Friday, January 29, 2016
Somewhere along the line it was changed from “Illegal Alien” to “Undocumented Workers.”
We were assured there was no problem and that allowing such porous borders only enhanced our economy and the people were better off here instead of striving to improve conditions wherever they originated from.
We were accused of engaging in hyperbole and exaggerating the problems as a couple years ago, we saw masses of unaccompanied children flood over the border and instead of arranging their return to their parents, for the ones fortunate enough to reach our country and not be killed or slaughtered along the way, arrangements were made by Bureaucrats to house them with people or groups across the country.
Democrats, in their usual manner, vowed more tax dollars be directed to immigration while plans were being made to build more shelter for the influx of unaccompanied children.
All was well, they said, we can easily continue being the world’s welfare office and our own burgeoning federal debt was no consequence.
What they didn’t tell us was just exactly what was being down with these unaccompanied children they were having housed all over the country.
While we were arguing over a county councilor’s facebook page or rehashing old policies of being forced to accept light rail or raising taxes for schools or whatever else the legislature desired it for, it has now come to light that many of these unaccompanied children were being placed in pure hell by the Bureaucrats assigned to help them.
The Washington Post recently published, Obama administration placed children with human traffickers, report says.
“The Obama administration failed to protect thousands of Central American children who have flooded across the U.S. border since 2011, leaving them vulnerable to traffickers and to abuses at the hands of government-approved caretakers, a Senate investigation has found.”
“The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children, allowed sponsors to take custody of multiple unrelated children, and regularly placed children in homes without visiting the locations, according to a 56-page investigative report released Thursday.”
“And once the children left federally funded shelters, the report said, the agency permitted their adult sponsors to prevent caseworkers from providing them post-release services.”
It is even more disturbing to read in their article, Overwhelmed federal officials released immigrant teens to traffickers in 2014 how Hispanic teens were held against their will in Ohio as slave labor working on an egg farm.
While we worried over being banned on facebook, these kids were being threatened with bodily harm and death if they tried to escape.
While Liberals were blasting us for being cold-hearted or of harboring hate against Hispanics, there were children being placed in slavery and handed over to human traffickers in the very manner we wanted prevented.
And no, it wasn’t every child I am sure. But that it happened to any is inexcusable.
Our immigration laws are not written out of greed or to be hateful to others. They are a protection, not only for our own people but for people from other countries that wish to be here.
And yes, not everybody is allowed in, never have been since all countries began immigration laws. Thousands arriving at Ellis Island were sent back for any number of reasons.
Many Illegal Aliens are good people; I agree and have known some. But not all are. The good people though, that merely want to improve their lives leave themselves vulnerable to unscrupulous traffickers or those seeking slave labor to work and make profits for them.
Open borders is not answer either as what is reported here shows. We simply do not have the facilities or resources to continue being the world’s welfare department.
How many adult or teen women are still out there in forced prostitution is unknown. We do know human trafficking is a problem, a big problem that law enforcement is fighting.
We do not help in that fight by throwing vulnerable people to the wolves as easy prey for human traffickers.
We must enforce our borders and immigration law for everybody’s well being.
As seen above, doing so actually would be “for the children.”
Posted by Lew Waters at 3:06 PM
Monday, December 28, 2015
Even where the parties were briefly united on opposing radical Jihadists and their acts of terror, I see a shift towards more acceptance and tolerance of the barbarism of radical Jihadists now beginning on the left.
My view is not based on misguided hyperbole as I will be accused of, but in their acts of defense of Islam after an attack as we saw in San Bernardino and even the open acceptance of largely unvetted “refugees” from Syria in spite of witnessing massive problems in Europe where they were first accepted.
But it doesn’t stop there. No, I am beginning to see Democrats such as Robert B. Reich include supportive comments towards Islamic Sharia in his appeals for donations in support of Democrats I receive in email.
|Click image for larger view|
As you will note where I highlighted, Reich includes in his email slamming Donald Trump, “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” as one of three reasons he supplies to oppose Trump and Republicans in general.
Let it first be said that I neither support Trump nor the Republican Party, they have massive problems within their ranks as well.
But, seeing Reich use “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” as a reason to oppose both is downright scary to me.
For any not aware, Sharia is “the basic Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith.”
Those like Reich would not be tolerant of a theological form of governing based on Christianity and the Holy Bible as it would violate our concept of “Separation of Church and State,” governing based upon religious doctrine instead of our constitution.
Yet here we have a prominent Democrat and former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration seemingly ready to accept such a religious rule, but from Islam, not Christianity.
Shouldn’t our country also be practicing Separation of Mosque and State since Churches and Synagogues are not permitted to govern over the country?
Especially concerning is where the Left stands on some issues, Homosexual rights, Women’s rights, children’s right and such that are not only largely nonexistent in the Middle East where Sharia is practiced, but goes against nearly all of what Democrats claim to believe in.
Women and young girls are routinely put to death in a brutal manner for what is labeled “dishonoring” the family, like divorcing an abusive husband or being gang raped against their will, often being stoned to death or beheaded.
Young girls not even developed into women are married off to much older and lecherous old men.
Homosexuals are hanged or thrown off of tall buildings to their death.
Human rights as we in the West know them are not practiced by the radicalized Muslims such as we have seen with ISIS, Al Qaeda and other such groups that practice the brutality of Sharia Law.
Yet mixed in with other hyperbolic smears of Republicans from Democrat Reich is “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you?”
Shouldn’t they, who oppose religion in public or adherence to religious doctrine in a secular government, applaud “Keeping Sharia law out of a city near you” instead of condemning such a call?
And where is the neutered and spineless Republican to point out this unbelievable call from a Democrat?
I really don’t care if you are left or right, that is your business. But I do care that the world being left for my grandchildren may include their facing the brutal lashes of Sharia one day.
Democrats, you especially should be outraged over this call of Reich’s since Sharia is largely the antithesis of everything you claim to believe in.
And, if you think it is much ado about nothing, just recall that the smallest seed grows into the largest plant in your garden.
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:03 PM
Sunday, December 13, 2015
From the Hill we read the headline, Dems shift terror debate to guns and the words
“Democrats are seeking to limit the political fallout from the attack in San Bernardino, Calif., by pressing for legislation that would prevent terrorism suspects from buying a gun.”
“Leaders in the party think they have a winning message in pushing legislation that would ban gun sales to people on the federal terror watch list, and have made the bill a focal point of their response to the shooting.”
Simply astonishing that after 14 more innocent people have been gunned down by a couple of radicalized Muslims, Democrats are more worried about political fallout than seeking a way to limit or combat the growing threat of radical terrorists.
Since the attack, I have received several emails from Democrats and supportive groups also promoting this fallacy of relying on the “no-fly list” to block a gun purchase as a means to stop any future carnage.
OFA released this nifty image promoting what sounds like an effective means, tugging at your senses saying, “Right now, some people on the No-Fly List -- people suspected of potential terrorist activity -- can legally walk into a store and buy a gun.”
DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent out a plea concluding,
“It's time for us to take action -- action that the vast majority of Americans, including most law-abiding gun owners, support -- and make some commonsense reforms to our nation's gun laws that will keep guns out of dangerous hands. It may not be easy, and it may require the political courage to stand up to well-funded special interests, but it is the morally right thing to do.”
Immediately after Obama’s speech Sunday Dec 6, the White House sent out an email opening with, “Tonight, I addressed the nation from the Oval Office on my top priority as President: Keeping the American people safe.”
As we know, that address supposedly to update the country on the San Bernardino attack focused more on guns and not blaming Islam than anything else.
And that is supposed to “Keep the American people safe?”
It’s difficult to know just where to begin, but let’s begin with the cry of the “no-fly list.”
While on the surface it sounds reasonable and responsible, neither of the two that carried out the San Bernardino attacks were on the no-fly list. Additionally, they did not purchase the guns used themselves, but someone else purchased them and gave them to them. An act that is seen as questionable, if not illegal under California law already.
Not exactly bastions of conservative thought, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted an article on Dec. 7, 2015: Until the No Fly List Is Fixed, It Shouldn’t Be Used to Restrict People’s Freedoms and where they write,
“As we will argue to a federal district court in Oregon this Wednesday, the standards for inclusion on the No Fly List are unconstitutionally vague, and innocent people are blacklisted without a fair process to correct government error. Our lawsuit seeks a meaningful opportunity for our clients to challenge their placement on the No Fly List because it is so error-prone and the consequences for their lives have been devastating.” (emphasis added)
We also have a video of South Carolina Republican, Trey Gowdy grilling Department of Homeland Security official Kelli Ann Burriesci on due process of this no-fly list and not receiving answers.
We also have this same DHS official being questioned on visa waivers and unable to answer a single question.
This does not inspire any sense of security or confidence in this supposed “no-fly list” what with apparently no one seeming to know how someone is placed on it or seeing the headaches someone wrongfully placed on it must go through to be allowed to board an airplane again.
I can only imagine how many innocent people in need of self defense could possibly be denied that right guaranteed them because some bureaucratic snafu wrongfully placed them on this list. The odds of them being gunned down by a stalker, estranged spouse or any criminal might be very likely prior to having their right restored that never should have been taken from them.
As I said, on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but peeling back just the top layer shows the goal is more to score political points than to “Keep the American people safe.”
Also being called for once again is an “Assault Weapons Ban.”
Also pure bunk as such a ban would not have prevented the San Bernardino attacks, evidenced by a rare Geppetto Checkmark from Fact Checker on Sen. Marc Rubio’s claim, “no recent mass shootings would have been prevented by gun laws.”
Showing the futility, during the last Assault Weapons Ban, there were 15 Mass Shootings, including the horrific Columbine School shooting.
The ban did nothing of any substance, other than score some political points for Democrats to appear as if they were doing something.
We are also beginning to see more and more attacks using a knife or other sharp instrument, but the outrage has not yet risen to Democrats calling on restrictions for them as did Great Britain after they banned guns and criminals resorted to adding knives to their arsenal.
And even with their gun ban, crime committed with a gun have not gone away as the UK Mirror reports London overtaken as gun crime capital of England and Wales.
The gun is merely an instrument, an inanimate object that does nothing on its own and requires action by a human being to operate.
In the hands of a responsible person, that action can and has saved lives.
In the hands of a bad guy, be they criminal or terrorist, innocent lives are taken as they target primarily “Gun-Free Zones” where they know they will not be facing a good guy with a gun and their deed will be finished before Police arrive.
A lot is said about background checks, but what good is one if HIPAA Laws prevent relevant medical history from being included and a mentally disturbed individual passes such a background check?
I’m not wholly opposed to a background check and patiently waited for the completion of such a check on myself to obtain my Concealed Carry License.
But, some people that should not have been able to purchase a gun under our laws passed the same background check I did.
And, did not Tashfeen Malik, the female terrorist involved in the San Bernardino attack pass not one, but three background checks in order to legally enter the United States on her fiancé visa?
Yes, we do need to do something to curb gang style killings. To stop terrorists before they strike. To cut down on gun crime.
But disarming innocent, law-abiding citizens and placing scoring political points over saving innocent lives is not the answer.
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:44 AM
Saturday, December 05, 2015
You Muslims in America are not the victims here.
Don’t worry, I’m not launching into a smear of Islam or denigrating your beliefs as some do. But it wasn’t long after the first shooter’s name was made public that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) held a hastily assembled press conference to remind us all, “we are a religion of peace” and “this is not who we are.”
Seeing little if any opposition to ISIS, Al Qaeda and other fanatic groups coming out of the Islamic religion, we don’t know who you are, but in spite of several incidents around the globe where innocent people are slaughtered in the name of Islam, what would you expect us to think?
After the Ft. Hood terrorist attack in November 2009 by radicalized Major Nidal Hasan, that saw him murder 13 innocent soldiers, this blog penned An Open Letter To American Muslims that is just as relevant today as it was 6 years ago.
In spite of all that has occurred over the years, we still hear the same cries from the Muslim community of fearing some phantom backlash and being fearful for their lives.
I really can’t recall any mass shooting that left dozens of Muslims dead in the street or an office building in America.
What I do recall and see today is quick condemnation of both the NRA (National Rifle Association) and law-abiding gun owners in America after every single shooting, even though nearly every mass shooting occurs in a “Gun-Free Zone” where guns are prohibited.
Seeing an opportunity to score some political points in next year’s presidential election, Democrat candidates lined up to condemn the NRA, cry about too many guns in the country and call for another ineffective “Assault Weapons Ban,” ignoring that the last such ban did nothing to curtail mass shootings, 15 occurring during the time of the ban.
Ignored in these call is that California already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, the very laws Democrats now claim they want nationwide.
No, Mr. President, the NRA is not to blame
Hillary Clinton says “I want people to feel safe” and feels that disarming the general public or making it more difficult for the potential victims to obtain adequate means to defend themselves and their families against the bad guys that just ignore the law is the way to go about it.
It is said that a person’s religion isn’t mentioned unless the shooter is Muslim. Not wholly accurate.
In the recent shooting in Colorado Springs, Robert Lewis Dear, the obviously unhinged shooter there is described as coming from “a hotbed of religious extremism, fueled by clerics who preach holy war” and who “spoke of Jesus and the ‘end times’.”
More so-called “dangerous religious extremists” are found in the very Liberal leaning Slate article, The Terrorists Among Us.
Sorry Muslims, you aren’t the only ones.
Within hours of the shooting by Farook and Malik and them dying in a shoot-out with Police, the editorials began, even before bodies were recovered.
The LA Times gave us Terrorism? Angry worker? Whichever, the carnage came from legal guns.
Not quite as explained in a Wall Street Journal article (behind a paywall) stating,
“While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.”
“The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.”
“Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading.”
On the same day of the shooting, possibly within minutes of Farook and Malik being shot and killed, the LA Times also gave us The U.S. infatuation with guns is bordering on a society-wide suicidal impulse.
The New York Times gave us in their anti-gun rant, The Horror in San Bernardino the ironic claim,
“Amid the chaos were the horrifying and familiar aspects of a mass assault by the latest ‘active shooter’: bodies on gurneys, innocents weeping under desks at the rattle of gunfire, desperate emails for survival, SWAT teams massed at a war zone of civilian casualties. All the familiar terror was back, as a father received a text from his daughter: ‘People shot. In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us’.” (emphasis added)
The irony is that both prayers and guns were being condemned, yet those hunkered down in fear of their lives in this “gun-free zone” were praying for prayers and someone with a gun to arrive and save them.
I saw no shaming of Muslim prayers, not even all of the prayers Syed Farook is said to have been excused frequently from work to offer as per his religious belief.
In fact, other than some of the regular hothead types that few people really pay attention to, I see no mass hysteria or mass calls to deport all Muslims and certainly nothing that would even rise anywhere near to the mass hysteria we all saw over the Confederate flag after another accused “Devout Christian,” Dylann Roof shot down a group of innocent Black people during a Prayer Service at their Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
There are no editorials lambasting Islam as we saw over the Confederate flag.
Neither Muhammad, the Qur’an nor Allah is being Pilloried by any of the national media.
No, just the NRA, law-abiding gun owners and Christian beliefs are.
Sorry Muslims, you are not the victims here.
If you feel we shouldn’t look to your community with a wary eye, then it is long past time for you to join the fight to oust and destroy those hiding among your midst and committing heinous acts of terror in the your name.
You cannot remain ‘neutral’ to the horror that seeps out of your community any longer.
To you gun-grabbers wanting to repeal our second amendment, go to hell. Our second amendment rights are the only thing standing between us and them and we’ll be damned if we will allow you to disarm us and put our families in harm’s way without a fight.
We refuse to become victims.
Posted by Lew Waters at 1:03 PM
Saturday, November 14, 2015
I refrained from posting on it yesterday, although I did make several comments on my facebook page, as anything I put down here would amount to little more than an anger filled rant.
Even if justifiable, my anger over so many innocents being slaughtered by ISIS on the very same day Obama came out claiming how they “were contained” would not have come across in how I choose to pattern my writing.
Unbelievable, but the whining college kids my previous post was about actually came out last evening, increasing their level of pampered whine, complaining how the media took focus off of them and looked towards Paris.
Grow up, children, y’all ain’t that important, never were.
In response to the attacks, French President Francois Hollande, a fairly left-leaning president by our standards stated, “We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless,” and adding, “Because when terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together and does not let itself be moved, even if today we express infinite sorrow.”
Even the Vatican has chimed in with a statement from Father Federico Lombardi, Holy See press office director, “We pray for the victims and the wounded, and for all the French people. This is an attack on peace for all humanity, and it requires a decisive, supportive response on the part of all of us as we counter the spread the homicidal hatred in all of its forms.”
The U.N. Security Council condemned the “despicable” terrorist attacks and demanded immediate release of those held hostage in the Bataclan theater, while ISIS terrorist systematically murdered them one by one, over 100 people at last count.
From leftists worldwide we now see cries of, “Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance” by actor Mark Ruffalo.
A pianist played John Lennon’s Imagine outside of the Bataclan Theater.
Elton John quoted Martin Luther King, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Across facebook, people are displaying the flag of France in various manners to show solidarity or condolences over the attack.
As could be expected, many also are making mention of the feckless leadership of our own milquetoast Barack Obama that tell us these terrorists are nothing more than “a JV Team,” while he continues downsizing our own Military.
Oddly enough, that brings out from the left, “this is not a time for partisanship.”
Odd as back in 2003 when the War on Terror moved into Iraq, it was the left that began making it a partisan issue, used by John F’n Kerry in his 2004 presidential run.
Democrat Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi made it a partisan issue when they succeeded in 2006 in taking majority control of Congress.
It was even a partisan issue in the 2008 election of Barack Obama in defeating John McCain.
The War on Terror was used to beat President George W. Bush over the head with throughout his presidency with cries of “he lied us into war,” “the surge is a failure,” “impeach Bush over Iraq,” “we need a ‘New Direction’,” and Harry Reid’s “the war in Iraq is lost… The failure has been political. It has been policy. It has been presidential.”
Yes, it was very partisan then. But for some reason, it should not be partisan now, even though Obama has shown such poor leadership that we also read, World Waits for America To Pick New President Capable of Leadership.
U.S. Navy Captain Dan Ouimette gave a rousing speech on November 2, 2004, America Needs To Wake Up! If you read no other link in this post, I urge you to read his.
ISIS Statement of Responsibility
In spite of a succession of terrorist attacks leading up to our own horrific September 11, 2001 attacks, we keep falling back asleep. We keep hearing from ‘Peaceniks’ that we must not over react to these barbarians, we must show them kindness and other such nonsense.
Extremists count on such weak reaction from the west as they continue to spread their barbarism across the planet. Their leaders have proclaimed, “The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
It is well past time Western Civilization showed these extremists that we are not “impotent and weak” and will engage them as President Hollande described above, “a war which will be pitiless.”
Their brutality must be destroyed by brute force, giving no quarter.
And it must be a multi-national force including Arab nations and their forces.
If Obama doesn’t have the stomach, replace him with someone that does. Democrat or Republican makes no difference just as long as they have the stomach for the fight.
We civilians must be willing to make sacrifices as was done back in the 1940’s in the Second World War.
Efforts to disarm or make it more difficult for citizens to obtain arms and protect ourselves must stop. Armed citizens have shown effectiveness in stopping or minimizing attacks, even though our media neglects to report on them when it happens.
If nothing else, should the extremists try another attack as seen in Paris in our country, armed citizens may be able to neutralize them before the body count reaches a high count.
These extremists have shown themselves as unpredictable. They operate under the radar and often our high tech measures fail to pick up on their intent.
Since they are Muslim extremists, other Muslims absolutely must begin exposing them and outing radical Imam’s that preach such hate.
Let us not forget, Muslims are slaughtered in far greater numbers by these extremist madmen than any others.
As gruesome and horrific as the attacks in Paris were, it is but another wake-up call to the peace-loving world.
The terrorists will not stop with pleas of ‘pretty please.’ They laugh at such weak responses and plot their next attack.
They have shown their goal is not just to conquer and rule the Middle East, but to force the entire world to kneel before their radicalism and plunge us backwards thousands of years and live under their brutality where a woman is not considered a human and any opposition to their rule means instant death.
Are you awake now?
Or are you just going to roll over and hit the snooze button yet again?
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:55 AM
Monday, October 26, 2015
Nobody with an ounce of brains will argue that cigarettes aren’t bad for a person, although second and third hand smoke is still debated. But the all American hot dog now too?
Actually, to make it even more cynical, bacon is listed right alongside of hot dogs now as WHO (World Health Organization) has jumped onboard with some group that back in 2011 erected a billboard saying “Hot Dogs As Bad as Cigarettes.”
Between you and me, I have little doubt if hot dogs were the mainstay of your diet they wouldn’t be conducive to good health. But who really eats hot dogs that much?
Most of us have maybe a few over a years’ time, at ball games, a quick lunch, backyard BBQ or just a quick dinner.
So why whip another frenzy over what is little more than another comfort food?
USA Today reports Hot dogs, bacon, processed meats linked to cancer.
Yes, cancer, the big C as some call it, a debilitating disease in many varieties that too many have died from too soon.
Linking something to cancer, regardless of how remote has long been claimed in many foods we enjoy and mostly still do, closer research revealing the cries were more alarmist or politically motivated that health related.
Remember the scare over ALAR just a couple decades ago that resulted in tons of nutritious fruit being left to rot on docks worldwide or in the fields, people scared to death to enjoy an apple?
And what of the eggs we often eat for breakfast? Remember how they too were linked to all sorts of health concerns not too long ago?
Not surprising, turns out those concerns were overblown.
Coffee seems to be another so-called ‘experts’ keep changing their minds on. Good for us one day, bad the next only to return to good a gain a few days later.
And what of good old butter? Weren’t we told margarine was better due to less fats, only to subsequently be told margarine had even more fat and was more detrimental to our health?
Being diabetic myself, I try to watch my diet and I am told to avoid potatoes, rice and “anything white.” While I eat less of them, I find moderation is the rule as my blood sugar is maintained at levels it needs to be.
Salt was another big concern, linked to high blood pressure and people avoided is. Turns out, it is a necessary element our bodies need, some people more than others. But again, moderation is the rule.
As expected, numerous other scientists dispute the claim as we read in the UK Telegraph; Experts attack claims that bacon is ‘as big a cancer threat as smoking.’
When I was a young boy, we were taught to eat a balanced diet and being raised a dirt poor Southern boy, that wasn’t always possible. We ate what my parents could afford, after my Dad got his booze and my Mom her cigarettes.
A lot of times it was beans and rice, collard greens and some slab of meat, beef or pork, whatever was on sale or close to expiration date. Chicken was a real luxury. Fired Baloney and hot dogs were fun and cheap.
But we ate and were active, having relatively few health problems growing up.
And I feel that is more the problem than what we occasionally eat, we are a lot more inactive than we used to be.
Yes, we are cautioned there by other ‘experts’ too.
Maybe that is also part of our problem, too many ‘experts’ deciding what is good or bad for others and a gullible population, eager to follow the latest trend or go off in a panic over claims made, even if just a late night Television joke.
That’s right, you young people likely don’t know about it, but in 1973 the country went into a panic over a Johnny Carson joke on the Tonight show about a toilet paper shortage that manufactured a frenzied panic in people rushing out and buying all of the toilet paper they found, resulting in a very real toilet paper shortage.
The Great Toilet Paper Scare of 1973
So from where I sit, I’d take these ‘experts’ with a grain of salt. Enjoy yourselves, eat a balanced diet. Enjoy that occasional hot dog if you desire and go outside a play more.
You might as well enjoy yourselves as much a humanely possible because let’s face it, life is short and none of us are going to get out of this life alive.
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:24 PM
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Sunday, October 11, 2015
For those that claim the campus was not ‘Gun-Free’ due to Oregon law, please recheck your sources as the laws on guns on campuses in Oregon is much more complicated than believed.
Be that as it may, tragedy struck and 10 people are dead, 9 innocents and the shooter with more wounded, hopefully to survive and regain their lives.
And as we see all too often, gun-haters come out of the woodwork before any corpses are cold to blame guns, the NRA, the Second Amendment, Conservatives, everybody except the actual shooter.
Cries go out to disarm the public with comparisons to Australia and the UK as banning guns and not having any gun violence now, a claim as naïve as any ever heard as both countries still have gun violence in spite of such claims. Also ignored by gun-grabbers citing that claim is the incidence of ‘knife violence’ that has had the country of Great Britain actually considering more bans on knives and certain sharp objects and campaign launched, ‘Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife,’ even trotting out the Doctors calling for knife bans years ago.
While gun-grabbers might technically be correct in their “less gun violence” claims, to me there is no consolation in someone murdered with a knife instead of a gun. The violence did not ebb is the point.
And of course, Liberal gun-grabbers with their knee jerk reactions and emotions over logic state the most inane things, as seen under another of Lazy C’s Greg Jayne editorial.
If he weren’t serious it would be comical. But he is serious, sad to say.
Let’s deconstruct this ridiculous comment.
A “so-called right” that is clearly expressed in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights? If that right so clearly stated is but “so-called,” what of the rest of rights enumerated in our Bill Rights? Say, like his freedom of speech and assembly?
And what of the 13th Amendment freeing slaves and banning future enslavement of one human being owning another? Does he see that as just “so-called” as well?
How can they argue just one is “so-called” and not include all?
And of course, the ever present hate spewed against those with a differing view of matters as Liberals so often do. Blame everything on conservatives.
But what this commenter fails to recognize in his rant, the Second Amendment was not written in order to put down any slave rebellion. What was being passed after the Civil War was gun control measure designed to disarm freed slaves.
Yes, true history reveals just the opposite of what is claimed, early gun control was meant to disarm a minority race and oppress them, much like happened in the 1930’s when Germany disarmed the Jews prior to the Holocaust.
Knee jerk hyperbole and emotional outbursts is what they have to rely on, far from Jayne’s call of “acknowledging the problem.”
One cannot acknowledge something when they have no clue what it is.
Another fallacy being spouted elsewhere is “294 mass shootings (four or more people killed or wounded) in the United States” so far in 2015.
Even politically Liberal Politifact states of that number, “The statistic came from Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowdsourced site, which defines mass shooting as any in which four or more people are shot at, regardless of whether they die or are injured.”
In other words, as I read it, redefine what a “mass shooting” is to suit the agenda and whip up anti-gun hysteria.
Politifact then quotes a more reliable source as “approximately 18 mass killings by firearms so far in 2015.”
And let’s face it, that is 18 too many.
But, is the gun really to blame? We hear there are far more guns in American society than citizens, so if true that the gun is at fault, shouldn’t we hear of millions of shootings? I would think so.
We don’t, so apparently the gun isn’t the real problem anymore than Ford, Chevrolet or Chrysler are fault for DUI’s or traffic accidents.
No, the driver is at fault and it is the same with a gun, the person pulling the trigger is at fault.
So what good will banning guns do?
Liberals seem to think a simple ban will take guns away from shooters and that is a fallacy as well. Murderers already ignore written laws, so why would they follow a new one?
And what of murder rates where guns were banned and murderers just substitute a knife, hammer or even baseball bat?
Do we ban those as well?
To wrap this up, let’s look at another common claim from Liberals after a school shooting, banning guns on school grounds and heavy opposition when we call for trained, licensed and qualified staff and teachers to be allowed to carry concealed.
As we know, the most deaths in these tragedies occur where the shooter knows he will face the least opposition, a “gun-free zone.”
Never acknowledged by the left gun-grabbers is the times such a shooting was stopped early on before much more carnage was allowed to happen by someone armed with a gun, that I covered back in 2006, The School Shooting They Never Mention.
In closing I will say to Mr. John M. Kowalski, the Second Amendment was not written in order to put down any slave rebellion, acknowledged by honest gun restriction advocates, but to keep us from becoming enslaved to a tyrannical regime.
Posted by Lew Waters at 12:37 PM
Monday, July 20, 2015
|From the TV Mini-series "Roots"|
Now, before you come and burn my house down or have the thought Police imprison me for not holding on to “pure thoughts” that please Liberals, indulge me for a few minutes and I’ll show you just how unequal Black conservative people in the United States are today, 50 years past the Civil Rights bill passing into law.
Us White folks have the freedom to formulate, hold and express our own personal thoughts, even though our conservative views are attacked or belittled by Liberals. Still, even though suffering ridicule for deviating from the preferred thought, we can be safe physically in speaking what we feel and believe, even if labeled “racist” for opposing Obama’s Liberal policies.
Black Liberals are also assured of safety for following the train passed down from on high through the NAACP, New Black Panthers and Democrat Party of today.
And that is where the equality ends for any Black person that has conservative views and dares to speak them, especially if in defense of Southern Heritage or the Confederacy.
You see, in order to be truly equal one must have the security of forming, holding and expressing their own individual values and views without fear of repercussion or physical assault.
Black conservatives are not afforded that security as seen time and again when they dare speak their views in public, they are either physically assaulted or personally insulted, called Uncle Toms, Sell Outs, House Negroes, Oreo’s and more.
And that comes from other Blacks and even White Liberals who repeatedly claim to be accepting and tolerant of other views, but astonished to find out there really are differing views and it is a Black person daring to speak them.
Most recently we see down in Mississippi where after attending a pro-Confederate flag rally in Alabama, a Black man and woman were run off the road by a “car full of jeering Black men,” killing 49 year-old Anthony Hervey, author of “Why I Wave The Confederate Flag, Written by a Black man.”
Mr. Hervey was a well-known and respected figure around the South at rallies supporting Southern Heritage and the Confederacy. Alabama Today says, “Anthony Hervey gave his life for something he believed in, reaching across racial lines to preserve history and protect our Constitutional rights.”
Over several years many other Black people have faced personal scorn and assaults too, although not killed for speaking their individual conservative views.
Before jumping back on the D.C. party circuit, as Secretary of State for President George W. Bush, retired General Colin Powell was labeled a “House negro” by Harry Belafonte, entertainer and staunch Black Liberal.
After Gen. Powell left and was replaced by Condoleezza Rice, a highly successful and very intelligent Black woman, she too came under fire from Liberals with a series of racist cartoons printed in newspapers.
Dr. Ben Carson, well known retired Neurosurgeon and Conservative Black man was recently ridiculed by Jamilah Lemieux, senior editor at Ebony magazine.
Again, his ideals were not countered, he was personally ridiculed for having a differing view than the left.
MSNBC’s Goldie Taylor has been heard saying of Black People appointed to former President Bush’s cabinet as “very, very dangerous to diverse communities,” and “self-hating minorities.”
Retired US Army Lt. Col Allen West, also a former US Representative from Florida said, “When black conservatives are attacked viciously by white liberals you don’t hear anything.”
Two Black Conservatives, Deneen Borelli and Rev. C.L. Bryant were verbally attacked at the 2014 NAACP Convention because of their association with FreedomWorks and that it is funded in part by the much hated Koch Brothers.
The woman assaulting them with her vicious words said, “They don’t stand for any of the values of what the NAACP stands for. They don’t need to be in here.”
Silly me, I always thought the initials NAACP stood for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I never knew Black Conservatives “need not apply.”
Black Conservative actress, Stacey Dash was smeared in an Ebony magazine review with, “Her conservative, clueless political slant sparked controversy time after time this year, making Dash notoriously trendy for all the wrong reasons.”
The National Black Republican Association has often been ridiculed for holding fast to their personal values as conservatives.
Even Black Liberal Fox News contributor Juan Williams said a few years ago on Black Conservative attacks, “It’s Sickening to Me.”
But the assaults have not decreased; they have actually increased, now seeing a Black Conservative killed.
We Conservatives are labeled “haters,” “racists” and “White Supremacists” for daring to disagree with a Black Liberal like Obama, but the attacks a Black Conservatives are going well beyond that, making me fear we will see more physical attacks and possibly more deaths of Black Conservatives for daring to step off of the Democrat, NAACP, Black Panther Plantation.”
It is not Conservatives that do not allow Black people to hold their personal, individual values and views, it is Liberals, both Black and White.
And as I said above, if they are not secure in the freedom to formulate, hold and freely express their views publicly without such vicious personal attacks, not on their views, on their person, they are not equal in the eyes of Liberals.
Imagine, for all of the calls how Conservatives are racist and hate Black people, we are who sees Black people as our equals.
Liberals refuse to allow Black people the very equality they claim they support.
Posted by Lew Waters at 7:11 PM
Sunday, July 12, 2015
The Lazy C is hard at it again, doing their best to destroy “PRIVATE PROPERTY rights” and spew revisionist history.
Odd how their revisionist history stated in the screen capture from the Saturday July 11, 2015 Cheers & Jeers column is deemed so important when there are ample quotes from the era showing the opposite of their claim.
For example, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Lincoln's first inaugural address.
“I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” Lincoln from an 1858 letter.
“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of ... making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
“I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” Lincoln in the Lincoln - Douglas debates
“I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion,” adding “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” Lincoln in explaining his rationale with the Emancipation Proclamation.
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” William Seward, Lincoln's Secretary of State expressing the hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation.
“If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” Lincoln 1862 letter to Horace Greeley
“This war must go on till the last of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight our battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for Slavery. We are fighting for independence, and that or extermination we will have.” Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy as quoted in a July 25, 1864 New York Times editorial, “Is Peace Attainable? How?”
“It was only during Reconstruction that the cause of the war, slavery, was wedded so inextricably to the war’s eventual byproduct, emancipation. But six months after Fort Sumter, these issues were so hotly contested that the Union effort seemed threatened not merely by the surprisingly capable Confederate forces, but by the battle over abolition and its place in the Union fight. How could the remaining states in the Union prevail if they were so divided over the issue of freeing the slaves?”
“Seemingly always there to stir up more trouble, Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner leapt into the headlines with a speech at the Republican State Convention in Worcester on Oct. 1 called ‘Emancipation: Our Best Weapon.’ In trying to transform the war for Union into a ‘war of abolition,’ conservatives feared that Sumner would draw out the war and poison the Republicans as ‘a ‘John Brown Party’.” A War Not for Abolition, New York Times October 11, 2011
Finally, the one part that I feel most dispels this revisionist history of the war fought solely over ending slavery, The Corwin Amendment proposed by President Buchanan and promoted by President Abraham Lincoln, a constitutional amendment that would have protected the institution of slavery and made it fully legal for all time in the states where it then existed.
If, as claimed by revisionist historians and the likes of the Lazy C, the war was solely about slavery, this one offer would have prevented the war and very well might have restored the Union prior to any hostilities, in my estimation.
Let there be no mistake, I personally feel slavery was a hideous institution that never should have been. My argument is not to defend slavery, but to show the truth that while an issue at the time, the North’s War of Aggression against the South was about much more.
I also make no claim of Black people in America ever being treated well overall. To do so would be a complete fallacy as it is a well documented fact that they have been wrongfully treated throughout America and our history, not just in the South. But, that is a subject for a future post.
As much as slavery should have never existed, neither should Lincoln have sent Troops to the South after South Carolina ousted the Union Army from their land at Ft. Sumter. Nor should Lincoln have been allowed to get away with the many violations of the Constitution in the Northern States, arbitrary midnight arrests of thousands of civilians suspected to have sympathies to the Confederacy, arresting the legislature of Maryland to prevent a legislative vote on secession, establishing Martial Law to forcibly keep Northerners in line and more.
Also ignored by so many is that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation declaring slaves free in states not under his control, not only still allowed slavery to exist in the states under Union control where slavery was practiced, but would have allowed slavery to exist in the South if they surrendered.
Another fallacy is that the South wanted to overthrow the United States Government. If that was the goal, Gen. Lee could have easily done that by surrounding Washington D.C. early in the war and arresting Lincoln and the government since the Confederacy was winning the early battles.
He did not as the goal was the same as when the Colonies rebelled against Great Britain, freedom to self determination and Liberty from an oppressive government.
Even citizens of the North were very reluctant and opposed to a fight for freedom of slaves, as stated in this PBS article, The Civil War and emancipation 1861 – 1865
“President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.”
About midway through the war, slavery transitioned to a cause for the war as we read from PBS,
“Though ‘contraband’ slaves had been declared free, Lincoln continued to insist that this was a war to save the Union, not to free slaves. But by 1862, Lincoln was considering emancipation as a necessary step toward winning the war. The South was using enslaved people to aid the war effort. Black men and women were forced to build fortifications, work as blacksmiths, nurses, boatmen, and laundresses, and to work in factories, hospitals, and armories. In the meantime, the North was refusing to accept the services of black volunteers and freed slaves, the very people who most wanted to defeat the slaveholders. In addition, several governments in Europe were considering recognizing the Confederacy and intervening against the Union. If Lincoln declared this a war to free the slaves, European public opinion would overwhelmingly back the North.” (emphasis added)
It is well known that history is written by the victors and nothing shows that more than the North’s oppression of the South over the last 150 years in fabricating the cause of the war. In my estimation, they had to do that in order for them justify the war in the first place, forgetting that everywhere else slavery was ended, it did not require such a war.
We will never know for sure, but several people have claimed slavery was very gradually dying in the South. Reinforcing my speculation in that regard, I read from Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. in his article, Free Blacks Lived in the North, Right?
“In that raging year of Lincoln’s election and Southern secession, there were a total of 488,070 free blacks living in the United States, about 10 percent of the entire black population. Of those, 226,152 lived in the North and 261,918 in the South, in 15 states (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas) plus the District of Columbia. Let me break that down further: A few months before the Confederacy was born, there were 35,766 more free black people living in the slave-owning South than in the North, and removing D.C. from the equation wouldn’t have shifted the result. And they stayed there during the Civil War.”
“At no time before the Civil War (at least not after the first U.S. Census was taken in 1790 and future states were added) did free blacks in the North ever outnumber those in the South!”
And, we cannot forget that many of those Free Blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy for any variety of reasons.
For some insight into the main reasons the war was fought, I invite you to read Walter Williams
Dec. 2, 1998 article: The Civil War wasn't about slavery
I’ve said many times to friends that this current flap over the Confederate Flag is not about the flag itself so much as it is the complete eradication of Southern Heritage, a heritage steeped in the desire of and willingness to fight for freedoms and liberty. Black or White, doesn’t matter, Southerners hold a deep respect for America’s promise of freedom and liberty and even though it was denied in the past to some, that desire remains today.
Once that is gone, a large block of resistance to totalitarian rules is gone.
Likewise, my recent research into the War Between the States, seeking out early documents, speeches, letters and what have you convinces me more than ever those modern revisionist historians and media like the Lazy C are completely full of crap!
Stand up for yourselves, America.
Daily Clarion Ledger, Jackson, Mississippi, Feb 23, 1890, Speech given by former slave, Confederate veteran and MS Rep. John F. Harris.
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:59 PM
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Submitted by Angie Lee Sisk
Think about it. A truly diverse culture is accepting (or at least tolerant) of differing ideas, beliefs, or opinions and not just different sexes, ages, skin colors, etc.. Recently, however, instead of celebrating the many different ideas, beliefs, and opinions in this country, anyone who stands on the "wrong" side of a hot-button issue is branded a bigot and told to go die or a mob will kill you and your family, burn down your house, and slaughter your dog just for associating with you.
There is no diversity allowed, because there is no tolerance, another concept the original meaning of which has morphed into a creature directly opposing that noble notion.
~~~Example 1: I am a Christian that does not believe in gay marriage, but those on the "correct" side of the issue don't know certain facts about me and my beliefs system:
1. I love you without judgment as Christ commanded.
2. I believe God gave us all free will and it's wrong for me to deny your right to exercise it.
3. I believe you have the freedom and liberty to make your own choices under man's law, which we are instructed to abide by per NT teachings. It's none of my damn business, really, what you're doing in the privacy of your own bedroom, just like it's none of your damn business what I'm doing in mine.
4. I believe the state has no business in regulating "marriage" as a religious institution recognized by the state, although the SCOTUS ruling puts that to bed (apparently in this case those on the "correct" side of the issue don't believe in separation of church and state? I'm confused). The state's role is to enforce protections of benefits conferred through religious ceremonies currently, such that the state recognizes ONLY civil unions for EVERYONE regardless of a person's religious proclivities, sexual orientation, race, or any other demographic being used to divide our society today. If someone wants a religious ceremony then it needs to be performed separately, and the "power of the state" should NOT be vested in a member of the clergy. THAT is truly SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
However, in today's climate of "diversity," such details are irrelevant because 1) I am a Christian and 2) I don't support gay marriage; therefore, I am an intolerant bigot and need to die.
~~~ Example 2: I do not believe in "climate change." In any forum I state this, I am automatically dubbed, without further explanation allowed, a Republican right wingnut denier who wants to rape the planet for a quick buck and make it uninhabitable for future generations. Or something to that effect. Regardless, I need to die because I have the "wrong" opinion. Irrelevant is the fact that I *do* believe in conservation and protecting the environment and that violators of REASONABLE regulations effecting that protection need to be dealt with severely.
I could give other examples, but you get my point.
My concern is that in suppressing opposing viewpoints, opinions, beliefs, or anything else, you're not truly celebrating diversity. Or tolerance. In fact, you're just the same as those you've labeled "evil intolerant bigots." What's your end game? Is it truly to embrace diversity, or is it to punish those you feel have been the oppressors? If your motivation is vengeance, you're no better than those you call the oppressors and seek to destroy, and you're going to take all the rest of us down even if we're not truly your "enemy" or a "violator."
Just because my opinion is different than yours doesn't make either right or wrong. It makes them different. Without differences and other facets of an issue to consider, we will never learn and grow. If everyone is the same and thinks the same and feels the same, we truly lose DIVERSITY.
Posted by Lew Waters at 7:34 PM
Saturday, June 27, 2015
June 27, 2015, Sheriff Joe Arpaio spoke in Salem, Oregon on behalf of the Oregon Republican Party. Throughout his speech, hecklers and Liberal hatemongers tried to drown him out so those that came to hear him could not.
After the speech, Sheriff Arpaio walked over to meet with protesters and speak with them. The video below, posted on facebook by DQ Nanke reveals the "civility" we usually see from Liberal hatemongers. Language warning
Posted by Lew Waters at 7:11 PM
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
It also is a target of much ridicule from many Americans born and raised in the Northern States who simply do not understand the attitudes and feelings of those many Southerners with their attachment to their birthplace.
Nowhere can this be better seen than in the last few days as following the murder of nine innocent people at a Church in Charleston South Carolina and the focus being placed on a small flag representing the Confederacy in many people’s minds.
Forgotten are the nine victims and the nutcase racist that murdered them as outrage has snowballed into demands for all symbols seen to represent the Confederacy be removed or placed in museums, likely to be followed in years ahead to even be removed from the museums as well.
Questions are now asked if Military Bases named after Confederate Generals should be renamed, a lake in Minnesota named after a Confederate General be renamed, monuments to Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders and a former president, taken down and removed since he at one time owned slaves.
Even here locally we see calls from the local chapter of the NAACP for Confederate flags flying on private property in Ridgefield to be taken down and some citizens even suggest the county intercede to remove them or go forcibly remove the flags themselves, ignoring that people have rights to their private property. Or at least they used to.
There is even scorn now being heaped on the classic 1939 movie Gone With the Wind. Will the hysteria soon call for burning of classic novels like “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?” Or “To Kill A Mockingbird?”
Honestly, in all of my 66 years I have never seen such a rapid lynch mob mentality by people in this country over a piece of cloth, while they ignore the growing threat of groups like ISIS beheading and slaughtering people by the hundreds because of their religion.
Ignored as well is that the flag being hated on was not an official flag of the Confederacy, but a Battle Flag that never flew over slavery and that many Black people today honor that flag due to their ancestors fighting on the side of the Confederacy.
It is history that is being revised and used as tool to deny a large portion of Americans their heritage, moving us dangerously close to a one-thought mindset, if approved by some ruling committee.
By now I am sure you are wondering why I included Vietnam Veterans in the title of this post, so I will clarify that.
As a native Southerner and a Vietnam Veteran as well, I have faced scorn for being both. Some look down upon me as some dumb backwoods hick and as is well known, returning from our deployments in Vietnam long ago, many faced scorn and derision for that as well.
While we today see images posted by those spreading this hate of all things Southern, we see the following.
We have also seen many calls over the years from some of the same people of what losers we Vietnam Veterans are or that we “lost the war,” ignoring that we never lost a battle in Vietnam.
We Vietnam Veterans are proud of our service then, even though the government pulled us out. As Southerners, we’re proud of our ancestors’ service then to free themselves from the choke of the North and at the same time, we condemn the slavery aspect of the war, even though it was not the top issue, as so-called “modern historians” would have you believe.
In many ways, whether from the North or the South, those of us that served and lost buddies in Vietnam are somewhat like the Confederate Soldiers of long ago and like to show pride in our service.
But, following all of the calls to wipe out any pride in Southern Heritage this week, will one day descendants of the Vietnamese that have migrated to America being expressing offense at Vietnam Veterans showing pride in our service?
Will one day history books be purged of General Westmoreland, General Abrams or even accounts of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon be “sanitized” so as not to offend someone?
And what of those that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan in the War on Terror as once we seem to be prepared to throw in the towel?
Will they eventually be labeled losers as ISIS takes over and the Taliban retakes Afghanistan?
I really do understand that some people can be offended by a small flag, but isn’t everybody offended by something at some time?
Does only one group of people get to be entitled for their feelings to never be hurt?
Yes, it is popular this week to pile on any and every thing pertaining to the Confederacy, but what will it be next week?
Will these same people demand the American flag be moved to a museum because a hate group like the Ku Klux Klan highjacked it and flew it for several years prior to highjacking the Confederate Battle flag?
And where is the ACLU that boasts of taking a controversial stand for free speech by forcing Holocaust Survivors in the town of Skokie, Illinois to endure a Neo-Nazi rally years ago?
Why so silent now? Does free speech and freedom of expression no longer matter? Did it somehow go out of style?
This hysteria has gotten out of hand and if it continues, I really fear a backlash as well as complete loss of our freedoms in what is supposed to be “the Land of Free and the Brave.”
The time to think about this and leave this lynch mob mentality behind is now!
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:49 PM