Sunday, August 15, 2010
Kelly for Congress
Once again I wish I lived in multiple places and could vote multiple times this November. Unfortunately I'm not a Democrat, dead, or live in Chicago so I'm going to have to stick with my one vote.
Either way, check out Jesse Kelly who's running out in Arizona's eighth district. He's another Combat vet who was a mortarman in 1st BN, 7th Marines and who served in OIF. He's for a secure border, cutting the spending, against the socialist healthcare agenda, and prolife. Check him out at votejessekelly.com.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Why allowing a mosque to be built at Ground Zero has nothing to do with freedom of religion
"This is a nation of tolerance!"
"Separation of church and state!"
"1st Amendment rights!"
Common arguments of liberals, muslims and psuedo-intellectuals who so adamantly believe in this abomination being built on the site of NYC's hallowed ground, Ground Zero. This consistent lightweight thinking which we see from the left is no surprise, but it is frustrating. As someone who attempts to always have at least some idea of what I'm talking about before I speak or write, I wonder how many of these people have actually read the Constitution. For that matter, I wonder how many of them have actually read the 1st Amendment.
AMENDMENT 1
RELIGION, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
The first thing that the liberal drone usually blurts out is that we have separation of church and state in this country. While this is semi-correct, most of them are shocked to find that this terminology is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What the first amendment does is guarantee the American two things (in the case of religion.) It gives one freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In other words, we have the freedom to choose our religion, and there will not be specific religion you are legally required to follow.
The irrefutable fact is that this amendment, including the freedom-of and freedom- from clauses, has no language guaranteeing anything about location or building rights. There is no language in that amendment that would be violated if this religious group was told that they must build their mosque somewhere else nearby. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, America has entered an age where it does not desire to be seen as strong. Progressives and liberals have meekly suggested that to allow the mosque to be built would be "ballsy" as one liberal friend put it, and would show the world that we don't let things get to us. Excuse me, but 9/11 did get to me.
To believe that the muslim world, or any part of the world would for that matter, would interpret a mosque being built at Ground Zero as anything but submission is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Well, maybe Europe will think it looks strong but I prefer not to put things on the Europe-scale. People understand strength. People don't interpret weakness as strength, or understand the language of psuedo intellectuals as anything but mumbo-jumbo.
Yesterday, our President finally decided to weigh in on the "local" issue. It was a bit late for him considering he has always thrown in his, well, for the sake of easy language we'll say two cents, about local issues involving police officers, or issues such as whether or not College Football will develop a playoff system. The President knows the language of the Constitution. He knows everything I've written right here. This just demonstrates the evils of looking at a written document as a "living breathing document," as progressives disrespectfully view our Constitution.
Not only does this issue have huge importance as far as the weak message we will be sending to the world, our current Presidential administration is slapping the American people in the face, (a current CNN pole shows that a staggering 68% of Americans disapprove of this project) but it's bring out the worst in slimy politicians like Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY.) According to Politico, other than a letter written to Mayor Bloomberg which has been kept fairly quiet, Wiener has said little about the issue, even though most know he is all for it. Why? There are many whispers that he is running for Mayor in the near future.
It's sad that with such transparent corruption that our leaders are still able to get away with this. The manipulation of the Constitution, political seediness, and pandering to a force which has vowed to whipe out the United States makes me wonder why more Americans don't speak out....
Wait, according to CNN, (this isn't me citing Fox News mind you) 68% are saying something. It looks like our government just doesn't care.
"Separation of church and state!"
"1st Amendment rights!"
Common arguments of liberals, muslims and psuedo-intellectuals who so adamantly believe in this abomination being built on the site of NYC's hallowed ground, Ground Zero. This consistent lightweight thinking which we see from the left is no surprise, but it is frustrating. As someone who attempts to always have at least some idea of what I'm talking about before I speak or write, I wonder how many of these people have actually read the Constitution. For that matter, I wonder how many of them have actually read the 1st Amendment.
AMENDMENT 1
RELIGION, SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.
The first thing that the liberal drone usually blurts out is that we have separation of church and state in this country. While this is semi-correct, most of them are shocked to find that this terminology is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. What the first amendment does is guarantee the American two things (in the case of religion.) It gives one freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. In other words, we have the freedom to choose our religion, and there will not be specific religion you are legally required to follow.
The irrefutable fact is that this amendment, including the freedom-of and freedom- from clauses, has no language guaranteeing anything about location or building rights. There is no language in that amendment that would be violated if this religious group was told that they must build their mosque somewhere else nearby. The fact of the matter is that for some reason, America has entered an age where it does not desire to be seen as strong. Progressives and liberals have meekly suggested that to allow the mosque to be built would be "ballsy" as one liberal friend put it, and would show the world that we don't let things get to us. Excuse me, but 9/11 did get to me.
To believe that the muslim world, or any part of the world would for that matter, would interpret a mosque being built at Ground Zero as anything but submission is a fundamental misunderstanding of the world in which we live. Well, maybe Europe will think it looks strong but I prefer not to put things on the Europe-scale. People understand strength. People don't interpret weakness as strength, or understand the language of psuedo intellectuals as anything but mumbo-jumbo.
Yesterday, our President finally decided to weigh in on the "local" issue. It was a bit late for him considering he has always thrown in his, well, for the sake of easy language we'll say two cents, about local issues involving police officers, or issues such as whether or not College Football will develop a playoff system. The President knows the language of the Constitution. He knows everything I've written right here. This just demonstrates the evils of looking at a written document as a "living breathing document," as progressives disrespectfully view our Constitution.
Not only does this issue have huge importance as far as the weak message we will be sending to the world, our current Presidential administration is slapping the American people in the face, (a current CNN pole shows that a staggering 68% of Americans disapprove of this project) but it's bring out the worst in slimy politicians like Congressman Anthony Weiner (NY.) According to Politico, other than a letter written to Mayor Bloomberg which has been kept fairly quiet, Wiener has said little about the issue, even though most know he is all for it. Why? There are many whispers that he is running for Mayor in the near future.
It's sad that with such transparent corruption that our leaders are still able to get away with this. The manipulation of the Constitution, political seediness, and pandering to a force which has vowed to whipe out the United States makes me wonder why more Americans don't speak out....
Wait, according to CNN, (this isn't me citing Fox News mind you) 68% are saying something. It looks like our government just doesn't care.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Due to my love of capitalism and conservative values, I'm seriously considering abandoning the Chicago Cubs
1908. 102 years ago. Years before any of my grandparents were born. Nine years before the United States entered WWI. A good twenty-five to thirty years before the average American household had electricity. The last year in which my beloved Chicago Cubs won the World Series.
I have never lived in the city of Chicago. Pops grew up there and Mom lived there for a bit, but I never did.
I was born in Grand Rapids, MI. I could be a Tigers fan. They were the American League Champions in 2006 although they did end up losing the World Series to the Cardinals.
My family moved to Cincinnati when I was about a year old. The Reds had great teams at the time. They swept the A's in the 1990 World Series. This year they are in the hunt to win the NL Central.
My family then moved to Rochester, NY. This was the early 90's when the Toronto Blue Jays won back to back World Series. Many non-NYC New Yorkers loved the Jays, especially where we lived, relatively close to the Canadian border. Those that didn't rooted for the Yankees, a team that has enjoyed success that no other team has even come close to since the Jays power years ended and before that as well. I could be a Yankees fan.
My family moved back to Ohio, this time to Dayton, in 1998. This was a year after the Indians had been in the World Series, although unfortunately losing. I also had another chance to root for the Reds in Cincinnati who were only about an hour away.
Last summer I visited family in Denver where we went to see the Rockies who were in the midst of a ten game winning streak and who went on to the playoffs. I could have jumped on that bandwagon easily enough.
I visited a buddy in Boston last summer as well, where the Red Sox play. I could have used that as my reason to join the "Red Sox Nation," right?
I went with my family to Chicago for a long weekend one time, and went to a White Sox game because the Cubs were out of town. The White Sox won the World Series in 2005 and look to be headed to the postseason this year as well. No reason not to root for the White Sox.
I don't like Whoppers, I like Big Macs. That's why I'll pick McDonalds over Burger King every time. If a pair of Reeboks are uncomfortable I'll go to the store and pick out a brand new pair of Nikes. I like seeing my favorite team win, so why am I a Cubs fan? Patient, loyal readers...I am thinking about jumping ship.
Rooting for the Cubs is like waiting around on the government to do something right. The government continues to run inept, expensive, and lackadaisical agencies such as the DMV or post office, takes their sweet time when working on roads or bridges, is full of men and women in office who don't pay their taxes, ruins military operations when they don't allow the men in uniform to run things, and all the while never hesitates to demand money from you while coming up with catchy slogans like "hope and change."
Sounds a lot like the Cubs to me. Year after year they get me excited in the winter and the spring, only to me disappoint by late summer and the fall. They have on average, the most expensive tickets in baseball, talk about things like "tradition" and "legacy" and come up with catchy slogans, like "it's a way of life."
Just like I'm voting against the Democrat here in November, I'm thinking about abandoning my allegiance to the Chicago Cubs. After all, why should I settle for a mediocre product?
Semi intelligent ramblings about stuff going on right now
Here's my take on a few things going on right now that people are talking about.
Crazy flight attendant guy: Hilarious, yet ridiculous. I get it. People are rude on airplanes, this guy was tired of it and flipped out. I give the guy props for thinking it through. He obviously knew he was headed to the slammer because he made a point to grab two beers. That's certainly the funniest part of the story. I'm not sold on the argument that he's a hero however. The guy had a bitch fit. How is that heroic? All these flight attendants are coming out of the woodwork saying that they empathize with him and talking about what torture it is to be a flight attendant. Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to the profession, but if it's such a terrible job go get a new one. You chose the career, you're getting payed for it, now deal with it. If someone is rude, kick them off the plane, don't steal beer and cuss out the passengers. The verdict? Crazy flight attendant is a tool.
J LO not getting the job of being the new judge on American Idol: My first reaction was to think this was a good thing. I figure if your music sucks, you have no business judging other people's music. Not only that, but the judges sit behind that table, so people won't even be able to see that 757 sized ass which some might have considered the one good reason to have her around. However, my final conclusion is that most of the people on that show who win have on hit and fade away, the only entertaining judge was that British guy who's now gone, and the show is on the decline. It's probably to J LO's advantage to not be getting on that sinking ship.
Rush Limbaugh making headlines simply by starting a facebook account: I like Rush, but even if you don't I think anyone should give a guy props who is so unapologetic about being as rich as he is, who has his own private jet, marries a beautiful blond woman half his age and constantly talks about how great he is. It helps that he constantly calls out that joke in the White House too. Final verdict? Cool guy.
Robert Gibbs getting mad at liberals: I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with what he said. He made a statement saying that anyone who thinks that there are similarities between Obama and Bush should be drug tested. How could a Bush fan or an Obama fan disagree with that? It does point out however, that there is a hardcore left in this country that is way to the left of our current administration. Conclusion: comical yet scary.
Putin helping out in fighting the fires in Russia: I just have one question. Did he do it on a horse without a shirt on? I hope so. If he did it that way I'll call him cool. If not, I call him a tool.
Crazy flight attendant guy: Hilarious, yet ridiculous. I get it. People are rude on airplanes, this guy was tired of it and flipped out. I give the guy props for thinking it through. He obviously knew he was headed to the slammer because he made a point to grab two beers. That's certainly the funniest part of the story. I'm not sold on the argument that he's a hero however. The guy had a bitch fit. How is that heroic? All these flight attendants are coming out of the woodwork saying that they empathize with him and talking about what torture it is to be a flight attendant. Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to the profession, but if it's such a terrible job go get a new one. You chose the career, you're getting payed for it, now deal with it. If someone is rude, kick them off the plane, don't steal beer and cuss out the passengers. The verdict? Crazy flight attendant is a tool.
J LO not getting the job of being the new judge on American Idol: My first reaction was to think this was a good thing. I figure if your music sucks, you have no business judging other people's music. Not only that, but the judges sit behind that table, so people won't even be able to see that 757 sized ass which some might have considered the one good reason to have her around. However, my final conclusion is that most of the people on that show who win have on hit and fade away, the only entertaining judge was that British guy who's now gone, and the show is on the decline. It's probably to J LO's advantage to not be getting on that sinking ship.
Rush Limbaugh making headlines simply by starting a facebook account: I like Rush, but even if you don't I think anyone should give a guy props who is so unapologetic about being as rich as he is, who has his own private jet, marries a beautiful blond woman half his age and constantly talks about how great he is. It helps that he constantly calls out that joke in the White House too. Final verdict? Cool guy.
Robert Gibbs getting mad at liberals: I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with what he said. He made a statement saying that anyone who thinks that there are similarities between Obama and Bush should be drug tested. How could a Bush fan or an Obama fan disagree with that? It does point out however, that there is a hardcore left in this country that is way to the left of our current administration. Conclusion: comical yet scary.
Putin helping out in fighting the fires in Russia: I just have one question. Did he do it on a horse without a shirt on? I hope so. If he did it that way I'll call him cool. If not, I call him a tool.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Popaditch for Congress
GySgt Nick Popaditch is running for Congress out in CA-51. By all accounts he's a true badass who's fought in Iraq both in Desert Storm and in the War on Terror. Some may recognize him as the "Cigar Marine" who had his picture taken smoking a cigar right after Saddam's statue was knocked down. In Fallujah in 2005 he lost an eye from a grenade in combat. His glass eye has the Marine Eagle, Globe and Anchor on it. A guy like him is definitely needed, especially since the liberal Bob Filner currently sits in that seat.
Check out Popaditch at www.popaditchforcongress.com.
You can also read about him at the dailycaller.com.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Trips to Spain, rants about Bush, and unpaid taxes. Where does the average American fit in with all this?
As I follow the intersecting stories of Michelle's vacation, Obama's speech given yesterday in an attempt to drum up the seemingly lackluster current support for the Democrat party, and the hot water which Maxine Waters and Charles Rangel find themselves in, I see that there is clearly something which they all have in common.
This morning, Fox News dug from out of the archives, footage of Maxine Waters back in 1995 railing against double standards, saying "What's fair for the goose, is fair for the gander!" She of course, was speaking about Newt Gingrich. Now she is playing the race card and saying that she has done nothing wrong. Charles Rangel who is yet another tax cheat continues to maintain his innocence as well.
Yesterday the President made yet another speech about how our current national troubles are due to the incompetence of President Bush. He defended this strategy saying that he's simply bringing it up still so that we don't forget and continues to point out that the GOP has yet to bring up any ideas of their own. (This reminds me of my post yesterday in which I wrote about liberals believing that saying something makes it true. If you don't agree with the actions Republicans have proposed that's fine, but to say they haven't suggested anything is ludicrous.)
Michelle took an extravagant vacation to Spain which has certainly raised eyebrows, despite a habit of attempting to look like the average American woman. I'd say she just burst that image.
But so far I haven't banged out anything here on the keyboard that everyone hasn't already heard. After all, the argument of whether it is or isn't relevant to constantly bring up Bush has lasted for months. The anger over US Congressmen and women not paying their taxes is just. Everybody has heard the whole "if I didn't pay my taxes I'd be sitting in the slammer right now!" bit. Finally, the Marie Antoinette comparisons to Michelle Obama have been all over the blogosphere, and quite frankly, may have been slightly blown out of proportion.
What really concerns me here isn't necessarily just the actions themselves. It's not as if I'm terribly surprised that there are Congressmen who aren't paying their taxes. People generally trust politicians about as far as they can spit, both Democrat and Republican. Michelle's vacation itself doesn't really bother me all that much either. Money-wise it's a drop in the hat. And let's face it, first ladies aren't your average American women,they are more of a unique type of American royalty. Barack Obama shoving the Bush talk down our throats no longer gets me riled up either; the man consistently proves to be a stubborn ideologue.
What we can really learn from all this however is the prevailing attitude of the left. Mrs. Obama's vacation didn't do much by itself to harm the country, yet it sent a bad message. The White House isn't stupid enough to not understand that the trip was going to rub people the wrong way. It's clear that they simply no longer care what the average American feels, or how much they insult them. The White House isn't stupid enough to not realize that to bring up Bush everyday is irresponsible, foolish and immature. It's clear they just feel themselves above having to take responsibility. The members of Congress aren't stupid enough not to know that they would eventually be caught in their crimes and that these crimes would enrage the American people. It's clear they just feel themselves above being accountable to the law.
The term "out of touch" has been thrown around a lot lately, by myself included. Yet these things seem beyond "out of touch." These actions expose a prevailing attitude of elitism and disdain for the common man.
Which brings up another thing to ponder; why would a party which fights for "social justice" show disdain for the common man?
Monday, August 9, 2010
The liberals have always targeted conservative Christians, but do they themselves have a God complex?
A couple of weeks ago while flipping through the channels on TV I stopped on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to hear what the old blowhard had to say. After hearing him and some guest of his talking about how evil Glenn Beck is for a few moments I decided to change the channel. (I asked MSNBC today on their facebook page why they feel the need to constantly report on Fox News or any of it's pundits, and that if I wanted to see what they were up to I would simply put Fox News on...so far no touchy liberal has responded.)
But then last night before I went to sleep I turned on BookTV on CSPAN and recognized the man reading an excerpt from his book. Within seconds I could tell that this book was all about Glenn Beck and what an evil, rich, Christian, racist opportunist he is. Not being at all interested in his liberal jargon, and not particularly being a huge Beck fan either, (nothing personal, just have never really gotten into either of his shows) I almost changed the channel again. Then right before I did, I realized I recognized this dude from somewhere.
He was the "some guest" on Olbermann's show about a month ago prattling on about how evil Glenn Beck was. For some reason I got sucked in, and watched this yokel read some more of his book, and then conduct a Q&A session for another 10 or 15 minutes. As I said, I'm no huge Beck fan, yet it struck me that this guy took a year of his life and wrote 500 pages about how much he dislikes Beck.
Early this afternoon, I don't know, perhaps out of slight boredom, I found that original interview between this guy and Olbermann on an extremely liberal blog, laprogressive.com. The guy's name is Alexander Zaitchik, and it seems that he's making his money(all the while accusing Beck of being money hungry) writing about Beck. The interview was ho-hum; the usual liberal prattle about racism and bashing of Fox News which has a nightly viewership of about 300% of MSNBC's. What caught my attention however was their explanation of Beck and Fox's "extremism." They claimed that since Beck's show is "hemorrhaging" money and ratings that they feel the need to take such "drastic" measures.
I went to check the ratings at tvbythenumbers.com. Sure enough, Beck has roughly about 400% the viewers that Chris Matthews does over at MSNBC at the same hour. In total, it was close to 2 million viewers. Now, not being one of those 2 million viewers, I don't care too much about all this other than the fact that, I suppose I would rather people be watching a conservative pundit than a progressive one. However, I am one of those people that does not like being lied to. Just because you say something, it does not mean that it is true! Telling me that 2+2 is 5 does not make the answer 5. In the words of Ayn Rand, (certainly not someone I see eye to eye with and a vehement atheist) "A is A."
And that's just it. In a world where we are constantly being told by liberals and progressives that there are no absolutes, we are also living in a world where a socialist President tells us that the economy is getting better because of a stimulus bill that he signed, which is simply not true. We are lied to by progressives about the nature of the planet and the non-existent global warming. We are assured that we owe them our money because it is theirs to decide what to do with it.
In a day and age where Christians are attacked constantly, (at least here in America) or even those who aren't Christians but simply profess to believe in a God that isn't Allah, it seems that it is no coincidence that progressives look at themselves as the one and only creator and master. As someone who doesn't really go to church all that much I can say one thing: I have no desire to bow down to or worship a liberal progressive either.
When the Boy Scouts boo you, it may be time to go
Found this on Drudge. Found it hilarious and thought I'd share.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Evil Walmart strikes again...
It's late August and it's hurricane season. While the liberals continue to do everything they can to take people's money, run shows like "American Greed" on left wing networks such as CNBC, and consistently do everything they can to generate a general dislike for all things capitalism, Walmart has announced that they will be hosting a Hurricane Preparedness and Awareness event here in Eastern Carolina.
It's funny how the American people are bombarded with stories about politicians not paying their taxes, city managers pocketing near million dollar a year salaries, and first ladies taking $350,000 vacations, yet are told to believe that successful corporations, (one of the few fortune 500 companies to be providing jobs to the American people in the last year and a half) are simply greedy and the enemy.
I commend Walmart for providing jobs, and for helping out the local community during this time of year when hurricanes can do some major damage. While the local Wilmington City Council, the New Hanover County Commission, the Brunswick County Commission, and the Southport City Council, worry about things like whether a business can put a bench outside their doors on the sidewalk, or whether farmers should be allowed to sell their vegetables on the side of the road, (yeah, THOSE ideas will really help out the average citizen around here) Walmart uses non tax dollars to do something good.
And what d'ya' know? They aren't the government. Oh, and they aren't unionized either.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Progressives continue to stay silent over human rights issues taking place in islamic countries
Today, Jihadwatch.org reported on a story about a man named Hector Aleem, a Christian, in Packistan. Feel free to click on the link to read about him. You can read about his plight easily enough by googling his name, checking out the "free Hector Aleem" facebook page. To sum up the story, police stormed his home, savagely beat him and his family, and have thrown him in prison for being blasphemous to Allah, where he and his family still sit today.
This story makes me causes me to continue to wonder just how our President goes to islamic countries and tells them how much they contribute to the world. I guess that's technically a true statement. 90% of the world's human rights violations come from these islamic countries after all. So why do we continue to pander to these countries? Why do we continue to allow ourselves to be fooled that islam is religion of peace?
Here in the United States, many became obsessed with overturning proposistion 8, and to stop "violating human rights." (Even though I stilldon't understand how anyone is being treated unequally if no one can marry someone of the same sex and anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex.) Yet no one is demanding that the United States call the islamic regimes of the world who torture and imprison those who practice their religion of choice, oppressive and tyrannical regimes.
Our current liberal administration, stocked full with marxists and progressives seems to have a never ending interest in limiting an American's freedom, and a never ending pattern of doing nothing about countries abroad that limit it's citizens freedoms.
This story makes me causes me to continue to wonder just how our President goes to islamic countries and tells them how much they contribute to the world. I guess that's technically a true statement. 90% of the world's human rights violations come from these islamic countries after all. So why do we continue to pander to these countries? Why do we continue to allow ourselves to be fooled that islam is religion of peace?
Here in the United States, many became obsessed with overturning proposistion 8, and to stop "violating human rights." (Even though I stilldon't understand how anyone is being treated unequally if no one can marry someone of the same sex and anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex.) Yet no one is demanding that the United States call the islamic regimes of the world who torture and imprison those who practice their religion of choice, oppressive and tyrannical regimes.
Our current liberal administration, stocked full with marxists and progressives seems to have a never ending interest in limiting an American's freedom, and a never ending pattern of doing nothing about countries abroad that limit it's citizens freedoms.
Friday, August 6, 2010
Is Henry a liberal?
This is Henry the Navigator. All he does is hang out, wait to be fed, eat food that he hasn't payed for, and have all his medical bills payed for by my girlfriend and I. I have a growing concern that he is turning into a liberal. Just look at that face. You can see that he has a growing sense of entitlement.
Charles Lollar for Congress
Here's another US Marine who is running for Congress up in MD-5! I first discovered him back in April when CBN did a story on him on The 700 club. It's about time we get some more Vets in office. Some other blacks have accused Major Lollar of being a racist. His usual response is, "How can I be a racist? My wife is black." I obviously can't vote for him, but I sure hope he fairs well in November.
Check him out at www.lollarforcongress.com!
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Pantano For Congress
This blog officially supports Ilario Pantano for NC-7! This man is a Marine, a warrior, a patriot, a conservative, and a man that we need in Washington.
Read all about him at his website:
Pantanoforcongress.netboots.nethttp://baseballpoliticsandfreedom.blogspot.com/
I can handle a crackhead stealing my bike...I'm having trouble handling the liberals stealing my country though
On Monday afternoon I enjoyed the relatively cool day, (it was in the 80's and not the high 90's) and rode around the neighborhood on my bike. I came back to my apartment, hopped off my bike, and left it unlocked right in front of my door. Now if it's daytime I don't worry about my bike sitting there. I can it see while sitting on the couch. I'll keep it there so if I want to use it again I don't have to mess with taking it out of my apartment again. Once it gets dark I bring it inside so it doesn't get stolen. Yet on Monday I forgot all about it. I sat on the couch watching the tube, got tired, and went to bed. When I came downstairs yesterday morning the bike was gone.
The thief didn't have to break in, didn't have to attack me or use any type of violence or destruction whatsoever. I was more angry with myself than I was with the thief. After all, everybody knows that bikes are one of those things which people love to steal. Everybody knows that in a perfect world people wouldn't steal, but that we live in this world. Everybody knows what thieves do, they steal. It was my responsibility to keep my bike secure. Obviously I failed to do so, and now I'm without a bike.
Yesterday the council in NYC voted to allow a mosque to be built on the sacred ground of ground zero. This is troubling, for I understand what the intentions of these muslims are. Muammar al-Gadaffi, a Muslim from Libya has been quoted as saying There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists. We don't need homicide bombers. The fifty plus million muslims (in Europe) will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." Are we the next target? I am not advocating that we ban them from migrating here. I do believe we must be vigilant though. Clearly, this is a victory for Islam, and a defeat to the United States. We have allowed a group which has vowed to take over the world, to build a monument to themselves on a site which claimed almost 3,000 American lives.
So, just as I was more disgusted with myself for leaving my bike out to be taken than I was with whatever dirtbag junkie who stole it, I am more disgusted with America for putting up a white flag than I am with a known enemy.
I am not as involved with the Church as I used to be, and my relationship with God probably leaves something to be desired. However, I can't help but feel that our country needs to be prayed for. I can't imagine what the families of the 9/11 victims are feeling, but I do know how I felt yesterday. I felt righteous anger, and extreme sorrow. I hope this country stays great, yet I can not help but feel that there are dark clouds on the horizon. We have sworn enemies around the world which we refuse to do anything about and simply try to appease. We allow hard working individualists to be victimized while we reward those who are weak. We fight a war in Afghanistan in which we tell the enemy when we are leaving, making us a bad ally to those fighting with us over there. We have borders which are barely existent, which are necessary by very definition for a state to exist. Now, we allow the liberals and progressives to raise a white flag on our very own soil.
The thief didn't have to break in, didn't have to attack me or use any type of violence or destruction whatsoever. I was more angry with myself than I was with the thief. After all, everybody knows that bikes are one of those things which people love to steal. Everybody knows that in a perfect world people wouldn't steal, but that we live in this world. Everybody knows what thieves do, they steal. It was my responsibility to keep my bike secure. Obviously I failed to do so, and now I'm without a bike.
Yesterday the council in NYC voted to allow a mosque to be built on the sacred ground of ground zero. This is troubling, for I understand what the intentions of these muslims are. Muammar al-Gadaffi, a Muslim from Libya has been quoted as saying There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists. We don't need homicide bombers. The fifty plus million muslims (in Europe) will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades." Are we the next target? I am not advocating that we ban them from migrating here. I do believe we must be vigilant though. Clearly, this is a victory for Islam, and a defeat to the United States. We have allowed a group which has vowed to take over the world, to build a monument to themselves on a site which claimed almost 3,000 American lives.
So, just as I was more disgusted with myself for leaving my bike out to be taken than I was with whatever dirtbag junkie who stole it, I am more disgusted with America for putting up a white flag than I am with a known enemy.
I am not as involved with the Church as I used to be, and my relationship with God probably leaves something to be desired. However, I can't help but feel that our country needs to be prayed for. I can't imagine what the families of the 9/11 victims are feeling, but I do know how I felt yesterday. I felt righteous anger, and extreme sorrow. I hope this country stays great, yet I can not help but feel that there are dark clouds on the horizon. We have sworn enemies around the world which we refuse to do anything about and simply try to appease. We allow hard working individualists to be victimized while we reward those who are weak. We fight a war in Afghanistan in which we tell the enemy when we are leaving, making us a bad ally to those fighting with us over there. We have borders which are barely existent, which are necessary by very definition for a state to exist. Now, we allow the liberals and progressives to raise a white flag on our very own soil.
Retraction Statement
It pains me to say this about anything in life but...I was wrong about something. I had this following quote posted here, and it was brought to my attention that it wasn't actually Thomas Jefferson who said this. He found the quote from somewhere else and included it in one of his essays.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
What makes this even more painful is that I was notified by a true left wing hippie while debating with people on MSNBC's facebook page. But hey, the guy pointed it out, after calling my blog a propaganda page, and after looking into I found he was right.
This doesn't change the fact that I consider the statement to be true.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
What makes this even more painful is that I was notified by a true left wing hippie while debating with people on MSNBC's facebook page. But hey, the guy pointed it out, after calling my blog a propaganda page, and after looking into I found he was right.
This doesn't change the fact that I consider the statement to be true.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
FRED THOMSPON!!
Rachel Maddow said that if a Republican cause wants coverage, to bring up Fred Thompson. Well, here it is!
Progressives in America; The Guilty Party of Eugenics, Racism and Psuedoscience
When Americans think of the terms “genocide, forced sterilization, or even master-race” most understandably think of Nazi Germany, and the bone chilling images we’ve all seen of the millions of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves upon the arrival of the allies in 1945. Americans think of Hitler lashing out against the Jews, and successfully turning a nation, (with exceptions of course,) against a religion and ethnic group. After Nazi Germany, the next most common thing Americans most likely think of are the purges in the early 50’s in the Soviet Union. Many may think about the tribal warfare that tragically still goes on in Africa today. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this country overlooks one major detail. Despite America’s exceptionalism, there has been a band of people who have done everything but defend freedom. For the past hundred years or so, progressives have focused on a very real and threatening practice called eugenics. Through bigotry, racism, and a general dislike for the concepts of religion and God, progressives have sought to control people right here in America through this practice. Although the practice has taken on numerous names such as genetic engineering, ecoscience, or just plain science, it is still alive and well today, just as dangerous as ever, and must be stopped.
Eugenics is the attempt by man to influence the evolution of man. This can be attempted by numerous different ways. Genetic enhancement is the most common method in modern times. Other methods that have been used throughout history are the forced sterilization of people, (often times people who are “mentally unfit,”) selective breeding, and abortion. Although abortion itself is not a form of eugenics, when used to target selective ethnic groups or races in order to eliminate them as a society, it most certainly is. In the worst case scenarios, there are government sponsored programs overseeing all these things mentioned.
The most common method used here in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century was forced sterilization. In his book War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Edwin Black informs us of the nation’s largest center for forced sterilization, (or sterilization mill as they were often called,) and how it was located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Native Americans, Blacks, recent immigrants, Jews, and young poverty-stricken white boys and girls were brought in, sterilized and sent on their way. What makes this even more immoral is the fact that many of these people, especially the younger ones, were misled or not told at all about what the procedure they were going through was actually doing to them. Many were simply told that it was “for their health” (Black, pg 6)
There were those involved in the practice of eugenics who undoubtedly were misguided and surely had good intentions. Kate Bolton, a retired county welfare director stated when interviewed by Black, “If you’ve seen as much suffering and depravity as I have, you can only hope and pray no one else goes through something like that. We had to stop it at the root”(5). Although these words attempt to justify the actions taken, and show that some peoples’ hearts were in the right place, there is much evidence showing that many people who were perfectly capable of providing for themselves and future children were also rounded up and sterilized. In another interview from Black’s book, one man explains that he simply can not understand why the government deemed him incapable of taking care of children. He noted that he had held the same job for over a decade, had never missed a day, never been late, and was one the workplace’s most dependable workers. The only explanation is that he lived in a day and age where in Virginia, much of the “polite society” looked down upon people that lived in the hills as “hillbillies” or “white trash.” Clearly a bigoted view not unlike the Nazis contempt for the Jews.
Another thing progressive eugenicists were able to take advantage of in the twentieth century in order to advance their agenda was the economy. From about 1890 to the post World War I era, progressives were very involved in economics, and the reform of industry. In many ways they did things that helped many people and could be considered social advancements. For instance, they regulated child labor and eventually banned it, they set a minimum wage to making sure women and children weren’t working all day for a few pennies, and they regulated safety and working conditions in order to protect peoples’ lives and health. Yet just as it did in the foothills of Virginia, eugenics reared it’s ugly head by the hand of the progressives.
African Americans, Native Americans, Catholics and Jews were time and again banned from working in factories and getting jobs. As more and more white, Protestant workers began fearing for their jobs, the more the suppression of equality came to business and the more economists began looking to the ideas of eugenics in order to make a more thriving economy for non-minorities.
Thomas Leanard documents in his journal Journal of Economic Prospectives, how Irving Fisher, the President of the Eugenics Research Association and an economist, stated his fears when he addressed the association, saying that immigrants were “defectives, delinquents, and dependants” (209). Fisher and many of his economists colleagues believed that white, protestant workers were more apt to working in agrarian society, and that the only way for them to compete with Jews, Asians, Native Americans, African Americans, Slavs, or Catholic immigrants would be the eugenics route. To regulate the selective breeding of these workers, to force sterilization upon them, and to attempt, (although never successfully) to make laws about who could have children was the eugenicists solution to an economic problem.
Ultimately, the easiest way to defeat non protestant whites, and to defend against them from taking jobs in an ever urbanizing and industrializing environment, was to limit the non white protestant population. This was no easy goal to attain. Business owners liked employing Jews, slavs and other ethnic minorities because they would work for relatively low wages. You couldn’t just remove them from the cities; that would cause an uproar. Limiting their birth was the most logical conclusion.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who is often times heralded as a hero in modern society wrote a “Baby Code,” (found in the online database Life Education and Research Network.) In her Baby Code, Sanger included eight articles. To paraphrase these articles, Sanger proposed that marriage licenses do not give couples the right to reproduce, that men and women do not have the inherent right to have children, that permits given by the government must be required to have a child, (each permit only authorizing one child,) and finally, that those who are feebleminded, prone to being criminals, and those with disease don’t have the right to have children. Although Sanger’s “Baby Code” includes no terminology regarding race or ethnicity, it was written about urban environments where the problem was minorities having children. Furthermore, only a few years later she participated in a outrageously racist project called the Negro Project.
While involved in the Negro Project, during a moment of complete candor, Sanger wrote a letter referencing the project’s push for African American abortions through an organization soon to operate under the banner “Planned Parenthood” to a Dr. Clarence Gamble. She wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This quote clearly shows, how tragically, America not only has racism as part of it’s past, but an ugly attempt at eugenics driven genocide to oppress that race.
Yet today many American people are convinced that eugenics is only an ugly stain on our history which is fortunately only part of our past and that has no place in our present or future. However, the progressive movement to decide and control who and what types of people are born and allowed to be a part of society has only disguised itself and taken on a new tactic; genetic engineering. Once one looks into just what exactly “genetic engineering” really is, it is not hard to tell that there is little if any difference between it and the eugenicists strategies. What was once called “selective breeding” by the progressives is now called Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prenatal testing, or genetic testing, (a procedure done on the adults.) New fancy names are used to hide what they really are; slightly more advanced methods used to defend against the “feebleminded” or “unfit” becoming a part of our society, by deciding which fetuses should be allowed to continue life.
In fact, the goal of germline genetic engineering, (a branch of genetic engineering) is absolutely no different than the goal of eugenics when put into words. Just as eugenics has the ultimate goal of man controlling the evolution of man, germline genetic engineering gives man the ability to control his evolution or to “control his destiny.” This is done by controlling the genes in the sperm and the ova cells. Although the intentions may sound good, one must wonder, what are these scientists really trying to achieve? One of the two discoverers of DNA, Dr. James Watson has publicly approved of germline genetic engineering, but this same man has publicy expressed his contempt for “ugly” women, and unintelligent people. He’s gone on to say things paralleling Margaret Sanger’s quotes when speaking to the Times of London. In 2007 Dr. Watson bluntly stated that “there are many people of color who are very talented,” but went on to say that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” Fortunately the rest of the legit scientific community quickly denounced his words in the October 2007 issue of Scientific America. The sad truth of the matter is that Dr. Watson is not the exception in the community of progressive scientists, eugenicists and genetic engineers; he is the rule. The community has been attempting to mask their general distaste for people different than them, (whether it be of color, ethnicity, culture, intelligence, or simply their personal looks,) as science for the better part of the last century.
In fact, we need look no farther than the current “science czar,” (officially called the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,) of the current presidential administration to find another pseudo-scientist attempting to use science to hide his ill feelings toward “undesirables.” In the 1977 book which John Holdren, the “science czar” co-authored, Ecoscience: Population, Rescources, Environment, he proposes many disturbing wishes for this country. He proposes forced abortions with no regard to the mother’s wishes. He proposes sterilizing the population at large by putting drugs into drinking water and food. Finally he proposes forcing “people who contribute to social deterioration,” (783) or undesirables, to have abortions or to be sterilized. How does Mr. Holdren propose that we enforce these proposals? In his own words he calls for an “International Planetary Regime,” which would be an “armed international organization” (782). Clearly, this same strategy of having and armed organization was shared by the ultimate eugenicists, Adolph Hitler. Obviously, although the progressive eugenicists have changed there language, they haven’t changed their goals.
If we take a moment to study the philosophy of progressives, we will find that really and truly, they do little to hide their contempt for mankind. As most are atheists, and in turn existentialists, (and in more recent years have taken on the title “humanists”) they have no regard for human life, and see no problem with manipulating it whether by forced abortion, or in a lab somewhere. In his book God And Reason; A Historical Approach to Philosophical Theology, ED L Miller exposes the true meaning of Jean-Paul Satre’s words, a leading existentialist, who wrote in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century summed up his existentialist beliefs in a few words. “Subjectivity must be the starting point”(151). Satre also gravitates to the idea that life is nothing but a series of absurdities, which is only another way of stating that to the existentialists, humanists, and of course the progressives, life is simply meaningless. Many thinkers who have ideals based on some sort of moral compass, (ie; members of numerous different religions or agnostics) believe in a “big box” (152). This box has reference points based upon which provide a rational view of the world.
Progressives have been for a little more than the last century, operating with no regard or belief in this box and with no tolerance for those who do. With no sense of morality, progressives here in the United States have roamed the foothills of Virginia looking for “feebleminded” to sterilize. They have attempted to force abortions in urban industrial centers with the sole goal of eliminating the African American population. Their ideology has spread oversees to the Third Reich where Hitler, (who had been closely following the Eugenics movement here in the United States) avidly ran with the idea, and proceeded to kill eleven million “undesirables.” Margaret Sanger’s of the “Baby Code” has spread to communist China which strict laws about how many children a couple may have. The progressive-eugenics movement has changed it’s name in recent years and taken on the titles of genetic engineering or ecoscience. Yet whether one-hundred years ago in sterilization mills, half a century ago in concentration camps, or today in labs or the office of the “science czar,” progressives have sought and continue to control population, families, and individuals’ freedom here in the United States and all over the world. American exceptionalism is a very real thing. We have given millions the opportunity to live free lives. We have spread democracy to other nations, toppled tyrannies and made advancements in science and medicine unprecedented by any other country. We as a nation have unbelievable influence upon the rest of the world. Therefore we must prevent the progressives from taking over our country and spreading their ideas to the rest of the world before their pseudoscience kills more people, and violates the rights of people of all colors, ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, beliefs, and cultures.
Works Cited
Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create A Master Race.
New York City: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. Print.
Leanard, Thomas C. “Retrospectives; Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19.4 (2005): 207-24. Print.
Miller, ED L. God and Reason. New York City: MacMillan, 1972. Print.
Nugent, Helen. “Black people ‘less intelligent’ scientists claims.” Times Online. The Times of London, 17 October. 2007. Web. 25, November. 2009.
Abrams, Joseph. “Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solution.” Foxnews.com. Fox News, 21 July, 2009. Web.
28 November. 2009.
“Racist and Eugenicists Statements by Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood.” The Black Informant. The American Life League. Web. 28 November. 2009.
Sanger, Margaret. “The American Baby Code.” Life Education and Research Network. Heritage House, 1976. Web. 26, November. 2009. http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/sanger_and_planned_parenthood.asp
“Genetic Technology and Eugenics.” Med India, Networking for Health. Health Watch, 4 April. 2007. Web. 28 November. 2009.
Stein, Lisa. “World Renowned Geneticists Draws Fire for Claims that Africans are Intellectually Inferior.” Scientific American. American Scientific Publishers, 17 October. 2007. Web. 28 November, 2009.
Ehlrlrich, Paul R. Anne H. Ehlrlich. John P. Holdren. Ecoscience, Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freemen and Company, 1977.
http://www.questia.com/. Web. 27 November. 2009.
Eugenics is the attempt by man to influence the evolution of man. This can be attempted by numerous different ways. Genetic enhancement is the most common method in modern times. Other methods that have been used throughout history are the forced sterilization of people, (often times people who are “mentally unfit,”) selective breeding, and abortion. Although abortion itself is not a form of eugenics, when used to target selective ethnic groups or races in order to eliminate them as a society, it most certainly is. In the worst case scenarios, there are government sponsored programs overseeing all these things mentioned.
The most common method used here in the United States in the early part of the twentieth century was forced sterilization. In his book War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, Edwin Black informs us of the nation’s largest center for forced sterilization, (or sterilization mill as they were often called,) and how it was located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Native Americans, Blacks, recent immigrants, Jews, and young poverty-stricken white boys and girls were brought in, sterilized and sent on their way. What makes this even more immoral is the fact that many of these people, especially the younger ones, were misled or not told at all about what the procedure they were going through was actually doing to them. Many were simply told that it was “for their health” (Black, pg 6)
There were those involved in the practice of eugenics who undoubtedly were misguided and surely had good intentions. Kate Bolton, a retired county welfare director stated when interviewed by Black, “If you’ve seen as much suffering and depravity as I have, you can only hope and pray no one else goes through something like that. We had to stop it at the root”(5). Although these words attempt to justify the actions taken, and show that some peoples’ hearts were in the right place, there is much evidence showing that many people who were perfectly capable of providing for themselves and future children were also rounded up and sterilized. In another interview from Black’s book, one man explains that he simply can not understand why the government deemed him incapable of taking care of children. He noted that he had held the same job for over a decade, had never missed a day, never been late, and was one the workplace’s most dependable workers. The only explanation is that he lived in a day and age where in Virginia, much of the “polite society” looked down upon people that lived in the hills as “hillbillies” or “white trash.” Clearly a bigoted view not unlike the Nazis contempt for the Jews.
Another thing progressive eugenicists were able to take advantage of in the twentieth century in order to advance their agenda was the economy. From about 1890 to the post World War I era, progressives were very involved in economics, and the reform of industry. In many ways they did things that helped many people and could be considered social advancements. For instance, they regulated child labor and eventually banned it, they set a minimum wage to making sure women and children weren’t working all day for a few pennies, and they regulated safety and working conditions in order to protect peoples’ lives and health. Yet just as it did in the foothills of Virginia, eugenics reared it’s ugly head by the hand of the progressives.
African Americans, Native Americans, Catholics and Jews were time and again banned from working in factories and getting jobs. As more and more white, Protestant workers began fearing for their jobs, the more the suppression of equality came to business and the more economists began looking to the ideas of eugenics in order to make a more thriving economy for non-minorities.
Thomas Leanard documents in his journal Journal of Economic Prospectives, how Irving Fisher, the President of the Eugenics Research Association and an economist, stated his fears when he addressed the association, saying that immigrants were “defectives, delinquents, and dependants” (209). Fisher and many of his economists colleagues believed that white, protestant workers were more apt to working in agrarian society, and that the only way for them to compete with Jews, Asians, Native Americans, African Americans, Slavs, or Catholic immigrants would be the eugenics route. To regulate the selective breeding of these workers, to force sterilization upon them, and to attempt, (although never successfully) to make laws about who could have children was the eugenicists solution to an economic problem.
Ultimately, the easiest way to defeat non protestant whites, and to defend against them from taking jobs in an ever urbanizing and industrializing environment, was to limit the non white protestant population. This was no easy goal to attain. Business owners liked employing Jews, slavs and other ethnic minorities because they would work for relatively low wages. You couldn’t just remove them from the cities; that would cause an uproar. Limiting their birth was the most logical conclusion.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who is often times heralded as a hero in modern society wrote a “Baby Code,” (found in the online database Life Education and Research Network.) In her Baby Code, Sanger included eight articles. To paraphrase these articles, Sanger proposed that marriage licenses do not give couples the right to reproduce, that men and women do not have the inherent right to have children, that permits given by the government must be required to have a child, (each permit only authorizing one child,) and finally, that those who are feebleminded, prone to being criminals, and those with disease don’t have the right to have children. Although Sanger’s “Baby Code” includes no terminology regarding race or ethnicity, it was written about urban environments where the problem was minorities having children. Furthermore, only a few years later she participated in a outrageously racist project called the Negro Project.
While involved in the Negro Project, during a moment of complete candor, Sanger wrote a letter referencing the project’s push for African American abortions through an organization soon to operate under the banner “Planned Parenthood” to a Dr. Clarence Gamble. She wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This quote clearly shows, how tragically, America not only has racism as part of it’s past, but an ugly attempt at eugenics driven genocide to oppress that race.
Yet today many American people are convinced that eugenics is only an ugly stain on our history which is fortunately only part of our past and that has no place in our present or future. However, the progressive movement to decide and control who and what types of people are born and allowed to be a part of society has only disguised itself and taken on a new tactic; genetic engineering. Once one looks into just what exactly “genetic engineering” really is, it is not hard to tell that there is little if any difference between it and the eugenicists strategies. What was once called “selective breeding” by the progressives is now called Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, prenatal testing, or genetic testing, (a procedure done on the adults.) New fancy names are used to hide what they really are; slightly more advanced methods used to defend against the “feebleminded” or “unfit” becoming a part of our society, by deciding which fetuses should be allowed to continue life.
In fact, the goal of germline genetic engineering, (a branch of genetic engineering) is absolutely no different than the goal of eugenics when put into words. Just as eugenics has the ultimate goal of man controlling the evolution of man, germline genetic engineering gives man the ability to control his evolution or to “control his destiny.” This is done by controlling the genes in the sperm and the ova cells. Although the intentions may sound good, one must wonder, what are these scientists really trying to achieve? One of the two discoverers of DNA, Dr. James Watson has publicly approved of germline genetic engineering, but this same man has publicy expressed his contempt for “ugly” women, and unintelligent people. He’s gone on to say things paralleling Margaret Sanger’s quotes when speaking to the Times of London. In 2007 Dr. Watson bluntly stated that “there are many people of color who are very talented,” but went on to say that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa.” Fortunately the rest of the legit scientific community quickly denounced his words in the October 2007 issue of Scientific America. The sad truth of the matter is that Dr. Watson is not the exception in the community of progressive scientists, eugenicists and genetic engineers; he is the rule. The community has been attempting to mask their general distaste for people different than them, (whether it be of color, ethnicity, culture, intelligence, or simply their personal looks,) as science for the better part of the last century.
In fact, we need look no farther than the current “science czar,” (officially called the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,) of the current presidential administration to find another pseudo-scientist attempting to use science to hide his ill feelings toward “undesirables.” In the 1977 book which John Holdren, the “science czar” co-authored, Ecoscience: Population, Rescources, Environment, he proposes many disturbing wishes for this country. He proposes forced abortions with no regard to the mother’s wishes. He proposes sterilizing the population at large by putting drugs into drinking water and food. Finally he proposes forcing “people who contribute to social deterioration,” (783) or undesirables, to have abortions or to be sterilized. How does Mr. Holdren propose that we enforce these proposals? In his own words he calls for an “International Planetary Regime,” which would be an “armed international organization” (782). Clearly, this same strategy of having and armed organization was shared by the ultimate eugenicists, Adolph Hitler. Obviously, although the progressive eugenicists have changed there language, they haven’t changed their goals.
If we take a moment to study the philosophy of progressives, we will find that really and truly, they do little to hide their contempt for mankind. As most are atheists, and in turn existentialists, (and in more recent years have taken on the title “humanists”) they have no regard for human life, and see no problem with manipulating it whether by forced abortion, or in a lab somewhere. In his book God And Reason; A Historical Approach to Philosophical Theology, ED L Miller exposes the true meaning of Jean-Paul Satre’s words, a leading existentialist, who wrote in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century summed up his existentialist beliefs in a few words. “Subjectivity must be the starting point”(151). Satre also gravitates to the idea that life is nothing but a series of absurdities, which is only another way of stating that to the existentialists, humanists, and of course the progressives, life is simply meaningless. Many thinkers who have ideals based on some sort of moral compass, (ie; members of numerous different religions or agnostics) believe in a “big box” (152). This box has reference points based upon which provide a rational view of the world.
Progressives have been for a little more than the last century, operating with no regard or belief in this box and with no tolerance for those who do. With no sense of morality, progressives here in the United States have roamed the foothills of Virginia looking for “feebleminded” to sterilize. They have attempted to force abortions in urban industrial centers with the sole goal of eliminating the African American population. Their ideology has spread oversees to the Third Reich where Hitler, (who had been closely following the Eugenics movement here in the United States) avidly ran with the idea, and proceeded to kill eleven million “undesirables.” Margaret Sanger’s of the “Baby Code” has spread to communist China which strict laws about how many children a couple may have. The progressive-eugenics movement has changed it’s name in recent years and taken on the titles of genetic engineering or ecoscience. Yet whether one-hundred years ago in sterilization mills, half a century ago in concentration camps, or today in labs or the office of the “science czar,” progressives have sought and continue to control population, families, and individuals’ freedom here in the United States and all over the world. American exceptionalism is a very real thing. We have given millions the opportunity to live free lives. We have spread democracy to other nations, toppled tyrannies and made advancements in science and medicine unprecedented by any other country. We as a nation have unbelievable influence upon the rest of the world. Therefore we must prevent the progressives from taking over our country and spreading their ideas to the rest of the world before their pseudoscience kills more people, and violates the rights of people of all colors, ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, beliefs, and cultures.
Works Cited
Black, Edwin. War Against the Weak; America’s Campaign to Create A Master Race.
New York City: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2003. Print.
Leanard, Thomas C. “Retrospectives; Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19.4 (2005): 207-24. Print.
Miller, ED L. God and Reason. New York City: MacMillan, 1972. Print.
Nugent, Helen. “Black people ‘less intelligent’ scientists claims.” Times Online. The Times of London, 17 October. 2007. Web. 25, November. 2009.
Abrams, Joseph. “Obama’s Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solution.” Foxnews.com. Fox News, 21 July, 2009. Web.
28 November. 2009.
“Racist and Eugenicists Statements by Margaret Sanger, the Founder of Planned Parenthood.” The Black Informant. The American Life League. Web. 28 November. 2009.
Sanger, Margaret. “The American Baby Code.” Life Education and Research Network. Heritage House, 1976. Web. 26, November. 2009. http://www.abortionfacts.com/learn/sanger_and_planned_parenthood.asp
“Genetic Technology and Eugenics.” Med India, Networking for Health. Health Watch, 4 April. 2007. Web. 28 November. 2009.
Stein, Lisa. “World Renowned Geneticists Draws Fire for Claims that Africans are Intellectually Inferior.” Scientific American. American Scientific Publishers, 17 October. 2007. Web. 28 November, 2009.
Ehlrlrich, Paul R. Anne H. Ehlrlich. John P. Holdren. Ecoscience, Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: W.H. Freemen and Company, 1977.
http://www.questia.com/. Web. 27 November. 2009.
Lies about abortion that even "pro-life" people fall for
1. "Pro-Choice" is an accurate title for the pro-abortion camp.
-Next time you stumble across an abortion clinic, ask one of those dead babies freshly killed, if he had a choice in the matter.
2. Abortion is acceptable if it is because the woman was raped.
-Rape is undoubtedly a tragic thing to have happen. Unfortunately sometimes mother's decide to punish the wrong party. The one who committed this heinous act, the rapist, is the only one who should pay for what he did. The baby has done no wrong.
3. Abortion is acceptable if it is due to in incest.
-Although births as a consequence of incest do have a higher risk for congenital birth defects, there is absolutely no guarantee of this happening. If it does happen, while sad, the justification for an abortion is still non existent. Last time I checked, hospitals did not execute those with health problems. "Sir, you have cancer, we are now bringing you to the electric chair to fry you." Therefore, although in no way am I defending incestuous relationships, I am defending their
offspring.
4. Abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is in danger.
-A sad fact of life is that sometimes tragedy occurs. Lets let these tragic occurrences, (such as a mother passing away while delivering a baby,) happen naturally instead of deliberately, (as in the instance of abortion.) The mother chose engage in sex. The infant did not.
5. Those who lobby in favor of abortion have innocent motives in defending the rights of the woman.
-Since the Roe v. Wade case, somewhere between 45 and 50 million babies have been murdered. That is almost as many total dead after WWII. If these abortions never had occurred our nation would be approximately 1/6 bigger than it currently is. It is no secret that liberals have been proponents of population control, such as John Chaldren, Obama's science czar who wants to regulate the children population. Chaldren has written, "The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” Clearly, those who claim to fight for the right of a woman's body, have ulterior motives.
-Next time you stumble across an abortion clinic, ask one of those dead babies freshly killed, if he had a choice in the matter.
2. Abortion is acceptable if it is because the woman was raped.
-Rape is undoubtedly a tragic thing to have happen. Unfortunately sometimes mother's decide to punish the wrong party. The one who committed this heinous act, the rapist, is the only one who should pay for what he did. The baby has done no wrong.
3. Abortion is acceptable if it is due to in incest.
-Although births as a consequence of incest do have a higher risk for congenital birth defects, there is absolutely no guarantee of this happening. If it does happen, while sad, the justification for an abortion is still non existent. Last time I checked, hospitals did not execute those with health problems. "Sir, you have cancer, we are now bringing you to the electric chair to fry you." Therefore, although in no way am I defending incestuous relationships, I am defending their
offspring.
4. Abortion is acceptable if the mother's life is in danger.
-A sad fact of life is that sometimes tragedy occurs. Lets let these tragic occurrences, (such as a mother passing away while delivering a baby,) happen naturally instead of deliberately, (as in the instance of abortion.) The mother chose engage in sex. The infant did not.
5. Those who lobby in favor of abortion have innocent motives in defending the rights of the woman.
-Since the Roe v. Wade case, somewhere between 45 and 50 million babies have been murdered. That is almost as many total dead after WWII. If these abortions never had occurred our nation would be approximately 1/6 bigger than it currently is. It is no secret that liberals have been proponents of population control, such as John Chaldren, Obama's science czar who wants to regulate the children population. Chaldren has written, "The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?” Clearly, those who claim to fight for the right of a woman's body, have ulterior motives.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)