The Left Can't Find Nazis? They'll Provide Their OWN!

The bizarre sight of Biden going all Demagogue Hitler on a dark, red-light stage has to rank as one of the strangest events of the year. And, it's been a VERY strange year.

The Left is ready - nay, EAGER - to fight 'The Nazis/Fascists' among us. They don't let the fact that there are only a miniscule number of Americans who are even SLIGHTLY attracted to that philosophy stop them from smearing the entire group of American Dissidents.

So, they keep trying, harder and harder, to take out those Dissidents who they have chosen as Example Fascists, and throwing all the power of an overstuffed government on 'those people'.

To no avail.

What they don't realize is that the Dissidents are largely self-organized and use shared leadership structures that divide the power and responsibility among its members.

Ultimately, we - individually - are responsible for the continuance of the Constitutional Republic. We need to push back from within our communities, and stop the Power Overreach.

A State's Right Approach to Federally Imposed Problems

No, I'm not suggesting that state's declare their refusal to follow Federal interpretations of the law.

But, rather, to use the sovereignty of the individual states to begin coordinating regional responses to crises.

Such as this response, from FL, NE, and IA, to the TX border invasion. The thing is, the Federal government cannot stop states from voluntarily cooperating to their mutual benefit. And, since so many of the states' governors are strong executives with conservative leanings, this is an approach that may well tip the scales.

The Federal government can act against ONE state; they can send in the guard to crush dissent.

It's harder to do when multiple states act in their own interests, and refuse to cooperate with the Feds.

It will be even harder when the Feds can no longer call upon the National Guard to crush opposition to Federal-level, unconstitutional, and illegal demands. They made a BIG mistake when they chose to bring in the Guards in January, treat them abominably, and, now, fail to pay the state for the cost of using them as support for the DC police department.

The governors, and the states' citizens, are hopping mad about all of the above.

Saturday Randomness

I was reading Fred on Everything (he is interesting - an ex-cop with a jaundiced view of some of them, an expatriate living in Mexico, who contradicts many of the stereotypes about Mexicans, etc.), and he posted on a hot topic - police presence in Black neighborhoods.  His take is - refreshing.

Another column of his that is worth reading is his analysis of how America is already in the dumps - BEFORE Trump.  We've already been taken over by special interests, and no longer live in a democracy (or republic).

If, like me, you want to return to a time of more freedom, pre-Federal-government-runs-everything, we might want to start planning how to take the Feds down - NOT with warfare, but with resistance, tactical refusal to give them our money, and state-by-state resistance.  I'm NOT talking revolution - that's a dead idea.  Instead, let's work incrementally, to chip away at Leftist strongholds.

Some starting points:

• Stop sending them money.  Find work that can be done under-the-table.  No taxes, no Social Security.  That last part would be difficult, but COULD be made up by the local authorities, who could collect at that level what is needed by people with no other resources.  The fact is, most people have other resources (and, when they don't have to pay Federal taxes, they have more).  Stick your extra money under the mattress - you don't want to leave it in banks, where it is vulnerable to being confiscated.


• Refuse to give ONE penny to any college for worthless degrees.  Tell your kids - "I'll pay for you to get a trade".  That's likely to be the best thing you'll ever do for that kid - it's a way of earning a living that is less likely to be outsourced.


• Maine is one of the states that reduced its welfare rolls by insisting on able-bodied people actually looking for work, enrolling in job programs, or working at part-time unpaid activities.  Surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say - almost all said, "Not worth it", and dropped off the rolls.  Other states could do this.


• Return the Federal lands to the people.  In several states, this could be a new Settlement Rush.  If there are FEMA-type trailers stored in the state, let them be re-purposed (NO complaints about their condition - the receivers fix them up themselves, and Caveat Emptor).


• Take back the schools - clear out much of the administration, turn them over to local organizations, who are responsible for finding the funding.  Except in the poorest sections of town, schools should be fully funded by the LOCAL neighborhood.  Yes, I'm talking breaking up the big city schools.  With the administration gone, costs should drop, while STILL allowing the teachers to get paid reasonably.  Replace the assistant principals with recently retired military - the AP's are mostly used for muscle to control the students, so let's get in people who know how to keep people in line.  Actually TEACH reading - anyone who cannot read at grade level should spend 1/2 their day in disciplined phonics-based reading programs - reading content-rich practical text, or NON-dystopian literature.  Anyone who cannot do math at grade level should be spending the class time on old-fashioned programs, like Saxon Math.  What little time remains should be spend on civics education that actually teaches about the Constitution and other foundational documents and principles, and practical science.

This is a link to a VERY pessimistic column.  I'm not so sure they are right - while the young seem to embrace the Socialist Revolution, at this point, it's theoretical, and their "enlightened" attitudes don't cost them.  Once the impact of the price exacted comes home, I doubt they will continue their "yeah, let's spread money around" thinking.

One MAJOR reason that the country has changed is that there are a whole lot of women who are supported by government, whether directly, with welfare or government employment, or indirectly, in nonprofits and niches like Human Resources, which are required to be so bloated because of governmental regulations.  Take away the regs, and many women in these staff positions will find themselves on the street.  At that point, they MAY come to their senses.  Either way, citizens will no longer be funding their hectoring.

I'm thinking divide & conquer:

• Use legal means to reduce government.  Fewer regulations, liberation of federal lands (with encouragement to settle on them, we might reduce the numbers in the cities), reduction of administrative bloat in government.


• Write GOOD curriculum for all ages, to explain what good government looks like, and what limitations on the federal government already exist.  Offer it, free, to schools, along with e-books telling stories that reinforce those ideas.

Lastly, here is a link to someone who, like me, supported Cruz.  Now, she has to decide which candidate will do the LEAST damage to the USA.

I've been getting rosy economic stories from Liberal/Progressive friends.  Apparently, thinking that Obama's disastrous economic policies have created a hollowed-out economy is blatant racism.

Mea culpa.

Of course, there is this, and this.  BTW, that last stat?  Straight from the Labor Dept.



 

Apparently, no matter how you massage numbers, the damned things just keep adding up to the same conclusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOST Again

UPDATE:  Almost forgot to credit Bastion of Liberty, who first alerted me to this.

The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST, for short) never did get ratified, despite SERIOUS efforts by the various Progressive/Liberal/Leftist/Socialist/Etc. groups.  What is LOST?  (Admittedly, the source at the link REALLY doesn't like the treaty, but it is a fair summary of it, and its potential consequences).

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations.  It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment.  Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982.  As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Well, the LOST-pushers - um, LOST.  But, like any good vampire, the backers don't give up - they rise from their coffins, and again attack!

This time, they're using the high-minded Protection of the Environment angle.  (Link is to the UN resolution).

an international legally binding instrument under theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea1 on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The parts about resource-sharing (i.e., those that DIDN'T spend a dime obtaining those resources still have a claim to the $$$$$), technology-sharing (oh, how WELL other countries share with us; unfortunately, much of our "sharing" is involuntary).

But, will it pass?

Not to worry, as the British used to say!  The Obama administration won't let pesky things like Separation of Powers stop them from implementing their Very Good Ideas (VGIs).  For example:

The Administration has already anted up domestically on some of the big-ticket possibilities under discussion, with, among other things, its huge expansion by executive order in September 2014 of the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument in the central Pacific Ocean into a half-million-square-mile oceans preserve.

U.S. environmental groups are lobbying now for additional marine monument areas off the coast of New England, site of some of the U.S.’s most important Atlantic fisheries.

Such preserves—known as marine protected areas or MPAs, in Law of the Sea jargon—are a major focus of attention for the U.S.-based Pew Charitable Trusts, which has been lobbying governments around the world for years to create them.

In other words - you silly states and commonwealths, you think you control the areas given to you?  Na-nah.  Big Daddy Fed is in charge of it ALL.

A New Term for an Old Concept

Anarcho-Tyranny

I was introduced to this idea by Francis Porretto of Bastion of Liberty (and Outlaw Bloggers).

It perfectly explains why the government is so obsessed with micro-managing the Libertarian impulses of the American people, but refuses to deal with ACTUAL crimes.

In short,

Sam Francis's most enduring, as well as trenchant, political insight may have been his perception of what he caustically described as "the unique achievement of the political genius of the modern era." Francis dubbed this "anarcho-tyranny"-"a kind of Hegelian synthesis of two opposites," he explained, in which the failure of the state to enforce protective law is coupled with the enforcement of oppressive law by the state to tyrannical ends. Under anarcho-tyranny, the underclass-rampaging blacks, illegal aliens invading from south of the border-is by and large tolerated or ignored in its behavior, while the law-abiding middle classes and that part of the upper class that is not directly incorporated into the ruling elite is criminalized through unfair taxation, social engineering, anti-gun legislation, "hate crime" statutes, and other forms of legislative and judicial harassment. Anarcho-tyranny is the strategy by which a dictatorially-minded ruling class exploits the lower orders for the purpose of grinding the middling majority between upper and nether millstones.

Bold text defined by me.

This is one concept that Conservatives and Libertarians need to become familiar with.  We also need to develop strategies to deal with it.

What You Sow You Reap

I, like most Conservatives, already knew most of this.  But to see all of these Constitutional abuses laid out at once was  a bit of a shock.

 

The Gathering Storm

In the aftermath of the recent shooting - both in America, and in the rest of the world (the media focused on Paris, but just about totally ignored the kidnapping of a Malaysian engineer, who has been reportedly beheaded) - the American people are nervous.

For a very good reason.

Unlike truly random attacks, the Islamic terrorists aim at maximizing Christian deaths.  It is for this reason that the "holiday" party was targeted - the killers could be reasonably sure that those of the Christian faith would be present.  Other groups that have faced terror from Islamicists are the Kurds, the Druze, and, of course, every whacko group's fave, the Jews.

The Progressives have been wrinkling their foreheads at the perplexing actions of ordinary Americans, who - despite the number of shootings by random crazies and "Peaceful Muslims" (trademark pending) - are reacting by choosing to increase the number of guns owned by citizens.  It's "truly a puzzlement" (to quote the King of Siam from the musical) why any sane person would react to the increasing violence with purchases to defend themselves and those they love.

/sarc

I personally know 1/2 dozen or more Democrats who've either bought guns, or are contemplating a purchase.

Hmmmmm.

Whatever COULD be causing people to feel unsafe?

Why, it's as though these nervous people don't fully trust their government to protect them.

They must be paranoid.

[UPDATE]  I know it reads like an Onion article, but apparently the appropriate response to the CA shooting should be attendance at a radical mosque:

A handful of House Democrats are expected to meet Friday afternoon at a Northern Virginia mosque that has reported ties to terrorists.

The Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church is where Anwar al-Awlaki, an accused recruiter for al Qaeda who was killed in 2011 by a U.S. drone strike, was an imam at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. It was also widely reported that some of 9/11 hijackers attended the mosque, and that Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan worshipped there

Have we morphed into Bizarro World?

If You're a Church Member, Better Prepare

...to have to put more money into the plate - because the GayNazis will be gunning (dare I write that?) for your tax exemption.

I'm betting that the IRS will go after the Catholics and the Mormons first.  A lot of churches will sit on the sidelines, thinking that they're not going to have the same happen to them.

We know how well that work in the past when the Fascists attacked - yes, they hit the low-hanging fruit first, but, don't worry, they'll get around to you, too.

Our lawmakers could be of immediate help by passing legislation for ALL churches and other religious institutions - if the IRS goes after one of them, the decision applies to ALL of them!  No exceptions - either ALL churches lose tax-exempt status, or NONE of them do.

That, coupled with the logical step of forcing Obamacare on ALL lawmakers, judges, and bureaucrats, might halt their power grab - at least temporarily.

Frankly, until this week, I believed that the USA was indestructible.  No longer - we are hanging on the ropes, and only habit and inertia are keeping us from complete tyranny.

Originally Posted on Facebook, but...

...then, I realized that I hadn't said all that I had in me, so, here's my thinking:

• 
  
  
  
  • WHY should we all be yelling? Loud and clear - also, sending message, telephone call, and, yes, PAPER mail (The more work it is for us, the more likely our representatives/Senators are to take notice of our displeasure) to Congress/Senate.From Facebook.
  
  
  • Because
  
  
  • "The cynical and dystopian view?
  
  
  • One of the unavoidable dominoes will be broad censorship. Once the deprioritization of broadcast packets leads to the epic traffic jam that will reduce the Web’s US speeds to worse than those found in Europe, the government of the day will, once again, have to “save us” from this “unforseen” outcome and their clever plan will include limiting who can “legitimately” have bandwidth preferences, since clearly “legitimate” news outlets need to bypass the buffering jams that will afflict TV signaling and once dot-gov starts adjudicating who’s a “real” news or other “essential” service, licensing will naturally follow, and then “standards” of what is “acceptable” traffic.
  
  
  • At which point, whichever political party is in power at that time will have the distinct advantage of licensing whomever they deem to be more politically correct in their eyes. “Neutrality” on the ‘Net? Yeah, not so much."
  
  
  • Please SHARE as widely as possible.
  
  
  • http://noisyroom.net/…/net-neutrality-young-fool-only-now-…/
  
  
  
  


• As usual, Breitbart is at the front of this,

The scariest part?

Obama has nationalized the banks, student loans, housing, healthcare and now the Internet. Americans walk around fancying that they live in a Republic that is no more. Marxism rules the red, white and blue now.

It's time for me to order this:

Were the French Writers "Needlessly" Inflammatory?

No.

Their fanning-the-fire writings were necessary.

From the National Ross Douthat:

But if publishing something might get you slaughtered and you publish it anyway, by definition you are striking a blow for freedom, and that’s precisely the context when you need your fellow citizens to set aside their squeamishness and rise to your defense.

Whereas far too often in the West today the situation is basically reversed: People will invoke free speech to justify just about any kind of offense or provocation or simple exploitation (“if we don’t go full-frontal seven times on ‘Game of Thrones’ tonight, man, the First Amendment dies”), and then scurry for cover as soon as there’s a whiff of actual danger, a hint that “bold” envelope-pushing might require actual bravery after all.

The idea that we need to tone down our speech/writing/atristic expression due to THREATS is the most profoundly ILliberal idea I've ever heard.  Should our people generally accept and tolerate other religions?  Yes.  But NOT because they threaten to kill us if we do not.  That threat, alone, would make them a fair target for ridicule, criticism, and contempt.

What is an American?

I've been thinking about this, lately, what with the Imperial Decree from El Jefe that we WOULD admit all those He deemed worthy - not those icky non-Hispanic immigrants, who fail to show proper homage by voting solidly Democratic.  No, the Right Kind of immigrants, who deliver the Dem vote, year after year, and - this is a plus - also show up at rallies demanding their Right to take over this country, and join any union that will have them, cheerfully paying exorbitant fees for - nothing.

Like we're gonna let that happen.  The world already has enough failed dictatorships.

I've been thinking about what it means to be an American:

• You might, like me, have a family history that traces to BEFORE this was a United States - even before the American Revolution.


• Or, you might be the 1st generation to hit our shores.


• You might, like me, be of largely Euro background.


• Or, you might be from any other ethnic branch, or several.


• You might be Christian - if viewed by that sole criteria, we are perhaps the largest religious group.


• You might be Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, Buddhist, or another group - or none at all (both non-believers, who don't care what you believe, and atheists - who feel COMPELLED to tell the other groups that they are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG - do you hear them?  WRONG!).


• You might be rich - we do have a lot of them in the USA.


• You might be poor - again, we have a lot of people who consider themselves poor (although, it must be said, by the world's standards, even our poor people are quite rich).


• Probably, like most Americans, you would be considered middle-class.

Really, there are relatively few requirements for being an American:

• You might get it easily - through birth (talk about hitting the lottery!)


• You might have taken the slow road - getting permission to enter (Visa), applying for residency, learning our main language (English), about the rules and customs of our nation, and about the Constitution and our history.  I've seen videos of naturalization ceremonies, and they always bring tears to the surface.


• Or, you might have crossed the border without permission (or, overstayed a legal Visa), and taken advantage of various amnesty programs.

Once part of the family, however, you are IN all the way.  No "American, but not really" status in our country.

Not all Americans appreciate this country.  Many want to change it - some in a radical way.  A very few despise the United States of America.  Even so, they remain Americans.

Many radicals would like to pretend that when Conservatives say "I want my country back!" they mean they'd like to take possessions, rights, and power away from non-White people.

No.

What they mean is:  I want the Constitution's limitations on power to be respected.  I want laws and rules to apply to ALL consistently.  I want incentives for NOT working to be reduced (and, eventually, eliminated). I want those who earn money to KEEP their money.  I want opportunities in America to be for ALL, not just those who suck up to the people in power.

Are We Entering the HOPEFUL Season, or HopeLESS?

The end of the year, for Americans in the 21st century, should be a hopeful, joyous time.  We travel great distances to give Thanks with our families, optimistically slap down the charge cards a few weeks later, to buy for family and friends special treats.

During this time, we sing out happily to all, friends and strangers alike, with "Merry Christmas", "Happy Thanksgiving", and other holiday greetings.  If asked by a stranger, we are quite likely to open our wallets and our hearts, and hand over cash.  Many Americans spend hours of their own time to give to strangers - gifts, food, clothes, and shelter.

I'm betting the Obama administration is counting on that.  At this time of year, more than any other, we let our guard down.  Expect more outrageous abuses of executive powers in the next month.

The question is, what will YOU do about it?  So far, complaints to our Representatives and Senators haven't had much effect.

This is a BAD Idea!

Honestly, you'd think that one of the requirements for people working in government today is a COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the Constitution!

There seems to be no other way to explain this boneheaded decision:

FCC to "monitor" news broadcasts for bias

Even more EXCITING, the firm that the FCC is looking at to conduct the study of the media, specializes in "social welfare".

Here's a link to the actual proposal.  I'm not that concerned about them looking at what they call "Critical Information Needs" - that's examining the actual content, and comparing it to how well it matches what the public has a need to know (assuming, perhaps unrealistically, that our Leftist government minions can fairly judge that) - but, that the major focus of the study seems to be on "perceived" needs.

Whose perception is going to take precedence?  Leftists?  Minorities (including transgender, transexual, bi-, undecided, Arab-heritage - the RIGHT kind, the Muslims, not those "icky" Christian Arabs, those with quasi-psychiatric diagnoses that are PROUDLY used to excuse horrible behavior, et al)?

I'm confident that this will be used as a club to eliminate non-Leftist media.

BTW, isn't it funny that the ones that seem to be getting most enervated about this are NOT the Old Media, but the New Media?  Who says the MSM haven't outlived their purpose?

What Do You REALLY Know About History?

A recent review of books about Ulysses S Grant made me wonder.

Too often, history is written by supporters of the leading party.  In present day, history taught in schools is SOLIDLY controlled by Liberal/Leftist teachers, and written to reflect that slant.

Therefore, what children learn is:

• Washington, Jefferson, and almost all of the other WHITE Founding Fathers were racist, sexist, and, generally, Bad Guys.  The ONLY reason for the "3/5ths" clause in the Constitution is that they ALL Hated Black People.


• After those early days, the only presidents worth mentioning are Andrew Jackson (man of the people), Abraham Lincoln (we won't mention his party affiliation, but we LOVE him because he abused the Constitution to keep the Union together), Teddy Roosevelt (another unmentionable party, but not REALLY - he was a Progressive!  Which is a Wonderful Thing!), and Wilson (REALLY smart - an honest-to-God PhD - and we LOVE his League of Nations idea, which only failed because of those BAD Republicans, who like to see helpless creatures die grisly deaths, among other failings.  They love him MOST because he was a Progressive).


• Then, after a period of prosperity (for some STRANGE, unknown reason, it coincided with a series of Republican administrations ), we have The SAINTED FDR (who, just like Wilson, trashed the Constitution), followed by Cold Warriors (including Truman, who, although a Democrat, had the unfortunate habit of not always kowtowing to Communists), followed by Another SECULAR Saint, JFK (he had to be a Secular Saint, because he sure wasn't all that Catholic, according to his family), LBJ (Bad-Good - Bad on Vietnam, Good on the Great Society), The VERY BAD - in fact, E-V-I-L Nixon (Yeah, the Progressives went all Impeachment on yo' a$$!), Ford (Eh.), Carter (there are no words to describe how bad a president he was, except to say that he and Obama are neck-and-neck for the ABSOLUTELY WORST!), Reagan (Boo!  Hiss!  Yet, amazingly, the economy improved and the debt lessened under his administration - and, foreign relations were terrific).


• Then, Bush I (Eh.), Billy Boy Clinton (who managed to eclipse JFK for sleazy, tawdry actions - in his case, both in and out of the bedroom), and Bush II (neither as bad nor as good as his enemies and friends say).


• And, then, there's Obama.  Who:
  
  
  
  • Took office under the cloud of probable primary and election fraud.
  
  
  • Proceeded to mis-manage the economy so badly that we're still mired in unemployment, low GDP, and national debt.
  
  
  • Blithely ignored the Constitution (What, exactly, was he supposed to be an expert on?)
  
  
  • Handled corruption and other impeachable offenses by grandly declaring that he, and all his people, were completely innocent, even before the investigation began.  Then, proceeded to block those investigations.  Then, again declared that there was nothing to the charges.
  
  
  • Has a backside that is covered in layers of lipstick from the Mainstream Media.  Still enjoys telling them to shut up, and take his word for everything.  They still grovel at his feet.
  
  
  • Has stirred up more racially-based hatred than ANY president, including Woodrow Wilson, who segregated the Federal government.  His take on current events:  If you're Black, you could be my son.  If you're White, why are you even talking - you know you're a Hater!
  
  
  
  

One bright spot is the recent fictional books by Rush Limbaugh, which are intended for young people to learn more about the United States' history, not as they are often taught in school.

I'm convinced that it will be the efforts of SEVERAL generations to remove the Leftist detritus from our culture.

Welcome to the Re-Boot!

I'm off work, due to snow (it's a laughable amount to a Yankee transplant, but it causes serious problems for a part of the country that doesn't have the materials, equipment, or expertise to deal with it).

 

I've decided to get back in the saddle, and add my voice to those that are passionate about changing our country BACK to:

• Less government - not just BETTER government, but LESS


• Better schools - I'm strongly of the belief that Conservatives need to start writing alternative curriculum, with the state standards in mind (although they need to get embedded in the State Boards of Education, to be able to influence the standards, as well).


• TRUE civility in public life - which ALSO includes the freedom to get into the dirt, if attacked by a pig.  No holding to a higher standard Conservatives, while allowing Leftists to go for the gonads.


• Creation/Expansion of HONEST media.  There needs to be Conservative channels on TV/Cable, as well as Conservative Packages.  Families shouldn't be forced to allow Leftist propaganda into their homes, nor near-porn.  Blocking shouldn't be necessary.


• Fewer, and Lower, taxes.  Less regulation by bureaucrats.  An end to the Imperial Presidency, including trimming the budget.  That would also include a provision that ANY and ALL trips not taken for official business be billed to the President at Air Force 1 rates/military jet rates.  Those official visits may NOT be combined with private business. Exceptions ONLY for immediate family emergencies/funerals.


• For Heaven's sake, it would be cheaper, and possibly safer, to buy all of a small commercial aircraft's seating, and bump passengers!  The movie Air Force 1 was only a movie (although, quite entertaining).


• Change the tax structure.  Change to a flat tax rate, and eliminate the hidden/add-on taxes.  EVERYBODY pays - even those on welfare or unemployment, or on Social Security.  If they ALL suffer when a new tax is brought in, they'll stop voting for them.  Same with Social Security - EVERYBODY pays in, and NO MORE government pensions.  You want to build your retirement, do it at YOUR expense.


• Health Care - EVERYBODY pays a co-pay, even the Medicaid patients.  It doesn't have to be that much ($1-$10), but everybody has to have some skin in the game.  If you are from another country, your country WILL be billed, if you are indigent.  If they refuse to pay, bye-bye.  We don't need more free-loaders - we have enough of them, home-grown.

I'm also going to continue beefing up the part of the site dedicated to Conservative Self-Education, and include links to books (both free, and those that can be gotten on Amazon and elsewhere).

A Picture That Sums Up America

I found this on Ace of Spades.  LOVED the sentiment!

The Big Problem With the Amnesty Bill

I'm not excited about the new amnesty bill heading to the House, for reasons of:

• Flooding the job market with relatively unskilled, uneducated competition for unemployed Americans


• The new "immigrants" - really, those who were so self-centered as to break the law to enable themselves to bypass normal immigration laws - will be permitted to avail themselves of all kinds of services, as long as they have a kid. No, the illegal will TECHNICALLY not be eligible for welfare and other benefits. However, the kid will - and guess who will be collecting that money on behalf of the young citizen?


• It continues to encourage uncontrolled entry into the USA.


• Border control is NOT mandatory. It is "nice IF the administration feels like doing it, but failure to impose will not affect the status of the newly Democratic voter".


• NO requirement that the newly amnestied learn English, acquaint themselves with our customs, laws, culture, or norms, or pay back for any benefits they have already received. God forbid that they have to follow the same rules as the taxpayers. Crimes are ignored, including use of ID, drunken driving, and gang activity.

But, other than that, there are major problems, as shown in today's National Review post. What John Fonte calls "patriotic integration" is ignored.

Alexander’s “patriotic integration” proposals were incorporated into both the 2006 and 2007 immigration bills. They called for the “patriotic integration of prospective citizens into the American way of life by providing civics, history, and English . . . with a special emphasis on attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, the heroes of American history (including military heroes) and the meaning of the Oath of Allegiance.”

Isn't that all retro nonsense?

No. How can we expect these new citizens to begin thinking of themselves as Americans, unless we purposefully teach them what that means? Without some effort to bring them into our culture, they will remain separate.

That way lays tribalism, a concept that keeps permanent divisions between the sub-groups. In other countries, they have tribal groups that NEVER integrate - in Japan (even after generations living in the country, Koreans are NOT accepted), the Mideast (Shia and Sunni, but also Kurds, Christians, and Jews), and even France (the Basques, historically, but more recently, Algerians and other Muslims).

This has generally not been the case in America. Only a few small groups are separate - the Amish and other groups that marry along religious lines. After 1 or 2 generations, most immigrants start "mixing it up", producing the typical American mix.

Most of us have some idea of our family heritage. Over time, it gets more muddled, and only a few distinct customs differentiate us from our neighbors.

Regardless of the degree of intermarriage in a given family, it was always expected that the individuals would be taught basic American law, custom, and political structure. They would know the basic history of our country, and the individuals that were responsible for it.

Isn't that history exclusionist?

No. Everyone can be a part of it - most minority groups contributed in their own way. But, I'm against making things up. An example of that is the new push to teach children that Muslims were involved in America from the first.

Well, yes, they were involved in early history - but I want to maintain my right to point out that, at that time, that included such things as the earliest use of Marines in a foreign war - against the Barbary Pirates. Other than that, nope, not until around the 20th century.

Does their lack of inclusion in early American History indicate that they aren't a part of America today?

No, any more than pointing out that no Asians signed the Declaration of Independence or Constitution. They just didn't have sufficient numbers here, at that time.

That's OK. LOTS of Americans are latecomers to the American Experience. Doesn't make them less of an American. Being here early doesn't make anyone more American.

What makes you an American is that you buy into those concepts of freedom, self-government, pursuit of happiness, and all that stuff. You can walk off the plane, learn about them, and say, "Yeah, I agree" - and become an American in your heart (and, eventually, in reality, once you fulfill all of those requirements of residency, learning about our culture and laws, and paperwork).

Try that in most of the world - can't be done. There, it's all about the bloodlines.

Here, we accept you, no matter what your color, religion, or accent.

Does that mean that EVERYONE will love you? No. A few will never accept you, or your kids.

But, for almost all of us, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, or any other immigrant, and their descendants are Americans.

If You Still Wonder What Is Going On...

...Read here.

And here.

I'm beginning to feel like John Adams in 1776 - does anyone see what I see?  Does anyone hear what I hear?

Obama is not uniquely anti-American.  By anti-American, I mean that he is RULING (not serving as an executive) like a 3rd World Dictator.  He makes his Pronouncements (Executive Orders), and the Peasants and Middle-Class of HIS country must fall in line with his RULE.

There's a reason we have elected Representatives and Senators - their role is Legislative, and it serves as a check on despotism.

No more.  We have rule by fiat.

There have been Presidents who tried to run everything THEIR way before - Lincoln, during the Civil War, basically was a one-man ruler.  Wilson, in whose term we had the Palmer Raids, ignored such niceties as Constitutional Rights.  By comparison, Nixon was a pussycat - and he, unlike his predecessors, got slapped down by Congress.

Obama's agenda is screamingly Leftist, with a CAPITAL L.

He feels NO push to compromise or work with others.  He uses the media, cynically, to push HIS legislation, HIS plans, HIS way.

Yet, he complains about the Republicans and Conservatives.  They are, according to him, too extreme.

He is willing to hold up a budget, or any attempt to reign in spending, by threatening old folks and children.

MY Red Line

I found this post on Ace of Spades.  It brings up the idea of a Red Line - the absolutely non-negotiable issues that will lead you to reject a party nominee.

Such as the Amnesty Bill - it WILL eliminate any possibility of keeping a border.  Our borders will turn into a turnstile, manned with guards who produce a "Yes, Master" cringing response when ANYONE - for ANY reason - decides that they chose to walk across the border.

Do I want immigration?  Not particularly.  I'm not against someone coming to this country and ASKING for a chance to become a citizen.  I just see no reason why the American citizens who are unemployed have to watch aliens given preferential treatment to take any available jobs.

But-but-but, you see, there are all these RULES in the bill that keep that from happening....

Crap.  EVERY one of those "rules" can be waived by order of the executive branch - and they already are, in that deportation orders are negated, agents are ordered to let criminals go - ACTUAL criminals, who have committed felonies.

It's a bad bill.  Also, the way the "reconciliation process" is structured, once a bill passes both houses, ANY and ALL changes that a small committee agrees to, even if they have been rejected by one of the chambers, gets into the bill.

UPDATE:  It looks as though the Liars have come up with a "compromise" that includes SOME of the restrictions that the opponents have looked for.

Have you learnt NOTHING, Charlie Browns?  Lucy will pull that football from under you, AGAIN.

I find it hard to believe that the Stupid is so deeply ingrained in some people.

Frankly, the ONLY thing that makes sense is widespread blackmail.  Given the Thug-in-Chief's history, it's a reasonable assumption.

Powered by Qumana

Life After the Election

It's over 1 week into the last term of Obama (if you don't believe that it's possible that he may try a power grab near the end of his term). Many people looked at their paychecks, and said "What!" It's difficult to believe that they, somehow, thought that the tax increases would just pass them by. I have to bite my tongue to keep from saying "I TOLD you so" in a smarmy voice.

It's just the beginning - we'll be facing WAY more in Ooops, Surprise! from the administration. To give the public everything they asked for without raising taxes is simply not possible.

The part of this all that I am beginning to truly fear is this summer. I live in a city, as does most of my family. If sequestration does take effect, expect the "poor" (I put it in quotes to distinguish them from the truly impoverished - most of the former are making more, if you count their access to EBT, heat subsidies, rent subsidies, and all the rest, than the people to work to provide them with the benefits) to express their displeasure in LOUD, DESTRUCTIVE, and FRIGHTENING WAYS.