Monday, July 30, 2012

Olympic Ceremony Had Leftist Propaganda

I like watching Summer and Winter Olympic opening ceremonies but missed Friday's spectacle.

-It turns out that I was fortunate.

I had been picking up bits and pieces of comments referring to "eerie" and "weird", yet still I ignored these as I assumed that people must have had trouble understanding British humor. Mr. Bean, after all, was in several scenes.

Once I had a chance to read up on what messages were communicated in the ceremony and see some photos, I understood what people meant.

A good portion of the ceremony was devoted to the denigration of much of England's past and the glorification of her modern Socialist disaster.

The theatrical attack on the industrial revolution, featuring "satanic mills", soot-covered factory workers, chimney sweeps, coal miners, and impoverished rural workers was something that I would have expected in the Halls of Academia, not at a non-political ceremony that is supposed to promote good will. What was worse, Queen Elizabeth of the House of Hanover+ (Windsor is a fake name) allowed herself to be included in this mockery of much of what made her nation prosperous. How does the woman sleep at night?

[+  Added August 1. 2012, I just received my first correction from a reader. The British throne is actually in the hands of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family. When Victoria of the House of Hanover married prince Albert, the family received that name. Saxe-Coburg Gotha was the name that was dropped for the fake name of Windsor. This family, having found a place to exists in semi-perpetuity as a body of noble blooded oligarchs, appears to have its collective mitts in all sorts of Leftist-inspired movements. Many member of this family have been involved with calls for mass eugenics and  radical environmentalism.]

-Better yet, how do we get the Stewarts (or Stuarts if a Gallic-styled spelling is preferred) back on the throne?

Before we get too resentful, let's note that some of the realities of the UK were presented in a very good light.

-Britain's national Health Service, itself a terribly failed experiment, was grotesquely celebrated in a manner that would have made Kim Jong Il proud.

"The producer of the extravaganza, London resident and Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle, decided to integrate a choreographed tribute to the NHS into the showy opening festivities because, according to Boyle, "universal health care is one of the core values of British society" and an "amazing thing to celebrate."

The whole eerie performance with nurses from Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital (GOSH) dressed in 1950s uniforms pushing around sick children bouncing around on oversized hospital beds was almost as sickening to watch as Barack Obama emerging from the Styrofoam Greek columns at INVESCO Field.

In an October 13, 2011 Mail Online article entitled "People are dying from lack of care. The NHS must be held to account," "realist" Julia Manning, chief executive of 2020Health, wrote, "Of course we have much to be proud of in the NHS, but complacency and sentimentality have no place in an NHS in which people are dying for lack of care." Julia, how about dancing Florence Nightingales? Do they have a place?

The truth is that while the NHS was sentimentally praising itself in front of the world, what the organization failed to mention was the minor detail that GOSH was the place where a 13-year-old boy named Arvind Jain died of malnutrition after waiting eight months for a complacent health care system to schedule a routine 30-minute procedure to insert a feeding tube into his stomach. After the boy's death, the NHS Health Service parliamentary ombudsman deemed that Arvind was "left to die in agony after 'chaotic and substandard' car[e]."

Meanwhile, while those 600 real-life nurses were celebrating shoddy health care at the London Olympics opening ceremony, in "free" hospitals all over Britain, patients both young and old might well have been dying of dehydration.

Back in 2001, in an article entitled "Why the NHS is bad for us," Anthony Brown, former health editor of the U.K. Sunday publication the Observer and former "passionate believer in the NHS," said of the National Health Service, "[I]t can never work and is only kept alive by wrong-headed idealism." Anthony Brown's article brought to light many disturbing facts, one of which was the plight of elderly patients, some of whom, after lying for days on "trolleys" in NHS emergency wards, died needlessly.

NHS detractors agree that although socialist-style health care may have laudable objectives, those objectives do not compensate for the appalling results. In 2009, it was reported that approximately 300 patients died each year of malnutrition in British hospital wards. The truth is that if the NHS wanted to commemorate an achievement, it should have been touting being the best at providing some of the worst health care on the planet.

Whether those merry dancing nurses realized it or not, they were representing a bankrupt system that relegates the very ill to waiting lists and denies drugs that are already paid for with the tax money of poor British citizens. What the nurses promoted was a system that has been known to refuse patients basic human needs like food and water, forces the sick to wait until it's too late for life-saving treatment, and effectively euthanizes 130,000 elderly people a year. Nonetheless, based on what the world witnessed at the Olympics opening ceremonies, the NHS accomplishes all those atrocities with a rollicking sense of national pride."

Photos of both the evils of Capitalism and the glories of Socialism will be found below. They really are eerie:

Britain's Left rejoiced at all of this:

"Labour politicians yesterday hailed the Olympic opening ceremony as a ‘socialist’ event and ‘the best advert for the party for years’ – as the row over its political message intensified.

Artistic director Danny Boyle has been widely praised for Friday’s opening spectac

Some Labour politicians struggled to contain their glee about the ceremony’s message, congratulating Mr Boyle for ‘smuggling in wonderfully progressive socialist sentiments’.

Carl Sergeant, a minister in the Welsh government, took to Twitter to describe Friday’s opening ceremony as ‘the best Labour Party political broadcast I’ve seen in a while’."

I was born decades after the 1936 Berlin Olympics, but from what I have read and seen, we have a piece of propaganda that may have put the Fuhrer and Goebbels to shame.

Socialism is, as we speak, being proclaimed from the rooftops. Just a few years ago, it seemed that only Venezuela's Chavez was dopey enough to make it clear that he was moving his nation into that black hole. People were thinking, "C'mon Hugo, that system has failed everywhere it was put into place".

Today, few Leftists are hiding their intentions. Signs were displayed in the admittedly weakly attended Occupy protests in the Spring of 2012 that stated. "Stop Demonizing Socialism". Aside from the fact that, following that logic, I would have to stop demonizing Satan himself, we have to recognize that worldwide Socialism is being pushed by a well-organized and determined body that has powerful backing. 

The longer we wait to confront it head-on, the harder the struggle will be to squash it for good (Or at least designate a place to which all of the Leftists can be sent to live out their Socialistic desires).

The list of those involved in the making of this travesty of a ceremony is quite the rogues gallery of the Left:

-Excerpts from the top-linked article:

"By Paul Weston

"The shocking details in this article really ought to be headline news around the world, but investigative journalism is not what it used to be. The London Olympics opening ceremony was hijacked by Communist sympathisers working for the main director Danny Boyle.

Labour Party MPs are already boasting that the opening ceremony was a socialist event and the “best advert for the party in years”. Conservative MPs are privately muttering about the very obvious left-wing bias – as well they might.

Danny Boyle worked with one scriptwriter and four selected assistant directors to stage the opening and closing ceremonies. The five are:

Frank Cottrell Boyce: Scriptwriter for the opening ceremony and a personal friend of Danny Boyle. Cottrell Boyce started his career writing for the far-left magazine Living Marxism which had initially been launched in 1988 as The Journal of the British Revolutionary Communist Party.

Stephen Daldry: Theatre and film director, producer, and three-time Academy Award nominated director; his films include Billy Elliott. Daldry was also a member of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at Sheffield University in the 1980s, something he has said gave him a “political education”. The SWP describes itself as Anti-Capitalist and Revolutionary.

Catherine Ugwu: Creative Director and theatrical producer. Author of Lets Get It on: The Politics of Black Performance and Enigmas of race, Difference and Desire. Her work is quoted on reading lists centred on Marxism and Black Liberation Theology.

The British government now needs to answer some serious questions. The Olympics are supposed to be politically impartial. Allowing the opening ceremony to be produced by communist sympathisers and a woman with links to black liberation theology is a political scandal of international proportion."

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Jealousy and Inferiority in "You Didn't Build That"

Sometimes the obvious answer does not complete the picture. Obama's Marxist outlook has become so obvious that we have come to see it in most of his words and acts.

It is bad enough that Obama sought to belittle the achievements of these brave individuals. It is also sad that Obama was so ignorant as to be unaware that many of the earlier roads were built by private interests. (Terms such as "Shunpike" came into being from alternate roads that were built/used to avoid tolls on private roads).

In Obama's dysfunctional and anger-filled mind, no one is any different from any other person. No matter how hard he/she worked, how much was risked, how many anxiety-ridden nights were suffered, the creator of a business is just another lucky guy who owes most of his thanks to the government.

The writer in the above article has clearly given a lot of thought to Obama's "You didn't build that" line. Abraham Miller hit on something that most of us never even considered; Obama needed to detract from the accomplishments of others because he himself was carried through his career by others despite his lack of any appreciable substantive attainments, especially in his college years.If Obama could not have done what others did without substantial governmental assistance, then nobody could.

Bolding is added.

"Obama knows he didn't have what it took to get into Columbia, and he didn't have what it took to get into Harvard Law. Let's face an inescapable reality. If Obama had great grades, his transcripts would be in a full-page ad in the New York Times.

Obama became president of the Harvard Law Review (HLR) without ever having an article published in it, a status that separated him from every other HLR president who preceded him. In fact, while Obama was the HLR's first black president, few people know that 70 years earlier, Charles Houston had become the HLR's first black editor, contradicting the myth that black people cannot succeed without affirmative action. Obama didn't possess the skills to be on the HLR, let alone to be the review's president.......

If you come of age in an environment where nearly everyone around you competed and worked hard to get where they are and you didn't, the way you defend against the inevitable ensuing feelings of inadequacy is to create a psychological rationale that no one, absolutely no one, got anywhere except with a leg up and a helping hand from others. Their "affirmative action" is just less conspicuous than yours, but the bottom line is that you are no different from them.

When faculty make affirmative-action hires, each of those hires knows that there were people passed over who were eminently more qualified for the position -- people who worked harder and published more in better places. In an environment that truly valued achievement over ascription, they, not you, would have been hired. Your very presence is a testimonial that the system is corrupt.

So, the inner voice says, I didn't build it; I know that, but neither did they. I assuage my guilt by making my reality their reality. I am redefining success and all that goes into it to conform to my own reality.

For Obama, the psychological dissonance was made even greater when he was granted a Nobel Peace Prize not for what he accomplished, but for what he was supposed to accomplish and obviously hasn't."

Mr. Miller has made a very valid argument. Jealousy and a sense of inferiority are prime motivators in the mind of Obama.

Obama's ego is so fragile that he cannot admit to himself that others made tremendous accomplishments without any of the help that he received. He is unable to admire anyone but himself, therefore he needs to bring everyone else down to his level.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Origins of Fundamentally Transforming the US

I guess that one can say that this reads like a fairy tale. Unlike most, though, this one does not have a happy ending.

There once was a man who wanted to fundamentally* transform the United States.

*"Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary
Of great significance or entailing major change"

This man viewed the US not as a nation born of noble intentions, nor was it, according to his view, one that upheld many of the highest ideals of good governance, freedom, and liberty. 

The following is a brief list of some of his positions:
  • "Rejected and blasted Winston Churchill;
  • Vilified and targeted General Motors;
  • Advocated wealth redistribution from (in his words) greedy "corporations" to "health insurance" and "public works projects";
  • Favored taxpayer funding of universal health care;
  • Supported government stimulus and trumpeted the public sector over the private sector;
  • Constantly bashed Wall Street;
  • Dismissed traditional notions of American exceptionalism and framed American not as selflessly serving the post-World War II world but instead as selfishly flaunting its so-called "mountainous ego" and "racist-imperialist-colonialist" ambitions;
  • Warned God-and-gun-clinging Americans about huckster preachers and instead sought the political support of the "social justice" Religious Left for various causes and campaigns;
  • Perceived the Catholic Church as an obstacle to his vision for the state;
  • Confidently declared certain government actions "constitutional" or "unconstitutional";
  • Excoriated the "tentacles of big business," bankers, big oil, the "Big Boys," "excess profits," corporate fat cats and their "fat contracts," "millionaires" and "rich men," and the wealthy;
  • Attacked "GOP" tax cuts that "spare the rich" and that only "benefit millionaires";
  • Singled out the "corporation executive" for not paying his "fair" share;
  • Used slogans such as "change" and "forward.' "

If these sound familiar, you are in all probability, in the words of Homer Simpson, "Close but you're way off".

-These were the positions of Frank Marshal Davis, the mentor of Barack Hussein Obama.

The quoted positions and the following quote are taken from the article linked above.

"Does this near-perfect overlay between the political views of our president and those of his mentor -- a card-carrying Communist whom, decades later, a rising Chicago politician would oh-so-carefully identify in Dreams from My Father only as "Frank" -- strike you as merely a coincidence? No? I didn't think so. To borrow an old Kremlin adage that Frank himself would have heard, and probably used himself, a thousand times: Comrades, there are no coincidences.

Paul Kengor is an historian -- indeed, a brilliant one -- and in The Communist, his objective is to illuminate the life of a man who powerfully influenced a future president. This is a book about Frank, not about Barack, and Kengor's recounting of Frank's professional journey from Kansas to Atlanta to Chicago -- yes, to Chicago -- and then to Hawaii, where Frank spent the rest of his long life, is riveting. It's also sympathetic, for instance as Kengor recounts the prejudice, the indignities, and sometimes the physical dangers faced by a rising black poet in our country back in the 1920s and 1930s.

Of course, it was in Hawaii that Frank and the young Obama met, probably in 1970, when Obama would have been nine years old. No one, including Kengor, can explain how Frank and Stanley Dunham, Obama's grandfather, came to know each other. But they did, and young Barack tagged along on those evenings when the two men would meet at Frank's dilapidated cottage to talk, play poker, and drink. Later, when Obama was old enough to drive but before heading off to college, he made his own visits to Frank."

The article is about Paul Kengor's book, The Communist. I have not read the book, but if the information in the article on Kengor's book is correct, the dysfunctional and anger-filled mindset of Obama can be understood to have a paper trail of sorts. So many utterances of the man are lock step in line with those attributed to Davis that one cannot but believe that motivations that drive Obama's agendas have their origins in the mind of a 1950's member of the American Communist Party.

-From the American Thinker article:

"Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro-Red China, card-carrying member of Communist Party USA (CPUSA). His Communist Party card number was 47544. He did endless Soviet propaganda work in his newspaper columns, at every juncture agitating and opposing U.S. attempts to slow down Stalin and Mao in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He favored Red Army takeovers of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Central and Eastern Europe as a whole. In China, he urged America to dump the "fascist" Chiang in support of Mao's Red forces. He wanted communist takeovers in Korea and Vietnam. He was adamantly, angrily anti-NATO, anti-Marshall Plan, anti-Truman Doctrine. He argued that U.S. officials under President Harry Truman -- whom he portrayed as a fascist, racist, and imperialist -- and under secretaries of state George Marshall and Dean Acheson were handing West Germany back to the Nazis, while Stalin was pursuing "democracy" in East Germany and throughout the Communist Bloc. He portrayed America's leaders as "aching for an excuse to launch a nuclear nightmare of mass murder and extermination" against the Chinese and the Soviets -- and eager to end all civilization."

The mentor of the current President of the US had more problems with Truman than with mega-mass murderers such as Stalin and Mao. Everything about the US was bad, and everything about the Communist world was either good, or unfortunately necessary to start the world over again.

We were told that the man was a moderate. The media has ignored and consequently kept under lock and key everything about his past. The Chief Executive of the United States desires to implement his own version of Year Zero, the beginning of a new era in which everything that got us here is removed not only in practice, but from all discussion. 

-From the above linked article:

"Each and every change is a step toward non-being. For this reason, change is to be approached cautiously, prudently -- changes that are slight are preferable to those that are vast, changes that are necessary to those that are not, and changes that are gradual to those that are radical. Changes that are "fundamentally transformative" siphon the life out of a society by severing its present from its past.

......Thus far, though, things are not looking that promising for America on this score, for it is the pursuit of universal abstractions at the cost of neglecting concrete contingencies -- an enterprise that consumes the entire Western world generally and the USA specifically -- that imperiled South Africa in the '90s and America today.

Universal ideals like "democracy," say, sound wonderful, but when attempts are made to implement them without any regard for the cultural complexities of those to whom they are applied -- when timeless abstractions are spoken of as if they were written in human or rational nature rather than the hard-won fruits of a civilization that has been centuries and millennia in the making -- all manner of chaos is going to ensue."

Added 7/29/12 - I had a thought today. I can barely come up with a position of Obama's that is not directly from the list of those attributed to his mentor Davis.
So, my question is:
Has Obama thought up any of his ideas/positions himself or could he possibly be that devoid of imagination?

Friday, July 27, 2012

Catholic-Owned Company Gets Injunction For Abortion/Sterilization/Contraception Regs

Despite the fact that this is only a temporary injunction, with the current dark cloud of governmental control hanging over our heads, this is a big win for religious rights.

"The Catholic family that owns a Colorado-based company won a court victory in their battle to stop the Obama administration from requiring them to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception, a mandate they say violates their religious beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Hercules Industries, a Denver-based heating ventilation and air conditioning manufacturer that employs nearly 300 full-time workers, got an injunction in federal court which stops enforcement of the controversial ObamaCare mandate. The company's lawyers said they needed the injunction immediately because if the mandate is enforced, it must begin immediately making changes to its health plan, which renews on Nov. 1.

The case is similar to ones brought by Catholic-based colleges that have refused to provide employee insurance with such coverage, except this time, it is a secular corporation.

In his order, Colorado District Judge John Kane said that the government’s arguments “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion. "

The case still must be aired out in court, but lawyers representing Hercules savored the temporary victory.

“Every American, including family business owners, should be free to live and do business according to their faith. For the time being, Hercules Industries will be able to do just that,” said Matt Bowman, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Arizona-based organization representing the Newlands. “The bottom line is that Congress and the Constitution explicitly protect all religious freedom. They don’t exclude family businesses.' "

When private individuals are forced in any way to engage in actions that violate their religious beliefs and effectively make them a party to acts that are contrary to their faith, we have another example of the government wildly overreaching in its authority.

The family that owns Hercules Industries has made a bold and honorable stand. While I am a practicing Catholic, I have not hung back from beating up on my coreligionists - especially those in leadership positions, who fail to uphold the beliefs of the Church. This is not the case in this instance. The Newlands knew that meekly accepting some of the more draconian requirements of Obamcare would be plainly wrong, and they did something about that.

I for one hold that, with the recent SCOTUS Obamcare decision which I term the Roberts decsions, our Republic no longer provides a forum for appeals of laws that violate our rights. I will not try to predict how this case will eventually end, but I am glad to see that there are people who will not take wrongful laws lying down. We have to exhaust every legal means available to us. If we begin to win, great. If not, then we will have a strong legal argument in which not only is a "long train of abuses" clearly discernible, but alongside that will be a comparable list of the legal steps we have taken to redress our grievances. 

Without proof that we have done everything in our power to protect ourselves from the abuses of government, those who seek to reform the nation along Constitutional lines will have a hard time being taken seriously. If the time comes when certain states/regions of the US feel the need to restore to their people the rights and Liberties of Americans, even if doing so means retiring our current Republic and creating a new one, those who make the initial moves will be well-equipped due to the efforts of people like the Newlands.

Thursday, July 26, 2012

Syrian Christians Murdered - The Rest are Fleeing

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

With the Assad regime struggling to avoid being overthrown, Syria's Christian have no choice but to leave, not their homes, but their country to avoid being murdered.

-From Jihad Watch:

"We're too frightened to talk...They sermonized on Fridays in the mosques that it was a sacred duty to drive us away. We were constantly accused of working for the regime. And Christians had to pay bribes to the jihadists repeatedly in order to avoid getting killed."

Thousands of Syrians are fleeing into neighboring Lebanon -- not entirely due to fear of the Assad regime. [Note that this quote is from Spiegel - The Christians never feared the Assad regime] The country's minority Christian population is suffering under attacks waged by rebel troops. In the Beqaa Valley in eastern Lebanon, Christian families are finding temporary refuge, but they are still terrified.

There had been many warnings that the Khouri* family wouldn't talk. "They won't say a word -- they're too scared," predicted the mayor of Qa, a small market town in northeastern Lebanon where the Khouris are staying. "They won't even open their door for journalists," said another person, who had contacted the family on behalf of a non-governmental organization.

Somehow, though, the interview was arranged in the end. Reserved and halting, the women described what happened to their husbands, brothers and nephews back in their hometown of Qusayr in Syria. They were killed by Syrian rebel fighters, the women said -- murdered because they were Christians, people who in the eyes of radical Islamist freedom fighters have no place in the new Syria.

The Khouris' decision to flee Syria last year is partly attributable to the almost daily threats that they, as well as other Christians in town, began receiving. And yet it was also a product of the fact that fighting in the city had simply become unbearable. "The bombs were falling right in the middle of our neighborhood. We can't say who was firing them -- the rebels or the army," a family member says. During a break in the firing on one bitterly cold winter day, the family finally left. "We arranged a car and drove to Lebanon. It's only a 45-minute trip."

Rim's husband also fled with them. His fate was sealed when he drove back to Qusayr on Feb. 9. He had owned a mini-market in his hometown and he wanted to go back and get food to take back to his family in exile. His family only knows what happened to him because of the stories relatives and friends who remained in Qusayr have shared. "He was stopped at a rebel checkpoint near the state-run bakery," says Rim. "The rebels knew he was a Christian. They took him and then threw his dead body in front of the door of his parent's house four or five hours later."

Grandmother Leila makes the sign of the cross again. It wasn't only her son-in-law who got killed. Her brother and two nephews were also killed. "They shot one of my nephews, a pharmacist, in his apartment because he supported the regime," she says...."

As the Left, the Media, and much of the rest of the world basks is satisfaction, Syria is fast becoming a country devoid of a Christian population. The Christians either get blamed for hoping that the Assad's remain in control (The implication follows that they deserve to be attacked for this) or are bizarrely described as fearing the same regime that at least provided some degree of protection from hate-filled Muslims.

The restored Caliphate, though not around the corner, is definitely on the horizon. Those of the Muslim world still have lots of differences to settle among themselves.The Shiite/Sunni schism is still very much alive. The Shiites hold it as an article of faith that a new Caliphate must be staffed by a descendant of the Son-in-law of Mohamed. Sunnis will also have quite a bit on their hands as they seek a Caliph who will be excepted by all. There will be struggles for power as regional groups vie to be the main drivers of the Islamic agenda. The vast reserve and influx of petrodollars will result in battles to see who gets to keep their mitts on the money.

Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria have either fallen or are set to do so. Can the Saud family retain their grip? The Wahhabists were instrumental in putting that family into power and will likely turn on the royal family once they are no longer needed.  The smaller states of Arabia will not last long once they are targeted.  Iraq is not an homogeneous nations and may very well fracture. Jordan will also be on the list for revolution.

Iran, being relatively strong and majority Shiite, will be hard to call when it comes to predicting how it will react to a Sunni Caliphate that rules the bulk of the Islamic world.

The only thing of which we can be sure at this moment is that Christians will continue bearing the brunt of Islamic hatred until they are gone or exterminated. The removal of the Christians will be followed by a campaign, be it economic, diplomatic, military, or all three, against the Jews of Israel.

.....and the rest of the Christian world, with the exception of some Evangelicals, do and say almost nothing about this.

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Wall of Silence Erected Around Muslim Brotherhood in US

The fist of totalitarianism has come down on Rep. Michelle Bachmann and those who, along with her, have openly questioned the depth to which the Muslim Brotherhood's influence may have reached in the government of the US.

As we go about our lives, even members of the House Intelligence Committee are being attacked for daring to suggest that we should reconsider whether or not those who may have ties to the Brotherhood should hold key positions in intelligence and defense and the State and Justice Departments. How dare they do their jobs?

The outcry has come not only from the Left and Islamic Groups such as CAIR. A number of her Republican peers have joined in on the pile-on:

Bolding is added.

"Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is at the center of a firestorm over her request that the State, Homeland Security, Defense and Justice Departments,investigate potential “policies and activities that appear to be the result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.” This is an entirely legitimate call, as Bachmann abundantly illustrated in a 16-page letter to Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN), laying out the reasons for her concerns. Yet even Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who should know better, has upbraided Bachmann, criticizing her for including Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, among those she noted for having Brotherhood ties.

McCain declared in a statement on the Senate floor that “recently, it has been alleged that Huma, a Muslim American, is part of a nefarious conspiracy to harm the United States by unduly influencing U.S. foreign policy at the Department of State in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.”

McCain, brimming with
[Feigned] righteous indignation, thundered: “These sinister accusations rest solely on a few unspecified and unsubstantiated associations of members of Huma’s family, none of which have been shown to harm or threaten the United States in any way. These attacks on Huma have no logic, no basis, and no merit. And they need to stop now.”

What’s more, the Obama administration’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is so obvious that Egyptian demonstrators just days ago pelted Hillary Clinton’s motorcade with tomatoes and shoes for delivering that country up to the rule of the Brotherhood and the imposition of Islamic law that is almost certain to come. Protestors held signs reading “Message to Hillary: Egypt will never be Pakistan”; “To Hillary: Hamas will never rule Egypt” and “If you like the Ikhwan [Brotherhood], take them with you!' "

Now that McCain's position is reasonably clear (Note that he purposefully and grossly misrepresented what Bachmann wrote), we can progress to the vindication of Bachmann and her colleagues:

"Monday, Walid Shoebat published this 37-page booklet entitled "Proof: Huma has Ties to Muslim Brotherhood -- Countless Documents Surface"* and this was followed up with Tuesday's update that "Huma Abedin Served on Board with Al-Qaeda Godfather". Shoebat states that the latest discoveries "include but are not limited to "[p]roof that Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin served on the Board of IMMA from at least 12/02/02 - 9/24/08" and that "Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef served on IMMA's Advisory Board from at least 12/02/02 - 12/03/03.' "


American Thinker Continues...

"Abedin's brother had a strong working relationship with Abdullah Omar Naseef and Yusuf Qaradawi. Naseef "chaired other entities considered major security concerns for the United States and ran a charity front for terror." There is no "six degrees of separation" among these men as has been maintained by the mainstream media. Central to Shoebat's investigation are the overlapping ties of Abdullah Omar Naseef to a number of Muslim Brotherhood offshoots. One such group WAMY or World Assembly of Muslim Youth maintains that "[t]he Jews are humanity's enemies: they foment immorality in this world."

Saleha Abedin, Huma's mother, through the Sisterhood branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, works to advance the Brotherhood agendas against Western interests and policies. In his report, Shoebat shows the interlocking tentacles among various Muslim Brotherhood members which leave "no doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood is the author and the one setting policies and standards for the International Islamic Committee for Woman and Child (IICWC), which Saleha Abedin chairs. IICWC's 'official policies include marital rape, child marriage, female genital circumcision and polygamy.'"
In 2010, Huma arranged for Secretary of State Clinton to speak alongside her mother, Saleha at Dar Al-Hikma. In fact, the "Saudi newspaper Al-Watan mentions that Abedin's relationship with Huma was key to bringing Clinton to Dar Al-Hikma. Most revealing is that in 2010, and from 2006-2008, evidence shows that the Abedin membership in IMMA was as a family. According to Arab sources, IMMA or the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs was founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, and the Abedins were entrusted with leading IMMA. Saleha, Huma, and Hassan Abedin all appeared as members together. Although Huma's name seems to have been scrubbed, Shoebat has a screen shot that clearly shows that Huma worked and partnered together with her family at IMMA.

Central to the controversy surrounding Huma Abedin is the notion of muruna which, in the Islamic world, is permitting behavior normally shunned by sharia law just as long as it benefits the long term goal of ensuring a global caliphate. It is a means of mollifying Westerners who think that they are now seeing a more moderate version of Islam but in effect it is a ruse. Thus, even though Huma Abedin is a practicing Muslim married to a Jew, neither her mother nor brother denounced this marriage.

Most Westerners are not familiar with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood revival of the doctrine of muruna, which literally means "stealth" or "flexibility." It is "far worse than taqiyya, since it sanctions all prohibitions that block Muslim interests, even blasphemous ones. Muruna allows Muslims to sow division and confusion in the Western world" and is a strategy of deception.

After going into great length about the Muslim Brotherhood connections of the Abedin family, Shoebat maintains that "the burden of proof is on McCain to show that Huma was vetted and does not present a threat to National Security." Shoebat states that he has provided ample proof for Huma's involvement, ties and relationship with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and "that the organization to which her family belong was founded with the help of Al-Qaeda Godfather Abdullah Omar Naseef." In fact, Shoebat maintains that "Bachmann is correct with respect to screening and vetting government employees."

In her 16-page letter **to Rep. Keith Ellison, Bachmann maintains that the U.S. government considers the foreign influence of immediate family members as "potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance" and "to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin. In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance." This is standard fare in government background checks. Thus, "reasonable fear of 'divided loyalties' is more than sufficient for a clearance to be denied."

Shoebat also highlights Muslim Brotherhood's connections, and the involvement of the Abedin family members with the Nazis. For example, Hassan Al-Banna, the grandfather of Tariq Ramadan, whose ban from the United States was lifted by Bill Clinton, the husband of Huma's boss, collaborated with [Shoebat's] grandfather's associate Haj Amin Al-Husseini, who was also Hitler's Arab henchman.
Al-Husseini became the Muslim Brotherhood leader after the war and Al-Banna and Al-Husseini took great pride in their collaboration with the Nazis. Abdul Hakim Abedin was born in 1914 in Egypt and was one of the first regular ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood who married Imam Hassan Al-Banna's sister.

All Americans should be applauding the actions of these brave representatives who seek answers because "[e]vidence indicates that the Obama administration continues to bow before groups associated with the goal of 'destroying Western civilization from within.'" At a "minimum, an independent inspection regarding the role, the roots and the results of such destructive groups" is mandatory in order to protect all Americans.

That the media has "dropped all pretence of fact-finding and all responsibility for reporting" proves yet again that the fourth estate has become the fifth column in this country. That's why these lone voices are so critical and why Americans must insist upon the proper vetting no matter how high up it has to go. Jihad has no bounds."

Western Civilization is being attacked from every angle imaginable. It is a disgrace that those who have the ability to do something about it are more concerned with earning Brownie points with the Media. These people would rather leap to attack a brave colleague than be happy that she and her peers are doing what no one else will - speak the truth and ask the right questions.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Bloomberg- Why Don't Cops Strike to Push for More Gun Control

The totalitarian Acalde of New York City has again struck at individual freedoms. This time he posed the apparently hypothetical question of wondering why cops don't go on strike in order to press for stricter gun control legislation.

“ 'I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.

“Police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor piercing bullets.' ’’

As usual, the lies are rife in his statements.  

Many jobs are dangerous. Cops are not alone in that arena. The vast majority of cops have no desire to disarm the American population due to the actions of criminals and psychopaths. There are very few cops who are shameless enough to call for more rigid gun control. Some of them (Us if you include me before retirement) may indeed act hypocritically at times, but asking for everyone else to be helpless while cops are not would be the ultimate act of hypocrisy. While the cop is on duty (assuming that he does not strike), is his family now required to be helpless even in their homes until he returns from his shift?

Desiring to go home to one's family is not restricted to cops. That is also the goal for roofers, fishermen, coal miners, and others who are employed in jobs that are more dangerous than working behind a desk.They voluntarily apply for, get vetted, and train for these jobs. They also are not required to remain on the job   unless they so desire. Most cops earn a decent if not a good salary for what they do.

Bullets designed to pierce armor have no relevance to the acts of a mass murderer who shoots civilians in public or anywhere else. The armor-piercing bullet drama is a smoke-and-mirrors operation to outlaw many types of ammunition such as rifle rounds. 

Like other public employees, cops cannot go on strike, That is one of the reasons that many states allow collective bargaining for their salaries and benefits. Reagan's bold and correct move in firing the PATCO employees (Air Traffic Controllers) who struck in the 80's proved that point. Bloomberg seems to suggest that the cops are such cowards that they would consider walking off the job to extort their respective States to pass stricter gun laws. 

Let's read it again-

"I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ 

What a filthily awful thing to say.

We are so tired of firearm-related crime that we are going to stop protecting you. When gangs of criminals begin looting, raping, and murdering, then you will finally get the idea and throw up your hands in supplication for stricter laws. Then and only then will we go back to work, and by that time you will finally appreciate us.

How can someone even imply that cops would not recoil in horror at such a thought? If shame would not be enough to strike (no pun intended) that thought from their mind, their pride would.

Bloomberg seeks to plant the seed of fear of the mob in the minds of of the people. This is classic totalitarianism.

If in fact something like this occurred, the people would actually finally realize that it is they who are primarily to protect themselves and their neighbors and that full-time and well-trained/equipped cops are a luxury allowed by a prosperous society. Citizens would buy more ammunition for the weapons that they already have, set up armed neighborhood watches, and some (Especially those who currently have none) would do all that they could to acquire new firearms. They would probably exercise far less restraint when confronted by criminals than do the cops. Non-citizens/resident aliens or others who are not allowed to posses firearms would have to rely on the work of their neighbors unless they violate the law in order to obtain the means to protect themselves.

-and once the cops came crawling back, they would no longer have their jobs.

..".leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them"

-for Bloomberg that is pretty much everyone who is not a cop or a military member on duty. Bloomberg of course enjoys a full-time staff of NYC cops who protect him. Once he finally leaves office, his wealth will enable him to employ private security staff who are also armed.

Bloomberg is an enemy of the American people who masquerades as a protective father figure.

-On Bloomberg's previous moves to control the people:

Monday, July 23, 2012

Sheep Culture Feeding on Dark Knight Shooting

As expected,the Left, realizing an opportunity to call for reducing all of us to helplessness, has jumped all over the Dark Knight shooting in Colorado. Totalitarians thrive on such events; they need you fearful on the street and cowering in your homes. Michael Bloomberg was one of the first to pounce on the collective body or corpses and proclaim the need to find ways to "prevent" such attacks.

Well, to cite an example of prevention, I can come up with a plan to eliminate all traffic fatalities involving privately owned vehicles in the United States. It's very simple.

- The problem is, we can't do without cars or trucks.

Bloomberg, however,  no doubt would be fine in applying this concept to firearms ownership.

Here the problem is no different. People not only have the right to defend themselves but in Western Culture, the citizen is obligated* to be equipped in a manner that provides for some degree of protection of himself, his family, and his community

The sheep mentality+ (Also ++) is one of the most terrible afflictions with which many in the Western World have allowed themselves to be affected. It is a culture that assumes that the present state of our nation or  neighborhood can never change.This delusion refers both to long periods of time in the event of mass disorder, or on that one day when a bad man(men) seemingly at random picks you or your peers to be on the receiving end of violence.

I too like going about my day knowing that I will almost definitely not be attacked or witness an attack. The difference is that I am equipped, and mentally prepared for, such an event. A society that is unprepared for such an occurrence, especially when it comes to being mentally ready, is prey to all sorts of enemies. History demonstrates that societies have far more to fear from being unarmed and unprepared than from random violence acts of their own citizens.

In 410 AD the Visigothic King Alaric approached the Gates of Rome. What was left of the Roman army had been unable to challenge this march on the city. The people had long been unaccustomed to do any of their own fighting. After being giving of the terms, which included the removal of vast amounts of money and treasure, he was asked by the city's delegation what would be left of them.

Alaric replied "Your Lives"

-Others have not been as generous as Alaric when it comes to allowing people to be secure in their lives and bodies. Read the excerpts from the American Thinker article quoted below to see some examples of what can happen to unarmed peoples. (Bolded text)

The Left is so distraught at the thought of people being able and willing to take decisive action to eliminate violent threats that they would rather we be a society of pure victims. Worse still, many people have accepted this argument and called for the disarming of the entire population. I have met many an adult American man who is perfectly fine with the thought of having no effective means whatsoever of protecting even his home.

I am an intellectually convinced and practicing Catholic. I  have also have made it clear that it is no secret that far too many US Catholics, especially those in leadership positions, have been on the anti-defense bandwagon for many years. In New Jersey, former Bishop Frank Rodimer of the Paterson Diocese  enthusiastically endorsed the Million Mom March, which was the anti-gun movement of the 90's that modeled its name after the unrelated Million Man March. The fact that the Church itself has never indicated that people should remain defenseless, or that turning the other cheek is supposed to mean that we should become so, has never gotten in the way of many US Catholics as they, intentionally or not,  have repeatedly sought to render us powerless to defend our lives, bodies, possessions, or our freedoms.

The likelihood that most if this is due to a naive assumption that governments will always be able to have sufficient cops or soldiers (Or that the State will not oppress its own people) does nothing to assuage my frustration with the American Church. Far too many American Catholics seek to turn their fellow Christian men into cowards and shirkers of duty.

The Jesuits have lead the way in the push to turn Catholics into soft Leftists:

"That is why I believe that gun control is a religious issue. It is as much of a “life issue” or a “pro-life issue,” as some religious people say, as is abortion, euthanasia or the death penalty (all of which I am against), and programs that provide the poor with the same access to basic human needs as the wealthy (which I am for). There is a “consistent ethic of life” that views all these issues as linked, because they are.

All of these issues, at their heart, are about the sanctity of all human life, no matter who that person is, no matter at what stage of life that person is passing through, and no matter whether or not we think that the person is “deserving” of life. The issues just mentioned of course are very different. To take the most obvious example, the agonizing decisions surrounding euthanasia, with which loving families are sometimes confronted, are not to be equated with the twisted decisions of a mass murderer. But they are all, in one way or another, actions that impinge on the sanctity of human life. God gives life to every person, and that life is holy.

Pro-life religious people need to consider how it might be made more difficult for people to procure weapons that are not designed for sport or hunting or self-defense. Why would anyone be opposed to firmer gun control, or, to put it more plainly, laws that would make it more difficult for mass murders to occur? If one protests against abortions clinics because they facilitate the taking of human life, why not protest against largely unregulated suppliers of firearms because they facilitate the taking of human life as well? "

The Priests knowingly misrepresents a number of issues here. The term "unregulated suppliers of firearms" being the most obvious. No such thing as an unregulated firearms suppliers exists unless we are talking about active lawbreakers and those guys don't generally don't worry about about breaking laws in the first place.

The most insidious falsehood is the claim that being pro-life somehow means that one should be anti-life when faced with violence. Neither Catholic doctrine nor any other truly Christian or Jewish organization calls for people to shun violence to the point in which potential victims cannot be saved by those who are able to do so. Priest Martin (Here I employ the Fundamentalist term for Catholic Priests as I cannot bring myself to refer to him by his title) would rather provide soft and comforting woods to a rape victim or the family of a murder victim than have them able to prevent the act from occurring in the first place. Those like Martin tend to insist that all killing is murder. This of course ignores the fact that the Hebrew word used in "Thou shalt not kill" very specifically refers to murder and not all killing. 

To take the position that one is just so holy and therefore willing to force others to be victims in order to feed his appetite for righteousness is pure Superbia - this was in fact the first sin and the one that got us into this mess in the first place.

Here are two post on recent moves by Jesuits:

* On the obligation of the individual to be capable of defense - with excerpts below:

"The Left is all-to-aware that individual ownership of arms one of the hallmarks and universal characteristics of Western societies. Unlike the types of societies admired by Leftists, such as medieval China, where the individual was to do as he was told (Even a code of ethics like Confucianism rams this home) and was required to leave the defense of their family, property, and village to the local warlord or emperor, the individual in the West has always been an owner of arms.

Where Eastern societies prohibited one from taking part in defense and thus left his safety to the whim or ability of the ruling despot, Western societies required the individual to own arms. Where the Eastern potentates could pretty much do as they pleased with the people who lived in their domains, their counterparts in the West had to tread cautiously.

For a person who desires to find out more about the crucial place of arms ownership in the Western world and its consequences on the societies that evolved from it, the easiest and quickest way would be to research the Roman, Greek, and early Germanic societies.

The Greeks required the individual, especially if he owned any property, to equip himself at this own expense with a minimum of arms and armor and to take an active part in the defense of his city-state. This was quite an expense as both the materials and work/craftsmanship that went in to making these items were costly. For anyone who has not seen what a Greek Hoplite wore, it consisted of a helmet, shield, armor for the torso and legs, a sword and spear. This was a right and an obligation that was not optional. Later they allowed for more lightly-armored Peltasts. The individual was also required to train exhaustively, to learn how to fight in a hoplite formation and also needed to drill/practice on a regular basis with those of his community. In times of threats to the city-state, the Hoplite, like the others noted below, did not have the option of remaining home with his family.

The Romans also required those who possessed property to equip themselves at their own expense and to train and appear with their equipment in times of crisis. Unlike the Greeks, they created early on several classes where the amount of equipment one as required to purchase was based on the amount of property they owned with the exact specifications enumerated. Those with the most property had to be the most heavily equipped, those with less assessed property would have to purchase less.

The Germanic society was the most egalitarian as far as armed individuals go. All free men could be called up at anytime. There of course were differences as to what arms certain individuals could afford to posses, but the system, which went by the label of Fyrd among the Saxons, existed throughout Germanic societies by different names and technically continued as an obligation throughout the middle ages. Interestingly, the emergence of professional troops of the nobility and the resultant lack of reliance on the Fyrd-type bodies has a direct correlation with the subjugation and suppression of the common people. The concept was employed in the defense preparations of Elizabethan England when threatened by the Spanish Armada. The decline of the nobility and relative absence of one in daughter nations such as the US brought the practice back into common use. Colonial men were required to periodically report for drill and inspections of their equipment. These militias formed the basis of the first contingents to oppose what they believed to be British tyranny.

All of these and others types not mentioned here are an integral part of Western societies. These responsibilities have continued in various forms and frequency of use into the present day. In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court had for evidence incredible amounts of citations of those who actually made the constitution or were contemporaries of those who did. All state clearly that the Militia (Modern Fyrd) consist of all able-bodied men (I would include women if they have been familiarized with weapons). The National Guard bodies of individual states, while constituting a sort of professional core of militia, is also a part of the US Army Reserve structure and has not taken the place of the militia.

To apply the protest against such an idea to early human societies, we could use the example of cave people. In a free society, like those who banded together and lived in natural shelters like caves, what would have happened to an individual who wanted the protection of the cave and the clan but did not want to take part in the clan's defense? Well, it is guaranteed that he would be cast out to fend for himself. His lack of willingness to expose himself to the danger common to all who stood in defense of the clan or his aversion to any violence for any purpose would result in his expulsion from that society. In the caves, one would forfeit his chance to survive if he refused to take part in defense. In Greek, Roman, Germanic and other Western societies, one who refused to take part would forfeit his right to have any say in how the society is run. He could not vote, speak at assemblies, or sit in or attend a Germanic council. (Saxon – Witan) In short, he had no right to have his opinion counted if he would not fight.

Some will argue that the right to defend oneself is archaic and an unnecessary vestige of an earlier time. They will add that the establishment of professional police bodies, the active-duty military and National Guard Reserve, the lack of need to hunt for daily food, and the absence of threats from neighboring communities has negated the necessity for individuals to own arms.

Nothing could be further from the truth for any of these cases. Numerous court decisions have ruled that police cannot be held responsible for failing to protect an individual from violent criminal activity. The military is designed to deal with threats directly against the nation or states. Arms cannot be considered as only for hunting as this activity is only for a very limited application and is not the main purpose which is ensuring that a person can take protective measures. Lastly, the rise of exceptionally violent activity and the possibility things getting worse in the future makes the responsibility of one to own and become proficient with a firearm more important than it has been in a long time.

In short, no one event or chain of events has occurred that has removed the right and obligation of the individual to protect himself, his family, and his community.

*A brief reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, who used that phrase in describing how he suppressed riots of the Sections in the tumultuous years of the early French republic. He used artillery. Grapeshot is made of bags filled with multiple projectiles. A shotgun is the closest thing to such an effective weapon that an individual may posses."

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

+On the sheep-like attitude of our society:

"I once read an account of a mass shooting in Australia back in 1996, and an eyewitness stated that as the gunman began killing people, bystanders began laughing. They thought it was some kind of stunt. It wasn't. They simply weren't conditioned to process the fact that they were witnessing actual murders with their own eyes.

The fact is that postmodern society has created an "artificial reality." Americans, and residents of other Western nations, live in air-conditioned buildings, eat processed foods, drive instead of walk, wait for the government check to come in the mail, and glut themselves into morbid obesity. They hire out a handful of volunteers to fight wars for them, and they hire out illegal aliens to mind their children and do their gardening. They walk around zombie-like, faces glued to iPhones; they fly around at 35,000 feet at 600 mph above the clouds where it's forty below zero -- and they get bored and bitch about the airplane food.

Evil thrives on vulnerability, and we're vulnerable because we're so detached from actual reality. After the 9/11 attacks turned the World Trade Center into an ash heap, a common reaction was "Duuude, it was just like a movie!" September 11 was the second attack on the WTC in eight years, and thousands of people a hundred stories up -- literally swaying in the breeze -- and millions of their fellow Americans still didn't "get it." I distinctly recall walking down a back-country road on a small-game hunt about a week after 9/11, rifle in hand, cognizant of the unusual quiet as all aircraft remained grounded, thinking, "Why don't you bastards try something now?" Of course, they wouldn't have -- evil avoids a confrontation. It hides from countervailing strength. It waits for the moment when you least expect it to seize its opportunity. And by failing to stand guard against it or acknowledge its presence, you, the victim, enable it.

Our forefathers hacked this nation out of a wilderness inhabited by Stone-Age tribesmen. They were in touch with reality. They fought wars, hunted their own meat, built their own homes, cleared their own forests, saddle-broke their own horses, birthed their own children, and buried their own dead. If they made a mistake, it could easily cost them their lives. "Reality" -- good, evil, pain, work, reward, suffering, joy -- was in their face 24-7. It wasn't artificially manufactured for them. They sure as hell weren't watching some Batman fantasy in a movie theater at midnight after a day eating Whoppers in the food court at the mall.

The great danger of the "Batman" shooting is that the still-deluded folks among us will believe that more government power and more gun control will solve the problem. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn't even wait for the bodies in Aurora, Colorado to cool before he began his usual braying for gun control. Well, if guns are the problem, perhaps Mayor Bloomberg could lead by example and disband the armed NYPD security detail that protects him 24-7. Perhaps someone should remind him what armed NYPD men did to Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima. Or remind him about the Happy Land Social Club fire, in which 87 people were killed not by a gun, but by $5 worth of gasoline, or the Oklahoma City Bombing, in which 168 people were killed by diesel fuel and fertilizer, or the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 by box-cutters and airplanes.

The numerous journalists who think that we need to enact "sensible gun laws" like "other countries" should be reminded that mass shootings have occurred in Germany, Norway, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain, even after gun control laws far stricter than those in the U.S. were enacted.

Anyone who thinks that only the government should have guns, or that government officials wouldn't possibly commit acts of evil with guns, ought to familiarize himself with the following: Katyn Forest, Holodomor, NKVD, Khmer Rouge, Cultural Revolution, Tianenmen Square, Dujail, Babi Yar, Nanking, Waco, and Srebrenica.

The lesson of the "Batman" shooting is this: where there is a large sheep herd, the wolves will always thrive."

"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog."

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Boyfriends Lays Down Life for Girlfriend in Colorado Shooting

In response to the pressure from radical Feminists and Leftists, there are, consequently, pathetically few instances of men acting like men in our age.....
"A woman who survived the deadlyAurora, Co. movie theater shooting said her military member boyfriend laid on top of her during the gunfire, taking a bullet and sacrificing his own life to save hers.

Jansen Young said she didn’t realize at first what was happening when alleged gunman James Holmes opened fire on the theater where she was seeing “The Dark Knight Rises” with boyfriend Jon Blunk, according to NBC’s “Today.”

When the shooting started, she said Blunk immediately shoved her to the ground.

“He pushed my hips to the floor and he’s like, Jansen, Jansen get down and stay down,” she said. “He kind of pushed me in under the seat and pushed on me real hard and he was laying up against me, he kind of whispered in my ear, ‘There’s someone with a gun and he’s shooting people.’”

“I didn’t know, but he knew immediately that it was real,” she said.

Young said it wasn’t until she tried to get out of the theater herself that she realized Jon was lifeless.

“I tried to shake him and was saying his name, and like Jon, Jon we’ve got to go,” she said. “I kind of poked my head up at that point and realized oh my gosh, nobody’s in here, it’s just us. There were like a few other heads here and there I could see leaving the theater but really the theater was empty…that’s when I got out and I kept thinking that was…oh my gosh, I think Jon just took a bullet for me.”

“I was thinking about what a great hero he was and he provided me the opportunity to survive,” she said. “He wasn’t just a hero last night, he has been a hero forever,” she said.

She said Blunk had planned to re-enlist in the military, telling her once, “Jansen, I was born to serve my country.”

“He was re-enlisting it was just what he wanted to do and he loved it,” she said. “He saved me and he gave me the opportunity to live, he would have done it for anyone that day…that’s just who he was.”

Young said she doesn‘t know what she’s going to do now.

“I can’t fathom not coming home to Jon,” she said. “I don‘t even know at this point if I’m willing to stay in Colorado. Three days ago I was coming back to Colorado because I was going to live with Jon, be with Jon. What am I coming back here for?' "

The Left and their cultural allies seek to remove all distinctions, of culture, religion, class, gender, etc. The thought of men being men literally kills them. 

Upon being asked by his wife what she should do if he was killed in battle against the Persians, King Leonidas of Sparta responded, "Marry a good man, and have children".

No one disputes that Jon Blunk would have preferred to survive the shooting and have a chance to live a life, love someone, have children, and make his place in society. He, however, recognized that people occasionally find themselves in circumstances that require them to act, and decisively so. 

For Jon, it was more important that a lady, and especially one for whom he cared, be the one to survive if getting out safely was not possible for both of them.

He knew that, as a man, he had a job to do.

I hope that other men will recall his example if they are faced with similar circumstances.