's decidedly not where she wound up going.
To make a long story somewhat shorter, while I was at work, she decided to go murder my second child. She was proud of what she had done. She bragged about it, got right in my face about it. It took every single ounce of self-control I had to keep from killing her where she stood as she taunted me with the fact that she murdered my child.
And yes, that's exactly what abortion is. I don't sugarcoat things, and if you've ever read my blog before, you already know that I don't do "politically correct." Abortion IS murder. Even if I wasn't Catholic, I'd base my opposition to the murder of the most innocent amongst us on the scientific and medical fact that human life begins at conception.
I left her that night, luckily without killing her, and in doing so, I made the hardest decision I've ever had to make - I left my son there with her. It worked out later on, though, as she essentially dropped him off on my doorstep two weeks after his first birthday, and I obtained full custody shortly thereafter.
That background information is necessary for you to understand the biggest reason why I'm so passionate in my stand against abortion, and so you'll know why I'm absolutely disgusted by THIS. Yes, they made a movie, released in theaters, that's being called an "abortion comedy" - as if there's something funny about murdering a child.
The lead actress of the movie Obvious Child says it's "not an agenda movie." The writer-director called it "a reaction against movies like Juno and Knocked Up, where unplanned pregnancies result in positive birth stories." According to this window-licker, those movies were a "misrepresentation of women onscreen when it came to unplanned pregnancy" and "just didn't feel true." I'm sorry, but even with the appalling prevalence of abortion in today's society, there's still more births than abortions. So what, exactly, doesn't ring true about mothers giving birth to their babies?
The pro-murder crowd is something akin to drooling in their praise for this movie. The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards called it in a tweet "an incredibly funny, honest and smart movie about abortion," while the organization itself tweeted, "So excited!" Cecile Richards, by the way, is the woman who, when asked when she believed human life began, said, "I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation" about abortion.
But remember, it's not an agenda movie, even though the filmmakers apparently worked very closely with Planned Parenthood to depict the abortion scene accurately and "positively." Yes, they actually take the cameras into the room where the procedure is performed. Sounds like that will be a funny scene, doesn't it? Nothing to see here. Move along!
The movie is getting rave reviews by the leftist media, one reviewer even going so far as saying it's "not only the best abortion rom-com I've ever seen, but it's also the best movie I've seen so far this year." I won't detail any of the other reviews, as I'm already too disgusted by this entire thing.
We already have to deal with the fact that abortion is legal and accepted by far too many, but now it's being glorified by having a romantic comedy built around it. But remember, there's no agenda here.
We are losing this fight, and I can only pray that God forgives us when all is said and done. Lord knows, we're going to need that forgiveness. ~ Hunter
I was there when my namesake was born, and I was the proudest papa ever. I'm still the proudest father of one of the finest human beings I've ever had the fortune to know. I was the first to hold him, even before his egg-donor, and I almost didn't put him down for his first three days.
When my son was about six months old, his egg-donor decided she wanted to have another child. It was a feeble attempt to save a failing relationship, but we were just young, and stupid, enough to think that it might work. It didn't.
Four and a half months into the second pregnancy, the egg-donor, unbeknownst to me, decided she didn't want to be pregnant anymore. She told me she was going to visit her cousin one morning as I was leaving for work, but that's decidedly not where she wound up going.
To make a long story somewhat shorter, while I was at work, she decided to go murder my second child. She was proud of what she had done. She bragged about it, got right in my face about it. It took every single ounce of self-control I had to keep from killing her where she stood as she taunted me with the fact that she murdered my child.
And yes, that's exactly what abortion is. I don't sugarcoat things, and if you've ever read my blog before, you already know that I don't do "politically correct." Abortion IS murder. Even if I wasn't Catholic, I'd base my opposition to the murder of the most innocent amongst us on the scientific and medical fact that human life begins at conception.
I left her that night, luckily without killing her, and in doing so, I made the hardest decision I've ever had to make - I left my son there with her. It worked out later on, though, as she essentially dropped him off on my doorstep two weeks after his first birthday, and I obtained full custody shortly thereafter.
That background information is necessary for you to understand the biggest reason why I'm so passionate in my stand against abortion, and so you'll know why I'm absolutely disgusted by THIS. Yes, they made a movie, released in theaters, that's being called an "abortion comedy" - as if there's something funny about murdering a child.
The lead actress of the movie Obvious Child says it's "not an agenda movie." The writer-director called it "a reaction against movies like Juno and Knocked Up, where unplanned pregnancies result in positive birth stories." According to this window-licker, those movies were a "misrepresentation of women onscreen when it came to unplanned pregnancy" and "just didn't feel true." I'm sorry, but even with the appalling prevalence of abortion in today's society, there's still more births than abortions. So what, exactly, doesn't ring true about mothers giving birth to their babies?
The pro-murder crowd is something akin to drooling in their praise for this movie. The president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards called it in a tweet "an incredibly funny, honest and smart movie about abortion," while the organization itself tweeted, "So excited!" Cecile Richards, by the way, is the woman who, when asked when she believed human life began, said, "I don't know that it's really relevant to the conversation" about abortion.
But remember, it's not an agenda movie, even though the filmmakers apparently worked very closely with Planned Parenthood to depict the abortion scene accurately and "positively." Yes, they actually take the cameras into the room where the procedure is performed. Sounds like that will be a funny scene, doesn't it? Nothing to see here. Move along!
The movie is getting rave reviews by the leftist media, one reviewer even going so far as saying it's "not only the best abortion rom-com I've ever seen, but it's also the best movie I've seen so far this year." I won't detail any of the other reviews, as I'm already too disgusted by this entire thing.
We already have to deal with the fact that abortion is legal and accepted by far too many, but now it's being glorified by having a romantic comedy built around it. But remember, there's no agenda here.
We are losing this fight, and I can only pray that God forgives us when all is said and done. Lord knows, we're going to need that forgiveness. ~ Hunter
06 June 2014
The Unintended Consequences Of Getting What You Wanted
Well, well, well - what have we here? It seems that people are just a tad dissatisfied with a raise in their "minimum" wage.
For those who don't know, a small town of roughly 27,000 people, located in Washington state, raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour starting on the 1st of January this year. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Who wouldn't want to make that much per hour as they're just starting their working life, or a new job? Well, people should be careful what they wish for sometimes, as often they get far more than they bargained, and that's not always a good thing.
A number of people are now complaining about being the recipients of such a large raise. Why would anyone complain about making $15/hr., you ask? In a terrible (not really) turn of events, the beneficiaries of the raise are now, by virtue of making more money, being asked to pay for things that they used to get for free. They've also lost out on discounts due to their higher pay. Absolutely horrifying, isn't it?
Some workers are losing out on overtime, some have lost benefits like their 401K, one has even complained that she's now expected to pay for her own parking now. *GASP*
This is a classic case of unintended consequences, and it proves what conservatives posit when taxes on corporations are raised, or businesses are mandated to pay higher wages - the business then goes on to tighten its "belt" to keep the profit margin it needs to make providing whatever services and/or goods it sells actually worth providing.
It's a simple concept, really - if a business lays out more money via wages, taxes, or other increases, such as a price hike from a supplier, it necessarily passes those increases on to the consumer. In the case of Sea-Tac businesses, it seems a good portion of that ridiculous minimum wage increase is getting put on the backs of the workers who were supposed to benefit from it.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Be careful what you ask for; you might just get it, and maybe some things you didn't ask for as well. ~ Hunter
For those who don't know, a small town of roughly 27,000 people, located in Washington state, raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour starting on the 1st of January this year. Sounds great, doesn't it?
Who wouldn't want to make that much per hour as they're just starting their working life, or a new job? Well, people should be careful what they wish for sometimes, as often they get far more than they bargained, and that's not always a good thing.
A number of people are now complaining about being the recipients of such a large raise. Why would anyone complain about making $15/hr., you ask? In a terrible (not really) turn of events, the beneficiaries of the raise are now, by virtue of making more money, being asked to pay for things that they used to get for free. They've also lost out on discounts due to their higher pay. Absolutely horrifying, isn't it?
Some workers are losing out on overtime, some have lost benefits like their 401K, one has even complained that she's now expected to pay for her own parking now. *GASP*
This is a classic case of unintended consequences, and it proves what conservatives posit when taxes on corporations are raised, or businesses are mandated to pay higher wages - the business then goes on to tighten its "belt" to keep the profit margin it needs to make providing whatever services and/or goods it sells actually worth providing.
It's a simple concept, really - if a business lays out more money via wages, taxes, or other increases, such as a price hike from a supplier, it necessarily passes those increases on to the consumer. In the case of Sea-Tac businesses, it seems a good portion of that ridiculous minimum wage increase is getting put on the backs of the workers who were supposed to benefit from it.
Funny how that works, isn't it? Be careful what you ask for; you might just get it, and maybe some things you didn't ask for as well. ~ Hunter
04 June 2014
La Raza And The President: Birds Of A Feather
My friend, Buck Ofama, guest posts tonight, with his thoughts about the Taliban prisoner swap and the Marine being held in Mexico. I think Buck makes some excellent points. ~ Hunter
Here's a couple of thoughts about the plight of American Marine Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi being held in a Mexican prison for the last 2 months. First of all, he is an illegal alien who has violated their laws. Second, he wants to come home. He has no intentions of staying there. He has no intentions of becoming a drain on the Mexican public services. He is not going to work there taking a job away from a legitimate Mexican citizen and send his earnings back across the border to his family here in the U.S.; thus cheating Mexico out of tax revenue. He is not going to claim family members on his Mexican tax forms that allow him to siphon more money from the Mexican tax coffers (if they are dumb enough to allow such exemptions). He is not going to cause social unrest by joining groups that demand instant citizenship. The kid made a mistake. He crossed the border with a lot of his belongings; some of which included weapons that his grandfather gave him and some that he collected along the way in his young life.
My questions to Mexican activists here in the U.S. (and those that support them) are: Why are you silent? This kid is being beaten, hog tied, and chained to his bed. He is being tortured. His mother was forced to wait two days outside the prison before she could see him and when she did get to see him she was subjected to a strip search. Where is your outrage of how your country is treating an undocumented person who has crossed the border and broken the law? Hmm? Our prisons are full of your kind. You are treated humanely. How would you like it if we suddenly started treating illegal aliens the way your home country treats them? Huh? With merciless brutality. With no due process. With no dignity. With no human rights. Would you like that?
You hypocrites. You want to usurp our immigration laws, suffer no consequences, take advantage of our public services; and still complain that you have it bad because you aren't being made citizens fast enough, but nary a peep out of you when your country brutalizes a kid who clearly made a mistake and who doesn't even want to be in your craphole of a country! You'll never be valid Americans until you stand up for what is right and just. Instead, you're just another in the long line of the entitled; looking for a teat on the sacred cow of America.
And to our president: You made a big to-do about trading five high value Taliban detainees from Gitmo for one U.S. soldier who, by all accounts, deserted his post, left his weapon and body armor behind, and walked to the other side. He wasn't captured sir. At best, he surrendered. At worst, he collaborated with the enemy. So I wouldn't really categorize him as a P.O.W. And on top of that, 6 brave soldiers died trying to find him. And this is the person you choose to celebrate? This is such a high value "prisoner" that his return merits giving up, what many have said, is the brain trust of the Taliban? But you have yet to utter one peep about Sgt Tahmooressi's plight? Could it be that you don't want to ruffle any of those Mexican feathers because you have some important legislation and votes on the horizon? You know? You are pretty transparent sometimes. ~ Buck Ofama
My questions to Mexican activists here in the U.S. (and those that support them) are: Why are you silent? This kid is being beaten, hog tied, and chained to his bed. He is being tortured. His mother was forced to wait two days outside the prison before she could see him and when she did get to see him she was subjected to a strip search. Where is your outrage of how your country is treating an undocumented person who has crossed the border and broken the law? Hmm? Our prisons are full of your kind. You are treated humanely. How would you like it if we suddenly started treating illegal aliens the way your home country treats them? Huh? With merciless brutality. With no due process. With no dignity. With no human rights. Would you like that?
You hypocrites. You want to usurp our immigration laws, suffer no consequences, take advantage of our public services; and still complain that you have it bad because you aren't being made citizens fast enough, but nary a peep out of you when your country brutalizes a kid who clearly made a mistake and who doesn't even want to be in your craphole of a country! You'll never be valid Americans until you stand up for what is right and just. Instead, you're just another in the long line of the entitled; looking for a teat on the sacred cow of America.
And to our president: You made a big to-do about trading five high value Taliban detainees from Gitmo for one U.S. soldier who, by all accounts, deserted his post, left his weapon and body armor behind, and walked to the other side. He wasn't captured sir. At best, he surrendered. At worst, he collaborated with the enemy. So I wouldn't really categorize him as a P.O.W. And on top of that, 6 brave soldiers died trying to find him. And this is the person you choose to celebrate? This is such a high value "prisoner" that his return merits giving up, what many have said, is the brain trust of the Taliban? But you have yet to utter one peep about Sgt Tahmooressi's plight? Could it be that you don't want to ruffle any of those Mexican feathers because you have some important legislation and votes on the horizon? You know? You are pretty transparent sometimes. ~ Buck Ofama
Bowing Down For Bowe
While it's true that we don't know the full story behind the capture of Bowe Bergdahl, the fact that so many soldiers from his unit are speaking out against him is very telling.
The rumor is that he willingly deserted his post, leaving behind the one tool essential to any soldier - his weapon - the day after sending the last of his personal possessions home while he was only about halfway through his unit's deployment.
He allegedly actively sought out the Taliban and was "captured" by them. There is now talk that he may have actively assisted enemy units during engagements with our soldiers, resulting in God knows how many dead and wounded.
He and his family have made several anti-American statements, which may shed further light on the circumstances surrounding his "capture." To me, Bergdahl is a deserter and coward at best, and if it's proved that he provided aid to the enemy, he's a traitor of the highest magnitude.
On top of all that, King DingleBarry allowed the enemy to pick through the roster of detainees at Gitmo and decide who they wanted back. Talk about providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy!!!
If this doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, I don't know what does. It's time for Congress to get off its collective butt and DO something about it. We are losing our nation!!! ~ Hunter
The rumor is that he willingly deserted his post, leaving behind the one tool essential to any soldier - his weapon - the day after sending the last of his personal possessions home while he was only about halfway through his unit's deployment.
He allegedly actively sought out the Taliban and was "captured" by them. There is now talk that he may have actively assisted enemy units during engagements with our soldiers, resulting in God knows how many dead and wounded.
He and his family have made several anti-American statements, which may shed further light on the circumstances surrounding his "capture." To me, Bergdahl is a deserter and coward at best, and if it's proved that he provided aid to the enemy, he's a traitor of the highest magnitude.
On top of all that, King DingleBarry allowed the enemy to pick through the roster of detainees at Gitmo and decide who they wanted back. Talk about providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy!!!
If this doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense, I don't know what does. It's time for Congress to get off its collective butt and DO something about it. We are losing our nation!!! ~ Hunter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)