CARTER WAS NEXT TO THE WORST

========================================================================

Lorra of Pantherville...

I remember this very well. The hostage crisis  was in full swing when I was in high school.  In fact, we dedicated parts of our year book in remembrance to the hostages.  I remember graduating enraged that our Americans were still being held hostage. 

 The younger generation does not know of or remember the Carter/Iran hostage crisis. I had set my girls straight about it. They thought all this terrorism started because Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan. That is how lacking our public schools are in history. And I think some of the teachers infer it started with Bush.  

A historical fact not to be ignored is that the Hostage Crisis ended on the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated.  Coincidence...I think not (see Gibbs rule # 39?)  See, terrorists pay attention to who is in charge. They know who they can con and who is going to smash them.

May 20, 2016

It was 1979 (not 2003) that Unleashed Political Islam

By Manda Zand Ervin

It has become the fact in American political talking points, even Mr. Trump insists that what is going on in the Middle East today is the result of the President Bush’s 2003 policy in Iraq that opened the doors to chaos and the creation of ISIS.

No one, however, is going back to search for the root causes of the events in today’s complicated and problematic Middle East. The facts are, notwithstanding the forever continuing Palestinian/Israeli war, that the Middle East was kept relatively peaceful and political Islam and its terrorism was kept under control in a secular Iran until 1979.

It was President Jimmy Carter and the Western European leaders, with the total support of the Western media and socialist elites as the likes of Michel Foucault and Noam Chomsky, who decided to support the radical Shi’a Ayatollah Khomeini in taking over peaceful modernity-seeking Iran and establishing political Islam. Unfortunately, the same people are still supporting Islamic clerical imperialism as their child.

The sequence of pugnacious events in the Middle East since the advent of political Islamic domination of Iran in 1979 is evidence that many Middle Eastern problems are related to the ideological policies of the Islamic imperialist regime in Iran. It is the mullah’s goal to establish the Islamic kalifate through interference, intrusions, and promotion of terrorism in the internal affairs of the neighboring countries.

On October 21, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “You can't keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard." In this case, the snake that was established to bite only Iran has been biting the whole world.

Khomeini considered Iran a platform and a financial source for launching his expansion of the Islamic kalifate throughout the world, beginning in the Middle East. I was there and heard his terrifying speech every day.

He established an Islamic military made up of thugs and hoodlums called the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps -- not to defend the country but to protect, guarantee, and expand Political Islam in Iran and abroad.

Khomeini began by announcing a war against Israel as soon as he took control of Iran; calling it a "Zionist entity" and surrounded it by financing and arming the Palestinians, Hamas, and Hizb’allah in Lebanon.

He encouraged and financed Hizb’allah’s terrorism to destabilize the Lebanese Christian government and take the control of Lebanon.

He instigated eight years of brutal and bloody war with Saddam Hussein to remove Sunni power over the Shi’a population of Iraq. Khomeini’s successor Khamenei selected the Iraqi Shi’a mullah Moqtada al Sadr to establish a Shi’a movement against Saddam Hussein, financed and armed by the Iranian regime.

By 2003, the Revolutionary Guards had infiltrated the Shi’a community of Iraq through Moqtada al Sadr, the anti-American rabble-rouser puppet of Iran whose goal was to remove the Sunnis from military and government positions.

The Bush Administration was able to successfully arbitrate a reconciliation between the Sunnis and the Shi’as, bringing them together and under control.

When the United States military evacuated Iraq in 2011, the Ayatollah Khamenei took the opportunity to expand his domination of Iraq by becoming the sole adviser of President Nouri al Maliki. Khamenei flooded Iraq with IRGC solders, assassins, and spies to keep the Sunnis out of power. With the Iranian regime behind them, the majority Shi’a took the control of the Iraqi government and military and established not only an embassy in Baghdad and three consulates-general in the cities of Sulaimaniya, Arbil, and Karbala, that provide them with a foothold in Iraq.  

U.S. State Department 2012 reports maintain that Iran remains an active state sponsor of terrorism and increased its terrorist-related activity in 2011. “Weapons are smuggled into Iraq and used to arm Iran's allies among the Shiite militias, including those of the anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army.”

The Sunnis of Iraq were forcefully isolated and, in the absence of the American military, created a disgruntled angry Sunni population, that, joined by the defeated Al Qaida, became ISIS.

Former American ambassador to the United Nation Zalmay Khalilzad writes in his book The Envoy: “With money and bombs, Tehran’s Shia Muslim regime was fueling frictions between Iraq’s Shia majority and its Sunni minority, pushing the country into civil war”. Mr. Khalilzad writes that it was a “tragedy” that President Obama withdrew all the American Military from Iraq. “That move paved the way for the terrorists”.

At the same time, Khamenei’s IRGC was also interfering in the internal affairs of Syria, widening the division between the Alawites and Sunnis. By financing one side against the other and supporting Bashar Assad’s rule, they caused the internal war against the majority of the Syrian citizens who wanted sovereignty and democracy.  

While the children of Iran are living in hunger and poverty, Khamenei has been financing and arming Hamas, Hizb’allah, Moslem terrorism in poor African countries, and interfering in the internal affairs of Yemen, not to mention influence buying in South American countries. 

It is, by all documents and reports, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his Revolutionary Guards that have been instrumental in creating the current atmosphere of chaos throughout the Middle East.
========================================================================

May 27, 2016

Another Obamacare co-op bites the dust

By Rick Moran

Ohio's Obamacare co-op will be shut down over the next 60 days despite efforts to keep it afloat.

Nearly 22,000 customers will be forced to find alternatives for their health insurance.  The meltdown marks the 13th out of 23 Obamacare co-ops to go under.

The Hill:

The Ohio Department of Insurance announced that the co-op, known as InHealth Mutual, will be shut down, forcing its nearly 22,000 enrollees to find other plans within the next 60 days. 

“Our examination of the company’s financials made it clear that the company’s losses would prevent it from paying future claims should its operations continue,” Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor, who is also the Ohio director of insurance, said in a statement. 

The closure represents a significant disruption for the enrollees. The Obama administration and state regulators had worked to shut down any financially shaky co-ops before 2016 enrollment began on Nov. 1, in an attempt to avoid such failure in the middle of the coverage year. 

But that is now happening in Ohio. The Department of Insurance said ObamaCare enrollees in the co-op plan should log onto the health law’s marketplace in the next 60 days to select a new health insurance plan. 

"Thanks to the failure of Obamacare's co-op health plans about 22,000 Ohioans will be forced to seek new coverage,” Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-Ohio), the chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee, said in a statement. “It is unacceptable. My constituents deserve certainty, not plans that crumble and implode under their own weight.”

He said the co-op’s failure is evidence of the need to repeal ObamaCare, and highlighted the healthcare task force put together by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that is coming up with the outline of a replacement plan. 

"We will work with InHealth and the state to provide consumers with the information they need to stay covered," said Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "While we expect the number of issuers to fluctuate from year-to-year, consumer choice remains strong and new consumers in Ohio can still select from one of the state’s 16 other issuers on the Marketplace."

The idea that the government could create co-ops that could compete with private insurers was absurd from the beginning, as many Obamacare opponents tried to point out.  Nearly $3 billion in taxpayer loans have been given to these non-profits with the prospect that little or none of that money can be recovered.

As the pool of insurers continues to shrink, competition disappears as well.  With companies likely to demand double digit increases in insurance rates this year, even fewer options will become available for consumers in the future.  The end of Obamacare is on the horizon, killed by stupidity and incompetence.  So much of what was sold to the people about what Obamacare would do has been shown to be wrong that its death will be welcomed by most

HARVESTING BREAST MILK TIME

Lar of Galen...What BO has done to our military is probably his biggest shame.  Not only are they are allowing women into the combat arms, but the Dpt. of the Army has even had to issue directives to commanders that, while “lactate support time” is important, they have to be sure to balance that with readiness (!!!).       “ISIS is attacking!  Cover me while I harvest my breast milk!”
================================================================

May 18, 2016

Chancellor of top university dares to tell the truth about affirmative action

By Thomas Lifson

Have we finally come to the emperor-has-no-clothes moment when it comes to quotas, or as they are euphemistically known, “affirmative action”?  There are grounds for hope, as the chancellor of Oxford University, on everyone’s list of the most prestigious universities in the world, speaks truth to P.C. power in an interview with the U.K. Telegraph.

Wikimedia Commons

Javier Espinosa writes:

Universities cannot accept more ethnic minority students under a quota system without eroding  standards, the chancellor of Oxford University has warned, as the  Government readies reforms which force them to publish admissions data. (snip)

But as the pressure to accept students from a diverse background increases,  Lord Patten lay the blame on schools for failing to prepare students and  warned that any enforced quotas would result in a lowering of academic  standards.

Lord Patten said: “I am in favour of universities recognising their responsibilities for promoting social inclusion but I don’t think that if  you want high class universities you should expect them to lower their  standards in order to make up for some inadequacies in our secondary  education system."

Lord Patten, who was a Conservative Cabinet minister and former BBC  chairman, said his university is running several schemes to widen access  including scholarship schemes.

He said: “I don’t support quotas at universities. Nobody will explain  to me how you can make a system of quotas work while retaining the highest  admissions standards.

“Quotas must mean lower standards. There are better ways of addressing  social inclusion at universities."

As they say in Parliament: “Hear, hear.”

Equal opportunity really means judging everyone by the same standards.  And affirmative action means not tolerating poor preparatory schools, teacher tenure, and excuses for parents who don’t do their jobs raising children to achieve.

Hat tip: Business Insider, Clarice Feldman

========================================================================

========================================================================

ANN COULTER LETTER

Trump’s Problem With Women

Ann Coulter  | Wednesday May 18, 2016 1:47 PM

New Trouble For Trump

CBS New York

• Share on Facebook534
• 534 SHARES

The New York Times’ front-page article last Saturday on Donald J. Trump’s dealings with women forced me into a weekend of self-examination. As much as I support Trump, this isn’t a cult of personality. He’s not Mao, Kim Jong-un or L. Ron Hubbard. We can like our candidates, but still acknowledge their flaws. No one’s perfect.

I admit there are some things about Trump that give me pause. I’m sure these will come out eventually, so I’m just going to list them.

First — and this is corroborated by five contemporaneous witnesses — in 1978, Trump violently raped Juanita Broaddrick in a Little Rock, Arkansas, hotel room, then, as he was leaving, looked at her bloody lip and said, “Better put some ice on that” — oh wait, I’m terribly sorry. Did I say Trump? I didn’t mean Trump, I meant Bill Clinton.

Hang on — here we go! Knowing full well about Bill Clinton’s proclivity to sexually assault women, about three weeks after that rape, Trump cornered Broaddrick at a party and said, pointedly, “I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do.”

No! My mistake! That wasn’t Trump either. That was Hillary Clinton. … But this next one I’m sure was Trump.

In the early 1990s, Trump invited a young female staffer to his hotel room at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, dropped his pants and said, “Kiss it” — WAIT A SECOND!

I don’t know how this keeps happening. That was Bill Clinton. Please bear with me — it’s late at night and my notes are jumbled.

As CEO of an organization, Trump had a female employee, just months out of her teens, perform oral sex on him while he made business calls. That girl’s name was Monica Lewin– No! Wrong again! That was Bill Clinton, too! Please don’t stop reading. Let me find my Trump notes …

What I meant was that Trump was the one who later smeared that girl as a delusional stalker. She may have volunteered for the sex — at around age 20 — but Monica Lewinsky didn’t volunteer to be slandered! And yet this fiend, this user-of-women, this retrograde misogynist, Donald Trump, deployed his journalist friends, like Sidney Blumenthal, to spread rumors that Monica was a stalker, trying to blackmail the president.

Oh, boy–this is embarrassing. This must seem very sloppy. That wasn’t Trump either; it was Hillary Clinton.

There must be something here that was Trump … Here! I have one.

When an attractive woman desperately in need of a job came to Trump’s office in 1993, instead of helping, he lunged at her, kissed her on the mouth, grabbed her breast and put her hand on his genitals. He later told a mistress that the claim was absurd because the woman, Kathleen Willey, had such small breasts.

Uh-oh — you’re not going to believe this, but — yep, that was Bill Clinton.

This one, I’m sure was Trump. In January 1992, Trump went on “60 Minutes” to slime nightclub singer Gennifer Flowers, knowing full well she was telling the truth. He implied she belonged in a loony bin, telling millions of viewers “every time she called, distraught … she said sort of wacky things.”

Dammit! I don’t know how this keeps happening. That wasn’t Trump! That was Hillary, smearing one of her husband’s sexual conquests.

Let’s just go back to the Times’ story, based on months of investigation and interviews with hundreds of women. I’ll give it to you straight: When Trump was at the New York Military Academy as a teenager, one person who knew him said — and this is corroborated by two other witnesses: “Donald was extremely sensitive to whether or not the women he invited to campus were pretty.”

I almost threw up reading that. I am physically ill.

=======================================================

New Poll Shows Native Americans Aren't Offended By 'Redskins'

Alan Moore | May 19, 2016 10:04am ET

While the Left continues to use the Washington Redskins as a symbol of cultural appropriation and oppression against Native Americans, the reality is 90 percent of them just don't care.
A new poll conducted by the Washington Post, a notoriously anti-Redskins publication, shows that 9 in 10 Native Americans aren't offended by the Redskins name.

The survey of 504 people in every state and the District reveals that the minds of Native Americans have remained unchanged since a 2004 poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found the exact same result. Responses to The Post’s questions about the issue were broadly consistent regardless of age, income, education, political party or proximity to reservations.

The admission by the Washington Post that feelings have gone unchanged is surprising considering all the attention it has received in recent years. Also, it must be hurtful to the publication that has been on a quest to change the name for years.
The 2004 poll was indeed identical, with only 9 percent of those polled finding the mascot offensive.
In July of last year, a federal judge ordered the cancelation of the Redskins trademark. But in December, in another court case, the Federal Circuit determined the legal basis for such cancelation was unconstitutional. The legal wrangling continues -- but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

MEANWHILE, 150+YEARS LATER...

Lar of Galen...As you should have heard, BO declared yesterday that all public schools, from kindergarten thru college, must allow students to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with (“that day”, Deborah says). He used the same convoluted, contradictory logic that they used for Obamacare (No, no. It’s not a new tax, it’s afee for a service.  What, the government can’t force citizens to buy a product?  Oh, then it is a tax!).  Of course this is all a smokescreen designed to prevent the media from conducting any discussion of the new revelations about all the lies and misdeeds involved in the Iran Nuclear Deal and Obamacare.  Why else would BO wait until the 10th hour of his presidency to suddenly issue this edict, if it’s so important?  But, at the same time, it is another attempt to dictate a new “law” and undermine society, as Val notes. 

    I heard one teacher on the radio who is going to resign after 18 years because of the problems this will generate.  She said that we have enough trouble trying to control these damned kids already because their behavior goes unchecked.  She had one student throwing books at her and shouting threats.  She called the child’s mother, but when the mother showed up, she attacked her with her fists.  She had to lock herself in her office and call the campus security.  When they arrived, they wanted to know what she did to make the poor girl so mad.

    On the other hand, Dan Patrick (LtGov of Texas) publically announced that we will not comply.  He said, “We will not give in to federal blackmail, even if it costs us billions of dollars.”  And it will.  But maybe, just maybe, this issue will finally provide catalyst for an Article V Convention of The States, whereby we retake control of our insane, runaway, unconstitutional government.  If not, Texas just might become an independent republic again.  If that happens, a lot of southern states will leave, too.  Soon, many of you may be fortunate enough to live in Greater Texas, as the corrupt “Union of American People’s States” dies of its own rot and corruption

LAR OF GALEN...When someone says “natural law”, most folks think about gravity, inertia, centrifugal force, or survival-of-the-fittest.  But we are designed, and there are God-ordained “laws of nature” that we are supposed to abide by.  These include nationalism, marriage, and family.  A nation, or people, who can’t get the basics correct are doomed.

LAR OF GALEN...Here’s a bit of irony:  These scum demanding “reparations” never picked a single bole of cotton, but my father had to drop out of school when 9 years old so he could pick it for 12 hours a day, at $1 a day.  How’s that for “white privilege? 

THE FIRST LEGAL SLAVE OWNER IN WHAT WOULD BECOME THE UNITED STATES WAS A BLACK MAN

August 23, 2013 Daven Hiskey 116 comments

Today I found out the first legal slave owner in the British colonies that would eventually become the United States was a black man.

The man was Anthony Johnson.  Johnson first came over to America as an indentured servant, arriving in 1620 in the Colony of Virginia.  He did not come over willingly, as many did, agreeing to become indentured servants in exchange for passage to the New World. Rather, Johnson was captured in Angola by neighboring tribesmen and eventually sold to a merchant who transported him to Virginia, where he was then sold to a tobacco farmer.

Despite this, Johnson was not technically a slave by the definition of the term in his era.  He was simply required to serve the farmer for a time in exchange for room and board.  However, like slaves, indentured servants could be sold or lent out to someone else, and, for the most part, they could be punished how those that owned their contracts saw fit.

One of the biggest differences between slaves and indentured servants was that once the indentured servant’s contract was up, depending on the agreement made with the person paying for transport, often the former servant would be given some small compensation for their services to help them get their start as free individuals.  This might include some amount of land, food (often a year’s worth), clothing, and tools.

During their time serving, indentured servants also typically learned some trade as they worked, which was significant for many who chose to make the journey to the Americas as indentured servants- often poor, uneducated individuals, lacking a trade, and in search of the promise of a better life.  Because of this, in the early days, most indentured servants in the British colonies in America were actually Irish, English, German, and Scottish, rather than African.

Johnson, of course, didn’t choose to come over. Nevertheless, once in America, he toiled away as a tobacco farmer for the duration of his contract.  During this time, he also met a woman (soon to be his wife) named simply “Mary”, who had been brought over to America about two years after Johnson, with her contract also being purchased by the same man who owned Johnson’s contract.

In 1635, after working on the tobacco farm for about 14 years, Johnson was granted his freedom and acquired land and the necessaries to start his own farm.  Sources are conflicting on whether he purchased the remaining years on his wife’s contract or whether she completed it, but in the end, the two, with their lives now their own, began working for themselves.

They soon prospered and took advantage of the “headright” system in place for encouraging more colonists, where if you paid to bring a new colonist over, whether purchasing them at the docks or arranging it before hand with someone, you’d be awarded 50 acres of land.  Similarly, those who paid their own passage would be given land under this system.

This leads us to 1654. One of Johnson’s servants, John Casor who was brought over from Africa, claimed he was under a “seaven or eight yeares” contract and that he’d completed it. Thus, he asked Johnson for his freedom.

Johnson didn’t see things this way, and denied the request. Despite this, according to Casor, Johnson eventually agreed to allow him to leave, with pressure supposedly coming from Johnson’s family who felt that Casor should be free.  Thus, Casor went to work for a man by the name of Robert Parker.

Either Johnson changed his mind or he never said Casor could go, because he soon filed a lawsuit against Parker claiming that Parker stole his servant, and that Casor was Johnson’s for life and was not an indentured servant.

Johnson ultimately won the case, and not only did he get his servant back, but Casor became Johnson’s slave for life as Johnson had said he was.  This officially made Johnson the first legal slave owner in the British colonies that would eventually become the United States. (There were other slaves before this in the Americas, many actually, just not ones that were legal in the British colonies under common law).

The judge’s decision on the matter was announced as follows:

This daye Anthony Johnson negro made his complaint to the court against Mr. Robert Parker and declared that hee deteyneth his servant John Casor negro under the pretence that said negro was a free man. The court seriously consideringe and maturely weighing the premisses, doe fynde that the saide Mr. Robert Parker most unjustly keepeth the said Negro from Anthony Johnson his master … It is therefore the Judgement of the Court and ordered That the said John Casor Negro forthwith returne unto the service of the said master Anthony Johnson, And that Mr. Robert Parker make payment of all charges in the suit.

About 7 years later, Virginia made this practice legal for everyone, in 1661, by making it state law for any free white, black, or Indian, to be able to own slaves, along with indentured servants, as they’d been able to have before.

While Johnson’s temporarily gain of being granted the services of one of his indentured servants for life no doubt had a positive affect on his thriving business, ultimately the gradual changing of attitudes in the colonies concerning slavery and race came back to hurt Johnson’s family, with slavery slowly becoming less about one’s original financial situation and more about where you or your ancestors were originally from.

When he died in 1670, rather than his thriving plantation going to his children, the court declared that “as a black man, Anthony Johnson was not a citizen of the colony” and awarded the estate to a white settler. Quite a contrast to the declaration in 1654 by the court that Johnson and his wife were “…inhabitants in Virginia (above thirty years) [and respected for] hard labor and known service.”

Bonus Facts:

• While most of the land in Johnson’s estate was taken away, his children were allowed a small portion of Johnson’s former property to use to provide for themselves, but even that 40 acres was lost by Johnson’s grandson, John Jr., when he was unable to pay his taxes one year.
• While Johnson is generally considered by most historians to be the first legal slave owner in the British colonies that would become the United States, there was one person who preceded him in 1640 who owned a slave in all but name.  The virtual slave was John Punch, ordered to be an indentured servant for life, though by law was still considered an indentured servant with all the rights that went with that.  In Punch’s case, he was made a lifelong indentured servant owing to the fact that he tried to leave before his contract was up.  When he was captured and brought back, the judge in the matter decided a suitable punishment was to have Punch’s contract continue for the rest of his life.
• What makes Punch’s case even more interesting (and unfair) is that when he ran away, he ran away with two white indentured servants who were also seeking to get out of their contract.  The punishment for the white indentured servants was not a lifetime of servitude, though.  Rather, they were given 30 lashes with a whip and a mere additional 4 years on their contracts.
• The average price for bringing an indentured servant over to America in the 17th century was just £6.  Meaning that under the headright system, as long as you could afford to feed, clothe, and house them, you could acquire 50 acres of land for just over £1 per 10 acres.
• The first Africans to be imported to the Americas were brought over in the 1560s, primarily in areas controlled by Spain.  The English colonies didn’t start importing Africans until much later, around 1619, just a couple years before Anthony Johnson was brought over. The first group to the British colonies were imported to Jamestown and comprised of 20 Africans who had been aboard a Spanish ship that was attacked by a Dutch vessel.  After the Dutch crew successfully took over the Spanish ship, they were left with 20 Africans who they took to Jamestown and declared were indentured servants, trading them for supplies.
• In Virginia, in 1662, legislatures enacted a law stating that if you owned a slave, not only were they yours for life, but any children of a slave mother would also be a slave, regardless of whether the father was a slave or not.  Before this, the father’s status was typically what was used to determine the child’s status, regardless of race or the mother.
• A further change of the laws came in 1670 when a law was passed forbidding those of African or Indian descent from owning any “Christian” slaves.  In this case, this did not necessarily mean literal Christian slaves; if you had a black or Indian slave who was a Christian, that was fine, as they were black or Indian, and thus “heathen”, regardless of what they said or believed or even if they were baptized.
• A further hardening of the laws came in 1699. In an attempt to get rid of all the prominent free black people, Virginia enacted a law requiring all free black people to leave the colony, to further cement the majority of free people in the colonies as non-black, and allow the tyranny of the majority with respect to those of African descent to progress unhindered.  Many did not have the funds to actually leave, and some chose to ignore the decree, as relationships between whites and free blacks tended to be as you’d expect humans to act towards one another, namely somewhat friendly in many cases; this included some intermarrying, despite the fact that to some extent this was discouraged even then, primarily because Africans were considered “heathens”.  Obviously those either from Africa or of African descent who had married someone of European descent weren’t inclined to leave their spouses and homes. In fact, it’s estimated that about 80% of all those non-slaves of African descent in the United States between 1790 and 1810 were a product of this intermarrying in the Virginia colony
• ===========================================================
• by Jeff Foxworthy:
   
  If plastic water bottles are okay, but plastic bags are banned, — you might live in a nation (state) that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots WE DO LIVE IN SUCH A DUMB COUNTRY!!
   
  If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
   
  If you have to get your parents' permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
   
  If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
   
  If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
   
  If, in the nation's largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If an 80-year-old woman who is confined to a wheelchair or a three-year-old girl can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

   

  THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE IN ALL UPCOMING ELECTIONS. MOST OF THE IDIOTS RUNNING THIS COUNTRY SAY ONE THING AND DO THE OPPOSITE KNOWING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THEM IN DO NOT PAY ATTENTION

STILL SLAVES

Lar of Galen...

We have to be careful about denying anyone their Constitutional rights, because to deny one is to endanger everyone.  HOWEVER, there are legitimate restrictions.  Criminals loose a lot of their rights due to breaking the social contract, and rules to prevent fraud – which Victor cites – must be enforced.  Originally, only land owners voted in the colonies because they were the ones paying taxes.  I liked the premise in Starship Trooper: only veterans could vote because they were the ones who paid the price for freedom – and military service was discouraged.  Unfortunately, I don’t think we can legally block the ignorant. Too bad, it would eliminate virtually all Demoncrats. I do think people receiving welfare should be disqualified because they aren’t paying taxes.

Lorra of Pantherville's comment reminds me of Keanu Reeves’ line in the movie “Parenthood”: “You have to have a license to own a dog, but any SOB can be a father”.  If  we could prevent the ignorant and stupid from voting and procreating, ...... wow.  Or should I say “Whooah!” 

==============================================================

Obama quotes him often in his book and Hillary did her thesis on Alinsky.

 

ALMOST DONE.  JUST ONE ELECTION DECIDES OUR FATE...

 

ALMOST THERE

 

There are 8 levels of control that must be obtained before you are able to create a socialist/communist State.  The first is the most important

 

5 OF THE 8 ARE DONE - THE LAST 3 ARE ALMOST THERE

 

 

1.  Healthcare: "Control Healthcare and you control the People"

DONE !!

 

2  Poverty:  Increase the Poverty level as high as possible."  Poor People are easier to control and will not fight back if the government is providing everything for them to live.

DONE!!!

 

3.  Debt: Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level."  That way you are able to increase Taxes, and this will produce more Poverty.

DONE!!!

 

4.  Gun Control:  Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government.  That way you are able to create a Police State - total local control.

ALMOST THERE!!!

 

5.  Welfare:  Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Livestock, Housing, and Income).

DONE!!!

 

6.  Education:  Take control of what People read & listen to; take control of what Children learn in School.

ALMOST THERE!!!

 

7.  Religion: Remove faith in God from the Government and Schools. ALMOST THERE!!!

 

8.  Class Warfare:  Divide the People into the Wealthy against the Poor.  Racially divide. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to Tax the Wealthy with full support of the voting Poor.

DONE!!!

 

The bases are all covered!  We are ripe!
=============================================================
History of Man

                Beer and the Wheel

                The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer
                and the invention of the wheel.

                Beer required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture.

                Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our
                early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just
                stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

                The wheel was invented to get man to the beer and vice versa.

                These two were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the
                catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:
                1.    Liberals.
                2.    Conservatives.

                Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while
                they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the
                Conservative movement.

                Other men who were less skilled at hunting (called 'vegetarians' which was
                an early human word meaning 'bad hunter') learned to live off the
                Conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing,
                fetching, and hairdressing. This was the beginning of the liberal movement.

                Some of these liberal men evolved into women. Others became known as
                girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication
                of chickens,  the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of
                democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
                Conservatives provided.

                Over the years Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
                powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the
                jackass for obvious reasons.

                Modern Liberals like lite beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine
                or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done.
                Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting
                evolutionary side note: many liberal women have higher testosterone levels
                than their men.

                Most college professors, social workers, personal injury attorneys,
                journalists, film makers in Hollywood, group therapists and community
                organizers are liberals. Liberals meddled in our national pastime and
                invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the
                pitcher also bat.

                Conservatives drink real beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their
                women. Conservatives are members of the military, big game hunters, rodeo
                cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
                officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, airline pilots, and
                generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies
                hire other Conservatives who want to work for a living.

                Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and
                decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more
                enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in
                Europe when Conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the
                Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for
                nothing.

                Here ends today's lesson in world history. It should be noted that a liberal
                may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to this post.

                A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth
                of this history that it will be shared immediately to other true believers
                and to just piss-off more liberals.

                And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self, I'm going
                to grab a few beers and BBQ some buffalo steaks!
==============================================================

Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a bar. Donald leans over, and with a smile on his face, says,

"The media are really tearing you apart for  That Scandal." 

Hillary: "You mean my lying about Benghazi?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You mean the massive voter fraud?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You mean the military not getting their votes counted?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Using my secret private server with classified material to Hide my Activities?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring our phone calls, emails and everything Else?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Using the Clinton Foundation as a cover for tax evasion, hiring cronies, and taking bribes from foreign countries? 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You mean the drones being operated in our own country without The Benefit of the law?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Giving 123 Technologies $300 Million, and right afterward it Declared Bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You mean arming the Muslim Brotherhood and hiring them in the White House?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Whitewater, Watergate committee, Vince Foster, commodity Deals?" 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "The IRS targeting conservatives?" 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "Turning Libya into chaos?" 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "Trashing Mubarak, one of our few Muslim friends?" 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "Turning our backs on Israel?" 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "The joke Iran Nuke deal? " 

Trump: "No the other one:" 

Hillary: "Leaving Iraq in chaos? " 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "The DOJ spying on the press?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You mean HHS Secretary Sibelius shaking down health insurance Executives?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Giving our cronies in SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 Months Later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "The NSA monitoring citizens' ?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "The State Department interfering with an Inspector General Investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Me, The IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "Threats to all of Bill's former mistresses to keep them quiet" 

Trump: "No, the other one." 

Hillary: "You means taking the $145,000,000.00 from Putin for the Uranium Bribe ? "

Trump : " No the other one ."

Hillary: "I give up! ... Oh wait, I think I've got it! When I stole the White House furniture, silverware and China when Bill left Office?"

Trump: "THAT'S IT! I almost forgot about that one". 

**********

Everything above is true. Yet she still gets the Democratic votes. Could there be that many stupid people in this country? 

============================================================================================

Reparations have been paid in full by the blood of Union soldiers.

Also...$22,000,000,000,000.00 in taxpayer-funded welfare payments to able-bodied adult-parasite losers since 1965 isn't enough 'reparations?' These leftist freeloaders need to stop complaining, get jobs and pay their own way.

Schmutzli • 19 hours ago

I have said it before, but I'll say it again, reparations are long, long overdue.

They are due to the Africans who can prove they were slaves and payable by those who actually owned them up until 1865. Since the affected and responsible parties would be at least 151 years old now and due to inflation and gruberment economic policy since at least Wilson perhaps the surviving former slave owners are a little short on cash, any shortfall in the amount of the settlement between the affected and the responsible parties should be made up by the Africans and Arabs who sold them into slavery in the first place.

The rest of us, both black and white, have nothing to do with it and white people born after 1865 owe them absolutely nothing.

Tyler Schmutzli • 6 hours ago

And I would like to say once the legitimate ancestors of slaves are found and get there restitution. Those ancestors need to pay restitution to the ancestors of the union soldiers who where killed freeing them. What is a mans life worth?

May 11, 2016

Why we should welcome a real trial about slave reparations

By John Massoud

For the past fifteen or so years, there has been a movement among some liberals to require that the descendants of former slaves be paid for the suffering of their ancestors.  Conservatives have railed against this transfer of wealth, saying (rightly, one should add) that a person or entity cannot be held responsible for the actions of another person who has been dead for over 150 years.  Lloyd’s of London was sued in 2004 by a group of descendants of African slaves, and the British court system ruled against their claim.  There have been other claims made by the descendants of African slaves.  All of these have been laughed out of court. 

Conservatives also claim (again, correctly) that offering reparations helps to keep poorer African-Americans in a perpetual state of victim-hood.  But conservatives should not only welcome the concept of a reparations trial, we should also be championing it.  And in doing so, we would be providing what Barack Obama would call a “teachable moment” about the real history of slavery in not only the Western world, but also the history of all mankind.

One should note that the Jesse Jacksons of the world have only been trying to get reparations against White European nations.  But for this to work as a really teachable moment, it would have to be tried in a multinational court and consider the global scope of slavery.  And “progressives” do not want this for the following reasons.

Liberals of all stripes have been trying to rewrite the history of many countries.  Our liberal friends have tried to change the Holy Bible to say the descendants of Joseph were not slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but were actually paid laborers.  These intellectual giants of the left have conveniently neglected to teach that the current term “slave” is descended from the 9th century, where the white people of East Europe (Slavs) were kidnapped and sold into “slavery” by Spanish Muslims. 

The legal discovery that would accompany any slave reparations trial would have and make public that the Ottoman Empire kept “slave armies.”  Note that we are now talking about Muslims or the ancestors of Muslims being responsible for not only the beginnings of slavery, but also for the word “slave” itself.  Think of how much American students might have to be forced to learn.  In the 1970s, there was a wildly popular TV miniseries called Roots, in which the story of Alex Haley’s supposed ancestors came to this country.  Forgetting the fact that Mr. Haley was forced to admit he plagiarized the entire story, and that the story Mr. Haley told never could have occurred as it was told in the miniseries, many people today actually believe that Rootsand the story told was an accurate historical account – especially the part about how Kunta Kinte was captured by whites, aka Christians.  In actuality, the overwhelming majority of slave trading was done through Muslim slave traders.  And African nations profited off selling their “black brothers and sisters.”  The Nyamwezi tribe of modern day Tanzania helped to establish aslave pipeline that started in Angola.

The Dahomey (now Benin) nation rulers profited off the slave trade.  In the 1840s, King Gezo said he would “do anything the British would want apart from giving up the slave trade.”  We haven’t even touched on the number of African-Americans who not only owned but also traded slaves.  One of the more famous of the black plantation owners was Nicolas Metoyer, who along with his family owned over 200 slaves. 

 

And how about the African-Americans who owned white slaves?  Think this didn’t occur?  In the late 1600s through early 1700s, black males were buying indentured servants (usually white) for their farms.  

If you want to have a real debate about race relations in the USA, as all liberals say they want to have, great, let’s bring it on.  Talk about slavery throughout history, and how Muslims profited off the slave trade as much if not more than did Christians.  How blacks have sold their own “brothers and sisters” into slavery.

 We as Americans should and need to stop being afraid of offending someone, and teach real and true history.  Who knows, maybe it would get some of our youngsters to start appreciating their country again?  And who knows?  Maybe, just maybe, the Israelis would get a nice reparations check from Egypt and other Arab nations.

Now wouldn’t that be special?

John Massoud is a businessman in Northern Virginia, is 6th district chair of the Shenandoah County Republican Committee, does media relations for the Shenandoah Valley Constitutional Conservatives, is an occasional contributor to the American Thinker, and is Shenandoah County’s favorite half-Afghan and half-Scots Irishman.