Anti-Bullying? Start With The Feds
Apr 6, 2016 Opinion, Political
For some time now we have had anti-bullying campaigns to stop bullying. It can be for legitimate bullying like schoolyard hooligans or it can be for wussy stuff like trauma over a vote Trump sign. While I think the best way to deal with bullies is to beat the snot out of them I can see value in teaching children not to be bullies (and they will not grow up to be bullies).
The anti-bullying campaign needs to start with the federal government and by that I do not mean they should be leading the charge. I mean that the campaign should be directed at them.
The federal government is a huge bully that uses its size and resources to force states to comply with things that states do not like and that are not in the realm of the feds. The feds force states to do things like ignore immigration laws, they force states to take refugees and they force states to follow laws regarding gay marriage and abortion even though those things are not in the Constitution and do not belong under federal control.
In the latest example of bullying the federal government is trying to force [bankrupt] North Carolina to reverse its position on allowing people of one sex in the public restrooms of the opposite sex. To coin a phrase from the left, the law in question is a common sense law that will help keep perverts out of places they do not belong.
It is bad enough we have to worry about some child molester of the same sex attacking our children but now the feds want us to allow anyone to use any restroom so perverts will have unfettered access to our wives and daughters.
Several federal agencies are threatening to withhold federal money if NC does not change its ways and allow open restrooms. The government confiscates our money and then uses it to extort things from us.
Perhaps it is time to take a stand. NC should not allow any federal agencies inside its border. It should use its resources to close down federal buildings or force the feds to pay for having them there. The NC governor should declare that all businesses must submit federal taxes withheld to the state. The state should hold that money in escrow and use it to pay for whatever the feds cut. The money could also be held until the feds give in. Perhaps NC can erect toll booths on federal roads to pay the state for their use.
I hope NC gets tough and beats back the tyrants in DC.
Let’s put an end to bullying by the federal government by beating the snot out of the bully.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: federal tyrants, laws, north carolina, perverts in restroom
Freedom Of Religion
Apr 1, 2015 Commentary, Political
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is pretty clear. It states that Congress can’t make any laws establishing religion (as in a state sponsored one) and that it can’t prohibit the free exercise of religion. This means anytime, anywhere.
[note]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ~ First Amendment US Constitution [emphasis mine][/note]
There are business owners who have deeply held religious convictions and they have refused to do things that they feel violate their beliefs. Many hold that if they participate they are as guilty of the sin, as defined by their religion, as the people committing it.
Indiana is catching hell for a religious freedom bill that assures business people will be protected if they follow their religious convictions. There is nothing in the law that allows discrimination though you would be hard pressed to find that information in the MSM.
There is also nothing that mentions gay or lesbian or any other form of sexual deviancy (and yes, they are deviants from the norm). You would also be hard pressed to find that out in the MSM.
You see, the media, fueled by the radical homosexual community (and liberals, of course), has made this all about homosexuals. They have their panties in a wad over this law and they are spreading the lie that it targets them.
The federal government has this very law, signed by Bill Clinton of all people, and many other states have the law as well. When Clinton signed the law liberals applauded. Now they are attacking Mike Pence for the very law they cheered when Clinton signed on the dotted line.
Let us be clear. You have no right to do business in a shop. You have no right to that owners business. He has no right to your patronage. He is free to decide what he will and will not do and you are free to decide whether or not you will shop there.
The big difference is the shop owner can’t discriminate against YOU. He can’t decide not to do it because you are gay or black or anything else. He can decide not to do it because of what you want [him to do] if it violates his religious beliefs.
You, on the other hand, are free to discriminate against the shop owner for any reason. If you don’t want to shop there because the owner is gay or black or white or whatever you have the right to discriminate that way and the government cannot arrest you for it or fine you for it or force you to shop there.
Should a black baker be required to bake a cake for the KKK or skinheads? Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake for a neo Nazi group?
Should a Muslim deli be forced to make you a ham sandwich or cook you bacon for breakfast?
If these things would violate their religious beliefs then they should not have to do them.
The outcry from the gay community is deafening but I never hear any of them attack a gay baker who refuses to make cakes for straight people.
I use a baker for most of the examples because this is what started all this mess but there are plenty of other examples (including my Muslim pork example above).
Should religious hospitals and clinics be forced to provide abortions or birth control if it violates their beliefs?
Should a person of religious conviction be forced to provide some service to a porn shop? Suppose a very religious air conditioner repair person was called to give an estimate and arrived at a porn shop. Should that person be forced to provide the service or should that person be able to decline?
Should a gay florist be forced to provide the floral arrangements for the Westboro Baptist Church (you know they hate gays and blame everything bad on them, right)?
The law in Indiana is to protect people who act in accordance with their religious convictions and does not allow discrimination.
Unfortunately the MSM and the radical homosexuals do not understand this. They are only tolerant of other people’s views as long as those views agree with their own.
If I owned a bakery or any other business I would have a sign that said what the business will not do. Imagine telling the gay folks I will bake you a cake but I will not do any gay themes. It would be helpful to post that sign and then list other bakeries (or businesses similar to yours) that will provide the service.
Perhaps, and this is me thinking outside the box, these folks could move on and find a bakery (or other business) that WILL provide what they want. There are plenty of other places that are more than happy to take your money. Why cause problems?
Because that is the agenda.
Destroy religion. Destroy opposition. Make homosexuality normal.
Sorry but it is not and it never will be.
FWIW, I don’t care if you are gay or straight, black white or any other color and I don’t care what religion you are or what sex you are (or anything else that makes you different from me). Treat me right and I will do the same to you.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: gay, indiana, laws, lies, mike pence, radical homosexuals, religious freedom
Obama Admits To Violating The Constitution
Nov 26, 2014 Political
A brief lesson for people like Lynda Mari**, a Facebook commenter (who I saw commenting back and forth with some other person about Michael Brown at a Ravens player’s page) who displays ignorance and is representative of the liberal morons in this nation. Lesson: There are three branches of government and each has certain responsibilities. The Constitution spells out what each branch is allowed to do (what powers We the People have given them) and if they are not given a responsibility then they just can’t do what they want.
The three branches are supposed to provide a checks and balances system to our form of government.
B. Hussein Obama has been saying for several years that he could not change immigration laws through Executive Order. He told people at least two dozen times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to do so.
After the last election Obama changed direction and decided that he did indeed have the power to change laws. He claimed that he was not really changing anything and that he was only using his discretion in order to prioritize. What he means is he is ignoring some laws to help out people who are here illegally.
A funny thing happened while he was out drumming up support for his illegal action. He actually told the truth. Obama told people that he changed a law. He was campaigning in Chicago and had this to say to a person who was giving him a hard time:
“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” [emphasis added] The Daily Caller
While Republicans were protesting (not like the riots in Ferguson) Obama was claiming that he did not change the law. But when he went off script he specifically stated that he violated the Constitution. He claimed that it was a FACT that the person was not paying attention to.
I have already spelled out what I would like to see done. To recap the Republicans should draw up articles of Impeachment and include all illegal acts from the time Obama was coronated. Then proceed and ensure the Senate has a thorough trial. Won’t get a conviction but it will air all the dirty laundry and show how lawless he is (while taking down a few Democrats who were involved).
They should also fund all parts of the government except the parts that will carry out his illegal acts. Then refuse to confirm any of his nominees.
Obama is a lawless politician who sees himself as Emperor. He is a tyrant and he should be removed from office as quickly as possible.
People like Lynda Mari will say that this is racist because that is the only trick people like her have.
Though given it is Bathhouse Barry Obama I guess she might scream homophobe.
In any event, people like her are why we have black folks on the liberal plantation as slaves to government and why there are NO liberal run cities that are succeeding.
The gimmiedats are too busy with their hands out instead of working.
Maybe if Michael Brown was punching a time clock instead of a cop he would still be alive today…
**I don’t know why but when I happened upon her comments they struck me the wrong way. It was obvious she is a person who has little knowledge…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: b. hussein obama, constitution, defund, impeach, laws, lynda mari, tyrant
Does MA Need An Upskirt Law?
Mar 10, 2014 Commentary
In reality, does any state need such a law?
The issue stems from a guy in Massachusetts who was taking pictures up women’s skirts. Basically he was taking photos of something that is open to the public under certain conditions. If you were behind the woman as she was walking up the stairs or as she used a ladder in the law library you might see what he took pictures of.
He got in trouble, at first, but then won his case because there is no law in MA concerning what he did. So MA enacted a law making it illegal.
Does it make sense to have a law to control behavior that only involves taking pictures of more than what one sees at a beach?
Don’t get me wrong. I think the guy was a creep and anyone who takes the photos is a real strange person who has issues but do we need a law?
A better idea would be to pass a law that it is OK for the woman or her boyfriend (or husband) to beat the hell out of the guy if they catch him. If a few of the creeps got the snot kicked out of them the others might think twice.
In any event, a guy with a camera at the beach will get much more exposed private areas than a guy snapping photos up skirts.
And the guy at the beach will not be breaking the law because states of partial nudity are the norm.
[note]I see a lot of arrests for public photos in the near future as this law will be used to include all kinds of public photography. It happens with all laws. You get creep until it covers tons of things that it was never intended to address.[/note]
We have too many laws that attempt to regulate every aspect of our lives. This one seems to be a knee jerk reaction because the guy, while a creep, did not break any law. So what better way to fix it than to enact one.
A photo of him beaten half to death would probably work much better and save the taxpayers money.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: laws, Massachusetts, public places, upskirt
Interesting Information About Guns
Jan 11, 2013 Political
Obama opposes guns for self defense even in the home:
As a state senator in Illinois, President Obama opposed legislation providing an exception to handgun restrictions if the weapon was used in the defense of one’s home. White House Dossier
Even Pravda warns against giving up our guns:
These days, there are few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bear arms and use deadly force to defend one’s self and possessions. Pravda
Do you have a responsibility to fight if they come for your guns?:
You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights. The DC Clothesline
It will likely get really ugly in the near future. People need to decide where they want to be and what they are willing to fight for. If the government can impose its will and remove God given rights like the right to keep and bear arms then it can remove the right to peaceably assemble, practice religion, speak freely, petition government for redress of grievances, the freedom of the press, right against unlawful searches, and on and on.
Once one right is deemed OK to sacrifice then all others are able to get the same designation. Without the means to fight against tyranny we become slaves to government. I don’t know where I read it but someone wrote that armed societies sometimes have mass shootings but unarmed societies have mass genocide.
How true that is. Governments have murdered more people than madmen with firearms.
The Constitution places limits on government and government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.
They need to be reminded of that from time to time.
[note]”When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!” – Thomas Jefferson[/note]
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: constitution, guns, laws, men, pravda, rights, Second Amendment