Category Archives: Anti-Conservatism

Culture of hate

Posted on by

We, conservatives, Christians, have been under attack for decades, since the sixties if not earlier. Initially, no one really cared, nor took any interest in the attacks. This is America, after all. We all have 1st Amendment rights. Don’t we? We can’t lost that! It can’t happen here.

Well, it can happen here. Our first amendment rights, as well as all the other constitutionally protected rights are under attack. The left has carefully seeded hate against us and those seeds have now sprouted. If you doubt this, just scan the headlines. You needn’t read the articles, the headlines will tell you enough.

Gay-rights advocates torpedo GoFundMe campaign for Christian-owned bakery

For those of you who have been living under a rock, a bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes, was targeted by a lesbian couple. They asked the bakery to make a wedding cake. The bakery refused saying it was against their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued for discrimination—and won. The bakery’s 1st Amendment right was ignored. The liberal court assessed the bakery a fine large enough to bankrupt them. The headline above tells the rest of the story.

In another instance, the John Hopkins University Student Government has banned Chick-fil-A from their campus. Why? “Johns Hopkins University has banned Chick-fil-A from its campus saying that the restaurant is a “microaggression” against its students.” It mattered not that Chick-fil-A has no presence on the university campus. The act was nothing more than pure spite.

These were attacks against Christians and a Christian-owned business. But these aren’t the only instances of hate and violence. Rabid environmentalists have used violence for decades. Usually those acts were against property. One of the latest attacks was direct violence against a person, an employee of a company.

Will there be a National Conversation after environmentalist shoots energy worker?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 17, 2015 by Noah Rothman

Get ready for a week of introspection from the press, particularly the left-leaning media, as a wave of tortured self-criticism characterizes coverage of what is sure to dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future… LOL. Just kidding!

A disturbing story out of West Virginia flagged by The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay indicates that a man, enraged by the drilling taking place in his state, shot an employee of an energy exploitation company on Monday.

A man dressed in camouflage with his face painted black approached Mark Miller, an employee with HG Energy LLC, on Joe’s Creek near Sod, Napier said.

“At that time he played Mr. Miller a recording that said ‘Stop the drilling’ and then stuck a gun through the window of the passenger side of the truck,” [Lincoln County Chief Sheriff’s Deputy J.J.] Napier said.

A reporter with The Charleston Gazette called a member of the West Virginia Sierra Club for comment and received unequivocal condemnation of this violent incident, but the episode has received little attention in the national press.

For a media culture that is quick to blame conservatives for every episode of violence with a potential political motive, the commentary community’s silence on this incident is deafening.

The column continues listing the instances where the lefties acted with violence. In some cases the liberal media tried, and failed, to blame conservatives for the acts of violent liberals.

The left has purposely sought to divide the country. A country divided is weak and when weakened, that nation is susceptible for a takeover. A coup, in other words.

A coup need not be a violent overthrow, it can be insidious, a chip here, a chip there. The question is not how, but when. When will the people of this nation wake up and resist. That resistance need not be violent, either. The same methods used by the left, can also be used by us to counteract the left.

With Obama, Holder and the new Holder clone as Attorney General, the left is emboldened. The current crop of GOP leadership in Washington are willing enablers of the coup. They fear the left and are abetting them. We have a chance to make corrections. Remember Cruz, Walker, Paul, and Rubio, each a conservative, when the election cycle commences. Remember, too, that Boehner and McConnell must go along with their cronies in Congress.

Facebook

All the news the MSM is afraid to report

Posted on by

There was a murder in Chapel Hill, NC, recently. A man, his wife and his wife’s sister were killed. All three were muslims. The MSM and Al Jazeera had a field day. It wasn’t long until a suspect was in custody.

Then, suddenly, the story dropped from the news! If it weren’t for the British and Israeli press, the story would have completely disappeared. Why? The suspect wasn’t a bible thumpin’, gun-totin’, red-neck Tea Partier. No, he was a liberal, atheist whose favorite news outlet was MSNBC and his favorite news-reader was Rachel Maddow.

By-the-way, if the FCC has its way, you wouldn’t be able to find news in the foreign press. The FCC wants the internet to be ‘equal’, read controlled and censored.

***

I’ve been writing this blog since 2008. I’ve ruffled the fur of politicos from my local city council, a couple of county office holders, some state Representatives and Senators, and I have a running battle with the RINOs in Washington and my local Congresswoman. Obama has a solution. It just appeared on the Drudge Report.

Federal Election Commission to Consider Regulating Online Political Speech

By Rudy Takala, February 11, 2015 – 10:15 AM

(CNSNews.com) — The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is holding a hearing today to receive public feedback on whether it should create new rules regulating political speech, including political speech on the Internet that one commissioner warned could affect blogs, YouTube videos and even websites like the Drudge Report.

The hearing is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC last year, which struck down the FEC’s previous cap on aggregate campaign contributions from a single donor in an election cycle.

Before the decision, individuals were limited to a combined total of $46,200 in contributions to all federal candidates, and $70,800 to federal political action committees and parties.

Individuals are no longer restricted by aggregate limits, which Chief Justice John Roberts said “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities’.”

They may now “contribute up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee, and $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC [political action committee],” according to the FEC.

The commission, which consists of three Republican and three Democratic members, last considered such regulations in 2005. However, intense opposition from First Amendment groups resulted in rules that were limited to paid advertisements from political campaigns, parties, and PACs.

This time around, organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation have warned that some Democrats on the commission would like to impose much more burdensome regulations that could serve as the equivalent of spending caps in restricting political speech.

The article continues at the website. You can read it all, here.

What the FEC and FCC wants is to plant commissars in every newsroom, every TV station and to license all news outlets. It would effectively kill independent bloggers like me. Shades of the KBG and the Soviet Union. This is what the liberals and the democrats want. After all, Joe Stalin was such a great leader and brought Russia out of feudalism…by starving millions of people in the Ukraine when he collectivized agriculture. He murdered more across the former Soviet Union and in his subjugated East European countries. In fact Russia, Putin, is still killing anyone who opposes him and in the Ukraine. You won’t hear about that from the MSM, either.

***

If you do a bit of research, you will also find that the Cold War has returned. Obama and the democrats ignore the signs but they are there.

WEST: NORAD Head Says Russia Increasing Arctic Long Range Air Patrols

By:
http://i0.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/f22s-intercept-Bear.jpg?resize=625%2C469

US Air Force F-22 Raptor escorting a Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bomber. US Air Force Photo

SAN DIEGO, CALIF. – While Russian military aircraft have stepped up their activity everywhere from the North Sea to the Baltic to the Black Sea in the last year they have also been spotted more frequently closer to the U.S. territory in the Arctic, the head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) told USNI News on Tuesday.

In particular – flights of Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ Bombers have increased recently NORTHCOM’s Adm. Bill Gortney said.

“They’ve been very aggressive – under my NORAD hat – for us in the Arctic,” he said to USNI News following a keynote address at the WEST 2015 conference.
“Aggressive in the amount of flights, not aggressive in how they fly.”

Since the March seizure of the Ukrainian region of Crimea by Russian forces Moscow has significantly stepped up air patrols in Europe, Asia and near the Americas.

The flights extend as far North as the edge of American air space near Alaska and as far South as U.S. holdings in Guam.

In December, two Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornets intercepted a two Bears near the Beaufort Sea entering a U.S. and Canadian Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear 'H' off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo

A Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ‘H’ off the coast of Scotland in 2014. UK Royal Air Force Photo.

NATO interdicted a record number of Russian flights in 2014 and the Russians claim likewise the U.S. has stepped up its own flights near Russian territory.

During the Cold War, Russian long-range aircraft routinely patrolled the edges of U.S. and Canadian airspace probing NORAD defenses, but largely stopped after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

As for the current round of patrols, the bomber flights are being used as a “messaging tool,” Gortney said.
“Obviously it’s pretty clear that they’re doing that. So they’re flying in places… where they’ve never flown before.”

At the height of the Cold War, Americans stationed in Moscow were continuously harassed by the KGB. Embassy employees sometimes were sequestered on the Embassy grounds for their protection. Non-governmental Americans, news reporters and others, were assigned a ‘minder’ to insure they neither saw nor reported anything contrary to the official Soviet agenda.

Those times are returning. This time it’s Putin’s Federal Security Service disguised as the Russian mob who are targeting Americans.

Report: Crime, Anti-American Harassment in Russia Grows

New Security Dangers Follow Moscow’s Annexation of Crimea

BY: ,

Anti-American sentiment and criminal activities have increased in Moscow since Russian forces took over Ukraine’s Crimea and continue to destabilize eastern Ukraine, a recent State Department security report reveals.

Security threats in Moscow and Russia include petty crime, physical attacks, activities by organized crime groups, corrupt law enforcement and security officials, widespread cyber crime, and economic espionage, according to the Feb. 6 report produced by the Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), a State Department group that supports American businesses abroad.

“The social and political unrest in Ukraine has led to increasing political tensions between the Russian Federation and the U.S. and other Western nations,” the report, based on reports from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, said. “As a result, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment appears to be increasing, especially in certain media outlets.”

A copy of the internal report was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The report said U.S.-Russia ties were “greatly strained” after Moscow’s actions in Ukraine.

Embassy reports indicate a number of Americans were verbally harassed and physically assaulted in the last part of 2014, but the report said so far no major campaign of targeted attacks against Americans was detected.

“Immediately following the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia by the U.S. and Europe, some American ‘iconic brand’ companies were heavily scrutinized by the Russian authorities, and in some cases, closed, if only temporarily,” the report said.

The report concluded that Russia’s political, economic, and social climate “changed markedly as a result of the country’s illegal annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, ongoing support for military separatists in eastern Ukraine, U.S./Western economic sanctions, and a dramatic drop in the price of oil that significantly weakened the value of the Russian ruble.”

On cyber threats, the report said: “The cybercrime threat is acute. The risk of infection, compromise, and theft via malware, spam email, sophisticated spear phishing, and social engineering attacks is significant.”

The report warned all U.S. businesses and citizens to exercise caution and adhere to all cyber security best practices.

The report also said Russian economic espionage and theft of intellectual property poses a threat to Americans.

“American businesses are susceptible to economic and industrial espionage,” the report said. “Information theft, especially from insufficiently protected computer networks, is common. It is recommended that businesses employ counter-surveillance techniques, such as video monitoring devices, alarm systems, and computer network protection programs.”

Russia’s Federal Security Service also can take action against Americans doing business with the Russian military-industrial complex.

“Any misunderstanding or dispute in such transactions can attract the involvement of the security services and lead to investigation or prosecution for espionage,” the report said.

In a section on Russian government surveillance, the report said, “OSAC constituents have no expectation of privacy.”

All telephone and electronic communications are subject to monitoring and surveillance, something that “can potentially compromise sensitive information.”

“The Russian System for Operational-Investigative Activities (SORM) permits authorities to monitor and record all data that traverses Russia’s networks lawfully,” the report said. “Travelers should assume all communications are monitored.”

The article continues here.

The rot in Washington extends much further than allowing a massive influx of illegal aliens bent on usurping citizen’s rights and money. It extends to purposely alienating long-term allies all the while intentionally ignoring real threats to our national security.

It is a truism that people get the government they deserve. It’s unfortunate the rest of us have to endure that same government along with the sycophants.

Facebook

They’re off!

Posted on by

The 2016 campaign season started this week with GOP sessions in Iowa and other locales. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio received applause. Rand Paul a few less, mainly due to his lack of support for national security. Apparently Rand Paul has no problems with the Castros in Cuba. Cruz and Rubio, do. In Arizona, John McCain was booed at the AZ state GOP meeting and Sarah Palin hinted she may consider running again in 2016. Of course, the liberal media went into hysterics. All-in-all, it was a good start.

***

Everyone is watching the scenes and positions: Conservatives vs. RINOs, RINOs and Liberals against Conservatives. There  is another, less well known, battle going on in, of all places, the gamer and science-fiction communities. Have you heard about Gamergate and the controversy in the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) over the Hugo Award? Most people think the conservative vs. progressive conflict involved only politics. Wrong!

Gamergate is…complicated. The SFWA controversy less so. Both involve censorship and attacks by ‘progressives’ against more conservative participants. Gamergate, a term created by Firefly actor, Adam Baldwin, began with a controversy involving sexism, feminism in on-line games. Self-declared critics quickly took sides and the battle was on. Taken as a whole, Gamergate is trivial. Viewed as a cultural battle, it is another battleground used by the progressive movement to change American culture into a tyranny where free speech and expression do not exist.

It issue became so controversial that Wiki banned five feminist editors from touching the topic. The issue was ‘fairness.’ ‘Fairness,’ however, depends on your personal viewpoint. Wiki strives to maintain impartiality for their online encyclopedia. Usually, they are successful and this ban is a response to maintain that impartiality.

The SFWA/Hugo Award controversy is less confused. Larry Corriea, a SF/Fantasy writer is on one side, that of conservatives, many of them members of the Baen writers group. Baen writers are generally conservative. Many of the writers product military science fiction and write with a more conservative viewpoint. On the other side is John Scalzi, a self-declared liberal and progressive, and the progressive members of SFWA.

An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy

Posted on April 24, 2014 by correia45

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

  1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
  2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
  3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
  4. Point made.

The column continues with a discussion about motives and issues surrounding the award process. If you read all of Correia’s post, you will notice the controversy is not about books, novels, nor much about their quality nor content. It’s about politics—conservatives vs. liberals.

On the other side, among many, is John Scalzi, past President of SFWA whose term expired in 2013. Scalzi, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, chose to not run again for office. His name was the only one on the ballot when he was elected.

Correia and Vox Day have been accused of attempting to stuff the ballot box by creating proxy memberships in SFWA. Scalzi admits that the tactic has been used before by liberal writers in their attempts to win Hugos. The tactic is fine when liberal writers do it. But when Correia gathers some real conservative writers and persuades them to join SFWA, it suddenly become controversial. Another form of the liberal bias is the weighted voting system. Toni Weisskopf, Baen’s publisher, had the most votes for Editor Long Form award, but came in 2nd due to WSFS’s (World Science Fiction Society) weighted voting system. Baen’s conservative books are an anathema in the SFWA.

Scalzi wrote this posting after the Hugo Awards were announced. I’ve never heard of the winning writers, Charles Stross excepted, and I’ve been reading science fiction since I was in grade school sixty years ago. Of the winners, however, every single one of them is a progressive who push their political agenda openly in their novels. Even USA Today noticed the conflict.

Thoughts On the Hugo Awards, 2014

,

In no particular order (and for reference, the winners are here):

1. I am super-delighted that the Hugo Best Novel Award went to Ancillary Justice. One, because it’s fantastic, but two, because I feel entirely unwarranted pride in Ann Leckie’s career, because I gave her her first professional sale, and was delighted to give Ancillary Justice a blurb for when it came out. I had nothing to do with the book’s success, other than receive the pleasure of letting people know I thought it was great. I’m still super proud of its clean sweep of the major SF/F awards, and of Ann. This is just great.

2. I’m also giggling that Charlie Stross name-checked me and Lou Anders when he won for Equoid; I remember that fateful night in Denver in 2008, when the messy seeds of that story were planted with two words, the two words being “unicorn bukkake.” And now, Charlie’s got a Hugo out of it. That’s just about perfect.

3. Also: Mary Robinette Kowal! Who is one of my favorite people on the planet. Some of you may know that her Hugo-wining novelette was disqualified last year, despite having enough nominations to make the slate, because its first appearance was in audio form. It then appeared in word form, and here we are. I’m thrilled that it got a chance to be considered in another year, although frankly it should have never been disqualified at all. I do believe a proposed rule change would have audio-first stories considered in fiction categories along with print-first stories. I think that’s wise.

4. And generally I am delighted with the slate of winners in other categories as well. I think there was a fair amount of concern that the large increase of Hugo voters this year was going to be evidence of (for lack of a better phrase for them) “single issue” voters — specifically those voting only for Wheel of Time or participating because of the “sad puppy” slate of conservative writers. But the voting tallies suggest that if there were “single issue” voters, they were swamped out by people who did their homework and then voted from there. To which I say: Well done, Loncon 3 voters! You done good.

5. You’ve seen me snark about it, I’m sure, but now that the voting is over, what did I really think of the “sad puppy” slate of nominees championed by Larry Correia and others? What I thought at the beginning, which was: The folks pushing the slate played within the rules, so game on, and the game is to convince people that the work deserves the Hugo. It does not appear the voters were convinced. As a multiple Hugo loser myself, I can say: That’s the breaks, and better luck another year.

With that said, Correia was foolish to put his own personal capital as a successful and best selling novelist into championing Vox Day and his novelette, because Vox Day is a real bigoted shithole of a human being, and his novelette was, to put it charitably, not good (less charitably: It was like Gene Wolfe strained through a thick and rancid cheesecloth of stupid). Doing that changed the argument from something perfectly legitimate, if debatable — that conservative writers are often ignored for or discounted on award ballots because their personal politics generally conflict with those of the award voters — into a different argument entirely, i.e., fuck you, we got an undeserving bigoted shithole on the Hugo ballot, how you like them apples.

Which is a shame. It’s fine for Correia to beclown himself with Day, if such is his joy, and he deserves to reap the fruits of such an association. I suspect, however, there are others whom he championed for his “sad puppy” slate who were less thrilled to find themselves looped in with Day by involuntary association. Likewise, Correia is a good writer and his works are fun to read and easy to enjoy; others he championed are likewise fine writers, and their works deserving of award consideration. He didn’t do his work, or the work of these other writers, any favors by muddling his message with Day’s nonsense.

Now, I understand Correia will be happy to tell you that his Hugo loss doesn’t matter to him, which is fine. I do wonder if he considered how other people that were seen as part of his slate feel the same way, or whether he’d do them or their careers any damage by associating them with a bigoted shithole, or that if he really wanted to make the argument that a particular set of writers are ignored by award voters, that he went about making the argument in just about the worst way possible. Bad strategy, bad tactics, bad result.

6. About the entire Wheel of Time series being nominated, again, fully within the rules, so game on, and I would have been honestly happy for Brandon Sanderson if he’d picked up the Hugo with Robert Jordan. I think people underestimate the skill and talent required to do what Brandon did over the course of three books, which was to satisfy the long-term fans of the series, bring the series to a well-developed end with all the story arcs closed up and and emotions earned, and to keep his own ego as a writer in check as he did it. Think that’s easy? I sure as hell don’t — and as a writer, I couldn’t have done it. If Wheel of Time had won, Brandon would have earned every millimeter of that rocket, and I would have been cheering for him.

Likewise, I was never particularly worried about Wheel of Time voters being “single issue” voters — that is, voting only for Wheel of Time and then blowing off the rest of the ballot. Anecdotally, I know a fair sampling of Wheel of Time readers, and none of them only read Wheel of Time. Having the series on the ballot may have brought in new voters, but it seems like they took their voting seriously. So there you have it.

7. In sum: A very good year for the Hugos; indeed, a vintage year. Congratulations to the winners; congratulations to the nominees; congratulations to the voters. See you next year in Spokane.

Culture wars exist. More specifically, it is one culture war masquerading as many. In the end, it still comes down to this: it’s them or us. I know which side I’m on.

Facebook

Retaliation

Posted on by

If you thought the GOP establishment would accept the flood of new conservatives in Congress, you were wrong. McConnell, et. al., is already planning to remove leading conservative Senators. Ted Cruz is too strong in Texas, but Mike Lee of Utah is perceived to be weaker.

They’re Coming for Mike Lee

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 22nd, 2014 at 12:50 PM

It is extremely notable that Manu Raju of the Politico has written that the establishment intends to destroy Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)See Full Scorecard97%. Raju serves as the court stenographer for the Senate GOP leadership. His pieces are routinely littered with the conventional wisdom and talking points of the Senate GOP leadership. He has more than once anticipated Senate GOP leadership strategy based on their conversations with him.

So when Manu Raju says the establishment intends to go on offense against the tea party by beating Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% in the Utah Republican Primary, we can be sure Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67%, the NRSC, etc. will be stepping aside and failing to give Lee the support they gave Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)51%, etc.

Of note, the story focuses on Jon Huntsman, Sr., who remains well respected in Utah. Huntsman, you will recall, is the man who spread the rumors about Herman Cain in 2012, in an effort to help his son, Jon Huntsman the lesser, run for President. All he managed to accomplish was taking out Herman Cain and getting his granddaughter an MSNBC show.
But Huntsman is clearly planning on destroying Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)97% to gain a tea party scalp and the GOP establishment in D.C. clearly plans on standing aside to let it happen.

You can read the entire article by following this link.

One interesting portion of the article is the involvement of the Huntsman family. John Huntsman was a candidate for President in 2012. As the campaign progressed, his views aligned him more with Obama and the democrats that with any of the remaining GOP candidates. In the end, it became clear that Huntsman’s purpose in the campaign was the disruption of the other GOP candidates instead of a true run for the Presidency. With the Huntsman family deep pockets, Mike Lee will be the underdog in funding his re-election to the Senate.

***

Bill de Blasio and Al Sharpton have been accused with fomenting the tension that led to the murders of two New York police officers. When New York Mayor de Blasio attended a memorial service for the two officers, many of the officers attending turned their backs to the Mayor.

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik said, “They [de Blasio and Sharpton] have blood on their hands.”  The statement appeared in an article appearing in The American Thinker. De Blasio’s relations with the NYPD continue to deteriorate. With growing pro-police pressure, de Blasio attempted to step back and issued a statement pleading for a cessation of the anti-police protests. Al Sharpton, one of the protest leaders, refused.

The growing disruption is a creation of the media and of charlatans like Sharpton. They claim Eric Garner was choked to death while being arrested. He was not. Eric Garner died of natural causes, a heart attack, an hour after being arrested due to his own health issues. You won’t learn that in the media. No, you have to review the coroner’s reports because the media ignored that vital piece of information. The Coroner blamed the cops before the Grand Jury, but when the report was examined, it said otherwise.

The misinformation by the media and their liberal accomplices are slowly coming to light. Generations of Americans have been mislead by the liberal controlled media. Some members of the black community are beginning to realize they’ve been lied to for decades. Follow the link. It is an interesting read.

Facebook

The day of the Tyrants…

Posted on by

…will soon begin to end…or at least, hit a speed bump. The level of tyranny changes on a daily basis. One of the most egregious acts by a tyrant, an act clearly unconstitutional, has been reversed. Houston Mayor Annise Parker has told her enablers to withdraw the subpoenas to seize the sermons of five Houston pastors. Her reason for the subpoena? It violated her new anti-gay/anti-free speech edict.

She received immediate push-back. The Texas Attorney General wrote her a letter informing her that she was violating the 1st Amendment. The Houston-Five, as they are now known, refused to comply with the Mayor’s order. Christians and conservative began to send Bibles to the mayor. Finally, when she realized she had really stepped into a pile of hot, steaming dung, she reversed her order.

Houston mayor drops bid to subpoena pastors’ sermons

By , FoxNews.com

Subpoenas issued to five Houston pastors demanding all sermons and correspondence dealing with homosexuality, gender identity and the city’s Equal Rights ordinance have been withdrawn, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor announced at a Wednesday press conference.

“After much contemplation and discussion, I am directing the city legal department to withdraw the subpoenas issued to the five Houston pastors who delivered the petitions, the anti-HERO petitions, to the city of Houston and who indicated that they were responsible for the overall petition effort,” said Mayor Annise Parker in remarks covered by television station KPRC.

My column on the issue sparked a bit of national outrage – well – a lot of national outrage. To be honest it was a full-scale hullabaloo. City Hall was deluged with telephone calls, letters, emails – along with hundreds of Bibles and sermons. More than 50,000 supporters signed a petition.

Nevertheless, the mayor still seems hell-bent on defending the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance – a piece of legislation that will in part give grown men who identify as women the right to use the restrooms of their choice.

“It is extremely important to me to protect our Equal Rights Ordinance from repeal, and it is extremely important to me to make sure that every Houstonian knows that their lives are valid and protected and acknowledged,” Parker said. “We are going to continue to vigorously defend our ordinance against repeal efforts.”

Tyranny retreats in the face of opposition. As she was quoted above, Houston’s tyrant has no intention of backing down. This setback is just a small pause in the progress of her tyrannical agenda.

We, here near Kansas City, have another example of tyranny. Over the summer, Kansas City Mayor Sly James rammed through the city council an ordinance banning the open carry of firearms. In itself, such an act has been done in cities across America. What was most tyrannical in this case was the motivation behind the ordinance—suppression of free speech.

He said aggressive open carrying of weapons can be intimidating for customers and bad for business. — Kansas City Star.

Mayor James’ logic for the ordinance was that he didn’t want to see people legally carrying firearms openly in Kansas City. He could not provide any evidence that carrying weapons increased lawlessness but he could create a law to make open carry illegal. The Missouri Legislature passed a law this year that made James’ ordinance invalid—but only for those licensed carry a weapon concealed.

Mayor James knew his ordinance would soon be invalid but he pushed it through anyway. His purpose was not public saftety. He knew he had no evidence that his law would improve that. No, the ordinance was enacted solely to curb acts of free speech from the Open Carry advocates.

There are more instances of liberal tyranny across the country. In Idaho, a city passed an ordinance requiring churches to perform same-sex marriages regardless of the minister’s religious views. The order was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment but liberals ignore the Constitution when they violate it.

That Idaho city has now backed off from their order—which included jail time and heavy fines for non-compliance. But never doubt, tyranny is only waiting for attention to wander and they will return. That is why we must be always vigilant and ready to respond to every tyrannical act.

Facebook

‘Tis Thursday

Posted on by

It’s not quite the Ides of March, but it’s close. This is a special week; a number of friends have birthdays this week and Mrs. Crucis and I will have our 46th wedding anniversary this coming weekend.

On top of it all, a good friend, who blogs under the name Old NFO, has a book out. If you like thrillers and mysteries, I urge you to buy this book: The Grey Man: -Vignettes.

The Bad Guys Don’t Stand a Chance

TGMVignettesTexas rancher and lawman John Cronin knows what it means to be tough. A decorated Vietnam vet with connections to law enforcement agencies all around the world, he’s thwarted smugglers and drug plots across the globe with more than a few narrow escapes. Whether it’s a sniper competition or teaching the feds a thing or two about police work, Cronin doesn’t hesitate to pull the trigger. Of course, this slow-talking lawman’s biggest challenge yet might be when his granddaughter Jesse falls in love with a Marine. When drug smugglers stir up trouble in Cronin’s backyard and try to kill Jesse and her new beau, all hell breaks loose, and Cronin and his granddaughter are just the people to set things right.

You can read more about The Grey Man, here.

***

Ann Coulter is a massive disappointment. At one time, I respected her. She attacked liberals exposing their lies and underlying motives. She’s still attacking, except…now she’s attacking conservatives and backing the GOP establishment…RINOs, in other words like Mitch McConnell.

In September, 2013, Coulter couldn’t say enough good about Ted Cruz and supported him against liberal attacks. Now, it’s 2014 and Coulter has made 180º turn.

Just compare her statements, then: “But instead of attacking Obamacare and the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Democrats over this massively unpopular law, far too many Republicans have been spending their time attacking Ted Cruz.” and now, in 2014, she supports those attacking Ted Cruz and the Tea Party.

First conservative icon Thomas Sowell turned on Ted Cruz, now it appears that Ann Coulter is souring on the Texas Republican as well.

Sowell published two columns this week slamming Cruz for being self-serving. Coulter praised the first of Sowell’s columns in a tweet Wednesday.

Later, in an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity” Wednesday night, Coulter doubled down on her praise of Sowell’s anti-Cruz column: ”I never push anyone else’s column but mine. Today everyone has got to read Thomas Sowell’s article.”

During the “Hannity” segment, Coulter attacked tea party groups for being filled with “shysters” and “conmen,” naming specifically the Senate Conservatives Fund as an example. The Senate Conservatives Fund was a key outside group that supported Cruz in his fight to “Defund Obamacare” last fall, which ultimately led to a government shutdown.

“And these people are just trying to get money off good Americans by saying we’re going after ‘establishment Republicans,” Coulter complained about tea party groups like the Senate Conservatives Fund. “How about going after Democrats?”

“Do not trust anyone who says they are trying to defeat ‘establishment Republicans,’” she added. — The Daily Caller.

Coulter appears to be speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She can’t get away with supporting Cruz five months ago and then supporting the Cruz-bashers now. Her attacks against the Tea Party is ludicrous as is her support today for the GOP establishment—read that as supporting McConnell and Boehner.

She claims that ‘Pubs must win regardless. Wrong, Ann Coulter, electing ‘Pubs who rollover and vote like democrats is a defeat. The way for the country to win is to elect conservatives.

Why is Coulter flipping? Maybe because her consulting company is dependent on the GOP establishment for income? Maybe because McConnell and Boehner have threatened that if she doesn’t support them and attack conservatives she’ll no longer get those lucrative speaking gigs? Or, just maybe, Coulter has been a fraud all along whose allegiance is not to a republican philosophy or conservative principles, but to the all-mighty dollar? Likely it’s all-of-the-above.

Facebook

Disappointments.

Posted on by

I had a discussion with a friend yesterday and the conversation came around to Rand Paul. We both agreed that he looked good when he was first elected. Then we tried to think of any accomplishments. We were at a loss. While Paul has generally been considered to be conservative, he has failed to implement those philosophies. The one thing that we could remember was that he supported Ted Cruz’s and Mike Lee’s cloture filibuster last year on a bill and stood up to filibuster a gun control bill.

All that was last year. This year Rand Paul, the junior Kentucky Senator, has an opportunity to rid the Senate of a liberal elite, Mitch McConnell. He has remained silent for the most part and when directly asked about McConnell, skirted the issue.

Rand Paul Bails on Bringing Change to Washington

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 17th, 2014 at 06:16 PM

Rand Paul enjoys talking a big game about being a fundamental change agent in Washington. He likes to line up for publicity stunts like filing a lawsuit against the NSA which will almost certainly be dismissed (and send out handy list-building emails based on these publicity stunts), or staging an almost completely pointless filibuster on drones, but  when it comes to actual accomplishments that have changed the way things are done in Washington or even within the Senate GOP caucus, Paul’s cabinet is pretty empty. One area where Rand Paul might actually do some real good would be to help oust cancer Mitch McConnell, who last week singlehandedly gave Obama a blank check on the debt ceiling, and who fought tooth and nail for Rand Paul’s opponent in Paul’s primary. Here Paul might be able to do some real good where he is popular with the base in his home state in terms of using his national profile to raise awareness for Bevin’s campaign and help combat McConnell’s fundraising machine.

Instead, of course, Rand Paul has punted on his most significant opportunity to change Washington and is endorsing McConnell. What is most insulting about this decision is not that Paul made it, but the extraordinarily flimsy reasoning behind it. Look at this mealy-mouthed explanation allegedly given by Paul to Glenn Beck:

“You know things are complicated with endorsements. I’d say one because he asked me, and two because he asked me when he did not have an opponent, it wasn’t a choice at that time. And three I am someone that likes to bring people together.”

Wow. Well, that’s three compelling arguments, I guess.

First, he was asked. And who is he to say no to anyone? When someone akss you to do something, the answer always in all circumstances must be yes. To say otherwise would be impolite. One does not change the culture of Washington by being impolite, I guess.

Two, he was asked when McConnell did not have an opponent. Okay. Did he not consider that one might emerge? Were there literally no indications that this might be so? If not, why was McConnell calling in the first place? Now that a challenger has emerged, does he have any thoughts at all as to whether McConnell is better than this challenger?

Three, folks, Rand Paul has just said with a straight face that he’s a uniter, not a divider. Circle status: squared. Who can doubt Rand Paul’s reasons at this point?

The longer Rand Paul continues appearing at McConnell’s side, he is lending support to the very forces he purports to oppose, and that he loudly berates in his numerous fundraising and list-building pitches. If Rand Paul wants to make an actual difference in Washington instead of just talking about it, he needs to at the very least withdraw his endorsement of McConnell and remain neutral in this race, if not support Bevin’s campaign outright.

I had great hopes for Rand Paul as a saner version of his father. Saner, yes. More effective, no. Talk is cheap, Rand, but it is action that is important.

And, it is his actions that creates more disappointment. I would expect, if Rand Paul won’t support conservatives against McConnell, he would at least remain silent. Unfortunately, Rand Paul is on record attacking Matt Bevin as a McConnell surrogate. Such acts makes me wonder what McConnell has on Rand Paul.

Facebook