Ann Barnhardt on Mexico, my own thoughts on the future.

This is an interesting post, copied & pasted in it's entirety. While I disagree with a good portion, some parts are really worth considering:

On Mexico, Guns, Drugs and Borders
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - July 30, AD 2011 5:49 PM MST

This is speculation, so take it as such. It is impossible to know for certain what another person or people are going to do until they do it, but when Vanna turns enough letters around on the board, you don’t need to buy any more vowels.

I think the Obama regime is intentionally trying to get the Los Zetas drug cartel to overthrow the Mexican government, and do it fairly soon. This thesis is nothing new. If you want citations, do a google search of the terms “los zetas overthrow” and read up. What I want to address is the question of WHY.

The Obama regime wants to effectively dissolve the U.S.-Mexican border. A Los Zetas overthrow would accomplish this. Mexican refugees would flood into the United States. The U.S. would refuse to acknowledge the Los Zetas regime as a legitimate government. The U.N. and other illegitimate criminal syndicates operating as diplomatic fronts would immediately call for the U.S. to accept all Mexican refugees. Because the Mexican government would no longer be legitimate – and essentially would not exist – there would be no way to deport ANY Mexican nationals inside the U.S., because there would be no government in Mexico to hand them back to lawfully. So, we would have:

1. Completely open borders
2. MILLIONS of refugees streaming into the U.S.
3. Global insistence that the U.S. accept these refugees
4. Instant de facto amnesty for both pre-Zeta and post-Zeta Mexicans in the U.S.
5. Obama cast as savior of these Mexican refugees
6. Millions of new welfare-dependent Obama voters
7. A lawless Mexico, wide-open to unlimited muslim and Chinese staging

Now a word about drugs. I know that there are many libertarians reading this website who think that legalizing drugs is the solution to everything. It sure is, if you’re George Soros. If you will indulge me for a moment, I’m going to leave the current chess board and try to think five or six moves ahead. Los Zetas overthrow Mexico. The border dissolves and Obama gets his millions of welfare-recipient voters. The Obama regime, which we know is just a front for Soros, legalizes drugs. Soros is pretty much the money behind the entire drug legalization movement. Legalizing drugs in the U.S. would instantly undercut and defund Los Zetas, thus allowing Soros to install a handpicked puppet in Mexico City. And we’re now well on our way to piecing together the Soros global empire. Central and South America could be rolled easily.

Soros, and all Marxist-Communist tyrants, are big fans of drugs because drugs keep the rabble (that’s us) dumb, compliant, desperate and dependant on the state. Soros, Jarrett, Obama, Ayers, Sunstein, Piven and all the rest would love nothing more than for the entire American populace to come home every night from a long day at the welfare office, bread line, and drug dispensary, smoke a joint or a blunt, plop down on the sofa and sit transfixed by pornography, circuses and/or state propaganda. This is how the Soviet Union operated except with alcohol. There may not have been food or toilet paper at times in the Soviet Union, but MIRACULOUSLY the vodka would always manage to appear. This basically eliminated the threat of the male populace to the state. It also acted as a silent genocide by causing dramatic increases in early death AND dramatically decreased fertility rates when coupled with state-provided abortion-on-demand. In case you weren’t aware, Russia’s population today is imploding.

This is what the Marxist-Soros cabal wants the U.S. to look like, and in order to achieve that goal, they need to be the drug cartel. So, back to our original thesis. They would, or already have facilitated the Zetas' overthrow of Mexico by running guns and other high-powered weapons to them via Fast & Furious, which would give the Marxist-Soros machine permanent power by destabilizing the U.S. and stacking the American electorate, and would also position them to then eventually undercut the Zetas, seize and “nationalize” the North American drug trade for themselves and then drug the populace into numbness, compliance, early death and mechanical infertility.

And no, I do not think that alcohol should be illegal. I can drink a given quantity of alcohol and not get drunk. And I do, and I appreciate the flavor of the alcohol as I do other foodstuffs. A person can not smoke a joint and not get stoned. A person can not snort cocaine and not get high. A person can not inject heroin and not get stoned. The only purpose drugs have is the dramatic alteration of a human’s psychological state, and that alteration reduces the ability to think critically and rationally, numbs the person to their surroundings, induces extreme selfishness and inhibits the ability to love. This is the Marxist definition of “the perfect man”. No, check that. In Marxism, the perfect man is the dead man – but the stoned man is the next best thing.

If you’re on that whole libertarian legalize drugs bandwagon, I would seriously advise you to think that position over very carefully – and not while you’re high on weed. Start by looking at who is “on your side”. That alone should be enough to convince you that you’re being played. And look for the Zetas to move on Mexico City well before the 2012 elections. If we even make it that far.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

One of the beauties of the scenario Barnhardt paints is the lack of any formal conspiracy needed for results 1-7. "Operation Gunwalker" could be set up mainly to cast the exercise of our 2nd Amendment in a bad light (I really believe that was the greater part of it). The other consequences resulting from a de facto arming of the Zetas would be of secondary importance initially but would soon assume a "tail wagging the dog" significance.

I can't follow her reasoning on the issue of drugs. Too many folks are NOT going to start toking on a joint or blunt for the legalization of drugs to be considered. But with no effective borders in place, what would there be to stop the cartels from more openly transporting their product north? This would be a really neat excuse for clamping down on everyone in the name of national security, but who would get that task?

The Border Patrol? They're already stretched thin, and several incidents where their agents have faced charges of pulling a gun on an illegal only emphasize our DOJ's tendency to undermine them. I'd bet a fair amount of agents spend as much time covering their asses now as actually doing their jobs. I know I would.

Ditch posse comitatus and place the military on the border? Look at how the troops are currently being used for social engineering purposes (e.g. the demise of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the wholesale embrace of gays in uniform). Those of us who served during the Carter years well remember the lousy morale during that time. I'd say we'll soon see another decline that will make the hollow military of those years look robust in comparison. So no, the military won't be able to handle the job of border protection and taking care of the increased lawlessness further north.

The local police? I really doubt they'll have the organization or firepower to deal with drug cartels that control a nation.

But what about the civilian security force that B.O. spoke of forming? The one that would be as well armed as the military.

BINGO! YOU'VE WON THE JACKPOT, SO COME ON DOWN!

A paramilitary organization, answerable only to the Executive Branch, armed to the teeth and consisting of true believers in the ideas of our present Commander-in-Chief.

Yeah, they'd be tasked with national security once the conventional military and police organizations proved inadequate.

Their ranks would consist of those more loyal to El Presidente than the Constitution. There doesn't even need to be a formal conspiracy for this, just think of sitting in for an interview to join the new "Civilian SF" and having a true believer quiz you about your thoughts on gun control, limited government, the 2nd Amendment, etc. There wouldn't be time for a detailed hiring policy to be in place, a lot of it would be left up to the personal judgment of whoever is doing that interview. No real knowledge of the Constitution needed.

Hey, face it folks, right now the vast majority of the rank and file military don't know squat about how the nation was founded and designed to function. I know this from personal experience. The ones who know the most are your senior enlisted personnel and the mid-to-senior commissioned officer pay grades. They'd prove a problem for any sort of Brown Shirt tactics, even in an increasingly demoralized and emasculated military you could count on a fairly large number of patriots to dig in their heels and say "NO" to any illegal order.

But a new paramilitary "security force" could be led by those screened to be more loyal to a person than a historically derived ideal? They could be given expanded powers to investigate & arrest perceived threats to the nation, utilizing procedures and practices already in place or in use before now. That would include "no knock home searches", suspension of habeus corpus, stopping your average man on the street and demanding identification/destination/etc. The list goes on. Just as the gun laws of Weimar Germany were enacted with noble intent yet ultimately used for the benefit of the Nazis, so will the present statutes and the enforcement of them be twisted to suit an agenda.

This is all dependent on the success of the cartels overthrowing the government of Mexico and the ensuing anarchy spilling over into this country. As Barnhardt implies, all those brand new voters would be extremely sympathetic to the overlords in DC. There would be the added advantage that they wouldn't be too picky about individual rights of privacy and other such items that have scant existence south of our border. They'd vote for increased security in a second and damn the consequences! Anyone speaking out would have their names taken for future reference.

Mexico is already moving towards being a complete narcostate, just let it go a little further down the road and it'll be showtime. It'll begin in this nation with martial law being declared.

Do I think it's in the works? Do I believe it's likely? I don't know and maybe that's all that keeps me from being a full fledged model of the latest style in tinfoil hats. But just a few years ago I'd have said you had to be delusional to believe the ATF would allow a glut of firearms to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels while the MSM stayed mute on the topic. I'd have honestly believed that the rule of law and a concern for our fellow citizens would trump any crap like that.

So now, I can only say I don't know what is going to happen. But I don't think whatever goes down will be good.

God help us all, God's will be done.

The background on "Project Gunwalker" aka "Fast & Furious.

I've mentioned before how the MSM isn't covering this story. Here's an AP post from Breitbart, let's see if the Dallas Morning News and other big names in the newspaper world pick it up now: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9OQ42JG0&show_article=1

The thing is way too big to cut and paste, my favored method of saving news stories like this. Over time I've come to do that because many items will be scrubbed from a newsite. I don't believe it's for any nefarious reason other than economy. But on this one I'll make do with a hyperlink.

Anyway, there's the story. One theory not mentioned in trying to figure out why the ATF/DOJ let so many weapons head south is setting a scenario to justify restricting our exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I still believe that factored into this fubar operation. Just my opinion.

Parents: Do not eat while reading this...

Otherwise you'll hurl it back up. The swill is found here: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/teaching-teenagers-about-the-joy-of-sex/?smid=tw-NYTMotherlode&seid=auto

Honest to God, has our entire planet fallen into a worm hole and come out in the Bizarro Universe? I read the linked article and while that was disturbing enough, the comments were even more so.

Yours truly is no saint. 22 years in the sub force guarantees that you can dress me up but can't take me anywhere. Ya know, "rude, crude & socially unacceptable".

But this thing made me sick. Here's a highly educated woman, somebody who is trusted to educate other peoples' children, having a talk with her 17 yr. old daughter about how to make sure she gets as much sexual satisfaction as she gives. The only time "Mom" feels like a failure is upon realizing her girl has been gobbbling some guy's goop without insisting he reciprocate by eating a box lunch at the "Y". How could she have missed teaching THAT lesson? Oh, the shame!

As I say, the comments were worse.

After reading this I feel like I've been exposed to an entirely alien culture. Unfortunately it isn't, I can probably find equally "free spirits" in the local area. In this present time I'd qualify as the alien life form sooner than they would.

So what does the father of a small girl do these days to insure she doesn't become a complete skank? It seems being a mattress-backed tramp is more acceptable than not now.

No wonder my hair is falling out.

Feminism at it's finest, don't demand you be treated as worthy of respect. Just jump into the cesspool with the boys and wallow in it.

Yeah, what he said!

New York City, N.Y., Jul 29, 2011 / 10:55 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The World Trade Center cross is still a “sign of comfort” to many people, says the Franciscan priest who describes himself as its “unofficial guardian.”

On Sept. 13, 2001 construction worker Frank Silecchia found a 20-foot, cross-shaped T-beam from World Trade Center 1 standing almost upright in the wreckage of World Trade Center 6.

Fr. Brian Jordan, O.F.M., blessed the cross later that year on Oct. 4 and promised that it would be preserved.

Now almost 10 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the priest again blessed the cross in a July 23 ceremony before its relocation to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum.

“It’s a sign of consolation and comfort for those who lost loved ones,” Fr. Jordan told CNA on July 28. “For the dead, the cross signifies the death of Jesus Christ. It also gave hope and support to the living, especially the rescue and recovery workers, the firefighters, polices officers, construction workers and many others.”

The Franciscan priest, who is in residence at New York City’s Holy Name Parish, played his own role in responding to the destruction which killed thousands. He ministered among construction workers, worked with family members and uniformed service members, and blessed “many bodies and body parts.”

“We saw evil at its worst, but goodness at its best,” Fr. Jordan said. “The goodness was that Americans came together in those weeks. New York City came together in those weeks. People of all ethnic and religious groups and economic backgrounds came together. I was very proud of that.”

In the months afterward, the cross “dramatically” affected others, both Christians and non-Christians.

He particularly recalled a Mother’s Day Mass in 2002, when mothers who lost children or grandchildren and their husbands all gathered at the cross.

Two groups of U.S. Army special forces also attended, without telling anyone else in advance.

“One group had just returned from Afghanistan, while the other was preparing to go,” the priest reported.

“At the kiss of peace, to see these mothers embrace these young men who came from war, who were about to go, there wasn’t a dry eye in the house,” Fr. Jordan said. “I don’t care if you are John Wayne. Anyone who has any heart or emotion in them will start crying when they see the mothers who lost their children embracing soldiers who are going to war.

“They looked at the cross, and they knew that Catholics were with them.”

He noted that what people call the “cross” is simply an interpretation of the T-beam shape. But even so, he explained, the shape has significance of for Christians.

Jesus is “both the victim and the victor of the cross.” Despite the cruelty of his death, Jesus is also the victor of Resurrection, of life over death.

“The cross, (is) for us, we were all victims on 9/11. We’ll be victorious,” he said. “America and the rest of the free world will roll over terrorism and show the poignance of God’s overwhelming love for all people.

Joe Daniels, president of the 9/11 Memorial, said that the cross will be an important part of the memorial’s commitment to “bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the history of 9/11 in a way nothing else could.”

The group American Atheists has filed a lawsuit to stop the display of the cross, claiming it is a “government enshrinement” and an “impermissible mingling of church and state.”

Fr. Jordan was not sympathetic to their claim.

“They don’t have a prayer. Not to be facetious,” he said, noting that the Metropolitan Museum of Art shows many religious icons, as does the Holocaust Museum, on public land.

The cross is “an interpretation,” he repeated.

“They’re going to judge interpretations? Then move every telephone pole out of New York City, because those look like a cross to me too,” he countered.

“These people are just looking for 15 minutes of fame. They’re exploiting 9/11 for their own selfish public posturing and they should be ashamed of themselves because of this baseless lawsuit.”

Fr. Jordan closed his remarks by recommending the Decalogue of Assisi, a short 2002 document signed by world religious leaders that rejects violence and advocates peace and religious dialogue.

“God bless America,” he said.

"Fast and Furious", John Peter Zenger, you and I, some other thoughts too.

Found this via Lucianne.com at www.investors.com:

ATF: The White House Knew

Posted 07:02 PM ET

Scandal: A former ATF special agent tells Congress a National Security Council staffer was informed about Operation Fast and Furious before guns allowed into Mexico wound up at the murder scene of a U.S. agent.

The latest evidence that both the White House and attorney general knew and approved of Project Gunrunner and its deadly offshoot, Operation Fast and Furious, came this week in the testimony of William Newell, ATF special agent in charge of the Phoenix office, before Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

That the "stench of cover-up," as Fox News analyst Brit Hume described the administration's handling of the matter, may reach even into the Oval Office itself was evidenced by Newell's testimony that he communicated with Kevin O'Reilly, a staffer on President Obama's National Security Council, about Operation Fast and Furious in September 2010.

O'Reilly was national security director for North America tasked with monitoring the activities of Mexican drug cartels. We are asked to believe he inquired about a program that was providing the cartels with guns but kept what he found out to himself.

That date, by the way, is three months before weapons permitted to "walk" into Mexico were found at the scene in Arizona were U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered. Newell said O'Reilly had inquired about the status of Project Gunrunner to brief administration officials before a trip to Mexico.

Newell sent O'Reilly the requested information with the caveat, "You didn't get this from me."

Why was a National Security Council staffer asking about an operation that no one in the upper echelons of the administration was supposed to be aware of? We find it hard to believe it was for O'Reilly's personal amusement. Why would Newell request that he not be acknowledged as the source?

Certainly the whole area of drug cartels, cross-border violence and gun trafficking are matters of national security. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made a cause celebre of blaming the easy access to U.S. weapons for Mexican violence.

Are we to believe neither the White House nor the Department of Justice knew about a program that made that access even easier?

Administration officials have taken the Sgt. Schultz "we knew nothing" approach to any inquiries, only to be tripped up by their own words and actions.

Newell's email to O'Reilly is evidence that at least one person in the White House did.

Attorney General Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee in May that he learned about the operation in the "last few weeks." In fact, as we've noted, Holder himself gave a speech to Mexican authorities in Cuernavaca, Mexico, on April 2, 2009, taking credit for Gunrunner as well as Fast and Furious for himself and the Obama administration.

Holder told the audience: "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner."

At a June 29 press conference, President Obama told reporters, "As you know, my attorney general has made clear he certainly would not have ordered gun-running to pass through into Mexico."

Yet a video shows former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden telling reporters at a Department of Justice briefing of steps to expand Gunrunner "as part of the administration's comprehensive plan" and as the "president has directed us."

ATF agents have testified that they were ordered not to interdict guns before they passed into Mexico under this operation and evidence has surfaced that the FBI averted its eyes when an instant background check should have alerted them to two convicted felons transferring more than 300 guns.

The "stench of cover-up" grows stronger even as the mainstream media put a clothespin on their collective nostrils

(End of story, my comments follow.)

There is definitely a stench of cover-up to this affair. I live in Texas, a notably "red" state that is on the border with Mexico. You'd think there'd be some interest in this affair as shown in the local MSM.

Think again.

Our main paper, the Dallas Morning News carries zip about this story. I've kept my eyes open since restarting my subscription a few weeks ago. There ain't diddle squat ladies and gentlemen. When I speak to friends about this affair I'm initially given a blank look, as if I'm speaking Swahili.

My main point and the bottom line on this affair, the circumvention by Obama of the War Powers Act in his Libyan regime change, the "rules of engagement" our Marines and soldiers labor under in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a few other items that I probably can't call to mind right now, is that the MSM is lying to us.

Yeah, big surprise.

But I AM surprised at the offhanded arrogance displayed in NOT covering these stories. It confirms the importance of this little device sitting in front of me. We may not be of the caliber of John Peter Zenger, but it's the folks sitting at their PC that get the truth out these days. Don't count on the MSM, they're snugly wrapped in the hip pockets of the politicians.

In the mean time, keep in mind how this example of government malfeasance has been working. Who would benefit from a glut of guns heading south of the border? Who could use it for political purposes? My opinion is that having someone die from a gun bought in El Norte would serve the gun grabbers and their political allies admirably.

Only the alternative media is putting a kink in things by getting the word out.

Imagine a similar scenario when Watergate happened if the MSM had been in Nixon's hip pocket. There was no alternative news media at that time. This is a hell of a lot bigger than a bunch of second rate burglars getting caught red handed.

Where's the outcry from the media?

Another Muslim plans to attack Fort Hood...

Found this at www.statesman.com via Lucianne.com:

An AWOL soldier who authorities say told them he was planning an attack on Fort Hood will likely be charged today with having bomb-making components, including “a significant amount of gunpowder,” in his Killeen hotel room, officials said today.

Killeen police on Wednesday arrested Pvt. Nasser Jason Abdo after learning that he was wanted by the Army on a child pornography charge, FBI spokesman Erik Vasys said.

Authorities found materials that included the gunpowder and other items “that could be considered bomb-making components” in Abdo’s hotel room, Vasys said.

He was arrested at America’s Best Value Inn on South Fort Hood Road, Killeen police said.

“We don’t know what his motivation was at this time,” Vasys said. “We are trying to learn all things about Mr. Abdo, about what his possible motivations and intentions were.”

Employees at Guns Galore, a popular Killeen firearms shop, alerted police to Abdo after he made a purchase there, officials said. Guns Galore is the same store where Maj. Nidal Hasan purchased the gun, ammunition and laser sights that witnesses testified he used during the Nov. 5, 2009, shooting massacre at the post.

Abdo, whose hometown is Garland, entered the Army in March of 2009 and was assigned to the 101st Airborne at Fort Campbell, Ky., when he went AWOL on July 4, Wright said.

While serving at Fort Campbell, Abdo told ABC News that “no Muslim should serve in the U.S. military” and said his faith had pushed him to file for conscientious objector status. His scheduled deployment to Afghanistan was deferred, an Army spokesperson told ABC News at the time.

George Wright, an Army spokesman, said Abdo was granted conscientious objector status shortly before he was charged with possession of child pornography in May. Abdo underwent an Article 32 pretrial evidentiary hearing in June and was recommended for a general court-martial. But before the trial began, Abdo went AWOL, Wright said.

Wright said he was not aware of anything linking Abdo to a larger plot among soldiers against Army installations.

“I’m not seeing anything to that effect,” Wright said, stressing that he is not a spokesman for the ongoing FBI and Killeen Police Department investigation.

Fort Hood officials said security measures remained the same at the post today

(End of story, my comments follow.)

So this guy is a Muslim. Wow, what a surprise (not).

Just when do we as a nation get our collective head out of our ass and start taking a serious look at the adherents of the "religion" of Islam?

I'd say we're way past due.

Your life at greater risk to appease the PC gods...

Found this at www.nationaljournal.com my comments in the story are in bold italics:

A policy that bars gay men from donating blood for life is “suboptimal,” advisers to the Health and Human Services Department said on Tuesday, and needs another look. This is another example of medical science taking a backseat to political correctness.

HHS asked a committee of experts on blood and tissue donations to reexamine the policy and see if there is a way to let at least some gays donate blood. In Truespeak that means "find a way to peddle the idea there's no added risk in the donation of blood from a group that has proven historically to contain added risk for donating blood."

“If the data indicate that a change is possible while protecting the blood supply, we will consider a change to the policy,” HHS said in a statement. Meaning they're already busily twisting the truth.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, an HHS agency, has banned blood donation by any man who has had homosexual sex because of the risk of the AIDS virus. Soon after the AIDS pandemic began in the 1980s, people such as hemophiliacs who received frequent blood transfusions or blood products began to become infected with the deadly and incurable virus.

Men who have sex with other men, including gay and bisexual men, have an HIV infection rate 60 times higher than that of the general population, the FDA says. They have an infection rate 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than the rate of repeat blood donors. Tests cannot pick up a new HIV infection in the blood with 100 percent accuracy; because blood is often pooled, many people may be at risk from a single infected donor. None of this will make a fat rat's patoot, it's already been decreed in some back room that the general population will now be placed at needless risk in order to appease the gods of political correctness.

But the Red Cross, always struggling with blood shortages, and other groups such as gay-rights organizations oppose the blanket policy. They say that there are other ways to screen out donors at high risk of HIV infection. Really? Name some! Sen. John Kerry, D–Mass., has also been pushing for a change in policy.

“We’ve been working on this a long time in a serious way, and I’m glad Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius responded with concrete steps to finally remove this policy from the books,” Kerry said in a statement. “HHS is doing their due diligence, and we plan to stay focused on the endgame – a safe blood supply and an end to this discriminatory ban.” What a steaming crock. Hey Numbnuts, any group indulging in the sexual practices prevalent in the gay community has an astronomical risk of AIDS transmission. It's why the virus is primarily a heterosexual problem in Africa, over there "packing fudge" or "driving down the Hershey Highway" isn't limited to homosexuals.

“This announcement by HHS means we’re moving in the direction of finally ending this antiquated and discriminatory policy,” agreed Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. “Senator Kerry and I will continue to push for a behavior-based screening process both in the name of fairness and a safer blood supply.”

Some of the questions the Blood, Organ, and Tissue Safety Working Group will ask: What motivates a man who has had sex with other men to donate blood? Who cares? Can men understand what puts them at high risk of HIV infection? Will donors answer honestly? Don't bet the farm on that last one.

“It is anticipated that the described studies will yield data for reevaluation of the current deferral policy and potentially establish safety of blood collection from a subset of men who have sex with men or other currently deferred donors (e.g. men with a history of abstinence from MSM behavior for a defined time period),” HHS said. In other words, "We'll bend the truth to justify our desired result."

Other people with potential but unknown exposures to infectious diseases are banned from giving blood in the United States, such as people who lived in Britain in the 1980s, when bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known mad-cow disease, was sweeping dairy herds. And nobody thinks twice about that ban, I know because I'm under it. Shit happens and you deal with it.

(End of story, further comments follow.)

I'm reminded of how the DSM was amended back in the 70's for the sake of political expedience. In one edition, homosexuality was deemed a mental disorder. Following the Stonewall riots the next edition was amended to have that changed. No explanation was ever given except a lot of hot air from the headshrinkers. So never mind that the science wasn't there, the desired result was obtained. End of story for that.

Because of that idiocy we've been told for decades that homosexuality is "just another lifestyle", that it's inherited (no science there either), that it's all relative. If it's all relative than the Almighty owes the city of Sodom one heck of an apology.

But with this latest foray into political correctness every single person who may need a blood transfusion will be saddled with an additional health risk.

All in the name of "acceptance", "tolerance" and "equality".

I feel ready to barf.

The Norwegian massacre...

I can't imagine being a parent who sent their child to a summer camp and hearing of how some nutcase gunned down my kid. Talk about Hell on Earth.

A related observation, the bastard responsible is being portrayed as a right-wing, fundamentalist Christian Islamophobe. Now there is a handy excuse for the Nanny State to put our asses under a microscope. Look for it to happen too. We've already seen the FBI given seminars on the "violent" prolife movement, had the DHS send a memo to all police stations in the nation regarding the likelihood of "right-wing extremists" committing terrorist acts, etc.

They'll jump at the opportunities this tragedy provides them.

Now the persecution begins in earnest. I shit you not.

UPDATE: Angel over at Woman, Honor Thyself asks some really good questions about all of this. I normally don't go in for conspiracy theories but something stinks in this whole affair and she sums it up nicely. Go here:
http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/?p=18245&cpage

No justice for this prolife activist.

Obama Admin: Fine Pro-Lifer $25,000 for Stepping on Shoeby Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 7/21/11 5:54 PM

The Obama administration is continuing to go after pro-life people who provide abortion alternatives information to women outside abortion facilities. They are going after one elderly man for stepping on a woman’s shoe and breaking the strap.

Maryland resident Richard Retta has been accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by doing nothing more than exercising his First Amendment rights when he presents information to and talks to women considering abortions. For more than 10 years, he has helped women heading to the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington abortion center find the kind of alternatives the abortion business never provides.

But the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sees the gentle man as some sort of terrorist.

According to the Courthouse News Service, it has filed a lawsuit claiming Retta is one of “the most vocal and aggressive anti-abortion protestors.” How so? The Obama administration claims, “On one occasion, defendant walked so closely to a patient that he stepped on the patient’s shoe and broke the shoe strap.”

Although the nicest pair of high heels may set someone back hundreds of dollars, the Obama administration is suing Retta for $10,000 for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, and is ordering him to pay compensatory damages of $5,000 each to three supposed victims of Retta handing out information and telling women to not have an abortion.

The government, which has a different view on what constitutes free speech, says Retta “attempted to, and did, by physical obstruction, intentionally intimidate or interfere with persons because they were or had been providing or obtaining reproductive health services, or in order to intimidate such persons from providing or obtaining reproductive health services at the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington.”

Tina Korbe, of the conservative blog Hot Air, commented on the case and said the characterization of the Obama administration is at odds with those who know Retta personally.

“Those who know Dick Retta describe him as a peaceful, prayerful man, who regards his sidewalk counseling outside the Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington as a ministry. Retta even conducts weekend training sessions to encourage other pro-life advocates to stand outside the facility to offer words of hope, encouragement and possibility to the young women who come and go from the abortion center,” she writes. “At these training sessions, one attendee says, he specifically emphasizes that the point of sidewalk counseling is not to block access, but, instead, to remind pregnant women that they do, in fact, have a choice other than abortion — and to offer post-abortion healing, as well, as few abortion centers prepare women for all of the possible emotional consequences of their decision.”

“But perhaps nothing attests to Retta’s warm and compassionate nature so much as the influence he has been able to have on the women he counsels as he walks side-by-side with them. Some estimate that, over the past 14 years or so, Retta’s words have resulted in more than 1,000 “saves,” what members of the pro-life movement call the change of heart that leads a pregnant mother to choose to have her child,” Korbe added. “Retta also patiently endures the antipathy of those who aren’t receptive to his message. Just last week, by one account, a woman entering the clinic pepper-sprayed Retta. Yet, Retta persists in his work because he’s seen what a positive difference it makes.”

This is not the first pro-life person the Obama administration has been accused of targeting. It went after another man, David Hamilton, earlier this year.

The Obama administration’s lawsuit came months after it partnered with leading pro-abortion organizations to host an FBI training seminar partnered with leading pro-abortion organizations with the main focus of declaring as “violent” the free speech activities of pro-life Americans.

On August 25, 2010, the FBI and the United States Department of Justice co-sponsored a training seminar with Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Majority Foundation.

When information about the seminar, which took place at FBI headquarters in Portland, Oregon, reached pro-life advocates, they asked officials for permission to attend and were granted access to the seminar and the training materials.

FBI and Obama administration officials provided participants with an 84-page document entitled “Resource Guide: Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers” that contained print copies of Power Point presentations prepared by the Justice Department and an analysis of alleged pro-life “violence” prepared by the pro-abortion groups.

The so-called violence perpetrated by pro-life advocates mostly contained examples of constitutionally-protected free speech, including activities such as praying, providing women outside abortion centers with alternatives information, and peaceful protesting or picketing

(End of story, my comments follow.)

"Department of Justice" is starting to sound positively Orwellian, i.e. you'll get anything BUT justice from them.

I've more to post about this and other items, it's still stewing in my brain.

Recipe for condom cupcakes??

So our parish is exploring whether there is interest in scouting programs for the children. They're looking at Boy Scouts specifically for the guys and no specific group for the girls. In a conversation with a K of C friend who is also an officer for the council, I was told it might be brought up at this Thursday's meeting. I recalled some negative information about the Girl Scouts and asked if they were going to be looked at. He said it was probable. The end of this is that I've been doing some research on the GSA in order to present arguments AGAINST any sponsorship of them.

I'd feel cleaner if I'd just dove into the nearest cesspool. This definetly ain't my older cousin's GSA. Nope.

Here's a bit of the more outlandish bits of information I found, along with a hyperlink for those wishing more information:

Pro-Life Action of Oregon has looked into how girls can earn the Girls Scouts U.S.A. Patch called “Our Rights and Responsibilities” Patch . On that page under “The Right To Be Me,” is a link to U.K. Children’s Rights Web site. {Note that the URL www.therightssite.org.uk on the Girl Scouts page sends visitors to the U.K. “Tag” site – with the URL http://www.tagd.org.uk .}

A Tag is a UNICEF campaign for Girl Scouts to become involved in.

One such Tag is called the UNITE AGAINST AIDS Campaign. Girl Scouts are instructed to “organize a Red Ribbon party” to raise awareness about HIV.

Sample Activities for Girl Scouts Red Ribbon Party:

First you have to decide on a name for your event: it could simply be ‘Red Party’ or if your event involves lots of music it could be ‘Singing for Sex’ …

You could do a cake sale – check out our condom cake recipe! Make sure when selling that your punters know the condoms are not edible - this could be messy! ‘A fun way to bring sexual protection to the masses at the same time as raising funds.’

http://prolifeactionoforegon.org/2010/03/11/can-planned-parenthood-sex-guide-earn-girl-scouts-a-talking-dirty-badge/

I'm really wishing I'd found that cesspool.

Loopholes for CINOs?

Washington D.C., Jul 15, 2011 / 10:08 am (CNA).- The U.S. bishops’ “Faithful Citizenship” document on Catholics’ voting responsibilities should be revised to remove “loopholes” that allow Catholics to vote for pro-abortion politicians, two political commentators have said.

“Why should a Catholic voter feel the weighty obligation to oppose ‘intrinsically evil acts’ when the bishops themselves provide three different loopholes to put that concern aside?” asked Catholic Advocate president Deal Hudson and Catholic Advocate vice president Matt Smith in a July 14 statement.

Without changes, they warned, the document will provide Catholic voters “another carte blanche to cast their vote for any pro-abortion candidate they want.”

The two writers focused on sections 34 to 37 from the 2008 version of “Faithful Citizenship,” which is revised every four years.

One passage said a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s “unacceptable position” may decide to vote for that candidate for “other morally grave reasons.” This voting is permissible only for “truly grave moral reasons” and not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences.

This passage was “confusing” in light of a previous statement that a Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position “in favor of an intrinsic evil” if he or she intends to support that position. The document then says that a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference to “other important moral issues” concerning human life and dignity.

Hudson and Smith said this passage means a Catholic could vote for a pro-abortion candidate as long as he or she did not intend to support his pro-abortion position.

“The practical consequence of this statement is clear: Catholics can vote for any pro-abortion politician they want -- all they have to do is have the right intention,” they contended.

The two also said the document allows a Catholic voter to vote for pro-abortion politicians so long as they do not advance that “morally flawed position” but would “pursue other authentic goods.”

No substantial edits are planned for the 2008 version of Faithful Citizenship, which Hudson and Smith said is a problem that needs to be remedied. The document can be clarified by the U.S. bishops at their November 2011 meeting in Baltimore.

The passages capable of “overbroad implementation” were used by groups like Catholics United and Catholic Democrats, who “cherry-picked” the passage about voting for a candidate “for other morally grave reasons.

Hudson was an advisor to the George W. Bush presidential campaign on Catholic outreach, while Smith also served on the Bush campaign and in the Bush administration. Their Catholic Advocate organization encourages Catholic participation in politics to support policies that are “consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Individual bishops have said that voting for a pro-abortion candidate is never justified when the opponent is pro-life, the two noted.

Texas Bishops Kevin Vann of Fort Worth and Kevin Farrell of Dallas have said that there are no truly grave moral reasons that “could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.”

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Hey, makes sense to me. I've known & heard of too many supposed Catholics who voted for BO and claimed they were in the clear regarding the "Faithful Citizenship" document. IMO the thing was deliberately vague so the USCCCB could refrain from outright condemnation of the Democrats and their party platform.

If anyone thinks I'm being too harsh on our "esteemed" bishops, look to how they soft pedaled any condemnation of our involvement in Libyan regime change. They couldn't pigpile on the Bush Administration fast enough when we went into Iraq but how much noise has been made about the Libyan excursion? It was all about politics.

For the Catholic leadership in this nation to have real credibility it has to speak strongly and convincingly on all topics, not just those it likes for political reasons. It has to look at current events with a mind informed by and faithful to the Catechism. There'll be a lot more pissed off people then and a lot of them may be Democrats, but there'll also be a much better clarity in the Church's positions.

End of story.

Global warming, is there nothing it can't do?

Now it's all about cats: Here's an article from Mother Jones (I'm really bored, can't you tell?)

Are Cats Bad for the Environment?
— By Kiera Butler

Mon Jul. 11, 2011 2:30 AM PDT
A little black cat lives in the crawl space under my house. Some weeks I see him every day, darting back into his burrow as I pull into the driveway. Then he'll disappear for weeks at a time, and just when I'm sure that he's found cushier digs, he comes back, like the cat in the old children's song. He's not much of a charmer—skinny, mangy, limping, and so feral that he bolts at the mere sight of people. But I can't help feeling sorry for him, so a few months ago I began leaving out cat food. I congratulated myself on this great solution: He'd get a square meal and maybe keep the mice away, too. But when I told an ecologist I know, she was horrified. "Basically," she said, "you're subsidizing a killer."

Surely she was overreacting. After all, how much damage could one pathetic little furball really do? As it turns out, a lot. Any cat owner who's ever found a mouse corpse thoughtfully placed on her pillow knows that cats are efficient hunters. Domestic cats, officially considered an invasive species, kill at least a hundred million birds in the US every year—dwarfing the number killed by wind turbines. (See "Apocalypse Meow," below.) They're also responsible for at least 33 avian extinctions worldwide. A recent Smithsonian Institution study found that cats caused 79 percent of deaths of juvenile catbirds in the suburbs of Washington, DC. Bad news, since birds are key to protecting ecosystems from the stresses of climate change—a 2010 study found that they save plants from marauding insects that proliferate as the world warms.

What's more, feral cats can carry some heinous people diseases, including rabies, hookworm, and toxoplasmosis, an infection known to cause miscarriages and birth defects. (There's also speculation that it can trigger schizophrenia and even the desire to be around cats—some researchers blame the crazy-cat-lady phenomenon on toxo.)

Considering all this—and the fact that the US feline population has tripled over the last four decades, to about 600 million in 2007—it's clear we have a kitten problem. Cat advocacy groups believe they've found a simple solution: Trap ferals, sterilize them, then release them.

In theory, this strategy, known as trap-neuter-return (TNR), sounds great. If cats can't reproduce, their population will decline gradually. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. To put a dent in the total number of cats, at least 71 percent of them must be fixed, and they are notoriously hard to catch. Cash-strapped cities can't afford to chase down, trap, and sterilize every stray—a process that costs roughly $100 per kitty.

And yet, the feline freedom fighters continue to promote TNR and battle to preserve feral colonies at all costs. Among the most powerful of these groups is Alley Cat Allies, a nonprofit whose main program, the Feral Friends Network, teaches people how to care for "community cats." ACA, whose budget was $5.3 million last year, has enjoyed generous grants from cat-food vendors like PetSmart and Petco. Pro-feral groups—there are 250 or so in the United States—have used their financial might to woo wildlife groups. Audubon's New Jersey chapter backed off on its opposition to TNR in 2005, around the same time major foundations gave the chapter grants to partner with pro-TNR groups.

All the caterwauling is working. At least 10 major cities, including San Francisco, Miami, and Chicago, have adopted TNR. And the crusade continues. Cat groups are trying to reinstate TNR in Los Angeles (where it failed miserably in the past) and make it illegal to remove ferals from a wildlife refuge in South Florida, where the cats have taken a major toll on an endangered woodrat. "These groups are incredibly well-organized," says John Fitzpatrick, the director of Cornell's renowned ornithology lab. "And even though there are all these studies, they won't change their minds. It's a very emotional issue for them."

Emotional indeed. Many of the biologists I spoke with say they've been harassed and even physically threatened when they've presented research about the effect cats have on wildlife. In 2005, research by Stan Temple, an emeritus professor of wildlife biology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was cited by a panel that proposed studying cats' impact on birds in that state. In response, he received several death threats. "You cat-murdering bastard," one activist wrote to Temple. "I declare an open season on Stan Temple." (Police promptly arrested the suspect.) When Travis Longcore, science director of the environmental group Urban Wildlands, filed suit in Los Angeles against the city's TNR program, an irate blogger posted his cellphone number.

But wildlife groups haven't found a solution, either. The silver bullet would be a single-dose sterilization drug that feral feeders could slip into cat food. The Michelson Prize offers $25 million to anyone who can invent such a prophylactic, but nobody has even come close.

Until they do, biologists recommend a combination of strategies. For starters, quit feeding the ferals: Beyond sustaining strays, the practice often leads delinquent pet owners to abandon their cats outdoors, assuming they will be well cared for. The food can also attract the very pests that cats are supposed to keep at bay. The American Bird Conservancy's campaign to convince pet owners to keep cats indoors has had some success—bird deaths have declined by a third in areas that passed ordinances against free-ranging cats. Programs that remove feral cat colonies are typically more successful than TNR—but those usually involve euthanizing cats at shelters. Which, for obvious reasons, is a tough sell.

I can see why. In theory, I'm on the birds' side. But could I call in the authorities and sell out my scrappy little friend? I'm not sure. Anyway, it's a moot point: I live in a TNR city, so if I call animal control, he'll eventually end up right in my driveway. But I've stopped putting food out. Towhees and robins of my yard, you're welcome.



(End of story, my comments follow.)

So shoot me, it's a slow day here in North Texas where the temps have routinely gone over the 100 degree mark for the last few days. My car's AC is fubar too, which makes life interesting when you have to ferry three small children all over Hell's half acre. So far the household A/C is okay, better than last year in fact. All that added insulation we had installed is proving it's worth.

Anyway, it seems A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G is fair game for being tied into global warming. I thought citing the cold snap the nation experienced last winter was stretching things a bit but an over abundance of cats? Plus it seems "Tabby" adds to the problem. Whatever.

Just to keep it all in perspective, here's a listing of things claimed to be caused by global warming (hang on to your hat): http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

As for the feline contribution, here's a dissenting voice:


Finally, I asked my own feline her views on a tie-in between cats, their over abundant presence and global warming:


As I said, it's kinda boring around here right now.

(H/T to The Blaze)

Got a bad feeling about this...

...and here it is: Police: Internet providers must keep user logs

To tell the truth, I'm fairly computer stupid. So I have no idea just how bad this might be. But from reading the article I get the notion that Big Brother could monitor where I've been, what I've read and my comments.

Nope, not a good feeling at all.

Maybe somebody who is a little more computer literate could educate me on this?

Your fat kid ain't yours no more...

The Nanny State advances here in Texas: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/moms/7650292.html

Yes, there are parents who should get japslapped upside the head for their kids being so fat. As am example: My oldest son was extremely obese during his preteen years, "Mom" did zippo to control his weight (we were divorced way before his weight zoomed upwards). I held my tongue because that was all I could do. That and attempt to feed him something besides junk on the weekends he was with me. It's a long story and thankfully it happened a very long time ago. Last thing I knew, he was 26 and no longer outlandishly obese (have you ever seen someone run and when they came to a halt it took almost a minute for them to stop jiggling?).

But getting the state involved is just trying to have two wrongs make a right. It doesn't serve the kid any good to take him from his parents under these circumstances. None at all.

As with other problems, it's all about our cultural mindset. Take away the habit of eating at restaurants, encourage more physical activity and this problem will diminish in size.

But if we routinely allow the nannystate to get involved then we'll see the same scenario that often played out in the military some years back when they tried having more sailors slim down to a reasonable size. The methods used were prone to error, the height-to-weight standards being the prime example. You could have an athletic weight lifter who weighed well over the norm for his height, yet was slim and trim. Didn't matter, it would be entered in his record that he wasn't meeting the standards. That could affect getting promoted, consideration for certain types of duty, etc. I was fortunate, I always exceeded those standards but the commands I was at didn't give a rip. I just had to do my job.

Anyway, my point is if we let the nannystaters start dictating how much a kid should weigh under penalty of his removal from the family, we'll see a slew of abuses with the system.

Whats the solution? I dunno, but I know this isn't it.

Arbp Dolan on same sex "marriage" and it's consequences...

New York City, N.Y., Jul 8, 2011 / 05:25 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- After marriage was redefined to include same-sex couples in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan is warning that this step could lead to a further redefinition that accepts multiple partners and infidelity.

The New York City archbishop said that in recent decades, the Church has been a prophetic voice warning that no-fault divorce, contraception, cohabitation and promiscuity would lead to “a cheapening of the marriage bond and harm our kids.”

“And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity,” he said.

The archbishop surveyed the effects of the June 24 passage of New York's same-sex “marriage” law in a July 7 post on his official blog, “The Gospel in the Digital Age.”

In an apparent response to the argument advanced in the New York Times and elsewhere that the Church shrank from openly fighting the legislation in his state, Archbishop Dolan said he and his brother bishops “were on the frontiers” against the bill in their writings, sermons, personal lobbying, and interviews.

He said the bishops were also backed up “by indefatigable efforts” from the New York State Catholic Conference, ecumenical and inter-religious cooperation, and thousands of Catholic faithful.

“We have been bloodied, and bruised, and, yes, for the moment, we have been defeated. But, we’re used to that. So was the Founder of our Church,” he wrote.

He said that while Catholics have no concern for political “clout” or how they're perceived in the media, “we do worry indeed” about our freedom of religion, would could potentially be threatened by same-sex “marriage” legislation.

“Editorials already call for the removal of guarantees of religious liberty, with crusaders calling for people of faith to be coerced to acceptance of this redefinition,” he said.

Archbishop Dolan noted that ironically, “the real forces of 'intolerance' were unmasked” in the debate by those defending traditional marriage being consistently depicted as “right-wing bigots and bullies.”

However, he added, “the problem is not homophobia but theophobia – a hatred by some of God, faith, religion, and the Church.”

Archbishop Dolan also said he's worried that the new law and similar legislation around the U.S. will stifle religious rights.

“If the experience of those few other states and countries where this is already law is any indication,” believers “will soon be harassed, threatened, and hauled into court for their conviction that marriage is between one man, one woman,” he said.

The New York archbishop underscored that from the outset, the goal of Catholics in the fight “was pro-marriage, never anti-gay.”

“As I replied recently to a reporter who asked if I had any message to the gay community, 'Yes: I love you. Each morning I pray with and for you and your true happiness and well-being. I am honored that so many of you are at home within our Catholic family, where, like the rest of us, we try, with the help of God’s grace and mercy, to conform our lives to Jesus and His message.'”

Archbishop Dolan insisted that ultimately, regardless of same-sex “marriage” legislation and subsequent intolerance for religious beliefs, the Church always has and will stand “up for marriage – one man and one woman, united in lifelong and faithful love.”

“None of this is anti-anybody, but simply pro marriage,” he wrote.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

I think he's right on the money with this one. We're not seeing homophobia, it's a hatred of those following God that we're experiencing.

ANYTHING that the militant gays want could be had without redefining marriage. End of story. Think of how provisions for insurance, inheritance, etc. are all handled for single folks. ANYTHING that is cited as being reserved strictly for spouses of ailing/dying/dead members of our society can be had by others such as family members and close friends. If it isn't already available it could be and without the attack on religious observers that is a great part of redefining marriage.

As for the chorus of voices (my own has been amongst them) that wonder about a lack of leadership from the pulpit, we DO have our own voices to use. Waiting for Fr. Talksalot to speak out against gay "marriage" is often just a shirking of doing it ourselves.

We can take the fight to Austin or Washington, we can rally in public, we can write letters to the editor, send in our own thoughts to be used as guest columns in the local fishwrap. We're able to speak out on our own, no need to hide behind a cleric's robes.

We're able to and we should. Not just on this topic but on any where our beliefs are under assault.

Because when we stand in judgment before the Almighty, we'll stand alone. Salvation will be achieved on our own merits and nobody else's.

"Fast and Furious" growing in size...

While in true "Wag The Dog" fashion we've been distracted by Casey Anthony and other stories of the moment, the mess that is "Fast and Furious" continues to grow. Here are a couple of takes on it: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/6/atf-chief-says-higher-ups-blocked-replies-congress/

and this one: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/fast_furious_gets_hotter_for_holder_wDCoBUrOxYF8r1GobKS89M
and for good measure: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/atf-chief-testifies-before-congress-in-secret-over-controversial-gun-program.html

My take on the whole thing is this was seen primarily by the Administration as a way to push for greater gun control. They manufacture a nonexistent crisis by initiating "Fast and Furious", then act with all seemingly proper speed to end the crisis. The guns stop going to the bad guys, the 2nd Amendment is gutted, B.O.'s gungrabbing base is happy (and just in time for the 2012 elections!) and life is beautiful except for "clingers" like you and I.

Treason is too weak a word for this.

The Casey Anthony trial...

The best post I've seen on the topic is here: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/2011/07/my-body-my-choice-casey-anthonys-bella.html

Yeah, what she said. Definetly worth a read.

California to promote gay propaganda in schools...

SACRAMENTO, July 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A bill requiring public schools to teach the “historical contributions” of homosexual Americans was approved by the California legislature on Tuesday, July 5. The bill also prohibits any school material or instruction that reflects adversely on homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism, and prohibits parents from removing children from classes over offensive material.

Bill SB 48 was sponsored by openly homosexual state senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and passed in the Democrat-controlled Assembly by 49-25, with all Democrats voting for the bill and Republicans opposing it. The legislation passed the state Senate in April.

If signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, schools would have to introduce the homosexual curriculum after the bill becomes law in January.

“This bill will require California schools to present a more accurate and nuanced view of American history in our social science curriculum by recognizing the accomplishments of groups that are not often recognized,” said Assembly Speaker John Perez, the first openly homosexual speaker of the California Assembly.

Republican critics of the bill observed, however, that the measure has less to do with education than with homosexual indoctrination of school children.

GOP Assemblyman Tim Donnelly said he was offended as a Christian that the bill was being used to promote the homosexual agenda in public schools.

“I think it’s one thing to say that we should be tolerant,” Donnelly said. “It is something else altogether to say that my children are going to be taught that this lifestyle is good.”

Reaction to the bill from pro-family and parental groups was swift, with Concerned Women for America calling the legislation “another step toward complete normalization of transgenderism, homosexuality and bisexuality through the public schools.” CWA severely criticized the lack of an opt-out provision for parents who don’t want their children exposed to the homosexual agenda-driven curriculum.

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a non-profit legal defense organization, said, “This legislation requires this outrageous indoctrination to be mandatory, allowing no parent to legally opt out their child from participating.”

Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, a pro-family organization, said the passage of the bill may be the turning point that will result in parents removing their children from the public school system en masse.

“This sexual brainwashing bill would mandate that children as young as 6 years old be told falsehoods – that homosexuality is biological, when it isn’t, or healthy, when it’s not,” Thomasson said.

“Parents don’t send their sons and daughters to school to learn to admire homosexuality, bisexuality, cross-dressing, ‘sex change’ operations, homosexual ‘marriages,’ or to support legal persecution of people who disagree.”
“There’s already a raft of school sexual indoctrination laws on the books. Impressionable children are already being sexual indoctrinated, but SB48 would be the most in-your-face brainwashing yet. We urge Gov. Brown to respect parents,” he continued, “remember basic academics, and basic family values, and veto this bad bill when it reaches his desk.”

However, the California Department of Education has indicated that the state’s financial crisis would preclude the purchase of new textbooks (re-written to include homosexual history) for several years.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

Somehow I believe the money will be found for the purchase of new textbooks for teaching this abomination. Just watch.

And asking Jerry Brown to consider the parent's views in all of this is fruitless. Governor Moonbeam doesn't work that way.

So we see an increase in states that legalize gay marriage, in those states (check Massachusetts on this one) the public schools are already teaching the "normalcy" of gay unions.

Now an entire state is bent on outright indoctrination of the supposed heroic contributions of homosexuals to society. The implication will be they did what they did BECAUSE of their orientation, no other consideration to be allowed.

Do you think the same will apply to heterosexuals? Did all American patriots perform their sacrifices for no other reason than their sexual preferences? Yeah, right.

Let me be clear, there have been gays who have been outstanding in their fields, outstanding to the point of recognition by all. Want examples? Try Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo, both of whom are rumored to have been homosexual but mostly celibate during their lives. Do we remember them for the Sistine Chapel and the Mona Lisa or do we remember them for packing fudge (I did use the word "mostly")?

My point is that this isn't important UNLESS you're pushing some kind of indoctrination. Then it's a whole different ballgame.

This won't end here either. Look for similar efforts in other states, along with a big push from our Department of Education in Foggy Bottom.

On a personal note, my kids go to public school now mostly for the socialization aspect. I know those who support homeschooling throw down the "bullshit" flag on that one whenever it's brought up, but with autistic children it's valid. Don't believe me? Check it out with any developmental pediatrician who deals with autistic kids. It's all about structure. Been there, wearing the tee shirt.

Anyway, WHEN this crap comes to Texas I'll bite the bullet and pull my children out of school. They'll be taught at home and any nonsense such as this article mentions will be promptly placed in the circular file. I'll inevitably end up getting hammered by the law but I AM THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR MY CHILD'S MORAL UPBRINGING! That is something I'll answer to God Almighty for and I don't play with that sort of thing. End of story.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the times of religious persecution have returned. See you in the gulag.

Speaking of gulags, here is an outstanding article on our coming work camps: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=830

Bring your shovel.

VA muzzles praying veterans...(with an update!)

Houston, Texas, Jun 30, 2011 / 07:08 pm (CNA).- The Liberty Institute has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs, after it continuously tried to prevent veterans from including prayers in funeral services at the Houston National Cemetery.

“We do know that this is unconstitutional, this violates their rights. We have brought a federal lawsuit and we hope the government will do the right thing and correct this policy,” said Erin Leu, attorney for the Liberty Institute, in an interview with CNA on June 30.

She said the institute was optimistic that the Southern District Court of Texas will rule in the veterans’ favor and find that the private groups have a “constitutional right to reference God and Jesus in their private speech.”

On June 28, the Liberty Institute went to court on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and the National Memorial Ladies.

Leu explained that the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American League were told by the Houston National Cemetery director, Arleen Ocasio, not to include prayer in funeral services, unless they received her personal approval by submitting a written copy of the prayer to her.

The National Memorial Ladies faced a similar setback. Ocasio said that the condolence cards given to the families of veterans could no longer include the words “God bless,” nor could the women verbally convey the same message to grieving the families during funerals.

"We are thankful that these groups are coming forward and fighting this unconstitutional suppression of their speech,” said Leu.

If the court rules against the Veterans Affairs department, Leu believes that it will be “another clear message that the government cannot discriminate against religious speech.”

Federal District Judge Lynn N. Hughes presided over the June 28 hearing and gave the government an extension to respond by July 15.

Judge Hughes closed a previous case against the Veterans Affairs department on May 26 with a temporary restraining order, barring the department from preventing Pastor Scott Rainey from praying “in Jesus’ name”during a Memorial Day service.

In the temporary restraint document, Judge Hughes said “The men buried in the cemetery fought for their fellow Americans – for us.”

“Beyond (the) narrow, practical proprietary interest, the government may not dictate what people say.”

Leu said the verdict was a “great ruling and a great victory.”

“Pastor Rainey’s case is a clear message that the government has no right to censor or discriminate his private religious speech,” she asserted.

Leu explained that the veterans think the censorship “is appalling, because they fought in wars, risked everything for our freedoms.”

“It’s so offensive that the government is saying that the freedoms fought for can no longer be practiced when honoring fellow soldiers,” she insisted.

“It’s like a slap in the face to veterans and their families.

(End of story, my comments follow.)

When my time comes to be planted I think I'll have the wife put me in the local boneyard. At least THEY don't give a damn about someone praying at the gravesite.

Our government is increasingly showing itself to be an enemy of the people. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment, we'll be in need of it shortly I fear.

UPDATE: I'm remembering the old saying, "When you fuck with the bull, you get the horns." after reading this: Veterans Protest For ‘God’ At Houston V.A. Cemetery

A sign of our national priorities...

The people of England erected a statue to Ronald Reagan and dedicated it on the Fourth of July. President Obama snubbed it. So did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. So did the ambassador to England.

Is anyone reading this surprised?

IMO we're seeing another sign of things to come, where the legitimate heros of our nation will be poormouthed, denigrated and marginalized while the likes of Che Guevara will be lionized. Yes, I said Che GUEVARA! The cowardly psychotic who begged for his life when captured by the Bolivians. For more information on that nutjob, read the writings of Humberto Fontova.

May God have mercy on our nation and give us time to repent.

Another reason to sympathize with the cops...

I mean, really: Officer investigated for speaking his mind on St. Pete crime

So lemme get this straight, he warns the father of a 16 yr. old girl about a tough neighborhood and gets slammed for it. Guess he should have stayed mum and let the chips fall where they may. Good thing the kid wasn't raped and killed.

Cops have a tough job, I'll say that even though I've met my share of assholes in blue. Who the hell would want to get up every morning and put on a uniform that might as well do double duty for a bulls eye on their back? To top it off, they've got to deal with ass kissing, chair polishing, pencil pushing fools like the ones mentioned in the linked article.

I recall being a young E3 in Uncle Sam's canoe club, going through my tech school up in Great Lakes, Illinois right outside of North Chicago. On weekends I'd go to either Milwaukee, WI. or Chicago. One Saturday night I was in the Windy City and a cop stopped me, asked where I was headed. "No place in particular, just looking for the train station to head back to the base." was my reply.

He informed me I was headed into an area where it didn't pay to be an "outsider", then told me to follow him and he'd take me to the station. As we walked he spoke about his beat, how a lot of the bums staggering down the street would probably wake up dead some morning, either frozen to death or with their throats cut. After we got to the station he bade me good bye and wished me luck. He didn't have to do any of that. I was suitably impressed, especially since he was as black as the ace of spades and this all happened at a time of racial unrest in the nation.

Nowadays I guess he'd have to be careful not to speak in a derogatory manner of his city. Noted.

Like I said, cops get my respect and they deserve the benefit of the doubt about how they do a really stinking, rotten job that damned few of us could do.

They ought to give this cop in St. Pete a medal.