April 15, 2013

  • Terrorist Attack in Boston

    So the terrorists have hit Boston. 

    Source: http://news.yahoo.com/two-explosions-boston-marathon-finish-line-190259876–spt.html

    This is most likely the work of Muslims.  Yes I know that the left wants to assume that white Christian gun owning patriotic male sexists were involved, but this is real life.  It is going to be Muslims.  Let me spell it out for anyone to whom it may not yet be clear.

    YOU CANNOT BE FRIENDS WITH ISLAM.  This is how Muslims are.  They have no loyalty to anything but Mecca.  It doesn’t matter if you take them in, give them free education, welfare, special treatment, suck up to them, or flatter them.  At he end of the day you are still a dirty infidel who needs to either convert or die. 

    What do you expect from people who conceptualize the world in terms of “the abode of Islam” and “the abode of war”?  Guess what the abode of war is?  It is every place dominated by infidels.  Guess why they call it the abode of war?  Because they are supposed to make war on us.  They believe that they will be rewarded in the next life for killing infidels. 

    I know you liberals think Islam is one of the greatest things since jam, and you take them for a natural ally against the evil right wing white male, but it’s worth noting where the bombs went off.  They went off in your own neighborhood.  Why?  Because even though you pity the Muslims, and welcome them, and feel a connection to them, they still hate you because you are not one of them.  Both conservatives and liberals are infidels, but conservatives are smarter infidels than liberals. When it comes to frags, the Muslims care more about quantity than quality.  The more infidels they kill the greater the reward, doesn’t matter if they kill dumb infidels who feel sorry for them.  It’s worth noting that they didn’t go to a rural or suburban area to kill the evil white Christian conservatives, they blew those bombs up in the city because they could kill more people that way.  End of story.  Wake up already.

    I really hope that this leads to a saner immigration policy on immigration, and especially Islamic immigration, but I don’t think it will.

     

April 12, 2013

  • Muslim Rape in Egypt

    A Muslim mob publicly rapes a woman believed to be Christian in Egypt.  Christians make up about 10% of the population of Egpyt.  This is how Muslims behave when they reach 90% of the total population. 

    The way they persecute and harrass Christians in Egypt is ridiculous and without excuse.  I’m tired of the media trying to make it look like it goes both ways or that he Christians are somehow instigators or equally responsible for this.  This is like blaming the rape victim for the rape.  “She shouldn’t have been in that part of town.”  It’s not like the Christians asked to be in that wretched hellhole, it was their country and they got invaded by Muslims.  They didn’t invite the Muslims in. 

    This is why we cannot let Muslims into our country.  Given enough time they will make it just like Egypt, and we will have no place to go.  They will do this to our wives and daughters.  If I ever caught any Muslims attacking my wife or daughter like that, they would find out really quick whether or not Allah is real. 

April 10, 2013

  • Persecution of Christians in Egypt

    Every single person who voted for Obama is complicent in this:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/10/troubling-photos-suggest-some-egyptian-police-stood-by-while-mob-attacked-christian-cathedral-burned-bible/

    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/scandal-morsi-government-permits-savage-attack-on-st-mark-cathedral/

    I’m tired of seeing people who know nothing about the world act like they know everything.  I’m tired of ignoramuses getting all indignant over defending Obama, Islam, or the Democrat party.  It’s long past time to hold that man accountable, and it’s unacceptable for tax dollars to be given in foreign aid to hostile regimes in a time of economic recession.  Our tax money that has gone to Egypt is dipped in blood, this is how those animals spend it.  Everyone who voted for Obama has the blood of Egyptian Christians on their hands. 

    “Oh but I didn’t know they would spend it like that!”–Because you never bothered to learn about the world.  You don’t know anything about anything other than the Kartrashians, Lady Gaga, and celebrity gossip.  You have been content to be spoon fed propaganda your entire life, without questioning, and you never bothered to go out and learn anything on your own because you are intellectually lazy.

    “I didn’t think Obama would give money to people like that.”–Well you shouldn’t have voted for a man who campaigned based on giving money anyways.  You have absolutely no clue what kind of man Obama is, or what kind of people his friends are.  You support him because the media told you to, or because you always vote Democrat without thinking.  Or, maybe you support him because you hate Christians, have white guilt, want free handouts at any cost, and/or think America needs to be punished.  Whatever reason you have for supporting him logic, patriotism, and personal responsibility probably have little to do with it.

    “It’s standard policy.”–No it’s not.  Egypt was having a revolution, and Obama decided to help the most Islamic side in that revolution.  He did the same thing in Libya, and he’s doing the same thing in Syria.  The one secular revolution that occured in the North Africa-Middle East region was the Iranian Green Revolution, and it was the ONLY ONE HE DID NOT SUPPORT.  The man is either a Muslim, or a Muslim butt licker. 

    Also, I’m sick to death of hearing about how Islam is a religion of peace.  Yes I know there are some peaceful Muslims, but that does not make Islam a peaceful religion.  All evidence is to the contrary.  You don’t see other religions behaving like that on a mass scale.  Yes I know some idiot is thinking of the Crusades, but the Crusades were a defensive reaction to Islam attacking the Byzantine Empire.  Maybe it’s time we had another one.  All one need to do is look at any Islamic country and check how it treats religious and ethnic minorities.  Stop trying to sugarcoat a piece of crap.  Stop trying to compare Islam with other religions.  There is no comparison. 

April 9, 2013

  • Making Rules

    I’m thinking about making rules for posting on my page, just toying with the idea.  I don’t mind insults/personal attacks, and I don’t mind anyone disagreeing with me or trying to refute me.  I do mind when people deliberately obfuscate.  I have an IQ of 135, so I can usually tell obfuscation when I see it.  I find it insulting, and wasteful of my time, but since I’m a little OCD I have a hard time just letting comments go that people leave on my page.  I don’t want to be snarky either, but that is my natural reaction to obfuscation.  I could use the block function but that looks weak, and I prefer to use that for spammers and spoofers, not serious people even if the serious people are trolls. 

    I am open to suggestions.

  • Jacked up Priorities

    Talk about some jacked up priorities.  Look at these bunch of idiots:  http://news.yahoo.com/kremlin-urges-germany-punish-topless-protest-against-putin-091629416.html

    1000 gay activists assembled in Amsterdam (Netherlands) to protest against Putin, in front of Putin.  It’s interesting how they get all charged up over Putin, who has jack all to do with how things are run in Holland or the rest of Europe, when they have a much more real and imminent danger to deal with from their own politicians.  The only reason why they are protesting Putin is because they know that he won’t/can’t do anything to them. 

    They SHOULD be protesting against their own politicians for letting Muslims flood into the country.  The average Native European woman in western Europe has about 1 child per woman.  This is a rough average, but the minimum amount of children per woman necessary to maintain a population at equilibrium is 2.3 children per woman.  On the other hand, the Muslim immigrants come there and have about 4 to 8 children per woman. 

    Guess what, not only does Putin have no plains to invade Europe, but the Muslims will be so much harder on the homosexuals than Putin.  Putin just doesn’t want them influencing children, the Muslims just want them dead (unless it’s a man molesting a boy). 

    This is why liberalism is a mental disease.  None of this people will utter a peep over Islam, because according to the left “Islam is a religion of peace” even though there are mountains of emperical evidence to the contrary.  Liberals tend to view Islam as an ally because both Islam and liberalism are against patriotism for the home country.  But the fact that if they go to protest against the Muslims they may end up getting beaten and killed might also have something to do with it.

    So yes, protest Putin while you can, because in 15 or 20 years you will be under Sharia and unable to protest anything.  Have your parties while you can. 

April 8, 2013

  • Obama’s Comment

    For the first time ever, I am actually going to defend Obama.  I still think he is the greatest human disaster to ever hit this country, that he’s a fraud, and that he is working for the New World Order, but in this case he didn’t do anything wrong and the people criticizing him need to shut it.

    Of course I am talking about his comment regarding Kamala Harris, the Attorney General of the PRC:

    You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake. She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country — Kamala Harris is here. (Applause.) It’s true. Come on. (Laughter.) And she is a great friend and has just been a great supporter for many, many years.

    Source:  http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-best-looking-attorney-general-sexist-gaffe-085000032.html;_ylt=Au2VltFIQxO6_re99nIMrSvNt.d_;_ylu=X3oDMTJscGJyczlvBG1pdANIQ01PTCBvbiBhcnRpY2xlIHJpZ2h0IHJhaWwEcGtnA2lkLTMxNjU3MTYEcG9zAzIEc2VjA01lZGlhQkNhcm91c2VsTWl4ZWRIQ00EdmVyAzY-;_ylg=X3oDMTJvZzlvY3Z1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDYWYyYjA4OTYtMzIwZi0zYTkzLWJkZjAtODhiZWEzMDlkYmU0BHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

    So a lot of people on the left have their panties in a knot over this comment, and are calling it sexist.  They are also referring to the comment as a gaffe.  Typically I would not jump into a left on left quarrel, but this sort of thing is a symptom of a deep and widespread problem in this country, and by that I am talking about a certain matriarchal ideology which has established an unpleasant social double standard in favor of women. 

    First of all, there is nothing wrong with Obama saying that she is attractive or the most attractive Attorney General.  Here is the person in question:

    K Harris

    She could very well be the most attractive female Attorney General in the country.  Of course that doesn’t mean she is someone I would support.  Given that she’s an Obama supporter from California she is part of the opposing team as far as I am concerned, but still, Obama didn’t do anything wrong by complimenting her, and the compliment probably made her feel good. 

    The woman is good looking, and even if she’s not then it’s still Obama’s opinion and he’s entitled to it.  The comment was not sexist, nor is it a “gaffe.”  Just because the extreme left calls it a gaffe or doesn’t like how it sounds doesn’t mean it’s a blunder.  I’m tired of hearing how something is a “gaffe” when it is just a flat statement of reality.  The extreme left needs to leave off the panties and start wearing boxers, that way their panties won’t be getting into a knot. 

    If the genders had been reversed, and Obama were a woman giving the same compliment to a man then I guarantee the femanazi’s wouldn’t have uttered a peep about sexism.  Nor would there have been a stir on the left.  I have noticed that in general, it’s OK for women to assess men based on their looks and make comments, and they need not fear being called sexist or accused of sexual harrasment, but if a man does the same thing, all of a sudden he’s sexist, he’s “objectifying women,” and he might even be involved in sexual harrasment. 

    Feminists are in rebellion of the fact that not all women are equally attractive, and that the primary factor by which men choose to pursue or dismiss a woman is usually her looks.  Too bad.  Men assess women based on looks, and women assess men based on MONEY and (to a lesser degree) looks.  Not all women are equally attractive, and the more diverse the country becomes the harder it is going to be for the majority of women to conform to a general beauty standard. 

    Not every woman is universally marketable, not every woman is beautiful, and not every woman is equally appealing to all men.  No amount of pretending, brow beating, wishful thinking, censorship, and accusations of sexism is going to make that fantasy into reality.  Reality is what it is regardless of whose feelings get hurt.  Reality does not end where your feelings begin, and neither do anyone’s rights. 

    The good news, however, is that men and women are roughly equal in numbers.  So there are about as many ugly and mediocre men as there are ugly and mediocre women.  The problem is that so many women want to be equally recognized and validated by alpha men.  Most women have a princess fantasy, and, unfortunately, alpha men are in limited supply, just like beautiful women are also in limited supply.  You can argue that it’s not fair for alpha men to exclusively select the most attractive women, but I could argue that it’s not fair for you to have a minimum income or education standard for men.  That means, if you are a 30 year old woman making 100,000 a year you can’t automatically reject the 28 year old retail associate making 10,000 a year, because that’s not fair to him, and it’s sexist.  That would be objectifying the man, and he’s a person too.  All men are equal and deserve equal consideration, and you have to be blind to inequalities because reality ends where their feelings begin.  Right?  Is that fair?  Or is that completely stupid and unreasonable?  It’s the same argument.

    Also, the notion that women advance based on their looks is utter bollox.  More attractive women have extra difficulties in the workplace because of female jealousy.  When it comes to the work place environment good looks help men more than women.  Good looks don’t help women with the job, they help women when it comes to attracting a powerful mate. 

April 5, 2013

  • Stance on “Gay Marriage”

    The responses to my last entry were pretty good, so I wanted to write a follow up entry just to clarify a few additional points.

    For the record, I do not support anti-sodomy laws or legislation.  I hate paternalism and nanny-states, and I have been on the bad side of paternalism myself more than once, so I can symphathise with people who are not hurting anyone else (even if they are hurting themselves), not wanting the government to be up in their business.  Whatever people choose to do in their own house, whether it’s homosexuality, S&M, multiple partners, or inanimate objects, is not any of my business or concern.  The only place I would definitively draw a legal line in the sand is with children, because children are incapable of defending themselves or engaging in such behaviors with informed consent.

    That being said, the “gay marriage” issue is not one that I sympathise with or support.  What the whole concept of “gay marriage” amounts to is calling a dog a duck.  They are both animals, yes, but a dog is not the same thing as a duck.  A dog is qualitatively and quantitatively different from a duck, and calling them by the same name does no make them the same thing, neither does it help anyone to have a concrete, objective, or scientific understanding of reality.  It only confuses things.  The impetus/motvations, methodology, and consequences/results of homosexuality are entirely different from any type of heterosexual relationship.  The difference is both a matter of psychology and plumbing. 

    I don’t care if homosexuals want to have any kind of ceremony, or call themselves whatever they want, but again, that does not make it so, and I am not going to recognize it.  Also, it is not acceptable for the state to force businesses or any other private individual to recognize it.  It is not acceptable for them to force insurance agencies to treat it as marriage if they do not wish to, nor is it acceptable for the state to force landlords or businesses to treat it as such.  If they want to do so on their own, then fine, but if they do not wish to do so and are forced to do so then that is a violation of private ownership of property, freedom of speech, and (depending on the circumstances) religion.  No one should be forced to violate their personal convictions to appease someone else’s feelings.  My freedom of speech and property rights do not end where your feelings begin. 

    Marriage is a life long commitment between a man and a woman.  Anything else is something else.  Homosexuality and zoophilia are something else entirely.  If there is going to be a legally recognized union then at the very least it should be referred to by a different name.  In addition, it should be optional whether businesses and private individuals recognize it or not.  That is the main thing.

    You can call discrimination if you want, but really what it’s about is special recognition.  The same arguments for why homosexuality should have the label of marriage slapped on it and for why others should be forced to give lip service and legal service in spite of their personal beliefs and convictions are equally applicable to incest, polygamy, and polyandry, and partially applicable to beastiality and pediastry.  Of course when being subjective partial or full applicability don’t really matter.  All are forms of sexual deviance, and if were really about ”equality” and treating alternative lifestyles as legitimate, then all would be recognized.  The fact that they want to single out one type of alternative lifestyle/sexual deviance for special recognition indicates to me that this is not about equality, but about browbeating and control. 

    Actually I would accept legalization of polygamy before “gay marriage” and in fact it could be argued that polygamy would at least cut down on bastardy and welfare, as wealthy alpha males would be free to form official legal unions with more women, thus providing an alternative support base to more women who might otherwise rely on government.  Also, at least there would be a man in the house. 

    I cannot help but notice that the majority of arguments over “gay mariage” tend to be focused or centered around the opposition.  There we have it.

    Don’t come to me for rights, because I cannot give or take them.  Don’t come to me for special recognition, because I’m not down with the cause.  The most I can offer is to give you your space while you allow me to have mine.  There is no reason for people with different moral persuasions to step on eachother’s toes, unless one is trying to force their beliefs on the other.

    One final note, and this is getting back to my previous entry.  Just because the white supremacists and other racist groups want to equate race mixing with homosexuality or call it perverted does not make it so.  They don’t set the standard for what is moral, true, or acceptable, and their ideology is just as forceful and anti-human as the left wing ideology that morality is defined by legislation and that it is acceptable to force their views on everyone else.  Same MO.

    That’s all I have to say for now.  Hopefully that clarifies everything.

April 4, 2013

  • Is It Fair To Compare Homosexuality With Race Mixing?

    I am writing this entry because someone asked me to explain the difference between race mixing and homosexuality.  I have often heard people on the left try to compare homosexuality with race mixing, and some have insisted that there is no difference.  So as simply as possible I am going to address this issue.

    First of all, comparing race mixing with homosexuality is extremely insulting to people in interracial relationships, and when you are trying to build a case for a particular cause, it doesn’t help to preface your arguments with insults directed at the people you are trying to convince.  
    The difference between a homosexual relationship, and a heterosexual multiracial relationship, is that one is homosexual and the other is heterosexual.  In one situation you have an opposite sex couple, which is what our biology and biochemistry is designed for, and on the other hand you have a same gender pairing, which is not biologically feasible.  Natural sex and reproduction are out of the question with homosexuality.  In order to engage in those behaviors one must buck the natural design of their body and use their body parts in ways that they were not designed for, which can result in physical damage and health risks.
    Interracial marriages and relationships may not always be the obvious match, but they are still natural and do not require one to place body parts into orifices that were not designed to receive them.  Race mixing is actually more healthy than same race pairings as you are less likely to reproduce defects that are already in your gene pool by coupling with someone from a more distant gene pool.  
    But to be fair, I know why some liberals like to compare race mixing to homosexuality.  In the past race mixing was often condemned in the US (as far as they are taught), and they use the image of US history given to them by public education as a microcosm of the world.  In the past race mixing was indeed often frowned upon in the US, and in some cases it could be fatal.  The most shunned form of race mixing was the black male with the white female, and in the south black men were sometimes killed for it.  So, the liberal thinks that as those relationships were previously stigmatized and are now largely accepted, the same will occur, and must occur with homosexuality.  
    However, even though I follow their train of logic, there is still no validity in it.  The impetus that causes a man to seek out or pair with a woman of a different race is not at all the same force that compels a man to seek out another man.  Race mixing occurs because of physical attraction, cultural attraction, and supply issues.  Homosexuality occurs because a normally functioning sex drive either does not exist or is being suppressed.  In addition, the liberal theory is based on faulty premises.  Race mixing is not something new, and it is not something that has been universally condemned.  Nor is race mixing condemned for the same reasons that homosexuality is (when it is condemned).
    Homosexuality is typically condemned on the grounds that it is unnatural and/or morally wrong.  Nature arguments are derived from biology while moral arguments are typically derived from religions.
    Race mixing is condemned for the following reasons:
    1. Resentment of competition–When the opposite gender, or desirable members of the opposite gender are at a premium, then additional competition is anything but welcome.  While I do find this factor to be understandable and reasonable, it has no bearing on whether the act is right or wrong.
    2. Cultural Differences/Ethnocentrism–Race and Culture are not the same things, but cultural divides are often racial as well.  There are people who shun race mixing, and marrying into other cultures in general, because they feel that their culture is superior and wish to pass it on to their offspring undiluted, or they believe that their culture is incompatible with others, which would result in an unpleasant and fractious union.
    3. Quality Control–There are people who believe that their race is superior to all others, or to certain groups, and as a result do not wish to mix with other groups out fear that the offspring will be of reduced quality.  For that reason they oppose race mixing.
    Race mixing is not something new:
    In fact race mixing is not even something relatively new to US history.  While black-white pairings may have been condemned, white people in the US have been mixing with Native Americans throughout the entire history of the country, although not to the same degree as Latin America.  In fact the southerners, who are often stereotyped as being the most racist, are probably the most heavily mixed with Native Americans.
    But race mixing has been going on for much longer than the US has been around, and there are some populations and civilizations which have existed as fusion groups throughout all of history.  Here are some samples off the top of my head, which anyone can easily research and confirm independently:
    The Tuareg people of the Sahara:
    The Tuaregs span multiple countries in the Sahara, and do not have a country of their own.  And yes, I do support Tuareg independence/nationalism/self determinism.  In any case, the Tuaregs are a fusion of the Caucasoid North Africans, and the Negroid Sub-Saharan Africans.  The nomadic lifestyle of the Tuaregs brought them into contact with black Africans below the Sahara, while the more sedentary and highly civilized populations of the north remained relatively isolated from their negroid neighbors to the south of the desert.
    The Habasha people of Ethiopia:
    Ethiopian civilization was created by Semitic Middle Eastern Arabs colonizing the Horn of Africa and founding a civilization there.  They mixed with black Africans and today they appear as a fusion of the two groups.  The language they speak is a Semitic language, and it is related to Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic.  They are the only Semitic civilization in Africa.
    The Nubians/Sudanese:
    I don’t know how applicable it is to call these people Nubians given that they speak Arabic now, but these people are descended from the Nubians.  The people are black Africans with Egyptian admixture.  They are right next to Egypt, and as a result there has been intermarriage. 
    The Tatars of Russia:
    The Tatars were formally nomadic groups of people which can be found in Russia and China.  They are a fusion of Caucasoid and Mongoloid, as is evidenced by their facial features, and are part of the Finno-Ugaric language group.  Tatars also exist in Lithuania and Poland as a result of invasion, and still bear semi-Mongoloid traits even in those places.  Tatars were fierce warriors, and were considered a scourge by medieval Europeans.
    The North Indians:
    The North Indians, which I believe comprises the majority of India, are a fusion group.  Originally India was a brown sub-continent, now it is brown and beige.  India was invaded by a group of white Indo-Europeans known as Aryans, who also brought Hinduism.  They settled in the Indus Valley and gradually spread east and south. They mixed with the natives produced a variety of different shades, and it is quite common to see one family bear children who have a variety of different tones.  It is also worth noting that when the English and Portuguese colonized India they married into the population quite frequently.
    The Mexicans:
    The final example I would like to cite is Mexico, our neighbor to the south which uses us as both a pressure release valve for their malcontents and a market for their drugs.  Like India, Mexico is full of the results of white people mixing with brown people.  In the case of Mexico the primary reason for it was the reticence of Spain to send women to the new world, and the impatience of the men there to wait for the arrival of Spanish women.  They mixed out of a desire for women, and they took what was available to them.
    Even as I wrote this many other examples kept popping into mind, but my point is that race mixing is not something new, it is not something unnatural, it has happened and does happen on a mass scale, and it happens for entirely different reasons than homosexuality.  I don’t know how I can make it any more obvious.  Race mixing is 100% biologically supportable, natural, and happens on a mass scale, unlike homosexuality.  Also, we are still talking about male female pairings.  Let us not lose sight of that fact.  The normal natural thing is for men to be attracted to women and vice versa.  Our physical morphology and biochemistry is geared for that.  As physical appearance and temperament varies so do preferences regarding those things.  One guy may seek after certain behaviors, facial features, skin tone, hair color, and eye color, while another will have different preferences.  If everyone liked the exact same kind woman then we would all have unprecedented supply issues, so it is necessary for different guys to have different preferences.
  • How to Fix Our Country

    Here is what I would do to fix our country.  It’s a simple plan which would set us back along the right track for economic prosperity.

    1. End the wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia (the Islamic world) and bring the troops home.  If the Muslims decide to take our withdrawal as a sign of victory and attack us again then we have bombs.  We can wreck what is left of their countries without deploying a single soldier.  Ending these wars will save us costs in terms of both money and human lives. 

    2. Deploy troops along the border with Mexico.  It will be a safer job than Afghanistan, it will not require as many troops, and the economic rewards our country will reap will be so much greater.  It will end both illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

    3. Deport all the illegal aliens.  As I have stated many times, these people are not the hardworking honest people that the pro-immigration crowd likes to paint them as.  They are largely opportunists and parasites, not to mention law breakers.  With the troops home, we can use them to round up these people and send them back, or we can use DHS (let them do something constructive for a change and earn their keep).  The costs of deporting them are far less than the long term costs of keeping them.

    4. End welfare.  It’s just a myth that we need unskilled labor from Mexico.  The argument some of them present for their presence here is “Americans don’t want to work those jobs.”  Maybe, but if you stop paying them for not working then they won’t have a choice.  It’s absolutely insane to use tax money to pay a large workforce NOT to work.  “Oh but they are going to riot rather than work!”  Again, we have the troops and DHS.  Let DHS earn their keep and start using all that ammunition they have been stockpiling.  You don’t give people things they didn’t earn just because they threaten you with violence.  The only appropriate way to respond to terrorists is with force.  He who does not work does not eat.  Let them earn their keep for a change.  Cut off their free supply of food and money, come down on them with force if they get violent, and let their growling stomachs persuade them to get back into the work force. 

    This plan is so simple it should be obvious to everyone.  The only reason why our politicians have not implemented it is because they are globalists who are actively trying to weaken our country in favor of world government.

April 3, 2013

  • Do Christians Support Amnesty?

    The left must be getting mega desperate to build the illusion of support for amnesty when they start trying to make appeals to Christianity.  Whatever happened to wanting to separate legal and public policy as far as possible from the Bible?  Because that is what the left wants.  So, when it comes to things like homosexuality, abortion, and what gets taught to OUR kids in the public school they want us to shut up, but when it comes to something they can use for their agenda then all of a sudden they are writing articles called “What Would Jesus Do.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/jesus-evangelists-launch-immigration-ad-campaign-045007701.html;_ylt=AstiG5QCrZ64tZwFO_pRjCjyWed_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxMms4ZTM4BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDNjRkZjIyNDAtNTU5Ni0zZTQxLWFiMDUtMGIxYjUzYjlhYmI3BHBvcwM3BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzk3ZWE0NzUwLTljNTYtMTFlMi05Y2ZmLTE1MGM3ZGQyYzFjNA–;_ylg=X3oDMTJvMWk2a2pnBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDZjYzZmMxM2ItNzE2MS0zMzQxLTllZjUtYWM0OGI1MzU2MjBjBHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZARwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

    This just goes to illustrate how unprincipled the left is.  No tactics are off the table when it comes to ramming through the agenda.

    But OK, let’s talk about it.  I disagree that the illegals are hard working or upstanding people.  First of all, they are criminals to begin with.  It doesn’t matter what a dump their country is, the fact is they came here illegally and continually violate the law by being here.  They are criminals.  A lot of them are on welfare.  What they come here to do is take advantage of our system, which is already messed up enough without them adding to it.

    Jesus didn’t really say much about politics, but if you want to help the 3rd world, the only way to do it is to GO THERE.  Even if we let millions of them come every year, there are still billions more stuck in the 3rd world.  Those billions in the 3rd world will quickly replenish their numbers, and continue to grow, while their countries remain hellholes.  In the meantime, the more uneducated 3rd worlders increase in our country, the more our country will become like the 3rd world. 

    So whether you are a liberal, or a “Christian” who wants to help the 3rd world because you feel bad for them here is how you do it:

    1. Send them YOUR money, not my money.  Tax money needs to stay  in the US and only be used for things that are absolutely vital.  You don’t have a right to give away someone else’s money. 

    2. Go there and help them.  When I was a kid I used to go to this large church.  Every year or so many of the able bodied people would go to Mexico to help the people build churches and schools.  They would also bring toys for the kids.  I know that the idea of white people going down to Mexico to build something is a mind blowing concept, but if you really care so much to help them then you should to it yourself, otherwise your words and talk are just that.

    Help them with your time, money, and effort, if you want to help them.  Spending your own money and volunteering for work are the only ways you can help those people.  Bringing them to the US and having tax payers pay for all their needs isn’t charity, it’s theft and exploitation.  I don’t care if the Democrats aren’t getting enough votes without them.  That’s your own problem.  Maybe you should change the party platform from crap heavy to crap lite. 

    In any case, I don’t believe there is broad based support for amnesty among churches, or the majority of the US as a whole.  I haven’t seen any evidence that there is.  They are trying to push this thing on us.