Monday, September 25, 2017

Does Israel Discriminate Against Arabs?

America Under Siege: Antifa

It is your duty as an American to be an informed citizen. Inform yourselves.

NOAA facts forum - part 2 - John Broihahn

This is John Broihahn, State Archaeologist, Historic Preservation and Public History, Wisconsin Historical Society, Madison, WI Speaking at the NOAA Facts Forum held at the Sheboygan Yacht Club on September 21st, 2017.

Mr. Broihahn is in favor of the state of Wisconsin gaining access to the technology and resources of NOAA. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find out if there are more wrecks. I am curious myself. I don't know anyone who doesn't value and learn from history, but from a logic standpoint - everything has historical significance.  However, one might think that the resources of a federal government agency such as NOAA could be requested for such a task without granting them any jurisdiction over the resources of the state of WI.

Here is a a thought exercise: What happens if/when they do find more wrecks - or debris that could be counted as having historical significance? How large will NOAA's jurisdiction over the shoreline become in such a case?

This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

My apologies for the shakiness of the video.

"And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." ~ Deut 6:7

Tom Fitton discusses Court Battle on Clinton Draft Indictment, Obama Wir...

Friday, September 22, 2017

NOAA Facts Forum at the Sheboygan Yacht Club -Part 1 Leslie Kohler introduction

This is the first part of a meeting by NOAA to, ostensibly, quell the natural suspicion arising out of the proposal to allow the federal government, in the form of NOAA, to take over jurisdiction of the section of Lake Michigan along Kewanee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan and Ozaukee counties by designating it to be a huge marine sanctuary. The title of the meeting - labeling it as a "facts forum" struck this author as a subtle attempt to belittle those who oppose the establishment of the sanctuary, but perhaps it was not intended that way.

This author, along with others opposes this move, although the reasons are a bit more philosophical than those presented by the very good questions that you will see in the final videos - those covering in the Q and A session at the end of the meeting. This blog has also posted video from a meeting held in March to organize some opposition to the proposed sanctuary. (Which was the first time this author had heard about it even though the process has apparently been going on for some years.) That video may be found here. 

There will be several more videos and while there are many noble sentiments expressed, there is much that is left out as to how the stated goals would be achieved  and how the rights of the citizens of Wisconsin may be protected from any incremental encroachment by this agency which has employed unreasonable fines and Memorandums of Understand as unbreakable law to achieve it's ends in the past.

All that said, please do listen with an open mind and a critical ear both for what is said and for what is implied by the speakers to follow. Please also excuse the video quality. There is much shaking as I did not have a tripod or even a monopod to steady my hand because I had been told that no video recording would be allowed except by a specific outfit.

When I arrived, (I had my camera with me as I was taking photos of people who were holding signs at various points around Sheboygan to raise awareness of the issue.) I was told that the objection was due to space limitations and not to prevent journalists -citizen or otherwise from recording it independently. That was not what the e-mail exchange implied and I can post a screen shot of that if anyone is interested.

"So I returned, and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun: and behold the tears of such as were oppressed, and they had no comforter; and on the side of their oppressors there was power; but they had no comforter." ~ Ecc 4:1

The Romance of Redemption - Session 2 - Chuck Missler - Body Builders #4

Right Angle - A Little Advice For Kim Jong Un - 09/21/17

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Western solution to Islamic terror, drug the unbleiever into submission

Benny Friedman - Toda! The Music Video - בני פרידמן | תודה

Just sharing a bit of cheer for the day.

Stossel: The Best Part of the Constitution

The preamble - because it establishes the purpose of the document, the 2nd -  because it recognizes the right of the people to defend the rest of it, and  the 9th - because it recognizes the impossibility of the document to list all the self evident rights of the people and requires that the citizenry exercise themselves enough to understand the terms "self-evident" and "unalienable" and to defend them.


Hot Mic - Litigating The Violent Left - 09/14/17

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Friday, September 8, 2017

The Love of God - Session 2 - Ron Matsen - Body Builders #2

What Mark Zuckerberg won’t tell you about the risks of AI

Once again, why aren't manufacturers producing laptops, phones, tablets/desktops with hard "off" switches?
And why aren't consumers demanding them?
Privacy is power.

Tatjana festerling in Paris Sept 2 2017

Europe Is Killing Itself

Even an atheist gets it.

Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

BREAKING: JW President Tom Fitton's Statement on DACA

The USA has no right to kidnap the children of other nations who could benefit from their talents and industry.

Monday, September 4, 2017

Answering Islam 10: How Does the Quran View Women?

Why Is Health Insurance so Complicated?

How about tort reform so that malpractice insurance and class action suits aren't driving up costs for the providers, portability so that insurers have competition and price lists so consumers know what they are spending before they have to buy it?

Speaking in California September 8th-11th (2017)

Friday, September 1, 2017

Where can you buy cryptocurrencies?

Since Bitcoin seems to be doing very well, some may be asking where may I purchase Bitcoin or another cryptocurrrency for my portfolio? Here is a link to a site called Coinbase that seems fairly easy to use.    Yes, The author of this blog will get bitcoin if anyone uses this link to purchase one hundred dollars or more of their offerings of cryptocurrency using that link. But you are also free to do a search and find the site without the referral link. This author does have an account with Coinbase.

This is not meant as a sales pitch, merely as one possible starting point for those who might have been thinking about purchasing some cryptocurrency in light of the recent rise.

"11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.

12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.

14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.

17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.

18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.

19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.

20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.

25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him." ~ Luke 19:11-26

If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Secularism, Pluralism and Privitization pt 2

This one starts at about 58 seconds in.

Secularism, Pluralism and Privatization

Liar, Liar Teach My Child?

It is the duty of parents - as well as their self evident and unalienable right - to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The states, individually, have decided to provide a public education system in order to facilitate the education of their citizens. It is simply that - one possible way to educate the children of that state. It was not intended to be compulsory, but only to provide an option to those families who could not afford a private school or tutor or who felt unable to educate their own children and because the government recognized the value of having educated citizens.

There is an unspoken but logical compact between the state and the parents regarding that option.  That unspoken compact is that the state, in providing a public education, will do so in a manner that does not harm the students. In the ordinary course of events, that should be self evident. No parent in their right minds would allow someone to deliberately harm their children - right? The state has broken the unspoken compact between itself and parents.

We have come to a time when the state cares more for political correctness and appearances than it does about your child. The SCOTUS ruling in TLO vs New Jersy in 1985 was only an incremental step in conditioning parents to accept bad behavior on the part of the government in their state provided schools. That ruling allowed teachers and school officials to interrogate children about crimes  - for which they may be prosecuted - without notifying parents. There are other posts on this site and on others regarding the ins and outs of that outrage.

And now, the state is saying that it must be allowed to teach your children to disregard behaviors that indicate mental instability in order to cater to the few individuals that suffer from gender dysphoria disorder. (Current stats, which are quite likely to change with such encouragement stand at about .02 % of the population.)

 If a young girl goes into a ladies room and sees a man in there, she is likely to become apprehensive and go to find a trusted adult. That is a healthy reaction to aberrant behavior. That is a reaction that keeps people safe from those whose mental illness may cause them to act violently. Forcing children to ignore or suppress that natural and healthy reaction to aberrant behavior is child abuse and it creates a child who will be unlikely to do what is most natural to protect themselves - even into adulthood - from those who exhibit aberrant behaviors in other circumstances.

Disregarding the extreme discomfort and harmful conditioning that sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with opposite sex schoolmates will cause for those not affected with gender dysphoria disorder is directly harming the majority of the children with whom the public school system has been entrusted.

In addition, what does it do to the youngest children when a teacher - someone who they have been told to trust - lies to them about whether someone is a boy or a girl? If they cannot be trusted to tell such a basic truth, then how can a child logically trust them about anything else? Will teachers be allowed to say this student is biologically a girl but they have a mental disorder called gender dysphoria that makes them think they are a boy, so we are all going to be "helpful" by encouraging them in their mental illness? Or, as seems more likely considering some of the teacher guidance that is coming out, will they be forced to say "this is a boy" now or be fired?

Add to that harm the reminder that teenagers are, well, teenagers, and that the whole self identifying gender movement allows them to switch their gender from day to day or even minute to minute. How much power should they have over their teachers? The power to get them fired for referring to them as a boy/girl/it? This is a guarantee of sexual assault cases to come and worse.

If the sufferers of gender dysphoria require bathrooms and changing facilities other than those assigned to them by their biological sex, then the school districts are on the hook to provide separate and single changing/bathroom areas for them. Because there is no other option that does not harm the  children. It is also the only way to protect the afflicted from other sufferers - because you cannot have the "trans" boys sharing bathrooms and changing rooms with "trans" girls either. But the courts, when asked, decided that the schools must allow these children to use the bathroom of their choice in disregard of the harm it will cause to the other children. (This was the decision of the federal appeals court. The SCOTUS vacated that decision upon reviewing the changes to federal policy of President Trump, but they refused to hear the case during this term which means it will come up again in a few years.)

The very idea that a court of any level could say that the majority of our children MUST be harmed, because the sufferers of a mental disorder don't want to use separate facilities provided for them in an effort to maintain the safety and conscience of all the students, is appalling.

The fact is that the public school system is outdated, inefficient and expensive. We have other alternatives even in the public realm. On-line schools have become well accepted and provide a challenging curriculum with more input from parents. Homeschooling has been shown to produce responsible students well able to succeed in life or college. It is time, when the government is willing to deliberately harm the majority of the children with whom they have been entrusted, to leave that system.

What we allow is what will continue. The compact has been broken and the purveyors of political correctness in high places will continue to use our children as political pawns to fundamentally transform what they were put into office to maintain.

 Stop sending your children to public schools that harm them. Stop electing people to office who will not prevent such harm. And stop approving more funding for a system that is deliberately harming children. These are your children. This is your responsibility and your duty as a parent.

"1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:1-2

"1  And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

6 And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.

7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?

8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" Luke 18:1-8

Sunday, August 27, 2017

The War On Children | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 370

Is there really any reason - with today's technology - to continue to send our children to a government run school? Wouldn't on-line classes be cheaper and better and allow us more input on what they are being taught and by whom? 

Oh, but wait, then we would have to have an economy where a parent could be at home with their children and we can't be having that now can we. /sarcasm

The Psychology of Islam, Part 3: Theology of the Fatherless

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Monday, August 7, 2017

Saturday, August 5, 2017

Please Help: They're Trying To Shut Down The Rebel!

A good reminder that you are not seeing everything when you look for something on the internet.
Doesn't it make you wonder what you're missing?

Today in History: Ascending the Jungfrau (1811)

Thursday, August 3, 2017

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

EXPLAINED: Rights Vs. Privileges | Louder With Crowder

Our self evident unalienable rights do not come from the Constitution. We have them - given to us by Nature's God. Because, if those rights come from the Constitution, then by changing the Constitution, the government may remove those rights.

September 23rd, 2017, The Great Sign - The Forge with Ron Matsen #4

Monday, July 10, 2017

Monday, June 26, 2017

Tommy Robinson: What really happened at Ascot

And this is why we no longer trust the main stream media. Because they are no longer unbiased, they are clearly serving a narrative. And it is not a narrative that leads to a better world.

JFK: Democrat or Republican?

Freedom Fighters

Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Ramadan Bombathon in Afghanistan (David Wood)

The Music Returns to Mosul

Listen up artists - this is what you support when you support islam. And for photographers, sculptors, filmmakers and painters, your art - if you create images of living things are all forbidden in islam too. I suggest that you wake up.


From 2014, but still true.

Ramadan Bombathon in Baghdad (David Wood)

The War On Truth #6 | Liberals v Conservatives

Monday, May 29, 2017

Dr. Peter Pry outlines EMP attack risks from North Korea

It is important to note that there need be no nuclear attacks from our enemies for us to suffer the same fate. All that would take is a single Carrington sized event. (A solar flare, observed by Richard Carrinton in 1859 which was so powerful that telegraph communications around the world failed. Telegraph machines emitted visible sparks, setting fire to nearby papers and shocking telegraph operators. The aurora  displays were so bright that birds and laborers alike mistook it for the sunrise.)

Why Did America Fight the Vietnam War?

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Today in History: Ottoman siege of Malta begins (1565)


How Muslim rape gangs blackmail British girls into prostitution

This is outrageous - and very dangerous. If the government - through law enforcement - will not enforce the law, then the people will be forced to protect themselves and their families. That endangers everyone.
But then, if a government will not protect it's women and children, perhaps it doesn't deserve to survive as a government.

Answering Islam 3: Was Muhammad a Prophet?

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Friday, May 12, 2017

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

The War On Truth #1 | The Two Virtue Types

The War On Truth | Introduction


Keeping the Balance - Railroads and the Public Good

This article, entitled "Strict enforcement of trespass law by BNSF could put Wisconsin shoreline off limits",is from 2015, but it points out some current problems with lawmakers who do things quietly. Like those in WI who quietly removed an exemption, from the law regarding trespassing on train tracks, for pedestrians who were walking straight across them for a purpose at places other than legal crossings. (I mistakenly thought this was the work of Governor Scott Walker​, but this article says that happened in 2006, well before he was elected in 2010. My apologies to Mr. Walker on that front.) 
I also bring this up now, because there is a growing level of enforcement of the no trespassing on railroad tracks law that demonstrates the incremental way in which tyranny occurs. 

I get it that railroad employees don't want to have to deal with the tragedy and aftermath of stupidity, drunkenness or suicide by train. Nobody would. Cops don't like dealing with stupid, drunken or high people or those who wish to commit suicide by cop either. Automobile drivers don't like dealing with such things. Nobody does, but they happen. You could build the tracks high enough in the air to avoid people and vehicles or underground and those people would still find their way to the tracks. Because that is human nature and one of the unavoidable risks of having a railroad system. 

There is also the private property argument - that this is the private property of the railroad. The thing is, railroads are seen as a necessity for the public good. Something that enables the ruthless use of eminent domain.  
Eminent Domain and Railroads
"Many states have extended the right to take private lands for public use to certain companies, including railroads, because the states consider the use of such property to be fundamentally public."

Then the argument becomes why can't the public walk across the tracks or even on the tracks when they are not in use? The public has, in a way, purchased that land for the railroad companies by the use of eminent domain, giving the railroad companies a bargain. The railroad companies probably got a bargain from the government in the purchase of land that was not acquired by the use of eminent domain too. 

By walking across the tracks for a purpose, when there is no train in the vicinity, the public is not damaging the tracks nor impeding the progress of the trains. That seems a fair exchange for the really enormous amount of power granted to the railroads because they are providing what the government regards as a public good. It is also prevents the reasonable objections the people would otherwise have made to giving up easy access to things across the tracks in places that are not near legal crossings.

So no,we do not own the railroads, but they are not as much private property, philosophically, as they would be were the land all purchased without the use of eminent domain. The fact is that if we did not recognize the railroads as a public good, they probably would not own that land either. It would have been far too expensive to purchase without the use of eminent domain and government cooperation. They were formed and continue to operate because of the good will of the people. 

While there will always be grumblings from those who live near train tracks about the noise and inconvenience, we tolerate that because of the perceived good they do. How fast will that goodwill evaporate as more and more people are hunted down by the railroads to be ticketed for trespassing? Probably not fast enough in our current, corrupted, pseudo republic to do what should be done - restoring the exemption.

(Yes, that's 10 years between quietly dropping the exemption and enforcement, That way, when questioned about it law enforcement can say "but it's been the law for ten years, you should have objected back then if you had a problem with it." Also, it will slowly seep into the public consciousness in a way that will have our children accepting that it has always been this way. Given the rather poor education they have been/are being given regarding the founding philosophy of this nation and the exercise of rights, how would they even know to object? NOAA would be proud.)

(I was going to post a photo taken between the tracks here. The caption would have read:
"This is a photo that was taken from a public sidewalk at a marked crossing of a newly laid track which is being straightened by the slow moving piece of machinery you can see at the end of the visible track.  Is it unsafe? It's a public sidewalk. Is it illegal? As a photo taken from a public sidewalk in a marked crossing, it shouldn't be." 
But I am finding that the stress incurred by the thought that the ever so powerful and rich railroads might choose to sue me into financial ruin just to make an example of how easy it is for speech to be chilled through lawfare and the imposition of unreasonable fines has worked. And I despise myself for the cowardice of that choice.)  

Railroads work when there is cooperation. Blocking people's access to the other side of the tracks when there is no train is not cooperation. Asking for train schedules and permission if you are a professional photographer who wants to do a shoot, paying attention whenever you are around railroad tracks, checking for trains and crossing quickly and safely as a responsible person would - these are cooperation on the part of the public and just common sense too. Removing the exemption is not cooperation and is a poor exchange for the power to exercise eminent domain. 

We cannot legislate away stupidity or depression. They are part of human nature. Punishing the rest of us for what those who do not have the common sense God gave a chicken do is pointless and will not stop those people from getting killed and traumatizing the railroad workers who had to watch it. As for depressed people using trains to commit suicide - suicide is already against the law.

The railroads are certainly making an effort to educate people about the fines for, and now criminality of, trespassing on the tracks. I suspect they could do the same for just plain educating people about the dangers of being on the tracks - aside from the obvious one. Things like uneven footing, the 3 feet a train extends from either side of the track, optical and auditory illusions created by hills, curves and valleys. 

But quietly doing away with reasonable accommodations between the public good (railroads) and the normal and reasonable pursuits of everyday life (crossing a track to get to the other side - you know, like you do with roads) is how laws become tyrannical. The exemption needs to be put back. 

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" ~ Romans 13:3

Friday, April 28, 2017

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Linda Sarsour Caught Lying about Female Genital Mutilation in Islam

The Andrew Klavan Show Ep. 301 - Can Liberty Survive?

Religion is not equivalent to race, by which I mean to say that islam is not a race.
If my memory serves, I seem to recall that there were objections to making catholics citizens of the new nation, as it was felt that they would consider themselves to be subject to the pope rather than the government. That objection was stilled after catholics had joined in the fight for independence.
There was also a requirement in at least one of the original state constitutions that any public servant had to sign a statement declaring themselves to be a Christian before they could take office.
("Delaware Constitution, Art. 22 (adopted Sept. 20, 1776):
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house,
or appointed to any office or place of trust . . .
shall . . . make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:
"I ________, do profess faith in God the Father,
and in Jesus Christ His only Son,
and in the Holy Ghost, one God, Blessed for evermore;
and I do acknowledge the holy scripture
of the Old and New Testaments to be
given by divine inspiration."")

There are some still on the books today as it was recognized that atheists were unable to take oaths - including the oath necessary to testify in a court of law - because any person who did not believe that they answer to God would have a reason to tell the truth if it was of more personal benefit to do otherwise.
("Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.")

The concern, then as it should be now, was whether or not someone who is not a Christian would adhere to the form of government being set up by the founders. It was also understood and expected that any man of principle would serve his god over any government. The form of government they created was designed to work with the shared morals, values and ethics of Christianity while not allowing the state to impose a religion on any citizen. (Because only a fool would expect a man forced into a religion to respect or abide by the doctrines of that religion.) And that is why John Jay said that we should select and prefer Christians for our leaders. Because the government would not work without people of principle who believed that they were answerable to God rather than people.
It is admirable that Mr. Klavan wants to be welcoming. We all want to be welcoming of others. And, as the most generous nation on the face of the Earth, it is clear that Americans in general love to help other people. We want to help refugees and we hope that they will be grateful when we do. We think they will see our way of life and want to have it and seek to discover how it is done and adopt our ways.
But we also expect those other people to behave in a civilized manner and if they do not, you don't keep letting them in. The government has a primary duty to protect the rightful citizens of a nation that precludes any obligation of charity to the citizens of other nations. Just as you would not invite a child molester into your home and leave them alone with your children, you don't keep bringing in people who think it is their God given right to rape your women and children and kill whomever they please - as long as that person is not a follower of their barbaric death cult.

This is a situation that calls for peace through strength, not through charity. The followers of muhammed do not regard our charity as a reason to adopt our ways, they see it as an advertisement that we are exactly what their religion tells them we are - weak and required to submit to them. They regard our attempts at charity as their rightful spoils from non muslims. Negotiation, in that culture is an indicator of weakness rather than restraint.

We would be wise to make it clear that it is not.a sign of weakness.

"10 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

2 A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left.

3 Yea also, when he that is a fool walketh by the way, his wisdom faileth him, and he saith to every one that he is a fool.

4 If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.

5 There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler:

6 Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place.

7 I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." ~ Ecc 10:1-7

Friday, April 21, 2017

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Sunday, April 9, 2017

Fun Islamic Facts 20: Stars Are Missiles

Political Pistachio: Presidential War Powers, Constitutionally Speaking

"One more quick note: The War Powers Act of 1973 is often brought up in these discussions. While, if in line with constitutional authorities, such laws can be important tools in the debate, remember that no law can change authorities because no law supersedes the U.S. Constitution.  In other words, despite arguments to the contrary, including those that use the War Powers Act as their source, the President can, legally, use the military in combat operations (including sending Tomahawk missiles into an airfield in Syria) without congressional approval, or even letting them know he's going to do so in the first place." Read more at:

Political Pistachio: Presidential War Powers, Constitutionally Speaking

Ezra Levant: Trump strikes Syria — Is "regime change" back?

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Friday, April 7, 2017

Monday, April 3, 2017

Fun Islamic Facts 19: Satan Eats Poo

Stay Free #39 | From Legalism To Licence

Political Pistachio: Uncle Sam is not our Heavenly Father

 "It is clear that as a virtuous people we are commanded to resist evil. As our American System succumbs to tyrannical power-brokers, it is our duty (and our right, according to the Declaration of Independence), to “alter or abolish” the government, and “institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The Founding Fathers understood that to maintain a system of liberty, the citizenry must not only be moral and virtuous, but vigilant in protecting and preserving their liberty."

Read more here:

 Political Pistachio: Uncle Sam is not our Heavenly Father:

Trump Train vs Crazy Train - Intellectual Froglegs

Saturday, April 1, 2017

Facebook Enforces Sharia Blasphemy Laws

Terror in London and the "New Normal"

This wasn't about President Trump

There has been enough nonsense from the talking heads on the alphabet networks about the failure of Mr. ryan's health care bill. They talk and talk and talk and continue to ignore the most basic fact about what really caused this bill to fail. The failure of this bill had almost nothing to do with Mr. Trump and nearly everything to do with Congress.
Since the very air in D. C. seems to cause ordinary people to lose their bearings, their morals, their ethics and their minds, here is the answer they are seeking as to why this effort failed.

The people do not want obamacare. We have never wanted it. We have always seen it as government poking it's nose where it does not belong and where it has no business being. 

 For some reason, the 111th Congress.passed it anyway. (May they live in infamy)

The people of this nation have spent the last 7 years telling Congress to repeal it. Not to replace it, to REPEAL it. REPEAL, period. Get rid of it. The people of this nation have elected Representatives and Senators and now a president on the promise of repeal. Not replacement, repeal,

Yes, there are things the Congress could have (and should have)done to reduce health care costs for ordinary people. Engaging on a financially unsupportable, privacy invading, government expanding, takeover of  what was the best health care system on the face of the Earth at that time was and is not one of those things.

Kudos to the House of Representatives, who passed more than 40 bills to repeal all or part of obamacare  during Mr. obama's tenure only to have them single - handedly blocked by Mr. reid who refused to bring a single one of them to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

You said the people needed to give the GOP the House after this monstrous thing was passed. 
We gave you the House

You said the people needed to give the GOP the Senate when Mr. reid blocked all the bills the House passed, so that you could get one of them to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
We gave you the Senate. 

Then you said we needed to give the GOP the presidency because even if a bill managed to pass both the House and the Senate, the person sitting in the office of the POTUS would veto it and you didn't have enough votes to override a veto. (Because, apparently you do not trust the people to pressure the democrat and independent members enough to get you the votes you need.) 
We gave you the presidency.

And what do we get? This. This thing that must be broken into three parts and would leave much of the regulatory nonsense associated with obamacare intact to bite us in the behind down the road. That is why this bill failed. Not because Mr. Trump did anything wrong - aside from trusting you - GOP congressmen and women.  But because you promised us repeal and then you gave us this. You are lucky you aren't all facing recall elections. Don't count on retaining your seats if you refuse to repeal obamacare. We were promised and we expect a full repeal.
( “Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.” ~ Thomas Jefferson)

Then, and only then, we can talk about other measures that could and should have been tried long, LONG before that monstrosity we now call obamacare should have made it to the floor. 

Things like interstate portability to allow competition between insurers to bring down prices. Things like tort reform so that doctors don't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for malpractice insurance. Things like requiring health care facilities to provide price lists for goods and services so that people will know how much it will cost them to speak to a doctor for 15 minutes or to get a strep test.

Can you hear us now?  Or would you prefer to be told with tar and feathers? We can do that if you continue to lie to us and treat us like children who can't understand the way things "have" to get done.  The plain fact is that if you can't get this done with the House, the Senate and the presidency behind it, then you are incompetent or worse and should be removed as a political party. The democrats may promise pie in the sky and downright evil, but at least they actually think they can get it for their constituents - and have been doing so by increments for the last century while you keep trying to get the democrats to like you by giving them those very same increments. Stop it. We did not elect you to  win a popularity contest.
 Yes, the media and the democrats will scream bloody murder about it. That's what children do when they don't get their own way and the democrat party has been taken over by communists who have been doing their level best to bring the political discourse in this nation down to the level of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum. Because children don't get to vote, and if they can convince enough citizens to act like children, then they can argue that they are the adults who know best for all of us. It is national suicide to give them their way in this.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

Oh, and this post is not an April Fool's joke, unless the American people are the ones being pranked by a Congress that never had any intention of repealing that pig of a bill, in which case it is a very poor jest indeed.
27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

28 For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations.

29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this. ~ Psalm 22:27-31