Pedophiles - The Latest Democrat Cause?

There has been a lot of controversy about the recent amendment to the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, proposed by Republicans, that would have specifically stated that pedophiles are not protected under that law.  Republicans contend that pedophilia is not a sexual orientation and therefore pedophiles cannot be victims of discrimination based solely on their sexual preference.   House Democrats defeated the bill.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) apparently disagrees with the Republicans.  He stated that all "alternative sexual lifestyles" should be protected under the law. Really, Congressman?  Do you have a young child?

Hastings stated “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

California Congresswoman, Rep. Jackie Speier CA (D), wants to federalize a California state law to prohibit counseling to change a person’s sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound that extreme, but pedophilia is a sexual orientation according to that bill as well.

“This language is so broad and vague, it arguably could include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia,” said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It’s not just the orientation that is protected—the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well.”

So if pedophilia is classified as a sexual orientation, discrimination laws also apply to pedophiles. That means you cannot block a pedophile from being a preschool teacher or running a day care service or any other occupation that would be high risk to children.

One can’t help but wonder why, if sexual assaults against children are illegal, anyone would consider special protections for the people who commit the crimes.  Voting down the bill did not legalize pedophilia but, as Mr. Dacus stated, it could open the door to make prosecuting pedophiles more difficult.

And what happens if a rapist decides that he wants non-consensual sex to be a “sexual orientation” or an “alternative lifestyle.”  Will they be protected as well because they are simply acting on their sexual orientation?  And where does it end?

There are two reasons that pedophilia cannot and must not be considered a “sexual orientation.”  First is the fact that when sexual orientation is a consideration it is generally deemed to be sexual practices between consenting adults.  Non-consensual sexual contact (sexual assault) is a crime regardless of whether it is gay or straight.  Consent is the key word.  Children, because of their emotional immaturity and because of the law, cannot legally give their consent for sexual contact.

The second reason is because sexual assault against a child is still illegal – whether or not pedophilia is someday classified as a form of sexual orientation.  If it makes Democrats feel better to pass a law that says pedophiles cannot be attacked physically because of their deviant sexual desires then hey – pass that law. After all - it's not illegal to have sexual desire for children if you never act on that desire.  But if they pass a law that gives pedophiles all the same protections as heteros, gays and transgenders, thus allowing them easier access to children through their employment, living arrangements, etc., and they do act on those desires, then the lawmakers themselves have that blood on their hands.   

I’m thinking if Alcee Hastings or Jackie Speier had a young child who was the object of desire for the pedophile living next door they might feel differently about classifying pedophilia as a protected sexual orientation.  Pedophiles should live in fear.  Every day.  But then – who really knows what goes on in the minds of most liberals?

While I do agree that Americans can't run around assaulting pedophiles on a regular basis just because of the crimes they commit, I can tell you with certainty that if they are granted protection under the Hate Crimes Act you will see murders of pedophiles increase.  Parents are not going to sit idly by and allow their children to be sexually assaulted with no chance of justice.  Mark my words.

Campaign Speech At Knox College

So yesterday the President went to Knox College in Illinois to begin his new campaign of selling the American people on what a great job he’s been doing.  It’s what he does.  Instead of being in Washington leading the nation, something he lacks the ability to do, he goes around the country (spending taxpayer dollars) on an “Ain’t I Great” campaign.  In  a speech that lasted over an hour he mostly repeated old “None of it is my fault” mantra…  again.  I’ve copied some of the transcript of the speech that I found interesting.  It’s amazing how the man can lie to people’s faces and they applaud him for it.  Let’s break some of them down.

“Now, today, five years after the start of that Great Recession, America has fought its way back. We've fought our way back.  Together we saved the auto industry, took on a broken health care system.   We invested in new American technologies to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. We doubled wind and solar power.”

America hasn’t “fought its way back.”  It’s in one of the slowest growth periods in history.  Unemployment has fallen mostly because people quit looking for work and have dropped out of the labor force.  The Obama administration says unemployment is at 7.9% but in reality it’s more like 15% with millions now on welfare and food stamps.

Saved the auto industry?  When the government took over Chrysler and General Motors they restructured them, did away with brands like Pontiac and Saturn, screwed the stockholders and gave a bunch of money to the United Auto Workers union.  During the 2012 election the President was saying that GM had paid back all the money they were loaned – which was simply another lie.  I don’t know if it’s been paid back even today.

Took on a broken health care system.  And made it even worse.  Insurance costs are going up.  Doctors are retiring and/or refusing to see Medicare patients because the government doesn’t want to pay them anymore.  Employers, particularly small businesses, have stopped hiring because of government mandated insurance requirements.  Even the Obama administration knows how bad it is.  That’s why they have suspended implementation of several portions of it until after the 2014 elections are over. 

And “We invested in new American technologies to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. We doubled wind and solar power.”  About that...  He neglected to mention that about 90% of the green energy companies that we “invested in” have gone bankrupt and the taxpayers are out billions of dollars.  Just a little tidbit of information that he doesn’t like to talk about.

“Together we put in place tough new rules on big banks and protections to crack down on the worst practices of mortgage lenders and credit card companies.  We changed a tax code too skewed in favor of the wealthiest at the expense of working families.  So we changed that.  We locked in tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans, and we asked those at the top to pay a little bit more.”

How many big bankers have been prosecuted?  The mortgage crisis was initiated by Democrats under Clinton when mortgage companies were forced by the Clinton administration to give loans to people who didn’t really qualify for them.  Bush tried to investigate it and good pals Barney Frank and Chris Dodd told Bush everything was fine – right up until the housing bubble burst.  But that’s one of those inconvenient facts that the President doesn’t like to talk about.

He locked tax cuts in place – very reluctantly and against loud opposition from Democrats in Washington, who believe everyone with an income should pay more taxes...  except them, of course.  Then he appeased his base somewhat by forcing the wealthy to pay more in taxes.  Ever playing the class warfare game, he demonized the wealthy to the great delight of his supporters – even though he and 98% of our elected officials are in the wealthy category.  They cheered him all the way to the bank.

“And if you ask some of these folks, some of these folks mostly in the House, about their economic agenda, how it is that they'll strengthen the middle class, they'll shift the topic to out-of-control government spending, despite the fact that we've cut the deficit by nearly half as a share of the economy since I took office.”

If you ask Republicans what the biggest problem is with the economy they’ll tell you out of control government spending.  That is true.  And the Obama administration (and most Democrats) feel that the government can’t spend too much.  All they need is for more people to give them more money.  And I’d certainly be interested in finding out which deficit was cut by nearly half.  That’s an interesting theory – with no substance.

“Or they'll talk about government assistance for the poor, despite the fact that they've already cut early education for vulnerable kids, they've already cut insurance for people who've lost their jobs through no fault of their own.  Or they'll bring up "Obamacare" -- this is tried and true -- despite the fact that our businesses have created nearly twice as many jobs in this recovery as businesses had at the same point in the last recovery, when there was no "Obamacare."”

This might be the best one of them all.  No one has cut early education for kids.  As for “insurance for people who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own” I’m guessing he’s talking about unemployment benefits.  The President seems to think that unemployment should be a career choice.  Unemployment was never meant to last forever.  But under this President it apparently can last 8 years…

“Our businesses have created nearly twice as many jobs in this recovery as businesses had at the same point in the last recovery, when there was no "Obamacare."”  What, exactly, is he trying to say here?  That Obamacare is responsible for creating small business jobs?  The only jobs created by Obamacare are at the IRS.  As I said before – small businesses (with less than 50 full time employees) won’t hire more because if they go over 50 they have to either provide health insurance or pay fines if they don’t.  So those with less than 50 won’t go over that number and those with more than 50 are cutting hours back to part-time so they won’t be bound by the mandates.  Obamacare was set to destroy jobs – so what did he do?  He postponed the mandate for employers until after the 2014 election so as not to have more and more people unemployed or underemployed next November.  He knows Obamacare is a disaster.  He simply cannot admit it because he can’t admit he failed.

The President also likes to pretend that another cause of our economic woes is that Republicans are focused on the “phony scandals” that are in the news these days.  In President Obama’s world, four dead Americans, an incredible bumbling of the incident response by his administration and a massive cover-up by the State Department and the White House is a “phony scandal.”  The IRS breaking the law by targeting conservative groups for higher scrutiny (admitted by the IRS) is a “phony scandal.”  Gun running and a dead Border Patrol agent in the Fast and Furious operation is a “phony scandal.”   The National Security Agency collecting and storing cell phone and e-mail data on all Americans is a “phony scandal.”  If all of these things are phony I’d sure hate to see what a real one looks like!

President Obama has done nothing but campaign for the entire 4½ years he’s been in office.  Maybe one day he’ll decide to govern or to lead.  Wait - what am I saying?  That might make him less popular…!

Political Correctness, the Nanny City and "Religious Tolerance"....

I have said before that political correctness will be the death of the United States of America.  These days freedom of speech is only allowed if you utter only those things that have been approved by the government to say.  OK – it’s not that bad yet but how long will it be?  Let’s look at some examples…

In March of 2012, New York City, America’s largest nanny state, introduced a proposed list of words they want banned from standardized tests.  Not content with trying to ban large soft drinks, smoking in public places (outdoors), and doing away with salt in restaurants, Nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg regulate what words in the English language can be used in their schools’ tests for fear of hurting someone’s feelings or stirring up “negative emotional responses from students.”

Here is the complete list of words that could be banned:

Abuse, alcohol (beer and liquor), tobacco, or drugs, birthday, birthday celebration (because some kids might not get to have a birthday celebration), bodily functions (not sure what that would be doing on a test anyway), cancer and other diseases (because some kids might have loved ones who have a disease), catastrophes/disasters (tsunamis and hurricanes), celebrities (?), children dealing with serious issues (again - why would this be on a test?) cigarettes (and other smoking paraphernalia), computers in the home (acceptable in a school or library setting - because not every kid has a home computer), crime, death, divorce (there goes that math question about alimony payment calculation...), evolution, expensive gifts, vacations, and prizes, gambling involving money, Halloween, homelessness, homes with swimming pools (we all know some kid will be emotionally traumatized to hear that some people have pools in their backyards), hunting, junk food (and salt, no doubt), in-depth discussions of sports that require prior knowledge (can't be having in-depth discussions in school, can we?), loss of employment, nuclear weapons (like "How many nukes will it take to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth?  That kind of question?), occult topics (i.e. fortune-telling), parapsychology (so much for a career as a ghost hunter), politics, pornography (they really have to ban pornography questions from these school tests?  Really?), poverty, rap music, religion, religious holidays and festivals including but not limited to Christmas, Yom Kippur, and Ramadan (they don't know it yet but the Muslims will sue and win), rock-and-roll music, running away (?), sex, slavery, terrorism, television and video games, traumatic material (including material that may be particularly upsetting such as animal shelters), vermin (rats and roaches), violence, war and bloodshed, weapons (guns, knives, etc.), witchcraft, sorcery, etc.

Looking at some of these words makes me wonder who is writing the tests for the New York City school system and what kind of questions are they asking?  Seriously - they have to ban words like "bodily function, cancer, death and homelessness" from a test?  What would the question be?  "Mary's mom suffers from cancer and can't control her bodily functions.  If she dies in three months - how many more months will it be until Mary is homeless?"  

I don't mean to insult anyone who has cancer or is homeless but seriously - why would anyone use words like that on a test anyway?  And look closely at the rest of the words.  Is it really necessary to ban words like "junk food, homes with swimming pools, sex and weapons?"  I don't remember ever seeing any questions on a test in my entire lifetime that had things like that in them.  And now the mention of animal shelters is traumatic for school kids?  

New York is trying hard to raise a generation of pansies who will never survive in the real world unless that real world is the same milk toast nanny state they're in now.  Can you imagine a kid who has been sheltered from reality by the government going into the military?  The first time his drill instructor raised his voice he'd pee his pants and cry for Mayor Bloomberg!  Oh, wait...  the President is going to reduce the size of our military so that scenario will probably never happen.

In other news, in the push to make America completely secular with illegal aliens welcome but God no longer being allowed in the country - the way we mark years has been changed.  Previously, when one spoke of the early years of the planet they referred to the years B.C., Before Christ.  This was perfectly acceptable in the world for over 2000 years, except in countries that do not believe in Jesus Christ, such as Islamic countries.

When the B.C. calendar hit the  year 0 the new millenium was called A.D., or Anno Domini, in the year of our Lord.  Again, perfectly acceptable for over 2000 years until the United States decided God is evil and evangelical Christians are "a threat to humanity" according to many secularists.

And speaking of secularists - the federal government has decided that Christians in the military are overzealous in their beliefs and need to be banned from proselytizing while on duty.  Somehow, unless something has changed since I was in the military, I don't think this is really a big problem so much as the government simply trying to get God out of the military completely.

In their quest to create "religious tolerance" in the military, the government has hired Mikey Weinstein, a devout and very vocal atheist, to help them draft their policies.

In an article published in the Huffington Post on April 16, 2013, (the day after the Boston Marathon bombing), Mr. Weinstein wrote "Today, we face incredibly well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation's armed forces.

These days, when ANYone attempts to bravely stand up against virulent religious oppression, these monstrosities cry out alligator tears in overflowing torrents and scream that it is, in fact, THEY who are the dispossessed, bereft and oppressed. C'mon, really, you pitiable unconstitutional carpetbaggers? It would be like the utter folly of 1960's-era southern bigots howling like stuck pigs in protest that Rosa Parks' civil rights activism is "abusing" them by destroying and disenfranchising their rights to sit in the front seat of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Please, I beseech you! Let us call these ignoble actions what they are: the senseless and cowardly squallings of human monsters.

Queasy with the bright and promising lights of the cultural realities of the present day, those evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures and their spiritual heirs have taken refuge behind flimsy, well-worn, gauze-like euphemistic facades such as "family values" and "religious liberty." These bandits coagulate their stenchful substances in organizations such as the American Family Association (AFA), the ultra-fundamentalist Family Research Council (FRC), and the Chaplains Alliance for Religious Liberty (CARL). The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry. However, when the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and others correctly characterize them as "hate groups," they all too predictably raise a deafening hue and disingenuously bellow mournfully like the world class cowards they are."

Hate much, Mikey?  

Weinstein's hatred of Christians certainly makes him the right person to write policy on religious tolerance, don't you think?  Who better to educate people on tolerance than a man who spews his vile hatred so vocally?  His words obviously soothe the fears of Christians who feel they are being forced out of society.  After all - Mahmoud Ahmadihnijad, a Muslim man who also verbalizes his hate filled thoughts in a soothing and un-aggressive manner, particularly against Jews, is a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council.  It seems the Obama administration follows the logic of the U.N. when they pick people for committees working on rights and tolerance.  Think they'd put someone like Franklin Graham on a committee to teach about the rights and wrongs of abortion or gay marriage?  Using the same logic - they certainly should.

For a man who claims to be a Christian, Barack Obama and his administration have set religious freedom back in this country more than any leader in American history.  His assault on Christianity, while supporting the freedoms of Muslims across the nation and the world, really makes one wonder where his heart lies.  I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates to me he cares more for his own stated religious beliefs than those of his childhood.  And in this day of Islamic terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood and worldwide jihad - that's a problem for me.

Race Baiting In The United States - Even From The White House?

I have been thinking for days about this post, starting it several times only to erase it and begin again.  I want to say this correctly but without leaving anythinghis post, starting it several times only to erase it and begin again.  I want to say this c out.  There’s a good chance I’m going to irritate someone or hurt someone’s feelings but that happens sometimes when you’re honest.

I was told yesterday I should leave this alone because I don’t know what it’s like to be a black man in America.  And that is absolutely true, I don’t.  But I do know what it feels like to be hated for my skin color.  I’ve felt it first-hand.  And after working in prisons most of my adult life I know what it’s like to be watched anytime I enter a room.  It’s not a good feeling and I wouldn’t like it much if it happened in a neighborhood store. 

However, the reason I can’t leave it alone is because there is blatant race baiting going on in this country today and it goes all the way to the White House.  After George Zimmerman was found not guilty by the jury, the professional race baiters went into high gear.  I’m talking, of course, about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party and many in the mainstream media.  Sharpton in particular, the most productive for-profit race baiter in the country, began his incendiary rhetoric and began organizing massive protests nationwide because “justice” didn’t quite go his way. 

I’m OK with people not agreeing with the verdict.  I don’t agree with the verdict in all cases either.  But I respect that verdict and try to understand it rather than decide that justice is mine to extract.  The New Black Panther Party put a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head, just as they did immediately following the shooting.  So where is the Attorney General when that happens?  Is it not a violation of Zimmerman’s civil rights to have a radical, hate filled organization put a bounty on your head?  Mr. Attorney General – we’re waiting…!

Jesse Jackson has called for the United Nations to investigate the case for human rights violations.  Really?  What possible authority does Jesse Jackson have to ask the United Nations to do anything?

Chris Matthews took it upon himself to apologize for the entire white race for the incident.  OK – Chris Matthews is an idiot so who cares?

Attorney General Eric Holder opened up a tip line web site so people can submit any kind of dirt they might have on George Zimmerman so the feds can try to build a civil rights violation case against him.  The FBI has already said there is no evidence of racial bias in the case but that’s not good enough for Holder.  He’s going to find something even if he has to make it up.  Mark my words on that.

Yesterday the President re-emphasized the supposed racial aspect of it by saying that if Martin had been a white teen the outcome might have been different.  Well, Mr. President – that may very well be true.  But it may very well be false.  There are many who believe that George Zimmerman would have done the same thing he did no matter who the other person was.  And as wise as people think you are – that’s a theory that you cannot substantiate.  It’s pure speculation on your part based on racial bias.  And it is blatantly wrong for a sitting President to insert himself into a state case via racial means. 

A few months ago in Brunswick, Georgia, 13 month old Antonio West, a white child, was shot and killed by two black teenagers who were robbing his mother.  They are facing murder charges now but there has been no federal investigation for civil rights violations nor has the President mentioned the shooting.  Similarly, in another city in this country, a neighborhood watch man, an adult carrying a concealed weapon, shot and killed an unarmed teenage boy and was found not-guilty by a jury after two days of deliberations.  The 16 year old boy was white.  The neighborhood watch guy was black.  Where is the media coverage?  Where are the Attorney General and the President?  Why are they not commenting and opening up a federal investigation?

My points are these…  the mainstream media puts racial tones on anything it deems worthy of exploitation for ratings.  Black on white racism is accepted as being OK because black people were mistreated in this country for so long.  Stories of a black man killing a white man don’t bring in advertising dollars nor increase ratings.  However, white on black crime (or “white Hispanic” on black crime) gets attention, particularly if the media can stir up racial tension nationwide by reporting the facts as they make them up.

My second point is if the President and the Attorney General are going to involve themselves in cases like the Martin/Zimmerman incident, shouldn’t they be involving themselves in cases that are the other way around?  If not, it screams of racial bias on their parts and creates even more racial tension in the country.  Do you think those people who are protesting the Zimmerman verdict don’t notice when the President of the United States gets on national television and indicates that the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated – even though there is no evidence of that being the case?

The Trayvon Martin case was a tragedy because a kid is dead.  Maybe he was a troubled kid but who knows who he may have grown into?  We’ll never know now.  And his parents loved him and now he’s gone.  And that is a tragedy.

But the Martin shooting is no worse than, and honestly doesn't even compare to the hundreds of black kids in Chicago who end up dead every year from black on black violence.  So why is the focus of everyone from the media to Sharpton to the President on George Zimmerman instead of Chicago?  The sad truth is because racist hate is more sensational and creates more anger than genocide.

As for the President – making his racial inference the day before the Sharpton rallies, in my humble opinion, was very carefully and strategically planned.  Barack Obama is not a stupid man.  Nor are his handlers.  He knew what he was doing and timed it to obtain maximum participation in the rallies today.

I haven’t watched the news today to see how they went.  I’ll do that later tonight and just see the highlights.  No doubt if there was violence at any of them (that wasn’t sparked by white counter protests) it won’t be reported by the mainstream media.  Reporting things like that would be counterproductive to their agenda.  FOX will show it if it happened.  But they’ll be the only ones.

I hope the protests went off peacefully and that everyone who participated feels better.  Those who are unsatisfied with the verdict need not worry.  Eric Holder is going to charge George Zimmerman with civil rights violations before long – even if he has to manufacture evidence.  And yes – I do believe he’s crooked enough to manufacture evidence.  Eric Holder may be the most dishonest and agenda driven Attorney General in my lifetime. 

I wish everyone would accept the verdict and let it die.  The Zimmerman case won’t be over until he is either convicted by a federal jury of civil rights violations or someone takes him out.  Zimmerman’s life is over for all practical purposes.  He cannot go out for fear of his life.  The feds are keeping his gun so he can’t protect himself.  I think that is intentional as well – not because they need it as evidence but because Holder just doesn’t want him to have it back.

Those are my thoughts on the subject.  Feel free to disagree if you wish and please feel free to explain why you disagree.  I welcome honest and open dialogue on any topic.  But it will help if you come with facts.  Saying something like “Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black” is not fact – it’s opinion.  If you’ve got evidence – bring it.ut that happens sometimes when you''

Proposed Divorce Agreement

I always enjoy when I can find a post that is good enough to share but I don’t have to write it.  Not that I’m ever at a loss for things to say (have you noticed?) but sometimes it’s nice to not have to think too hard.  After all – I already had to put a shipping box together at the Post Office today!

I thought this good enough to share.  I have no idea who wrote it but I like it.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, regressive, Marxists, and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC, CBS, CNN and Hollywood.

11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.  (Note – you won’t be one of them.)

13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

15. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon and Prius you can find.

16. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. 

17. We'll continue to believe healthcare is an earned luxury and not a right.

18. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

19. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", or "We Are the World".  We know “Kum Ba Ya” won’t work because it’s about God.

20. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

21. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name, our Constitution and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots.  And if you do not agree just delete it. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you I can guess which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, and Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S..: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.

Martin/Zimmerman Case - One Last Time

The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case is by far the one topic I’ve written about the most.  I’m going to post one more article then leave it alone – unless, of course, Eric Holder goes for a criminal civil rights violation charge.  Then I’ll be back.

For those of you who have followed my blog for any period of time, you may remember that based on the stories in the media in March of last year, I blamed George Zimmerman for the incident for the most part.  That was based on several things but mostly dishonest reporting by the mainstream media.

From the beginning the media made Zimmerman out to be a racist, cold-blooded killer who was playing cop in his neighborhood, while making Martin out to be an innocent, almost pre-pubescent kid who was simply eating candy.  Neither personification was accurate. 

George Zimmerman, while not always a model citizen, performed volunteer neighborhood watch duties.  There had been numerous break-ins in the neighborhood recently, many allegedly committed by black teenagers.  So he was alert and suspicious when Martin strolled through the neighborhood, head covered with a hood.  He called the police to report a suspicious person.  The mainstream media, particularly MSNBC, edited the audio soundbytes to make it seem that Zimmerman told the dispatcher “This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”

They played that edited soundbyte over and over, drilling into some people’s heads the fact that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin because of his skin color.  In reality, the audio bytes of Zimmerman’s conversation with the police dispatcher were as follows:

ZIMMERMAN:  “This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining, and he's just walking around, looking about.”

911 DISPATCHER:  “Okay, is this guy… is he white, black, or Hispanic?”

ZIMMERMAN:  “He looks black.”

Zimmerman never mentioned skin color or race until specifically asked and even then didn’t come out and say “He’s black,” or “He’s African-American.”  He said “He looks black,” as if he wasn’t positive.

That same media made Trayvon Martin out to be an innocent young kid, repeatedly showing a picture of him at about age 12 when in reality he stood six feet tall and had trouble with the police, his school in Miami, and his mother.  (She had sent him to live with his father because he was in trouble and she couldn’t manage him anymore.)  They kept talking about how Martin was simply walking home with a bag of Skittles and an iced tea but there is no evidence that Zimmerman’s description of his actions weren’t accurate.  Martin had various Facebook posts containing drug and gun references.  He apparently liked to fight and he wasn’t afraid of much.

As time went on and more and more facts came to light I realized that my first impression of what happened, based on the untruths told by the mainstream media and racial activists like Al Sharpton, was most likely wrong.  George Zimmerman did some stupid things but did he hunt down Martin and kill him in cold blood?  It was becoming more and more evident that was not the case.  As the story came out about Martin being on top of Zimmerman and beating him, verified by a witness, it became more and more understandable that the case might be about self-defense after all.

The only question I had that was not answered during the trial was what actually happened when Martin and Zimmerman made physical contact and who initiated it.  Was it as Zimmerman said – that Martin jumped out of the darkness and assaulted him?  Or was it Zimmerman who attacked Martin then began losing the altercation and used the gun to save himself?  Zimmerman’s injuries, according to most of the expert witnesses, are consistent with what he said.  But in reality only he now knows the truth.

While many on the one side will continue to use the misinformation put out by the mainstream media to spread hatred and disparity among the people of the United States, I think those of us who are appalled by their dishonesty should file a class action suit against the mainstream media, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others for spreading said false information and creating a hostile and even volatile situation in the country.  Whites, Hispanics or police officers who are attacked “in the name of Trayvon” should get attorneys and sue MSNBC for reckless endangerment, for starters.  Then go from there.  Jamie Foxx last week called for rioting in the streets.  If people are injured or killed because of a riot that he encouraged – he’s got lots of money. 

Peaceful protests of the verdict are not only understandable but the right of every American.  Encouraging racism, hatred and violence is not.  And those who encourage said behavior should be held accountable.

Could Eric Holder Become The Perpetrator Of A Hate Crime?

In the aftermath of George Zimmerman’s acquittal, Eric Holder and the (No) Justice Department are looking into the possibility of filing charges against Zimmerman for criminal civil rights violations.  I wasn’t quite sure what those could be but a quick search online gave me the following information concerning civil rights violations:

"A criminal civil rights violation refers to an offense that occurs as a result of the use of force or the threat of force by the offender against a victim that fall under federal criminal civil rights statues.  For instance an assault committed because of the victim's race or sexual orientation.

The offender to a criminal civil right violation can be prosecuted under these various statutes, such as those laws that prohibit hate crimes, bias crimes, and human trafficking.

A criminal civil rights violation can occur with:

a. hate crimes;

b. migrant worker exploitation;

c. law enforcement misconduct;

d. religious interference or property damage;

e. health care access interference, such as phone threat or bombing; and

f. slavery rings

I don’t know about you but to me it seems the only possible statute that could apply to the Martin/Zimmerman case is a possible hate crime charge.  However, Holder’s own FBI investigated the case and, according to a recent report, found no evidence that the shooting was race related.  Will Holder ignore or simply nullify the FBI report to press charges against Zimmerman?  If so, why?  What possible motive could he have except 1.) a personal vendetta against George Zimmerman for killing a black kid or 2.) to appease the black community? 

If he ignores the FBI report and stretches the boundary of the law to charge Zimmerman with a hate crime for either of the above reasons – would that not make Holder himself guilty of a hate crime for singling out a “white Hispanic” for unjustified prosecution?  After all – how can you charge someone with a specific crime with no evidence from the investigators that a crime was committed?

Wait – what am I saying?  Isn’t that how Zimmerman was charged in the first place?  Investigating agents the night of the shooting found no evidence that a crime was committed.  Then the police chief was forced to resign and the local prosecutor was fired and a special prosecutor was appointed. That special prosecutor, appointed by the governor and the Florida Attorney General (to appease the media and the agitators in the black community) allegedly covered up evidence that she felt detracted from her quest to prosecute Zimmerman, and charged him anyway.  The case was politicized by anyone and everyone with a liberal agenda - especially the mainstream media.  But it didn’t quite work out the way they intended.  The prosecution (not surprisingly) could not prove their case, Zimmerman was acquitted and to their credit (and in contradiction to the predictions and hopes of the mainstream media) the black community, with few exceptions, did not react violently.  (Can you imagine the disappointment of the mainstream media when they couldn’t find riots to cover nationwide?)

George Zimmerman’s life as he knew it is over – at least for the next 10 years or so.  He cannot go out in public right now without the threat of violence and/or death hanging over him.  He can’t get a job for that same reason.  Those on one side will say he deserves it but the man was found not guilty.  Like it or not the American justice system did not convict him.  So should he have to live in constant fear for his own life?

Again, some will say yes.  And it’s those same people who demand “Justice for Trayvon – as long as that justice goes the way we want it to!”  That’s not how it works.  

How many people, both black and white, thought (and still think) O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder?  How many riots and death threats occurred after his acquittal?  How often do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson go to Chicago to protest against the hundreds of black men and women murdered every year?  So why was this case special?  It’s simple.  Racism, whether perceived or genuine, draws TV viewers and boosts ratings.  As soon as the media turned the Martin/Zimmerman case into a racial issue it went worldwide and thus began the court of public opinion.

Eric Holder now wants to put George Zimmerman through the wringer one more time.  Part of me says the guy has been through enough.  Another part of me says let Holder go for it and let Zimmerman win in court again.  That would be an embarrassing slap in the face of Holder and the Obama administration.  

From what I’ve heard, because he was acquitted in his first trial, Zimmerman is immune from a wrongful death lawsuit according to Florida law.  So if he won in federal court maybe, just maybe it would be over.

The Zimmerman Verdict.....

Well, the verdict is in.  George Zimmerman has been acquitted of murder in the second degree and was not found guilty of any crime, including the lesser charge of manslaughter or the ridiculous charge the prosecutor attempted to toss in at the last minute – murder three through child abuse.  After deliberating for 16 hours the jury did not find enough to convict Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt. 

The deliberation time is important because it means the jurors did not simply go in and make a snap decision.  They asked for clarification of evidence during deliberation so they were looking at everything and weighing the evidence appropriately.

For many in this country the verdict is the proper outcome for the case.  While most probably believe Zimmerman to be guilty of stupidity, they don’t believe he was guilty of murder.  He shouldn’t have followed Trayvon Martin that night.  The police dispatcher told him it wasn’t necessary and most likely, if he’d have stayed in his vehicle, Trayvon Martin would still be alive.  But getting out of his car to see where Martin went was not a crime.  And obviously the jury agreed.

Within hours of the incident the mainstream media turned the entire thing into a racial issue.  They labeled George Zimmerman as a “white man” who “shot an innocent, unarmed, black teenager.”  They put pictures of a 12 year old Trayvon Martin and mug shots of Zimmerman from a few years before all over their networks.  When the audio clips of Zimmerman’s conversation with the police dispatcher were made public at least one network edited them to make it sound as if Zimmerman was profiling Martin because he was black.  And even after the network admitted to the tapes being edited (not their fault, they said) it was too late for many Americans, who had already decided this was a hate crime.  And sadly, many still believe that despite the evidence and/or the verdict.

Most mainstream media outlets tried to ignore the fact that Zimmerman was Hispanic.  And when they could no longer ignore it he became a “white Hispanic” who “shot an innocent, unarmed, black teenager.”

Today news organizations are having a field day with the verdict and some are still putting out misinformation about the case and the people involved.  The Huffington Post published an article this morning containing these paragraphs:

It turned out this wasn't Zimmerman's first run-in with the law. He had previously been accused of domestic violence by a former girlfriend, and he had also previously been arrested for assaulting a police officer. More controversially, in July 2012, an evidence dump related to the investigation of Martin's death revealed that a younger female cousin of Zimmerman's had accused him of nearly two decades of sexual molestation and assault. In addition, she had accused members of Zimmerman's family, including his Peruvian-born mother, of being proudly racist against African Americans, and recalled a number of examples of perceived bigotry.

The national focus on the case also brought into question, for some, the character and life history of Trayvon Martin. As time passed, websites like The Daily Caller found Martin's posthumously scrubbed Twitter page, which featured the teen at times tweeting profanities and showing off fake gold teeth. To some, these behaviors, along with the hoodie Martin wore the night he was killed, were an indication that he was something other than an innocent teenage boy who was shot while walking home from the store. To others, the attention paid to Martin's tattoos, gold teeth and hoodie were symptomatic of the same kind of stereotyping and profiling that led to Zimmerman's assumption that the teen was "up to no good."

George Zimmerman was not a citizen who had never been in trouble.  But his legal troubles had been resolved and he was a neighborhood watch volunteer in a neighborhood that had been recently plagued by break-ins and burglaries.  Zimmerman had a license to carry a concealed weapon and had it on him that night.  He probably shouldn’t have had it on him while working for the neighborhood watch but he was carrying it legally.  And yes, he had a round in the chamber.  I’ve heard some brilliant commentators on TV say that the reason he had a round in the chamber that night was because he wanted to shoot someone.  With a statement like that the commentators show their ignorance.  If you carry a gun without a round in the chamber there is no reason for you to carry it.  Crime and bad guys don’t wait for you to charge your weapon during an incident.  If you carry a gun that is not ready to fire it’s useless.

Trayvon Martin was anything but the innocent 12 year old he was depicted to be.  He had been in trouble at school, at home, and with the law.  His mother had sent him to his father’s house because she was having difficulties managing him.  At 17, Trayvon was nearly six feet tall and athletic.  He was taller and stronger than George Zimmerman, even though Zimmerman, as noted repeatedly by the media, was 20 pounds heavier.  Do any of those things justify Martin being dead?  No.  His death was a tragedy that shouldn’t have happened.  For the rest of his life George Zimmerman will have to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed teenager.  Will it affect him?  Only he will know. 

I feel badly for the parents of Trayvon Martin.  No one knows any better than I how it feels to lose a child and my heart goes out to them.  From the beginning they handled this entire case with dignity – even calling for a cease-fire in the racial war being waged in the media.  Certainly they wanted “justice for Trayvon” but understandably their version of justice is different than the verdict.  A guilty verdict might have given them some peace but it wouldn’t have brought Trayvon back. 

The Sanford police chief was fired because he didn’t charge Zimmerman initially.  Based on the investigation he felt it was not warranted.  The prosecutor agreed.  Then the governor and Florida Attorney General appointed a special prosecutor because of the outcry from the black community, the mainstream media, a couple of very famous black civil rights activists and even the President.  Angela Corey decided Zimmerman had committed a crime and sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office for trial, bypassing the grand jury in the process.  (It was later alleged that Corey withheld some evidence that indicated Zimmerman was innocent but that remains to be determined.)

With all of the various politics, hype, media involvement, racial overtones and even threats of violence for the wrong verdict – the jury could not find Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  There are already demands for Zimmerman to be charged with civil rights violations, which will probably happen. 

So was justice served in Sanford, Florida yesterday?  The answer depends on what you personally believe, I suppose.  Those who think Zimmerman is a cold-blooded, racist, child killer are not going to change their minds.  Those who believe Zimmerman acted in self-defense aren’t going to change their minds either. 

As I said – I believe George Zimmerman is guilty of being stupid.  But that’s not what he was charged with.

"I'm 63 and I'm Tired" by Robert A. Hall

This article was written by Robert A. Hall, a former Massachusetts State Senator and a former U.S. Marine.  It is sometimes incorrectly attributed to Robert David Hall, the actor who plays the coroner on CSI.  Mr.Hall makes some excellent points.

"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"by Robert A. Hall


I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought Mc Mansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble use their own money to help them.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America provided to them. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have:

1. the economy of Zimbabwe ,

2. the freedom of the press of China

3. the crime and violence of Mexico ,

4. the tolerance for Christian people of Iran

5. the freedom of speech of Venezuela ..

I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Sharia’s law tells them to.

I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.

I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly in an all-knowing government.

I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must not complain when Saudi Arabia uses the money we pay for their oil to fund mosques and madras Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.

I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think gay people choose to be gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from "cool" people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially those who aren't working, but living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track citizenship for any Hispanic who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military. Those are the kind of citizens we need.

I'm tired of the trashing of our military by latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's a deal for those folks. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, while the critics of our military can be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia because the girls were Christian -- then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.

I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has looted the public treasury for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.

I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about "innocent" mistakes, "stupid" mistakes or "youthful" mistakes, when all of us know they think their only mistake was getting caught.

Speaking of poor, I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement who have air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.

I'm real tired of people, rich or poor, who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.

Yes, I'm tired, but I'm also glad to be 63, mostly because I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.

Bush Took Away Your Rights?

In 2002, when George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act, liberals all across the country were outraged that he was “taking away their rights.”  I can’t help but wonder what they’re thinking now.

The Bush administration gave itself the right to monitor, and take action against terrorist and suspected terrorist activity without a warrant.  This included telephone monitoring of suspected terrorists and their associates and gave the government the right to detain those same suspects during investigation.  It gave the government the right to monitor attorney-client conversations with suspected and/or convicted terrorists after attorney Lynne Stewart smuggled messages concerning increased violence out of the federal prison where her client, the blind sheik, was being held.

Here is a list of “some of the fundamental changes to Americans' legal rights by the Bush administration and the USA Patriot Act following the terror attacks…”

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigation.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records requests.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

People complained because the Patriot Act gave the government the right to do these things to American citizens.  But let’s take a look at what President Obama has done….

* Executive Order 10990 allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

* Executive Order 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.

* Executive Order 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

* Executive Order 11001 allows the government to take over all health education and welfare functions.

* Executive Order 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* Executive Order 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* Executive Order 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate and establish new locations for populations.

* Executive Order 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways, and public storage facilities.

* Executive Order 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen-year period.

* Executive Order 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* Executive Order 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders.

* Executive Order 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when the president declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

That’s not all but it’s a comprehensive list.  And people complained about Bush?  The President also signed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act  - you know – that Dodd/Frank bill - conceived and written by two of the key players in the financial meltdown of the last decade.  In that bill the President gave himself the authority to take over or liquidate any major company he deems a threat to the financial stability of the country.  (Or a threat to his re-election, no doubt.)

And how about the authority he gave himself to detain anyone indefinitely, without due process, if he suspected them of terrorist activities, assisting with terrorist activities, or association with known terrorists?  Bush did that, you say?  But when Bush did it you whined about your rights being violated!

On July 6^th he signed yet another Executive Order giving himself the authority to seize control of all communications in the event of an emergency.  (Gee – just a few years ago the President criticized Mahmoud Ahmadinijhad for doing just that when people in Iran were protesting his election.  I guess he decided it was a good idea after all.)

Oh – and did I forget to mention that he extended the Patriot Act and has now given himself the authority to kill Americans deemed to be terrorists (or helping terrorists) without due process?  And how about those drones flying in American skies….?

So come on all you Obama supporters who vilified Bush for his response to America being attacked – let’s hear your justification for what Obama has done “to keep America safe.”  Funny – we don’t seem to hear too many of those same complainers talking bad about their exalted leader.  Hypocrisy on the left knows no bounds….

Our Flag Offends You? Don't Let The Border Gate Hit You In The.....

There seems to be growing trend in America where teachers, schools, school districts and even federal judges are putting self-imposed limits on First Amendment rights.

In 2010 there were a least two incidents (both in California) where public school students were instructed not to display the American flag, the symbol of our great nation, because it might offend other students, particularly those of Mexican descent.  Five student at a California high school wore American Flag t-shirts and bandannas to school on Cinco de Mayo – a traditional Mexican holiday.  The other students were not banned from wearing Mexican colors but the five boys were sent home for wearing American flag symbols and refusing to remove them or turn them inside out.

The school cited “safety concerns”, meaning they were afraid the five boys would be confronted by the Mexican students and violence would erupt.  But is that a legal reason to ban someone’s First Amendment rights? 

Cinco de Mayo is celebrated by many Americans of Mexican heritage as well as by Mexican nationals living, both legally and illegally, in the United States.  It is often celebrated by white Americans as well – a great excuse to eat Mexican food, drink Mexican beer and listen to Mariachi music.  Even as divided as this nation is right now I don’t think too many people in the country get upset about it.  Until they are told to respect the Mexican holiday and those who celebrate it at the cost of their own freedom of expression.

In this case the five students were obviously being rebellious and trying to make a point.  But were they legally authorized to wear the American flag on their shirt on that day?  According to a federal judge in probably the most liberal state in the union the answer is no.  That federal judge, in 2011, sided with the school not only in saying that safety concerns were a valid reason to deny the students the right to display the American flag on Cinco de Mayo but also that their “First Amendment rights were not violated.”  Huh?

So in this great United States of America a public school, funded by taxpayer dollars, can deny students the right to wear the symbol of our nation to school and it’s not a violation of their First Amendment rights?  And the school will bend over backward to make sure that no one who is celebrating a foreign holiday is offended?  You gotta love political correctness.

In another case, also in California, an elementary student was instructed to remove the American flag he flew on the back of his bike because it might offend other students.  Apparently the school had prevented students from bringing or wearing the Mexican flag on Cinco de Mayo (also a violation of First Amendment rights) and those students were asking why Cody Alicea was allowed to have the American flag on his bike.

Seems to me any good principal would have answered that question rather easily.  “First – it’s the symbol of our country and not of another country and second – his bike is parked outside, not in the classroom.”

As I said – I believe students of Mexican heritage (or any foreign heritage for that matter) have the right to display a reasonable form of representation of that heritage if they so desire – even in school.  That’s what free speech is all about.  That said – if you come here from another country or you identify with your country of heritage and the American flag is offensive to you – feel free to go to that country.  This is the United States of America.  The stars and stripes is our national symbol and we fly it proudly.  If you don’t like that the border is open – even if Obama and Janet Napolitano say otherwise.

The Systematic Destruction of Paula Deen....

In the last few weeks America has watched the systematic destruction of a business empire.  Based on an unsettled lawsuit and an admission of guilt, plus an apology for her shortcomings, Paula Deen’s empire has been systematically destroyed by those she helped to make millions of dollars.

Paula Deen has admitted using the “N” word in the past but says it has been a very long time.  What’s funny is that from what I’ve read, black people (or African-Americans if you prefer) are not righteously offended by Ms. Deen’s use of the word.  In fact, many of them are more forgiving of her than white people who believe they need to be offended on behalf of black Americans.  The woman who filed the lawsuit was white and said she filed it because she was tired of her black co-workers being harassed and treated badly.  How noble of her.  Anyone want to bet her black co-workers don’t get any money if this case is settled out of court?

One has to wonder why all the various companies keep dropping Paula.  Public opinion is mostly on her side.  She is still very popular and beloved, regardless of this questionable lawsuit.  A few weeks ago, when this scandal became public, her as yet unpublished cookbook became a bestseller overnight.  Even with those profits heading toward them her publisher was one of the latest to cancel her contract at the end of June.  Apparently if you’re white and make a racial statement you’re a vile human being but if you’re black and make a racial statement (such as many rap artists do on a regular basis) you get those big money contracts.  How does that make sense?

I’ll admit that some of the things I read about Paula Deen’s business practices made me wonder if she was really a racist.  But the more I read and the more information becomes public – the more I simply don’t believe it.  Sure – she made mistakes in the past and said things she wouldn’t say today.  But are we going to be a nation of unforgiving hypocrites?  Are we going to judge people’s behavior without looking at our own first?  How many white people can honestly say they have never used that “N” word in their entire lives?  I can’t.  I haven’t said it since I became an adult and realized how wrong it really was but I said it as a kid.  When I was a kid ethnic jokes were popular and funny and fewer people got offended.  Not that it was right – but it was more about being funny than about being mean.  At least that’s who we looked at it back then.

Paula Deen voted for Barack Obama.  That's an inconvenient truth that the liberal media likes to leave out of the equation.  What racist would vote for the "first black President"?  Apparently Paula Deen.  Probably a conspiracy...

Paula Deen’s businesses have been systematically wiped out by companies trying to be “politically correct.”  One can’t help but wonder how many of them have ever had EEO lawsuits filed against them or against someone in their companies.  But they drop Paula Deen like she committed an unforgivable sin because of an as of yet unproven lawsuit.  (She admitted to use of the “N” word in the past but not to the other allegations against her.)  What’s interesting is that most of her black employees deny the allegations against her.  So the businesses who are dropping her and cancelling contracts believe unproved allegations of racism over the denial of the people of color who work for her.  What sense does that make? 

Personally, whether or not Paula Deen is guilty of racism, I believe the reaction to her statements/actions has been far too severe.  She has been judged guilty and sentenced by all of the companies who have dropped her or cancelled her contracts – even without all the facts being presented.  And with racial slurs (for profit) rampant from the other side, how is this fair?  I commend Paula for having the courage to confront the allegations head on, for apologizing for her mistakes and for living with the humiliation of what she has done in the past.  Of course, there are many who think her apology was insincere but I say to them – judge not lest ye be judged.  You don’t know what’s in her heart.  And the mainstream media will spin anything to make it a racist story.  Don't believe me?  Take a good, long look at the Trayvon Martin saga...

Toward Globalism and the End Times?

In the Bible, in the 7^th chapter of Daniel, is a prophecy of four great kingdoms that will rise up on the Earth and will be leading the world as the second coming of Christ approaches.  Daniel saw four beasts – a lion with the wings of an eagle, a bear, a leopard and a 10 horned beast.  Interestingly, in modern times these four beasts appear to be defined as:

Lion with eagle’s wings – Great Britain and the United States; since the United States was formed from 

Great Britain.

Bear – Russia

Leopard – Germany

10 horned beast – the Holy Roman Empire recreated.

One can claim that the symbols for the four countries are mere coincidence but what a huge coincidence it would be.  For Daniel to prophecy the symbols of four of the leading countries of the world well over 2000 years ago would be quite a coincidence.

These four nations/kingdoms were prophesied by Daniel long before John’s prophecy in The Revelation.  They had not joined together as one in Daniel’s vision.  In Revelation 13, John sees the same four nations/kingdoms joined together as one in a beast with the head of a leopard, the feet of a bear, the mouth of a lion and the dragon gave the beast its power.  This prophecy is believed to mean that those four nations/kingdoms (and many others in the world) will one day join together under a global government that rules them all.  And it seems we’re headed that way now, slowly but surely.

Globalization, the entire world coming together under one government, has been meticulously planned for years.  As early as 1935, Franklin Roosevelt re-engineered the back of the dollar bill and had “Novus Ordo Seculum” (New World Order) put on the bill under the pyramid.  Roosevelt was a driving force behind the formation of the United Nations.

In 1946, William Benton, Assistant Secretary of State under Harry Truman, helped organize the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN).  Its purpose is stated as “to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the UN Charter.”  Benton told UNESCO that families and family teachings were the causes of extreme nationalism and that schools should be utilized to re-educate children to the world view over nationalism.

The Council of Foreign Relations was first headed by James Warburg, a German-born American banker was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt.  His father was banker Paul Warburg, the "father" of the Federal Reserve System.  In 1950, Warburg told the CFR  "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it.  The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

In 1957, the countries of Europe formed the Common Market to make trade easier among the countries.  In 1999 they created the European Union, basically doing away with borders and having one common currency, the Euro Dollar.

During his Presidency in 1991, George H. W. Bush, said “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders.”  (They haven’t done much to be ‘credible” lately, Mr. President.)  Bush was a member of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

In 1992, Strobe Talbott wrote an article for Time Magazine about the birth of the new global government.  Bill Clinton appointed him to the State Department the following year where he stayed for seven years.  When he left in 2000 he became the head of the Brookings Institute, an ultra-liberal Washington think tank.  In 2002, Susan Rice became a senior fellow at Brookings and in 2006, when Barack Obama announced his candidacy for President she became his campaign advisor on foreign relations.  When he was elected President, she became the new ambassador to the United Nations.

In 1992 there was an Earth Summit designed to bring environmentalism to the forefront and sell the idea of global warming so the world can pass international environmental laws designed to lock all nations together.  The Toyoto Treaty was created to obligate signing nations to adopt certain laws and commit themselves to those laws.

In 1994, Bill Clinton helped form NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.  Each of these organizations, treaties and meetings was created and executed to bring nations together and help move the goal of one world government forward. 

The United Nations has done nothing of value, in my humble opinion, and should be disbanded.  National sovereignty is the only thing that will help people continue to remain free.  If the United States gives up its sovereign power to the United Nations, as President Obama and the State Department seem bent on doing, we are done as a nation and as a free people.  Globalization will lead to global socialism or tyranny.  Some people forget that there will always be a person of wealth and stature in charge.  When all peoples of the world are equal then only those in government will have wealth and power.  Is that really what you want?

Thoughts On The Zimmerman Trial....

On Tuesday evening, after watching highlights of the George Zimmerman trial in Florida, I remarked to my wife, Arden, that it seemed like the prosecution wasn’t really into the case – that they were forced to prosecute and their hearts weren’t in it. 

On Wednesday, as if in answer to my expressed thought, I heard several radio and television talk show hosts saying the same thing.  It seems I’m not the only one who noticed that the prosecution isn’t doing much.  They started out strong.  In his opening statement the prosecutor said George Zimmerman “didn’t shoot Trayvon because he had to but because he wanted to.”  That’s a bold statement and it seemed they were going to prove their allegations.  But their case went downhill from there.

The prosecution hasn’t objected to various things that the defense attorneys are asking that even a layman like me knows should raise an objection.  One particular incident was so blatant (the defense attorney asked the lead detective whether or not he believed Zimmerman’s story) that the next day the judge objected for the prosecution and had the question and answer removed from the record.

The other day the prosecution played an interview of George Zimmerman by Sean Hannity for the jury.  Basically they put Zimmerman on the stand to tell his side of the story without the opportunity for cross examination.  Prosecutors and defense attorneys alike reacted to this stunt with the same basic question…  “Are you crazy?”

Whether one believes Zimmerman guilty of a crime or not, the prosecution in the case seems to be determined to lose.  I can’t help but wonder if it’s because they didn’t want to prosecute the case in the first place.  The Sanford police didn’t charge Zimmerman when the incident happened because they did believe his story – that Martin attacked him and he fired his weapon in self-defense. 

When the mainstream media and racial activists became vocal about it a special prosecutor was appointed to look into it.  It was after all the anger was stirred up and the flames of that anger being fanned daily by the mainstream media and the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that charges were eventually filed.  Were they filed because the special prosecutor believed Zimmerman committed a crime or to appease those who were making the most noise?  We’ll never really know the answer to that question but from the performance of the prosecutors it seems they might be trying this case under duress.

Even though the parents of Trayvon Martin have stated they do not want this case to be about race, the racial aspects of it are still being manipulated.  The mainstream media is already asking the Sanford Police Chief if they’re prepared for rioting if Zimmerman is found not guilty.  The Chief said he’s prepared for “demonstrations.”

While receiving an award from BET, actor Jamie Foxx stated that if George Zimmerman is acquitted then people from every major U.S. city should “publicly display their outrage”. He went on to explain that rioting, looting, and indiscriminate violence is acceptable as long as you feel within your heart it’s for a good cause.  Really, Mr. Foxx?  So that works in reverse as well, correct?

On Friday, before the prosecution rested its case, they called Trayvon’s mother to the stand to identify the voice on the 911 tape that was calling out for help.  She identified it as the voice of her son, as did his brother.  But there’s a problem.  At the beginning of the trial George Zimmerman’s parents were banished from the courtroom because “they may be called as witnesses during the trial.”  Trayvon Martin’s parents were not banished and were allowed to sit through the trial in its entirety.  Then his mother was called as a witness.  What kind of a double standard is the judge running?  She had the witness list.  How can she banish one set of parents and allow the other to stay even though one of them will be called as a prosecution witness?  That alone should be grounds for a mistrial.  And as for her identifying the cries for help as coming from her son – how else would she answer that question?  With all due respect for her and her loss – she certainly wasn’t going to identify the voice as belonging to Zimmerman.

Also presented Friday was the theory that George Zimmerman deliberately shot Martin in the heart.  The only eye witness said Zimmerman was taking a beating from Martin, who was on top of him reigning down blows.  I’m pretty sure that even the staunchest Martin supporters don’t believe that Zimmerman aimed for Martin’s heartman aimed for Martin'.  (Well, some do, I’m sure.)  When you’re being physically beaten I’m thinking you don’t aim at the heart.  You simply shoot.  The medical examiner who actually performed the autopsy didn’t say Martin was shot at point blank range to the heart.  Another “expert” said it – but experts can be bought for either side.

This case has done exactly what the mainstream media wanted to happen.  It has divided people along racial lines.  And if Zimmerman is found not guilty that division will probably increase.  It’s sad when “news organizations” manipulate the news for the greatest reaction from the public – even when that reaction may be negative and harmful.

I’m not going to say what I feel the verdict should be.  I’m going to wait to see what happens.  But you can bet, after the Rodney King riots, that the Sanford Police Chief is fully ready for rioting (if Zimmerman is found not guilty) even if he’s not saying it out loud.  Sadly, for some people this trial isn’t about justice but about revenge.  If the jury cannot convict Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt, as the law requires, then that should be the end of it.  But there will be some who will not accept the verdict and take out their anger in other ways.  That’s not justice.  Justice is allowing the court and the laws to work regardless of the outcome.  Rioting and violence in the wake of an unpopular verdict is simply an inability to deal rationally with reality.  And it harms everyone involved.