Though Police In Action

Okay, I am confused. Misogyny, as I understand it, means the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Here is where my confusion comes in, "Rap Genius co-founder Mahbod Moghadam posted a series of bizarre annotations alongside extracts from the virgin killer's 141-page memoir, including one that speculates that Rodger's sister must be 'smokin hot'." Because he said that he is accused of being a misogynist. "'Mahbod Moghadam, one of my co-founders, annotated the piece with annotations that not only didn’t attempt to enhance anyone’s understanding of the text, but went beyond that into gleeful insensitivity and misogyny,' Rap Genius co-founder and CEO Tom Lehman wrote in a statement."

I don't get it, why does him saying "that Rodger's sister must be 'smokin hot'." make him a hater of women or girls? He had actually been fired, because of pressure from investors, from the company he helped found. What words could he have used that would not have pissed them off? I do wonder who the investors are, LGBT maybe?

His crime was a 'though' crime, he is thinking the wrong way so he must go. After their great success with LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling for daring to think incorrectly the though police are on a roll.

Progressive Cry Babies

"IN LANDMARK DECISION, SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN MAIN REASON COUNTRY WAS STARTED" 

This assertion is false on the face of it.  The only place religion is mention in the Constitution is Article 6, at the end of the third clause: [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.  Then again in the First Amendment’s Establish and Free Exercise Clauses.  The Constitution was not binding upon the states, only the federal government.  It was through incorporation via the “A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” That the Bill of rights were imposed upon the states.  The latest example of this in the Second Amendment decision where the Court decided that it applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

The 1st Amendment thus prevents the establishment of a national religion, and it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit.  The Bill of Rights, however, had no effect on how a state treated its churches. Unlike today, the Bill of Rights applied only to the rules and laws of the federal government. The states were still free to establish churches, to direct church taxes be paid, and to even require attendance in church, all within the bounds of the state's own constitution. As noted below, many did. While the "free exercise" clause is undoubtedly referring to an individual right, the "establishment" clause refers to a state power. This clause not only prohibited the federal government from establishing a national religion, it also prevented the federal government from forcing a state to disestablish any state religion.

In 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature.  Eight States had official religions at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. The five that did not, had provisions which discriminated against those who did not believe in Christianity or at least a Judeo-Christian G-d.

It was not until the 1947 in the Everson decision that the SCOTUS “discovered” that the 14th applied the Establishment Clause to the states that any such “nullification” would have been based on the 14th. That “discovery” was written into the opinion in Everson by Hugo Black, Klansman and anticatholic bigot. The doctrine of separation of church and state that the incorporation of the Establishment Clause accomplished was fundamental Klan doctrine, as well as secular humanist doctrine.

The U. S. Supreme Court has issued two bans on prayer in public schools. The first came in 1962 and the second was issued in 1963. The bans were the result of a court case sponsored in part by Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She was but one of the litigants in the lawsuit, but her name became synonymous with the case and the promotion of atheism. The ban not only outlawed prayer in public schools, but it also banned Bible reading in public schools.

In the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Futhermore said, “To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

This is the first time that the prayer of public officials has reached the Supreme Court, and it struck down the lower courts’ restriction on them from opening a government meeting with a prayer,  such as when the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals who decided on March18th, 1999 that the Board of Education in Cleveland, OH, could not pray before their meetings.  The court ruled that prayers are an illegal endorsement of religion.  So show me in the history of the creation of the United States of America where freedom from religion was the reason for its creation. To so assert is to create your own history.

Abortion, A Tale Of Two Women

I just saw, 5/6/14, this headline: WOMAN FILMS OWN ABORTION TO PROVE PROCEDURE 'SAFER THAN GIVING BIRTH' 

Emily Letts, a 25-year-old abortion counselor who works at a New Jersey abortion clinic, decided she wanted to be an inspiration to other women by filming her own abortion. The story on Letts from ThinkProgress focuses on her insistence on how pain-free and safe the procedure was.

It is a well know adage that the victor of a war get to write its history, the baby had no say in the telling of "...on how pain-free and safe the procedure was."

Do you remember this story from a few years back?

"A Queens woman dumped her newborn baby in a hospital trash can after she gave birth Tuesday - and was busted napping in her home just two hours later, sources said. Dawa Lama, 23, put the infant in a trash bin inside the emergency room bathroom of Elmhurst Hospital Center, where she gave birth to the child shortly before 2:30 p.m., the sources said." Then the next year this, "Dawa Lama, 23, a Nepali immigrant residing in Queens, New York has been convicted of murdering her newborn daughter and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by Queens Supreme Court on Monday."

Why was the killing of her baby murder for Dawa, but touted an moral example for Letts? The results were the same, a dead baby. In either case what did the baby do to deserve to die? What crime did it do to make it unworthy of life? These are not rhetorical questions.

High Court Ruling Favors prayer At Council Meeting

This bodes well for the Rowan County Commissioners, it seems to me that the case that they are appealing was just made moot as I predicted that it would should the issue ever become before the Supremes again.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- "Prayers that open town council meetings do not violate the Constitution even if they routinely stress Christianity, a divided Supreme Court ruled Monday. The court said in 5-4 decision that the content of the prayers is not significant as long as they do not denigrate non-Christians or proselytize."

I bet you that the ACLU who brought the lawsuit against the Commissioners, and the atheists' who the ACLU were representing, because of their felling slighted by having to listen a prayer invoking Jesus are having a hissy fit today. 

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting

Donald Sterling Shunning

"SACRAMENTO (CBS13/AP) — Black lawmakers at the California state Capitol are calling on fans to boycott Los Angeles Clippers games after alleged recordings emerged of owner Donald Sterling making racist remarks. Sterling is purported to have told a woman not to bring black people to his games or associate with them."

I have to observation to make on this:

The first is the ridicules use of "alleged" and "is purported". The tape of his remarks are being play over every MSM outlet available, there is no allegations or purporting about it, they are facts.

The second is two fold, first is the PC use of shunning those who offend their sensibilities, e.g., boycott. Then there is the God given right of a person to like or dislike any person may may wish for any reason they may wish. Sterling broke no laws, he expressed an opinion and a rather. It was that that he would rather not have that is causing all the uproar. It was his right of association that he was exercising, as having the right to associate imply the right to disassociate.

They just don't like who he does not wish to hang out with or be associated with, for if that happens to be black people it is taboo. I believe that people have the right to like or dislike for any reason they may wish, and we do not have to like that reason for it to be a valid reason for them.

Yes people have the God given right to be racist, both white and black people have that right, and many exercise it. People also have the right to use shunning and shaming to attempt to change other's behavior, and to punish the wrong doers (in their eyes), it is when the government with all of its coercive powers get involved in the punishment of the offender for "though crime" that we should stand up for the offender's right to offend, especially when the offence broke no law nor did any harm other than to some's sensibilities

Origins of Political Correctness And Cliven Bundy

Instead of my normal editorial morning comment today I am posting this video of Bill Whittle explaining the Frankfurt Fabian's success in projecting Political Correctness as a means to brainwash and instill what they believe will "Fundamentally Change" American into the Great Society that they envision for us.

As you listen to him explain how they pick and choose the narrative the MSM will project as important think of Cliven Bundy. Why? Because they desperately want to change the narrative from one of a rancher fight the mammon demands of the BLM, thus they have seized upon his remarks about slaves to change the focus from his fight with the expanding demands with the BLM has used to run all the other ranchers in his county out of the ranching business into one of a Black hatting Mormon who deserves no sympathy regardless of the justness of his cause.

This is not about racism any more than the land grab was about turtles or grazing fees. This, imo, is the implementation of UN's Agenda 21 to move the people off of the land and into cities. Thus the unification of a broad electorate, behind Cliven Bundy resistance is a risk that must be "nipped in the bud", to use Deputy Barney Fife's words.

Exciting Times

"A February 1933 fire that burned the Reichstag building was blamed on a Communist. The incident was used by the Nazis to crack down on Communists in Germany. The "Enabling Act" of March 1933, passed by the Reichstag, gave Hitler legal dictatorial power for four years."  This fire was a false flag operation set by the Nazi party (Read Boston Bombing, Sandy Hook, etc.).  Hitler then compelled all of his armed forces to swear an oath of loyalty to him personally. A plebiscite was then held for the public to decide on whether they approved of the changes already made, 90 percent of voters gave their approval. Thus Hitler had become führer and Reich Chancellor, and the title of president was abolished by a majority vote.

Obama is in the midst of purging the military, Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama. “Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,”

Even more worrisome is that there are well over seventy different non-Department of Defense federal agencies’ have armed divisions, all of them with arrest powers over American citizens, who, like the BLM, will gladly do Obama’s bidding up to and including killing you or your cattle, dogs, kids, brother, and sister.  “Department of Justice (DoJ) report cited a full 73 federal agencies who employ full-time armed officers.”  And, you have to ask yourself, why are they buying so much ammo?  What is the end game?