Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.
~ Thomas Jefferson

Monday, September 2, 2019

Has the the Left manufactured a crisis? Will Trump be defeated by it?

In responding to a loyal Internet friend who stops by here to check for my sporadic submissions, I find myself motivated to skate around the fringe of "conspiracy theory". Allow me to state right up front that there are indeed many such that are made up of whole cloth, that belong on the pages of the supermarket publications that try to catch your eye in the check-out line, yet some do hold a fragment of the truth.

Consider this for a moment: what if these "newspapers" and magazines are being paid to present a theory that is true in order to cause most of us to immediately disregard it? Think of a"dossier" whose creation was made possible by a fervent desire to unseat a sitting President, a cabal of Deep State actors who hold that desire, a very large sum of money provided by a sworn enemy of America who has been financing a tremendous assault upon our southern national border, and the subversion of due process and our system of justice, our rule of law by the aforementioned.

Does it seem a bit strange that we are seeing a larger number of mass shootings in such a short time-frame, when these things normally happen in random spurts of insanity, in local events, and in fewer numbers? Have we not also seen some of these shootings, such as the Tucson shooting where Giffords was wounded, was targeted by a left-leaning mental case?

I believe there are too many mass shootings occurring in such a short time span for them to have happened without assistance from the Left. I believe they have been engineered and set into motion to force President Trump into a corner, forcing him to seriously consider not simply a condemnation of the shootings, but to "do something" - to push for further gun control, right at the start of his campaign for re-election.

Permit me to posit a number of interesting facts along with some suppositions:

The Left, as represented by various Democrat presidential contenders, Deep State actors, loud and illogical Congressional freshwomen (not being politically correct here, simply aiming for a particular group), and various other political rabblerousers in the media and at large, have all made it very plain they want our legally and properly elected President removed from office. This is an unassailable fact, which even the Left itself would support.

The President, due to these mass shooting incidents, is being advised by his people and those on the Left to "do something" - a catch phrase used by politicians which usually is equivalent to the desire to be seen as responding, but via the restriction of someone's unalienable rights.

I've been around for almost seven decades, and thanks to such events as the Vietnam War, the social upheaval of the "Sixties", and the later evolution of the Web through "bulletin boards" and now not only the Internet in general, but through "social media", I have been politically conscious for a good portion of the time involved in those changes. It was a long and relatively slow process, during which my social evolution exhibited a change mentioned (via attribution, at least) by Sir Winston Churchill:

"If you are in your twenties, and are not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are in your fifties and are not a conservative, you have no brain."

This evolution of consciousness was aided by the fact that the Fabians (precursors to today's Left, whose agenda included taking over teacher's colleges and training generations of teachers to think and teach in the dialectic of the Left) had not yet completely taken over our system of education at the time I attended high school in New York. This was, believe it or not, a school which did its best to teach its pupils to think. To learn and use logic. To reason out the truth through the use of critical thinking, which was taught as an actual course, offered and taken by many of us in our senior year. 

So, here we have a number of incidents, occurring so close together as to be happening at approximately the same time, politically, at least. Happening as the Left was running an incredible number of Democrat candidates for the Presidency through their paces, almost as a "shotgun effect". Instead of actually targeting the process and their platform with one or two individuals who represented the Left's that platform, they have thrown a large number of candidates - all socialists, if not outright communists, like Bernie Sanders - against the wall to see who might stick.

All of those candidates are anti-Second Amendment. Several of them openly stated they wanted to dismantle the Second Amendment, remove its protection of the right to keep and bear arms, stating that they would confiscate some or all of the weapons owned by many millions of Americans, weapons that Americans have a right to own and carry. A right that should be unassailable, but which has actually been attacked for much of the history of government in America.

Another fact: many millions of Americans, especially those who cherish the protection provided by the Second Amendment, consider that right a go-no go gauge of a candidate for the office of the Presidency. George H.W. Bush is considered to have lost his bid for a second term in office because he willingly assisted in the addition of more gun control legislation during his first term, in spite of having campaigned as a supporter of the Second Amendment. Many of us Americans refused to vote for him because of this.

The Left is certainly quite aware of this fact. So, I repeat my premise: I believe there are too many mass shootings occurring in such a short time span for them to have happened without assistance from the Left. I believe they have been engineered and set into motion to force President Trump into a corner, forcing him to seriously consider not simply a condemnation of the shootings, but to "do something" - to push for further gun control, right at the start of his campaign for re-election.

I have read a number of comments, in a variety of venues, wherein staunch conservatives have stated they will not vote for Trump if he helps create and pass further gun control. The passage of a new regulation by BATF banning "bump-fire" stocks, which was supported by Trump, was considered a "warning shot". Further gun control - especially "Red Flag" legislation, which removes due process from any citizen accused by almost anyone, without fact or warrant, which gives law enforcement the power to confiscate all of his firearms - would be deemed by conservatives as proof that Trump cannot be trusted, that he has failed to support his own word that he would defend the Second Amendment. 

The loss of those millions of votes, especially when compounded by the repeat of the voter fraud perpetrated by the Left in the last (and prior) elections may very well spell the end of America. If Trump loses, a socialist will be elected. A socialist who has already admitted they will seek confiscation of our firearms. A socialist who will work to insure that our government becomes a tool of the Left, run by the Democrats as their puppets. If the Democrats are able to take over the government, this will indeed be the last election ever held in America. This country, which was given the opportunity to create a place on Earth where freedom and justice could live and grow, will have died. "Democratic" Socialism - aka tyranny - will rule from then on. 







Thursday, June 13, 2019

Ebola knows no boundaries - especially with a little "help" from your "friends"

A friend (h/t to Grog) reminded me about a situation that I seriously doubt was brought to national attention by the legacy media. I could be wrong, since I haven't been connected to any form of television broadcasts since 1987. Yeah, 32 years ago. No satellite, no cable, no rabbit-ears. (Just a plethora of dvds to watch.) So, I acquire my news via the Internet. Not all of my sources are conservative web sites and blogs, but probably 90% of them.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/06/hundreds-of-illegal-aliens-from-ebola-stricken-congo-dumped-in-the-streets-of-san-antonio/

Got your tinfoil hats on? Here we go: are you able to consider for a moment that this may be biological warfare perpetrated by private (NGO) parties? Do you really believe that a large group of illegals from the Congo just happened to arrive in Mexico south of Del Rio, Texas, all by themselves, crossing over into the U.S. at that location? Do you imagine they were allowed - with or without passports - to board commercial aircraft to fly to Mexico or Central America? Hundreds of them in one group? 

What if someone with a lot of money - or the people to whom he _gave_ a lot of money - chartered a jet and loaded these hundreds of African illegals aboard? If some of them are carriers of the Ebola virus, they could infect a number of the ICE agents who process them, said ICE agents then infecting co-workers, family, friends, and/or a number of people encountered in shopping at Walmart, etc.

It wouldn't be long before ICE was no longer able to carry out its job. In addition, since the incubation period is roughly 21 days (three weeks), it could happen that a lot of folks would be infected in the first two weeks before definitive symptoms set off alarms and the beginning of an epidemic.

Think about it. folks. This isn't conspiracy theory we are talking about. It is a look into the risks, the rationale, and the possible outcomes of SOMEONE providing long distance transportation for a group of hundreds from a country with an Ebola presence and epidemic.

Fox exploits children to help normalize pedophilia

I have posted on the Left's attempts to normalize pedophilia before. They did it fairly quietly, with some discretion, and tried to be as "tasteful" about it as is possible with such an anti-human perversion.

After making a post a few days ago on Facebook about this topic, I ran into a horrible new effort to make pedophilia appear to be "fun". Evidently, Fox is showing a "comedy" series that includes a supposedly Tranny young boy wearing a bondage gag. Evidently, they have him dress in drag at times, making comments about the dress making him "feel breezy on my vagina".




This is sickness, people. Don't think for a minute you can accuse me of forcing my Christianity upon you, because I am an atheist. The Left loves muslims, not because they are sweet, loving people, but because islam encourages a wide spectrum of perversions, from raping young girls to sex with young boys. They don't count pederasty (sexual activity involving a man and a boy) as homosexuality, because the boys are young, usually pre-pubescent. They are called "bacha bereesh" - "beardless boys", and they sex is called "bacha bazi" - "boy-play", where they are dress as girls or women, and used for sex by the male muslims who arrange and participate in these "parties".

Imams in Afghanistan - where bacha bazi has been increasing in recent years - complain that there is nothing that they can do about it. I call bull shite. If it was homosexuality between adult males (as opposed to pre-pubescent boys), they would condemn the participants and throw them off a roof. If it was a woman who was the victim of rape, they would accuse her of "enticing them" (the man or men) and stone her to death. 

The truth is that many imams participate in bacha bazi themselves (in Afghanistan, anyway). They have no desire to stop it. If they posted a fatwa saying that anyone participating in bacha bazi would be stoned to death - and then actually did stone some who engaged in it - it would shut down most of these affairs.

Do you doubt muslims engage in bacha bazi? Are you familiar with the former Supreme Religious Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khomeini? He wrote a two-volume book on proper conduct by muslims, called TahrirolvasylehHere are some excerpts:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.  However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable.  If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.

Of course, what isn't said here is that "subsistence" means exactly that - being kept alive at the lowest threshold possible. Barely fed, worked like a slave, beaten and abused by his wives, and used by him, and anyone he permitted, as a sex slave, to be raped and otherwise abused by whoever was allowed to use her. The child's only hope being that she would die before too many years had passed.

Here is another excerpt:

If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.

What a prince! Khomeini allows sodomy with relatives, and the wife cannot divorce the husband or claim the marriage had been violated. But wait! There's more!

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on.  However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm.  He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

What happens in Kabul, stays in Kabul, I guess. No need to tell the neighboring village that the animal comes with a "secret sauce".

Finally, confirmation that child marriage, child sex, and child rape (what nine year old girl is competent to consent to sex?):

It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home.  Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.  [“Tahrirolvasyleh”, fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]


So. Pedophilia is a permanent, encouraged part of islam, and all muslim males are given the right - and often the command, as written in the qur'an - to participate in all manner of perversion, with the blessing of "allah". Is it any wonder the Left loves islam? That it encourages and aids in the admission of hundreds of thousands (several million at this time, I believe) of muslims to our country? 

Certainly enough of them, such as the Somalis in Minnesota and Michigan, to start electing their own kind to Congress. Representatives who swear upon a qur'an, swearing an oath that they immediately violate, with no consequences. Who openly admit they hate America, but are allowed to continue, even to the point of being given a seat on the House Intelligence committee as a _freshman_, first year of their first term in office. A committee where they are granted access to secret information that they can (and I'm certain they do) pass on to their friends (and handlers?) in CAIR, and the muslim brotherhood.

The Left wishes to break down and do away with the Judeo-Christian moral code. This disgusting TV series being shown, with liberals/progressives encouraging their own children to watch, I am sure, is designed to move our society away from decency and into perversions that may one day completely displace decency, moral behavior. We conservatives, and even liberals who still hold good, moral principles and behavior as a part of our country, our society, our tradition, need to make it known to Fox that vile trash such as this series needs to be stopped. At the very least, they should turn to other channels, or - heaven forfend - stop watching TV at all.


Saturday, April 13, 2019

Males pretending to be females are ruining girls'/women's sports. Here's one answer.

Many of us have read about this already. The high school girls in this blog post - http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-deliberate-destruction-of-womens.html - are disconsolate, as are women in college sports, as well as state and national competitions. I haven't heard anyone come up with an answer for this, but I don't get out much, so I may have simply missed it.

I believe I have an answer, though, and if you agree, why not share it with family and friends? It's simple, really. Picture this: six women and two males pretending to be females, get into their starting blocks, for the 440. The starter pistol cracks, and they're off! While the two males take off running, the six women walk off the field, together. The males will look like the cheating fools that they are (probably two guys who would come in last if they ran in an all-male event), and the women will head for the locker room.

If the real females would do this in every competition where males pretending to be women are interloping, this crap would end fast, I'm sure. The faux females would (as they should) be embarrassed,  not because they were trying to cheat, but because winning a two-person race is ridiculous, plus one of them will be the loser. Even the winner will be a loser.

As I've said, that should stop this nonsense, tout de suite. Or, as we are talking about women's sports, "lickety split".

Sunday, March 3, 2019

A good question: Who is pushing to normalize transgenderism?

I ran across this article by a lady who argues reasonably, logically, that the transgender movement is brought to us by the efforts of a surprising number of people, billionaires who have figured out how to profit mightily from this movement. This lady, Jennifer Bilek, has researched this question extensively, and presents her findings in a very believable fashion. This definitely is not "conspiracy theory", although I have no doubt the Left will try to devalue this information by claiming it is.

At the start of her article, she says:

"As an environmental activist who was deplatformed from a speaking venue by transactivists, in 2013 I developed curiosity about the power of this group to force this development. A year later, when Time magazine announced a transgender tipping point on its cover, I had already begun to examine the money behind the transgender project.
I have watched as all-women’s safe spaces, universities, and sports opened their doors to any man who chose to identify as a woman. Whereas men who identify as transwomen are at the forefront of this project, women who identify as transmen seem silent and invisible. I was astonished that such a huge cultural change as the opening of sex-protected spaces was happening at such a meteoric pace and without consideration for women and girls’ safety, deliberation, or public debate.
Concurrent with these rapid changes, I witnessed an overhaul in the English language with new pronouns and a near-tyrannical assault on those who did not use them. Laws mandating new speech were passed. Laws overriding biological sex with the amorphous concept of gender identity are being instituted now. People who speak openly about these changes can find themselves, their families, and their livelihoods threatened.
These elements, along with media saturation of the issue, had me wondering: Is this really a civil rights issue for a tiny part of the population with body dysphoria, or is there a bigger agenda with moneyed interests that we are not seeing? This article can only begin to graze the surface of this question, but considering transgenderism has basically exploded in the middle of capitalism, which is notorious for subsuming social justice movements, there is value in beginning this examination."
Give a look at this article, and I think you will find yourself not only agreeing with her, but with a better understanding of some of the occurrences we have seen recently that we were not able to explain before reading her study.

Sunday, February 24, 2019

How the Left works: When things don't go your way, change the game. Change the definitions.

Bump stocks. Silly name, isn't it? Sort of makes you think of "bump and grind", if your thought processes are as weird as mine. But for those of you who own firerams, it is really important that you understand the issue of whether or not bump stocks should be legal _really doesn't matter_. The big issue isn't bump stocks themselves, but what the new rule (a rule with the force of law) means. Please bear with me here.

While bump stocks are just toys, owned by very few of us in the gun culture, the new ruling made by BATFE - the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (formerly just BATF or ATF) - changes a very important definition. Now, anything that can be used to make a gun fire more than one bullet from a single press of the trigger is no longer the definition of a "machine gun". That means not just the gun itself, but anything that can be attached, a gun part or an accessory that can increase the RATE of fire of any firearm.  No longer is the number of bullets fired by a single pull of the trigger - a definition established back in 1934 in the National Firearms Act - the definition of "machine gun".

This is very, very important, people. The BATFE has changed their ruling - a ruling that was made and approved while Obama was the President - that bump stocks were not to be classed as "machine guns". After the Left, and President Trump, learned that (supposedly, although the FBI and Las Vegas Police Department have _not_ released all of the facts concerning the mass shooting of people attending a concert in that city) one or more rifles discovered in the room had bump stocks installed (no photos supporting such weapons in the room have been shown), the Democrats immediately jumped on that claim. They claimed those bump stocks made the rifles shoot just like a machine gun, a fully-automatic rifle. That isn't true, but is beside the point.

President Trump agreed. Not because he is against guns or the Second Amendment, but because he was misled to think that the bump stocks could do something that they cannot do. He was misled to believe they made a rifle equipped with one the same as a machine gun. That is not true.

BATFE _knew_ it wasn't true. They knew that if they made that claim, it could be proven wrong - because it _was_ wrong. So the Democrats and BATFE sat down and worked out what had to be done to make the bump stock the same as a machine gun. They CHANGED THE DEFINITION of what constitutes a machine gun. No longer was it a gun, or a part or accessory, that could cause more than one round to be fired with a single pull of a trigger. NOW they claim it is any part or accessory which can change the _rate of fire_ beyond what is possible without that part or accessory. 

The way the new rule is phrased makes it sound like the bump stock can allow you to fire more than one round without using your finger more than once, but it is a lie. Your finger operated the trigger each and every time a round is fired, every time a bullet goes down the barrel. Pull your finger away, and the shooting stops - right now. Firing the gun again _requires_ another pull of the trigger. BATF claims your finger isn't "pulling" the trigger after the first pull, but that is a lie. Your finger pulls the trigger every time, but you don't have to "crook" your finger and move it backwards. The stock forces your finger against the trigger every time you want to fire a round. Just like with any semi-automatic rifle, the gun won't fire if you do not choose to make it fire, each and every time.

Strictly speaking, that could make your _finger_ a machine gun, since you can certainly pull the trigger faster if you wanted to (although it would make aiming a bit more difficult, just like with a bump stock). Suffice it to say that any part or accessory that could increase the rate of fire beyond what is possible without adding such a part or accessory is what they deem to be a machine gun.

Did you know that at one time in the recent past, the BATFE said a shoelace could be considered a machine gun? There is a way, on certain semi-automatic rifles, to get the gun to fire more than one round if a shoelace was attached in a certain way. It would then keep firing so long as you kept your finger on the trigger. That _did_ meet the original definition of a machine gun, but since it was pretty ridiculous (and unConstitutional) to put people in prison for years if they had a shoelace in their possession (like a kid on a football team who carried extra shoelaces in case one broke during a game), that idea was scrapped.

Now we have a new definition. Remember - this device, this bump stock - was completely legal during the Obama administration. NOW, however, it no longer will be legal. President Trump could have stopped this from happening, but he was misinformed into thinking that making it illegal would stop it from happening. Most of us understand that bad guys don't obey the law. That is part of what makes them bad guys. Bump stocks are easy to make by putting together a few items yourself. Any criminals wishing to do so can do it in a matter of minutes, once he has the right parts in hand, all of which are completely legal to buy or make yourself.

The Democrats/Left and the people at BATFE don't care about that. What they DO care about is that this new definition will make it easier to get semi-automatic rifles outlawed, made illegal, a little further down this road. That is why this rule is important to them, and that is why this rule is important to US. We do not want to lose the right to own any semi-automatic rifle we choose to own. Many of us have several of them, one for a husband and spouse, one for a father and one for his son or daughter (yes, a lot of women and girls like to shoot, too). 

The bottom line here is this: the Second Amendment is at great risk if the government (especially the BATFE) is allowed to go changing definitions whenever it pleases them. Remember the "Assault Weapons Ban"?  All of a sudden, firearms that had been legal for many years were ruled illegal. At the time, you could still keep it, but it had to be registered. Did you know that in every country that ever forced the registration of guns, they went on to confiscate them, to forcibly take them from their people? Did you know that in almost every country where guns were confiscated, ruled illegal to possess, the government went on to kill millions of their own people? Not in wars, just within their own country, by their own government.

A man named Rummel, if I remember correctly, is the author of a web site where he tracks and numbers this killing of people by their own government. He calls it "Democide". Turkey was one of the first, back in the early 1900s. They killed or starved to death well over a million Armenians. Germany was a big killer (over 20 million, 6 million of which were Jews), before and during WWII (none of those during WWII are counted from those actually fighting the war). Russia killed even more, over 70 million, 7 million or so intentionally starved to death, men women and children. China is the _big_ winner, having killed over 100 million of their own people through political killing of dissenters, starvation, and (it is believed) the use of actual biological agents. Pol Pot in Cambodia killed well over a million of his people, and millions have died in Africa in Rwanda, Darfur, and other parts of the continent.

So, during the 20th century, somewhere in the neighborhood of over 200 million people were killed by their own governments, not counting any war in which they might have been involved. None of those people were allowed to own firearms. Guns had been registered, then confiscated, and not long afterwards, they were killed - helpless to defend themselves and their loved ones, helpless to protect the innocent, their children. 


https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM