 Almost before the dust and smoke cleared away from yesterday’s terror attack at the Boston Marathon, the socialist left began their own attack on conservatives. Several leftist journalists began speculating that the attack was the responsibility of conservatives on the right. Charles P. Pierce wrote in Esquire magazine warned his readers to avoid jumping to conclusions and to avoid blaming the attack on “foreign terrorism.” He then went on to remind his readers that the bombing coincided with Patriot’s Day, and the then connected it all to Timothy McVeigh – the Oklahoma City bomber. He apparently struck a chord with his socialist liberal readers, as one commenter wrote, “I’ll bet good money it’s a right-wing nutjob. Today is April 15, Boston Harbor was where the original Tea Party took place and the on-going gun-safety legislation makes it [the Tea Party] the mostly likely culprit.”
Peter Bergen, a “National Security Analyst” with CNN, speculated that the bomb used could have been made with “conventional explosives, … that might be another kind of right-wing extremism.” Al Sharpton’s radio producer Nida Khan offered her speculation in a Tweet in which she wrote, “We don’t know anything yet of course, but it is tax day & my first thought was all these anti-gov groups, but who knows.” And Nicholas Kristof, a columnist for the New York Times also took to Twitter in order to connect the attack to the GOP. He wrote, “explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment.”
ABC News consultant Brad Garrett, a former FBI agent who claims to be an expert in Criminal Investigations, offered his speculations on the “ABC Monday” program. Garrett explained that it was possible that a domestic right-wing extremist could have carried out the attack. He based his speculation on the date of the attack, saying that other domestic extremist events had occurred during the date range of April 15-20, including the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. It should also be noted that Garrett himself has admitted that he has not had one single “conversation with the FBI or anybody else about investigating terrorism.”
MSNBC “reporter” Chris Matthews also offered his speculation within just hours of the attack. Matthews said, “Normally domestic terrorists, people, tend to be on the far right.” And even president Obama, according to his former advisor David Axelrod, speculated the attack may been carried out because it was “tax day” (a day often cited as a day of rebellion by anti-government groups).
With all of the “speculative possibilities” being tossed around by the socialist left like Frisbees at a beach party, I have to wonder why they are automatically pointing the finger at conservatives as being responsible.
“Speculative Possibilities” are just that – speculation, and in the case of the above examples they are speculation based not on any evidence (circumstantial or otherwise), but solely on the bigoted bias of those who are making these statements. They are, or should be aware, that their words carry weight due to their status as public figures. Although they (for the most part?) qualify their speculations with poorly worded caveats after the fact, they have made their statement, and their followers, especially those who tend to more weak-minded, will parrot those speculations, often referring to them as fully evidenced fact. These socialist liberal talking heads will have sent their message out to the masses: “It was conservatives who blew up the Boston Marathon.”
This, of course, again begs the question of why? Why would they intentionally ignore any vestige of journalistic ethics or morals, and lay the blame for this obvious terror attack at the feet of conservatives? Why would they be so willing to spread such a rumor without any evidence whatsoever to support it? It is my opinion that they sincerely hope this attack can be linked somehow to a conservative or right-wing individual or group. In fact, I believe they want this so badly, so passionately, that they will spin this attack in any way they can to support their perverted desire. For if it can be linked in any way to a conservative or right-wing individual or group, the socialist left will use it to further vilify and slander those on the right, and they will use this attack to press for further erosion of our legal rights – just as they used the Sandy Hook Massacre to justify their attack on the Second Amendment.
In closing, I would like to point out that as of this moment, there have been no suspects named or indicated in this terrible attack. That being said, however, there have been news reports today (and yesterday) that an unnamed Saudi national has been detained (voluntarily and not arrested) is being questioned. His residence has been searched and items have been removed. It is entirely possible that he will be cleared of any involvement.
In addition, an al-Qaeda propagandist suggested last year that al-Qaeda members and affiliates currently in the United States should target a sporting event for a terrorist attack, as a way to punish America for its interference in the Middle East. He wrote “This is done by targeting human crowds in order to inflict maximum human losses. This is very easy since there are numerous such targets such as crowded sports arenas, annual social events, large international exhibitions, crowded market-places, skyscrapers, crowded buildings … etc. It is possible for ordinary Resistance fighters among the Muslims residing in America and the allied Western countries to target them, in order to participate in the jihad and the Resistance, and to stretch out a helping hand to the mujahidun.”
And, there have been unconfirmed reports of known muslim jihadists in both Pakistan and Afghanistan being arrested in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing, and there have also been reports that in its online forum, al-Qaeda is being credited with carrying out yesterdays terror attack as a response to a U.S. military airstrike last week that killed several Taliban leaders.
At no time, however, have any conservative or right-wing individuals or groups claimed responsibility, or been arrested, or questioned, or implicated by any reputable law enforcement agency or spokesperson – in spite of the socialist left’s attempts to spin the attack in that direction.
Sources:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/roommate_calls_saudi_national_quiet_vKFFJMC0WCaQmAofxNDHmO
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-usa-explosions-boston-idUSBRE93F06T20130416
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/axelrod-obama-thinks-boston-bombings-could-be-related-tax-day_717924.html
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/04/16/muslim_brotherhood_conspiracy_boston
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/al-qaeda-propagandist-called-attacks-sports-events
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/arrests-in-pakistan-afghanistan-in-boston-marathon-probe/
http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/chris-matthews-normally-domestic-terrorists-tend-be-far-right
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/15/boston-marathon-explosions-already-being-blamed-on-the-right/
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/former-fbi-agent-brad-garrett-aka-dr-death/
 Today, alleged “comedic actor” Jim Carrey released his new music video titled “Cold Dead Hands,” which is his response to Second Amendment advocates who believe, as the Second Amendment guarantees, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
In an attempt to give Mr. Carrey the benefit of the doubt (or perhaps I am a glutton for punishment and I somehow secretly desire to be offended), I viewed the video. As I suspected, it is not funny and is in fact patently offensive. In the video, Carrey mocks and degrades not only those who support the Second Amendment as a whole, but also rural American’s, country music fans, Charleton Heston, and Sam Elliott. His alleged “humor” (which he calls “biting political satire”) is nothing more than 6th grade playground toilet humor and sexual innuendo. But then, what can you expect from someone who has made a career of mocking disabled people, people with special needs, and lighting his farts on fire. Not exactly what one could call intellectual humor or even political humor.
As a result, I have drafted an open letter to Jim Carrey, not only detailing my disgust with his juvenile attempt at humor, but also offering an alternative method of expressing his anti-Second Amendment beliefs, and also the offer of open debate. Somehow I don’t think I should hold my breath awaiting his response. His kind generally do not respond to such offers, usually resorting to more name calling and insults. Well, we’ll see. I have posted the following Open Letter to Carrey’s Facebook page.
An open letter to Jim Carrey:
Dear Mr. Carrey, I want you to know that I do not find you even remotely amusing. Your films are not funny, nor are they dramatic. They are, quite simply, a waste of time and energy and film resources. Why anyone would patronize your films escapes me. Perhaps they are still in the 6th grade, mentally, and they still find toilet humor and derogatory jokes humorous. Well, there is no accounting for the proclivities of the emotionally stunted (such as yourself).
While I defend your First Amendment right to speak out against other amendments and rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and your attempts to have those rights infringed; I am offended by your juvenile approach and ad hominem arguments which you falsely claim are “biting political satire.” Your attacks on a specific group of people simply because of their beliefs – their constitutionally protected beliefs, I might add – are uncalled for, unfunny, and disgusting. That you would attack the individuals with such vitriol and violent rhetoric, rather than speaking rationally and logically against their position, reveals how truly ignorant you are.
If you sincerely believe what you claim to believe – that private ownership of firearms should be banned, then I would suggest you educate yourself (or have someone better equipped do it for you) on the merits of your position, and present them logically and rationally in an open debate with individuals who believe in and support the Second Amendment.
Rather than take an intelligent approach to changing America to become more in line with your beliefs, however, you simply resort to insults, derogatory comments, character assassination, name calling, and hate speech. Your approach shows that either you are completely incapable of intelligent and rational thought, or, your position on banning private ownership of firearms is completely without merit. Or both.
Please feel free to comment at your leisure.
 Ideological closets tend to shelter skeletons that current adherents would much rather remain hidden. The closet belonging to the socialist left, however, contains more than most and one of the more horrendous skeletons is their fascination with eugenics.
In a nutshell, eugenics is the belief that a society can be engineered (or re-engineered) through selective breeding, sterilization and “merciful” life terminations. The purpose of eugenics is to remove from said society those whom said society deem inferior. The inferiority of those deemed so is based on several criteria such as physical defects, insanity, criminality, alcoholism, pauperism, epilepsy, feeblemindedness, and in some cases homosexuality and the “inferior races.” Basically increasing the quality of the herd – the “Human Herd,” by weeding out the runts.
 To most, the very idea of eugenics is extremely abhorrent, but at the turn of the 20th century the ideology of eugenics was very popular among the socialists, or social progressives of the day, many of whom are revered even to this day by the socialist left. George Bernard Shaw, playwright, devoted social progressive, and darling of today’s leftist elite once said, “The only fundamental and possible socialism is the socialization of the selective breeding of man.” His answer to the “problem” of “inferior” individuals who were already alive was to employ what Shaw called a “lethal chamber.” (Eerily reminiscent of the Nazi gas chambers).
Proponents of eugenics firmly believed they were working toward the betterment of society as a whole, and that they were doing so by utilizing what they believed to be irrefutable scientific methods. They considered those who were inferior to be a burden on society that had to be carried along and supported by those who were superior; and the best way to benefit society would be to ensure there were less of the inferior or weak in society and more of the strong or superior to carry them along.
Eugenics was popular among socialist progressives through the 1960’s, but experienced a definite decline in popularity amongst the general public by the end of World War Two. The reason for this was the embracing of eugenics by Nazi Germany, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to the Nazi’s. Interestingly, however, it was through the work of American eugenicists that the Nazi’s learned of eugenics. Pioneering eugenics researcher Harry Hamilton Laughlin was fond of noting that his Model Eugenic Sterilization Laws had been adopted in Nazi Germany. In fact, Laughlin was awarded an honorary doctorate for his work on eugenics as a means of “racial cleansing” from Heidelberg University. Laughlin was the founding president of The Pioneer Fund, Inc., a socialist organization that is still in existence today, which promotes the ideas of genetic superiority of certain groups, particularly those of Northern European descent.
Adolph Hitler and the Nazi’s were not satisfied with the somewhat slow progress the socialist American eugenics movement was making, so they took eugenics to its next logical level. Not only did they enforce mandatory sterilization of those whom they considered inferior (something America had been doing since the 1920’s, and continued well into the 1960’s), and not only were they enforcing mandatory abortions (something American eugenicists had talked about), but they began two programs that America had only toyed with, and had experienced only limited success with: selective breeding and euthanasia.
 American eugenicists had been promoting the idea of selective breeding by encouraging those who possessed what they considered superior traits to marry only their equals. Misogyny was openly discouraged, as were marital unions with any who possessed any of the “inferior” traits. Although marital relationships between the “inferiors” was frowned upon, it was not discouraged as long as those “inferiors” were first sterilized, by mandate if necessary. It is estimated that as many as 100,000 Americans were sterilized by force by 1968. One of the most famous was 17-year old Carrie Buck.
Carrie had been taken away from her mother shortly after her birth, and was placed with a foster family named Dobbs. At the age of 17, Carrie was raped by the Dobbs’s nephew. Almost immediately the Dobbs’s family had carried institutionalized in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded. They claimed that Carrie was feebleminded (she wasn’t, and had maintained an A/B average in school), incorrigible (again, her school records show she was well behaved), and promiscuity. The fact that she had been raped by a member of her foster family was a consideration only in that it embarrassed the family, and Carrie’s incarceration was a way to save the family future embarrassment.
As an inmate at the Virginia Colony, Carrie was considered an inferior woman, who, according to Virginia’s mandatory sterilization laws was eligible for said mandatory sterilization. She gave birth to a baby girl she named Vivian. Because she had been labeled as an inferior, Carrie was deemed incapable of caring for a child, and Vivian was taken away and placed for adoption. It was the Dobbs family, Carrie’s former foster family, who adopted poor Vivian.
Although she was to have been forcibly sterilized, Carrie decided to fight the Virginia law. After losing her case at the state level, she continued to fight until her case was finally heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1927. The infamous case is known as Buck v. Bell, and the court ruled 8-1 against Carrie Buck. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision which said, “We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Carrie was forcibly sterilized only five months after the court made their decision.
As with America, Nazi Germany also enforced the mandatory sterilization of “inferiors,” and as also with America, they practiced selective breeding. While America only encouraged the practice, the Nazi’s embraced the practice with a scientific zeal. Beginning in 1935, the Nazi’s began selectively breeding members of the Schutzstaffel (the SS – all considered to be of pure Aryan blood) with approved German women who had met or exceeded the programs stringent qualifications. The program, known as the Lebensborn Program, was founded by Heinrich Himmler (head of the Gestapo and the Waffen-SS, and the Nazi Minister of the Interior) for the purpose of creating an Aryan Master Race. Although it is generally believed that the Lebensborn Program ended in 1945 with the defeat of the Nazi’s, there was speculation that Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi “Angel of Death,” continued his experiments after escaping to South America at the end of the war. Interestingly, beginning in 1963, a small remote, outback town in Brazil began experiencing a dearth of twins. In fact, one in every five births in the village of Candido Godoi (population approx. 6,000) are twins. Blonde haired, blue eyed twins. The natives have long attributed the phenomenon to the work of an itinerant physician named Rudolph Weiss. The name is a known alias of Mengele. Lebensborn South American Style.
A form of selective breeding is alive and well in America today. Gender/sex selection is a form of eugenics practiced in places like China and India, where couples have used pregnancy screening to abort female fetuses. But it is also used America, as way to achieve ones personal preference. There is no connection to population reduction as there is in China and India. Here it is simply a personal preference of the parents. In other words, population engineering.
 If you want a boy but your baby is a girl, or vice-versa, simply abort and try again. If you want to garner even more control over the selection process, you can use a sperm donor. How would you like a son that resembles Mel Gibson or Stephen Baldwin? Maybe Heath Ledger or Vin Diesel? Would you like a chess player, an artist, a business owner, an athlete or a musician? Would you like your child to possess compassion, charm, empathy, a drive to succeed, and a sense of humor? Perhaps you would like your child to be bilingual (French? German? Spanish? Any combination thereof?), intelligent, capable of attaining a Master’s Degree? All of these are possible (imply the sperm donor corporations) with the use of a “premium” sperm donor. With enough money, patience and determination you too can contribute to the new society and the master race. The American Lebensborn Program.
The Nazi’s did not limit their expansive zeal for eugenics to the Lebensborn, as we all are quite aware, and as Auschwitz- Birkenau, Belzec, Treblinka and other death camps grimly attest. Beginning in 1941, the Nazi’s began the systematic extermination of those whom they considered undesirable and inferior, in an attempt to facilitate their plan for a racially pure Aryan population in Germany. They targeted Jews, Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, and all non-Europeans. As with the American eugenicists, however, the Nazi’s also considered mental and physical deficiencies as well as undesirable personality traits and personal beliefs contrary to Nazism to be inferior genetics as well. Consequently, the Nazi’s also targeted people with physical and mental disabilities, Homosexuals, the elderly, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Freemasons, and any who openly expressed criticism of Hitler or the Nazi party for extermination.
Although many (if not most) of today’s socialist left deny any connection to Adolph Hitler and the Nazi eugenics program, it doesn’t take much research to clearly see that they are very much connected. Hitler was an avowed socialist. He said of himself and the Nazi party in a speech given on May 1, 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”(sound familiar?)
Also, as with many socialists today, Hitler was vehemently anti-smoking. He was a vegetarian, an environmentalist (creating several national parks and “sacred” forests in Germany), and an avowed health fanatic. His Hitler Youth movement strongly promoted good health practices and exercise, along with healthy eating habits to defeat obesity, and strengthen the Aryan population.
By the end of World War Two, however, anything associated with Hitler and the Nazi’s was frowned upon, and that included the American eugenics movement which quietly died away. Or did it? Clearly the “pro-choice” abortion movement is frighteningly similar to the eugenics abortion program. In fact, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a long time member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society. She was notoriously anti-Semitic as well as racist, and considered both Jews and Blacks as inferior races. One of her greatest fans was Adolph Hitler, who was open in his praise of Sanger’s work in eugenics. Her Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an extension of the earlier eugenics movement.
Clearly then, the eugenics movement did not simply die away after World War Two. It simply quieted itself, left the public eye, and split into several separate groups and movements, all promoting and advocating for different agendas found within the earlier eugenics movement. Planned Parenthood is one branch of the eugenics tree. Other “branches” include the Zero Population Growth Movement, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, the Green Movement, and other such groups that promote the removal of inferior humans by various means.
Although the Nazi exterminations were anything but merciful, because of the reasoning behind those exterminations (an attempt to eradicate the inferior to make way for the superior), they can rightfully be called (at least a form of) euthanasia. Another branch of the eugenics tree, that was and is still practiced in America.
The euthanasia movement began in America in the early part of the 20th century with extensive political debate over legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide in both Iowa and Ohio. The movement reached its peak in the 1930’s and soon went into decline, only to be revived again in the 1960’s and 1970’s ostensibly as “physician assisted suicide” (remember Dr. Jack Kervorkian and his death van?).
The movement foundered somewhat for a few decades, but is once again in the public eye, primarily due to: 1) a lack of funding for the socialist touted ObamaCare plan to insure those who are uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition; 2) a recently leaked government funded mortality survey; and 3) an incident in a California assisted living facility in which a nurse refused to allow CPR to be administered to save an elderly resident who had stopped breathing.
In February of this year, an 87-year old woman who was residing in the independent living section of an assisted living facility in Bakersfield, California began having difficulty breathing. A nurse at the facility called 9-1-1, and was asked by the 9-1-1 operator to begin CPR. The nurse not only refused (due to a company policy forbidding staff administered CPR), but also refused to allow a non-staff member to administer the life saving procedure. As a result, the elderly woman died. The incident created a national uproar with conservatives protesting the nurse’s actions and socialists defending it.
During a discussion on NBC’s Today show, advertising executive and television host Donny Deutsch put forth a decidedly socialist viewpoint when he said, “It's obviously a very sad story, but it really brings up, I think, a larger issue that we've got to get our arms around, that 25% of the health care costs are against people in their last year of their life, the 4 or 5% of people, keeping people alive. Now of course, if it's my mom and dad, I want to do the same, but we maybe need to give hard looks that some of the procedures being done to extend lives six weeks, eight weeks, ten weeks, that maybe that money could go to saving little babies.” It was almost as if Deutsch was channeling former Colorado Governor Dick Lamm (a self-described Progressive) who once told a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association at St. Joseph’s Hospital, “You've got a duty to die and get out of the way. Let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”
Also recently reported in the news (although quietly and without fanfare, almost buried amidst the fluff non-news stories) was the fact that at least half of the $5 billion set aside by President Obama to ensure that those with pre-existing medical conditions (who had long been denied health insurance) could no longer be denied medical insurance, is now gone. On the surface this segment of ObamaCare seems to be a pretty good deal, and the socialist left had long been promoting it as one of the primary reasons for Congress to pass the ObamaCare legislation. But now, those who have not yet applied for the “high-risk-pools” will be denied, and left to manage their own medical issues. Issues that are always chronic, and often terminal. In other words, in keeping with a long held socialist eugenics agenda, these “inferior” members of our society will be left to die, sometimes painfully and horribly, all in the name of pursuing the socialist eugenics agenda of purging society of the unwanted burden of the inferior.
In 1999, a new government sponsored survey, known as the “UCSF 10-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults,” was made available to physicians across the country to use as a tool to help determine what level of care should be given to older (60+ years old) patients. The survey assesses these “older” patients by assigning points to certain factors. If the patient is male, that’s 2 points. Overweight (1 point), has smoked in the past week (2 points). If the patient has certain medical issues such as diabetes (1 point), chronic lung problems (2 points), cancer (2 points), heart problems (2 points), or is on oxygen (2 points). The survey also addresses a patient’s ability to perform simple tasks such as: does the patient have trouble bathing (2 points), walking (2 points), moving a chair (1 point) and managing their finances (2 points). Points are also assessed for the patients age (60-64 = 1pt, 65-69=2pts, 70-74=3pts, 75-79=4pts, 80-84=5pts, 85+ = 7pts). The more points the patient has, the less care is recommended for the patient.
According to the authors of the survey, the justification given for this “death test” is that the benefit of life saving preventative medical practices (i.e. cancer screenings, glycemic control for diabetics, etc.) for certain patients are outweighed by the patients estimated life expectancy. Their life expectancy is determined by the point system. The more points you have, the lower your life expectancy. (I would suggest cheating on this test if you’re over 60 and you want to receive medical care).
To illustrate the faulty logic of the mortality index, I offer the following scenario. Based on the point system used with this “death test,” a 75 year old man who has just smoked his first cigarette ever, has arthritis in his knees, and has never learned how to balance his checkbook, is given a total of 12 points and would likely be refused medical treatment, including preventative treatment. On the other hand, a 69 year old woman with breast cancer and congestive heart failure only has 6 points and is therefore considered more deserving of treatment. Clearly the “test” is nothing more than a justification to eliminate those who considered inferior and not worthy of life saving medical care.
These incidents are all reminiscent of the 1960’s socialist youth mantra of “Never trust anyone over 30,” or the 1976 film “Logan’s Run” (based on the 1967 book of the same name) which depicts a future society in which the societal population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in balance (such as is promoted by the Zero Population Growth Movement) by simply killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, thus preventing overpopulation. It is the euthanasia branch of the eugenics tree.
The ideology of eugenics has been a foundational fixture of the socialist movement since its inception, including the philosophy of euthanasia. The packaging may have been updated, and made more palatable, more acceptable, but the product – the end result – is still the same. Removal of those considered inferior in order to promote the promulgation of those considered superior by the socialist left.
The earlier American Eugenics Movement has been acceptable and can now be considered as the Modern Socialist Eugenics Movement (which we will call MSEM). This movement still strives to “improve” society (although the term society now refers to the global population) through the exact same means and methods utilized by the early eugenics movement: Abortion, Sterilization, Selective Breeding, and Euthanasia. The removal of the burdensome inferior to make way for the socialist superior.
| To read or download the UCSF 10-Year Mortality Index for Older Adults, just click on the file link at the right---> | |
 From Newsbusters: School Removes God From First-Grader's Poem By Noel Sheppard When the word "God" becomes inappropriate in public schools, America really has ceased to exist. Consider the story of a first-grade girl in West Marion, North Carolina, who had the word "God" stripped from a poem she wrote and was going to read at her school's Veterans Day assembly earlier this month. The poem honored her two grandfathers who served during the Vietnam War. “He prayed to God for peace," she wrote of one of them. "He prayed to God for strength.” Unfortunately, a parent found out about this, and complained to the school district. At a McDowell County Board of Education meeting last week, employee Chris Greene said, "We had one parent concerned with the use of the word God in this program. This parent did not want the word God mentioned anywhere in the program. When the demand from this person was heard, the rights of another stopped. It did so by hushing the voice of a six-year-old girl.” "I believe that this little girl’s rights were violated," Greene continued, "and that those who worked so hard to prepare this program should receive an apology.” “We need to keep in mind what was our country founded on,” said McDowell County resident Esther Dollarhyde. “It was founded on God and Jesus Christ, and our veterans went out and fought for us so we would have a free country, but if we aren’t allowed to honor them the way that the children want to then America is getting lost.” School Board member Lynn Greene told McDowell News, "My understanding on the law is a teacher cannot promote any certain religion, but when it comes to students voicing their opinion or expressing themselves in a poem we pretty much have to give some leeway. To me this whole thing is a violation of that child’s rights. Nobody forced her to write the poem, that was her part of the program. She was asked to write a poem about veterans and she did. My personal opinion is that her rights were violated.” After fully examining the issue during the BOE meeting, President and Chief Executive Officer Ken Paulson stated the school did in fact have the right to remove the word "God" from the child’s poem. Continue Reading Here
 Guest Opinion by Don Bendell
November 13, 2012
On February 2, 2011, I fell off a ladder landing on a steel fence in below-zero weather, fracturing my back, a rib, and got a minor concussion as well as a subdural hematoma, a brain bleed. Then, last fall I fell off the top of another ladder in my barn and severely bruised my hip, thigh, and a rib. Eight years ago, I wrote about my wife having rotator cuff surgery, getting an infection, and having to be cut in the same scar and operated on again. Just thinking about such pain and facing traumatic memories like those, makes me cringe.
Such memories, however pales in comparison to what I am going through right now, in my heart. The old hurts are re-surfacing, the pain, and the feelings of betrayal are returning. I am being cut in the same scar, facing a new fracture in the broken places.
How did we who served in Boy Scouts, our churches, or Student Councils suddenly get brain-washed overnight by the military and turned into cold-blooded killers, torturers, and rapists, of the ilk of the Nazi SS, the Taliban, or al-Qaida? That does not make sense, does it? Most American soldiers, like me, grew up idolizing John Wayne, Roy Rogers, and all the other heroes of my youth. That was why I volunteered to join the army, go to OCS, earn Jump Wings, a Green Beret, and go to South Vietnam to fight.
President Barack Obama is considering making John Kerry, of all people, our new Secretary of Defense. After spending only four months in the country of Vietnam, John Kerry testified before Congress in 1971 with these exact words about incidents he supposedly witnessed or heard about from other vets: “They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”
I was a Green Beret officer in 1968 and 1969 on a Special Forces A-team 4 miles from the border of Laos and a District Coordinator of the Top Secret Phoenix Program. We were the most-highly trained of all soldiers and saw the most action of anybody in that war. Everybody in the world knows that, but what the news does not report was that we also built churches, schools, treated illnesses, passed out food, clothing, medicine, and good will. We had fun and loved interacting with the indigenous people of Vietnam, just like our boys did in Normandy, Baghdad, Saigon, and everywhere American soldiers ever served. We are the ones who gave away and still do give away our candy bars and rations to kids, our friendship to primitive fellow warriors in far-off lands, and our hearts to oppressed people all over the globe, but you John Kerry labeled us as mindless robotic killers and rapists just so you could launch your intended political career. You also with your outrageous lies furthered the anti-war movement sending honorable, noble Vietnam veterans into a nationally-imposed closet of shame and disgrace not to be brought out into the light until just recently. Now that we are “in vogue,” posers everywhere now claim to be Vietnam veterans.
John Kerry, you betrayed all of us contributing to the myths and fallacies of the Vietnam anti-war movement when you tossed all your dubious medals over the fence of the US capitol so you could send your new political career into orbit as the star of the anti-war movement. And where has it gotten you, Senator? You ran for President and are being considered for a Cabinet position, but you are reviled and despised by millions of your fellow veterans. I always smile and do not ever hide my face when I look in the mirror to shave in the morning. I wonder what you do?
Senator John Kerry, you and I were military officers in Vietnam. If you personally saw all these atrocities occur in Vietnam, as an officer why didn’t you stop them or at the very least report them? Why is there not one record anywhere of you ever reporting a single atrocity to higher headquarters of any command at any time? As officers, it was our duty to report and stop such things from happening. As an officer of the US military, by not reporting them when they occurred, you are an accomplice to numerous crimes and should have been court-martialed. Then, after Vietnam, while still a Reserve officer in the US Navy you went to Paris, met and negotiated with the North Vietnamese delegation, and have admitted same publicly. You were not a government official at that time, and that clearly was consorting with the enemy and totally illegal under the tenets of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is in fact considered treasonous, and you should have also been court-martialed for that. Now, you want to be the Secretary of Defense? You want to make decisions that will affect the lives of my sons who serve in the US Army Special Forces now? You slandered US Marines proudly serving in the Global War on Terrorism and now want to command them? I don’t think so, Senator.
You are a bold-faced, unprincipled liar, and a disgrace, and you have dishonored me and all my fellow combat veterans. People forget that it was honorable, normal soldiers who reported and stopped the My Lai Massacre, and other atrocities since then. Hollywood and the news media would have us think every Vietnam veteran is a tortured soul destined to become a serial killer thanks to self-serving scoundrels like you. Over 58,000 men and a few women died in South Vietnam and you have disgraced them all with your political posturing, and they cannot defend their legacy of honor or speak for themselves. However, I can and will, and so will many of my fellow veterans, very many.
Mr. President Barack Obama, we are not on the same page at all on most issues, but you are my President and will have my loyalty as long as you are. I implore you, do not open old wounds, Sir? We Vietnam veterans have been through way too much for more scarring. Do not even consider Senator John Kerry as our next Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, or any other Cabinet position. That would be akin to appointing Louis Farrakhan the Ambassador to Israel.
Senator Kerry, I will put my record as a warrior up against yours any day. Besides, I wrote you when you ran for President back in 2004, “Medals do not make a man; Morals do.”
Don Bendell
Don Bendell is a best-selling author, a disabled Green Beret Vietnam veteran, and a 1995 inductee into the International Karate and Kickboxing Hall of Fame.
Permission is hereby granted to reprint, copy, or pass this on wherever and to whomever you choose. This is posted on Don’s blog, Shooting from the Hip, accessed at his website www.donbendell.comFor more information on John Kerry, click here: http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id15.htmAnd for more information on John Kerry, click here: http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/2009/04/traitor_to_america_hanoi_kerry.html
As most folks have already heard, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-Fil-A restaurant, made statements that suggested they were supportive of Biblically defined marriage, and not supportive of same sex marriage. The result has been a firestorm of anti-Christian rhetoric. Chicago Mayor Rahm “never let a good crisis go to waste” Emanuel has suggested that he will block any attempts by Chick-Fil-A to open a new restaurant in Chicago. Emanuel said, “Chick-Fil-A’s values are not Chicago values. They’re not respectful of our residents, our neighbors and our family members. And if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values … What the CEO has said as it relates to gay marriage and gay couples is not what I believe, but more importantly, it’s not what the people of Chicago believe. We just passed legislation as it relates to civil union and my goal and my hope … is that we now move on recognizing gay marriage. I do not believe that the CEO’s comments … reflects who we are as a city.” (Source) Focus on that line “if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” In the context of Emanuel’s statement this means accept gay marriage regardless of your beliefs or stay out of Chicago.
Emanuel’s anti-Christian attack is supported by Chicago Alderman Proco Moreno said, “There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-Fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.” (Source) (Excuse me? Consequences for one’s beliefs?)
Boston Mayor Tom Menino is also in support of banning Chick-fil-A based on Cathy’s religious beliefs, saying, “Chick-Fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion … That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-Fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.” (Source) Menino later said “I can’t do that. That would be interference to his rights to go there.” However, in light of his promise that the acquisition of permits for restaurant construction “will be very difficult … unless they open up their policies” seems to indicate that Menino is simply trying to protect his rear from any future lawsuits that may stem from any difficulty Chick-Fil-A may experience when they apply for those permits.
San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee has also jumped on the anti-Christian bandwagon, tweeting, “Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone.” And, “Closest #chickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” (Source)
As the brouhaha continues, and voices from both sides of the debate continue unabated, there are a few points that I would like to make. To begin with, the pro-gay community is openly accusing Chick-Fil-A of hate, simply because it’s president is opposed to same-sex marriage. But isn’t denying Chick-Fil-A a business license based solely on the religious belief of its president a form of hate, and a form of discrimination based on hate? Yes, it is. The bigotry expressed by the above mayors and Alderman Moreno is reprehensible and is an open display of intolerance and hate. If they, and others in the pro-gay community wish to harbor hate, bigotry and discrimination against Christians and Christian belief, then that is their right. And if they want to protest against Chick-Fil-A, then that is their right as well. But they do not have the right to make threats against Chick-Fil-A or anyone because of their religious beliefs.
The 1964 Federal Civil Rights Law, 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting. (emphasis mine). Public Law #103-322A, a 1994 federal law, defines a hate crime as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” (again, emphasis mine).
By definition, because all three mayors and the alderman are singling out Dan Cathy and Chick-Fil-A for punishment simply because of Cathy’s religious beliefs, they are guilty of a hate crime, and they should be prosecuted for it.
I would also like to point out that contrary to the prevailing opinion of the pro-gay community, they do not have a right to marriage. In fact, no one, straight or gay, has a “right” to be married. They may choose to be married, but there is no Constitutionally protected right to marriage. I do understand their (the homosexual community) desire to have the same benefits as straight married couples, i.e. insurance, survivorship, medical benefits, etc.; but again, there is no right to these benefits. Insurance companies and employers make that decision, and they are free to deny these benefits for any straight couple that may apply for them. Again, there is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to any of these benefits.
The reality is that homosexuals want special rights. Rights that are guaranteed only for them and for no one else. And that is just plain wrong. Simply because they have made the conscious decision to be homosexuals does not mean that they should be granted federally protected rights. And don’t go down the “homosexuality is genetic” road. It is not genetic, it is a choice. (Source). For those of you who disagree with me, and I am sure there are many, before you begin to rail against my religious beliefs as so many are doing against Dan Cathy, my answer to you all is: “I am not ‘anti-gay’, I am anti-homosexuality. There is a difference. Your tolerance for intolerance is a definite indicator of your hate and bigotry against any and all who disagree with you.” There’s your answer, now spare me your bigoted ramblings.
But the crux of this matter, what we should all be focusing on, is that the attacks against Chick-Fil-A are government led. They are an attempt at government regulated religion. The First Amendment specifically states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” And for a duly elected government official, acting in his or her official capacity to attempt to regulate religious beliefs (“if you’re gonna be part of the Chicago community, you should reflect Chicago values.” – Mayor Rahm Emanuel; “There are consequences for one’s actions, statements and beliefs. Because of this man’s ignorance, I will deny Chick-fil-A a permit to open a restaurant in my ward.” – Alderman Proco Moreno; [Construction permits] “will be very difficult … unless they open up their policies” – Mayor Tom Menino; “Closest #chickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.” – Mayor Edwin Lee), is a very dangerous, very slippery slope that can, and will lead to a further erosion of our freedom.
When I read what these government officials have said while acting in their official capacity, I am reminded of the words of two of communism’s favorite sons, Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx. Lenin said “A Marxist must be a materialist, i.e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i.e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could”(from his book, Private Property and Communism). And Marx said “Communism begins from the outset with atheism.” (Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right).
The Founding Fathers wanted the people of the United States to be free, and to remain free. Communists, and from the looks of things certain duly elected public officials, want the exact opposite. There was no place in Lenin’s regime for the church, and the church is facing similar persecution in the United States today.
Government regulated religious beliefs are a very dangerous thing. For government, or anyone for that matter, to openly or otherwise take any steps to ban Christian beliefs or even Christian speech, is a violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. If the Constitution is to stand, then these rights, and all other Constitutionally protected rights must be protected at any and all cost.
Reblogged from An Ex-Con's ViewBy Paul H. LemmenConsidering the latest antics by Barry and his merry band of Marxists in attacking Christianity and using Hegel’s Dialectic to control the responses to media lies as well as foment race warfare, I think that republishing this under the original title is most apropos.  Totalitarianism relies on one main concept – the death of belief. Not simply the belief in God, but of all belief – in one’s nation, community, church, and even self. Totalitarianism can only exist when the majority of people have no belief in a nation’s moral standards, political reality and society; who, during that crisis in belief, reach out and embrace the resolution that the totalitarian regime offers as a life-line. This life-line is the totalitarian state itself – a Marxist Utopia, the State as God and giver of all to all. By offering the panacea of the all-knowing and providing State, the totalitarian regime seeks to supplant all the beliefs of the people with the State as God and its agenda. Cultural Marxism is the tool they are using.
Now, I’m sure you’ll say that’s communism, or socialism, or fascism. Those are three roads that lead to the same end – totalitarianism – like in Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union and Red China. All three ended up as totalitarian regimes under brutal leaders – Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.
Why has America been immune? We haven’t. As our current political situation shows. It has just been much more difficult for the progressive/socialists to implement their agenda here because of the three founding documents created and built upon by the Founders and framers. America has been the nation with not only the most promised Liberties and Freedoms, but the most actual Liberties and Freedoms. The collapse and subversion of the American Republic has proven to be a tough nut, but not an insurmountable one. Enter the mechanics of division and failure called “agents of change.”
 To understand how the progressive/socialist agenda got a foothold in our national political dialog, we must first look at the roots of Progressivism. According to Wikipedia: “Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. Progressivism is often viewed by some conservatives, constitutionalists, and libertarians to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.
The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.
In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Lyndon Baines Johnson.
Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.[...]”
So, here we see the wolf presented itself in sheep’s clothing – publicly benign: an attitude of aid and charity to the down-trodden. This is how the “One Worlders” achieved a toe-hold in America. They have exploited the toe-hold and incrementally inserted their agenda into our national political dialog. The tool with which such has been (and is being) accomplished is Cultural Marxism.
Their aims have been four-fold:
- Infiltrate and control education. By supplanting free exploration of knowledge the agents of change direct all education into those areas that are of their choosing, supportive of their long term goal and repressive of free thought.
- Suppress religious freedom. The agents of change bring about legal challenges to the Freedom of Religion (ACLU, Madeline Murray O’Hair’s American Atheists, etc.) and pervert it to a perception of freedom from religion. Supplant the traditional religions with invented ones and prevent prayer and expressions of belief in public settings.
- Infiltrate and control political parties. Through the powerful tools of graft and pork-barrel politics young politicians are subverted and indoctrinated (or blackmailed) into compliance with the progressive/socialist agenda.
- Infiltrate and control the media. By subverting the media the agents of change remove the ability of the people to know truth. A subverted and complicit media is an incipient tyrants best ally.
So there we have it, the four prongs of the attack on America. It worked in fascist Italy; it worked in communist Russia; it worked in Fascist Germany; and it worked in Red China.
It’s working here. Cultural Marxism affects every facet of American life today – from TV commercials to French Fries at McDonalds (via Michelle Obama’s “Lets Move” campaign and her revision of the FDA’s recommended meals and the food police that are in the public schools, remember the stories last week about children in NC having their home packed lunches confiscated?).
The Cultural Marxists are leading us to a manufactured crisis – one of such scope and scale the majority of the people will lose all belief in our Republic and our founding principles. This is where the Marxist agenda steps in with a promising scenario that these uninformed, uneducated and manipulated masses will grasp out of desperation. Then will come the “fundamental change of America” Obama promised. Will it be a financial collapse? Probably. Consider this:
His administration has nationalized major sectors of the economy (see bailouts)
- Redistribute wealth (see UHC Bill)
- Discredit opposition (see recent DHS memorandum on right-wing groups)
- Censorship (see Hate Crimes legislation)
- Gun ownership/control (see UN Small Arms Treaty)
- Constabulary force (see Barry’s Civilian Defense Force and Reserve Officers Corp from UHC bill)”
The State as God is what will be extended as the life-line thrown to the manipulated masses. A centrally-planned and controlled society that is “diverse” and “multicultural” and will address the “needs” of the “workers”. Not a melting pot society where all have the Liberty to Pursue Happiness, to gain knowledge freely, to strive equally towards our own individual goals and dreams. A State where a ruling elite (the high priests) determines what your “needs” are; how and where you are educated (and what you are allowed to learn); how you enjoy your time off from your regulated employment; and how much you are allowed to earn, your “fair share” as determined by those self-same high priests of the new god.
Totalitarianism relies on one main concept – the death of belief. Not simply the belief in God, but of all belief – in one’s nation, community, church, and even self. Totalitarianism can only exist when the majority of people have no belief in a nation’s moral standards, political reality, and society – during that crisis in belief, reach out and embrace the resolution that the totalitarian regime offers as a life-line.
This life-line is the totalitarian state itself, the new religion, the only thing you are allowed to have a belief in, the State as God, a Totalitarian Marxist Utopia. NB: The earliest version of this article exists at: http://therightplanet.blog.com/2011/09/18/cultural-marxism-and-the-death-of-belief/, written by Paul H. Lemmen under the pseudonym of poisontolibs. I own that site which has been restructured as a repository of my writings prior to October 2011. ©2012 Paul H. Lemmen, all rights reserved. For republication rights, please email: plemmen55@gmail.com[Just a quick note, if you haven't visited Paul Lemmen's blog, "An Ex-Con's View", I would highly recommend it. You can visit his blog by clicking here.]
|
RSS Feed
