Transforming America

Let’s do a thought experiment.

Let’s say you own a 200 acre piece of property, a small farm even, and you wake up one day to see a strange sight.  A family has set up a tent through the night over in one of your fields and they’re cooking breakfast over a fire.  You say to yourself…what?  We don’t cuss on here, so perhaps you say, “golly, who are those people”.

What do you do?  Go check them out yourself or call the cops?  Regardless, you do find out that the family felt “entitled” to set up shop on your property.  Naturally you don’t agree so you attempt to have them removed.

However, as it turns out the mother of the family was pregnant and near delivery when they arrived and sometime in the night she had dropped a baby.  Unbeknownst to you, the police inform you that since she had a baby on your property, you are now responsible for it and their entire family.  You are shocked, how can this be.

“What exactly do you mean by responsible”? you ask the deputy who had come out.

“Well, it’s a law, if any family makes it onto your property and has a baby, that baby is now part of your family entitled to all of the privileges and benefits that you show your own children”, responds the deputy.

“That’s insane, and what’s that about the entire family”?

“Umm, well, sorry, but they’re entitled now to stay here also, it’s the law.  Technically, they have to fill out an application to stay with the baby and be approved, but generally we just allow them to stay, why do all that paperwork and even if they did do the paperwork they’re all approved anyway”.

“Well….how long has that been a law”?

“Since the democrats passed the 1965 Immigration Act.”

You are speechless, “this is insane, this is my property!!!”…. And the United States is our country.


“This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not restructure the shape of our daily lives.”  So said, Lyndon Johnson as he signed the new immigration Act.

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.” Ted Kennedy, the architect of the bill.

The new law replaced the old, which gave preferential treatment to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany.  Now the floodgates were opened to the whole world.  A key component of the new law was “family reunification”,  a migrant that made it could ultimately bring in a dozen.  Legal immigration now is at over a million a year, illegal immigration is limited to how many simply want to walk across our border.  That legal million allows for the future legal import of multiples more.  The United States now has a fourth of Mexico’s population.

While the above exercise deals more with the illegal aspects of the migrant flood that is pouring into our country, especially under Obama, the questions it raises apply to all immigration.  This is our country and what do we want it to look like, what do we want it to become?

Whether you want to admit it or not, liberalism has won, it has toppled the culture of traditional America.  All because liberals never sleep and half of America does nothing but.  It has happened over the past half century or more,   liberalism finally tipped the scales in its favor just over the past two decades.  The result is the rapid decay we see of the nation.  Every trend is headed in the wrong direction.  I simply define “wrong” here as forces at work in our country that work against our peace, prosperity and happiness.   Detroit became Detroit, a great number of our major cities, democrat strongholds, are racing to catch up.  Chicago may be the next city to fall.  America itself is becoming Detroit.

I really don’t care what your race is, the divide here isn’t racial, although liberals keep it that way, it is actually cultural.  The 10% of blacks, the 30% of Hispanics and Muslims have embraced traditional American culture (most of it anyway) AND understand the cultural and political war that is raging inside our country and side with the traditionalists, have become traditionalists.  What good does it do to aspire to claim the liberties and opportunities of America if you vote for a party, a philosophy, which is working tirelessly to destroy them?  Many of them see that.

One of the lies liberals love to spout is that Hispanics (which dominate immigration into this country) are here to do the “jobs Americans refuse to do”.  Most Americans tend to buy that argument which actually has little basis in fact.

From the Center for Immigration Studies we find the following, a 2007 report entitled “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response”.

For several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question and finds little evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising. Second, wages for farm workers have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh fruits and vegetables has remain relatively constant, averaging about $1 a day for the past decade. 

Among the findings:

  • Production of fruits and vegetables has been increasing. In particular, plantings of very-labor intensive crops such as cherries and strawberries have grown by more than 20 percent in just five years.
  • The average farm worker makes $9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers.
  • Real wages for farm workers increased one-half of one percent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a shortage, wages would be rising much more rapidly.
  • Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida (the states with the most fruit and vegetable production) than in the United States as a whole.
  • The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • Labor costs comprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costs were passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year.
  • Mechanization could offset higher labor costs. After the “Bracero” Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices rose relatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity.


So, what does this really tell us?  The info from CIS is about 8 years old, currently farm workers make about $12 dollars per hour, which now constitutes about 7 percent of the retail price of fresh produce.  In other words, the field workers making 12 dollars per hour still contributes a very small amount to the price of the product.  We wouldn’t even have to be “bleeding heart liberals” (which they’re not) to be willing to pay an additional seven percent for produce which would or could double the pay of the farm workers.

If we are concerned about the stagnant wages in America, could it be caused primarily due to an endless flood of illegal and legal immigrants who enter our country, primarily from nations south of the border?  Talk about living wages, if immigration was frozen, reduced to zero, the border sealed, how long would it be that farm workers could double their pay to 24 dollars an hour?

There are 92 million Americans, able bodied and of working age who are out of work.  Do you understand that?  They exist as dead weight for the 150 million or so who do work (many at part time jobs created by the listless Obama economy) to pull as the 92 million sit in the wagon.  These 92 million do not look for work, that is why the “unemployment rate” if now at “5 percent” (what a joke).  These 92 million subsist on our dime.  If we started cutting the dimes off or reduced them to nickels, might it be that they would begin taking these “desperately needed” jobs that liberals claim only Hispanics can fill?

Liberals and too many conservatives believe we must import the highly educated to fill certain job openings that America does not have citizens trained for.  These would be the STEM jobs, Science, Technology, Engineering and Math.  Would you believe that 75 percent our STEM graduates overall do not work in STEM occupations?  Of the hottest of the STEM fields, in engineering, computers, math and statistics, only half those educated in those fields hold a STEM job.  Do we really need Indian, Chinese and other foreigners when half to three quarters of our own citizens educated in those fields can’t find work in them?  This importation of the these foreigners at the expense of our own people, just as with the lower end, contributes to wage stagnation.  And we wonder why Silicon Valley supports mostly democrats and a few establishment republicans.

Appealing to your sense of logic, discernment and wisdom, ask yourself some basic questions.

Am I a citizen of this country?

Doesn’t what I believe count, don’t I have a say?

What kind of America do I want, do I want my traditional America based on liberty and Judeo-Christian values to remain intact?

Do we need any immigrants to enter this country at all?

If I actually wanted immigrants, which ones would I prefer?  It is our country, it is our culture (or what’s left of it).  What sort of immigrant could actually assimilate?  Understand that liberals do not want assimilation as they claim there is no superior culture, in fact, liberals are actively warring against traditional American culture, “white” culture as they call it.

If they can’t assimilate, can they even accommodate?

There’s an interesting British website named that gives us a brief introductory definition of these two terms as they deal with how a person interacts with the outside world.  Regarding our terms the author states,

Assimilation and Accommodation are the two complementary processes of Adaptation … through which awareness of the outside world is internalized. Although one may predominate at any one moment, they are inseparable and exist in a dialectical relationship.  The terms are also used to describe forms of knowledge in Kolb’s elaboration of the cycle of experiential learning. 

In Assimilation, what is perceived in the outside world is incorporated into the internal world without changing the structure of that internal world, but potentially at the cost of “squeezing” the external perceptions to fit — hence pigeon-holing and stereotyping.  

 If you are familiar with databases, you can think of it this way: your mind has its database already built, with its fields and categories already defined. If it comes across new information which fits into those fields, it can assimilate it without any trouble.  

In Accommodation, the internal world has to accommodate itself to the evidence with which it is confronted and thus adapt to it, which can be a more difficult and painful process.  In the database analogy, it is like what happens when you try to put in information which does not fit the pre-existent fields and categories. You have to develop new ones to accommodate the new information. 

In reality, both are going on at the same time, so that—just as the mower blade cuts the grass, the grass gradually blunts the blade—although most of the time we are assimilating familiar material in the world around us, nevertheless, our minds are also having to adjust to accommodate it.  

In other words, an immigrant from another country that is culturally very similar to its new host nation fairly easily “assimilates”.  This immigrant’s mind already has identical “fields” and “categories” into which cultural norms of the new host country can be processed as “normal” and familiar.  For instance, a Roman Catholic from Ireland should find great familiarity in New York.  A protestant from Switzerland would find the mountains of Appalachia rather familiar.  The immigrant would see that unless he opened his mouth revealing a foreign accent he would look the same.  The food would be virtually identical, the freedoms would be nearly the same, even better in America.  Various jobs would be similar.  People would be similar and he would be readily accepted.

A muslim from Syria or virtually any other muslim majority nation would find America very odd.  Dress, language, diet, religion, work, laws, etc, would all seem very alien.  Painful accommodation must come first, then the assimilation process might begin to occur. The muslim would have to create in his or her mind entirely new fields and categories of thought.

Outside of muslim ghettos, there would be no blaring of the Adhan- the muslim call to prayer, no Arabic would be spoken, foods would be strange and he must study and spend time to ensure it met the demands of the halal diet.  Symbols of Christianity would abound with a church on every street corner, bibles lying about in many business establishments, Christian religious broadcasts on radio and television.  He would have to learn that in America it is not perfectly acceptable to kill or burn your neighbor out out simply because he is a Christian or Jew.

Regarding Cultural Assimilation, specifically, is America adequately integrating immigrants into its culture.  We may further ask, is it even possible to assimilate islam into Western Culture?  How do we actually define this cultural assimilation?

Two Harvard sociologists, Mary C. Waters and Tomas R. Jimenez, have identified four “benchmarks” to consider and these are socioeconomic status, spatial concentration, language attainment and intermarriage.

Socioeconomic status deals with education, employment and income.  We consider whether or not a certain class or group of immigrants, whether European, African, Hispanic or Muslim have reached parity with the primary culture in these terms.  Obviously it will be difficult if not impossible for most first generation immigrants to completely integrate or assimilate here.  This generation will mostly be adults who are past their prime years for class room learning and typically will take the lower income jobs that, as liberals put it, “Americans refuse to do”.

“Spatial concentration” considers the dispersal of a migrant group within the host nation.  Are they concentrated only in certain states and cities, or even sections of a city or is often the case, ghettos?  Have they become so “normalized” that they have entered the general population so as to be largely indistinct from the general population.  Up until recently, Americans were “white” and “black” with some smatterings of hispanics almost exclusively located in the American southwest and Cubans in the southeast, particularly in Florida.  Blacks were descendants of slaves and multi-generational whites were simply of western European extraction, though broadly called WASPs, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants as most whites had merged into the founding culture of America whether from England, Germany or Italy.

Then democrats pulled a fast one in 1965 discussed above to radically alter the racial and cultural mix of America.  The democrats  realized that traditional Americans, white and black would not give them a majority of votes in order to attain the power they crave.  There were only two ways to build a ruling majority, either with a superior political and social product to win traditional American “converts” to liberalism or simply import more foreigners, almost exclusively third worlders who would be amazed at indebted to the democrats’ socialist “generosities”.

All the liberals asked in exchange from them for a radical improvement in the material things of life, was their votes.  A faustian bargain was reached.  The immigrants were to put secondary their own religious and moral views to the hedonism and decadence of the host liberal benefactors and the liberals in return would more than meet their material needs.

Liberal “intelligentsia” would be in the driver’s seat of the democrat party.  Arguably the most important branch of this group are the educators. Somebody had to have the time and money to “think stuff up”.  A century ago, liberals knew they had to totally capture the education system.  Our colleges and universities became the well-spring of liberal ideas, especially those ideas that divided peoples, hence, multi-culturalism in every conceivable sphere, especially race, gender, religion, sex, sexuality and its latest group, islam.

Liberals understood that they would build a coalition of those who they could convince were disenfranchised, discriminated against, constrained by traditional religious views and morality, floods of import voters who would naturally embrace socialism and as many traditional Americans they could brainwash in the public education system.

We can see the stark shift of how the democrat party viewed America between the election of John Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.  One might say that Carter himself was of the pre-radical conventional democrat mold, but he either was a complete fraud or a very weak man who embraced nearly all of the radical leftist agenda by the time he finished his only term in 1980.  Liberals like to maintain that Carter was and still is an “evangelical” Christian, it somehow lends some “religious” legitimacy to their assault on Biblical Christianity and its past sway over our culture.

It’s important to be educated about liberals, their plans and understand how their minds work, how devious they are.  Remember last year, the nation was in an uproar about the tens of thousands of hispanic children (and the adults they bring with them) who were pouring in.  The flood stopped, not because of Obama, but because the Mexican government put a stop to it.  Then our attention was drawn to the islamist invasion planned by Obama.  Muslims have occupied our attention for a great deal of this past year.

A misdirection has occurred either by design or by coincidence that is most fortuitous for Obama and his ilk.  While our attention is focused on muslims, the Hispanic flood resumed with, again, about ten thousand per month walking across over the past two months.  Not a peep by the media.  Why did the Mexican government allow it to restart?  A call from Obama?  By the way, remember all the talk about the invaders given an appointment for court hearings and the possibility of being returned to their country of origin?  90 percent never show up and 98 percent of those that do get to stay.

Liberals really don’t care where they get them as long as the majority of immigrants will eventually make reliable democrat voters.

Daniel Greenfield, writing on his site, “” on October 12, 2014 writes the following in an article entitled “Liberal Islamophiles” –

“…Leftists don’t debate issues. That would be a liberal thing to do. Instead they seek to affirm a consensus. The consensus is reinforced by in-group flattery which convinces members that they are empathetic and enlightened people, while those outside the consensus are subjected to constant contempt and abuse… Now critics of Islam are denounced as racists even though Islam is not a race…

… the leading members of the golden family of liberalism were serial abusers of women and Bill, Hillary and Obama were against gay marriage before they were for it. Islam is sexist, bigoted and totalitarian, but so was the Soviet Union. Their liberal defenders are utterly unconcerned, no matter how much they run their mouths about Republican racism and sexism…

… Gays, feminists and Muslims are a means to the left. They are not the reason why the left does things. The left builds coalitions of disruption with interest groups. It doesn’t care about those groups. It’s just using them to get what it really wants which is a totalitarian state in which the consensus can implement all of its horrible ideas without any interference.

Muslims are the newest coalition member and their disruption skills are impressive. Just look at how they managed to turn the Bush Administration around. That doesn’t mean that the left cares about Muslims. It would toss them under the bus before they could shout “Allah Akhbar” if it suited the consensus. The liberal defenders of Islam have chosen not to read the Koran. They know next to nothing about Islam except that it’s a minority group. And that’s how they like it.

That way they can shout down any criticism with cries of “Racism” because they’re too lazy to even bother stringing enough letters together to shout “Islamophobe”. That’s how little they care. All of this has as much to do with liberalism as Obama has to do with Andrew Jackson. There’s nothing liberal about the honor killing and the hijab, but there’s also nothing liberal about trying to turn America into a totalitarian state…

… liberals who defend Islam do so because they share its totalitarian mindset. Lenin wasn’t fighting so that the peasants would have land, bread and peace. Today’s liberals aren’t fighting for equality of income, gender, race or any other kind. They are fighting to suppress any and all opposition to their policies by disrupting and destroying the existing American system at every level. That’s exactly what Islam is doing. Leftists don’t value equality, they value disruption. If they can disrupt by promoting equality, they will do it.

If they can disrupt by promoting inequality, they will do that. If they can disrupt by promoting gay marriage, promoting Islamists, promoting the environment, promoting unregulated industry, promoting freedom of speech or promoting hate speech laws, they will do those things in order of opportunism. Their underlying goal is to replace existing ideas and systems with their own. Anything that serves that purpose is good. Anything that maintains the existing order is bad.

… This isn’t liberalism. It’s a leftist Jihad that has displaced and hijacked liberalism. The modern liberal has nothing to do with liberalism and it’s useless to expect him to be upset by Islamic illiberalism.”

America makes up about 4 percent of the total world population.  We simply cannot be a dumping ground for every disabused or disadvantaged human on the planet.  There is no benefit whatsoever to allowing millions of the poor and desperate, as well as those who intend to do us harm, radical islamists, into our country.  Unlike liberals, the majority of America still values America.  We have no desire to “transform” it.  Americans of all races do appreciate what America is and represents.  Don’t be ashamed of our nation, there’s never been one like it.  Some things, once broken, can never be fixed.

Can We Bomb Civilians? 16 December 2015

One thing revealed last night at the GOP presidential debate was the ignorance of the Geneva Convention (1949) which does NOT under the circumstances in the Middle East prohibit “carpet bombing” and the attendant civilian casualties. I can understand liberals ignoring or being ignorant of what it says, but republicans should know better and it would have been a great time to educate the people who were watching because the liberal media certainly will not.

The Geneva Convention of 1949 is what is in effect and concerning non-combatants or civilians.

Article 2 states “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof“.

Notice it says that those powers that may be allied are bound by the treaty “in their mutual relations”, but only bound if the enemy (in this case ISIS) accepts and applies the provisions of the treaty.

Article 14 states in part, “In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.”

Article 15 states in part, “Any Party to the conflict may, either direct or through a neutral State or some humanitarian organization, propose to the adverse Party to establish, in the regions where fighting is taking place, neutralized zones intended to shelter from the effects of war the following persons, without distinction:…”

Articles 14 and 15 establishes that warring parties MAY establish safe zones, it does not say MUST.

ART. 17. — The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to
conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or
encircled areas,of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons, children
and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions,
medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such

Notice 17 does mandate that Parties shall ENDEAVOR to conclude local agreements…(it takes two, do you really think ISIS, which depends on civilian shields to conclude any agreement?)

Articles 18-23 basically establishes hospitals, ambulances, air flights carrying wounded as off limits,

Article 19 says in part, “The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded…”

In other words, terrorists like Hamas and ISIS that hide behind human shields and hospitals are not protected as they are “used to commit…acts harmful to the enemy”.

Article 28 couldn’t be more clear as it says in its entirety, “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

Such feral humans as Hamas and ISIS in no way shape or form follow any provisions of the Geneva convention. They remind one of the ruthless monsters on the movie “Aliens”. The GC is intended for relatively civilized nations. It does not require the signatories to fight a ruthless inhuman enemy with kid gloves, when that enemy’s extinction is necessary. These muslims deliberately use humans as shields, just daring us to take them out. As regrettable as “innocent” civilian casualties are, this is war.

Liberals Always After our Guns 15 December 2015

One of the ultimate and pressing goals of our domestic enemies, liberals (democrats) is to disarm the American people.  As is virtually always the case, liberals create the problem, then the first thing they do is attack conservatism, attack our fundamental God-given rights, then demand more power and control over our lives.

Let’s look at some recent headlines of the liberals’ call for our disarmament.

“Obama Uses Facebook to Push Gun Control”

“Obama Criticizes Congress on Gun Control Failings”

“Obama Renews Gun Control Push”

Ok, enough about Obama, we all know he’s the NRA’s number one gun saleman.

Let’s look at Obama’s mini-me, Hillary Clinton

“Hillary Clinton Says Opponents of Gun control laws Terrorize Americans”

One is enough from this criminal who’s been running to stay one step ahead of the law for decades.

We’ll list one last headline, a real laugher,

“Top Constitutional Lawyers Explain What the Second Amendment Really Says About Gun Control”  (naturally that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say what it says)

For liberal lawyers and judges today to claim that the 2nd Amendment was not intended to protect our rights (uninfringed) to own firearms is laughable for those of us who can read. The Supreme Court is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and given the following jurisdiction: Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

-to Controversies between two or more States;

-between a State and Citizens of another State;

-between Citizens of different States;

-between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Hmmmm, you scratch your head looking for the vast powers it exercises today. “So, this goof, left out that part”, you say to yourself. No, my friends, that’s all there is.  Our founders never intended for an oligarchy of moron judges to control our nation, especially our social policies.  Sadly, it jumped off the tracks quickly, as the court usurped its right of “judicial review” of federal law rather quickly, in 1794, then the most famous case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Then they never stopped because no one stopped them, much to our everlasting regret today.

Thomas Jefferson observed in 1823, “At the establishment of our constitution, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account.”

Interestingly it was only in modern times that the floodgate opened for the Supreme Court to rule on state law, with the 1954 Brown vs. board of education.  Only a couple and more minor trampling of states rights and law had occurred prior to that point.  Now, it seems so natural that we don’t even give it a second thought, but our “supreme court” today is nothing but an extra-constitutional totalitarian institution that controls so much of our lives.

As far as what the second amendment truly means, once again if you can read, its meaning is readily apparent.  Liberals belong to what they believe is an exclusive upper caste of intellectuals who we commoners must rely on.  Our founders wrote a very simple to understand founding document (ok, at the time, I realize late 18th century English can be a bit laborious).

What would liberals think of their beloved first Amendment if it read thusly: “Freedom of speech, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed.”

Their only argument in the 2nd amendment as written is the militia means a state sanctioned military organization.  Did the authors of the amendment mean that?  Prior to the constitution and the addition of the bill of rights, the colonists viewed the God-given right of private gun ownership, among other reasons, as providing a “natural right of self defense”.

All of the early state constitutions had nearly identical wording as “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.  When the bill of rights was ratified, that was the background and intent of our 2nd Amendment.

As Alexander Hamilton explained, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

As Noah Webster observed, “Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.  The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

As George Mason observed, “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them …Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

James Monroe said is was a basic “human right” for the people to “keep and bear arms”.

Samuel Adams, “Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…”

I could go on forever. Only a complete liar claims contrary to what those who fashioned our country meant.  Not a single one of our founders envisioned the people being disarmed, they all held the European powers in derision for disarming their citizens.  So, I can take the word of our modern day scoundrels masquerading as constitutional scholars or I can side with those that actually wrote and ratified our constitution.

These modern day preening fools act as if only after consulting horse livers or digging up ancient runes from the desert can we understand our constitution.  And we wonder why our country is going to hell in a hand basket as liberals slowly squeeze the life out of us.

The Jihadist assault in California – 4 December 2015


America was rocked this week as two muslim jihadists decided to make their move and take out as many defenseless and innocent Americans as possible.  It was a dastardly attack, as muslims are wont to engage in.  Apparently, there’s nothing like the sweet aroma of gunpowder in their nostrils to accompany the screams of their defenseless victims.  One must wonder how it must feel when a machete makes contact with the human neck, or how hard one would have to pull a knife across the carotid of a victim, or what it must be like standing with one’s associates as you gun down a line of prisoners on their knees facing away from you, or the smell of human flesh burning after being dowsed with gasoline or diesel fuel and set ablaze.

Westerners, until recently, would only have considered such things when the nazi or communist atrocities were remembered, although few if any Americans actually witnessed their actions and few saw moving pictures of the atrocities contemporaneously.  Somehow, those were viewed almost in a detached way and they happened in another galaxy, far far away.  The contemplation and argument then was how could western and enlightened men, at least in Germany, degrade to such a feral state.

The western mind is having great difficulty in fathoming the Islamic mind and most refuse to come to grips with the truth of it.  The western mind attempts to impute some sort of western human values where there are none.  Where the western mind is often motivated by pity, remorse and even kindness, it’s difficult to grasp that there are a large percentage of humanity that is missing these seemingly so basic emotions and traits.  It’s as if the muslim is another sub-species of homo sapiens altogether.

However, islam does have a strange ally, liberalism.  While the two share many things in common, ultimately they are not compatible.  Islam demands allegiance and submission to allah, liberals demand allegiance and submission to the State.  “There can only be one”, yet they find themselves as allies against a common enemy, the truly western man, especially the truly American man.

Liberals in America have simply added muslims to their gang of special interest minority groups.  They’ll worry about the consequences later.  Surely, when the time comes, an all-powerful government will triumph over a group of fanatics loyal to a god that doesn’t exist.  They’ll allow their brand of opium for a time to exist without criticism and in return will expect their votes come election day.  Islam in America also enables to the liberals to attack Christianity.  Just as the forefathers of America’s liberals, the French Revolutionists, smashed churches and symbols of Christianity in France, the muslims will be their attack dogs here.

Obama, the jester, Hillary the Hag and Bernie the commie are all vying to see just how many muslims they can import into this country.  While real Americans recoil at the thought of one, they want tens of thousands, millions even, the more the better.

The two jihadists, husband and wife team, one a government worker, the other a pharmacist, appeared to be living the “American Dream”, money, a baby, good jobs, a nice house in a nice neighborhood.  By any measure or reasoning, these muslims would be the “best” one could hope for for any of the hundreds of thousands Obama is allowing into the country already and wanting to import more.  “Vetting”, is nothing but a rather superficial consideration of the potential immigrant based on nothing but interviews.  These two mad dogs would have easily passed the Vetting process.  Yet, the democrats desperately want more and more of them.

“These refugees are subject to the highest level security checks of any category of traveler to the United States,” according to State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “We think we can do this safely and in a way that reflects American values.”

“Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said. “At first, they were too scared of the press being too tough on them in the debates,” he added. “Now they are scared of three year old orphans. That doesn’t seem so tough to me.”  (actually goof ball, we’re afraid of these “three year old orphans” when they grow up)

“I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000, to 65,000, and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in, looking to really emphasize some of those who are most vulnerable,” Clinton said … (the most vulnerable are us, normal Americans)

Over the past few days, liberals have used such idiot terms as a “mystery” as they try their best to determine what motivated muslim killers. Poor liberals are just beside themselves trying to make every excuse in the book for them in order to avoid the truth, they were muslims, dedicated muslims. Should this prompt us to have a “religious tests” for immigrants? Yes, of course, but not according to the democrats and some idiot republicans.

Obama – “And so we have to, each of us, do our part.  And the United States has to step up and do its part. And when I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted…That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”  (how about religious tests for our safety)

Paul Ryan (idiot) – “I don’t think a religious test is appropriate. That’s not who we are. We believe in the First Amendment and religious freedom.”  (I missed the part about the constitution applicable to foreigners overseas)

Hillary – “We’ve seen a lot of hateful rhetoric from the GOP. But the idea that we’d turn away refugees because of religion is a new low.”  (Actually, pretty smart)

Trump and Cruz have made it clear they truly understand islam and its danger to America. I realize the typical democrat dolt is stuck on fighting for the right to sodomize and rip babies out of wombs, but now we’re actually talking about national survival and preventing blood from flowing in the streets and body parts flying as a result of actions by those who practice the religion of “pieces” allowed into this country. Its time to grow up and put childish things behind and do what’s right for America, do it for yourselves if nothing else. Your life may depend on it.