Wednesday, March 11, 2015



Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV

Moscow Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov

Comrade Y.V. Andropov On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe.
According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the "success of Reaganomics."

Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop.

The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength.

However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals.

Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov:

Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues.
If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit.
Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.)
2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information.

If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.
Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration.

Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutual understandings between peoples.

The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney.
Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan.

We await instructions.

President of the committee
V. Chebrikov

Tuesday, March 10, 2015


If you've been working at all over any portion of your life, you should be happy to know that Washington is set to begin handing your Social Security money to illegal immigrants very soon.


The amnesty crowd’s biggest swindle has already been exposed as a ridiculous lie: the illegals aren’t going to be paying any “back taxes” to “earn” their citizenship. They’re going to be able to collect money from the IRS through tax credits, up to $35,000 apiece. Now the Social Security Administration has confirmed that amnestied aliens will be able to collect benefits from it as well, as early as 2017. 
We’re not talking about people stealing Social Security numbers and using them to scam benefits – that’s already happening, on an incredible scale, and the SSA doesn’t take even the simple precautionary measure of questioning how nearly four thousand people could be collecting benefits while claiming to be older than 113. Its system doesn’t even seem to have problems with a few thousand active Social Security clients who claim to have been born before the Civil War.  

We learned about that crisis thanks to an inquiry from Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), who also asked the SSA to run the numbers on how many of our New Americans would be collecting benefits legally after Obama illegally dismantles our citizenship laws. The chief actuary responded that he expects about 16,000 “New Americans” to begin collecting Old-Age, Survivor’s, and Disability Insurance benefits by 2017, with the total rising steadily over the next four decades until it hits 695,000.  
As Ryan Lovelace at National Review observes, even this estimate is absurdly optimistic, because it assumes the flow of illegal aliens will decrease after 2016. In reality, we’ll be hit by wave after wave of new illegals looking for their piece of the amnesty pie.

How incredibly exciting/depressing depending on your point of view.


The University of Oklahoma has garnered a lot of attention this week for a video posted by a group of frat guys being typical, obnoxious frat guys. While nobody will deny this type of behavior is a problem, a bigger problem seems to be the double standard of acceptable behavior allowed by mainstream society.

If you haven't seen the video -

Obnoxious, crude and certainly racist.

But there's an odd thing nobody seems to notice about this whole ordeal.

Take a look at what the New York Daily News is worked up about.

The New York Daily News 
Racism is not exclusive to just the frat brothers at the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter.
A Vine video uncovered by the college’s student newspaper Monday night appears to show the frat’s house mother, Beauton Gilbow, uttering the N-word seven times in succession and cackling in the process.
Gilbow seemed to be at a party while giving the hate-filled rant, and acted as if she was intoxicated. She spouted racial slurs while rapping along to Trinidad James’ “All Gold Everything," which blares in the background.

And on the Huffington Post

As anti-racism protests continue to take place on the University of Oklahoma campus following a viral video clip displaying Sigma Alpha Epsilon chanting racist lyrics about their chapter, it appears the college is also beginning to experience backlash from entertainers. 
Waka Flocka Flame has cancelled his upcoming April concert at the University due to SAE’s offensive behavior. 
Interesting for two reasons:

Let's start with Ms. Gilbow. While those detached from reality would be worked up over her video, the truth is that she is simply singing along with the song playing on the radio. She's not even exaggerating the lyrics. The official music video can be seen here, but here are the obnoxious, crude and certainly racist lyrics from Trinidad James' "smash hit" All Things Gold:
Gold all in my chain
Gold all in my ring
Gold all in my watch
Nigga, nigga, nigga
Don't believe me, just watch
Don't believe me, just watch
Nigga Nigga Nigga
This ain't for no **** nigga
You a real nigga then **** with me
This one for the hood niggas
Hipster bit**** that shop at Lennox
That's a lot of N words with some other expletives thrown in for good measure, I guess.

But the question is why is Ms. Gilbow considered a racist for singing along with a black man's song? If black people were offended by white people enjoying their music (and I know they are not), wouldn't that make them the racists?

Am I a racist for all the Dave Chappelle bits I've enjoyed over the years? Clayton Bigsby specifically.

So what about Wacka Flocka Seagulls? Certainly his stand against hate is something to be admired.

Well, let me ask the question nobody else is asking: What the heck is Wacka Flocka doing playing shows on college campuses? This guy's music is racist, misogynistic and full of drug celebrations.

In fact, on his website right now he is pushing his upcoming college tour.

Here's a few captures from his Twitter feed

As you can see, the people inside the hip hop culture have no issue with the N word, they just don't like white people repeating it. And apparently colleges have no issue with speech that degrades women and minorities or the celebration of drugs on campus.

And while none of this provides an allowance for the obvious racism in the fraternity's video, and while I really don't have an issue with universities across the country asking Waka to play shows on their campuses, I just have to question what principle is being applied.

It's much like the Cracker Barrel fiasco when Phil Robertson told the country exactly how the Bible feels about homosexuality. Cracker Barrel didn't remove his stuff from the stores because he violated some sort of company-wide principle, Cracker Barrel saw a hit coming on its bottom line and capitulated to the feeble minded masses in order to keep taking their money.

Oklahoma is doing the same thing. This fraternity hasn't offended any sort of principle of the University outside of potentially harming its bottom line. If American universities are now deciding to stand on principles, certainly they will cancel all these upcoming shows and demonstrate that they will not tolerate behavior that perpetuates a negative view of women and minorities while also celebrating illegal activities.

Then again, canceling these shows may hurt somebody's bottom line, which is exactly the point in the first place.

Friday, December 19, 2014


Well, here we go again. A man in confrontation with law enforcement gunned down after putting his hand in the air to surrender. Sure, he was reaching for a gun with his other hand, but more importantly he was making a move to possibly, maybe surrender with the other hand.

I'm on Facebook and Reddit A LOT so that means two things: I believe everything I read on the internet, and I know all expert tactics in dealing with criminals at large.

From my heavy internet research I know that it's not the actions of the law breaker that matter, it's their intent.

Just as Michael Brown intended to surrender after attacking Officer Wilson and going for his gun, and just as Eric Garner intended to stop breaking the law in New York, so also did Emilio Soliz intend to give up right after he shot Officer Gibson.

Makes sense if you really don't think about it.


When the officer pursued the vehicle, the driver tried to outrun him. 
The drama was heightened when the car suddenly stopped and a passenger jumped out and ran off and the driver sped up again, according to newly released dashcam video of the incident, KHOU-TV reported
“And he makes that indication like, ‘I’m surrendering,’” Hedwig Village Police Chief David Gott said.Far from it.Just seconds after the driver put up his left hand, he grabbed a gun with his right hand and fired about six times at Gibson.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014


You can't make it past the first paragraph of this article from People magazine without nearly drowning in absurdity.

"The protective bubble that comes with the presidency – the armored limo, the Secret Service detail, the White House – shields Barack andMichelle Obama from a lot of unpleasantness. But their encounters with racial prejudice aren't as far in the past as one might expect. And they obviously still sting." 
Did you get that?

If the Obama's weren't America's first family, they would totally have to deal with racism, but they're the President and First Lady, you know, the job you get by convincing a large swath of Americans (especially white ones) to vote for you, so they don't really experience racism like other black people.

Just so it's clear: The Obama's are free from most racism only because a bunch of white people voted for them to lead the free world.

But fear not, Rev. Sharpton, the Obama's know true racism, just as Michelle lays out in painful, vivd detail -
"I tell this story – I mean, even as the first lady – during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn't see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn't anything new." 
Not only is she the first lady, she's also a paranoid narcissist.

It reminds me of my own story which I will now share.
"I tell this story - I mean, even as a young kid - I remember being bullied and kicked and 
punched by Quinton and Kwan, the two black kids at Sunday School, each week in 
Jacksonville, Florida. Because they didn't see me as a bright, talented, good-looking 
young man, they saw me as a punching bag. Those kinds of things happen in life. so it 
isn't anything new."
Harrowing, I know.

The differences between my story and Michelle's is that I recognize bullies come in all colors, and not everyone in the world would recognize famous people in person, especially inside some random big box store in Virginia,  during a shopping trip which was billed at the time as her attempt to go out "unrecognized" and also described her as undercover. In fact, this black reporter says she "blended in" and then a black lady whom he interviews says Michelle looks like "normal people". Black people are so racist! Am I right, Michelle?

Despite the Obama's doing their best to describe how one-percenters are affected by perceived racism their final statement in the interview really takes the cake.
"The small irritations or indignities that we experience are nothing compared to what a previous generation experienced," President Obama said. "It's one thing for me to be mistaken for a waiter at a gala. It's another thing for my son to be mistaken for a robber and to be handcuffed, or worse, if he happens to be walking down the street and is dressed the way teenagers dress." 
There is a strong irony in a man whose entire career is based on the greatest exploitation of American blacks since slavery, a man educated in private schools and Ivy League Universities, a man who has continually pulled in six-figure incomes since his early career, doing his best to convince people he can relate to them simply because he looks like them, and that he understands the racial plight of an oppressed people.

What the Obama's fail to realize is that in the real world, we have moved well beyond judging and manipulating based on race. Sure, a few extreme cases of prejudice may occur (like when the black girl at the counter allowed her black friend to skip me in line and pay first) but those are exceptions and not the rule in 2014.

Basically, we all get along and appreciate each other up until people like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama drive a wedge between us and position the argument so that when we critique them we are critiquing each other.

If Barack Obama and Al Sharpton were truly concerned with race in America, would they continually only find stories that touch on negative extremes? Put in a different context: If your goal as to convince someone that God exists, would you only tell them stories of death and destruction, or would you tell them stories of miracles and love? The answer, of course, is to focus on the positive.

So if you're goal is to fix race relations in America, why do you continually tell stories that accentuate the negative? Why are their not parades celebrating the positives rather than protests and looting over an extreme negative? Because the Obamas and Sharpton only care about race issues as long as it's a profitable endeavor which in turn makes them as racist as those they claim to fight.

Monday, August 4, 2014


The best part of this story is Steve Doocy asking a Congressman what he was "yappin' about".

Sunday, July 27, 2014


Everybody gets mad when you call President Obama a Socialist, but he certainly talks like one.


"Rather than double-down on the top-down economics that let a fortunate few play by their own rules, let’s embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together, as one nation, and as one people." 

Friday, July 18, 2014


This is par for the course, I would say.

When impeaching the president at the helm of the most corrupt and tyrannical administration in the history of the Union is mocked and ridiculed by both sides of the aisle, what more can you expect? The President realizes he has cover from both sides at this point.

I know you can expect some DOJ hard drives to crash very soon.

The Daily Caller
A Justice Department fraud prevention program came under fire Thursday for allegedly morphing into actively pressuring banks to deny financial services to businesses for political reasons.Operation Choke Point functions as a partnership between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and various other federal agencies which deal with bank regulations, specifically the Treasury and the SEC. The objective of the project is to choke-off fraudulent businesses from accessing financial services, in an effort to protect consumers.The controversy, however, is over allegations that the DOJ is pressuring financial institutions to decline doing business with so-called “high risk” industries which line up squarely against the political leanings of the current administration. These businesses include ammunition sales, payday loans, pornography, fireworks companies, and others—24 industries in total, as listed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).“Operation Choke Point is one of the most dangerous programs I have experienced in my 45 years of service as a bank regulator, bank attorney and consultant, and bank board member. Operating without legal authority and guided by a political agenda, unelected officials at the DOJ are discouraging banks from providing basic banking services…to lawful businesses simply because they don’t like them,” said William M. Isaac, former chairman of the FDIC.

Not a smidgen of corruption. None.


I'm no military expert, but I am pretty sure that if a group of terrorists was carrying weapons into a facility I was in charge of, I would be able to figure that out pretty fast which makes this story so very troubling.

The Times of Israel
20 rockets were found Wednesday in a school in Gaza operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the organization confirmed Thursday.
The discovery would seem to confirm Israel’s oft-repeated claim that Hamas and other Gazan terror groups use civilian infrastructure to hide weapons.“Yet again, Gaza terrorists abuse UN facilities to carry out their violent activities. Hamas and other terror groups are determined to put civilians in harm’s way and will respect nothing in their violent frenzy,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor told The Times of Israel. “We expect the UN and the international community to condemn and to act strongly against this brazen violation of international humanitarian law, which endangers children and UN humanitarian activities.”
How's that anti-semitic narrative working out for you, Mainstream Media?


A wonderful piece by Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post.

It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. 
There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza. And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel. 
Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military commanders.
Definitely worth reading it all.

Sunday, June 1, 2014


Have you seen this video yet?

Men who claim to be Second Amendment activists visit a local Sonic acting as if their Second Amendment rights are being infringed when the manager asks them to put their rifles in their cars before sitting down to eat.

First, let's watch, and then I will break this down for you piece by piece.

Please at least watch enough to hear the audio of the fella rolling tape, and how gleeful he is to have garnered the reaction for which he was looking.

That's half the point, but I will get to that in a moment.

First, I work in a gun store. I have had multiple, loaded firearms pointed at me by people just like this; people who think they know and understand firearms, but they don't know basic decorum when dealing with other people and their firearms.

I carry multiple firearms with me on a daily basis. One in the vehicle, one on my person. I don't say that to brag, I say that to highlight that I am obviously not anti-gun. I am a strong advocate of being prepared and being smart.

These men are neither prepared or smart.

First, let me take on "Open Carry". Open Carry is different than the standard ability to carry a gun in most states. In most states you are allowed to carry a gun on your person as long as it remains concealed and out of view of the general public. With Open Carry, you get exactly what you hear: the ability to openly carry a firearm on your hip or shoulder in view of the general public.

I would never open carry because it's a bad idea on two levels that both revolve around the same point: When in the arena of the general public, nobody should know you have a gun. Ever. Period. Until the moment arrives in which you must use deadly force to defend yourself or your family, nobody should know you are carrying a gun. I'm not preaching, I'm just talking about what I think is proper strategy for maintaining your own safety and tactical advantage in a life or death scenario. If you wnat the bad guy to know that you have a gun, because you think that will deter him from shooting, more power to you. What I believe is that the bad guy came armed with the intent of hurting innocent people, and he is probably going to shoot the guy with the gun on his hip, that he can see, first.

Further, The general public gets antsy around firearms because they don't understand them. When these weirdos that carry ball pythons with them around their necks walk near me, I walk away because snakes creep me out. That's the same feeling some people have around guns, and I respect that, and I refuse to treat them like they are stupid for feeling that way (unlike Open Carry Texas). The fact is, the Sonic manager in the video above, has more of a proper, healthy respect for firearms than all of these fellas combined.

Now back to the poor display by Open Carry Texas.

What these guys want is to gain sympathy by hopping on the current wave of strong Constitutional regard by so many people fed up with big government and hoping for a return to our nation's founding principles. What they miss here, is that their behavior is not helping that cause at all. In fact, I am of the opinion they are doing exponentially more harm than good.

Their behavior is threatening, foolish and disruptive. I know, that doesn't trump their right to openly carry their firearm in public, but even that right is not Constitutional, that's a state issue, and even guys like me, who you can judge through very public forums in which we post our beliefs (I even co-host a podcast if you care to hear me say it out loud) don't really argue that point. But what is neglected here is the purposefully intimidating approach these guys are using.

Two quick points -

1.) You will be hard pressed to find a shooting range which DOES NOT REQUIRE patrons to lock the bolt or slide to the rear and remove their gun's magazine before walking around with their weapon.

Why? Because it creates an environment of comfort to the general public. People don't want to shop around strangers carrying what appear to be loaded guns standing next to them. In fact, I have been through live-fire training scenarios and in every one of them, you clear the gun and drop your magazine between each round of practice. It's all about safety.

2.) Carrying a gun across your chest with a plate-carrier strapped around you is a sign that you are expecting a violent confrontation. Not a sign that you are going to dinner. You are not a soldier, your back yard is not a battlefield. You are a regular person in Texas doing regular things with your family. Strapping up like you are expecting a fight makes the general public feel like you are looking for a fight.

Again - I pause to recognize that my opinion and feelings about the idiocy with which these men operate does not trump their right to carry openly in public in the state of Texas. But what they fail to recognize is that being so confrontational and aggressive with their approach, they are absolutely doing more harm than good, and quite frankly I am beginning to wonder if they are legitimate or a planted group of progressives working to give guys like me a bad name.

This video is not the first time Open Carry Texas has made trouble; they've raised eyebrows with their behavior before now, and they will likely continue to do so.

The hope here is that guys like this can take a step back and wonder how they would react should they be in public and a supremacist walk in and start using the N word left and right at the dinner table next to them. Likely, they would ask him to stop since they don't care to have their children hear that kind of language (which is why no hip hop music is allowed in the house). But the KKK guy has every right in the world to use that word, and you need to respect him and his space, right?

How dare you act like he's being absurd for practicing his First Amendment right.

What would the reaction be if he and his friends started posting "PRO FIRST AMENDMENT RALLY AT SONIC" videos where they hurled racial slurs at everybody and then walked off saying, "I fell like I live with my mom again, having to put a dollar in the swear jar. Ha ha ha!"?

Our Constitutional rights are given to us by God, we need to enjoy and respect them, but we need to practice common sense in our approach to convert others to our point of view.

I would imagine that given the chance to chat with these guys I would agree with so much more than I would disagree about with them, but on these sensitive and paramount issue, we cannot be on a more polar-opposite side.

You see, should I ever find myself surrounded by strangers with rifles while eating at a restaurant, I'm leaving. End of story. The preservation of my life, family and liberty is the whole reason I advocate training with firearms and preparing your family for bad scenarios. Rule number one: when you're outgunned by strangers, you need to execute your exit strategy immediately. And that's the bigger point these guys miss: As gun owners and advocates we bear the responsibility of making sure that while we protect our right to carry and defend, we advocate those rights in a way that wins people's support rather than making them think we really are the nutjobs the liberal media keeps talking about on TV, and from what I can see, Open Carry Texas is full of the nutjobs the liberal media keeps talking about on TV.

Thursday, March 27, 2014


Remember when America was the land of the free? Those were the good old days.

They lasted for about fifteen years. From 1789 - 1803.

The founders of our great nation signed a deal in 1787 that took effect in 1789 to put the power of government in the hands of the people and rest it all on their own consent to be governed.

That ended as the Supreme Court decided in 1803 to give itself the luxury of judicial review on all laws implemented and executed by the people - the real source of government. In essence, an oligarchy was created in 1803 and has existed ever since.

And for some reason, we continue to put up with it.

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began hearing arguments from companies which are owned by people who have a strong religious objection to post-conception birth control. Meaning, these people believe in life at conception and refuse to do any harm to the living soul inside its mother's womb. For some reason, some mothers do not refuse to do harm to the living soul inside their womb, but that's an argument for another day.

For now, let's focus on what a justice on SCOTUS told those with religious objections to ending the lives of the unborn.

[Justice] Kagan noted that the Obama health law doesn't require corporate employers to provide insurance. The Hobby Lobby owners could have paid a fine, which, she observed, is much less than the cost of insurance. It's "a choice," she said.
Interpreted: If you want to practice Judeo-Chrisitian beliefs in the United States, pay a fine and get over it. It's a choice.

In fact, Ms. Kagan is quite wrong. It's not a choice; it's a fundamental God-ordained right enshrined in everlasting security by the Constitution of the United States.

It's not a whim or a decision, it's natural law.

Life and my religion are the laws entitled to man to by nature and nature's God.

The Declaration of Independence is the most concrete and concise formulation of human rights ever developed. By its content we are reminded that 
"to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Try to remember that when the act of treason that was our Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, it was signed with full knowledge that it was treason against the most powerful military in the world.

That should be sobering and inspiring at the exact same time. But remember, we don't need a call to arms to cause revolution, we have the ballot box and it can be our greatest asset against tyranny. We must elect people who believe in a limited judicial system. No more life-time appointments for any position in the three branches of our government. Term limits on all levels. Lower taxes and zero compulsion to purchase products by mandate from the government. Property rights that allow us to develop our farms and land without the EPA fining us thousands of dollars per day, and certianly no more radical judges or states seizing children from their families because they believe the state knows best.

The government can only reach as far as we allow it. This year is a good time to start slapping its hand a little harder every time it reaches for the dollar in our wallet or the Bible on our shelf.

Saturday, December 21, 2013


It's hard to turn your head this week without reading a headline involving Duck Commander founder and patriarch Phil Robertson.

Mr. Robertson gave an interview to GQ's Drew Magary for the January 2014 issue of the magazine, and his quoting of Scripture as well as his application of that Scripture to current popular culture's lifestyle did not go over well at all. In fact, it has seemingly cost him his job with A&E.

The common argument from the right has been "Phil has a First Amendment right to free speech!" and they are right.

The common argument from the left has been "A&E is free to fire Phil for his comments, get over it." and they are right.

Phil Robertson is/was an employee of A&E, and A&E has every right to suspend or fire him for comments they deem disparaging to their brand. Mr. Robertson's right to free speech is not being impeded by the government, but by his employer and therefore there is nothing illegal about this scenario and there is nothing worth getting worked up over from a Constitutional perspective.

What should be highlighted and noted is the actual content of the interview versus the reaction from detractors.

In fact, the author of the article, Drew Magary, makes no attempt to hide the fact that he himself is a detractor from the outset. His condescending tone is overwhelming throughout the article as he attempts to intertwine it with a feigned admiration of Mr. Robertson. Why else would so much vulgarity be necessary in an article about the biggest name in Christianity today?

Describing Mr. Robertson, Magary writes:
He spends most of his time out here, daydreaming about what he calls a “pristine earth”: a world where nothing gets in the way of nature or the hunters who lovingly maintain it.
No cities. No buildings. No highways.
Oh, and no sinners, too. So here’s where things get a bit uncomfortable. Phil calls himself a Bible-thumper, and holy shit, he thumps that Bible hard enough to ring the bell at a county-fair test of strength.
Cute, right?

What Magary misses is the fact that Phil's entire point in the interview is that we are all sinners and if we could turn from the sin to serving God and loving Him with all our heart, things would be better in the end.

Says Phil -
“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”
“Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Mr. Robertson is paraphrasing I Corinthians 6: 9-10 which reads - 
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
And therein lies the problem.

You cannot call out ever culturally celebrated lifestyle and not offend a massive amount of people.

When even right-wing pundits say, "I don't agree with everything he said..." it's likely because their soul was deeply stirred with conviction, and in this day and age conviction is easily confused with offense which is pretty much illegal.

Offending people has become our society's unpardonable sin, and conviction is deeply offensive to most people. Much like when someone you care about tells you what a jerk you're being; you're not offended because they are wrong, you are convicted because you know they are right.

And that's a hard pill to swallow.

The great hypocrisy of popular culture is how they care so much about the feelings of them and theirs but not of others. What about the offensive nature of nearly every show on MTV and Comedy Central which glamorizes and celebrates drunkenness, adultery, immorality, idolatry and yes, homosexuality? Why is the media not concerned with the feelings of Christians everywhere?

Because living a healthy, moral lifestyle is not largely entertaining. And that's exactly why Duck Dynasty has been so phenomenally successful. Americans relate and are entertained by people living the way they live - God-fearing people who have found success and do not allow society's pressure to hamper their own convictions and principles.

Make no mistake: America is not offended by Phil Robertson, it is convicted, as was I, by his words.

We are all imperfect. None of us will make it out alive. Hell is the punishment we deserve, but there is a loving God who wants to shower you with His mercy if only you will accept Him at His word and have faith that His way is right. But in so doing, we must abandon our sinful way, the ways that have become natural to us, the ways that say "If it feels good, do it." We are all equally guilty in the eyes of God, but there is hope in salvation.

That's all Phil Robertson was saying, and A&E and the media's quick turn against him is not because it was hateful or offensive, but because it was true, and it was overwhelmingly convicting.

We all do wrong every day. If we would admit that and do our best to do right, the world would be such a better place.

How is that so offensive?