Search This Blog

Friday, October 13, 2017

Merkel Victory May Portend Islamic Control in Central Europe

Faced with a menacing growth in assaults and rapes (up 52% over last year), most of which are perpetrated by Muslim migrants, Germany's Merkel has fecklessly decided to distribute pepper spray to German women to enable them to protect themselves. Yeah. That's the way to deal with the invasion.
As if that 's not enough, and though hard to fathom, despite the disastrous impact of Merkel's mindless open-door policy, she was handily re-elected. My God!
For me, this troubling poll clearly suggests an entire nation's willful slide into national suicide. One has to wonder how a nation can harbor so much guilt for past sins that only the self-destruction of its institutions, culture and families can satiate its desperate need for atonement.
If Germany is an accurate barometer of the direction of western civilization, we're in big trouble...
Over 1,000 legal complaints for treason have been filed by German citizens against Chancellor Angela Merkel since the beginning of the migrant crisis in 2015, German newspapers reported today. The revelation comes less…
TRUTHREVOLT.ORG

NAACP: "Useful Idiots" of the Left

Recently, the NAACP shamelessly condemned Cowboys coach Jones for insisting that his players stand for the national anthem. 

Speciously invoking the Constitution to justify its position, NAACP asserts that compelling players not to kneel during the anthem is "unconstitutional". If that assertion weren't so painfully ignorant, it would be laughable. 

Three things NAACP attorneys should know--and I'm sure they really do: 1) league rules require players to respectfully stand during the anthem in a clearly defined manner; 2) how the league deals with those players who violate league rules is outside the purview of the Constitution. The kneeling issue is a contractual workplace matter--NOT NOT a Constitutional matter. (Isn't it more than suspicious that the NAACP doesn't cite chapter & verse of the Constitution to justify its position? It knows that such chapters and verses don't exist.); 3) the 1st Amendment limits government interference or regulation of speech; it does not dictate workplace rules of behavior. 

The NAACP's inane and divisive assertion insults our intelligence which, for the NAACP of late, is nothing new. In the modern era, it has become a tool of the Progressive ideological machine whose goal it is to undermine American traditional values and to sow division. And like useful idiots, most NAACP members are in lockstep with their unprincipled Progressive comrades.

Friday, September 8, 2017

Left Manipulates Immigration Terminology



I brought this up before, but I think it bears repeating.

Over the years, we have painfully learned that the propagandists on the Left are merciless and shameless. 

In their relentless attempt to add a patina of legitimacy to illegal entrants, their future voters, all manner of linguistic and verbal inventions are employed to mislead the American public and to validate the manufactured right of illegals in the US. As an immigration counselor for 22 years, this has always been an annoyance to me, and I wrote about it in my book, "A Patriot's Call to Action".
In short, in US law there is no such thing as an "undocumented citizen", "undocumented immigrant", "illegal immigrant". These inane terms are politically-motivated, self-contradictory fabrications.
An "immigrant" is, by definition, a legal entrant. S/He was properly inspected and officially permitted entry, either temporarily, conditionally or permanently, into the United States. Therefore, it is impossible to be an "illegal immigrant" or, even more laughably, an "undocumented citizen", as such terms are patently oxymoronic.
To simplify, if a person is not properly inspected and officially approved for entry into the United States, that person can only be an "undocumented alien", an "illegal alien", or an "illegal entrant". When folks misuse these terms, either deliberately or ignorantly, correct them!

Wednesday, August 23, 2017

Abolishing Slavery Wasn't the Principle Cause of War Between the States

Throughout this chaotic and misinformed debate over historical statuary, remember this: the "civil war" is a grossly ignorant misnomer. A "civil war" is fought by two or more factions to achieve political control over a country. That wasn't at all the case with the Confederate States of America (CSA) which fought a purely defensive war to preserve its independence. It had no interest in taking over the entire union by seizing control in DC. And at the time of its withdrawal from the union, its departure from the union enjoyed wide public support in the North which viewed such a separation as a natural expression of our founding principles.
The War for Southern Independence was NOT fought over slavery which was, at best, a contributing economic-related cause of that conflict. Advancing slavery as THE cause for the war was a cynical and desperate Lincoln ploy to ennoble the North's invasion of the South and to address flagging army enlistments by rallying Northern support for what was a very unpopular war. Most importantly, proclaiming his desire to free the slaves as the fundamental cause for his invasion of the CSA was intended to discourage European intervention on behalf of the CSA which enjoyed strong support among European powers.

In Lincoln's own words, abolishing slavery was not at all his concern or interest. In truth, the dubious "Emancipation Proclamation", which effectively freed not one slave, was but a ruse to advance his war aims against the CSA.
Economically and politically oppressed by the North, the South embarked upon the only Founder-sanctioned remedy available to it--secession/recision/withdrawal.

(Among other books, and for starters, please read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War" and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South". Also "Lincoln Unmasked", "The Real Lincoln" and my own "A Patriot's Call to Action".)

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Never Yield to Fascist and neo-Nazi Tyranny

This morning, when I viewed Fascist Antifa/BLM protesters tearing down, then kicking and spitting on a Confederate statue which, since 1923, commemorated all those young men in the Confederacy, both black and white, who courageously sacrificed their lives to defend their homeland and families from invasion, I was totally sickened and enraged.
Immediately, the vision of Stalinists as well as of Italian and German Fascists airbrushing and distorting history by burning mounds of books and destroying statuary which didn't comport with their self-serving authoritarian version of history came into painful focus, and I was at once very worried that too many of us have, by our silence, come to tolerate the intolerable.
Image result for Stalin, Mussolini, HitlerTyranny by what is now a small but vocal and violent minority is tyranny. Remember that it was a tiny, vocal and violent minority that brought us Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Stalinist Russia. So, who's going to stop them and when?
These Fascists and neo-Marxists have no heart, no empathy, no sense of honor and decency, and, most importantly, they do not respect human life, our history, our Constitution and the sacrifices of our fallen brothers. This also applies to neo-Nazis and white supremacists on the alt-Right.
What's next for the neo-Marxist race-baiters and subverters? The Jefferson Memorial? The Washington Memorial? Both owned slaves. But, how about the Lincoln Memorial? (One needs to remember that throughout Lincoln's slash and burn invasion of the Confederacy he did all he could to elicit the support of black leaders to encourage their black brethren to migrate to Liberia and locations in central America. He never believed blacks should achieve an equal footing in American white society, and said so. He intended to maintain a white-dominated America. Of course, we only remember his Emancipation Proclamation, a politically-induced ruse intended to address flagging Northern enlistments and to ennoble an otherwise very unpopular war in the North.) In truth, and aided and abetted by the neo-Marxist Democrat Party, the removal or destruction of these monuments, like so many other national monuments in both the south and north, are already on the Fascist chopping block. And what will YOU do then? Or will it be too late?
IF the proverbial historical pendulum doesn't start swinging the other way soon--and only the weight of patriotic Americans can make that happen--this republic is t-o-a-s-t. And we have no one to blame but our go-along-to-get-along selves.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

"Compromise" No Longer Honorable

In the distant good ol' days when American political parties shared patriotic fervor and limited government principles, and when their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution was considered a solemn covenant with the People of the United States, "compromise" was a sensible, noble and commonsense way to govern a republic for which all shared a deep and abiding respect.
Well, today, with the Democratic Party taken over by an alien neo-Marxist ideology (Progressivism) and too many in the Republican Party no longer faithful to their republican principles, but choosing instead to co-opt big-government Progressivism simply to remain in power, "political compromise" is no longer noble, responsible or honorable.
Today, legislative compromise now more accurately connotes appeasement with un-American, anti-republican political forces bent on the fundamental transformation of America into an authoritarian system of command and control.
For genuine patriots and objective students of history, "compromise" today means exactly what it has become: accommodating an alien ideology, appeasing the enemy within, and surrendering to subversion. In short, there's NOTHING at all lofty and principled about compromising when it means subverting constitutional order and, in the longer term, committing national suicide.
To a man, our Founders would have unhesitatingly adjudged the likes of Senators Pelosi and Schumer, among other big-government Progressive elites in DC, both left and right, loathsome traitors to constitutional republican government. Sadly, the truth is often ugly and very unpleasant. Better get used to it because it isn't going to become any less pleasant.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

BEWARE the Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 38)

Image result for State vs Feds, 2nd AmendmentWith the passionate support of the NRA and GOA, the "Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act" (HR 38) is currently under consideration by the House. In effect, the federal bill, if passed, and irrespective of State Constitutions, allows a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another State that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. Gee, nothing illegal about that, right? And, of course, being able to conceal carry across State lines with impunity would certainly be more convenient. Yes, indeed.
Just ONE BIG PROBLEM, fellow gun owners: ANY federal law that would force States to recognize conceal carry permits issued by other States is 100% unconstitutional, plain and simple.
Think about it: 1) the underlying Constitutional purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that able-bodied persons in each State are suitably armed and trained to defend the liberty and sovereignty of the State as part of the Militia when called upon, and the critically important right to bear arms is predicated on that foundational principle; 2) while self-defense is a natural right, it is no more important than the Militia's ability to defend the liberty and sovereignty of the communities, for without one's ability and right to arm and defend himself, a Militia is impossible, and, finally; 3) IF CONGRESS CAN CONFER A RIGHT TO CARRY FIREARMS ACROSS STATE LINES, REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS, THEN A FUTURE CONGRESS COULD JUST AS EASILY RESTRICT THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS THAT ONCE CROSSED STATE LINES, REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS, AND IT COULD ESTABLISH A NATIONAL ARMS REGISTRY IN THE PROCESS.
Gee, doesn't sound so attractive anymore, does it.
The point is this: the federal government cannot constitutionally regulate gun ownership or State gun laws--nor should a free people who take their rights seriously approve such a frightening overreach.
Let the States work this out--NOT Leviathan!!! Since there is NOTHING in the Constitution which delegates such 2nd Amendment authority over the States by the federal government, let's leave well-enough alone. (Of course, we could push for an amendment to the Constitution permitting such federal authority, but I wouldn't advise it.)
What appears attractive can often kill you as well. So, were I you I'd carefully think about the downside of HR 38 before blindly supporting it. The feds have usurped enough State and individual powers already. Are you willing to surrender more? Once you give away your freedom, it's nearly impossible to get it back. My advice: be VERY VERY CAREFUL, gun owners and gun rights organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: a respondent enquired as to why a federally-mandated reciprocity law would constitute infringement. My answer: The 2nd Amendment was intended by the States and their citizens to restrict the feds in such matters, principally to safeguard State sovereignty from both foreign invasion and national tyranny. It was not intended to be a restriction on the States. That said, one needs to carefully look at one's State Constitution to ensure that one's 2nd Amendment rights are unabridged. Accordingly, any State Statute which purports to require a permit before one may carry a gun is probably unconstitutional under that State's Constitution, but, in any case, is certainly unconstitutional under the federal Constitution. Why?  Because Congress may lawfully require able-bodied male Citizens to acquire firearms and ammo and to receive training by the Militia, this per the Militia Act of 1792. However, this 1792 Act DOES NOT permit gun control/regulations by the feds. So, this is why reciprocity is a State function and why reciprocity should be handled on an inter-State basis without federal intrusion. I hope this explanation helps. The NRA and GOA, of which I am a member, are very myopic with respect to the downside of HR 38. Reciprocity is a pretty bauble maybe, but with very sharp edges.