Archive for the ‘Family’ Category

The backwards thinking of “regressives”

September 13, 2015

Marriages were originally IMPLICIT contracts between two parties, and often withh the families engaged. Most were common law marriages, they just moved in together, the aspirant having had the okay of the father. (Fathers know guys better than the daughters do, at least back in those days).

The fact of the matter is, the natural nuclear family (husband, wife, children) is the institution that cultivates the strongest protection against state oppression. That went out the window with the push for state indoctrination of the next generations disguised as “free” academic education and then “forced” induction into the indoctrination centers.

The other institution that cultivates protection against meek pushover subservience to oppressors’ memes are religious institutions, this according to prominent agnostic economist and libertarian writer Murray Rothbard and atheist economist Walter Block.

No wonder Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto that they had to exterminate the “bourgeois” institution of marriage and family. Total devotion to the collectivist mentality of worker ants is their goal.  The lying viper never wanted a “workers’ paradise”, he wanted his own special groups to dictate.

The modern heirs of Malthus and Marx think there are too many poor people in the world. That’s why they want to “protect” us from bad people, push groupthink, collectivist mentality. They think like the Orwellian uppermost crust of the “Inner Party”, like the Animal Farm where everyone has to be EQUAL but SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

So they push Groupthink disguised as “diversity”;

Inequality disguised as “equality”;

Unemployment disguised as “minimum wage”, now morphed to “living wage”;

Racism and racial preferences disguised as “anti-racism”, “affirmative action”,

Censorship and enforcement of group-think disguised as “equality” under the law;

Bullying libertarians, whistleblowers, pro-lifers and those of religious faith, and those who think differently under the guise of “equality” as a meaningless rant and “non-discrimination”,

Violating religious liberty under the guise of claiming to defend it;

And generally wearing sheepskin while inside they are “ravenous wolves”.

 

Gov schools vs. Parents’ Choice

August 1, 2015

Not to worry. If a nearly illiterate 3rd grade dropout and single mother like Sonya Carson in one of the poorest and most violent areas of the nation in Detroit’s slums, can raise her boy become a pediatric neurosurgeon, then the children who depend on their parents’ decisions for their education have a much better hope than government indoctrination factories.

Because “free” government schools are not free at all. They come at a cost of an education in the real world. The cost is to the generation that they indoctrinate. The government in those books is always the best one you can have (wink wink) and the rulers look out for you (wink wink).

USA gov centers spend twice per student over private schools average, with much better consistent scores. Minneapolis, D.C., and Florida with vouchers programs showed that the effect has nothing to do with them being better students, they became better students.

Jaime Escalante showed that too. His calculus students were accused of cheating in the AP test because the rulers couldn’t believe it. The Teachers Unions went to war against him till he finally returned to Bolivia disgusted.

My youngest boy’s kindergarten teacher taught her students as much as they could learn her first year, she told me. The next year the principal told her to slow down, the first grade teacher had nothing to teach them they didn’t already know.

But it’s not just the academic quality of the education, or that they government indoctrination centers (GICs) teach their own version of history that treats the current conquering rulers the best. The natural nuclear family unit is the best fortress against damage to the children of the next generation by the ruling political class. And respect for the property and economic freedom of families is the best defense against economic assaults by those who have more against those who have less.

Governments want the people to identify first as faithful compliant subjects, above family and above religions. They hate independent religious thinking. That’s why the USA national government (a “federal” government would respect its member states) treats religious thinking as the enemy. They might deign to allow an exemption for a religious organization, for tactical purposes only. Doing so drives a wedge between the organization’s leaders and its outside followers, makes them beholden to the rulers for the “exemption”, recruits some of them in getting its followers to go along, trains the layperson to go along too, and provides a fraudulent but thin cover story for respect for freedom of religion, while making people forget that religious freedom is an INDIVIDUAL’s NATURAL AND GOD-GIVEN RIGHT.

Letting governments control what students learn is the best way to heard them toward groupthink under tyranny.  Anti-government web sites are one of the new enemies in government-approved crime shows. But they should be encouraged. When everybody follows the government-mandated thinking on who is enemy, that is the kind of world George Orwell warned against.

Gov propaganda training? Enough!

 

Is the Non-Aggression Principle enough?

March 28, 2014

I haven’t read Hoppe (one of these days I will) but “follow the NAP” is truly not enough to resolve what we all know is “right”.

The NAP is basically just a minimum starting point and minimum requirement for an “ethical guideline” for interaction with others. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a better rule in my opinion. But that requires some active charity in some situations.

No one has the right to force others to do his bidding. We all prefer to do everything voluntarily. Ask a left-fascist (aka “social justice liberal”) to give HIS OWN money.

Another NAP gap is children. Walter Block did a great job of applying the NAP “ruthlessly” to its logical conclusion to come up with “evictionism”, but that falls short of what we all know is the minimum required for a minimal ethical baseline.

By the act of having sex, you take the “risk” of having the blessing (as I call it) of the appearance of a new individual. But as that individual is conceived helpless outside the womb until “viability”, and helpless outside the womb too after birth, the mother AND father have an obligation to that new life with all its implications until he is able to fend for himself.

That obligation can be fulfilled of course by finding adoptive parents that will take care of that child and rear him reasonably well, but one of the basic tenets of libertarian (and anarchist) philosophy is that each one of us must take responsibility for our own actions. The principle of restitution can teach us here that if our act results in the conception of a helpless new person, we owe that new person to care for it.

That principle would not apply strictly to cases of rape, but applies to some 98% of pregnancies. However, even in cases of rape, where it is not the result of a mother’s own action, in the case of an infant, there is still a forcing of harm on that infant (both before and after birth) if the parents neglect the proper care.

However, I still oppose any extraordinary measures to seek out and punish parents for abortions. In this case, cultural shame would be the most effective strategy.

Even more effective is a strong Christian influence, as this has made slavery a dirty word around the world today, along with gladiator battles, extreme baby abuse, and so on.

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Amish family flees the United States to avoid medical dictatorship

March 12, 2014

An Amish family has fled the United States to avoid medical dictatorship:

http://reason.com/reasontv/2014/03/11/amish-family-defends-medical-decisions-f#comment

There have been a number of communities in history who were “sort of” libertarians, although the Amish are outstanding examples of living without the “heavy hand of the law”. Their culture could thrive splendidly with a lot less interference.

There are cultures where the rules have been self-enforcing. In the time of the judges (book of Judges), there was no government, no police force, no king, no tribal chief. Elders might emerge esteemed for advice and counsel, Thou shalt not steal was revered as a command from the hand of God himself, so property rights were SACRED.

Even the much-maligned laws of Moses, including the more “draconian” measures, were avoidable by simply opting to live outside of them, and many did. Plus, it was all on the honor system.

When they were conquered, there would be a leader gather an army, kick out the invaders, then disband back to the farms. s

But “the people” demanded a king. Prophet Samuel warned them: A king will put insufferable burdens on you, he will take your good harvests for himself, he will send your sons to war. God DOES NOT WANT A GOVERNMENT MIDDLE-MAN FOR ENFORCEMENT!

//

“Death with dignity” or “Useless Eaters”? Power and paternalism says “Go ahead and die!”

May 27, 2013

The title to the article found at the following link is a propaganda piece itself and a tendentious accusation, and the author is not stupid. She KNOWS that it is not true, because without even checking other articles, we know that she accuses pro-lifers of religious motivation. I don’t know, maybe she switches personalities depending on the issue. Her title: “Assisted dying isn’t contested on religious grounds – it’s about power, paternalism and control”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/05/assisted-dying-isnt-contested-religious-grounds-its-about-power-paternalism-and-con

On that site, they claim that the lay people of almost all religious self-identifying persuasions favor “assisted suicide”, and they point out that the clergy and other leaders oppose. They love to use a majority opinion when it suits their purpose, while saying a judge is “legally” correct in pointing out that a poll majority is no basis for law, they immediately contradict the concession by making it still sound like an elite imposition on the majority.

Polls have lost credibility a long, long time ago. Especially for making any argument for anything. I have been polled myself. The wording of the question, asking leading “questions” to change the mind of the respondent. They inflicted the same question upon me in three different ways in that poll. The “surveyor” only stopped because I stopped the questioning. They assured me my answers would count anyway.

Did they count my responses in their “results”? I’ll never know, and neither will you. The results of that poll were publicized in the obvious direction the pollsters were supposed to evoke, but they are usually useless. They certainly are real arguments for nothing at all. “Approval ratings” are also bogus, believable only when there isn’t too much at stake. Not only useless, they are in essence frauds meant to play with the public mind. Propaganda tools.

I do not have a big clergy salary or position, work as easily reporting to woman bosses as to men bosses, I hate control as a mostly anarcho-capitalist  libertarian, and I don’t think anybody should have cultural sanction to kill another person. That’s finality in the control category, killing somebody, and that’s exactly the problem that inflicts so many PATHOLOGICAL killers. No emotion at killing somebody.

Now we have advocates of “mercy” killing.  They do not deny their emotions, but here comes the “for your own good” rationale beating down on common sense.

Oh, but that stage is maybe to follow. The powers that be that are pushing this theme are not yet going to admit that their real goal is the elimination of what Hitler called “useless eaters”. For now it’s a “compassionate” [sic] concern for the desires of the suffering.

For now, they say they only want to “help” those who are of “sound mind” who want to go. Presumably who also suffer from terminal disease. That’s their main argument anyway.

Kid you not. “Help them” die instead of talking them out of suicide. Hello? Rational logic calling! Come back!

In this “Brave New World” drowning in drugs and the commercialization of pleasure and hedonist philosophies, instead of improving techniques for improving the lives of the suffering, they want you to think of just letting them die. What a psych trick to say “Death with dignity” rather than a “poor quality of life”. There is no “dignity” in either killing yourself, and there is a lot less dignity in helping someone you say you love to kill themselves. Or instead of talking them out of it, nod your head, knowing that it is your partner’s pride that does not want to be dependent for life.

The compassionate thing is to make them know that their lives are important to you, making them know that they are more useful to you alive than dead.

(Meantime, many of the same powers that be advocate dependency on strangers from government for the poor).

Not the new twist in the psych of that title. They added a new Doublespeak to the Newspeak dictionary, calling it “assisted dying” instead of “assisted suicide”. Suicide has a bad name. Suicide is a bad name. That’s because suicide is a very bad thing.

If you kill somebody else, it’s called murder. If you kill yourself instead, that’s called suicide. To some people that makes all the difference. But it is still somebody killing somebody. If it’s bad to kill somebody, it’s bad to encourage them or help them kill themselves.

But in the real world of rational discussion, the thing that makes it bad for somebody to be killed at the hand of another, is just as tragic a death if somebody is killed at their own hand.

The worst aspect of this is the degenerate drop of moral pretense here. While arguing in moral terms, the Powers That Be that want this expose themselves in that they show that they care not about life over death. They have other plans for you.

This is Pandora’s box. Their game is over, their gig is up, it’s going to start winding down. There will be some blowback from the Powers That Be that want to hold the power of life and death over the rest of us. People are beginning to wake up to their oppression, in spite of their tendency to hide in the shadows and behind secret societies, old boys’ networks and the like.

This paternalistic ruling clique wants us to believe that we the people have demanded the “right” to kill ourselves and get a doctor to turn upside down help us die instead of help us live. But there is a twist to this, just like with a “woman’s right to choose”. With a “woman’s right to choose”, it really becomes an invitation for a man’s “right to choose”.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding motherhood (so they’ve been told). But nature tells them in the back of the mind and in the region of the heart that having a baby in the womb makes them a mother. The desire is there and the “Silent No More” movement of women who publicly confess and denounce their own abortions is a demonstration of this, along with the fact shown in surveys of the symptoms of post-abortion syndrome.

In one pro-abortion movie, in fact, it made light humor of one young girl bragging that she had told FIVE different guys that it was their baby so she could get the money not only for the abortion but a trip to Hawaii. Real funny.

A few women do jump into hedonistic behaviors and abortion is their “safety” net for avoiding babyhood (so they’ve been told). But surveys have shown that in the majority of cases, the women “choosing” abortion did it under pressure of a father, a mother, an uncle, or the boyfriend.

So it is a lie that abortion is simply a “choice” for women. It has made them more vulnerable to the demands of men, in fact. It has added pressure for them to approach sexuality in the same way as men. The long-term blowback is felt by the older feminists who yearn for motherhood. Connie Chung is one of the most famous of these, not exactly a “feminist”, but one who bought into the myth that a woman could have a fulfilling career same as a man without the naggings of motherhood. Too late, she sought motherhood. It is not paternalistic to understand this.

Denying your nature, denying who you are, denying the physical and natural testimony of your physiology, this is not a simple matter of “choice” or “law” or “decree”.

There is one more road to hell here, whether you want to think it’s paved with good intentions or not.

In a moral society, we expect doctors to heal us when we’re sick, alleviate our pain, and help us avoid death as much as possible. Doctors enter the profession with this orientation in mind. Part of the horrors of the Axis powers during World War II was the turning of this on its head. Medical knowledge was applied to death instead.

To legalize this will end the universal expectation of doctors. Some have already been indoctrinated by the fact of death in the baby-killing business, as in the Gosnell case in Philadelphia. Not even playing the race card saved him from the horrified reaction even from the partial-birth abortion advocates. Unsaid in the coverage was the fact that now President Obama uttered one of his few voiced opinions in the Illinois State Senate against strengthening the penalties for the kind of things that Gosnell did as a matter of course.

May God save us from this pro-death propaganda. That’s what it is.

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: – Deuteronomy 30:19

 

 

This Tax-Exempt Group Had No Trouble at All with the IRS

May 25, 2013

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5420&category=79&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+fpmdtn+%28FrontPage+Magazine+%C2%BB+Discover+the+Networks%29

…or…
http://tinyurl.com/q3e9cxx

The Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) was established in 2008 by Abon‘go Malik Obama, the half-brother of U.S. President Barack Obama. Abon’go, a Kenyan-born Muslim with twelve wives, created the foundation in memory of his (and President Obama’s) biological father, Barack H. Obama (1936-82) of Nyan’goma Kogelo village in Kenya.

Then it points out the claims of the Foundation for what it does and the lack of evidence for any of it, and then the punchline:

From 2008-11, BHOF operated illegally as a nonprofit group and falsely claimed tax-exempt status—for which it had not yet formally applied. The foundation finally submitted its 2010 application for nonprofit, tax-exempt status on May 23, 2011; seven days later, it submitted its filings for 2008 and 2009. Within just one month of these filings—on June 26, 2011—Lois Lerner, the senior official who headed the IRS‘s tax-exempt organizations office, signed paperwork granting tax-exempt status to BHOF. This promptness represented a stark contrast to the experience of many conservative organizations that, beginning in 2010, had been intentionally forced (by Lerner’s office) to wait more than three years, in some cases, for approval. Moreover, Lerner broke with the norms of tax-exemption approval by making BHOF’s tax-exempt status retroactive to December 2008.

According to Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center: “The Obama Foundation raised money on its web page by falsely claiming to be a tax deductible. This bogus charity … had not even applied and yet subsequently got retroactive tax-deductible status.” Boehm described Abon’go Malik Obama’s attempt to raise money under the nonprofit banner as “common law fraud and potentially even federal mail fraud.”

MEANTIME, the forgotten brother who lives in a Kenya slum on less than a dollar a month:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/2590614/Barack-Obamas-lost-brother-found-in-Kenya.html

One commenter noted that the President’s half-brother lives on “change”… He probably is hoping for more change….

Why does the President keep his distance from his Kenyan family? Why did the sycophants never try to do any articles on the President’s extended family in Kenya? True, they don’t usually go after the family stories too much, but they have avoided this one more than they avoided other presidents’ families. Is it just the distance? What do you think?

Why doesn’t the New York Times or Washington Post go after Obama’s school records? They pushed real hard to get all they could about Bush’s history, after all…

The Surveillance State Comes to a School Near You in Common Core

May 23, 2013

Data Mining Students Through Common Core:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/15213-data-mining-students-through-common-core

This gives new meanings to the government “Total Awareness” databases. Remember, that was the name the Pentagon gave to one of their cyber initiatives, meant to gather information from the entire Internet for whatever purpose they had in mind for it, wink wink.

They must be getting tired of letting free speech exercise blow the cover off their different operations for taking over our lives.

They will use new technology to even track the students’ facial expressions, seat posture, and other physiological data to track them, and some of the documents suggest some “predictive” software. “Precognizing” behavior.

Within the February report, the DOE displayed photographs of the actual technology that will be used on students, if the department’s plan is fully implemented. What they call the “four parallel streams of affective sensors” will be employed to effectively “measure” each child. The “facial expression camera,” for instance, “is a device that can be used to detect emotion…. The camera captures facial expressions, and software on the laptop extracts geometric properties on faces.” Other devices, such as the “posture analysis seat,” “pressure mouse,” and “wireless skin conductance sensor,” which looks like a wide, black bracelet strapped to a child’s wrist, are all designed to collect “physiological response data from a biofeedback apparatus that measures blood volume, pulse, and galvanic skin response to examine student frustration.”

In an attempt to assuage such fears regarding students’ privacy, the February report stated the following:

Privacy is always a concern, especially when leveraging data available in the “cloud” that users may or may not be aware is being mined. However, another emergent concern is the consequences of using new types of personal data in new ways. Learners and educators have the potential to get forms of feedback about their behaviors, emotions, physiological responses, and cognitive processes that have never been available before. Measurement developers must carefully consider the impacts of releasing such data, sometimes of a sensitive nature.

Even when using their most eloquent language to sell us the product, the DOE’s explanation is more disturbing than comforting. They openly admit that students under Common Core will be poked and prodded for information of a “sensitive nature.” But what specifically is this information?

They plan to track what their own public documents say is “sensitive” information. I guess since these standards were done with Bill Gates money, after Bill Gates’ comments about reducing population growth by the use of universal vaccination, maybe they would have a worry about “sensitivity”:

In 2010, the National Center for Education Statistics released a technical brief about “Guidance for Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS),” which formulated a detailed plan for “data stewardship” in education. The SLDS created a grant program in 2005, each grant lasting three to five years at up to $20 million per grantee. In 2012, a combination of 24 states and territories struck a deal to implement data mining to receive grants. “Personally Identifiable Information” will be extracted from each student, which will include the following data: parents’ names, address, Social Security Number, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc. On the other hand, according to the SLDS brief, “Sensitive Information” will also be extracted, which delves into the intimate details of students’ lives:

1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent;

2. Mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;

3. Sex behavior or attitudes;

4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior;

5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;

7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent; or

8. Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

The United States is supposedly a republic. Did parents demand all this from their representatives? Did the people demand it? Did they write letters to the editor even asking pretty please will somebody prod, poke and measure our kids and watch them and track their behavior –by individual– to form a national database so our benevolent authorities can make sure they learn to be good little compliant citizens?

Jesus Christ said the truth shall make you free. Better to know the truth, because it is misguided to trust in a delusion of freedom or trust in the label of “democracy” or “majority vote”.

I finally see the difference. Everybody universally has an environment that limits their choices and that even means the most powerful worldwide cliques. If some such group had no limitations they would simply announce themselves and tell us they rule us, like Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, wrote they should.

The rest of us don’t have their power or resources, but we can have the truth if we want it. Or at least a “love for the truth”. And the truth makes us free, because we are much less likely to be deluded by strangers’ promises and pleas to trust them.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

“Christian Right” and “Christian Left”

May 21, 2013

Jesus said to heal the sick, comfort the broken-hearted, set the captives free. The “fundamentalist Christian Right” have been doing this for 2,000 years WITHOUT STEALING A SINGLE DIME BY THE FORCE OF THE GUN OF THE LAW. You do NOT get ANY moral credit for sending IRS agents out by the thousands to make sure you TAKE WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION all the stuff you use for “good” things. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Neo-cons and “Christian Zionists” –Pharisees of this generation– indeed have left off following the Two Greatest Commandments, following Israel into denying what Jesus said: “I am the way, the truth and the life; No man cometh to the Father but by me”. Jesus said this to the same Pharisee sect that today gets special privilege in Israel –founded by godless, SECULAR and socialist Zionists, by the way.

Neither the Christian Media Establishment of today, NOR the leftist Sojourner-type Establishment Christians, are following Christ’s teachings. One is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WARfare state, the other is into stealing from their neighbors in the name of the sacred “majority vote” for the WELfare state, and the only true recipients of all this largess in the end is either the military-industrial complex on the one hand, or the government-media-corporate complex on the other.

While they give out crumbs to keep the poor happy (crumbs they steal from the middle class) and cry “Let them eat cake!” in the imperial capital of D.C., they swear allegiance to both the “safety net” and the Constitution. But there is no safety net except for the winners in the wheeling and dealing in our Imperial occupiers’ capital.

Along come people making off with the “Christian” label who obviously do not care to “search the Scriptures, to see if these things be so”.

These are the “Christians” who see the robbery victim on the side of the road and pass by. Instead of carrying the poor guy to the inn and promising “I” will repay like the Good Samaritan, they rob the next guy to come along to pay for the first guy. Good innovators with good ideas and good business ethics like Tucker are left in ruins because they expose the whole sordid fraud of “welfare”.

While the cold-hearted “religious right” pours out tithes and of their abundance to get there first after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Andrew and around the world to help the helpless, the oh-so-warm-hearted caring “liberals” are very liberal with their NEIGHBOR’s fruits of somebody Else’s labor, stealing as much as it takes to “help” rich politicians get richer off the backs of the poor man’s vote. They want even more –like Ron Paul said it– so they can “steal from the poor in rich countries to give to the rich in poor countries”, and call it “helping”.

And until Ron Paul, not many people paid attention to the money changers who are committing Grand Theft Inflation, robbing the resources right out from under the housewife’s grocery money to spend it on their own interests.

If you can only get your money by stealing it in taxes (taking without asking) or by printing money (exchanging your dollar’s value for a dollar of less value without having to bother getting shot back like the BURGLAR they are), then you are NOT obeying Christ, you are leaving the poor guy on the side of the road for a good Christian SAMARITAN like in the story Jesus told or David Livingston or Mother Theresa to help undo your damage to the poor.

Ron Paul's blimp

Ron Paul’s blimp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Found at lewrockwell.com and elsewhere, news and commentary roundup

May 19, 2013

It should be no secret to the people that read this blog regularly, but http://lewrockwell.com is an almost daily stop for me, with new insights and revelations from behind the scenes about current events, from an independent liberty-minded thinker’s perspective:

I may or may not own a gun, but for those who do, or who are considering:

Mini/Pocket 9mm Pistols for Concealed Carry:
http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/mini-9mm-concealed-carry.html

Real Men Wear Red: Sportsmen Who Choose To Wear the Colour Are More Likely To Be Winners Because They Are ‘Dressing To Kill’:
http://lewrockwell.com/spl5/real-men-wear-red.html

Evidence for Confiscation: 5 Examples That Show the Threat Is Real by S.H. Blannelberry:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig14/blannelberry11.1.html

There was a news conference by the targets of the IRS witch-hunt. Make no mistake that’s what it was. It’s not just the keyword searches for putting the applications behind the rest of them. There were some that were not from any “tea party” or “patriot” names, but “American Grizzlies”? And how about that keyword “constitution”? Are neutral officials –ahem, “neutral”– somehow allergic to the United States Constitution? How about the groups with the name “Christian” in them?

The story of Gary Johnston, a retired police officer from Kingston, Tenn., seemed to typify the abuse suffered by many rank-and-file tea party members at the hands of the IRS.

Johnston told WND he put together a small tea party group in 2009 and had no plans to file for tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(4) organization. But the IRS told him he had to do it. So, he first filled out a 19 page questionnaire in March of 2010. In August, the IRS sent him another form with 22 more questions, and embedded within those were another 60 questions.

“A lot of the questions struck me as strange,” Johnston said.

“Intrusive, terrible questions. They wanted to know any and every email that’s ever come to us or sent by us, personal or private, that might be construed to be political. They wanted to know everybody that was coming to our meetings, if we charged money, who donated, what the donations were. They wanted to know everything about our personal lives and our families’ personal lives — anyone in our family that might be politically connected.”

What sort of personal information did the IRS want to know?

“They wanted to know who we were affiliated with, what we did, what we aspired to do, what positions we might run for politically. They were asking questions that you could not answer, but could trap you.”

Did they ask you anything about reading material?

“Oh, yes, they asked any and all literature that you’ve ever had disseminated or had sent to you; anything that’s ever been written about you; anything you’ve ever written on a blog or to a newspaper. They asked me for outlines of what I’ve been reading, you could call that a book report. They asked what we were really trying to accomplish. It went on and on and on.”

After 70 days of filling out all sorts of intrusive documents, Johnston finally consulted a CPA and tax attorney. He said the attorney took one look at the material and said, “What did you do to upset the IRS? You’ve made somebody angry. I’ve never seen anything like this in my life. 80 percent of this is illegal. They can’t ask you this stuff.”

She advised Johnston not to respond to many of the questions and not provide the IRS with much of the material it had requested. The IRS then sent him a form with another 40 questions, including some of the same questions he had refused to answer earlier.

Then Johnston’s group started getting “a lot of calls from the IRS.”

“These IRS agents who were calling us were apologetic. They were saying ‘I’m sorry, I’m sorry. … I’m with you guys, I have to do this. This is part of my job.’”

Johnston said their bosses, at the Cincinnati office, “were telling them they have to do this.”

The witch hunt was executed by the IRS against the targeted groups. Why did they think they could get away with this?

And that’s not all. Look at the way the IRS treated Dr. James Dobson‘s application for Family Talk:

“Ms. Medley did not call back until March 19. Family Talk Action’s attorney asked her when the IRS would issue its determination letter. Ms. Medley responded saying, I don’t think your Form 1024 (application for exemption) will be granted because Family Talk Action is ‘not educational’ because it does not present all views. She continued, saying that Family Talk Action sounded like a ‘partisan right-wing group’ because, according to Ms. Medley, it only presents conservative viewpoints. She then added, ‘you’re political’ because you ‘criticized President Obama, who was a candidate.’” [Ed: So WHAT
if it presented issues from their point of view? They all
do, and the IRS has routinely approved the left-wing
groups over the years with much worse bias!]

The organization said it had submitted sample radio programs after the IRS had demanded them, although none was aired during an election year.

“It was the opinion of Family Talk Action’s legal counsel that these samples were not only 501(c)(4) qualified but 501(c)(3) qualified,” the statement said.

“Family Talk Action’s legal counsel had never heard an IRS agent express biased statements like those he heard during the March 19 call. He also felt that the this agent did not understand the difference between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities,” the report said.

Not educational because it “doesn’t present all views”? Oh yeah? How about all the multitude of 501c4 AND 501(c)(3) entities it routinely approves that only present leftist and anti-Christian views, like Media Matters and others?

Oh, and what did the Big “O” say he’s going to do about it? He’s going to put a stop to this because it’s important that Americans “understand and believe that the IRS” is fair. Oh yeah, except this episode shows it’s NOT fair. How about it’s important to follow the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution?

So who is he going to put in jail over this for abuse of power? Anybody?

Look, does the Socialist Workers Party get the third degree grilling, send us all of your emails you ever got or sent? What an uproar that would be right? How about from the unions?

It’s not a “small cadre” of a couple of “rogue agents”. It looks like it was ALL the conservative groups that had any of those “suspicious” keywords in their names!

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/lawmakers-demand-jailtime-for-irs-scandal/

According to Fox News, an internal timeline by the inspector general’s office revealed the IRS began looking at tea party and “patriot” groups as early as 2010, shortly after Obamacare was passed.

However, in 2011 the organizations scrutinized were expanded to include groups focused on government debt and spending, taxes and education on “ways to make America a better place to live” as well as those who criticized “how the country is being run.”

In early 2012, the IRS expanded the list even further to include groups that were educating people on the Constitution and Bill of Rights and involved in limiting/expanding government.

Gardner told WND that among the multiple conservative groups targeted by the IRS was at least one group from Colorado.

The group, which is asking that its name be kept private for now, applied for 501(c)(4) status and had its application illegally released to the public during the application process, which is a clear violation of federal law.

“The information on their application was confidential and the IRS was required by law to treat it as such, yet that information was leaked to ProPublica,” Gardner said. “Who’s to say the IRS didn’t give out confidential donor information either? This confirms people’s worst beliefs about government overbearance.”

They’re demanding health records from medical organizations, too:

Yeah, just apologize and that’s it? We put a muzzle on the voices of tens of thousands of Americans, and tilted the election to an administration that expands the Patriot Act, confiscates two months of emails and reports from a press organization (a leftist one even!) to catch a whistleblower supposedly, tells the man in charge in Tripoli second to the late Ambassador he’d better muzzle himself instead of testify to events, covers up the truth about events that left four people to die in an attack that could have been avoided. And refuses to give up the prerogative (it’s not a “right”) to kill any American the President fingers as a threat. And under whom even the Pentagon is now claiming the power to kill Americans and control them under certain conditions.

And nobody goes to jail? Watergate was a LOT less than all this, and people went to prison. Hello?

And Holder, after treating the Congress with such contempt and stonewalling on Fast and Furious, and to this day refusing to release relevant documents, and even bald-faced punishing the whistleblowers of Fast and Furious, he rebukes Congress for incivility and lack of respect?!
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/hot-tempered-holder-lashes-out-in-defiance/

And yet another one:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/irs-rejected-group-on-behalf-of-planned-parenthood/?cat_orig=politics

(BREITBART) The IRS scandal of targeting tea party or conservative organizations grew deeper Wednesday with the revelation that the agency denied tax-exempt status to a pro-life organization because of its hypothetical opposition of Planned Parenthood.

The Thomas Moore Society, a public interest law firm announced that one of their clients was told that their approval as a non-profit was conditioned on a commitment not to protest outside Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

>>>>

Whattaya know, now they tell us there was a “suicide note” inside that boat in Boston? How convenient. All of a sudden they “found” an admissible “confession”? And how convenient that the “suspect”, umm, “shot himself” in the throat? Now he can’t yell something like “I’m a patsy!” like Lee Harvey Oswald did…

>>>>>

In another story, McClatchy newspapers are quoting ” two anonymous government officials”:

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

What American official in such a land would report in a “still secret memorandum” that he had security concerns, and then turn down military offers of more security? And then go to the city where other states had pulled completely out? Why would any official do that? This thing does NOT pass the “fishy smell” test:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#.UZi_gIJnEZc

There is something else going on there. Presuming, just for the sake of argument, that it’s true, the big question is indeed WHY? The Embassy had just reported that they could NOT defend the compound in Benghazi, and they needed “additional security upgrades”.

Note, this is some anonymous somebody’s recollection of somebody else’s phone call. Stevens can no longer tell his side of that phone call, ey?

The next three paragraphs from the McClatchy report are interesting because they seem to be an example of “Does. Not. Compute.” Or maybe post-facto C. Y. A.:

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

But further on, this “report” seems to come back down to Earth:

“That is odd to me because Stevens requested from the State Department additional security four times, and there was an 18-person special forces security team headed by Lt. Col. Wood that Gen. Ham signed off on that the State Department said no to,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., who has been among the most vocal critics of the Obama administration on Benghazi. “The records are very clear that people on the ground in Libya made numerous requests for additional security that were either denied or only partially granted.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-military.html#storylink=cpy

Senator Lindsay Graham is not my favorite politician, being an advocate as he is for shredding the US Constitution. But note that the Embassy had made repeated security requests and were denied, not by the military brass, but by the State Department in Washington, D.C.

Maybe this is the military brass doing its own CYA “not my fault” public relations effort, true or not. I can believe it, of course. But there are more questions raised in this McClatchy report than answers.

(1) WHO GAVE THE ORDER to the military security team in Tripoli to stand down instead of moving to help defend the Americans under attack?

(2) WHO in the D.C. State Department hierarchy turned down the request for better security in Libya? How high did that decision go? How high does it usually go?

(3) AT THIS POINT, what difference does it make? (This has been answered but it’s good to keep it in mind).

(4) If the important thing is to make sure it doesn’t happen again, then why is the Administration trying to make sure the people they work for don’t even know what happened?

(5) It the important thing is to track down those responsible for this and administer appropriate measures on them, then why are those responsible –already even publicly identified– publicly walking around as free men, and the State Department knowing where they ar

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue S...

English: Anti-United States Internal Revenue Service symbol. Commonly used by tax protesters and tax reform advocates in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

?

(6) The acting head of the diplomatic mission in Libya described the situation to the Secretary of State, we now know, finally from his own mouth to Congress. So WHY did Clinton, and Susan Rice (who reports to her), and don’t forget OBAMA himself, repeat so often that this was a spontaneous demonstration and blame a VIDEO?

(7) WHY IS SOMEBODY WHO MADE A VIDEO STILL IN PRISON? DID SOMEBODY SUSPEND THE CONSTITUTION?

Carolyn Moos: Jason Collins’ Collateral Damage | MRCTV

May 10, 2013

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/carolyn-moos-jason-collins-collateral-damage

Like the New Jersey governor that nobody remembers now, who saved himself from prosecution for abusing his office by announcing, “I’m so-and-so and I’m gay”. Instead hero status.

Jason Collins saved his future from obscurity with the same declaration.

Yawn. It doesn’t surprise us anymore, but the reason the media beats the drums when it happens, is to surround the youth of the next generation with a world of homophiles.

The end game is against the natural family:

The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed correlation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

Blah blah plus lies. One of the reason he wanted to destroy all religion, besides hating God, is that the expose this lie about marriage. Note the recognition by the Number One family-hater of intellectual history that children are the central idea of the nuclear family.

Now another big lie, accusing his enemies of something that he himself, and Communists and socialists and the fashion-setters of so-called feminism, all are guilty of:

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

Women are exactly “mere instruments of production” in socialist societies that do everything they can to get women to work as “mere instruments of production”. Why? Because the alternative is women raising the next generation as mothers and passing on their culture. This is something they hate:

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

But what? State indoctrination, government indoctrination, is more “hallowed” than the family? Who cares more for the well being of the children? You and me, as the parents, or some powerful bureaucrat somewhere that thinks it should take the children from the parents?