Friday, June 26, 2015

ISIS Terrorists and the American Librul Terrorists

Is there any difference between modern American libruls and the medieval muslim terrorists in ISIS?  The obvious answer is NO!  Modern librulism is an evangelical religion that allows no dissent.  The medieval muslim terrorist in ISIS also allows no disagreement.  The modern medieval ISIS terrorist destroys their own history because it doesn't agree with their perceived modern memories or teachings.  The American libruls are on a librul crusade to remove any mention of Confederate being from our country.

REMOVING A WINDOW FROM THE NATIONAL CATHEDRAL

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/25/national-cathedral-confederate-windows/29299901/

 APPLE SELF CENSORS ANY DISPLAY OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG IN GAMES

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/25/america-loses-its-mind-apple-pulls-historical-games-featuring-the-confederate-flag-from-the-app-store/

REMOVAL OF MOVIE "GONE WITH THE WIND"

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/24/ny-post-film-critic-its-about-time-we-retired-gone-with-the-wind-too-dont-you-think/

REMOVAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS STATUE

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/23/matt-bevin-calls-for-removal-of-jefferson-davis-statue-from-kentucky-capitol-as-retailers-dump-confederate-flag-merch/

REMOVAL OF STONE MOUNTAIN CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL

m.snopes.com/stone-mountain-petition/




Friday, June 12, 2015

The Right to Restrict Speech Deemed Offensive

The politically correct (PC) police have been raising havoc with the United States lately, trying to turn it into a socialist enclave where only approved speech is allowed.  Surprise, PC police!  There is no mention in the US Constitution of a right to restrict speech deemed to be offensive..   The US Constitution provides the following rights:

1.     Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free                       exercise therof.
        Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
        The right of the people peaceably to assemble.
        To petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II.     The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III.    No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.

IV.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against                             unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

V.    Grand Jury for Capital crimes, witness against himself, nor deprived of life, liberty or property               without due process of law.

VI.   The right to a speedy and public trial.

VII.  Right of  trial by jury in common law.

VIII. Excessive bail or fines nor cruel and unusual punishment.

IX.   The enumeration in the Constitution if certain rights shall not be construed to deny or                             disparage others retained by the people.

X.    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the                     States, are reserved to the States respectively, to to the people.

The above are the personal rights enumerated in the Constitution.  Notice, that within these enumerated rights, there is no mention or abortion, privacy, being offended, nor special rights and treatment for "minority" races, sexual orientation, people who change sexes, special speech rights for certain groups only.  Now, there are other amendments that give these particular groups the same rights as as all other citizens, but not special rights.   Abortion, privacy, and special rights can, and have been, established by our unelected judicial system with librul judges for life, but the "right" to be offended by someones speech can not be established in that manner, because it was established by the first amendment.   The only way to restrict offensive speech is to repeal the first Amendment first. I know the socialists are trying to do that, but just for their opposition.   You see, Article IX does not say the libruls can't claim that being offended by other's speech is a non-enumerated right, but that doesn't make it so.   The first amendment that enables them to make that claim, also prohibits that claim from being recognized an a non-enumerated right.

As we have Armed Forces to protect and preserve the rights in the Constitution, someone must place their life and safety on the line to do that.  These rights might be endowed, but they are not free.  They must be protected.  If you want to make the "right" to not hear offensive speech effective, You must establish it with your fist, not in the courts or the abuse of the First Amendments freedom of the press.  If you think you have the right not to be offended by someone else's freedom of speech, than either get some earplugs or boxing glove.



Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Thursday, April 23, 2015

LISTENING


THE ONLY PART OF

THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT

THAT LISTENS TO THE

AMERICAN PEOPLE

IS

NSA

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Series"Sons of Liberty"

I can't help it.  The poverty of the Modern American scholar is devastating to my mind.  I can not believe the abject ignorance of history by the writers of this presentation.  Nothing to do with PC, mind you, just ignorance of history.  The first was the term "Boycott."  That was actually a man's name, Captain, Irishman, and he lived in the late 1800s.  They didn't know about him in the mid-late 1700s.  These so-called writers are paid lots of money to know what an eighth grade student knew in the 1950s, and they still don't know it.

The second thing is that only Ralph Waldo Emerson would assume that Paul Revere would call out that "the British are coming."  When the writers get their material from an old poem instead of actual history, they are cheating us.   The colonials of the 1770s were British.  It would be as absurd for them to use the term "British," as it would be for an American of today to say "the Americans are coming" in a modern insurrection.  The most obvious term would be "marines are coming," or "redcoats are coming."   Of course those writers will never learn from history.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The United States of America are now the Arugula eating Surrender Monkeys

He walks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, thinks like a Muslim and was raised a Muslim.  He  claims to be apostate (he was once a Muslim but isn't any more) so therefore he is a Muslim.  He is protecting Muslim terrorists.  Because of the dhimocraptic party's adoration and deification of this islamophile, we can't get rid of him. He has turned our collective backs on our allies.  Those that stood with us when we drew our first breaths.  He is setting The United States up for a mao mao type action like his father did.  He has turned our Constitution into a suicide pact.  We are now the surrender monkeys.

Thursday, August 14, 2014

Maybe The U. S. Constitution is a suicide pact after all.

This country was founded on the idea of E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many, One.  That is now an impossible condition for this country as it is governed today.  We can't be a melting pot.  The only Americans are those that were here before 1960.  Now every person is an hyphenated American.  Diversity is the ultimate condition of the librul/dhimocraptic/socialist/progressive and racists wielding so much power today.  We used to be inclusive, but now we are diversified.   Do not doubt that all those leaders, politicians, and agitators do not have a utopia in mind, but are solely driven by how they can pervert the system for their personal gain.  Any perversion of the Constitution is OK with the media and beltway grifters, so long as they feel good and and get more power.

Now that we are diversified, and every person is hyphenated, we will be just One Out of Many!