I came across this article entitled, “What if Illegal Undocumented Immigrants had Voted in 2012?”

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/undocumented-immigrants-voted-2012/story?id=18357147

My first reaction was, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!  “What if?”  There is no what if, but wait, I am getting ahead of myself.  Why are they calling them “Undocumented Immigrants”?  Call them illegal, because that’s what they are.  I am sick and tired of this political correctness, and how the envelope of political correctness keeps expanding.  Call the Illegals illegal, and call the terrorists terrorists.  I’m tired of seeing Hamas get referred to as “militants.” They are terrorists, call it like it is. 

Moving on.  Of course illegal aliens voted in 2012, that is part of the reason Obama was able to win.  There is that, and the fact that some of the ballots from law abiding citizens were thrown out, and some of the voting machines were rigged so that votes for Romney came out for Obama.  The whole entire reason why the Democrats opposed voter ID checks was so that they could get illegal aliens voting. 

But let’s look at the article more:

But with immigration overhaul on the table, legalizing new Democratic voters looms as a threat for conservatives who don’t want to hand their political foes a potential windfall of 11.2 million new voters with the creation of a pathway to citizenship — and to voting rights — with a comprehensive bill.

–Which is why the Dems are against border control and cracking down on illegal aliens.

“The fear that many people have is that the Democrats aren’t interested in border security, that they want this influx,” Rush Limbaugh griped during his Tuesday interview with overhaul champion Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. “For example, if 70 percent of the Hispanic vote went Republican, do you think the Democrats would be for any part of this legislation?”

–What do you mean by saying “Rush Limbaugh griped”?  You don’t use words that contain value implications when quoting someone.  That’s sloppy, unprofessional, and overtly biased.  Now I know that everyone has their biases, but you are supposed to save those for editorials and fiction.  You don’t put your opinion in the news reporting.  How would you like to turn on the weather report and hear the anchor say, “Well it’s going to be cloudy tomorrow, that is really going to suck for me”?  Would that get on your nerves real quick?  Yes?  No?  If yes, then the reason is probably because you want your information, but you don’t care about the reporter’s opinion or personal feelings.  Well, the same is true of any newscast or news article.  Keep your inflections, innuendos, and value statements for your blogs and creative writing.  Leave it out of the news. 

Now incidentally Rush Limbaugh is correct.  Most of this is all about getting more votes for the Democrats.  As I said before, they want to become a minority of permanent ruling elites.  They are willing to do whatever they need to do to get to that place.  That is why they want to give these people citizenship, and when 20 million of them are here in the country in another 30 years or so, they are going to give them citizenship as well.

New immigration policies could mean in influx of new voters, but Republicans needn’t worry about it in the short term.

–OK, but we can still lose our country over the long term.  How comforting, and what a brilliant future our offspring will have (this is sarcasm).

Hispanic voters broke 71 percent for Obama in November, and Republican strategists recognize that the party has failed to court Hispanic voters effectively. But depending on how slowly the citizenship line moves, the Republican Party will have a decade or so to shake its anti-Hispanic stigma.

–The Republican party cannot compete with the Democrats for Mexican votes, because the Republicans can never offer them more money than the Democrats.  What are the Republicans going to do?  The only place they can get money from is the traditionally Republican constituency.  So it’s a lose-lose scenario for them.  If we break the Republican party and create a new conservative party, the majority of Mexicans will still go with the Dems for the same reason.  These people, on average, do not know how to pick good leaders.  If they did know how to pick good leaders then they would have done so in their own country.  Their natural tendency is to support despotic regimes.

“If Republicans can map out and change their positions with things that Hispanics do support — on less government, lower taxes, less regulations on small businesses — then they can really compete for the Hispanic vote over the next 20, 30 years.”

–Wait what?  Did Bizarro just speak?  It sure looks like it.  Because the only way that statement is ever going to gel with reality is if the meaning is reversed.  Mexicans don’t want less government except for along the border with Mexico.  The gross majority of Mexicans in the US are a stable voting bloc for the socialists.  If you want less government and less regulation then you don’t go out and vote for the party of government and regulation.  What is this about taxes?  Most people don’t like to pay taxes, but there are lots of people who are perfectly fine with other people paying double in their place.  Maybe the Mexicans don’t want to pay taxes, but they do want me to pay taxes and they want to have some of that money go straight into their pockets.  They come here and have 4 or 5 kids, and get on welfare, while I have to wait until I am about 35 to have kids, my wife also has to work, and the best I can afford is probably two kids.  In the meantime, I have to send them to the state run schools because I’m too poor to send them to a private school, and my money goes to support irresponsible people who hate me.  What is all this kolivari di?  I’m flabbergasted.

Such overt lying in a news article…

Not All Hispanics Vote for Democrats. Most do, but not all, and voter preferences vary from state to state. In Florida, 60 percent of Hispanic voters backed Obama, according to 2012 exit polls; in Arizona, 74 percent voted for the president.

Because “Hispanics” in Florida are usually not Mexicans.  When we are talking about Florida we are talking about Cubans, and traditionally Cubans have been mostly right wing, because many of them know first hand what kind of a dismal hellhole left wing governments and command economies create.  Also, Cubans are generally white, so the element of racial antagonism is not there like it is with Mexicans.  Still, 60% is pretty horrible.  Either there is some election fraud here or Cubans are losing their sense.

 Even if all 11.2 million had voted in 2012, Obama would only have picked up North Carolina if they simply hewed to Hispanic voter trends. Romney still would have carried Arizona, Georgia and Texas, although he would have won Georgia by less than 1 percentage point. (Note: There were no exit polls in Texas or Georgia, and here the national rate provides rough estimates of how results would have changed.)

–Even so, I if it costs us only one state, I still don’t see why we should welcome these people.  As their numbers will grow then so will their cultural dominance.  Better to nip things in the bud while we still can.

Guys, this time I’m not really writing an entry in the traditional sense, I’m just looking for some feedback.  Do you think we should break the Republican party?  The Republicans have accused Obama of wanting to dissipate their party, and Obama has denied this, but on the other hand Republicans are talking about becoming more liberal in order to stay relevant.  In my opinion if they become more liberal then that makes them irrelevant.  Should we all just ditch the Republican party and vote 3rd party?  Is the difference between the Repubs and Dems still large enough to justify our voting for them? 

What are your thoughts?

I don’t think I have ever really spoken on this because I am somewhat of a fence sitter, but I probably should.  So our government wants to make it so that women can serve in active combat roles, and while I do believe the arguments against that are stronger than the arguments for, I tend to lean more towards allowing it.  But, allowing it within a set of clearly defined boundaries.

But first, I want to look at both sides of the argument, and the points on both side which I believe are the strongest.

AGAINST:

When we are talking about having women serve in combat positions we need to keep in mind that this is real life, and real life is not like “Dragon Age,” “Starship Troopers,” or some liberal fantasy which insists that gender differences are products of the imagination.  You can’t just put women in combat and expect them to be able to run as far, as fast, carry as much, or endure the same level of pain and hardship as the male soldiers.  Real life isn’t like that.

The fact is that women are not as physically strong as men, nor do they have the same level of endurance, on average.  I have seen this demonstrated emperically time and time again.  Yes I know there are some hardcore women who are exceptions, but exceptions do not invalidate generalizations. 

That being said, I didn’t start seriously working out until I was 20 or 21.  I think 21 but I’m not sure.  In any case, at the time I was going to a university that actually required the students to be physically fit.  But before I started my workouts I was tested along with a bunch of other people.  I didn’t work out at all through high school, except for OCCASIONALLY running.  Now, at the time I saw about 5’9 and weighed 145 pounds.  I could only do about 30 pushups consecutively, and I could only bench about 115 pounds (bar included), which is sad for a man, but all the other lazy non-jockish guys were about the same as me in that area.  Now the women I found were about half that in both areas.  Maybe they could bench the bar, but the most weight they might be able to do is 5 or 10 pounds on each end.  So the average out of shape woman can probably bench about 45 to 65 pounds.

Also, when it comes to aerobic activities women also typically do not have the same capacity as well.  Women have a smaller lung capacity, I believe by about 20%, and smaller blood vessels as well.  These are facts BTW which anyone can independently verify.  That is why women will typically get tired before men and run out of breath quicker.  I said typically because I know that there are some hardcore women out there, but we are talking about the average not the exceptions. 

There is also the fact that women have their periods, which nothing can be done about. 

I once had a friend who was a retired drill sergent from the army, and what he said is that women cannot be given long term combat postings because every one or two weeks they have to clean out their lady parts.  If they don’t then they risk infection.  That makes women less suited for long term trench warfare, or desert warfare for that matter.

Another thing to consider is the types of enemies we are fighting, and those which we have fought in the past.  If we have female soldiers and they get captured by either Muslims or Communists, then things are going to go so much worse for them than if a male soldier was captured.  It’s going to be a nightmare for them.

Those are the strongest arguments I know of for being against.

FOR:

As an ultra right wing quazi-anarchist individual, if someone really wants to work a particular job, even a life threatening one, I kind of have a hard time seeing it as being any of my business.  It’s their prerogative if they want to risk their life, male or female.  If they know the risks and are OK with them, then they are making an informed personal decision.  It doesn’t hurt me if they join or don’t join. 

Another thing to consider is that Israel has been using women rather succesfully as soldiers for a long time now.  Of course, in Israel it is mandatory, and while I do think it is less than ideal to have women serving, I can understand why they do it.  The fact is that Israel is surrounded by large numbers of hostile nutjobs who want to wipe them out.  Islam is like the retarded brother of Nazism.  You take Nazism, remove the productive elements from it, and add some extreme moon worshipping fanaticism and you have Islam.  So Israel uses women to make up for the difference in numbers.  Sometimes you have to do what you have to do, and the female IDF soldiers are amazing, even if they are not as physically strong as the men. 

As a brief aside, yet still related topic, I have to say that the IDF women are like a fantasy come true for a lot of right wing males.  Women who can shoot, and fight (Krav Maga), and still look like attractive women.  There are so many guys who would love to be married to women like that. 

The pictures make a strong argument.

Conclusion:

It would be best to say that I am OK with women serving.  I am not particularly FOR or AGAINST, just OK with it, but only with moderation and with certain conditions being met.

Again, I cannot over-emphasize that real life is not like “Skyrim.”  Whoever is in charge of commanding the women needs to remember that they are women.  Men and women are different both physically and psychologically, and regardless of how much liberalism you have, the enemy is going to react differently to women on the field than men.  That needs to be kept in mind when assigning posts, especially when dealing with Muslims who are notorius for raping and mutilating women.  Especially the Afghan Muslim men, who are probably the most brutal and barbaric people ever to walk the face of the Earth since the time of the Assyrians.

Also, I don’t want to see women being forced to have short hair or take androgens, such as steroids.  That doesn’t mean that they need to carry two cases of makeup with them, but they should be allowed to have their dignity.  I’m against gender bending, even if you have people crossing over into occupations that are non-traditional for their gender.  Requiring women to have short hair and take androgens would be as cruel and humiliating as requiring men to wear makeup, get their nails done, and wear dresses (or take breast implants).  I don’t want to see anything like that.  No mandatory gender bending please.  It’s an affront to human dignity and God’s natural design.  Yes I do have a very black and white view on things, because reality is concrete whether you like it or not, and no amount imagination, wishful thinking, special pleading, or PC thought policing is going to make it otherwise.

I also don’t want women to be drafted.  If they want to serve that is one thing.  If they are being made to serve then that is another.  Israel does it because of a shortage of manpower.  In the US we don’t have that problem, so there is no reason to do it.  Also, Israel’s conflicts are the result of angsty neighbors who don’t know how to behave like civilized human beings, so it is self defense.  Our wars are a result of traiterous blowhards in power who either don’t know what they are doing or are deliberately trying to waste our resources.  Actually, I don’t want to see anyone being drafted to serve in these current meaningless bullcrap wars.  Odin’s beard…

Finally, I don’t want large numbers of women in the army, for some very pragmatic and logical reasons.  Suppose we have an all out war and 60% of the men are killed.  If we still have the same amount of women we can restore our numbers.  That is why many ancient warlike cultures were polygamous, not because they hated women and wanted to oppress them like the feminists think, but because they needed polygamy to replenish their numbers.  One man can impregnate ten women, but a woman can only be impregnated by one man at a time.  The amount of children a society can produce is limited by the amount of women with functioning wombs, not by the amount of men.  Also, men who are too old to fight can still impregnate women.  So speaking as pragmatically as possible, if large numbers of women are obliterated the effect on the society is much more disastrous and harder to reverse than if only large numbers of the men are obliterated.  So while I may be fine with women serving, I don’t think we should go out of our way to encourage it. 

If I missed anything here then please let me know.

 So Obama, the Democrats, and now many of the Republicans want to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants.  Do I really need to spell out how bad this is and why?  Yes, of course I do.

Legalizing these people is the last thing that should happen.  This whole situation reminds me of when I was little, and a few times when my mom told me to clean my room I just shoved everything under the bed and into the closet.  The reason being that it had been so long since I cleaned that it was a gargantuan mess, which meant actually cleaning it up would be a gargantuan task, and I was too lazy to do it.  Did shoving everything under the bed get rid of the mess?  No, it just cleared up the floor space to receive an additiona mess, and the old problem was still there.  Of course my mom didn’t let me get away with that for long, but the question is, why are we letting our government get away with it?

Legalizing those illegal immigrants amounts to rewarding them for breaking the law, and incentivises more of that behavior.  They did this in the 80′s, and rather than eliminate the problem we ended up with more than twice that amount, and now they want to do it again.  I don’t care how expensive it is to deport these people, it needs to be done, and I doubt it is going to be as expensive, or costly over the long term as keeping them would/will be.  We have one of the largest most advanced armies in the world.  There is no reason why our border has to be leakier than a sieve.  Cut off the pointless idiot wars in Muzzie land and bring the troops home.  Rather than mucking around with those barbarians we should put the troops on the border.  I don’t understand all the pointless wars with Muslim countries.  If we are going to fight with the Muslims then let’s nuke Meccan and Medina and be done with it.  That should totally crush their religion, and as a result they will lose their motivation for fighting us.  Just like if Israel got completely nuked off the face of the Earth then most Christians and Jews would also lose their faith.

But I digress.  Putting troops on the border will be cheaper and easier than all these endless wars in Muzzie land, and it will be so much more helpful to our country.  It will also clean up a lot of drug problems.  There is no sane or rational reason why our government does not do this, not one.  Back when the Roman Empire was strong they knew that borders were important, and they used to guard the borders.  After a while they got lazy and decided to let the barbarians cross in and settle in large numbers.  Well, part of it was sloth, but part of it was misplaced priorities.  There were so many civil wars, which severely weakened the Empire, and in the meantime they did not see the less advanced and less civilized Germanic barbarians as a threat.  They did just what our government is doing now, when the barbarians moved into an area they let them stay, and of course the barbarians continued to come, until they eventually took over.  However, in the case of the western Roman Empire vs. the Germans it was still Europeans vs. Europeans, and even though the invasion dealt a serious blow to the Roman Empire, western civilization was still able to recover.  The same will not be true of the US if we are overtaken by Mexicans. 

All one needs to do is look at Mexico to see what the US will be like when the majority of people here are Mexicans, which should happen before the end of this century.  If you fill Minas Tirith with people from Minas Morgul, then you are going to end up with two Minas Morguls. 

I have gotten into so many arguments with people over this.  I hear people say “I feel sorry for them,” or “their country is so bad.”  Yes their country is so bad, because they made it that way.  They could have built a good country but instead they built a bad one, and that is due to deficiencies in their culture and value system.  When they come here, they bring that culture values with them, especially when they come in large numbers.  There is no reason why anyone BORN in the US should have a foreign accent or limited English proficiency. 

So I have a question for all you white liberals, do you want to live in Mexico?  If yes, then please go there.  If no, then please abandon the left and get on board with us on immigration and holding our crapheap traiterous politicians responsible. 

I’m not done yet.  I once argued with a liberal who claimed that he had sympathy for the illegal immigrants because his ancestors were Irish, and Irish people used to be treated poorly in the US.  What kind of a warped thought process is that?  It’s certainly no kind of argument.  I have Irish immigrants in my ancestry as well, on my mom’s side.  But there is a huge wopping difference between the Irish immigrants and the illegal immigrants from Mexico.  The Irish immigrants came here LEGALLY.  The Irish immigrants came here to assimilate and be productive members of society.  They didn’t come here and protest, make demands, deliberately have lots of kids/anchor babies so that they could reap more benifits from the government, and they sure as shamrocks didn’t walk around with an attitude acting like the white Americans owed them something.  I have news for the “owe me” people, I don’t owe you jack squat.  If anything you owe me because I pay taxes on your behalf.

My ancestors were hardworking, productive, and humble, and I don’t see those qualities from the waves of illegal immigrants from Mexico.  My first ancestor who came to the US (dad’s side) also came here legally.  He and his wife were processed through Ellis Island.  In Ellis Island the immigration officer changed their name by deleting two syllables.  My ancestor just took that and moved on, and when he got here he didn’t get on any bloody welfare or act like people owed him something.  He worked, and he also learned English.  Could you imagine if they tried to change the names of legal immigrants from Mexico to more English sounding names?  There would be such an uproar from the PC crowd, and every left wing media outlet around the world would have it’s panties in a knot.   

So I don’t want to hear any comparisons about how they are just like other immigrants.  There is no comparison.  If you want to make a historical comparison then it is better to compare the illegal immigrants to the Visigoths entering Spain, or the Franks entering Gaul.  Make a comparison where a natural analogy exists.

Our economy is already heavily strained, it is absolutely asenine to even think about bringing in hordes of unskilled workers, or legitimizing those who are here illegally.  Once they are legal they can legally get on welfare, and they will.  The system is already stressed enough.  It is absolutely criminal of our politicians to leave our border loosely guarded, and BTW, Obama wants to take troops off of the border.

I believe I know why the Democrats are doing what they are doing.  They want to have a demographic replacement.  They know that when most of the people in the US are Mexicans, that the US will become another Mexico.  They know this.  But the thing about Mexico is that even though it is a barbaric crime ridden place, and most of the people are poor and ignorant, the elite ruling class are some of the most well off, comfortable, and secure people in the world.  The ruling class in Mexico controls most of the wealth and resources, and they get a kickback from the drug lords there.  The Mexicans think they got rid of the Spanish overlords but their elite ruling class is composed almost entirely from people descended from the Spanish colonists.  All they did was exchange an overseas dictatorship for a local one. 

I believe that the Democrats think that when they are the only white people left in the country (which is what they want), then they will be an elite ruling class separated and immune from the common people, yet also worshipped by them.  It’s the Democrats wet dream.  They will control everything, and the Mexicans will continue to blame anyone but the Democrat elites for their problems. 

Just as a brief aside, while I do believe that the Mexicans should take up their arguments with their own leaders rather than coming here, we cannot blame the white people in charge of Mexico for all the problems there.  Before any European explorers stepped foot in Mexico those people were governed by brutal dictatorships which placed no value on human life.  For whatever reason those are the kinds of leaders they set up and/or follow.  We can see it further demonstrated by all the support Mexicans in the US give to Democrats.  The majority of them support Obama, who is the most dictatorial figure ever to occupy the White House, and who continually tramples on the Constitution at every opportunity. 

In any case the Republicans are not innocent in this either.  They are collaborating with the Dems now.  In the case of the Republicans I actually believe that they can be taken at face value when they say they want to get more Mexican voters on board with them.  But that is stupid, and it is never going to work.  Why?  Because the Republicans can never promise them more money than the Democrats, so by going along with this the Republicans are slitting their own political throats, and the throat of the country as a whole. 

Also, granting these people citizenship is unfair to all the legal immigrants who are trying to come to the US from other countries, and who wish to comply with the law and be productive citizens.  Rewarding these people for breaking the law is a slap in the face to all those people, not to mention that it incentivises lawlessness.  Some people from other countries, like India, have to wait YEARS to come here, and they have to submit so much paperwork. 

Once during an argument I mentioned that my fiance was from India, and before she can even step foot in the US they have to approve her fiance visa, which takes about 6 months to process.  Why should we have to wait six months when other people can just walk across the border right away, stay here, and get free stuff?  That is called a double standard.  Of course that highly rational argument was lost on the individuals I was arguing with.  They responded saying that Mexico was such a hard place, and one of them had the gall to say that I should have gotten involved with a Mexican woman instead so that things would be quicker.  If I had wanted to get involved with a Mexican woman I would still have gone the legal route, which would probably put me in another long paperwork ridden waiting period.  There is nothing on Earth that would make me consider an illegal alien as serious mating potential.  I believe a relationship with someone having an IQ under 100 would be a severe strain for me, not to mention that I would be an accessory to crime. 

If you really want to be charitable to the 3rd world, the way to do it is to go there and educate them, not to turn our own country into an enormous tax payer sponsored refugee camp.  We let 4 million of them in and naturalize them, and then we have another 11 million to deal with later.  No matter how many you let in, their numbers in their native country will quickly replenish, and there will be more of them knocking at our door.  If you liberals want to help, then go there and teach them how to be fully civilized and modern, and use your own bank account to do it.  If you don’t think they can change then we sure don’t need them coming here in large numbers, especially not during an economic downturn.

So let us briefly recap:

1. Immigration as charity is not a viable argument, because we in the US are not responsible for another country’s citizens.

2. Moving large groups of people who are unwilling to assimilate to a new country results in cloning whatever hellish conditions and sociological shortcomings exist there over the long term.

3. Incentivising criminal behavior is never good.

I have been putting this off for a long time, so I finally decided to just sit down and do it.  I am going to thoroughly pound all of the snot out of the arguments for gun control.

But first of all let us be clear on one thing, in spite of whatever arguments and emotional appeals the left puts forth as reasons, the one and only true reason for gun control is to take away the power of the people to resist a tyrannical government.  Gun control is 100% about people control, and nothing more.  To any thinking person the hypocrisy of the politicians advocating gun control should be as apparent as the sun.  These are people who live their lives surrounded by armed guards.  They want us to give up our guns, but they and their families will still retain their armed guards.  A real leader leads by example, an oppressive dictator rules by force.

That being said, there are many people on the left who are thoroughly in love with the idea of gun control.  When talking about the left wing leaders we know it is all about people control, but when it comes to the left wing followers reasons vary.  Most left wing followers will go along with whatever their leaders say, because they genuinely respect and trust their leaders.  I also believe that some of them advocate gun out of spite.  They know that gun ownership is important to us, therefore they want to impenge upon it.  It is the same attitude one finds in 3rd grade playground bullies, who kick over a sand castle built by one of their peers.  The sandcastle isn’t hurting the bully, and it has nothing at all to do with him, but the bully gets an emotional high from inflicting misery on others who he feels disdain or jealousy towards.  The mentality is the same.  Then there are some leftists who generally think that gun control is a good thing which will actually lead to a safer society.  These are relatively few in number, but their belief that gun control will actually help improve things stems from good intentions + an inability to understand how things actually work.

Now let’s look at the arguments:

“The government only wants to ban certain types of weapons.”–That is not really an argument, and in fact even if it were not true it would be irrelevant, because the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution does not make any statement about what sort of weapons we “need” or should be allowed to have, and it does not include any qualifiers based on weapon type or personal occupation. The fact is that they want to take away our freedom a little at a time. If they try to take away everything at once there would be too much of an uproar, so they chisel at our freedoms a little bit at a time, in the name of public good, and that way they can also create social pressure against the people who call them out on what they are doing.

“Guns kill people.”–No, people kill people.  You can take a fully loaded gun and leave it on a table all day if you want.  That gun is not going to kill anyone.  Leave it there for 1000 years, and unless someone disturbs it, then it’s not going to bother, kill, or oppress a single individual.  The gun is only a problem if someone picks it up and decides to attack someone with it, and just in case someone does that, I would like to be ready with my own gun so that I can get him before he gets me or someone I care about.

“How do I know you won’t go crazy and kill a bunch of people?”–Yes, some people actually do say this.  There are quite a few equally valid ways to respond to this one.  First of all, how do I know that the government, which will still have guns of course, will not go crazy?  Maybe they will go on a killing rampage (which has happened so many times)?  If they do go on a rampage how will I defend myself if they have guns and I do not?  It is also worth mentioning that when governments go on a killing rampage, it is on a much larger scale than a lone shooter.  We can protect ourselves from lone shooters by having more law abiding citizens arm themselves, and that is infinitely preferable to a police state. 

I don’t know why people on the left don’t think about that.  Governments are just people with no one governing them.  They are not any more inherently virtuous or intelligent than the average person.  Anyone who thinks that they are has bought into the concept of the Ubermensch.  I reject that concept.  Those in government are not a superior breed of man, so if I, or any other regular law abiding citizen, can go crazy, then so can they.  If A = B and B = C then A = C.  Simple logic.

But there are other concerns that this question raises.  How do I know that once no one has guns you won’t go on a rampage with a knife, a baseball bat, or a board with a nail in it?  What else should we ban for public safety?  Should we ban baseball bats, kitchen knives, camping knives, flammable materials, nails, hammers, saws, axes, cars?  What about banning martial arts studios and lifting weights?  What about banning hands?  Or better yet, why not just ban everyone from living, then we don’t have to worry about anyone hurting anyone because there will be no one around to get hurt?  If I wanted to go on a rampage I could do it with a knife, a broken bottle, or a brick, and it would be all the easier if there was no one with a gun around.  If there is one person with a gun nearby then that rampage is going to end pretty quick, but my point here is that guns do not make people go on killing rampages.  Unbalanced mental states make people go on rampages, and the gun is not what causes that mental state.  Maybe we should look at perscription drugs and some of the other crap that’s out there.  The question itself is thoroughly asinine and self refuting.  You don’t really know what your neighbor is going to do, the best you can do is be prepared for them when they do it.

“The only reason someone has a gun is because want to kill people.”–Again, no, not necessarily, and there are lots of different ways to kill people that don’t involve guns.  Some people own guns because they like to hunt, others like to shoot (gun ranges), and other people want to have them so that they can defend their home from intruders.  A lot can happen before the police get there, and I’m not going to take any risks with the safety of my family (unlike that left wing statist shill Cenk Ugyar).  If some guy breaks into my house and starts doing something to my wife then he is probably going to die.  I can put a bullet through his head, or I can put my fist through his head.  The first option entails less personal risk for me, and shortens the amount of time he has to do something to my wife.  Also, if he has a gun and I don’t, then the circumstances favor the criminal.  That is a scenario which should never be allowed to happen.  I should be able to defend myself, and yes, I would kill an intruder without feeling an ounce of remorse, especially if he is trying to do something to my wife.   I don’t feel any remorse when I kill roaches or mice, and they are also unwanted intruders.  I don’t care if my having a gun hurts anyone else’s feelings or sensibilities.  As long as you don’t try to hurt me or my family then you need not feel my wrath. 

“Well you don’t really need a semi-automatic weapon anyways.”–The 2nd Amendment trumps what you think I need.   But to be fair, I am going to explain why I might need a weapon like that.  The US government is in debt, and the number of people depending on continued government aid for survival is growing. There are two reasons it is growing, one is because of immigration, and another is because the welfare people are having lots of children. They are having lots of children because the government pays them more money for having more kids. Eventually the government is going to run out of money to pay these people with.  The problem with redistribution of wealth is that eventually you run out of wealth to redistribute.  When that happens, all of these people are going to go marauding out of their homes looking for food. First they are going to attack and raid the stores and restaurants in their neighborhoods, then they are going to move out and start invading homes. They are going to rob, rape, and kill.  Now, if there are a few of you and lots of enemies you need something to even the odds.  A single shot gun isn’t going to be as effective against a large crowd. You might kill a few of them but your attacks may only serve to enrage them rather than warn them off.  Now, if you have a semi-automatic or a fully automatic weapon then you can strafe them down from a distance, and take out large numbers of them before they can approach you. You can bolt the doors and camp out on the roof of your house or on the second floor and mow them down as they come.  Another option is buck shot, which you can fire into a crowd and hit lots of people at the same time, but I believe the targets have to be fairly close in order for that to be effective.

One way or another the welfare is going to have to stop. Either it will stop when our sorry politicians decide to actually be leaders and put the well being of the nation ahead of their careers, or it will stop when the money runs dry. If it stops when the money runs dry then the later it stops the larger the mobs of raiders are going to be.  They will go on a rampage, we have seen repeatedly that the lazier elements of any given society go on a rampage when their welfare money gets cut off.  Typically they destroy their own neighborhoods, but give them enough time and enough need and they will branch out. 

Another use for automatic weapons would be to protect ourselves against invasion.  It is a mistake to assume that the US could never be invaded, or that our military will always be able to protect us. The Roman Empire was around a lot longer than the US, and the US is already exhibiting a lot of the same signs that were evident in the Empire before it’s fall.  People in the Roman Empire never thought it would fall, and it was around a lot longer than the US.  The reason why Egypt and Syria are Islamic today is because the people of those countries had become 100% dependent upon the Roman (in this case Byzantine/Eastern Roman) army to defend them. Once that army was no longer capable of defending them, the Arab invaders poured in, and the people of Egypt and Syria were 100% at their mercy.  Today both of those countries are dismal unfree hellholes.  The same thing could happen to the US.

“But countries where people have no guns are so much safer than countries where there are lots of guns.”–Oh really?  So India is so much safer than Switzerland?  Is Russia so much safer?  Gun control always favors the criminals over the law abiding citizens.  I have been to India.  It is very difficult for law abiding citizens to own guns there, only the very rich can afford a gun permit.  Rape and violent crime are absolutely epidemic there, and it’s not because Indians are less civilized, because Indian civilization is one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and India is a production mill for doctors and engineers.  The problem is that people there cannot defend themselves, and everyone knows it.  So here is the alternative to the 2nd Amendment when it comes to home defense.  I took this picture when I was there:

No it’s not a prison, or a military complex, it’s just a typical wall that goes around the typical home there for protection.  In this case, there are shards of glass embedded in the top of the concrete wall.  Other houses had metal spikes and sometimes barbed wire going along the top.  My guess is that the metal spikes are more expensive, but I could be wrong about that.  In India the terrorists have no problem getting guns.  Just a bit north of where my fiance lives there is a group called the Naxalites, which are communist terrorists that live in the forests of Chattisgarh.  Maybe the government could take them out, but the regular people can’t do anything against them if they decide to come to town.  There are also Islamic terror groups operating in India, and they have guns as well.  Indians have to rely completely on the police and their concrete walls for protection against criminal elements and home defense.

I was surprised that our media decided to write a story about that rape in Delhi.  I am of course talking about the incident where six men raped a woman and sodomized her with a metal rod, severely mangling her to the point where she died later.  Of course when they did cover it they tried to put a left wing feminist spin on the issue, talking about how the Indian culture is too patriarchal and they need to have social changes.  But the fact is, there is nothing wrong with Indian culture.  There are bad people in every culture, and in places where conditions are favorable to criminality there is going to be more criminality.  Our left wing media talks about feminism, yet omits the fact that there are women in India campaigning FOR having guns.  Why?  Because what happened to that woman could have been prevented by six rounds, and anyone with average level IQ and a functioning brain ought to be able to realize that.

The best way to prevent crime, is to enable law abiding citizens to defend themselves.  If gun control really helps then Chicago should be a paradise and Kennesaw Georgia should be a dismal violent hellhole, but in fact the reverse is true.  Liberal claims about gun control are simply not borne out by reality. 

Tina Turner is renouncing her US citizenship to become a citizen of Switzerland.  I don’t know what kind of person Tina Turner is, but if she is like the majority of American celebrities the Swiss government would be wise to refuse her.

We know that when Eduardo Severin renounced his citizenship it was because of the bad economic policies here, and it was an indictment against the left.   But with Tina Turner I have a feeling that it is a situation akin to liberal Californians leaving the PRC (Peoples Republic of California) for Texas because the economy and living conditions are better there, but only mucking things up a little at a time when they arrive there.  Of course, when they go to Texas they generally take their liberalism with them as they fail to make the connection between the economic difficulties in California to left wing policies, or the prosperity in Texas with capitalism. 

I’m wondering if this is not how it is with Tina Turner.  Maybe she likes the lower taxes and safer environment (thanks to all the citizens being armed and Switzerland taking in few immigrants), but doesn’t attribute those superior conditions to right wing policies. 

Again, I don’t know what kind of a person Tina Turner is but I think it’s telling that not a single Hollywood Celebrity or music artist is clamoring to get into Cuba or North Korea, or even Venezuela.  You would think that if they really believed in the stuff they preach they would be dying to go to those places.

That’s all I have to say.  If TT is a right wing person than I apologize for this.

Source: http://wonderwall.msn.com/music/tina-turner-to-become-swiss-citizen-1731683.story

The other day I was reading another article about abortion on the news.  I believe it was in Kansas somewhere but I cannot remember for certain.  In any case, some abortion advocates were trying to open up an abortion clinic, and the local people were protesting and trying everything legally possible to prevent it.  When I read that article I had an epiphany, which I will reveal shortly, but first some background:

I have heard all of the arguments for abortion, and most of them fail to hold water.  I disagree that abortion is about choice, or a woman’s rights.  Your rights end where another person’s body begins, and the baby at any stage of development is another person.  The choice was laying on your back, unzipping your pants, and letting your shag buddy fail to use a condem.  Another choice was engaging in frequent sex without taking birth control.  So it’s not an issue of choice, it’s an issue of bucking responsibility and making other people pay for the indescretion.

But that being said, regardless of which side of abortion the law decides to come down on, it’s still a lose-lose scenario.  Even if the government decides to go completely pro-life and ban all abortion, and if they contrive a way to succesfully enforce that law, then society as a whole still loses out.  Or at least, the productive members of society lose out. 

I will break it down: 

When an abortion occurs, then an unborn baby is murdered, and usually not in a quick and painless fashion.  On the other hand, if there is no abortion then a baby is born into an incomplete household, is left to the care of negligent people, and is probably going to grow up to be on welfare.  One way we have murder, and the other way the underclass of people dependent on the government (a solid Democrat voting bloc) is going to grow.  It’s just not good for the economy.  Responsible people end up having to take care of irresponsible people’s children, and that means that our own standard of living has to suffer because of someone else’s negligence.

So here is my solution, let’s have state sponsored sterilization clinics.  That way these people won’t have children, and they won’t have abortions.  Let’s face it, nothing in the world is going to make these people become responsible all of a sudden. 

Sterilization would be free, but if they ever decide that they want to reverse it later on then they have to pay out of pocket.  No government aid for reversals.  Once they are sterilized they can engage in as much sex as they want without any risk of pregnancy or impregnation, and the sterilization clinics will also service men free of charge.  No more baby daddies or baby mommas.  We could further improve things by making receipt of welfare money contingent upon sterilization.  This would improve things massively for our country and society over the long term.

If the population decline increases, we are not going to try to compensate for it with immigration.  You can’t compensate for a dwindling population with immigration, all that does is replace one population with another.  People on the left need to understand there is a difference between replenishing and replacing.  Let the population fall, and if it falls too much then maybe the government could incentivise reproduction by productive citizens with tax breaks.  Maybe a population drop without immigration would be a good thing since there would be less competition for jobs in the next generation.  I myself have had a terrible time.  I wouldn’t mind less competition (although it wouldn’t affect me personally, just my kids).

So that is my solution, and I for one think it is brilliant in it’s simplicity and workability.  I think if this were implemented then most people on both sides would be happy, but I doubt it will be because the left is so dependent on those kinds of people for votes. 

I just watched a news video online saying that due to the amount of potential Earth-like planets which have been discovered and the rate at which they are being discovered, the question of whether or not there is alien life might change to when, meaning that it is only a matter of time until we encounter alien life.

I just wanted to take a minute to reflect on that and what it means.  First of all, I think that given the distance between our solar system and our nearest neighbor it is impossible to get a good reading on any alien planets. By that I mean that I am unconvinced that it is an exact science. They cannot know what amount of heat and radiation the star gives off, and I very much doubt that they can accurately measure the distance the planet is from it’s star.

That being said, a planet need not be Earth-like in order to have life on it.  The only limit on what form intelligence can come in is the laws of physics. Life need not be carbon based, and it could be that alien life might exist close to us and we would be incapable of recognizing as life because the form would be so alien. 

A good example of what I am talking about comes from the episode “Savage Curtain” of Star Trek TOS. The Enterprise encounters a molten planet which SHOULD, by their understanding, be uninhabitable, but it turns out that it is actually home to a complex civilization which is so alien and far from the conventional definition of life that they were unable to detect or recognize it until the aliens chose to reveal themselves.

But let’s say there is alien life that follows a similar pattern to humanity, or enough so that it fits our conventional definitions of life.  There is a possibility that they could be better than humans, but there is also a possibility that they could be just as bad.  Without encountering them we literally have no way of knowing.

The Bible tells us that Satan is here on Earth, and that the way Earth is, is not the way it was intended to be.  Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Muhammad/Islam, Attila the Hun, Nero, disease, war, famine, death, and evil in general all exist because of the original sin where Satan tempted the first humans to disobey God.  Without that one event we would not have evil, suffering, and death.  So it may be that an alien world is a literal paradise, free of death and suffering.  However, Satan is not limited by distance.  So it could be he has visited alien worlds and similarly contaminated them.  If so, then the alien civilization will be similar to humanity in many ways.

Now, if the alien civilization is not perfect and pure, the finding or contacting them could be a very bad thing for many reasons.  The first reason to consider is plagues.  On Earth we have seen that when populations which have been historically isolated have often fallen prey to sicknesses on a mass scale when they were exposed to other civilizations.  If aliens ever come to Earth or we go there, then we will be exposing our planet to a whole new plethora of previously unknown diseases.

Second, if the aliens are more advanced than humanity then we can expect to receive little mercy or understanding from them.  We can learn from the history of Earth what happens when more advanced race encounters a less advanced race (technologically).  What follows is political and cultural domination of the less advanced society by the more advanced, and often that involves slavery and rape.  The Spanish were quite brutal to the natives of Central and South America because their original assumption was that the natives were not human, and therefore not entitled to be treated as such.  The Catholic Church had to officially declare that the natives were human before the colonizers recognized them as such, and even after that they still treated them as inferiors.

So when I have to wonder, when we are talking about contacting aliens are we hoping to meet aliens like the Spanish or the English? Because either way it would go badly for us.  If they are like the Huns, Mongols, or Turks then things would go even worse.  Under the best of circumstances they might be like the Persians, in which case we would still be conquered but the alien rule would be benign.

That being said, there is no reason to assume that such life would be more advanced or space-going.  If that is the case and we were to come upon their planet first then we would be the colonizers.  However, I don’t really believe that we are going to advance to the point of viable interstellar travel.  Not without outside help.  Our government is not even in a position to send our astronauts to the space station which we built without foreign help anymore (thanks to Obungle).  US civilization is done for.  If anyone comes up with interstellar travel it’s going to be China (and possibly Russia, although that is less likely), and if that happens I pity any less advanced civilization they might encounter.  Any such beings can expect to be treated worse than the people of Tibet, Manchuria, and other ethnic minorities which exist in China.  China treats it’s ethnic minorities so bad that people are going to India to get away from China.   

Anyways, that is just my position on alien life.  I don’t KNOW what is actually out there.  I do know that Stephen Hawking has said some of the same thing I have said regarding the potential dangers of alien life, but unlike Stephen Hawking I do not expect the search efforts to produce any results.  That is not to say that I would not be interested in the results, but if we do somehow encounter alien life then I stick by the possible scenarios I have given for how it might be.

I’m sick of all this nanny state crap.  Anyone who would give up freedom for security doesn’t deserve to have either. 

Taking guns isn’t enough, now they also want to come after our videogames. 

I want to address a few issues at once here.  I recently read an entry criticizing Pat Robinson over his response to a teenager who called into the show complaining that his dad was spending too much time playing videogames and not enough time with his mother.  I don’t watch that show, and don’t really care about Pat Robinson, so this is third hand information, but supposedly Pat Robinson suggested that the mother might have driven the father into the gaming, and what I saw in the comments section was a hate fest toward Pat Robinson and the husband.  But here is the thing, maybe she did drive him to it? 

There is something wrong with our society that causes men to bear the brunt of the blame when a relationship is imbalanced.  To be fair there are some guys who get sucked into games, and at no fault of their partner, they simply get started playing and become so addicted that they stop paying attention to real life.  On the other hand, there are guys who get a new game, get addicted for a short time, beat it, and are done.  Then there are guys who are unhappy with their lives, and use the videogames as a salve, or an escape.  If the man is unhappy with his life then then the blame for his gaming must be shared.  Blaming the game, or the man alone, is not valid. 

There are also guys who are moderate gamers, and who will play on and off when they feel like relaxing or leaving tension, and this is not a problematic behavior on any level. 

Now, I also saw an article on Yahoo about women wanting to get into the gaming industry but encountering “sexism” there as it is a male dominated industry.  The author of the article did not understand why there are not more women in the gaming industry, when (1) there is an abundance of female characters and (2) the amount of female gamers is increasing.

To answer the questions:

1) Although I have not seen it specifically stated, the female characters in the games are generally designed for a male target audience, which is why most of them are eye candy.  Not trying to be rude, just calling attention to the obvious.  For many guys that attractive female character is the closest they can get to ever being in a relationship.  Most men do not succeed in passing on their DNA to the next generation.  This is due to socio-economic factors primarily, but on some level that video game woman fills a void. 

There are also guys, such as myself, who do not care whether the character is male or female, so long as the gameplay is good. 

2) There are actually very few female gamers.  I have seen multiple Yahoo articles saying that numbers of female gamers are now equal or greater than the numbers of male gamers, and that the future of gaming is mobile devices like I-pads and I-phones.  Articles and statements like that indicate a serious and woeful ignorance of the videogame subculture.  First of all, playing “Angry Birds” and “Fruit Ninja” isn’t gaming, it’s fidgeting.  No real gamers are going to give up their PS3 or Xbox, and games like “Dragon Age” and “Mass Effect” for little fidgety apps like “Fruit Ninja.”  Be serious.  Yes there are a lot of women playing those things because a lot of them now have I-phones and I-pads, but that doesn’t make them gamers.  Most of those women will never touch an actual gaming console. 

So while the amount of female gamers may or may not be increasing, the examples that Yahoo keeps giving all refer to an increased use of apps like Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja.  Real actual games still target a predominantly male audience.  One reason why actual female gamers have so much appeal to men, is because there are so very few of them.  We always like it when women can share our interests and activities with us because then it’s like having a wife/girlfriend AND a friend at the same time.  On average women don’t have the same level of aggressive tendencies that men do, so they don’t typically derive the same level of pleasure or catharsis from gaming.

That being said, I would like to talk about censorship, because I keep hearing people blaming videogames for real life violence and calling for censorship.  I saw one woman in the comment section complaining about how games make her kids bratty. 

Here is the thing, if your kids are bratty then it is your own fault for raising them to be bratty.  Until your kids are old enough to work, then it is very difficult for them to possess things without you knowing about it or approving it.  Just because little Billy says “Mommy I want it” doesn’t mean you have to give it to him.  If it’s not appropriate for his age or you just don’t feel like getting it for him then it is perfectly acceptable for you to say no.  No is not a bad word, it’s a very good work.  You can tell him no, and if he makes a fuss then you take him out to the car and beat his behind until he learns who is boss.  If he threatens to call some child help hotline you say, “Go ahead smart guy, a lot can happen before they get here,” or, “OK, if you want to leave then you can get out of this car right now and find a new family.”  Most kids are stupid, and they have no idea how the world works.  That is why you have to teach them about economics, politics, and basic common sense.  Once confronted with the idea that they will have to fend for themselves then they will realize how pointless and stupid their rebellion is.

But I digress, if you aren’t smart enough to censor what your kids have, or to not buy them anything they want, then don’t come after me to bear the brunt of your incompetance.  Just admit you’re lazy, and stay out of my game room.

“Oh but some of those games are so…”

STOP.  I don’t care how violent they are, how graphic they are, how gratuitously violent they are, how perverted they are, or anything else.  Yes there are some games that offend me, and yes there are some games that I wouldn’t want my kids to have, but you know what?  I have a special magic trick that deals with all of that, and it’s so easy that anyone can do it.  It’s this amazing thing, where I own the bank card, so only I can determine how the money on there gets spent.  I don’t understand why other people have difficulty employing this technique.  Be responsible for your own self.

Also, videogames do not make people violent.  People are naturally violent, and men have more aggressive and violent tendencies than women (on average).  But still, natural propensities for violence vary with the individual.  Negligent parenting and mental insanity are what make people violent.  Negligent parenting means that an individual with above average violent propensities will not learn to control himself.  Stop blaming the games for bad parenting.  The games are cathartic.

I don’t care if my neighbor is playing some blood and guts hackfest, so long as he isn’t doing it in real life it’s none of my business.  I don’t care, I really don’t.  I cannot overstress how much I don’t care.  What I do care about is when someone tries to regulate what I can have.