Archive for August, 2013

Veterans Enrolled In VA Health Care DO NOT NEED To Participate In The ObamaCare Fiasco

August 30, 2013

As I veteran, I care deeply about veterans issues.  So when I heard about this important fact related to veterans and ObamaCare, I felt the immediate need to pass the information along.

The most important fact that you will learn from the following:

If you are enrolled in VA health care, you don’t need to take additional steps to meet the health care law coverage standards. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans’ out-of-pocket costs.

From the Veterans Administration website under the title, “VA, Affordable Care Act and You“:

What is the Affordable Care Act?

The Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care law, was created to expand access to coverage, control health care costs and improve health care quality and care coordination. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans’ out-of-pocket costs.

Three things you should know:

  • VA wants all Veterans to receive health care that improves their health and well-being.
  • If you are enrolled in VA health care, you don’t need to take additional steps to meet the health care law coverage standards. The health care law does not change VA health benefits or Veterans’ out-of-pocket costs.
  • If you are not enrolled in VA health care, you can apply at any time.

Veterans Enrolled in VA Health Care

The good news is that Veterans enrolled in VA health care programs have health coverage that meets the new health care law’s standard.  You do not have to take any additional steps to have health coverage. Read more if enrolled…

Veterans Not Enrolled in VA Health Care

Veterans not currently enrolled in VA health care program can apply for enrollment at any time. Read more about enrolling…

Family Members

VA offers health care benefits for certain family members of Veterans through programs such as the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) and the Spina Bifida program. Read more about VA family programs…

Your family members who are not enrolled in a VA health care program should use the Marketplace to get coverage.

Additional Health Care Law Information

We understand you may have questions about the health care law and how it might affect you and your family. We compiled basic information about the health care law to help you make informed decisions about your health care. Let us know if you have questions regarding the health care law and your VA health care at 1-877-222-VETS (8387). After all, ensuring you receive quality health care is not just our obligation, it’s also our privilege

ObamaCare is a complete, unmitigated disaster that was passed by truly evil people who cared only about expanding the raw fascist power of government, rather than actually “caring” about anybody.  If you can avoid the ensuing hell that this disastrous and very Unaffordable takeover of the health care system will surely result in, you ought to do everything you can to do so.

It is a good thing to know that veterans have already suffered enough, and therefore don’t need to go to war all over again just to comply with the mandates of their power-hungry government.

Advertisements

The Singularity Of ‘Solutions’ Proposed By Liberal Thinkers Is Only Surpassed By Their Abject HYPOCRISY

August 26, 2013

I made the mistake of searching for intelligent life in the Los Angeles Times’ editorial section and found this gem:

Re “Why get off welfare?” Opinion, Aug. 22

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers. When arguing taxes, conservatives insist that cutting them will encourage small businesses to create jobs, providing a broader taxpaying base, while increasing taxes will reduce jobs and therefore reduce the amount of taxes going to government.

In his article, Michael Tanner argues that if benefit payments were lower than wages for entry-level jobs, it would encourage the poor to seek work.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Jack Berens
Alta Loma

Let’s just put the first hoity-toity, sanctimonious, self-righteous sentence together with the very last to see what’s wrong with this argument:

I never cease to be amazed at the singularity of economic solutions proposed by conservative thinkers.

Why not increase the minimum wage instead? Would that not also encourage the poor to seek employment?

Oookay.  Apparently, Mr. Berens is astonished at the “singularity of economic solutions” proposed by conservatives.  Which is a fancy way of accusing conservatives of thinking alike.

So what does Mr. Berens proceed to do, you know, after displaying his naked contempt for “the singularity of conservative thought”???  Why, prove that all damn liberals think alike and document the “singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberal thinkers,” that’s what.

Increase the minimum wage.  Why, no lefty has ever proposed THAT novel concept before.  THAT’S not demonstrating “the singularity of liberal thought,” now, is it?  As long as you’ve got the IQ of a poached egg it’s not, anyway.

For the record, the LA Times published six responses to the Tanner editorial.  One of them was from a conservative (actually five liberals’ to one conservative is about as “fair” as the LA Times is capable of ever getting, so there’s not much point complaining about that).  So five liberals write in – and four of the five call for higher wages.  And the fifth had a couple of other “singular” liberal economic solutions in demanding more government intrusion into education, more government intrusion into child care and more government intrusion into transportation.  So I think I have good grounds just in the LA Times editorial section in pointing out that this Jack Berens is revealing the singularity of economic solutions proposed by liberals even as he attacks the very same thing from conservatives.

The biggest problem with liberals isn’t that they are completely wrong (although that is a major problem with them); the problem is that liberals are abject hypocrites who routinely demonize conservatives for doing the same damn thing that they are doing even when they are at that very moment doing that thing themselves as Jack Berens does here.

Actually, if one were fair or honest (liberals being incapable of either), one would realize that the “singularity of solutions” thing is rather absurd.  Of COURSE there’s a singularity of thought among conservative thinkers… THAT’S WHY WE CALL THEM CONSERVATIVES!!!  If they DIDN’T have the same solutions, they wouldn’t be conservatives anymore than if liberals didn’t have the same damn solutions, they wouldn’t be liberals.  Do you see my point???

I mean, what a dunderheaded argument the LA Times saw fit to print.

Jack Berens’ problem is that he’s a hypocrite who can’t help shaking his fist in the mirror and shouting, “YOU are an idiot!”

I just despise that king of self-righteous hypocrisy.

Here’s another thing that’s wrong with Berens’ “solution”: How do you increase the minimum wage?  By using the raw, naked power of government to FORCE businesses to pay a higher wage.

Now, let’s see: are liberals doing a real good job creating jobs?  Well, if you’ve got that poached egg IQ, I’m sure you think they are.  The rest of us aren’t seeing a whole lot of jobs being created.  And then we’re further stunned to learn that seven out of every eight jobs Obama has “created” in his presidency are part-time jobs rather than the full-time jobs people need to actually earn an actual living.  And ObamaCare has massively accelerated that terrible trend.  And will continue to do so.

Hell, even ObamaCare shills are only hiring their workers part-time so they won’t have to pay the cost of health care that ObamaCare would force them to pay if they didn’t hire part-time.  The damn irony is just too thick here.

Who is going to be forced to pay workers more?  Does Jack Berens believe that every single employer in America is a “conservative economic thinker”???  Does he not realize that plenty of LIBERALS who hire people are paying their workers the same revolting wage that Jack Berens demonizes conservatives for paying???

Why are liberals paying this despicably low wage?  They could pay as much as they want to pay.

The reason is pretty damn simple, kids: both conservatives and the liberals who actually have to live in the real damn world alike are paying what they can afford to pay to retain the quality of help that they need.

Jack Berens is basically saying, “I think other people ought to pay more.”  Which is the PROTOTYPICAL “economic solution proposed by liberal thinkers.”  Let’s force other people to spend their money the way we liberal fascists think they should spend it.  Never heard that line of reasoning before.  Boy, this Jack Berens fellow is anything BUT an example of liberal “singularity,” aint he???

Just how in the world do you think forcing businesses to pay higher wages will incentivize them to hire more workers???  And if employer X and employee Y both agree on a certain wage, then just who the hell made liberals’ Adolf Hitler by giving them the power to interfere with that agreement and say, “Nein!  Employers must be forced by government socialism to pay MORE than they are willing to pay!”

I can document that I put my money where my mouth was in this minimum-wage-employement debate.  In that 2009 article, I made a prediction: I predicted that increasing the minimum wage would decrease the number of minimum wage jobs.  And I was right, right, RIGHT just as liberals were wrong, wrong, WRONG.  As I proved.

This idea that liberals can use the raw fascist power of a totalitarian state to dictate what businesses and individuals do is as naïve as it is evil.  Businesses have a way of doing whatever the hell they can to not be the social experiment stooges that liberals continuously want them to be.  Frankly, the lower-skilled a job, the less valuable a worker is to his/her employer, and therefore the smaller the margin that an employer can pay for what is by definition a marginal job to begin with.  The job simply isn’t worth enough to an employer to want to – or be able to afford to – pay more.  And if government tries to force them to pay more, they will simply not offer the damn job.

And of course, the Tanner article was precisely about the fact that liberals really don’t WANT jobs to begin with: they want to be parasites.  They want to be freeloaders.  The want to be entitlement suckers.  They want to be welfare/food stamp addicts.  And they want government to have the fascist, dictatorial, totalitarian power to decide who wins and who loses, who pays and who doesn’t pay, who has to be forced to pay for ObamaCare and who gets a damn waiver from ObamaCare, and that sort of thing.  So it frankly doesn’t bother them if they kill jobs and hurt poor people who want to work.

Which, of course, is precisely what is happening now as businesses are tripping over themselves to kill the idea of “full-time employees” in order to avoid the ObamaCare hell mandate (i.e., the mandate to go to hell mandated by ObamaCare).

Probation Officers’ Union Chief Demands Officers Do Their Surprise Visits To Criminals Without Guns. Officers Say Are You CRAZY?

August 22, 2013

Here’s an interesting story.  Basically, the chief of the probation officers’ union in Los Angeles County expects parole officers to do surprise visits of the 10,000 inmates that liberals released because liberals are evil and liberalism is the most suicidal worldview in the history of the world.  And he wants them to conduct these surprise visits unarmed.

Well, the parole officers don’t say no.  They say HELL no.  They say that would be incredibly dangerous and they don’t remember signing any suicide pacts.

What do you think?  Should they do these visits unarmed, or should they be allowed to be armed?

I’ll post the article in its entirety and give you my conclusion at the end.  First the article:

Probation officers clash with chief over monitoring ex-inmates
Probation officers’ union is fighting an order that officers should not be armed during unannounced checks on inmates released under prison realignment.
By Abby Sewell
August 21, 2013, 8:39 p.m.

Los Angeles County probation officers are at loggerheads with their chief over the way he wants them to monitor lower-level felons who have become the county’s responsibility as a result of state prison realignment.

The officers’ union is complaining that Chief Jerry Powers wants members to make unannounced visits to the homes of probationers, but without carrying weapons. Union leaders say that’s too dangerous and are threatening to sue.

The issue is the latest in a series of snags in implementing AB 109, the realignment law that took effect in October 2011 to comply with a court order to relieve state prison overcrowding.

Under the rules, some lower-level felons — generally, those whose most recent offense is nonviolent and nonsexual — are now sentenced to county jail instead of prison, and those paroled from prison are supervised by the county rather than state officers.

The Los Angeles County Probation Department oversees about 10,000 ex-state prisoners, although at any given time, 2,000 or so have fled from supervision. The department has hired 220 additional probation officers to handle those cases and is hiring an additional 143 — a process that the chief said was slowed by labor requirements to try to fill the positions internally but that the union said was slowed by the chief being too particular about whom he would promote.

Most of those officers are not permitted to carry arms. The department has 46 officers who carry guns and plans to eventually raise the number to 100, spokeswoman Carol Lin said.

The probation officers’ union cites a June incident in which a probation officer was grazed by a bullet and a Los Angeles Police Department officer was shot in the face while searching a house during a probation check in unincorporated South Los Angeles. A man hiding in the attic opened fire on them, marking the first time in the county department’s history that a probation officer had been shot on the job.

“We don’t want to go in to do an unannounced check and someone pops up with an AK-47,” said Sue Cline, second vice president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 685, which represents most probation officers. “What are we supposed to do, throw a BlackBerry at them?”

The union sent a “cease and desist” letter to the department in response to a training memo in late July. Those instructions said that after conducting an initial visit to a felon’s home accompanied by an armed officer, probation officers would be required to periodically make unannounced visits. During those first visits, officers were to walk through and draw a diagram of the home, and if necessary, handcuff residents or make them leave until the work was done.

A second memo issued last week clarified that the home visits should not entail handcuffing residents or searching the home, but still said probation officers would be required to return for unannounced visits “regularly without armed assistance.” The mind-set during the visits should be “engaging rather than enforcing/intimating/confrontational,” the memo said.

In response to the union complaints, Probation Assistant Chief Margarita Perez announced that she would get fitted for a safety vest and begin making unaccompanied home visits herself. And at Tuesday’s weekly meeting of the county Board of Supervisors, Powers fired back at the union.

“Field supervision is a core component of being a deputy probation officer,” he said. “You’re a peace officer. You don’t get peace officer status to sit behind a desk…. We need to get out, we need to engage. We will have a better success rate with our offenders.”

He said officers could always ask to be accompanied by one of the department’s armed officers or by an armed officer from another police agency — assuming someone was available.

In an interview, Powers said that in reviewing some of the high-profile crimes committed by AB 109 probationers after their release into county custody — including the recent fatal stabbing of a woman by a panhandler in Hollywood — the department found “missed opportunities” to connect with offenders before they committed a new crime.

Although the probation department is the lead agency in implementing realignment, other law enforcement agencies have been handling the bulk of so-called compliance checks, more invasive operations that may involve searching a parolee’s home for contraband such as weapons or drugs.

But that approach has occasionally created its own set of problems.

Some treatment programs and group homes for ex-offenders have complained repeatedly that the LAPD has conducted armed, SWAT-style compliance checks, often with several squad cars unaccompanied by a county probation officer.

A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a South Los Angeles home for women coming out of prison, brought up the issue publicly more than a year ago, and LAPD representatives attended community meetings to address the concerns, but A New Way of Life Executive Director Susan Burton said the practice has continued and even increased in recent months.

Burton said her residents have to comply with their probation or parole terms to stay at the home, and that the practice is disruptive to women who are trying to turn their lives around.

“The women have served their time in custody, and this is a time for rebuilding,” she said.

Resident Rasheena Buchanan, 30, said she was alarmed when an LAPD officer came to her room with a gun drawn at 7:30 a.m. during a compliance check in late June.

“That took me back to a place I really didn’t want to go. This was like my safe haven, and I felt like they violated that,” said Buchanan, who is on parole after serving 61/2 years for second-degree robbery.

Capt. Phil Tingirides of the LAPD’s Southeast Division said officers get a list of names and addresses of AB 109 offenders who are released, and have to check on all of them without the more in-depth knowledge of their background and risk levels that probation or parole officers would have. Given the officers’ limited knowledge and the violent situations that have erupted during some checks, he said, police have to treat all the ex-offenders as a potential threat.

“It just creates a very difficult situation for us,” he said. “…Trust me, we would prefer that [parole or probation officers] do it. It’s really not our thing. This is a community relations nightmare for us.”

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who was present at one of the compliance checks last year at A New Way of Life, said the continuing complaints fed his concerns that monitoring offenders is not as well-coordinated as it could be.

“Probation made a big push to be on the front line in terms of AB 109, so if compliance checks are such a huge issue …who’s supposed to be responsible for making sure it’s being done correctly?” he said at Tuesday’s meeting. In a separate interview, he said, “Frankly, all of them are supposed to be working collaboratively to make sure AB 109 works. If productive programs are being disrupted, then AB 109 is not working as it should.”

Okay, if you’re here, you either read the article or you just wanted to see what I’d say about it.  So here’s my wisdom of Solomon.

Ordinarily, I would be knee-jerk on the side of the probation officers being armed in these inspections.

But keep in mind this is the probation officers UNION.  And unions, as we know, nearly always support Democrats and likely gave money to Obama so he could be our fuehrer messiah.

Anyway, if it turns out that the probation officers union in Los Angeles gave its campaign money to Democrats, they want to take OUR guns away even if we’re law abiding citizens who just want to have the right to defend ourselves against the same predatory scumbags that the probation officers are living in fear of right now.  So in that case, let them be unarmed, and yes, they DID sign a suicide pact when they decided to support Democrats.

Now, if they at least stayed the hell out of politics, or better yet, gave their money to the political party that DIDN’T want to disarm Americans, then hell yeah they should be able to do those visits armed.

And what’s the story?  Well, it’s not easy to find out who gave what, but I did find this:

Los Angeles County Democratic Party: A Reliable Campaign Conduit

The Los Angeles County Democrat Party proved to be a reliable conduit for special interest contributions. Within days of accepting $137,250 in campaign contributions from seven special interest groups, the Los Angeles County Democratic Party distributed $127,200, or 93 percent of these received contributions, to Quirk-Silva’s campaign.

On October 10, the L.A. County Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685, contributed $10,000 to the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. One week later, the Los Angeles County central committee contributed $11,700 to Quirk-Silva’s campaign in Orange County.

[For the factual record, Quirk-Silva is a Democrat]

So there you have it: Democrat hypocrites.  What I demand for thee does not work out very well for me.  So we should get an exemption or a waiver for what we forced YOU to do.  Which is Democrats’ stand on everything from ObamaCare to guns to everything else under the sun.

These union types ought to go into those criminals’ homes the way they want me to be in my home: completely helpless, defenseless and hoping nobody tries to attack me.

Hey, let’s disarm our police officers the way England has.  Let ’em ALL try to do their jobs without the guns that the rest of us are told we don’t need.  It would take about two seconds to turn all those law enforcement unions conservative Republican rather than the liberal fascists they are now, wouldn’t it?

What’s good for thee doesn’t work for me has got to end because America is about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

European Knights Versus Japanese Samurai

August 21, 2013

I believe it was the great Monty Python who made famous the phrase, “And now for something completely different.”  If you have ever read this blog, you will know that this article fully qualifies.

I enjoy watching the Military History Channel, and for whatever reason I particularly enjoy the programs dealing with ancient warfare.  And so when I noticed that a program about the great samurai swordsman Miyamoto Mushasi was just starting, I watched it with enthusiasm.

At some point, the question occurred to me: how would a Japanese Samurai fare against a European knight, and vice versa?  And, in this modern age where vast amounts of information are instantly available to curious minds, all I had to do for immediate gratification was to take out my gizmo and enter the question and hit enter.

I examined about a dozen sites before drawing a few conclusions.  I had expected that there would be an overwhelming favorite in such a matchup – and there was.  But I was surprised at who that overwhelming favorite turned out to be.

In short, it turned out to be the European knight (this link merely being one example where a lot of individual opinions were offered).  I had expected that, given the mythological treatment that Hollywood has given to Asian fighting styles in general and Japanese samurai and ninja warriors in particular, that most people would say without batting an eye that the samurai would cut through the knight like a shiskabob wrapped up in tinfoil.

I found what I learned interesting, and thought I’d share it with whatever small segment of the universe cares about such topics.

Knights and samurai never got together as either friends or foes in the real world.  And that was because they literally lived and fought in different worlds that didn’t even know the other existed.  That said, both groups of warriors were the absolute best in their respective world.  And they unceasingly trained themselves to fight the enemies of their respective worlds.  Which is to say they never developed the sort of tactics that each would have had to develop were they to encounter the other.

Given my experience with Hollywood lore, it did not come as much of a surprise to learn that Japanese samurai were highly trained warriors.  But I was surprised to learn just how incredibly well-trained the European knights (such as the Teutonic knights) truly were.  Yes, as some point out, knights generally had to come out of the noble class – if nothing else for the reason that their horse, armor and equipment were so incredibly expensive – but becoming a knight was not nearly so easy as being born a noble.  It turns out that these warriors began their training as early as the age of FOUR YEARS OLD by beginning their service as squires.  Like the Japanese samurai – who also almost exclusively came out of the noble class as well for the same reasons – training did not begin with combat instruction, but upon learning a system of honor and duty.

In both cases, it took years of incredible hardship to master the training to serve as the most elite warriors in their worlds.  And that training was reserved for men who had literally been born to it.

Let  me put it this way: if you didn’t have an assault rifle on you, you would NOT have wanted to go up against EITHER of these warrior groups.  Both were highly skilled killing machines.

Both groups of warriors had codes of honor and a determination to prove themselves worthy in combat to which they adhered to the point of fanaticism.  Both lived to fight; and both LOVED to fight.

One of the reasons the Crusades came about is that there were no wars at the time, and bored combat-bred knights with nothing to do was a dangerous and explosive situation.  One of the things that happened in 1095 was that the Pope made Europe’s problem with a professional warrior class the Middle East’s problem.

So in a battle between knights and samurai, who would likely have prevailed against the other?

On my view, the European knight would have been the victor.  Let me explain why in a few key points.

First, allow me to argue by way of a couple of historical analogies: although “knights” and “samurai” never faced off against each other, history does actually provide what I argue is a similar matchup as we consider the heavily armored knights versus the comparatively more lightly armored samurai: the Spartans of the Greek city state – the elite of the Western world – versus the Persian Immortals who were the elite warriors of the Eastern world.

It must have been a massive shock to the eastern Persians to find warriors who could easily destroy what they had come to believe were the greatest warriors on earth.  But the Immortals fell like wheat before the scythe against the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.  The Spartans’ superior armor combined with their phalanx system of fighting were absolutely devastating to the Persian Immortals.  The Immortals had simply never encountered anything like the Spartans and had neither the equipment nor the tactics to deal with their heavily armored enemies.

The second anaology actually comes from the greatest of the samurai swordsmen, Miyamoto Mushashi.  In his most famous duel against the other greatest samurai of his day, Sasaki Kojiro, Mushashi was forced to confront the dilemma of his opponent’s incredible reach.  That was because Sasaki Kojiro was famous for using an unusually long katana sword.  Musashi ended up overcoming this dilemma by fabricating his OWN even longer katana that he carved from a boat oar.  Mushasi ultimate won the duel by psyching out his opponent and winning the duel of the fighter’s minds – and a key way he did so was to surprisingly turn Kojiro’s advantage into a disadvantage.

I’ve watched a number of fights and duels, and whether we’re talking about boxing or some other hand-to-hand form, or whether we’re talking about weapons, having the advantage of reach over your opponent is incredibly significant.  If you have the reach advantage, you can literally strike at your opponent without exposing yourself.  While not insurmountable, you are simply on very dangerous ground if you find yourself holding the shorter weapon in a fight – whether those weapons be arms and fists or swords.

And thus it becomes significant to note that a Japanese katana – used by the shorter Japanese – was usually 36 inches long, versus European broadswords that usually measured between forty and fifty inches.  Even the four inches of difference is significant.  But when it’s a full FOOT it’s huge.  Imagine how hard it would be to land a punch on Shaquille O’Neal versus how easy it would be for that giant fist on that giant arm to smash your face to get an idea.

That said, analogies – even based on genuine history – can only take us so far, and so I’ll move on.

Let’s talk about the swords and the armor of each warrior.

Samurai swords are famous – to the point of mythology – for their quality and their razor sharpness.  But it may be surprising to learn that an English broadsword cost the equivalent of $70,000 in today’s currency to make (and the cost of outfitting a knight with horse, armor and weaponry would have amounted to the price of a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood in today’s dollars).  The European broadswords were incredibly fine weapons as well, believe me.  They were longer and heavier than Japanese katana because the combat situations that the knights fought in necessitated a longer, heavier weapon.  [And here let me point out that while fine Japanese battle katanas – which were produced in the tens or even hundreds of thousands during World War II – are numerous, actual combat broadswords are far, FAR more difficult to come by as they ceased being manufactured centuries ago.  In any test between swords, any valid comparison would have to compare an actual combat weapon to an actual combat weapon, rather than comparing an actual Japanese combat katana to a “weapon” that was made to serve as a wall ornament.  Take as an example the katanas WWII Japanese officers were issued.  These were weapons intended to be actually used in combat.  Versus the “swords” Marines were issued with their dress uniforms – which routinely sell on eBay for less than $40.  And no: Marine officers and NCOs did not charge into Japanese lines waving their ceremonial swords, did they?].

I argue that the decisive issue to answer the question of broadsword versus katana isn’t the quality of the swords themselves – which itself is highly debatable – but the rather the types of swords that they were relative to the type of fighting that would need to take place were knights and samurai to face one another.

The Japanese katana was a curved weapon, ideal for a quick explosive draw from a sheath and ideal for slashing or cutting.  In a “quick-draw” contest, the katana wins, hands down.  A straight-bladed broadsword takes longer to draw from a scabbard.

To this day, katanas are all about their capacity to make incredible cuts.  It was designed to be a slashing weapon rather than a thrusting weapon.

The problem is that slashing would have been nearly entirely ineffective against European plate armor.  And the reason the knights didn’t use curved swords is precisely because they would have been ineffective weapons against other knights.

Their swords were straight and heavy-bladed weapons designed to pierce through rather than slash through armor and the few very small gaps between plates.  It wasn’t that knights didn’t employ hacking/slashing/cutting techniques on a battlefield; it was just that they would have used a different weapon such as a mace to do it.

The European broadsword has the advantage in being sharp on both sides, which opens up the tactic of being able to attack from more angles versus a single-sided blade such as a katana.

I believe that were the Japanese to encounter armored knights, they would have quickly began to alter their swords.  It isn’t that the katana is inferior to the broadsword, it is merely that katanas were never designed to face that sort of armor.  And I would guess that a giant broadsword wouldn’t have been the ideal weapon  in the Japanese world of the samurai, either.

It should also be stated at some point that neither the samurai nor the knights fought only with swords.  Both warriors were proficient with a frankly mindboggling array of lethal hand weapons.  Knights fought with swords, axes, lances, pikes, maces and hammers as just part of a very long list.  These highly skilled warriors were capable of killing with damn near anything they could get their hands on.  And the same was true for the samurai.

Now let’s discuss the armor.  I earlier said that Japanese armor was “lighter,” but it – surprisingly – wasn’t lighter by very much.  The Japanese armor was primarily made from leather and wood.  And it turns out that leather is pretty darned heavy.  Both suits of armor weighed in in the ballpark of about sixty pounds.  Nor is the Japanese armor much more flexible.  That isn’t because there’s anything wrong with Japanese armor, but rather it is a matter of how incredibly balanced and well-distributed the weight of a suit of European plate armor truly is.  And the range of movement is simply remarkable.  If you are ever fortunate enough to put on an actual suit of combat Medieval armor, you will feel a) invulnerable and b) badass.

The steel plate armor of the European knights was simply superior.  Most likely because steel was simply available in considerably larger quantities in the West, it was used to make armor in the West and it wasn’t in the East.  Obviously, today Japan has a huge steel industry, but it was very late to develop that industry relative to the West.  Japan didn’t begin extracting iron until the 7th century AD, and they didn’t have a significant steel industry until the 19th century.  The West simply had the technological advantage that had frankly began a millennia before, just as they continued to have it AFTER the age of the knights and samurai ended with the advent of rifles (which transformed the most base peasant into a knight or samurai killer without a great deal of training).

Technology is rather important (see here for that proof).  And the Europeans had the advantage in armor technology.

Just to finish this point, when the Japanese began to trade with the West in the 16th century, it didn’t take them very long to acquire Western-style armored helmets and breastplates (i.e. the cuirass).  Which is another way of saying Japan updated its outdated armor technology.  But by then the knight in Europe had largely already been replaced by guns and had abandoned armor.

But there is more to say: the European knights and the Japanese samurai had entirely different uses on a battlefield.

Both were at their best on horseback.  And it was on horseback that their true purpose was most revealed.

The European knights were the prototypical heavy cavalry – and there was no greater force on earth to charge an enemy phalanx shield wall such as had been developed by the previously mentioned Greeks and Spartans.  Their impact on the battlefield was to mount a crushing attack an enemy formation with the aim of breaking apart its unit cohesion with crushing force, scattering if not routing the enemy in decisive charges.

You can only imagine it: a European knight cavalry charge, as something on the order of 1,500-plus pounds of armored muscle raced toward you at 35 miles an hour. And there was a nine to eleven foot-long lance pointed right at you.  Roy Cox, an expert in jousting, calculated the force at the spear tip of that lance as being as much as 50,000 pounds per square inch.  Can you even imagine that kind of devastating weight and power coming at you at that kind of speed?  When the ultimate tanks of the ancient world came at you, you either got out of their way or you died.

And that unrivaled speed, power and force was the essence of the European knight.

That was why the knights evolved in Europe; they were the ultimate heavy cavalry of the age.  Their purpose was to scatter an enemy formation.  And there was no warrior on earth that could do a better job of that.

That was not how the samurai fought.

For one thing, the samurai were superb archers (this was a skill that the knights did not tend to learn, since Western fighting had developed a specialized class of archers known as longbowmen who fought in their own formations behind the foot infantry.  They were specialized because like the knights, they were trained from childhood to reach their required skill level.  So, if we wanted to, we could re-introduce analogies by returning to a different East meets West conflict a.k.a. the Crusades.  The Eastern style of fighting was to use horseback-mounted archers, and the Western style was to use heavy cavalry to smash infantry formations.

Both tactics had their place on the battlefield.  You can’t say that one was necessarily always “better” than the other because it depends on the terrain and frankly on the quality of the warriors employing either tactic.  But suffice it to say that it is simply a fact that the knights had encountered the tactics that the samurai would have employed because they had fought eastern armies; whereas the samurai had never before seen the tactics of the knights.  And I submit that the samurai would have been shocked and routed by the sheer shock and awe of a mounted heavy cavalry knight charge into their ranks.  And I claim this supported by the fact of history that in the First Crusade, the knights prevailed because their horse archer enemy could not defeat the shock and awe power of a knight cavalry charge.  Even when the knights were vastly outnumbered and even when they were on terrain that favored their enemy.

Here is a critical point that needs to be understood to understand what would happen were the samurai to meet the knights in battle: the knights had fought enemies from all over the world, and had confronted and been forced to adjust to the tactics of horse archers (note this is a Turkish source rather than a “pro-Crusader knight” source).  The Japanese samurai never fought anyone but other Japanese samurai.  They had nothing even close to the experience in fighting enemies from all over the world that the European knights had.

I state above that a knight would very likely have prevailed in a battle against a samurai, due largely to the superiority of his armor and the additional reach of his sword in addition to the superiority of the sheer power of his tactics.  That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the samurai would have done better in a duel in which neither participant was allowed to wear armor and fight with nothing but a sword.  And this is not necessarily because the samurai would be the better swordsman, but rather because armor was more a part of the Western knight’s fighting style than it was of the Japanese fighting style.  As an example, let’s say I am trained to fight with sword and shield (as the knights did), whereas you fight only with a sword (as the samurai did when fighting with katanas).  If I use my shield, I will defeat you; but if I surrender my shield, I not only lose an important advantage, but I am at a disadvantage because I have always relied on my shield to block most of my opponents blows whereas you have always only used your sword to both attack AND defend.  If we’re both using swords alone and I don’t get to use my shield as I was trained to do, you would likely be better trained to win that battle.

I would suggest that it is simply a fact that a better armored warrior taking advantage of his shield would be far better protected than a samurai – who did NOT fight with shields.  The samurai did not use a shield because  he also needed both hands free for his bow and because he used the katana as a two-handed weapon.  Whereas the European knights DID have two-handed heavy swords, but could use them with one hand as necessary.  And I submit that fighting with sword and shield is superior to fighting with sword alone – especially when your two-bladed sword has a significantly longer reach than does  your opponent’s single-bladed weapon.

So who would have won in a battle between knights and samurai?  I submit that the knight had the superiority of defense with his superior armor and his shield as well as the superior offense with his longer sword.  I submit that a knight’s training made him every bit the equal of the samurai.  And I submit that, if nothing else, victory would have come down to the superiority of the European knight’s extensive combat experience against many nations and fighting styles.  They fought enemies from all over the world and learned how to instantly adjust in order to prevail, whereas the Japanese literally stayed on their island.

I didn’t write this article to in any way diminish the Japanese samurai.  Rather, I wrote it to emphasize the incredible training and the magnificent warrior tradition of the European knight, which, due to a hostility to all things “Western” and “Christian,” have largely been overlooked if not despised.  As a rather blatant example of this prejudice, I found it interesting that when I used the WordPress spellcheck, it recognized “samurai” but refused to recognize “knight” as a valid spelling term.

Update, August 21, 2014: I learned something about swords watching a program called “Ancient Impossible.”  It was the Europeans – and by the way this episode traces the European knights to the times of the Romans who used “cataphracts” – who invented the first composite sword blades:

The Saxon super sword was the first effective use of composite metal in the world.

They used four layers of a mild, soft steel and combined them with three layers of a hard, high carbon steel.  And they used their furnaces to melt these layers together and make one piece which combines the hardness of the carbon steel and the softness of the mild steel.  The result was a process that combined hard steel for cutting with soft steel for strength.  A sword made only of soft metal will bend.  A sword made solely of hard metal will shatter.  And they twisted them and wielded them together to create a blade that was capable of an incredibly sharp cutting edge but which would not shatter or break.

So the Samurai would have had yet another problem as they faced superior blades.

The cataphracts were fully armored heavy cavalry.  The Romans got the idea from the Parthians after suffering a defeat when these first knights routed them.  The Romans learned from their defeat and came back with their own cataphracts.  And were victorious.

One of the interesting historical discoveries was that every single Roman unit had unique, brightly painted insignia on their shields, which would have identified each unit in battle.  Every single Roman unit had their own insignia.  But the catalogue of the Roman shield insignia notes NO shield insignia for the cataphracts.  And that was because their armor was so impossibly powerful that these Roman knights didn’t use shields.

These heavy armored cavalry – and the horses were fully armored as well – were absolutely unstoppable in battle.  They charged with heavy lances and switched to their unbreakable, razor-sharp swords when they shattered the enemy lines.

Just found that fascinating.

 

Three Black Thugs Viciously Beat White Boy: Where’s Obama And Sharpton And All The Race-Slandering Demagogues Now?

August 15, 2013

Where are you, Hussein Obama?

Where’s your prepared remarks stating that if you had a son, he’d look just like those thugs beating on that poor white boy the way you pimped Trayvon Martin?

Where’s the liberal mainstream media?  Why aren’t they deliberately darkening the skin of those black thugs to make them appear even more black the way they lightened George Zimmerman’s skin to make him look like a “white Hispanic” so they could demonize him with their propaganda???

Now that these violent punks have been basically sentenced to NINE MONTHS OF PROBATION, rather than punished for their racist beatdown, where are all the leftist mobs screaming in rage over the absence of justice in America?

Where are you coward liberals?

Come on, crawl out of your filthy little nests and speak out about the REAL race hatred sinking America.  I mean, talk about yourselves.

The black homicide rate is TEN TIMES that of whites and Hispanics (that accounts for BOTH sides of George Zimmerman’s heritage, fwiw) combined.  But that doesn’t have anything to do with anything because liberals are pathologically dishonest, demon-possessed hypocrites without shame, without honor and without integrity.  They refuse to address the real issues facing race in America because it undercuts everything that liberalism stands for – and they won’t have that no matter who gets hurt or how many get murdered in the process.

Here’s another question: where are all the white conservative mobs beating people up and vandalizing businesses as just happened among liberal mobs over the George Zimmerman verdict?  If the verdict had gone the other way, were the police terrified of violent white mobs the way they reasonably feared violent black mobs?  And would journalists have been terrified of all the beatings they’d get if Zimmerman had been convicted???  Oh, yeah, that’s right; white conservatives are decent, law-abiding people contrary to Hussein Obama’s demagogic and racist and hateful statement that they are “bitter haters clinging to their guns and their religion and their racist antipathy for people who aren’t exactly like them.  Which is why we wouldn’t take to the streets as violent flash mobs the way we didn’t take to the streets when a black jury found O.J. Simpson not guilty in spite of the fact that he viciously murdered two white people.

We’ve got a new “racist” situation now, involving police who shot and killed a 14-year old black kid:

A 14-year-old boy who police said was armed with a handgun and had fired at another man was fatally shot by a New York City police officer in the Bronx on Sunday morning, authorities said.

Shaaliver Douse was shot in the jaw by a rookie police officer from about 40 feet away after refusing to drop his gun at about 3 a.m. Sunday on East 151st Street and Courtlandt Avenue, authorities said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The officers—a 26-year-old white officer and a 27-year-old black officer—were patrolling less than a block away when they heard shots fired, police said. Mr. Douse turned the corner from Courtlandt Avenue and was chasing another man down the middle of the street westbound on East 151st Street and had fired at least three shots at the man when police arrived, authorities said.

A 14-year-old boy, who police said was armed with a handgun and had fired at another man, was fatally shot by a New York City police officer in the Bronx on Sunday morning. Surveillance video provided by NYPD.

Police said the boy then turned the trajectory of the gun more toward the officers and fired a shot. The younger, white officer fired one shot, police said.

[…]

Surveillance footage released by police on Sunday showed a young person who authorities said was Mr. Douse, dressed in a white T-shirt and blue jeans. The person pulls out a handgun and appears to fire at a man standing outside a bodega. A chase ensues that police said led to Mr. Douse’s confrontation with the officers

Police haven’t identified the man Mr. Douse allegedly chased.

A 9mm semiautomatic handgun was recovered at the scene. Police said Mr. Douse has several prior arrests, including one for the attempted murder of a 15-year-old in May and one for bringing a weapon to school last year. Prosecution was deferred in the attempted murder charge because the witness couldn’t identify a shooter, said Steven Reed, a spokesman for the Bronx district attorney’s office.

And all he did was brandish a gun and SHOOT AT POLICE with that gun.  But never mind, that delinquent kid’s delinquent mother believes the police should have died instead, and that returning fire to save their own lives let alone defend the public from another violent and vile thug is wrong.

Another relevant quote:

“That was my sister’s only baby,” Quwana Barcene said. “I’m tired of the police getting away with murder.”

Yeah, I’m pretty damn tired too, Quwana.  Only I’m tired of all the sheer lunatic moral idiocy and the abject refusal of a group of people to EVER accept ANY accountability for ANYTHING they do.

Meanwhile, Oprah is alleging she was the victim of racism because she wasn’t allowed to look at the $40,000 purse she wanted to buy.  I mean, if she’d been a white bag lady, they would have let her put her filthy hands on that obscenely expensive purse, of course.

Hey, for what it’s worth, I agree with Oprah.  Hey, Democrats, let’s NOT be just like Europe, after all; Oprah says they’re racists over there.  The fact that they’re rabid socialists who once literally started a world war over whether the world ought to be fascist national socialist or communist international socialist being entirely besides the point.

Mind you, we’re now learning that in all likelihood, Oprah significantly altered her “story” in order to demagogue racist allegations, much the way the movie she is trying to pimp significantly alters actual history to do the same damn thing by racially sliming Ronald Reagan.

And if the three black thugs beating the white boy on a school bus wasn’t “racist” enough in its hate for you, how about the attack where two black kids decided to murder a white kid “just for the fun of it”???  Note that the white kid who was arrested merely drove the vehicle carrying the two black murderers.  Again, where ARE you, Obama?  Why aren’t you telling America that one of these two murderous thugs would have looked just like your son?  Where ARE you, Al Sharpton?  Where’s that racist bigotry of yours now?

George Zimmerman never said ANYTHING hateful about white people and liberals invented the brand-new category of “white Hispanic” while they slandered him as a race-murderer.  Now we’ve got a black thug who murdered a young white man openly tweeting,

“90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

And just to make sure that there is a clear and obvious connection between the liberal hypocrisy of the George Zimmerman case and the liberal hypocrisy of the James Edwards case, the young black murdering thug made it for us:

On July 15, days after the George Zimmerman verdict, Edwards tweeted “Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeeee.”

“Woods” is a derogatory term for white people.

And just where the hell ARE you hateful liberal hypocrites???

Crickets do an awful lot of chirping after all the race-hatred crimes of blacks against whites.  Until the next time that a black kid is the victim of a white (even if they have to invent categories such as “white Hispanic” to pull it off).  Then the bitter wailing and hate is echoed

Yeah, I’m “tired” too.  I’m tired of all the race pimps peddling their liberal fascist hate by making up lies to slander anybody who gets in the way of all their “stories” designed to frame innocent people.

[Note; I updated this article on August 21 upon learning that my original link to the “fourteen-year-old boy being shot by police” getting purged].

Saluting A Hero: A Black Tea Party Group Founder

August 14, 2013

It’s easy to just give up on a community when so many members of that community are toxic.  But as Christians, and as people who want to avoid the depths of cynicism and pessimism, we just don’t have that option.

So I read the paper this morning and saw this piece on a good and courageous man, and I just wanted to take my hat off to him.

Patt Morrison Asks
Jesse Lee Peterson, tea’d off in South L.A.
Founder of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the black holiday Kwanzaa. And that’s just for starters.
Patt Morrison
August 14, 2013

 Jesse Lee Peterson

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the South Central L.A. Tea Party, at his studio.  (Bob Chamberlin / Los Angeles Times / August 7, 2013)

It’s not a typo: The South Central L.A. Tea Party exists, and Jesse Lee Peterson takes a bow for founding it. He’s also president and founder of the 23-year-old black bootstraps group Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, or BOND, and serves as pastor for a nondenominational congregation at its headquarters. As his public pronouncements make clear, he detests Planned Parenthood and legal abortion, welfare and the California-born black holiday Kwanzaa. He used to hold a “national day of repudiation” against Jesse Jackson; he has his doubts about women in high places. He is in demand as a black voice in conservative media, and his voice was still a little scratchy back home in L.A. after yet another speaking gig in the East.

Why did you form BOND?

I realized most black Americans are suffering not because of racism but lack of moral character. We need to rebuild the [black] family. Fathers and mothers should get married before having children. They will turn away from the so-called black leadership — Jesse Jackson, NAACP, Urban League — and think for themselves, as they did prior to the civil rights movement. There’s a problem when black children are born out of wedlock, with no shame, and you don’t worry because the government will take care of them. In the entertainment industry, it’s common — they do it like 90 going north, and proud of it.

“90 going north”?

When the slaves would sneak away from the plantation, they were going so fast we made a joke of it — they’re doing 90 going north, trying to get away.

You were once a Democrat; what changed your mind?

I believed the lie that because I was black, I wasn’t going to be able to make it because of the white man. When I came here [from his native Alabama], I was listening to people like Jackson and Louis Farrakhan — he used to come to the Forum in Inglewood. He talked about the blue-eyed devil, and I believed him. I started hating white people. You become like what you hate. My life went to hell. I ended up doing different kinds of drugs because I had so much guilt from the hatred. I ended up on welfare; they paid my rent, gave me food stamps, healthcare. But I got worse instead of better.

Once God changed my heart, I could no longer identify with the Democratic platform. It is anti-God, anti-family, anti-military, anti-anything that’s good. I switched parties.

Yours may be the only black-led tea party group in California. Why did you start it?

I realized the tea party movement was being lied about to black people. They were saying it’s a racist organization. That isn’t true. I’ve spoken at rallies around the country. I know they’re good folks. I want to educate blacks and Hispanics to what the tea party is about: less government, freedom, lower taxes, fewer regulations, God and country. The black community and part of the Hispanic community have been so brainwashed and dumbed-down and lied to, they don’t tend to look for information for themselves.

It’s been a little tough, but it’s starting to change. We had a 2nd Amendment rally in Westwood last year and we had a load of folks show up.

Young black men kill others with guns at a devastating rate. How does the 2nd Amendment solve that?

Blacks killing each other in Chicago and Detroit — that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment but everything to do with the destruction of the family. You could take away all the guns and they’ll find something else to kill each other with. It’s lack of family, lack of character.

Some tea party members split with the leadership over immigration reform. What’s your take?

Amnesty for illegal aliens would be devastating to our country and especially the black community. At BOND, we help guys find jobs, and many do day labor and construction work. It was easier to get those jobs 23 years ago. It’s nearly impossible now. Illegal aliens are able to do those jobs for little or nothing and many get paid under the table, so big businesses are for illegal aliens. And the Democratic Party is trying to get the Hispanic votes, that’s why they want amnesty.

How well do you think the GOP is making its case to black voters?

Not at all. They’re giving into the fear of being called racists. They’re afraid of saying the wrong thing. I’ve always thought they should have town hall meetings in the community, leave the [black] leadership out of it. Let [blacks] see for themselves what the Republican Party is all about. But they’re afraid to do that for fear of being called racist. They’ve really given up on the blacks.

You say it’s hard to find black Americans who aren’t angry and racist toward whites. Don’t they have something to be angry about, like the enduring legacy of slavery?

None of them were enslaved. We did far better living and working, more united as families [50 years ago] than blacks are doing today.

What is your family’s story?

My mother was dating my father when she was 16 or 17. She got pregnant with me. He denied it: “Oh, that’s not my child.” She became very angry at him; she stayed mad at him for a long time. She ended up marrying my stepfather before I was born because it was an embarrassment to have a child out of wedlock. He was a good man, but I never accepted him. I had a yearning for my father — that’s inside every child. I overcame my anger for my mother and encouraged her to forgive my father. Once I forgave my mother and God forgave me, I felt 100% better. I realized from that what was wrong with black Americans — most of them are filled with anger and it’s holding them back.

Growing up you worked the same land where your ancestors were once enslaved. Didn’t you experience racism there?

I did — colored-only signs, white-only signs. In the movie theater, blacks had to sit in the balcony. I was fine with that because we had a better view! I saw they were wrong, but we were taught not to hate. And we knew white people who weren’t doing those things.

Now, not all but most black people are so racist toward white people. And white Americans are afraid if they say the wrong thing, they’ll be accused of being racist.

The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.

At one point there was definitely racism from white America, but that started to change over the last 40 or 50 years. White people realized, yeah, this did exist, we’re sorry, we’re going to [institute] stuff to help blacks get themselves together. They passed laws against white racism, but the problem is they have not had an honest dialogue about black racism.

Wasn’t the Civil Rights Act the right thing to do?

If they had just changed it so the same laws that protected white folks would protect black people and left us alone, things would be much better today. Change the law, then get out of the way of people coming together.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote controversially about the tangle of pathologies in black America.

He was 100% right. Had [society] listened to him, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation today. [Welfare] was a dumb idea; they believed it was better to get a government paycheck than have a man in the house — not all black families, but too many.

So-called civil rights leaders and the Democratic Party knew if they could get blacks to rely on government, they would hold them for generations, and that’s exactly what happened.

Welfare makes a person lazy, and you pass it on to the next generation. It took away their self-esteem. It really has been devastating to the black community.

Do you think that welfare influenced the high imprisonment rate for black men?

[Welfare] took the authority figure out of the home. When the father is not there to discipline and guide the children, kids don’t normally listen to mothers after a certain age. She tries to force her way on them and then they become angry. When fathers were there, fathers and mothers worked together. The family has been broken. The father is the spiritual head as well as the provider, and the mother and children respect that because it’s from God

What programs do you advocate for black Americans?

I would teach them trades. We’re starting a leadership academy for boys; when they finish high school, if they don’t want to go to college, at least they can know how to work for themselves.

You endorse marriage. Gays have fought for marriage.

Same-sex marriage doesn’t exist; there’s no such thing in God’s eyes. So-called same-sex marriage would destabilize society. Homosexuality is not about love or family or civil rights; it’s about sex.

What do you say to gay people you counsel?

I tell them they were not born that way, that a spirit has made a home inside of them that came from some sort of trauma — maybe they were molested at an early age or had angry parents — and that if they were to forgive their parents, then God will forgive them and remove that identity from them and they will be free.

What do you think of President Obama?

I think he’s the worst thing to ever happen to this country. He doesn’t care about black people. He’s selling them out for Hispanic votes. He cares more about homosexuals than he does about blacks. In healthcare and education — illegals have overpopulated public schools in South Central, and blacks are feeling pushed aside. They voted for Obama thinking he would be for them, and he’s not.

The Internet is full of stuff about Obama growing watermelons on the White House lawn, or Michelle Obama posing for National Geographic. Isn’t that racist?

It depends on the heart of the person doing it. If they’re just doing it to have some fun, I don’t see anything wrong with it. They did the same thing to Bush.

They didn’t make fun of him because of his race.

They aren’t making fun of Barack for being black either. It’s known that — not all — but black people love watermelons. It’s not a put-down. [Although] I’m sure you can find racists like the KKK who hate black people and will use something like that.

Do you use the term “African American”?

No. If you’re born in this country, you’re not an African American, you’re an American. It’s just foolish, another thing set up by the so-called civil rights leaders to divide blacks from whites. Booker T. Washington said “American.” And they hated Booker. If he were around today, they’d hate him as much as they hate me. They’d call him an Uncle Tom, a sellout. They want to give the impression that if you’re a black person who thinks for himself, you must be an Uncle Tom.

Let me say that Jesse Lee Patterson and I are brothers in a way that transcends the pigment of our skin.  We are brothers in our Christian faith.  We are brothers in our worldview.  We are brothers in our beliefs in terms of the real crises facing America and what to do about those crises.

I do want to correct one thing regarding the discussion following the Patt Morrison question, “The founding documents of this country didn’t consider you or me to be fully legal beings.”  Allow me to present THE TRUTH:

The founding fathers did NOT want slavery; but they were in the impossible position where they either allowed it or did not have a nation.  There was simply no way the pro-slavery states were going to give up slavery in 1787.  What the founding fathers did was compromise in such a way while writing our nations Constitution and laws in such a way that it was merely a matter of time before slavery would necessarily have to be abolished.

Take the three-fifths compromise that liberals often dump on to dump on America.  First of all the compromise had nothing whatosever to do with the ontology or humanity of black persons; it was completely directed at the extent of representation that slaves would have politically in determining the number of representatives and the distribution of taxes.  Second, which side wanted the slaves to have full representation?  THE SLAVERY SIDE.   The anti-slavery side wanted slaves to be accorded no representation at all, because counting them meant the slavery states would have more power and more money and therefore be able to resist demands to end slavery forever.

The southern states wanted to count slaves in the population of the nation, so that they could have more seats in the Congress, thereby increasing their political power. The northern states, on the other hand, were against including slaves in the population for the fear of increased Congressional seats in the southern states.

It was the pro-slavery side that demanded FULL representation.  In other words, Democrats – who demanded to hold on to slavery during the Civil War – CONTINUE to support the pro-slavery side even 225 years later!

Just to point out one more fact about the three-fifths compromise, one of the agreements reached was an END to the transatlantic slavery trade after twenty years.  Apparently, Democrats have always wanted that trade to continue.

Our founding fathers were truly good and miraculously visionary men who had to make certain compromises in order to establish a more perfect union.  They wanted slavery to end, but if they had tried to end it in their lifetimes the United States would never have been allowed to get off the ground in the first place – and slavery would have continued for centuries longer than it did.

Other than that, I wish to thank Patt Morrison for his objective piece, and I wish to honor Jesse Lee Peterson for his incredibly courageous and incredibly honorable stand against a liberal-dominated world that pathologically hates him as a living embodiment refuting everything that liberals stand for.

Shutting Down The Government To Deal With The ObamaCare Train Wreck: A Couple Of Alternatives For The GOP

August 14, 2013

We’re seeing another train wreck coming out of the ObamaCare train wreck – and this one would get blamed on Republicans in a highly partisan media.

This second train wreck, of course, would be the Republicans using the upcoming budget battle to “de-fund” ObamaCare.  Obama wouldn’t allow his “accomplishment” to be so de-funded, and so as a result of the impasse, the government would shut down.  And Obama, as the executive, would intentionally make that shut-down as painful and frankly as idiotic as he possibly could.  He’s already done that once as a result of the sequester (which was famously HIS idea), so you know he’d follow his own script.  Just as you can know that the media would frame the “narrative” the way Obama would most want them to frame it.

That’s just not a good scenario for the GOP.

The American people hate ObamaCare.  The polls are clear.  But the American people also understand that two wrongs (wrong 1= ObamaCare and wrong 2 = shutting down the government) don’t make a right.  That fact, along with the fact that the media is every bit as biased in America today as it was biased in Nazi Germany under Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and as it was biased in the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin’s TASS, pretty much means that the GOP would lose this argument much the way they lost when they resorted to shutting down the government in the 90s when Slick Willy was president.

But at the same time, ObamaCare is not merely a train wreck; it is evil.  It will hurt millions of Americans and it will crush the US economy.

So what do you do?

I’ve thought of two alternatives:

Alternative 1 would be to force the Supreme Court to intervene directly.  The House has that power simply by forcing the Supreme Court to decide whether Obama has the right to arbitrarily suspend parts of the law that don’t benefit him politically even as he imposes parts of the law that does benefit him politically.

We’ve already seen that Barack Obama is the most lawless president in American history.  He ignored DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by both branches of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.  Obama dictated that he stood above the law and had the power as a dictator to suspend it/abrogate it.  We’ve already seen this abrogation of the law in illegal immigration, when Obama imposed the law by fiat over Congress when only CONGRESS has the right and authority to make laws.

I submit that the House Republicans bring ObamaCare – as arbitrarily suspended by Obama for sheer political convenience – before the Supreme Court and FORCE them to make a black and white ruling: does a president have the right to impose the law as HE sees fit rather than as it was passed by Congress.  Does the president have the right to suspend the law of the land???

And if the Supreme Court won’t rule, THEN the GOP can and should shut down the government.  Because our system of government has completely collapsed and we are in a genuine constitutional crisis.

As we speak, Obama has given a thousand waivers to his special interest groups.  He has suspended the law for big businesses (that could raise a huge political stink) while dogmatically refusing to give the rest of us the same break that he’s giving his crony capitalist pals.  Regardless of the costs of doing so in an age where Democrat Party politics trump all else.  Obama “fundamentally transformed” the ObamaCare financial requirements into a mockery by turning it into a “word of honor” system by which thousands if not millions of Americans can cheat in order to implement this monster regardless of costs.  Obama gave Congress a special waiver so the politicians and their staffs won’t have to eat the same cooking that they forced every other American to eat.

And the waivers and suspensions to suit Obama’s political interests keep coming.  Other liberals and liberal groups are demanding their OWN special exemptions and waivers and suspensions.  Because they are fascists who ultimately don’t think that liberals ought to eat the crap they cooked for the masses to eat.

None of this crap is in any way, shape or form constitutional.  Obama is a lawbreaker who breaks even HIS OWN STUPID LAWS.

The Republican Party – if they want to shut the government down – ought to shut it down over that.  Make the fight over the Supreme Court kicking the can down the road while our Constitution gets pissed on by a fascist president.

But there’s another way that the Republicans could effectively shut down ObamaCare without directly shutting down the government.

Here’s my idea on that: fund ObamaCare to the penny to what Obama and Harry Reid promised the American people it would cost.

Obama promised his health care takeover wouldn’t cost more than $940 billion over ten years.  In Obama’s precise words, he said:

“Now, add it all up, and the plan that I’m proposing will cost around $900  billion over 10 years.”

He lied.  First we found out it would cost twice as much, then oops, did we say twice as much?  We meant three times as much.  And that is going to skyrocket up and up and up as all these waivers take their toll.  Because it was all the crap that Obama abrogated and suspended that would have done a damn thing to hold the costs down as all those liberals who were supposed to pay into the system won’t have to pay into that system now.  Which will cause the deficit to skyrocket, of course.

So here’s what Republicans can do: they can fund ObamaCare with what Obama PROMISED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IT WOULD COST, AND NOT ONE PENNY MORE.

They can fund ObamaCare with $90 billion.  And make the argument over whether a president should have the right to look the American people in the eye and lie to them and be rewarded for that or not.  And literally BEG Obama to shut down the government because he thinks he should be able to lie to the American people with impunity.

Anyway, that’s my two cents worth.

IRS Political Targeting Scandal Continues Full Speed Ahead Under Antichrist President Obama

August 10, 2013

The sheer chutzpah of Obama and liberals is frankly stunning.

When the IRS scandal first came out and it was obvious that tea party and conservative groups across the board (including Christian and other pro-life groups and pro-Israel Jewish groups) had been blatantly targeted for political reasons, Obama came out and said that this kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen.

As Obama once said in one of his grandiose speeches, “Just words.”

Remember, the IRS actually APOLOGIZED and ADMITTED it had targeted conservative groups.  And the number of conservative groups targeted exceeds FIVE HUNDRED.

Now that it is more obvious than EVER that conservative groups were targeted for political reasons, and now that we know that the targeting originated strangely enough from the office of the guy Obama handpicked as the chief counsel of the IRS, Obama went on the “phony scandal” warpath.

For the factual record, the OTHER of the two Obama appointees – now very recently former IRS Commissioner, Douglas Shulman – made a staggering 157 visits to the White House.  Which is way, WAY more than any other Obama official.  That’s a lot of high-level “discussion” (better known as “plotting”).  That is particularly glaringly obvious given the incredibly appalling fact that the IRS commissioner just before the targeting started visited with Obama campaign manager Stephanie Cutter.

Yesterday, we learned from an IRS agent that the IRS is CONTINUING to target tea party and conservative groups AS WE SPEAK.  Even a full three months after this very real scandal broke.

Today we learned that one of Obama’s Internal Revenge Service thugs just got promoted for her Stalinistic thuggery.

That’s right for you kids keeping score at home: the Cincinnati IRS Program Manager of the Tax Exempt Organization Division – Cindy Thomas – who was at the center of this scandal – just got promoted.

Here’s the story on Cindy Thomas’ promotion for doing the devil’s work (the devil being a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama):

IRS official who oversaw Cincinnati exempt operations office during scandal gets promotion
Published August 10, 2013
FoxNews.com

The IRS official in charge of the exempt organizations office in the  Cincinnati branch at the time conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status  were unfairly targeted just got a promotion.

Cindy Thomas has been appointed to the senior technical adviser team for the  Director of Exempt Organizations.

Thomas, a 35-year IRS veteran, will fill the spot vacated by Sharon Light.  Light, a one-time close adviser to Lois Lerner, is the sixth senior IRS official  to leave the agency.

Lerner is the employee at the center of the political storm that hit the  nation earlier this year. She was the first IRS agent to publicly acknowledge  wrongdoing.

Lois Lerner is still receiving a full paycheck in exchange for targeting conservatives and then pleading the Fifth Amendment so as not to criminally incriminate herself or her messiah pharaoh god Barack Obama.

We now know that this is a POLITICAL SCANDAL that runs all the way up to the number two (of two) political appointee at the IRS.  That’s a FACT, not a “phony.”

We now know that Lois Lerner, queen of the damned and of the pleading of the 5th Amendment to avoid incriminating herself – ILLEGALLY provided the Federal Election Commission with information about conservative groups.

This same Lois Lerner came out of the FEC and was a Democrat thug at that agency, and in fact had a HISTORY of using her position to attack conservatives, so Obama knew he could trust her to attack conservative groups for him in her job at the IRS.

One of the reasons Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment was that he merely TALKED ABOUT using the IRS to target his political enemies.  He never actually did it.  Barack Obama has taken this nation to the lowest Stalinist point in American history.  And there’s nothing “phony” about that.

Barack Obama is counting on something that Stalin had but Nixon (as a Republican no matter how much a RINO Republican) didn’t have: he’s counting on the mainstream media to circle its wagons around him like TASS did for Stalin and like Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda did for Adolf Hitler.  Obama believes he can get away with anything, and in his arrogance he CONTINUES to use the IRS to criminally target conservatives out of his partisan political ideological hatred.

Saul Alinsky Was RIGHT In The Liberal’s Book He Dedicated To Lucifer: Christians Need To Start Living Up To The Book Of Rules

August 2, 2013

I was working out in my gym training legs.  I noted that the hack squat machine was in use, so I went over to the squat rack.  I did five good, hard sets.  During that time, the guy on the hack squat machine had done maybe ONE set because he was so occupied with his cell phone and his texting.  Right next to a sign that reads, “Cell phone use is prohibited while using equipment.”

Well, I wanted to use that hack squat machine, but the rude dude was still wasting his time on it.  So I went to the seated calf machine and did six good, hard sets of calves.

You guessed it: when I was done with that piece of equipment, the rude dude was still wasting his – and worse yet MY – time on the hack squat machine.

So I went over to the leg press machine right next to the hack squat machine.  And I was mostly done with the five sets on that before Mr. Cell Phone finally left.

Because I was right next to the hack squat machine, I was able to readily note two other facts: he didn’t re-rack his weight – in spite of the fact that he was literally “exercising” directly under a giant banner with two foot high letters that read, “Re-Rack Your Weight”; and he didn’t wipe down the machine after using it in spite of the sign right next to the banner that read, “Wipe down your equipment after use.”

Basically, there was no possible way this guy could have been more rude or more discourteous.

Well, here’s the rub: this guy, Mr. Cell Phone, is, rather amazingly, a “pastor.”  His church is virtually right next door to the gym.

I thought about confronting him for his unbelievable rudeness, but he’s a black guy.  And you know how THAT tends to go now that Obama has healed the racial divide.

The Bible tells Christians to confront brothers who are acting shamefully.  But tragically, in these slimes that are the times, it’s seriously risky to dare to treat certain people like “brothers.”  And I didn’t want to be the source of a rift – no matter how right I would have been – that very likely would have degenerated into a charge of “racism.”

All I can tell you is that man publicly shamed the name of Jesus Christ.  And it doesn’t really matter what color this “reverend’s” skin is when he acts like that man acted.  At least, not to me.

I wear a Cross or a Star of David every time I work out – and frankly virtually every time I appear in public.  There have been more than a few times that I’ve thought about saying or doing something and changed my mind because of the symbols I was wearing around my neck.

So I don’t even BRING my phone into the gym; I ALWAYS re-rack my weight every time I use a piece of equipment; and I wipe down the equipment I’m using TWICE – once before I use it (because there are a lot of rude people like Reverend Cell Phone) and once again after I’m finished.

I try to publicly live up to that cross – even though I have to confess that I’m not thinking very nice thoughts about the incredibly rude and ungracious people all around me.

When I gave my life to Jesus Christ, I very quickly quit smoking.  Why?  Because I thought of the image of myself trying to tell somebody about how Jesus Christ changed my life with a stinking cigarette hanging out of my tobacco-stained teeth, and it was enough of a visceral disconnect that I knew what I had to do.

More recently, I’ve lost over seventy pounds over the last 11 months.  And one of the driving forces to my success was the fact that I am named “Michael” and it was time to start LOOKING like the archangel I was named after.  Because in this postmodern, secular humanist culture that Hollywood liberalism has bequeathed us with, how you look very often determines more than anything else how people perceive you.  And I recognized that it was time for me in these last days before the Antichrist that it was long-past time for me to shape up in every way I could.

But all that said, it’s time for me to have my own mea culpa: I have too often resorted to name-calling in my articles and in my responses (to hateful comments).  And I was wrong to do that.

Anyone who has read much of what I’ve written has likely come upon terminology such as “turds” and “cockroaches” in my descriptions of the left.  I’ve been called much, MUCH worse myself – usually before my own use of such terms – but that doesn’t justify my behavior.

I’ve also been guilty of calling liberals “idiots” or “stupid.”  And while it is true that many liberals ARE ignorant and frankly stupid people, it is also quite true that some of the most brilliant minds routinely believe the most stupid things, such that George Orwell pointed out that “There are some ideas so absurd that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe them,” because no ordinary man was capable of being such a fool.  And thus it is not always easy to tell whether you are talking to a “stupid idiot” or a “brilliant idiot.”

I won’t call liberals “stupid” anymore because they may be very intelligent people who are merely a) evil and b) deluded.  Which is to say they might be very brilliant moral idiots – but not “stupid.”

Saul Alinsky – in his “Rules for Radicals” (which was dedicated to Satan and which Obama once taught in his days as a community organizer) has one rule in particular that liberals have loved to apply to me:

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

I’ve had many liberals follow up on my response to hateful comments by liberals such as this one – “You are such a moron. I cannot waste anymore of my time talking to someone who is lost in an alternate universe. I only hope that you get hit by a truck or die a horrible death. You are an enemy of America scumbag. THATS A FACT” – by attacking me as a terrible Christian in my response.

I’ve noted to these liberals who follow the crash and then pile on:

It’s kind of strange.  I wrote an article never ONCE hoping anybody got hit by a truck or died a horrible death.  I never degenerated into that level of viciousness.  And nobody else did either.  Because that level of pure hate doesn’t happen UNTIL THE LIBERALS SHOW UP.

Here’s the liberal game plan for those who haven’t learned it.  Liberal A comes along and just viciously personally attacks the conservative.  Often they show up in rabid packs and just dump hate on the Republican.  And then, when the conservative responds with anger of his own, well, that’s when liberals like YOU show up.  The sanctimonious, self-righteous ones who pointedly ignore the hate that their own side just dished out and instead personally denounce the “hate” of the conservative.  That hateful, divisive conservative shouldn’t have responded angrily to all that liberal hate.  It’s wrong.  It’s evil, even.  And that sanctimonious, self-righteous liberal often proceeds to then attack the Republican’s Christianity.  Which is of course an even MORE hateful attack than the liberal haters that got the conservative to respond with anger, of course, but what does that matter?

And if you were to keep reading Saul Alinsky’s book where he gives his rule to “make opponents live up to their own book of rules”, you find that this leftist who called upon his fellow liberals to demonize others as evil really couldn’t have cared LESS about morality applied to himself or his liberal movement:

The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means. It is this species  of man who so vehemently and militantly participated in that clasically  idealistic debate at the old League of Nations on the ethical differences  between defensive and offensive weapons. Their fears of action drive them to  refuge in an ethics so divorced for the politics of life that it can apply only  to angels, not men. — P.26

One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s  personal interest in the issue. — P.26

The fifth rules of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics  increases with the number of means available and vice versa. To the man of  action the first criterion in determining which means to employ is to assess  what means are available. Reviewing and selecting available means is done on a  straight utilitarian basis — will it work? Moral questions may enter when one  chooses among equally effective alternate means. — P.32

The seventh rule of ethics and means and ends is that generally success or  failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. The judgment of history leans heavily  on the outcome of success and failure; it spells the difference between the  traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful  traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father. P.34

The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is  automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical. — P.35

The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with  what you have and clothe it in moral arguments. …the essence of Lenin’s speeches  during this period was “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and  for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be  through the bullet.” And it was. — P.36-37

Eight months after securing independence (from the British), the Indian National  Congress outlawed passive resistance and made it a crime. It was one thing for  them to use the means of passive resistance against the previous Haves, but now  in power they were going to ensure that this means would not be used against  them. — P.43

All effective actions require the passport of morality. — P.44

And just to ensure that any true morality NOT be pursued by the left, Alinsky wrote:

With very rare exceptions, the right things are done for the wrong reasons. It  is futile to demand that men do the right thing for the right reason — this is a  fight with a windmill. — P.76

So, the bottom line is that liberals acknowledge that they HAVE no “book of rules,” no true morality, and that “morality” for them is “a means to an end” to be invented and reinvented as it suits them in order to attack their enemies.  “Morality” and the Word of God become nothing more than a tool for hypocrites to attack those who actually TRY to follow morality and the Word of God.

That’s just a fact.

But you know what?  It doesn’t matter.  Because, as Saul Alinsky points out, unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, yes, unlike Democrats, we DO have a “book of rules” that should be our guide to live by.  Unlike the Lucifer-Loving Left, we actually BELIEVE in morality and strive to be moral, decent people.

As I reflected upon the absolutely despicable example of “Reverend Cell Phone,” I had to face up to my own “issues.”  And yes, I tend to get very angry with hypocrites and slanderers who constantly hurt others with vile policies that they then want to exempt themselves from.  And just as one of MANY examples are the Democrat politicians and their staffs, the labor unions, the IRS workers, who – after fighting to impose ObamaCare on everyone else – now fight even harder to exempt themselves from what they just inflicted on everybody else.  I knew that this demonic piece of horror would hurt people.  And, yes, I am beyond LIVID that the very people who imposed this demon-possessed evil on everyone else would say, “Good enough to force on thee, but not good enough for me.”

I am angry at the people who are working so hard to do so much evil, who want to bring the Antichrist and the Mark of the Beast upon the rest of us.

And in my anger, I sinned.  And I fell prey to the trap of the rules for radicals devoted to Satan.

I’m going to try from now on not to do that.  I’m going to try very hard to – unlike liberals, unlike secular humanists, unlike Democrats – to actually LIVE UP TO THE BOOK OF RULES.

The Bible says in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry, yet do not sin.”  We’re not told NOT to be angry.  We’re told that JESUS was angry (Mark 3:5).  And anger can be positive when it is harnessed and controlled in righteousness.  Anger is a “stimulant” that can get you off your rear end DOING something rather than standing idly by gaping while terrible things are happening all around you.  But you can’t allow anger to master you even while hypocrites are actively trying to bait you into it.

I’m going to quit my name calling, even when I’m called so many names.

But I’m going to replace name-calling with HONEST and ACCURATE DESCRIPTIONS of the people who are doing so much evil in these last days before the beast comes.

To wit, I’m no longer going to label Democrats and liberals as “turds” or “cockroaches.”  Because, very technically speaking, these people are neither insects nor are they composed entirely of fecal matter.  Rather, I’m going to call them what they truly technically ARE: government worshiping baby killing marriage-and-family murdering sodomy-lovers.  Because that is simply a fact.

I’m going to stop resorting to name-calling and start using the actual TRUTH to fight for the truth.

When you call somebody a name like a “turd” or a “cockroach,” you are no longer operating on factual grounds.  A liberal can respond, “I am not a turd.  I am not a cockroach.  You’re a liar and you’re hateful.”  But when you simply call these people what they truly ARE – and that is WORSE and more shameful than ANY name you can call them – well, they can call you “hateful” all day long, but that is only because they are people who find “truth” as “hateful.”  But given the facts that they ARE for government that replaces God; that they ARE for the continued holocaust of babies that has murdered more than 55 million children so far; that they ARE for a radical redefinition of marriage and family that has progressively eroded and undermined both marriage and the family; and that they ARE for homosexual sodomy along with numerous other perversions that are specifically condemned as “ABOMINATIONS” by the Word of God that Saul Alinsky wants us to follow, well, they can hardly call me a liar.

There’s a tactical aspect to this decision as well.  I’ll get one liberal who uses all kinds of terrible names on me and just dumps hate on me – literally wishing my death.  And I respond with my own anger.  Then comes the next liberal who is just shocked and appalled that any human being on earth could be so “hateful” as a conservative – conveniently (of course hypocritically) overlooking the liberals who wrote far uglier things.  And of course, given that this second attack from the liberals doesn’t employ such labels as “turd” or “cockroach,” they assign themselves the moral high ground when they call me “hateful.”

So on the one hand I am a) going to start trying to follow what the Bible teaches on hate and anger and b) just not give liberals an easy way to attack me literally about my religion (mind you, it would be a TERRIBLE thing according to secular humanist political correctness for me to attack someone of a different religion qua religion).  It’s never wrong when they do it; it’s always wrong when I do what they do.  But that doesn’t matter, because what matters is that I WILL TRY TO LIVE UP TO MY BOOK OF RULES.  The fact that liberals don’t HAVE a “book of rules” and the fact that they are hypocrites is immaterial.

Jesus famously guaranteed to His disciples that the world would hate them because they hated Jesus first (Matthew 10:22 cf. John 15:18).  And why does the world hate Jesus so?  Because (as Del Tackett so brilliantly pointed out in the Truth Project), Jesus came to testify to the Truth.  And that everyone – and only those – who would be on the side of truth would listen to Jesus (John 18:37).  And what is the truth about these people who hate us?   Their deeds are evil (John 3:19) and the truth is not in them (1 John 2:4).

Liberals can slander me any way they want to.  I don’t follow them.  They can label me as a “hater” because I declare the truth about them and they hate the truth.  And they hate the truth because they are children of the devil and enemies of everything that is right (Acts 13:10).

I’m going to declare the truth and ONLY declare the truth, and let the truth be my defense.  Which is why in hindsight I realized I should have got in that bogus pastor’s face and pointed out how incredibly rude he’d just been and what a lousy example of a Christian – let ALONE a “pastor” – he was and called upon him to either live like a Christian or at least to stop calling himself one.

Democrat Claims That Former Obama Chief Of Staff Has ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Police Into Racist Death Squad In Obama’s Home City

August 1, 2013

We’ve got the smoking gun now.  Democrats are pure, unadulterated evil.  They are so evil, in fact, that they have created a death squad within the Chicago Police Department that is systematically and intentionally murdering black children.  And our source for that is none other than a Democrat whistle blower:

Friday, July 19, 2013
State Rep. Monique Davis: “Maybe police are killing some of these [Chicago] kids”

CHICAGO – State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) told a Detroit radio station that police in Chicago might be killing black kids. Her explanation for the 996 people who have been short (228 homocides) in Chicago since January.

“I’m going to tell you what some suspicions have been, and people have whispered to me: they’re not sure that black people are shooting all of these children,” Davis said.

“There’s some suspicion – and I don’t want to spread this, but I’m just going to tell you what I’ve been hearing – they suspect maybe the police are killing some of these kids.”

When WBBM asked Davis if she thinks it’s possible that police are killing children, she said, “I don’t know. I don’t know that they are, and I don’t know that they aren’t, since no one’s been arrested. We don’t know who’s doing it.”

The audio is HERE

For the record, Chicago is and has been a bastion of the Democrat Party for decades.  For the record, the mayor who has apparently called for this racist death squad is none other than Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, Rham Emanuel.

At least the truth is out now.  At last black people can know for a fact that liberalism is the most racist ideology since anything that spewed out of the mouth of Hilter.  And at last we can finally begin holding the Democrat Party that formed the Klu Klux Klan responsible for its holocaust of black people.

This is what Democrats are reduced to.  It’s either the above, or Democrats and the blacks who live and work on the DNC plantation must explain why 90% of black people are murdered by other black people in the age where the “civil rights community” has made their entire case about that evil “white Hispanic” a.k.a. George Zimmerman.  And by the way, if you add the abortion statistics (black “mothers” murder nearly 2/3rds of their babies) to the murder rate, blacks murder about 99.999999 percent of their children.   But let’s blame whitey for that tiny fraction of one percent (even if we have to invent the previously nearly entirely unknown category of “white Hispanic” in order to do it.  Let’s blame Bush.

Liberalism is never having to take responsibility for the horror that liberal policies have created.

We add Chicago (the worst murder rate on the damn planet) to Detroit (the worst economic hellhole on the damn planet) to the Democrat Party tally.  These are both cities that have been entirely owned by Democrats and Democrat policies for at least sixty years – and to quote a certain racist “reverend” whose church Obama attended for more than twenty years, “The chickens have come home to roost.”

No group of people has EVER been more OWNED by a political party than black people have allowed themselves to be owned by the Democrat Party.  Whether you consider abortion, or out-of-control sexuality that demeans women, or the destruction of families, or permissive attitudes toward crime, or drugs, or failed liberal education policies, or imposing police procedures that prevent law enforcement from doing its job, or welfare, or the complete abandonment of ANY personal responsibility, or permanent dependency on any of the hundreds of government programs that entices and encourages a life of failure and a life of abject government dependency, we can readily see that no group of people have EVER drank the Democrat Party Kool-Aid more deeply than black people have drank it.  And what do they want?  More of the hair of the dog that rabidly bit them and continues to bite them and WILL CONTINUE to bite them forever, that’s what.  And that’s why the black community is in ruins today.

Liberalism is like Marxism in virtually every significant way.  But most of all, it is an ideology that promises the world, but only succeeds in delivering hell by way of the crushing of the human spirit.