Monica Crowley - Amnesty Will Effect "Fundamentally Transformation" of US

Monica. Crowley has become one of the precious few who will lay before our eyes the consequences of what Republican legislators are poised to do - accomplish Obama's goal of fundamentally transforming the United States.

We must note that Obama's 2008 statement about transforming the United States from its what it was actually created to be remade into what he wanted did nothing to damage his campaign. Although one would certainly be hard-pressed to name one nation other than the US that should not undergo a change of its core and foundational elements, that fact was ignored by more than enough individuals; Obama won easily. The "why" and "how" of that historical reality will someday be debated - possibly centuries after us, but we can affirm with reasonable certainty that Cultural Marxism was a major factor.

I have noted in previous posts that a grant of amnesty and citizenship will spell the effective end of our republic. The Democratic Party will in all likelihood lock in the current 38 (and with amnesty probably more) electoral votes of Texas, which will secure for them any Presidential election for the next several decades.

-With that comes the flood of appointees to the federal judiciary, and that includes the US Supreme Court.

Even if Texas were to squeak by - for the moment, relatively unscathed, The House of Representatives and the Senate would be solidly Democratic.

The US will have been unalterably ruined. 

Although Conservatives have a real chance of doing some damage in 2014 and 2016 to Progressive legislators and other candidates who have to drag the ball and chain of Obamacare and the myriad of their scandals, Republicans lawmakers would rather complete Obama's transformation for him.

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/immigration-the-lefts-fundamental-transformation-of-the-nation/


"So. The Democrats are in freefall. Their “landmark” legislation, Obamacare, rammed through without a single Republican vote, is in collapse. The president has been exposed as a liar (see: “If you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.”) His poll numbers are tanking, from job approval to competency to trustworthiness to personal likeability.

The poll numbers for the Democrat party are in the gutter as well, with the Republican party now pulling ahead on the generic ballot. Democrats are fleeing the scene of their own accident, refusing to be seen with the president and distancing themselves from the wreck that is Obamacare.

In other words, the Democrats are on the run, vulnerable, weak, and poised for a major defeat.

So what are the Republicans doing? Are they going for the jugular, attacking nonstop until the election, and showing no mercy? In other words, acting like Democrats…
Of course not. They’re Republicans. They are stepping in to help the Dems out.

Instead of pounding Obamacare, the president, and the Democrats with the facts of an atrocious stab at socialized medicine and the lies they’ve used to push it, the GOP appears ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by switching gears to the highly polarizing issue of immigration. Never mind that immigration doesn’t even score more than 2 percent in polls asking what the most important issue is to the country. Rather than let this sleeping dog lie (at least through November), the Republican leadership is jumping to the assistance of the Democrats by supporting amnesty.


"...........if the government controls your health care, the government controls you. Obamacare was never about your health care. It was about government power and control.

And so it is with immigration “reform.” For Obama and the Left, it’s not about actually dealing forcefully and effectively with the immigration issue. If that were the case, the administration would be faithfully enforcing the laws we have on the books. It is not. They seek this “reform” for one simple reason: because immigration is the final missing piece of the “fundamental transformation of the nation.”

If they can get amnesty for 12 million (who knows what the real number is? 12 million? 18 million? 30 million?) illegals, they know they’ve got the country in a headlock.

Most Hispanics are natural Democrat voters. Not all, obviously. Many believe in hard work, individual liberty, economic liberty, and obeying the law. But the majority vote Democrat, and the party has been working hard to lock them into government dependency.

If amnesty goes through, the Democrats will flood the zone with millions of more Democrat voters, possibly flip Texas blue, and get their long sought-after permanent Democrat voting majority. If that happens, you will never again see a Ronald Reagan or a George W. Bush. You may never again see a GOP majority in Congress. The Republicans will be relegated to permanent minority status. And a shrinking one at that.
This is the goal of the Democrats.

Why on earth would Republicans want to help them achieve it? Because they think they’ll be “rewarded” by Hispanic voters? That didn’t happen after the 1986 amnesty. In fact, the percentage of Hispanics voting GOP actually went DOWN after that amnesty. To take the issue off the table? Forget it. As soon as the path to amnesty is in place, Democrats will accelerate the process to get them voting as fast as possible, so the “issue” will never be off the table for Republicans.............

While strangling themselves right out of existence."

Let's see what Pat Buchanan says about a grant of amnesty and citizenship:

http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-lost-middle-america-6210

"Out of the Republican retreat on Maryland’s Eastern shore comes word that the House leadership is raising the white flag of surrender on immigration.

The GOP will agree to halt the deportation of 12 million illegal aliens, and sign on to a blanket amnesty. It only asks that the 12 million not be put on a path to citizenship.

Sorry, but losers do not dictate terms. Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO says amnesty is no longer enough. Illegal aliens must be put on a path to citizenship and given green cards to work — and join unions.

Rep. Paul Ryan and the Wall Street Journal are for throwing in the towel. Legalize them all and start them on the path to citizenship.

A full and final capitulation. Let’s get it over with...........

Almost all of those breaking our laws, crossing the border, and overstaying their visas are young, poor or working class. Between 80 and 90 percent are from Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

They are Third World peoples. They believe in government action and government programs that provide their families with free education, health care, housing, food, and income subsidies. They are not Bob Taft or Barry Goldwater conservatives.

Perhaps 85 percent of all immigrants, legal and illegal, more than a million a year now, are people of color. And while over 70 percent of Hispanics and Asians voted Democratic for Obama, among voters of African descent, the Obama vote was well above 90 percent.

Four of every five U.S. citizens of Asian, African and Hispanic descent vote Democratic in presidential elections. And it is their numbers that are growing. Already they are well over a third of the U.S. population.

As has been observed often, America, demographically, is going to look like California. And while Nixon won California all five times he was on a national ticket, and Reagan won California in landslides all four times he ran, California has not gone Republican in six straight presidential elections..........

If Bush I had built that border fence back in 1992 and declared a moratorium on legal immigration that fall, as many implored him to do, the party of the Bushes would not be facing its demise well before midcentury."

Senator Ted Cruz also believes that amnesty will be a serious problem:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/30/ted-cruz-has-a-stern-message-to-republicans-currently-pushing-for-immigration-reform/

"Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is hoping fellow Republican House leaders take heed and not push this year for immigration reform measures with mid-term elections so closely at hand.
But that’s not what’s happening.

Republicans, along with leadership, are meeting at a three day retreat along Maryland’s eastern shore Thursday, and the top piece of business is immigration. Republican House Speaker John Boehner, from Ohio and Rep. Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, among others, are trying to advance immigration legislation prior to heading into the midterm election campaign.

The senator said in a statement emailed to TheBlaze that “amnesty is wrong in any circumstance.”

Republicans need to focus on winning against Obama’s failed policies and not push for immigration legislation that is already presenting numerous legal obstacles and will demoralize voters, many of whom are opposed to amnesty, he added.

“The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill…”

“Right now, Republican leadership in both chambers is aggressively urging Members to stand down on virtually every front: on the continuing resolution, on the budget, on the farm bill, on the debt ceiling,” Cruz said. “They may or may not be right, but their argument is that we should focus exclusively on Obamacare and on jobs. In that context, why on earth would the House dive into immigration right now? It makes no sense, unless you’re Harry Reid. Republicans are poised for an historic election this fall–a conservative tidal wave much like 2010. The biggest thing we could do to mess that up would be if the House passed an amnesty bill–or any bill perceived as an amnesty bill–that demoralized voters going into November.”..........

“Anyone pushing an amnesty bill right now should go ahead and put a ‘Harry Reid for Majority Leader’ bumper sticker on their car, because that will be the likely effect if Republicans refuse to listen to the American people and foolishly change the subject from Obamacare to amnesty,” he said."

Unpaid Cafeteria Bills Result in Seized Lunches, Hungry Kids

I have a hard time finding words to describe what happened at an elementary school in Utah.

The school had a problem with some unpaid lunch bills at the school cafeteria. OK, no major crisis as there are a number of options available to school administrators to handle that issue. The cafeteria staff, however,was somehow was unable to tell who actually owed money until they served lunches to the students, so they went ahead and served the meals.

Who or what keeps the records in that cafeteria, I can't imagine.

Some students are behind on their cafeteria bills. Which students?. I don't know - we'll have to serve them again and find out.

Now, having served the meals and thus been able to come up with a list of students whose bills were past due, we should be able to contact their parents, right?

The district child nutrition manager had a better idea. The message must be sent that there will be a policy of zero tolerance for such a blatant case of  theft of services.

The students were approached, and their meals, which were now their property as well as a means of midday sustenance, were taken from them and thrown in the garbage. Not only were they deprived of a full meal, they were also subjected to a sickening degree of humiliation.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57468293-78/lunches-olsen-students-district.html.csp


"Up to 40 kids at Uintah Elementary in Salt Lake City picked up their lunches Tuesday, then watched as the meals were taken and thrown away because of outstanding balances on their accounts — a move that shocked and angered parents.........................

Jason Olsen, a Salt Lake City District spokesman, said the district’s child-nutrition department became aware that Uintah had a large number of students who owed money for lunches.

As a result, the child-nutrition manager visited the school and decided to withhold lunches to deal with the issue, he said.

But cafeteria workers weren’t able to see which children owed money until they had already received lunches, Olsen explained.

The workers then took those lunches from the students and threw them away, he said, because once food is served to one student it can’t be served to another.

Children whose lunches were taken were given milk and fruit instead.

Olsen said school officials told the district that their staffers typically tell students about any balances as they go through the lunch line and send home notifications to parents each week.

The district attempted to contact parents with balances via phone Monday and Tuesday, Olsen said, but weren’t able to reach them all before the child-nutrition manager decided to take away the students’ lunches.........

But Olsen said he would not describe the tactic as a mistake."

[The following is probably the most callous remark that I have ever read that did not concern a victim of a violent crime.]

"If students were humiliated and upset," Olsen said, "that’s very unfortunate and not what we wanted to happen."

[First of all, to use the word "if" is a bold-faced lie in this case - there was no "if". Secondly, what they supposedly had not "wanted to happen" is another lie as no one could pretend to believe that they were unaware that the children would not be upset and feel humiliated]

"However, after further investigation, Olsen released an updated statement that was also posted to the district’s Facebook page. It said: "This situation could have and should have been handled in a different manner. We apologize."

[Here again comes the lie train. I am more sick to my stomach about the response than I am about the seizure. "parents and students who say that this was an embarrassing and humiliating experience". A remark of this type is pure Orwellian Newspeak and is only made with the intention to imply that not all who claimed to be upset or humiliated actually were]

The post adds: "We understand the feelings of upset parents and students who say this was an embarrassing and humiliating situation. We again apologize and commit to working with parents in rectifying this situation and to ensuring students are never treated in this manner again."

[How thoughtful]

Olsen said it’s standard in the district to give kids fruit and milk in lieu of lunch if they don’t have the money to pay for lunch.............

[I do appreciate the reaction of one of the (likely coerced) employees, who felt badly enough to cry while taking the lunches, but there comes a time when one has to inform his or her supervisor that he or she will not comply with the order]

She said it was a difficult day for her daughter and other kids. She said her daughter told her one of the cafeteria workers cried at the sight. And her daughter’s best friend was so upset that she went home Tuesday night and made lunches for all the students who had theirs taken, she said.

"You would think in a public school system your child wouldn’t be turned away from lunch," Lukes said, "especially when people usually settle their balances."........."

If I were a Dad of one of these children, the school administration would have to call the cops to force me to leave the school when I arrived the next day. I would find the nutrition manager, pay my bill, and tell that individual to choke on the money. I would also make an appointment with a lawyer and see if there were cause to sue the same individual (and any school administrator who was found to be aware of the plan) personally for damages.

Havana Hugo Chavez Museum Opens

-got home late from another high school wrestling match, so this is the briefest of posts.

The man who single-handily wrecked all of the chances for a resource-rich and developing state from reaching any amount of its potential now has museum in his honor - complete with a monthly ceremony of praise from the enslaved youth of Cuba.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/29/hugo-chavez-museum-opens-in-cuban-capital-as-regional-leaders-meet-for-final/

"The presidents of Venezuela and Cuba have inaugurated a new museum in Havana dedicated to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.........

Permanent exhibits show personal objects, including a military uniform and shoes.

Every month, a Communist youth group is to hold a public act in his honor....."


-Previous Chavez posts: 

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/venezuela-confiscates-peoples-wealth-by.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2011/11/wilson-ramos-rescued-chavez-failures.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2012/07/chavez-venezuela-human-rights-council.html

- Post, Chavez, but still mostly his work. A common Latin American joke notes that in some cases, a relative of a dead man and former leader rules, but in Venezuela, the dead man rules.

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/05/venezuela-goes-ussr-toilet-paper.html

NYT Guilt Piece Plays Anti-Football-Male-Aggression-War Card

The manner of this op-ed is unfortunately no longer uncommon.

Our society has become increasingly accustomed to the Leftist/Progressive agenda. As a consequence of this, a piece that denigrates one facet of American culture will inevitably also contain multiple add-on's in which other aspects of our culture are treated as having been already judged and found guilty.

The writer intention is to draw the reader in with his personal reflections on the dangers inherent in American Football, then render the same reader stuck in a bewildering quagmire of class guilt, personal guilt, anti-masculinity guilt (here referred to as "hypermasculinity) - all topped off with the patently false conclusion that the concept that a war can be won is the product of "childhood fantasies of war as a winnable contest".

The approach makes sense for them. How does one write a refutation piece when each uberbriefly-noted false premise needs several paragraphs or pages to be decisively proven false?  

One must realize that there is a reason why your child's friend is being raised to abhor even play-acting of any type violence, even if it's a pretend game of fighting bad guys. Men have largely surrendered their place to Moms. The Moms in turn have drank the Kool-aid and now demand that their sons grow up with an entire region of their male brains being fully suppressed.

-It's no wonder that we then encounter men who tell us that they feel "fear" while seeing or touching a firearm, but have spent their youth treating girls as sexual playthings.

The Leftist operates with a "Year Zero" approach to every topic. Anything that ever occurred in history is irrelevant to the Leftist so one should not think to cite proofs of wars that were won. You'd have an easier time telling a Christian Fundamentalist about the writings of Medieval Christians.

The need for the Left to weaken the hearts, minds, and bodies of Westerners is so great that one Leftist film utilized the undeniable maxim of Flavius Vegetius Renatus to engage in truly Orwellian Newspeak:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_peace_racket.html

"If you want peace, prepare for war.” Thus counseled Roman general Flavius Vegetius Renatus over 1,600 years ago. Nine centuries before that, Sun Tzu offered essentially the same advice, and it’s to him that Vegetius’s line is attributed at the beginning of a film that I saw recently at Oslo’s Nobel Peace Center. Yet the film cites this ancient wisdom only to reject it. After serving up a perverse potted history of the cold war, the thrust of which is that the peace movement brought down the Berlin Wall, the movie ends with words that turn Vegetius’s insight on its head: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.”

This purports to be wise counsel, a motto for the millennium. In reality, it’s wishful thinking that doesn’t follow logically from the history of the cold war, or of any war. For the cold war’s real lesson is the same one that Sun Tzu and Vegetius taught: conflict happens; power matters. It’s better to be strong than to be weak; you’re safer if others know that you’re ready to stand up for yourself than if you’re proudly outspoken about your defenselessness or your unwillingness to fight. There’s nothing mysterious about this truth. Yet it’s denied not only by the Peace Center film but also by the fast-growing, troubling movement that the center symbolizes and promotes.

Call it the Peace Racket........"


I do not happen to be a big football fan. My favorite sport is baseball, with boxing coming in second place. I have also come to enjoy high school wrestling as my youngest took up up this sport two years ago. Boxing (noted in article), wrestling, and MMA (which strangely was not mentioned although it is far more "vicious" than boxing) would be the next probable targets for the Left. All of these are overwhelmingly male in participation and general outlook.

Softball is very close to baseball and requires the same skills and athleticism, but few things can be harder to hit than a fastball moving at well over 95 miles per hour - we have yet to find a female that can do this consistently. Coupled with the now-shameful fact that men are the participants, the chance of catastrophic injury from being struck by either a pitched or batted ball would in all probability be another reason for baseball being on the Leftist hit-list. Recently we have seen calls to ban Baserunner-Catcher collisions at home plate. It is an extremely rare occurrence that is understandably prohibited in youth baseball - but is still a key elements in the Game; the chance of a baseball being dislodged from the Catcher's hand or mitt in a tight game (the difference being a crucial run scored or a just as crucial out made) may someday be a thing of the past.

The main goal for the writer is to get us to assume a guilt-ridden, gender-neutral, classless, and pacifist mindset - both being arguably more dangerous than their opposites of aberrant masculinity and war-mongering. At least the latter two can be checked by courageous and capable souls. If all one has to work with are examples of the former two, he is in trouble.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/magazine/is-it-immoral-to-watch-the-super-bowl.html?_r=0


"............The problem is that I can no longer indulge these pleasures without feeling complicit. It was easier years ago, when injuries like Stingley’s could be filed away as freakish accidents. TV coverage was relatively primitive, the players hidden under helmets and pads, obscured by fuzzy reception, more superheroes than men. Today we see the cruelty of the game in high definition. Slow-motion replays show us the precise angle of a grotesquely twisted ankle and a quarterback’s contorted face at the exact moment he is concussed........

There are two basic rationalizations for fans like myself. The first is that the N.F.L. is working hard to make the game safer, which is flimsy at best. The league spent years denying that the game was causing neurological damage. Now that the medical evidence is incontrovertible, it has sought to reduce high-speed collisions, fining defenders for helmet-to-helmet hits and other flagrantly violent play. Its most significant response has been to offer $765 million to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by more than 4,500 former players, but a judge recently blocked the settlement. It simply wasn’t enough money.

The second argument is that players choose to incur the game’s risks and are lavishly compensated for doing so. This is technically true. N.F.L. players are members of an elite fraternity that knowingly places self-sacrifice, valor and machismo above ethical or medical common sense. But most start out as kids with limited options. They may love football for its inherent virtues. But they also quickly come to see the game as a path to glory and riches. These rewards aren’t inherent. They arise from a culture of fandom that views players as valuable only so long as they can perform.

But if I’m completely honest about my misgivings, it’s not just that the N.F.L. is a negligent employer. It’s how our worship of the game has blinded us to its pathologies.

Pro sports are, by definition, monetized arenas for hypermasculinity. Football is nowhere near as overtly vicious as, say, boxing. But it is the one sport that most faithfully recreates our childhood fantasies of war as a winnable contest.

Over the past 12 years, as Americans have sought a distraction from the moral incoherence of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the game has served as a loyal and satisfying proxy. It has become an acceptable way of experiencing our savage impulses, the cultural lodestar when it comes to consuming violence. What differentiates it from the glut of bloody films and video games we devour is our awareness that the violence in football, and the toll of that violence, is real.

The struggle playing out in living rooms across the country is that of a civilian leisure class that has created, for its own entertainment, a caste of warriors too big and strong and fast to play a child’s game without grievously injuring one another. The very rules that govern our perceptions of them might well be applied to soldiers: Those who exhibit impulsive savagery on the field are heroes. Those who do so off the field are reviled monsters.
The civilian and the fan participate in the same basic transaction. We offload the mortal burdens of combat, mostly to young men from the underclass, whom we send off to battle with cheers and largely ignore when they wind up wounded........"

Canadian Bloggers Order to Shut Down

I have read a few articles about Richard Warman, who is the instigator in this - and apparently all related, cases involving lawsuits filed under the Canadian law that prohibits (see below*) anything that can be construed as hate speech, but I did not expect this outcome for a few more years.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/unfree-dominion-2/

One of our Canadian readers just sent us this message:

Some fairly important news out of Canada last week. Richard Warman closed down the Free Dominion website through litigation via the Human Rights Commission. There is the threat of jail now for the two very nice people who ran it.

Here is Mark Steyn article from 2012 about the execrable Richard Warman.

This is what Free Dominion said:

As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.

Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened — unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we blocked at every turn from presenting a defense — we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!

We are assessing our options.

In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier

Everyone outside Canada should post about this. Warman can’t screw you over outside Canada because he only does so when he makes money at it. He is a professional litigant. He does the HRC shakedown, and splits it 50-50 with the HRC.

This is their last post:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/search.php?search_id=active_topics


Apparently, the victims of the totalitarian process, which does not appear to provide for anything resembling an actual trial but still dishes out punishments, were sued because they linked a post of theirs to the following piece by Mark Steyn. Judging from alleged past patterns of Warman, it is believed that a minion of his posted a derogatory comment about Warman on Steyn's article so that the professional litigant could have cause to sue. I am not sure why Steyn himself was not sued but my guess is that Warman finds less-powerful targets easier to attack.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/06/19/i-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-actually-i-dont-i-love-it/


*This is the Wikipedia entry for the law to which Mark Steyn referred, a key portion of which was repealed in 2012. I didn't have time to get a grasp of what sections of the law are still in effect or if the respective case occurred before the repeal.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Section_13.281.29_of_the_Canadian_Human_Rights_Act


Again, I am not familiar in anyway with Canadian Law, but what I see is something very close to the oppressive legal restrictions on Free Speech is Western Europe - the same that Hillary Clinton wants for us.

In consideration of the fact that much of Whig and general Parliamentary thought were the inspiration for many American patriots, a growing number of historians have, for good reasons, noted that the American War of Independence should be seen as an extension of the English Civil War.

Where Free Speech is concerned, the US may find herself being the battleground of the next English Civil War.

"Wilkes, liberty, and number 45"

Myanmar's Buddhists Subject of Worldwide Media Attacks

I certainly do not condone violent acts against innocents, and I am repulsed by mob violence, but there appears to be a dog-pile of media coverage that portrays Myanmar's/Burma's Buddhists as bloodthirsty monsters.

An internet search on the conflict between Buddhists and Muslims in that nation will yield page after page of the same claims - that Myanmar's Buddhists are thugs, Nazis* (links at bottom), and regularly engaging in violence against innocent Muslims.

When I search for the better part of an hour and still can't find a single article that presents the perspective of the Buddhists - or even a neutral article that treats both sides, something is dreadfully wrong

The Buddhists are - as we say in the US "being set up". They are being subjected to a coordinated attack that is far more damning than that which is directed at the Israelis. 

All types of ethnic or sectarian strife have enormously complicated origins, and these are rarely squashed except by brute force. This appears to be exactly what the UN, the media, and Leftists around the world want. The people of Myanmar are apparently not going to tolerate violence committed by Muslims in their nation, and the UN is determined to put a stop to any people who will not acquiesce to Islamic aggression.

It should also be noted that the UN has wanted to crush the army of Myanmar for a long time, and a story about oppressed Muslims may be the perfect excuse to justify armed action.

The cadre that still likely has most of the power in Myanmar is understandably not liked by most, but I have no option than to be very suspicious of the claim that Buddhists are the primary aggressors in this conflict. Buddhists are not known to be prone to violence.

For the moment, I can't recall a single region in which Buddhists have been known to engage in or initiate sectarian violence. As Samuel Huntington noted in The Clash of Civilizations, however, there are pathetically few ongoing conflicts euphemistically labeled ethnic strife or sectarian violence in which one of the parties involved are not Muslim. It was the same author who correctly noted that "Islam has bloody borders".

What Muslims are fond of doing is making themselves out to be the victims in these conflicts. The media, eager to discredit Christians and Jews while extolling the supposed virtues of Islam, routinely give us a rosy picture of the Religion of Peace. Leftists, knowing that Muslims consistently vote for Socialist or Labor political parties, import ever-increasing amounts of adherents of a belief system that has no no room for the concept of sovereign nations. The Left wants to do away with independent nations, so Muslim immigrants are the perfect tool to transform the electorates of Europe. When they engage in acts of violence in their new homes, we are assured that they are acting contrary to the teachings of the Koran.

Muslims tend to get a free pass when any kind of violence is used. When homes are torched or people murdered as a result of cartoons, a plainly factual Papal statement, a less-flattering video or anything else that may result in mobs of angry Muslims, it is never their fault.

But, when Buddhists strike, we asked to believe that it is their fault. 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/24/officials-say-un-probe-shows-more-than-40-muslims-killed-last-week-by-buddhist/

"The United Nations has confirmed that at least 48 Muslims appear to have been killed when Buddhist mobs attacked a village in an isolated corner of western Myanmar, a massacre that has been the vehemently denied by the government since it was first reported by The Associated Press just over a week ago.

Presidential spokesman Ye Htut said he "strongly objects" to the U.N. claims and that the facts and figures were "totally wrong."

Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million people, has been grappling with sectarian violence since June 2012.

The incident in Du Chee Yar Tan, a village in northern Rakhine state, appears to be the deadliest in a year, and would bring the total number of mostly Muslims killed in violence nationwide to more than 280. Another 250,000 people have fled their homes.

Northern Rakhine — home to 80 percent of the country's 1 million long-persecuted Muslim Rohingya population — is off-limits to foreign journalists and humanitarian aid workers have limited access, adding to the difficulties of confirming details about the violence. Attacks began Jan. 9 and peaked in the early hours of Jan. 14, according to residents.

Buddhist Rakhine mobs, seeking retaliation for the abduction and killing of a police officer by Rohingya villagers, entered under the cloak of darkness with knives, sticks and guns and went on a killing spree, residents in the area told the AP on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals. Many of the victims were women and children, hacked to death by the mobs, they said.

The humanitarian aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders, said it has treated 22 patients, some with wounds It appealed to the government for safe access to the affected populations, many of whom are still in hiding.

Though the village has been sealed off by security forces, Matthew Smith of Fortify Rights, an independent human rights group, said some residents have been able to return during the day and, as of Wednesday, reported that some bodies were seen in abandoned homes.......

The first reports about the massacre occurred as Myanmar was hosting foreign ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations as chair of the regional bloc.

It was supposed to be an event showing how far the country had come since ending a half-century of military dictatorship two years ago and handing over power to a nominally civilian government. The government of President Thein Sein, himself a former army general, has won international praise for implementing political and economic reforms, but it has also been criticized for failing to investigate and prosecute those responsible for killings linked to sectarian violence.

In many cases security forces have either stood by and watched as Buddhist mobs went after Muslims with machetes and clubs. Other times they have been accused of actively taking part........."

To use another old phrase "Something smells rotten in Denmark". Myanmar's Buddhists are in all probability not the primary aggressors in this conflict. 

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/buddhist-monk-called-neo-nazi-for.html

*http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/left-demonizing-buddhist-for-protecting.html

New Cato Bio Misrepresents Both Subject and History

With the looming end of our republic and the use of the people to effect their own enslavement becoming the norm, I had a feeling that something like this would happen.

Those who have dangerous agendas tend to sense when their designs are being exposed. Although they have reasons for confidence, Progressives are starting to realize that the People are noting the many similarities between our decline and that of the Roman Republic, and something had to be done to paint a picture that was quite different from what actually occurred.

College textbooks from periods as early as the 1960's already featured the Marxist version of Roman history. As our Founders and Framers often thought of  themselves as Romans (good recent work on this linked below*), and our Constitution is somewhat of a model of the Roman Republic as much as it is of the ancient Hebrews and contemporary Great Britain, the Left needed to discredit the ancient Romans in order to portray themselves as having something better to offer.

* http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/rome-reborn-on-western-shores-eran-shalev/1114593607?ean=9780813928333

The revolt against the Tarquins became a mere seizure of power by aristocrats at the expense of a king and the common people. The examples of heroism by ancient Romans? We are now told that none of those things happened - or if they did, they were the doings of individuals seeking to serve the interests of their respective "class" (The British Whig John Wilkes gets the same treatment).

The problems of the Middle and Late Republic were no longer the massive importation of cheap slave labor that forced the middle class freeholder out of  business and into the life of a welfare recipient, the phenomena of elections becoming a question purely of money, the rapacity and corruption of provincial governors, nor did they have anything to do with the soldiery looking to their generals for bonuses and giving them their loyalty rather than to the republic. From at least the 1960's on, the Roman republic was described as being inherently unable to function with so much territory to govern (or as we would say today "get anything done").

Romans who gave their lives to combat the power-hungry Caesar and others of his type were no longer the good guys. The most common inspiration for early American patriots was Addison's play Cato, which rightly featured as its hero Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger. The man who died by his own hand alone in Utica rather than be the recipient of the mercy of the man who ended what was left of the republic, was now a reactionary who only wanted to protect the interests of his class and would not change with the times. Caesar's deserved fate, something to which early patriots such as Patrick Henry would allude as a warning to the Crown, had been transformed by Leftist academicians into a horrible crime. I myself was a victim of this willful misrepresentation; as a youth of the late 1970's and 1980's,  I looked upon the assassination of the murderous, selfish, and grossly prideful tyrant as a tragedy.

As I first noted, I feared that a new "consensus"-creating book on either the last years of the Roman republic, or specifically Cato himself, would be written to get what the textbooks have said onto the bookshelves of retailers. The book critiqued in the Breitbart article (below) does precisely what the Left wants - it falsely recreates the life of Cato to paint a picture of a man whose resistance to needed changes were the cause of the advent of Caesarism. (A term that the author likely lifts from-Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West). The term describes the era when the culture is spent, the people have lost their will, and power resides in one man while maintaining only the outward forms of the old ways. 

The only fault that I have with the critique is that the writer of the Breibart piece seems to operate with the assumption that the author of the book is mistaken. That is not the case - these people know fully well what they are doing. The misrepresentations of Cato and his time are purposeful and are intended to cloud the minds of the People.

For a better picture of last true Roman, I strongly recommend reading Plutarch's Life of Cato.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/25/Heeding-the-Fall-of-Rome-in-an-Age-of-Caesarism

"The Founding Fathers built this country with the Roman Republic’s model in mind and were even more concerned about what caused its fall than how it rose to prominence. Rob Goodman, author of a new Cato the Younger biography, Rome’s Last Citizen, recently wrote an article in Politico discussing the historical comparison between the United States and the last days of the Roman Republic.

Though the former speechwriter for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) must be commended for attempting to bring classic Roman history back into modern discourse and for writing the first major biography of Cato since Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, his analysis generally missed the mark.

The modern connection between the Tea Party, Founding Fathers, and Roman republican statesmen is apt, but his idea that intransigence and opposition to D.C. politics is the cause for America’s current dysfunction is inaccurate. American dysfunction comes from the deep divide in values and the destruction of the constitutional safeguards designed by the Founders.

Goodman was mostly accurate when he said:

"Tea Partiers imagine themselves as revolutionary Americans; revolutionary Americans (churning out pamphlets under names like “Publius,” “Brutus,” and “Cato”) imagined themselves as republican Romans; and those Romans measured themselves against the generations that bequeathed them an empire."

Many Americans today see our own republic in severe decline and worry that numerous damaging changes to republican institutions may become irreversible if not corrected soon. They look to the principles that made the country great in the past and use them as a guide for reform. In many ways, this is not too unlike what the Founders did when they created the republic.

The Founding Fathers believed that they were reviving the republican principles of Rome and combining them with classical liberal ideas derived from the Enlightenment. Americans at the time of the founding absorbed the stories from Plutarch and other Roman historians, modeling themselves after the ancient republic’s foremost citizens.

For instance, one of the most popular plays at the time was Joseph Addison’s Cato: A Tragedy, which depicts the great Roman senator’s patriotic suicide, which he preferred to living under the tyranny of Julius Caesar. George Washington liked the play so much he had it performed by his men at Valley Forge, and many of the famous lines from the Revolution most likely come from Addison’s work, including Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” and Nathan Hale’s final words, “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”............

Like the Founding Fathers, Tea Party conservatives attempt to link themselves to the great and timeless principles of the past, which were grounded in a deep understanding of human nature.

This has led to a new generation of statesmen, like Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, and others who have picked up the mantle of Ronald Reagan and channeled the passion of grassroots conservatives around the country to stand by sound policies and limited-government ideas.

Clearly, Goodman views these men and women as dangerous and writes, “Rome’s tragedy is that the men who saw and sold themselves as guardians of the way of the elders did more than anyone to undermine it.”

Goodman implies that the virtuous men who opposed Caesar ultimately failed to change with the times and, instead of adjusting to the new era which was not all that far outside the norm, destroyed the republic through their firm and unbending opposition to Caesar’s agenda. He also implies that the Founders had an irrational fear of tyranny, writing, “America’s founders regularly branded their opponents as would-be ‘Caesars,’ and in our time, their style of argument has blended with apocalyptic religion and taken on new life.” He admits that Julius Caesar’s policies were illegally enacted (he passed laws by bypassing the senate), but decries the “crisis politics” that those in the Roman Senate, like Cato and Cicero, precipitated............

The progressive agenda, from its early days at the turn of the twentieth century until the modern day, has been aimed at placing a new cornerstone at America’s foundation. Rejecting both the “natural law” ideas of individual rights and the carefully crafted system of federalism codified by the Constitution, progressives have radically increased state power, placed more power in the hands of the executive branch, and created the bureaucratic-administrative state that now runs rampant."

[The following treats an older work]

"Instructive in understanding the long-term agenda of progressivism and the philosophy that Tea Party conservatives oppose so staunchly is Jay Franklin’s book 1940. Franklin was a progressive journalist in the mid-twentieth century who was, appropriately enough, trying to get President Franklin Roosevelt elected to an unprecedented third term when he wrote the book.

"Franklin believed the time had come to strip away the remaining vestiges of Constitutional federalism, which had already been eroded by progressive reforms in the early twentieth century. He explained what kind of changes he and other progressives had in mind:

The internal organization of the Government should, consequently, differ from the old-time Constitutional set-up of separate and discordant powers, legislative, executive, and judicial. For if the fiat of the Progressive State is to be law in the matters to which it confines its interposition, it must be in a position to issue its orders promptly, clearly, and without doubt to its validity."

Gone would be the careful “Madisonian” checks and balances that placed limits on the power of federal, state, and local governments, as well as the checks between the branches of the federal government. Unlike previous strong executives, like Andrew Jackson or Grover Cleveland, progressives did not just want a president who would use hisconstitutional powers to their fullest extent to veto bad legislation or lead the nation through war, but instead would craft and implement legislation through a vast federal bureaucracy.

Congress, which Franklin called a “rubber stamp body” in 1940, would only have the power to meekly push back against the imperial executive from time to time and enter a “respectable twilight.”

Turning around the famous statement by Founding Father John Adams that our country should be a “nation of laws, not of men,” Franklin said, “America has had enough of a government by lawyers; it wants a government by men.” The slow process of legislative bickering, in progressives’ view, had to be replaced with a bureaucracy of experts, whose “scientifically” decided policies would be superior to mere politics.

Franklin wrote:

"We are entering an age of Caesarism, and we must fight fire with fire. Against the foreign dictators we must pit a powerful Presidential office and give the White House, through democracy, all the powers the executive needs to deal swiftly and thoroughly with the rapid shifts and changes of world affairs and domestic problems.”.........

In the final days of the Roman republic, Cicero made a statement that would undoubtedly resonate with Tea Partiers, quoted in Anthony Everitt’s book, The Rise of Rome:

"The Republic, when it was handed down to us, was like a beautiful painting, whose colors were already fading with age. Our own time has not only neglected to freshen it by renewing its original colors, but has not even gone to the trouble of preserving its design and portrayal of figures."...............

The lesson that should be learned from Cato, Cicero, and the great men of the Roman Republic is not that Americans should lie down and let the republic fade but that they should continue to build a popular movement to restore its values, based on the principles of our founders."

Newspaper Chain May Create Pistol-Carry Database

To put this plainly, the Leftist media hopes to accomplish (in the event that they do in fact follow through with the plan) two very simple things by this proposal:

1 - Cause homes owned by individuals who have pistol carry permits to be targeted for burglaries - or even worse, home invasions. As criminals need to acquire their firearms illegally, they will pay good money for stolen ones. 

2- Cause individuals who posses permits to carry pistols to consider canceling their permits to get their names removed from the database. They same principle applies to individuals who are considering applying for carry permits - the originators if this scheme hope that many will prefer to avoid the trouble of being on the database in the first place.

I will say this much - if, God forbid, my house is attacked, and ensuing police investigations reveal that my home was targeted precisely due to the fact that my address was obtained as a result of research of this proposed database, a lot of people will be personally sued for an astronomical amount of money. Criminals often do talk, especially if they are working to get a softer criminal charge or a cut on their prison sentence.


This is a new twist to and old tactic of the Left in the United States; under the guise of public safety, point out to the criminals the People from whom they can expect to acquire a firearm by burglary and theft or outright robbery.

Leftists detests any order in society that does not have its origin with them, and the best method of creating disorder in by proxy.

 In an attempt to create enough disorder to justify a full takeover of the nation's economy, the Spanish "Republicans" unleashed anarchists in a wave of horrific violence. The result was a backfire of nationalist reaction and the Spanish Civil War. Early Russian and American Leftists for example, were also in bed with anarchists, which demonstrates  that the anarchist is by nature less of a thinking creature than are atheists - no system demands more permanent government control than Marxism or any of its related "ism's. The anarchists in these cases were to be finished off once they have accomplished what the Leftists needed. In the case of Spain, once the Civil War began and anarchists had lost their value, they were largely and often violently suppressed by the Spanish Left.

The American Left prefers to utilize the criminal element to do their dirty work. The enormous problem of black-on-black and black-on-white crime in the US is not ignored by the media, but covered up altogether. The extremely rare cases of modern-day white-on-black crime, however are magnified and sensationalized. In the event that none are readily available, they create one and beat the dead horse until the stick breaks, as was the case with the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Also covered up is the scale of violent crime committed by gangs of Latin-Americans who operate as if they don't even exist in the eyes of the leftist media in the US.

Along with this comes a deliberately-staged chorus of howls against privately-owned firearms, "stand-your-ground laws, uses of any amount of force to defend oneself, and - most insidiously, any talk or other coverage of the problem of violent crime in our nation.

Foment as much disorder and fear as possible to justify the crackdown on all who fear legal consequences. 


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/newspaper-chain-seeks-to-build-state-by-state-concealed-weapon-databases/

"A national newspaper chain with nearly 100 publications and 1.6 million readers is considering building “state-by-state databases” on concealed weapons permit holders, according to an internal e-mail.

The plan, laid out in an email from a top editor at North Carolina-based Civitas Media, could be similar to a controversial project a New York state newspaper carried out in 2012 which included an online map that identified gun owners in two counties by name and address. Civitas' database project was detailed the plan in a Jan. 19 e-mail to newsrooms in 11 states, including Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
The newest project "examines the explosion of ‘conceal and carry’ gun permits across the U.S.,” wrote Jim Lawitz, Civitas’ director of content, in an e-mail first obtained by the Buckeye Firearms Association. “Through public records act requests, we will attempt to build state-by-state databases that list those who have the right to carry a concealed weapon.”............


Civitas Media, according to its website, employs more than 1,400 people and publishes 35 daily and 63 weekly publications for a combined circulation of more than 1.6 million.

Chad Baus, secretary of the Buckeye Firearms Association, told FoxNews.com he received the email from a confidential source within the company............

“There’s no other purpose for creating these lists but to target and victimize gun owners,” Baus told FoxNews.com.........................

The newspaper nevertheless defended the decision to publish the material, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests...................................

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America, said he believes Civitas Media will ultimately publish the databases, despite Lawitz’s statement to FoxNews.com.

“Why would a newspaper chain go to the trouble of compiling a list if they had no interest in publishing it?” he said. “Isn’t that what newspapers do? It’s clear that this newspaper chain doesn’t intend to do [gun owners] good.”........."

Here is one prediction that you can take to the bank-  In the event that this database is compiled but not published in the newspapers owned by this group, the database will be "accidentally"  leaked or "stolen" and wind up in the hands of Leftist bloggers and other groups who will publish the database. It will be the perfect plan. They will have spent a lot of work hours on the database, but they'll recoup the monies spent from reimbursements by George Soros and his types, and they will have plausible deniability as they can claim that they  had nothing to do with the actual publishing of the information. 

This may have been their intention all along. 

Virginia AG Will Not Defend Marriage Amendment

Yet, again, the Beast rears his ugly head.

As with California's Proposition 8 case, the new Attorney General for the Commonwealth (They need to get a new label for the state) of Virginia has affirmed that he will not defend the law of the land in his state.

While the California decision was bad enough, the Virginia case does not treat a state law/statute but an amendment to its state constitution. As with the case in Oklahoma (briefly noted at the end of the post link at bottom), state constitutions are being treated as if they have no purpose.

In positively Orwellian language, Attorney General Mark Herring described  the amendment the protects marriage against government intrusion and redefinition as unconstitutional. There are but few things that more clearly prove that the term "unconstitutional" is being hijacked and assigned a meaning opposite to the term than this. The very act of a government proclaiming  - via legislation, court, or executive order, that it has the authority to invent new rights and redefine institutions that predate governments by possibly thousands and of years is one of the most patently unconstitutional acts that can be performed when the question pertains to a government for which a constitution in the Law of the Land.

Our Constitution enumerates the powers allowed to the national government, with all remaining powers still being in the hands of  the states. Therefore, if a single state cannot by its very nature be the creator of new rights or redefine institutions that existed long before anything such as a government even existed, then our national government has an even weaker claim to do so than an individual state.

The long night of Cultural Marxism is upon us, and with it is a Newspeak that makes that which was depicted in 1984 look clear and harmless. Marriage is being purposely and falsely labeled solely as a manifestation of romantic love. The Left does need to destroy society in order to recast it according to their plans, so they bring radicals under their umbrella - in this case to undermine the basic building block of the society that must be razed. Blatantly unconstitutional acts are now being labeled as constitutional, and vice-versa.   Elected officials and their appointees - who have the solemn obligation to defend the law of the land and the will of the people, are choosing to do neither and to placate "useless idiot" radicals who pretend to believe that their "marriages" are in fact not legislative or judicial play-acting.

From the early 90's refrain of "consenting adults", to the onslaught of civil unions, to the new "war on marriage", we have seen - in the brief span of 20 years, the transformation of marriage into a meaningless legal and societal concept.  

When the rights of the People are not defended by those who have the official commission to do so,  we no longer have the Rule of Law. To quote Colin McEvedy, who in his  in his Penguin  Publisher's Atlas of Ancient History described the situation of the late Roman Empire as it was again re-organized to meet the threat of the barbarians, 'This was to be the first scene of the last act".

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/23/new-virginia-attorney-general-says-he-wont-defend-states-gay-marriage-ban/

"RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Following a seismic political shift in Virginia’s top elected offices, the new attorney general has concluded that the state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and he will no longer defend it in federal lawsuits, his office said Thursday........

“After a thorough legal review of the matter, Attorney General Herring has concluded that Virginia’s current ban is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and he will not defend it,” spokesman Michael Kelly wrote.

Herring, a Democrat who campaigned in part on marriage equality, was to file a brief Thursday with the federal court in Norfolk, where one of the lawsuits is being heard, as notification of the state’s change in position in the case, Kelly said............

The Republican speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates said Herring was setting a “dangerous precedent.”

“The attorney general has a constitutional and statutory obligation to enforce and defend the duly adopted laws and Constitution of Virginia,” William J. Howell said in a statement. “This is not an obligation that can be taken lightly.”..................

It is not the first time an attorney general has decided to stop defending their state’s gay marriage ban. In Pennsylvania, Attorney General Kathleen Kane said last year that she would stop defending that state’s gay marriage ban, also calling it unconstitutional. An outside law firm was hired to represent the state in a lawsuit over the ban.........."

Late-term Abortion Heroine Wendy Davis In Hot Water

- The problem with notoriety is that at one point people will find out your real story.

Wendy Davis was held to be the champion of gratuitous abortion when she filibustered a late-term abortion bill in the Texas Senate in June of 2013. Apparently operating under the assumption that the approval boost that she received from her performance would be sufficient to carry her to the Governor's Office, she decided to throw in her hat for that race, the election for which will be held in October of this year.

Shorty after her rise to fame, it was first reported that she had clawed herself to the top. We were told that she became pregnant at a less-than-opportune time but decided to have her baby.

So far, looking pretty good, but the not-so-great parts of our past have a way of rising to the surface.

In the last few days, things have gotten a bit ugly for the State Senator.

Her story that implied that she accomplished so much by her own efforts unraveled rather quickly. We find a series of events that is unfortunately quite common in the US, with men and women taking terrible advantage of the good nature and financial support of their spouses, and even more shamelessly full advantage of repressive "no-fault" divorce laws. The key provision of the latter type of law requires - as "equitable distribution", a 50-50 split (with very few exceptions) of all assets owned during the marriage.

I had a former coworker who worked while she "put her husband through law school". Upon his graduation and success with the bar exam, he filed for divorce. Half of the assets were his, and as he had been a student and had not earned a salary for the previous years, he was entitled to alimony.

One case from California exemplifies how vicious these laws can be:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/07/california-mother-forced-to-pay-spousal-support-to-man-who-raped-daughter/

"A California woman was forced to pay $22,000 in spousal support to her ex-husband, who was convicted of raping her daughter, and is now fighting his efforts to resume the payments.

Carol Abar said her young daughter was raped by Ed Abar for 16 years, and although she filed for divorce when she found out about the assaults, she was forced to pay $1,300 in alimony to her husband per month.............

 He was sentenced to more than a year in jail, and the judge temporarily stopped the spousal support.

Now that he is out of jail, Ed Abar has filed to reinstate the payments from the mother of the girl he assaulted.

“Every time I wrote that check, I cried because I felt like I was paying the man that raped my daughter,” Carol Abar told CBS 2. “The judge told me I had no proof. It was my word against him. He had been raping her since she was little. Since I got married to him.”

Carol Abar said that her ex-husband is asking for $33,000 in past due support in addition to resumption of payments in the future.

Under California law, when deciding spousal support, the court will take domestic abuse between couples into consideration, but child abuse is not specifically mentioned in the law, LosAngeles.CBSLocal.com reported."


I also had a family member who did the same thing to her husband. In fact, her story eerily mirrors that of Wendy Davis. Having carelessly (apparently unlike Sen, Davis) becoming pregnant, she relied in the support of her family and the taxpayer to provide for her and her child until she found a good guy whom she later married. Three great kids followed, then she dropped the bomb. She had decided to stop working and go to college. As the husband already worked multiple overtime shifts already, he was not thrilled by the prospect of working more overtime to make up the difference, but thinking that it would be the best move for the long-term, her supported her and broke his back for several years. A couple of years after she achieved a good job that would have been out of the question without her new degree, she left him for an old boyfriend from high school. The house that "they" had purchased (the substantial down-payment was from  his pre-marital savings) half hers.


Let's see some of Sen Davis' story:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/22/Wendy-Davis-Gave-Up-Custody-of-Youngest-Daughter-in-2005-Divorce

"It's one of the most striking details in Texas State Senator Wendy Davis's life uncovered by Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater: in 2005, Davis, apparently eager to advance her career, relinquished custody of not just her child with her second husband, Jeffry Davis, but also her first child from another marriage.......

Wendy Davis's first daughter Amber, born during her first marriage to Frank Underwood, was 23 at the time – an adult. Her daughter with Jeffry, Dru, was 17..........

The blended family had begun on a happier note in May 1987 when Wendy, 24 at the time, and Jeffry, 37 at the time, had married. Amber, who was then 5, lived with the newly married couple, and from the beginning, her step-father raised her as his own. Jeffry Davis “considers Amber his daughter” the Houston Chronicle reported in September 2013,quoting him saying “she's been with me since she was two” – around the time Wendy Davis's first marriage ended.

The two began dating in Fort Worth in 1984 when Wendy Davis's father asked Jeffry Davis – who is about 13 years older than Wendy, if he was interested in younger women.

Jeffry Davis was a successful and established professional. Armed with an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree from Southern Methodist University, he started Republic Title of Texas, a real estate title company that was on its way to becoming the most successful commercial real estate title company in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

Wendy Davis, then a brunette, had been working as a pediatrician's assistant and waitressing at night.
One year and four months after they were married in 1987, the couple brought daughter Dru into the world. Amber was 6.

Two years later, Wendy Davis applied and was accepted to Harvard University Law School. She left for Boston while Jeffry stayed in Texas...........

Wendy graduated from Harvard Law School in 1993 and returned to Fort Worth, where she clerked for a federal judge, ran unsuccessfully for the Wichita City Council in 1996, and worked for a local legal firm. In 1998, she was finally elected to the Wichita City Council. During that period, she also changed her hair color to blonde

According to Jeffrey Davis, Wendy Davis left him the day after he finished paying for her education. “I made the last payment, and it was the next day she left,” Jeffry Davis said. Wendy Davis didn't deny the timing, although she suggested the break was long-coming. “The idea that suddenly there was this instantaneous departure after Jeff had partnered so beautifully with me in putting me through school is just absurd,” she said..............................

Jeffry told the Chronicle "I think she had a midlife crisis. She wanted to be around a younger crowd."

In March 2004, Wendy Davis filed for divorce with a flurry of legal documents.

In May 2005, Jeffrey Davis filed a counterpetition alleging Wendy Davis had cheated on him.

Six months later, on November 15, 2005, the court accepted the agreed divorce decree, and the Davis's now 17 year old daughter Dru remained in the custody of her father. The final decree listed both Wendy Davis and Jeffry Davis as employees of Jeffry's company, Republic Title of Texas. As part of the financial agreement, Jeffry sold the company and gave half the proceeds to Wendy."


Senator Davis, like many people today, was not about to let the facts get in the way of anything. Not content with implying that her professional husband-supporting life was far more difficult than that of her opponent in the race for Governor, she employed a loaded phrase to do so:

".......I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.”

Here's the rub - It's bad enough that she left out the small detail that her husband was more than instrumental in her success, but her opponent can't walk:

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/01/21/Wendy-Davis-Paraplegic-Greg-Abbot-Never-Walked-A-Day-In-My-Shoes

"Wendy Davis is having a very bad week. She's been caught embellishing her personal narrative about overcoming adversity as a young single mom and leaving out pertinent details like the financial help she got from her ex-husband. Then she embarrassed herself by trying to blame her opponent Greg Abbott for the Dallas Morning News piece that exposed her lies, but that didn't fly because the author of the piece denied having spoken to anyone working with Abbott.............

The pro-late term abortion Democrat "rock star" released this statement on Sunday, via LifeNews:

  'We’re not surprised by Greg Abbott’s [her Texas governorship opponent] campaign attacks on the personal story of my life as a single mother who worked hard to get ahead. But they won’t work, because my story is the story of millions of Texas women who know the strength it takes when you’re young, alone and a mother. I’ve always been open about my life not because my story is unique, but because it isn’t.

The truth is that at age 19, I was a teenage mother living alone with my daughter in a trailer and struggling to keep us afloat on my way to a divorce. And I knew then that I was going to have to work my way up and out of that life if I was going to give my daughter a better life and a better future and that’s what I’ve done. I am proud of where I came from and I am proud of what I’ve been able to achieve through hard work and perseverance. And I guarantee you that anyone who tries to say otherwise hasn’t walked a day in my shoes.”

A very poor choice of words, given Abbott doesn’t walk at all.

At age 26, Abbott was struck by a falling oak tree that injured his back as he jogged by. He has used a wheelchair ever since and has become an eloquent pro-life advocate — speaking up for both the disabled and the unborn.The accident serves as a reminder that regardless of someone’s circumstances, he or she deserves a chance at life, Abbott has said......"

No, Senator, Greg Abbott has not walked in your shoes all. He apparently had no very-successful wife to provide him with everything, nor had he even been able to walk for about thirty years.

Oregon Bakers Found Guilty - for Act of Conscience

This is a follow-up to three posts (along with ones treating similar cases) at bottom.


There can no longer be any doubt that our nation has devolved into a full-blown Orwellian state.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/21/christian-bakery-guilty-violating-civil-rights-lesbian-couple/

"The owners of a Christian bakery who refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines after they were found guilty of violating the couple’s civil rights."

[They did not even have the benefit of an actual trial. A regulatory body handed down the decision]

"The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries said they found “substantial evidence” that Sweet Cakes by Melissa discriminated against the lesbian couple and violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, a law that protects the rights of the LGBT community.

Last year, the bakery’s owners refused to make a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, of Portland, citing their Christian beliefs. The couple then filed a complaint with the state.

“The investigation concludes that the bakery is not a religious institution under the law and that the business’ policy of refusing to make same-sex wedding cakes represents unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation,” said Charlie Burr, a spokesman for the Bureau of Labor and Industries..........

The family eventually had to close their retail shop and now operate the bakery out of their home...............................

Under state law, the complaint against the bakery now moves into a period of reconciliation. If they can’t reach an agreement, formal civil charges could be filed and the Kleins could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines."

[Note the following. This is the closest thing to the practice of groups such as the Khmer Rouge that required prisoners to come forward, admit their bourgeois behavior, and accept reeducation that I have seen in this nation] 

"Last August, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian told The Oregonian, their desire is to rehabilitate businesses like the one owned by the Christian couple.“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”

Aaron Klein told me there will be no reconciliation and there will be no rehabilitation. He and his wife will not back down from their Christian beliefs.

“There’s nothing wrong with what we believe,” he said. “It’s a biblical point of view. It’s my faith. It’s my religion.”..........
“I’ve never seen a government entity use a law to come after somebody because they have a religious view,” he said. “I truly believe Brad Avakian is trying to send a message. I don’t think the constitution of the state of Oregon means anything to these people.”

No degree of special legal protection that prohibits discrimination can be understood to override the very basic right of religious freedom of conscience.   

Like others mentioned in the links below, the Klein's were faced with a very simple dilemma - submit to avoid fines, lawsuits, and loss of one's means of earning a living, or do the right thing and gently (and as previous posts note this was certainly how it was done) inform the gay or lesbian couple that they would be unable to (in this case) make a wedding cake for an event that ran contrary to their beliefs. 

The radicals have taken control of much of our nation. Failing to engage in a conversation about a coworker's gay marriage, or politely declining to perform a service for a gay wedding (or anniversary) is now cause for closing up shop or giving up your job. In the USSR, you were sent to the gulag. In the US, you won't go to jail but you will be financially ruined. 

The act of providing a service for any event requires a degree of cooperation with that event. I am a Catholic, and as such one cannot discriminate against me. Unlike Catholics, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants, Evangelical Christians do not allow for the baptism of infants. If I desired a cake or other service for the baptism party for my newborn, and the Evangelical vendor felt that filling that order would violate his beliefs, I would not have the gall to make a complaint. 

This is, however, an society that is truly Orwellian at both the governmental level and - even more frighteningly, at the grass-roots level. A dissident in the Soviet Union or East Germany could at least have a small circle of friends around whom he could make known the fact that he was not happy with the current state of affairs, even if this meant simply keeping conspicuously quiet. In our society, you have more to fear from a complaint or retaliatory vandalism from an angry gay radical than you do from the cops. 

Even attending a party is problematic.The person of conscience has to remain fearful that the wrong topic will come up in conversation - one that will at some point be directed at him for a required response. Forget saying anything that  is not approved by the radicals; the very act of politely noting that you prefer not to comment will likely bring a pack of jackals around you As the angry accusations are leveled at you and the fingers are being pointed close to your face, the desire to refrain from ruining the event for everyone will act as a braking mechanism to what you may want to say to defend yourself (and you are not defending your position, but your own beliefs - who you are), but the radicals will only be emboldened by your sense of decorum. In the end, you may well decide to avoid such gatherings to avoid finding yourself in similar situations. I once faced vicious verbal attacks simply because I declined to provide input on the sickening phenomena of the growing of human embryos to make life easier for those of us who were fortunate enough not to have been grown for the gruesome purpose of harvesting. 

Again, I see no viable option other than to effect a political  break of my beloved republic. There are two utterly different types of people in the United States, and one will not allow any amount of compromise. They want nothing less than your complete Islamic-like submission to their way of doing things.


http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/02/baker-refuses-cake-for-fake-wedding.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-mob-shuts-down-bakery-but-are-not.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/12/baker-ordered-by-judge-to-serve-gay.html



http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/04/washington-state-sues-florist-for-gay.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/06/lawsuits-fines-jail-for-ones-principles.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/08/photographer-found-to-violate-human.html

http://thehotgates480bc.blogspot.com/2013/05/doj-mandating-employees-to-talk-about.html