This is Canada...

We're next.


This message of despotism was brought to you by the G20 Summit.

Will it someday go like that here?

Where Are Our Men at the Border?

What will follow is harsh, and I intend it to be.

We Americans are shameful cowards and unfit to claim the title of a free and virtuous society. We are unfit to call this the "land of the free and the home of the brave"; that was the title of a people who earned and defended it. The American of that era is a species of humankind that is hunted and destroyed by those who see Liberty and Freedom as an obstacle in the way of their many agendas.

This nation has upheld its independence and sovereignty without question for generation after generation, defending itself, at times, at its very borders from the foreign invader; but now we have morphed into this most miserable, spineless, effeminate excuse for a people, and I speak specifically here of our men, and especially of our Christian men. Churches, when this nation declared itself to be, were the mainstay of our culture, and rightfully so; it is because of this that we became such a peculiarly successful country, rising above and beyond the limits set by pagan Rome and humanist Greece. Churches were also a kind of basic organizing and recruitment centers for the militias during the American Revolution, as the churches were the place of the common man, not the place for a man to make his fortune teaching of self-righteousness and an all-forgiving-ergo-all-overlooking 'god'.

In that day, Christian men knew their duty to defend their homes and families. One may say that it is not the place of Christians to be in politics, but, this argument of today's Christian Americans is the direct result of years of indoctrination that we are the mere 'little people', that the citizen is a spectator in the sport of politics, a direct contradiction of the original intent of the founders of this country to have a government run by the people, like an employee-owned business. American politics have been morphed into a complex and confusing pastime for scholars and the wealthy, as have taxes. But politics is a not 'spectator sport'. American Christians are not beholden to the Roman Curia, which was exclusively elitist, because the people are the 'higher power' (as the Apostle Paul put it) in American government, second only to the Constitution in supremacy. The 'officials' of government are beholden to the Constitution, then us.

But, politics are a digression from the overarching issue of this post, and that is that our national border is now being opened and criminals welcomed to this country by our President. Our President! You've heard the clip of Sen. Kyl saying President Soetoro admitted that he is 'holding the border hostage' as a bargaining chip in his amnesty program. Is that not aiding and abetting felons? Is that not treason? Arizonan parks are being closed and signs put up warning Americans to stay out due to ruthless foreigners, armed insurgents! And where is our Department of Homeland Security? Where are our troops, overseas fighting insurgents in other countries? We have been abandoned! You saw our congress applauding the Mexican president as he told us to infringe on the people's freedom of defense, and those who didn't applaud also didn't shout, "Shame!" at the outrage. We are by ourselves, my friends.

What, then? Have we not seen the reports of men already heading for the border, armed and ready to fight to defend the integrity of our borders? (Indeed, I saw Bill O'Reilly denounce them.) We should not only applaud them, but join them - Americans, united for the defense of our homes, going to fight for our country! Are we weaker than the Mexican drug cartels? Not by a long shot.

I plead with my fellow Americans to consider going to the border. How many are already there? We cannot know from watching the mainstream news. It is asking much to drop everything at home, leaving work to fight the foreign invaders, but did we not inherit the freedom of patriots who dropped their plowshares and shovels to take on their enemies? This is a legitimate cause for action, men. I have not yet decided what to do, myself, so I ask that a dialogue, at least a discussion of this be taken up among us.

Who must tell us to fight back before we do it? Who must play the part of Paul Revere? Does the war with Mexican drug cartels have to be in our own yards before we'll defend the border? Does the Sheriff of Pinal County have to stop begging our President and beg us to help him before we do?



Soccer games will not solve this, elections will not solve this, and our inaction will only exacerbate it. Shame on us for letting it get this far, all the more shame if we let it progress.

Mustafa Abu al-Yazid Killed... Again!

They've killed al-Qaeda's Number 3 again.

Well, actually he is Number 8 Number 3; alphabetically speaking, Abu Faraj al-Libbi, Abu Hamza Rabia, Abu Laith al-Libi, Abu Saeed al-Masri, Abu Yahya al-Libi, Saif al-Adel, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Mohammed Sheikh Mohammed come before him in the list of people claimed to be Number 3 in al-Qaeda, and Abu Zubaida comes in at 9.

These terrorists - I mean really! We kill'em and kill'em and kill'em, and they just keep coming back. Oh, sure, we've captured them and they come back before, but it's the dead ones that are the most... troublesome.

I think it's time for another oldie-but-goodie poll. Last year's was a hit. Why not again?

Submit your suggestions for the best fake Muslim name in the comments section, and the poll will begin on the 13th of June, ending on the 19th. You don't win anything, and it's open ballot, so be bold.

Mine:

Abidi-Abidi-Abidi Atz al-Fohqs

al-Ghor

Barack Hussein Obama (Real Muslim name, sorry.)

Khomtu Jamaekhaman

Baezb al-Bin Bedi-Bedi Gutumi

¿Dónde Está la Partida de Nacimiento?

Even the thorough and discreet search of the President's pockets by a young, Mexican lad - the best in the business...



... could not produce tangible proof of his natural-born citizenship.

NOTE: Please pardon the use of the Dreaded Tongue in the title of the post, but it means, "Where is the Birth Certificate?" I'm not particularly fond of Spanish, as it tastes as poison in my mouth. Besides that, they put question marks upside down. That little booger hugging Soetoro is Calderón's son, and I think his name is Luis Felipe. He wants to grow up and be a corrupt moocher just like his pappy. Mexico wants to keep up a steady relationship with us, because they only have about 260,000 military personnel (which we mostly equip and train), compared to our 1.4 million. Mexico would have more, but they only have three Dodge vans with which to transport them.

Calderón's Address to Congress: Mockery of the People's House

While it is not without nearly equal mockeries by our own supposed representatives, specifically those mockeries committed by President Soetoro, Governor Rick Perry, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and Senator Ted Kennedy, the recent presence of Mexican President Calderón in our House of Representatives clearly shows that our Congress should update their self-set rules to disallow foreigners and their officials from taking our legislative floors and wasting our elected representatives' time, at least without immediate, personal supervision by the President. Though, that didn't seem to bother Pelosi, who was all aglow just to be in the vicinity of such a 'progressive' leader.

Indeed, President Soetoro was, as he said, "... extraordinarily honored as we host you."

<sarcasm>
And oh, how our Congress cheered the man... nay, not man, for he is more than a man, he is a Mexican in America, the most celebrated form of human life! They cheered him most when he rebuked the foolish assertion of Arizona's sovereignty, for what is a state but a mere agent of the President, a servant of the collective will?



How they applauded his stalwart response to the Second Amendment to our Constitution, in demanding ("...with all due respect...") for the return of the Assault Weapons Ban!



Of course, an "assault weapon" is little more than a gun that can fire twice without reloading the magazine, so banning them would be like destroying the firearms business, which would not only harm the economy and jobs, but it would also eliminate our right to keep and bear arms, which does not exist in Mexico, which is why Mexico is run by people who keep and bear arms as well as drugs, who are also assisted by the corrupt Mexican government, which is run by Calderón, but let's not let that get in the way of Congress's love and admiration of our bondsman, because we are not defined by our national borders, we are defined by the the bonds of North America - Canada to our north and Mexico to our south, our mutual bondsmen:



</sarcasm>



I think every self-respecting American representative present at that speech by the President of Mexico should have shouted, "Shame!" at the disgusting display of disrespect to our national sovereignty and American integrity. The Mexican President wore a Mexican flag pin on his lapel, which would be, as far as I know, the only time a flag other than an American flag was displayed in our legislature; and I hope there is no precedent of a foreign symbol being seen in the People's House, be it the symbol of ally or enemy; nor should there be any foreign dignitary other than one Presidentially escorted into the building and constantly supervised until his departure.

What a disgrace to our sovereignty, a shame to those who applauded it, and another unheeded alarm to the American people.

(Mild language due to primal rage near the end:)



And, by the way, I took the time (approx. 10 minutes), to read through the entire Arizonan immigration law, SB 1070, and there is special provision to ensure there is no racial discrimination against anyone; and even if there is abuse of the law by cops, there is abuse of the Constitution every day, so why should we be so afraid? Because it hinders someone's agenda.

Rand Paul's Non-Racism

In a move that we should all have seen coming, the Left has created a major controversy from thin air to try to sink Rand Paul's image. In what I see as an attempt to get Conservatives to denounce the libertarian Paul, as opposed to the usual paradigmatic strategy of party-line division, they have falsified, misrepresented, and literally lied not only about what Rand Paul meant but also about what he actually said.


The headline on Wolf Blitzer's CNN interview with Paul stated, "Rand Paul Defends Views on Race," subtitled, "Would he have voted for 1964 Civil Rights Act?"

There is no 'dirt' on Paul; there are no closet-dwelling skeletons, no alcohol-induced scandals, and no birth certificate/college record debate. So, the logical thing to do, as a radical, Socialist Conquistador of American media and politics, is to make something up.

Sly In The Morning Blog: Rand Paul: Repeal Civil Rights Act

... "Paul might not be a racist but he's certainly making the most bigoted members of the tea bagger movement happy. Do you think any Wisconsin Republicans who claim to be tea party members will come out against Paul's purist positions?"

They are calling for Republicans and Tea Partiers to denounce him as a racist, when all he said was that (paraphrasing) he agrees with nine-tenths of the Civil Rights Act, and the part he disagrees with concerns opening the door to meddling in private businesses' affairs, which would possibly lead to shutting down the First Amendment. Like that hasn't happened.



Every arm of the media, left- and right-leaning, immediately jumped on this non-story of his non-racist views on the Civil Rights Act, saying he needed to explain himself, that he was in trouble, that he was drawing a lot of criticism. Well, he wasn't before you said he was.

And, in the end, it all goes back to the cult of racism in America, which they will never let die. Perpetuating the focus on multiple races negates the idea of the 'melting pot' of America. Why can't we become colorblind? Why can't America be defined by its borders, rather than the skin color of its citizens? Why must the Civil Rights Act be the rallying cry of Collectivism instead of Individualism?

More on this to come, I'm sure.

The Rise of La Raza de Aztlan in America II

As was noted here, there are already claims of abuse of La Razans Hispanics by police, which, in the instance noted, is indeed abusive. However, America is supposed to be colorblind - abuse is abuse, racially charged or not.

It is worthy of pointing out the many instances of Mexican rallies which promote the slaughter of Americans with landscaping tools...



and the raising of Mexican flags over U.S. flags, and generally promoting Mexican culture over ours:







("GET OUT OF AZTLAN"?)


Where are the SPLC and ACLU in defense of our lives? Why aren't these people, who are self-proclaimed, violent revolutionaries and promoting the wholesale slaughter of police, at least the subject of a MIAC report? Why can only pro-American protesters be labeled 'dangerous'?

Because that's not part of the agenda, now is it?

Interesting flag, Mexico has.


A golden eagle killing a rattlesnake. Nothing anti-American about that.

The Rise of La Raza de Aztlan in America

(A quick reminder to the researchers among us that you may double-click on any word or group of words on this for an automatic reference guide. Check it out.)

La Raza is a Mexican term that means "the Race"; "Aztlan" is a Mexican term that denotes the land Mexico claimed and lost to the U.S. during the Mexican-American War in the Mexican Cession, which was an area that ranged from northern California eastward to western Kansas, and southward to the northernmost parts of present-day Mexico, the cession of which basically formed the border we have today.

It is from this cession that come the modern claims that America 'stole' the Southwest from Mexico. Actually, Mexico only claimed this area, and had but a few forts, which were, in fact, outposts of an occupying force on Indian land. If there was any 'theft' afoot, it was the Mexican theft of Native American property. If you want to open the brass tacks box, Spain, France, and the Pope all claimed the area at one time or another, and I think Vatican City has as much of a case as Mexico does.

That said...

(I think I caught brief swearing, so be forewarned.)


(I cannot post the actual trailer, as it is rather disgusting.)


This is all about to boil over into something pretty horrible, I am convinced.

I have nothing against Mexicans, but I have a problem with Mexicans who have something against me. If you want to be an American and legal, I want you here, but if you want to be a Mexican, you already have a defined territory. I'm not an invader, I was born here. Eighty percent of Mexicans are of European ancestry, but only sixty-two percent of Americans are of European ancestry. Who is the 'nation of immigrants'?

Please, we just don't need a race war. We are all of the human race, and we need to respect our individual and national sovereignty.

More to come.

The Coming Ox Driver

Today, I ran onto this article from WND, which is a website I usually tolerate for news and nothing more. This story took me by surprise.

The article explains how one man, Mark Biltz, with whose ministry I am familiar, is claiming to have uncovered how the constellation "Boötes" is possibly a sign of Christ's second coming which has been in the night sky since creation. Boötes, he claims, is Hebrew for "the Coming One", and is depicted as a man holding a sickle, which is specifically related to end times iconography in Revelation. This portion of the article is what kept me reading, as I had recently been pondering the significance of the sickle in the context of that chapter.

From the article: "The word 'assemble' is the same word that is translated as 'Arcturus' in Job," he said. "So it means the same thing, to assemble, to come. And if you'll notice the word 'come' is 'bo,' which is the name of this constellation: 'Bo-otes.' So this constellation .... He's got a sickle in one hand and a spear in the other. This is a sign of the Messiah who says 'I'm coming.' That's what this constellation is all about, the Coming One. In Revelation it talks about He has a sickle in His hand."

Well, I apologize to those who are getting interested, because I'm going to have to pull some rugs out.

From the above image, by golly, it's as plain as the nose on your face that he's right...! But, let's look at the constellation as God intended, without all the doodling:



Hmm... I don't see the sickle from this angle...

Okay, I'll make it easier by emphasizing the pertinent stars (yes, I did this myself and am very pleased):
So, how we get the intricate drawing at the top of the article from playing connect-the-dots with these stars, I'll never know, because I not only don't see the sickle, I lost the man.

Actually, Boötes has been depicted as holding anything from a spear and leashed dogs, to nothing but a club. In fact, Boötes is Greek for "Ox driver", and is related to the Latin "bovis" meaning "cow", which is a far cry from the translation, "the Coming One".

Biltz, in my experience with his doctrines, generally rejects the King James Version of the Bible, and, in fact, proves many of his points by drastically changing the wording of the scripture to fit his perspective. This is not to say he is deliberately trying to deceive people, but he is deceiving them. WND has been so deceived.

Also in the article is mentioned how a star in the constellation Boötes sent out a large gamma ray burst in 2008. Some said it was a sign from God that Jesus was to return very soon. In my laborious search of the Bible I didn't find an exploding star as a sign of His return, but I will keep looking. Apparently, "gamma ray burst" is not in the KJV. 

I suggest we look to the Bible for proof of anything anyone says about God and His plan.


"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." ~John 5:39

"These [Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." ~Acts 17:11

Due to popular (my mom's) request to clothe Boötes:

Flags, Freedoms, and a Cup of Tea

A note: minor correction to my previous post, "Commentary coming longly." Sorry for the wait, peeps.

Our rights are inherent, that is, God-given, therefore the Bill of Rights gives us nothing but a guarantee that there are boundaries which the federal government will not cross. That guarantee stands to this day, whether those who now sit in the very offices which facilitated the creation of the greatest document of representative government in the world, the United States Constitution, will honor it or not.

As President Soetoro might say, with thumb and index finger firmly joined, "let me be clear": the Constitution is valid, the Bill of Rights is valid, the Second Amendment is valid, and they are valid as written.

We now approach the two hundred and thirty-fifth anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord; the nineteenth of this month will probably be remembered with greater significance than in previous years due to the unmistakable tension of all domestic political and economic issues coming to a head. This strife has been thrust upon the Freedom-loving people of America to an extent unparalleled in the known history of the western hemisphere.

Historically speaking, the menial enslavement of Africans overshadows the brutality capable by governments in the modern day, but the requirements and strangleholds of this government over the whole people, not secluded to one group, presents a far more dangerous form of slavery over a man's well-being and individuality, as it is undeclared, misunderstood, and invisible to many of its own victims. It causes no scarring beyond that of generational theft, and incurs no suffering beyond that of endless debt; like a virus, it is invisible yet deadly if left untreated. I have heard all too often, "America is still the greatest country in the world, and nothing can change that, so enjoy the freedoms you still have." Blind and irresponsible.

The American Revolution was said at the time to not be for light or transient causes. The conditions the U.S. government now places over its subjects are much more injurious to our lives, liberties, and pursuits of our own definitions of happiness than the British monarchy could have reasonably conceived at the time of its rule over this continent.

Our collective answer to this usurpation has been lackadaisical and disrespectful to those who fought and died in the Revolution, and it is disrespectful to God, whom I would suspect is disappointed that a country, which was an impressive embassy to the world for His Kingdom, is now in such a state of disrepair and sinfulness.

Indeed, what is our current course of action in reaction to the hardcore tyranny now upon us? Tea parties - the original namesake of which had means far different from the modern rallies across America. Modern tea parties require you to stand outside with people who are more or less agreed that the country is in ruin (or "about to be", in the case of many who know little of what the state of our country truly is), but the first tea party was protesting a particular tax on tea, an exorbitant and unreasonable tax, so the Boston Tea Party involved the active destruction of British shipments of tea in Boston Harbor.

Take a moment to think about the comparisons between the first tea party and the tea parties of today.

The reasons are the same, more or less, the goals are pretty close, but the method is the biggest difference. It was an impressive, economic blow to the monarchy and merchants of Britain to destroy their valuable property, and it was quite effective, as the despotic reaction from Britain further galvanized the people against Britain, and eventually, though quite belatedly, caused the repeal of the tax. Modern tea parties in the major cities, the ones with all the press, usually involve standing, sign holding, chanting catchy slogans and puns, making YouTube videos, and inviting career politicians to come speak and use all manner of patriotic key-phrases and key-terms to snatch as many votes as possible to ride on the unpopular coattails of the Democrats. There are no solutions or remedies in that, my friends.

Now, as you know, the legislature of my state of Kansas has just passed their version of the Firearms Freedom Act, which states any firearm made in Kansas is exempt from federal authority. This is good, but it is also somewhat humorous that no one makes firearms in Kansas. Reasonable gun laws are now within reach for Kansans, as the more locally minded Kansan legislature may now establish our own laws that will specify the regulatory authority of the government's place in the people's right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment is a big issue today, and there is currently a drive on the parts of many people right now to send Gadsden flags to President Soetoro and others to warn them that the people will not give up their guns willingly. This, in my opinion, is pointless. If we could have sent King George III a million Gadsden flags back in 1775, do you suppose he would have stopped his reign of terror? No, because tyrants only understand force. I think President Soetoro and his company are overjoyed that their grand scheme of subversion of all things American is being resisted by tea parties and mail-in campaigns. What a coup, indeed.

You may have seen the repeated showings of a clip of Soetoro denouncing Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for being so "troublesome", saying that they're confusing people about the issues. This was an absolutely classic example of a not so easily recognizable trick for lessening the effects of unrest and dissolution, and that is to falsely prop up the weakest element of resistance as the strongest, thus enticing the people into supporting a failing plan of action. In this instance, Glenn Beck, who recently compared Thomas Paine to himself (no, not the other way around), is paired with Rush Limbaugh, who is the darling of the Spineless Puppet Party Republican Party; with their forces combined, they may take this nation back from those nasty-wasty Democrats and give it back to the freedom-loving, trustworthy, and moral Republicans.