Saturday, April 26, 2014

Equality Is A Slogan Based On Envey...

Look Up The Word "Leftist" In Latin...

Putin as Charlemagne?!?! Our Great Geo-Political Turning Point...

Great read...

Vladimir Putin Caesar and Our Great Geo-political Turning Point

We are witnessing, I believe, a turning point in geopolitical history, one future historians may analyze as we have the Roman Empire’s fall. Vladimir Putin is making a move -- and it’s not just against Ukraine. It may not be merely a move against Eastern Europe. It’s not even, perhaps, just a move against US world dominance.
There was a time when the USSR was the “evil empire,” a godless Golgotha. But that was then. Now, in 2013-14, Putin has seen fit to say, in his December State of the Nation speech, “Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values. …Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation.”
This roughly coincided with Russia’s enactment of laws prohibiting homosexual propaganda and was a salvo against both the West’s Great Sexual Heresy and what enables it: moral relativism.
In another shot at relativism, Putin averred, “Society is now required…to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning.”
The Russian president then took aim at multiculturalism: “Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples and cultures.”
And now we’re seeing the release of Russian Culture War 2.0. In a document called "Foundations of the State Cultural Policy," the Kremlin is doubling down and writes, "Russia must be viewed as a unique and original civilization that cannot be reduced to 'East' or 'West.' …A concise way of formulating this stand would be, ‘Russia is not Europe.’” The document goes on to state that Russia rejects “such principles as multiculturalism and tolerance" and "projects imposing alien values on society."
No, this is not your grandfather’s Russia. But it very well may be your great-grandfather’s.
There are a few different things, I suspect, going on here. The 20 years after the Cold War’s end had been a period of relative co-operation between Russia and the West, but you can’t define yourself by going along (to get along) with the world’s cultural hegemon; you can’t be band leader by playing second fiddle. So Putin is defining his nation as the un-morally-wild West. In addition, he knows that to rally a people behind you, you need a boogeyman, your Eurasia, the “Nappy” (Napoleon) who will “get you,” British children, if you’re not good.
Yet it isn’t just that Putin is restarting the Cold War. Nor is he just an old-line KGB Bolshevik, as some stuck in commentary amber have suggested. He’s smart enough to realize that Marxism, as the kids today would say, is just so “played.”
He more likely wants to be the next czar.
What’s my theory? Try this on for size: It isn’t just that Putin wants to restore lost Russian glory. He sees a chance to be a historic figure.
Note here that you don’t have to be good to be historic; Roman statesman Cicero called Julius Caesar an “ambitious scoundrel,” but Caesar’s name is far better known than Cicero’s. And let’s consider what might be Putin’s calculation: the West has long been the world’s cultural trend-setter, spreading an increasingly un-Christian creed to all corners of the Earth. Of course, not everyone is on board. The Islamic abode wants nothing to do with it, but it’s Muslim; sub-Saharan Africa is largely opposed, but it lacks clout. As for South America, in addition to lacking clout it’s confused; and while China is gaining power, it’s largely pagan and non-committal on the culture war.
Enter the second Vladimir the Great.
Putin doesn’t just see a chance to define himself -- and to unite the Russian people behind him -- via opposition to the West, as his Marxist comrades once did. He sees a chance to do it as today’s Charlemagne.
There’s an unsatisfied market for Christendom’s standard bearer, and Putin perceives an opportunity to exploit it. China won’t do it, Africa can’t, South America wouldn’t and couldn’t. But just as the original Vladimir the Great Christianized the Kievan Rus', just as Charlemagne forged and helped Christianize modern Europe, Putin has a chance to lift the cross -- and himself -- high.
And the West is a gift that keeps on giving insofar as this goes. Our cultural Marxists are on the march, smell blood and will not stop. They will continue spending us into oblivion, perverting us into prone position, relativizing us into risibility and “immigrationizing” us into irrelevance. Even now, not satisfied with placing another great nail in marriage’s coffin, our militant secularists are making moves to legitimize pedophilia and bestiality. It’s onward Luciferian soldiers.
And for Putin, it’s onward Christian soldier. As our degradation advances, Russia’s star can rise commensurately. Putin knows the West is in decline. He sees the demographic trends, that the US is transforming into a Third World/Hispanic nation and Western Europe into a Third World/Muslim continent. He knows that if there is another superpower in the near future, it will be Russia or China. And he knows what card he has to play to win this game.
Of course, while we could argue about whether the Christian-soldier solution is tactic and strategy or just tactic, it is so obviously prudent that it’s inconceivable Putin wouldn’t have pursued it. Just consider the benefits, starting with justification of Russian expansionism. If you’re a typical Russian, might not the idea that “the West is decadent, debauched, exhausted and effete” justify, in your mind, a Russian manifest destiny? Might it not be natural and wholly in accordance with man’s nature to believe that your moral superiority gives you the right to dominate? Note that this is the theory that justified the colonial powers’ imperialism: they were bringing civilization to a world of darkness. And it’s what we do to this day, applying secular values as standard. How often have we heard intervention in the Islamic “stan” du jour justified by pointing out that its rulers oppress women and are intolerant? The judgments are different, but the desire to claim the moral high ground is the same.
Then consider foreign relations. The USSR used to jockey for world influence with us; whereas before they had to market Marxism, however, now they can peddle purity. Standing against decadent Western secular-imperialism can win Russia many friends in Africa and even the Middle East, and most of the Far East will go with the dominant power.
Lastly, even if Putin is a functional atheist, he surely knows that if Russia wants to prosper, Western secular/hedonist isms must be rejected. And why wouldn’t he know? As Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov and others have explained, it was his erstwhile Marxist buddies who encouraged those movements in the West for the purposes of undermining our civilization.
But we’re doing a very good job of undermining it ourselves, and Putin is more concerned with building his own. Pat Buchanan recently wrote about this and pointed out that Putin may very well view his realm as “The Third Rome:”
The first Rome was the Holy City and seat of Christianity that fell to Odoacer and his barbarians in 476 A.D. The second Rome was Constantinople, Byzantium, (today's Istanbul), which fell to the Turks in 1453. The successor city to Byzantium, the Third Rome, the last Rome to the old believers, was -- Moscow.
Putin is entering a claim that Moscow is the Godly City of today and command post of the counter-reformation against the new paganism.
…Putin is saying the new ideological struggle is between a debauched West led by the United States and a traditionalist world Russia would be proud to lead.
Note here that the term “czar” is derived from the Latin word Caesar. And while Putin may be just as satisfied to be Julius or Augustus as Constantine, I’m quite sure that Marxism is no longer his bag. That would be playing second fiddle again -- and the last thing the Russians want to be is like us.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Happy Vs. Unhappy Muslims...

I have to admit, this is brilliant. 
I’ve never heard it put this way. It’s plain and simple!!!
Many Muslims today are not happy!
They’re not happy in Gaza .
They’re not happy in Egypt .
They’re not happy in Libya .
They’re not happy in Morocco .
They’re not happy in Iran .
They’re not happy in Iraq .
They’re not happy in Yemen .
They’re not happy in Afghanistan .
They’re not happy in Pakistan .
They’re not happy in Syria .
They’re not happy in Lebanon .
So, where are they happy?
They’re happy in Australia .
They’re happy in the UK .
They’re happy in Canada .
They’re happy in the US .
They’re happy in France .
They’re happy in Germany .
They’re happy in Italy .
They’re happy in Sweden .
They’re happy in Denmark .
They’re happy in Norway .
So, they’re happy in every country that is not Muslim.
And who do they blame?
Not Islam.
Not their leadership.
Not themselves.
Excuse me, but have I missed something here?

Monday, April 14, 2014

Documenting Sodom: Humility & Pride...

England Probes Muslim Take Over Of The Schools 'Plot.'

London (AFP) - Birmingham launched a probe Monday into an alleged hardline Muslim plot to take control of schools.
The city council said it had appointed a chief adviser to examine at least 200 complaints as the investigation widened to 25 schools from an initial four.
Concerns about how some of the 430 schools in the city were being run first emerged last year in a leaked anonymous letter which outlined how to implement what it called Operation Trojan Horse.
The letter, which credited the alleged plot with forcing a change of leadership at four schools, gave instructions on ousting and replacing uncooperative headteachers and school governors.
"We have an obligation to our children to fulfil our roles and ensure these schools are run on Islamic principles," the letter says.
"We... are on our way to getting rid of more headteachers and taking over their schools."
The letter continued: "You must remember this is a 'jihad' and as such all means possible to win the war is acceptable."
Birmingham has a large Muslim population. Some 22 percent of the city's residents identified themselves as such in the 2011 census.
Since the letter emerged, whistleblowers including former staff have come forward, making claims that boys and girls were segregated in classrooms and assemblies, sex education was banned and non-Muslim staff were bullied.
In one case, it was alleged that the teachings of the firebrand Al-Qaeda-linked Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki -- who was killed by a US drone strike in Yemen in 2011 -- were praised in an assembly.
- Self-governing academies -
"As more schools have come forward than the ones named in the Trojan Horse document, issues have arisen about behavior in schools, the way in which schools are run," city council leader Albert Bore told BBC television.
"It is about, generally speaking, the behavior of the schools, what happens within the schools, the school day, the school assembly, the way in which children in schools are organised."
The allegations focus on a category of schools known as academies. Established from 2000 onwards, they are state-funded but are self-governing and independent of local authority control.
Bore said it was "part of the frustration" that the city council had no remit in the schools, which answer to the national Department for Education.
"We do not know who's on the governing body (of the schools)," he said.
The council will publish its findings before mid-June.
Education Secretary Michael Gove has sent inspectors to 15 Birmingham schools in recent weeks.
On a visit to Birmingham earlier this month, Prime Minister David Cameron spoke about the issue, saying: "We will not accept any school begin run by extremists or promoting extremist views."
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said Monday that schools should not be allowed to become "silos of segregation".
"I am very concerned whenever I hear allegations that schools, funded by the taxpayer, become vehicles for the propagation of particular ideologies which divide young children and pupils off from other people in society," he said.
"The Department for Education is taking this very seriously."

Who Exactly Is It That Scientifically Measures Cow Flatulence As It Relates To "Climate Change."

That's Why We Have The Second Amendments...

Just Filling In...

Sunday, April 13, 2014

Why Be Concerned Over Nevada Ranch War...

Why The Nevada Ranch War Should Concern Every American

A decades long dispute over land in Nevada erupted into violence this past week as the Federal Government used force against a rancher and his cattle.
Cliven Bundy is a Nevada rancher in Clark County who’s family has staked claim to the land in question predating the creation of the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management doesn’t care, because the Federal Government is apparently always right. Always.
Here’s the problem: What legal right does the Bureau of Land Management have over land in an individual state?
It’s easy to dismiss such a question by pointing to the badge and gun, acknowledging the common incorrect notion that the Federal Government is always supreme and correct.
Let’s take it a step beyond the mainstream media and actually take a serious look at the question.
Pursuant to Article 6, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, the Constitution and constitutionally-compliant laws are “supreme law of the land.” This establishes the Constitution as the centerpiece of American law, thus leaving us with a second question: Is the Bureau of Land Management’s control over land in an individual state constitutional?
The Bureau of Land Management was created by Congress. The powers of Congress are listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, powers not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government here are left to the States and people, unless specifically prohibited under Article 1, Section 10.
Thus, what Congress can do is fairly straight forward. Among these specifically enumerated powers is not the power to control land within a single state.
If the law were actually enforced, it might’ve actually saved federal prosecutors a headache in 2012. Two years ago, a case was brought against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s close friend and donor Harvey Whittemore. The charges related to illegal campaign donations to Senator Reid.
Whittemore is a businessman who has been described as a powerful businessman and lobbyist in Nevada. Apparently even powerful enough to make his money speak sweet-nothings to Senator Reid.
Of the business ventures of Harvey Whittemore included Coyote Springs, a planned living community on desert land. The proposed project would include 160,000 homes, twelve golf courses, and a number of hotel-casinos.
Regulations got in the way though. What was one major obstacle? Desert lands that included a sanctuary for the endangered desert tortoise.
The obstacles were eventually dodged. Senator Reid was a major reason this occurred, as he introduced legislation to allow Coyote Springs to be constructed. It also seemed to help that Whittemore’s personal attorney was Leif Reid, who contacted Senator Reid regarding the EPA resisting Coyote Springs construction.
Leif Reid, son of Senator Harry Reid.
Then there was the water rights issues raised by residents of multiple states, as well as environmentalists and local ranchers. While initially slowing the progress of Coyote Springs, agreements were reached. Of the employees at Whittemore’s law firm was Clark County Commission chairman and Southern Nevada Water Authority vice-chairman Rory Reid.
Rory Reid, son of Senator Harry Reid
This all would lead to the charges in 2012 of illegal campaign contributions to Senator Reid by Whittemore.
Here’s a final question: Why should this concern you and every other American?
The answer is simple. Even top politicians in Congress, regardless of political party, listen to money when it speaks to them. When Congress claims authority over state property that they have no right to, this becomes a greater issue.
Cliven Bundy’s only mistake was in not being a powerful business man who dodges the law and buys politicians, two things that liberals often accuse Republicans of doing. He and his wife didn’t donate tens of thousands of dollars to Senator Reid’s re-election campaign and leadership fund. Bundy didn’t try to conceal a dirty deal by writing checks to family members and twenty-nine employees or their own families, who then contributed the maximum amount to Senator Reid. Bundy didn’t fund the campaigns of Senator Reid’s sons or employ all four of his sons.
Cliven Bundy is just an honest man making an honest living. That is the crime, according to federal “law.”
The Democrats are right about money being powerful in politics, but only because we allow the Federal Government to hold powers it legally does not have. So when these militia groups travel to Nevada to defend the Bundy Ranch from the aggression of the Bureau of Land Management, they are protecting a rancher against illegal force.
If the desert tortoise actually mattered, Harvey Whittemore wouldn’t have gotten his way with Coyote Springs. This is about power and money, and unless you buy off your political representatives, violent force can and will be used against you if you resist federal aggression.
America no longer needs a dictionary to define “tyranny.” One merely needs to look to Nevada to see it in action.

Do You Know What This Is?

Another Joke Of A War: The Equal Pay War...

Militia Is Only A Bad Word If You Are A Tyrant...

Thursday, April 10, 2014

Krauthammer: Totalitarian Impulse Spreading...

Thought police on patrol

By Thursday, April 10, 7:33 PM

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.
The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.
The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.
Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.
Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.
To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.
Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.
Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.
The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.
Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.
To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.
Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.
Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (nontheological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?
Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”
Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace .
Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?
That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.
The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.
Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archivefollow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.
Read more on this topic: Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’ Ruth Marcus: Democrats’ revolting equal-pay demagoguery Dana Milbank: Republicans kiss votes from women goodbye Deval Patrick: Gay marriage and the right to be ordinary
© The Washington Post Company

AMEN! Read Your Bible Believers... Abraham's Hopeless Fight Continues...
Perhaps The Time Is Near...

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

So You Still Wondering How Dems Won In 2012: Voter Fraud In A Massive Scale...

NC Board of Elections finds evidence of 34.7K instances of voter fraud in 2012

By  on April 2, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Today the State Board of Elections in North Carolina discovered up to 35,750 instances of “double voting” in the 2012 general election. This flies in the face of everything libs have said on this issue.
Initial findings from the Board presented to the Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee today show:
  • 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.
Additionally, an audit of death records from the Department of Health and Human Services, revealed:
  • 50,000 new death records that had not previously been provided to the State Board of Elections.
  • 13,416 deceased voters on the voter rolls in October 2013.
  • 81 deceased voters that had voter activity after they died.
More details to come.

Read more at: