We Have Candy. Come on In.

CJ Pearson renounces conservatism. This is similar to Jonathan Krohn's case.

Pearson is the same young man that got some flack for being a (black) conservative while being patriotic by wearing the stars & stripes top hat. That was back in 2013. Two years have almost eclipsed and things change; people change. Pearson no longer is a conservative for obvious reasons.

As he states from a youtube video -

"I was tired of being a champion of a party that turned a blind eye to racial discrimination," Pearson told CNN. "Tired of being a champion of any cause that denies equal rights to every American. Tired of being a champion of a party that doesn't care about the issues important to young people."

Now I will guess that the racial discrimination may have something to do about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Add the Yale and Mizzou campus protests of insensitive remarks fueled by racism. Then he brings up "equal rights." Same-sex "marriage", perhaps? In years past he said he was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so his was he expressed to CNN wasn't anything new. Now the last part is rather chilling (though not really, once you think about it) in the sense that this is how "young people" think. They all think alike.

What this also shows is how the MSM projects their own skewed understanding of the conservative sect by how they frame the headliner. In an ironic fashion, TalkingPointsMemo is tying to make this into a very big deal. It's not. A 13 year old thinks many things that can differ from when he was two years younger, or this in case, two years older (check Pearson's birth date, though).

Pearson's renouncement of conservatism is no surprise since he appeals to the usual falsities of why conservatism is a bad thing, and why anyone who cares what he cares about would not be a conservative. He's young. He may give conservatism another look, though he never showed any true understanding of what it is besides showing sartorial patriotism. He may forever be lost and make a comfortable home in The Left.

What Pearson expressed in his video is exactly what The Left wants to happen. They want people to get mad that the government and conservatism aren't best buddies. That conservatism, true conservatism, practices social retrains. They want young people, though bright in some way are naive beyond the doubt, to think "Hey, the GOP are mean people. They don't care what I care about (they do, they just go about relieving society's warts in different ways). To hell with conservatism!" Then again a more astute political thinker would note that the GOP and conservatism aren't necessarily one in the same thing.

CJ Pearson is the perfect recruit for The Left. He his young - puberty is on the horizon. He is naive. He has some anger within him. Perfect.

Since he has signed on the dotted and is "on their team," now he'll be educated well throughout his high school, college and adult years in all things Leftism. It would be interesting to see if Pearson becomes a public figure in politics and to see his face get owned on "the issue important to young people" when faced with a competent conservative.

Does Krohn's and Pearson's renouncement of conservatism speak about conservatism? No, because the age they favored liberalism tells us nothing than a kid latching onto things he didn't understand. They never said how conservatism does not address the issues they care about; they just said that conservatism doesn't care. In fact, the reasons why both these young men have moved to the left, as they admitted to the public, have turned out to be reasons that are the talking points used by many on The Left that can easily be refuted (I'll probably write a rebuttal to Pearson's video). In Krohn's case he read philosophy. That's rather typical for a naive 17 year old. College does that to the easily swayed and the easily impressed.

I wonder how Krohn will fair against Ben Shapiro. Eh, that's not a fair match. Shapiro's support for conservatism is highly unusual because, from my own knowledge, wasn't ever a liberal (at best he hold a few libertarian stances on social issues) and was raised in the city of LA, though he was raised by parents who are the only Republicans within his immediate family.  Shapiro, entering college at the age of 16, was also usually aware of the leftism that pervaded his classes.

When a young kid projects his enthusiasm for conservatism before he hits puberty, actual conservatives should think it's cute. It sort of is. But don't bank on his enthusiasm to lead up to a fine understanding of what the Found Fathers and what leading conservative minds think. A teenager moving to the left, as I previously said, is to be expected. Teenagers tend to be socially liberal and social conservatism is lost on them, but not because it's a silly or absurd stance, it's because "young people" don't truly understand what social conservatism is and why such stances are held. Debt isn't a comforting thing, so being fiscally conservative speaks to the "young people." The real interesting question is where should expenses be focused, why and how much should be spent. Another thing to remember is how money should be raised. Through Taxes? Should we subsidize? It's a complex issue.

So good-bye, Pearson. The Left's plan is working perfectly.

I'm not a cop apologist.

At least not in this case. Red State reports that a case a year ago has been re-opened by an independent journalist. The killing of LaQuan McDonald by Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke.

A black teen running down the road was shot sixteen times by a Chicago police officer. He had PCP in his system and a small knife on his person. At no point did he seem to make any threatening moves toward any of the multiple police officers who were on the scene that night. Here we are, months later, and we are seeing the video for the first time.

Once again, we are having a discussion about a police officer shooting a black person to death in the street. The LaQuan McDonald case has been one with its own share of controversy – like the alleged deleting of 86 minutes worth of video from a surveillance camera in the area – but there are very familiar patterns here: A teen was on the street, committing a minor crime, and was killed by a police officer. That police officer was today charged with first degree murder.

Now, the timing of the release of the video isn't a coincidence given the resurgence of #BlackLivesMatter on campuses nationwide and "safe space" riots - the independent journalist, going with my gut, knew that the content in the video would result in a protest and aid in the current racial tension that has plagued the month of Novemeber. The timing is also chilling because it's the anniversary death of Tamir Rice who was killed by a Cleveland Ohio cop who mistook Rice's Airsoft gun for a real one. Protesters, oddly, blocked the Manhattan Bridge in NYC in his memory. In cases of McDonald and Rice, the #BlackLivesMatter have a case for highly questionable police brutality - but not so much with Treyvon Martin and  Michael Brown.

What I don't like are rogue journalists who stoke the fire that take advantage of the vulnerability of America, especially if it's about race relations. This is not to say that McDonald's case should never have been reopened, but if the journalist really cared about the case and not about raising more havoc, then he would've requested release of the video months prior this November. He needed the perfect storm and Yale University and Mizzou gave it to him.

The other thing I don't like is the corruption to protect Officer Jason Van Dyke. Due to this video being released he is just recently been charged for first degree murder. He should've been charged last year. That's Chicago for you. The video said it all and to wait an entire year for justice for McDonald's death is absolutely unacceptable.

I don't agree with #BlackLivesMatter, but I do agree with them that procedures to deal with armed suspects, or suspects that resist, need to be re-evaluated. It's shared responsibility: the black culture puts these young men into questionable positions and the corrupt police department teaches the officers to "shoot" when triggered. The irony.

The video showed that McDonald brandished a small knife, but did not charge at the officers. He may have disobeyed their orders to put down the knife or to stand still, but that still doesn't call them to lethally shoot him. Shoot to kill is just dumb protocol.

Which brings to another point: Why do officers shoot to kill? Common sense would tell me to teach the officer to not shoot these body parts (A) the head, (B) chest and (C) abdomen unless it's absolutely necessary. These necessary cases would be if (A) if the suspect has a hostage, (B) if the suspect is engaging in a shootout with the cops, and (C) if the suspect charges at the cop - whether he has a weapon or not.

Whatever is being taught at the police academy needs to be questioned. Something isn't right. The police have great responsibility and just because they serve & protect does not mean they are protected for poor decisions.

If I had the opportunity, I'd stand with the Chicago protesters arm-in-arm.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Uncle Ben, Spider-Man

"Birthers" sorta had a point with Obama. Now they're idiots.

 This is beyond stupid.

Here's my problem with Cruz, Rubio and Jindal: They are all Naturalized Citizen of the US, at best; maybe, they are not *Natural Born Citizens of the US. Their birth citizenship follows their father’s, not the mother’s in the case of Cruz. Cruz, born in Canada, his father's citizenship was Cuban, his mother's citizenship is US; in the case of Rubio, born his father's citizenship was Cuban as was his mother’s, and in the case of Jindal, born his father's citizenship was Indian as was his mother’s; the Law of Nations explains this very well and it’s in the 1st volume of Vattel's Law of Nations... So why do they feel they are eligible for POTUS when they clearly know they are not?

Because Obama refused to show is birth certificate and got elected does our Constitution become irrelevant for all future elections?

Are they simply self-serving their ego? Are they misleading the people who support them? Are they really Progressives trying to hide in Conservative clothes?

The key to this issue, in my opinion, is in the first sentence of Amendment XIV: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; jurisdiction can only apply if one has legal standing to be in our nation. Illegal aliens have no standing and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction since they are here illegally. Therefore, any off springs born of them is also illegal when born here. This reason that foreign diplomat’s, who are posted here, children born to them here are not US citizens by birth since these diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction.

Senator Jason M Howard (1866) the author of the 14th Amendment explained this is his published writing and state:

Amendment XIV

Section I.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any per­ son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote:

I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Our Founding Father used the Law of Nation as a reference source when forming our nation and drafting our Constitution and therefore the Law of Nations more definitively describes the requirement referred to in Article II of our Constitution, read this from Volume One:

§212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

With Obama, birthers had more grounds to question his validity as a US citizen. When he refused to show his birth certificate, that brought up red flags. But his he was actually born in Hawaii by an American mother, so the birthers lost. Then when people could barely remember Obama at both Harvard and Columbia, the birthers were sorta saved from the whole "wacky-right" label. But still, his mother was an American citizen who gave birth to Obama on American soil.

Now, for this particular poster, he resembles the ridiculous religiosity of the Christian dad in Ken Park going over the Bible verses with a magnifying glass. Birthers are straddling the fence between moonbat idiots and "You got a point" greenery. Birthers (and truthers) are the bottom barrel of politics.

* If we read the eligibility in a modern lens then that basically disqualifies probably the most intelligent person on the GOP side to run for president in the past decade. As I read about this issue online, another poster noted that at the time of the writing the position of the POTUS needed a person to have undying loyalty to the country - so no loyalty to Britain or to France or to Mexico etc. At that time American citizenship was the stamp of a non-traitorous candidate.

Now, in the case of Obama it's rather clear his version of a strong America is a traitorous version. He is a 'natural born' US citizen according to statutes. I don't believe he's a Muslim, but I do think he's protecting the religion and the extreme aspects of it for whatever reason. I can see why the writers wanted a person to have America in his best interest, so their emphasis on country loyalty only to America stands. But I don't see why Obama's rise to presidency and his actions would put Cruz in the hot seat in terms of country loyalty. Obama wasn't reciting the constitution and the Bill of Rights around Hawaii as Cruz was in Texas during his high school days.

Take me for instance. I was born in the US to two immigrants who dropped their homeland citizenship for American citizenship years before I was born. Here's the thing: I have an affinity towards my parents homeland but if I ran for president, reached as far as any of the GOP candidates have so far, my loyalty and citizenship would receive little to no vetting. (Well, according to poster who I quoted I would questioned since Jindal was listed, even though Jindal was born the US and has been in the US since his birth.) If I supported amnesty that would be rather traitorous, but "All American" Jeb Bush does and he passed the 'natural born' criteria with flying colors. His wife is Latino, now will the birthers say that everyone must have a spouse that is American born - naturally - and must be of second generation if they're non-white?

I see this whole birther thing the same way I see people saying "Not conservative enough" (and a good number are Trump fans -- maybe these groups overlap?): ridiculous and is a fine example of idiocy.

If I had it my way, I'd clarify on citizenship for eligibility for POTUS on two grounds:

(1) *naturally born and raised in the US or
(2) naturalized citizen

* By at least one US citizen or by legally immigrated residents

I'd eliminate citizenship for babies born to an American parent on a military base and apply (2) to them.This would go against the Nationality Act of 1940.

It's that simple.

The whole 'natural born' is outdated since The Founding Fathers feared that someone would have dual loyalty to another country (as I previously mentioned, England). Given the circumstances they were under it makes sense since the US was a newly formed country. They needed players who'd only play for their team - Team USA.

But let's go back to Obama. Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His mother is an American and his father is clearly from Africa without any loyalty to the US or to his wife (sorry, Mama Obama, your heart and loins created a traitor, and should've kept your legs closed). He's cleared to become POTUS. He's nominated and carries out his presidency in the way that is now known. It's still a lose lose situation.

This is why "country loyalty" when backed by "natural citizen" is rather shaky. It does not guarantee anything. This is where the eyes, the ears and minds of the American people should be the vetting machine; the constituents should be ones who decide on whether or not the candidate has the country's interest in mind. Of course, a morally sound and self-educated populace is the ideal.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

- President John Adams, 1798

And let's  not forget journalism - this is were MSM should also do its job and vet each candidate's policies and their character.

In short, this is my views of the 'natural born' criteria:

It's an outdated concept, though the meaning behind it still is important. Loyalty to America should be seen through actions and words -- not whether if ones parents are citizens of the US at the time of birth with you being born in the US. We have American who perfectly fits the 'natural born' criteria who hates what the country stands for and would love to move to France, Brazil or Sweden. If Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were disqualified then 2016 would be a Trump GOP nomination with G_d knows who as VP. Are you serious?

Is the 2nd Amendment outdated? Nope. Does the 14th Amendment, under the "equal protection" clause support same-sex "marriage"? Nope. At worst it's agnostic. At best the Found Fathers would laugh at the "evolution" of marriage.

In this rare moment, I will deem The Constitution as outdated.

What a bunch of obnoxious beings.

I've come across a handful of Yale SOM fanboys. And I can't stand them.

EDIT: To update the statements above, the conversation I had turned out to be rather illuminating in terms of how I view MBA holders from elite MBA programs. First, they're not nearly as smart as they think they are. Second, they really are followers. And third, they fit the douchebag stereotype to a 'T.' The schools that I slapped up against were Wharton, Yale SOM, Stanford and Harvard.

Show Your True Stripes.

The co-songwriter, Frank Sullivan, is suing Mike Huckabee for using "Eye of the Tiger" when introducing infamous Kim Davis.What's with these songwriters and musicians suing conservatives for using their songs?

According to the Reuters article -

The co-writer of 1980s hit "Eye of the Tiger" has filed a federal lawsuit against Republican Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign for playing the song at a rally for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign gay marriage licenses.

Frank Sullivan, a guitarist and founding member of the band Survivor, sued Huckabee for President for unauthorized public performance of the song. The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, claims the campaign infringed on Sullivan's copyright, which he holds through his publishing company, Rude Music.

Sullivan, who filed the suit in federal court in Illinois, where he lives, asked that Huckabee's campaign be prohibited from unauthorized performances of the song and asked a federal judge to determine damages.

The comment box is one entire gem and I believe Sullivan shares similar views. It's a strange lawsuit (I don't buy the "you didn't ask permission" card) since I can't remember a Democrat getting sued over this sort of thing. According to this CBS list, eight Republicans have been asked to stop using the songs they've played when they're introduced to a crowd. So you're telling me Republicans seem to fail to ask permission to use the original song and Democrats are on top of it? Gimme a break.

Scott Walker was told outright that he was hated by Dropkick Murphys due to his stance on unions.

It's become a staple of politics: a politician walks onstage to a song. Musician gets mad. The latest flare-up came when the punk band Dropkick Murphys instructed Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to "please stop using our music in any way," they tweeted, then added: "We literally hate you !!!"

Barack Obama was also told to stop using "Hold On, I'm Comin'", but the cease & desist was given in a very generous manner.  "Sam Moore of the duo asked the campaign to stop, saying that he hasn't endorsed a candidate although he found it "thrilling" a black man was running."

Who the heck is Charlie Crist? I don't know. Apparently ee's a Republican, who at the time of being sued, was running for the Republican Senate seat for Florida. A Republican? Well, sue him!

The music industry basically hates every Republican - it's a liberal, if not leftist, industry, so it comes to little surprise that they do not want their music to be played, let alone associated to people & a party they loathe for various reasons. Did the musicians who didn't want Rubio to play their song know anything about Rubio? I doubt it. How about Romney, besides that he was white religious man who made millions in business? Probably not. He was a Republican. That's all they needed to know to reject him.

Back in 2012, Fox News also noticed this bizarre bigotry. Yet Attorney Larry Isler states -

"I would say certainly in recent years, there's been a greater unlicensed use of songs by Republican candidates,” Iser, said. “The point that the musician is making is not about the [political] party. The position they're taking is: This is what we do for a living, we are protected by copyright, and if you're running for election, you need to respect the law. It just is a coincidence really, simple as that."

Iser stresses that when it comes to music and campaigns, artists and songwriters only want to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that they aren’t involuntary endorsers of candidates and campaign messages.

"If you're Jackson Browne or you're David Byrne or if you're Kid Rock, you have the right, just like you and I have, to choose to endorse somebody or not,” he continued. “When the song is used without permission, you've taken away the choice that the songwriter has to say 'yes' or say 'no.' Another reason, which is more fundamental, is that when you take somebody's song and use it without permission, then the songwriter and the singer, the performer, they don't get paid. People often forget that writing songs and performing them and selling records and actually licensing music for use in advertising, that's how these guys make a living. That’s how they put food on the table."

 Hiding behind "property rights," I see. As Joe Scarborough heatedly said that Republican anchors almost never held a major seat on any of the major news networks.

Liberalism & leftists aren't diverse. Conservatism is.

Here's an interesting article on American Thinker about the current slate of POTUS candidates for 2016.

The Republican presidential debate process makes clear the true diversity of conservatism.  When the left talks of "diversity," it means diversity of identity: blacks speaking for blacks, women speaking for women, Hispanics speaking for Hispanics.  But even here, the left is not diverse at all. 

Look at everyone who has been considered at one time or another during this campaign season to have been a serious potential candidate for the Democrat nomination: Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Kerry.  All four Democrats are very rich (Socialist Sanders is simply well off), and all five of these folks have spent their whole adult lives "working" in politics or law.  All five also live in the hothouse environment of the Beltway, where no one drills for oil or grows crops or builds trucks.

The contrast with the Republican field is stark.  At the last Republican debate, half of the candidates were women or members of minority groups.  Two of the eight were physicians; two of the eight were business executives; and five of the eight – Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Fiorina – came from very humble backgrounds.  These eight also live in places scattered around the nation – Florida, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia.

The real difference in diversity, however, is in the diversity of ideas and policies.  The rhetoric of Hillary and Bernie is virtually identical, and both are saying exactly the same things that the left was saying twenty years ago.  There is never any serious reflection that what has been tried and failed ought to be modified or even rejected.  The dull, gray, silly theories of socialism are still clung to reflexively by the left.

The author of the article goes on into the policies and how conservatism is the saving grace of American politics and the nation. Overall, a decent read that brings up valid points that "diversity" when talked about on the DNC/leftist side is only skin deep. As an ideology they're lock step.

New link added.

The College Fix.

This is a great site that keeps an eye on the leftist soaked, hallowed halls of higher education.

Curiosity shouldn't kill the cat.

I fail to see how being comfortable with dying suddenly makes atheism a rational proposition. I’d have to lose a lot more brain function than that to agree with atheism.

This quote I don't completely agree with. I see atheism as a somewhat reasonable position. Certainly many intelligent people through out history did not believe in God. I can understand why someone would not believe in God or why someone would question his existence - as a skeptic or agnostic. What I can't seem to grasp is the failure of people who do not really care on personally seeking if there is a divine. I'm a bit lost when someone says religion doesn't play a role in their life, as in "I don't really care." I can understand if someone was raised an atheist by non-believers or by the non-religious, that the concept of God is a strange if not absent aspect that had little to no role while growing up. It is the indifference towards seeking God - to either "disprove" or to discover the divine that's troubling. It reeks of intellectual laziness.

Whether there is a God or not is one of the fundamental questions in life that everyone should examine. The agnostics I can "get," but the apathetic people are the ones left to be slaughtered by modernism. It's fine to be agnostic after serious reflection; it's not fine to be apathetic. It's fine to not care about learning how fishes breath under water. It's fine to not care why leaves change colors when a new season enters. It's fine to not care about learning the stock market. But like any reasonable adult, curiosity and the hunger for knowledge - the hunger "to know" and "to learn" - should be present in a certain amount.

So when it comes to God, pick a side. Read. Research. Vet your sources. Write. Debate. But don't be apathetic. 

At least she's cute.

On the bright side she can say she was on national television and has "student organizer" on her resume for One Million March. She can also say to her grandkids, if she even decides to have kids, that during her college years she was part of an "exciting" time where she fought for "equality" and "fairness."

 Here's a gem of a comment -

"Fuck you Neil Cavuto - and fuck all you idiots who don't get it - it's simple - the system is rigged and we're sick of it."

I suppose the person who made this comment is under serious educational debt.

And another -

Person A: "Fox news propaganda at it's finest! They are really good at misleading their base."
Person B:  "Liberalism at its dumbest."
Person A: "Its not because liberalism is too nuanced for you to understand that makes it dumb. But I see  where your coming from."

You heard it here, liberalism is too nuanced for troglodytes. 

Another poster said that since he couldn't find information on One Million March and on Keely Mullen, the students, that the movement and "Keely" was all "fake." He said that Fox News (not Fox Business News) was trying to intentionally paint those who dedicated their lives advocating for free education, higher minimum wages and free health care in a bad light. That's a lot of effort if it were even slightly true. He also said that Fox News had a past on making fake stories up. 

How could you NOT believe!

If you don't believe that racism/sexism/rape happens on a daily basis on college campuses, or even daily on a single campus, and if you deny that such incidents are growing, then that's the same as denying anthropological global warming. Poster "robinhoodOO7" mentioned "isolated events" - by this he means Yale's Halloween Costume Chaos.  

"Lacykat66" misread his post and thought he was referring to campus rape and racism incidents. Way to go, Lacy, you reveal how a SJW's mind, filled with stupidity, works.  

Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean.

Sort of like same-sex partners seeking out services that do not accept requests for same-sex ceremonies, there's little doubt that Perez Hilton sought to put 2009 Miss America runner-up Carrie Prejean on the spot when asking if she supported same-sex "marriage." She didn't, all hell broke loose and add in her leaked "sex" tape Hilton and same-sex "marriage" supporters gleefully burned her at the stake - or at least made her into a national mockery.

But hey, Prejean is now married - real marriage (hopefully it'll last) - with the potential of having babies, which Hilton and all same-sex partnerships can't accomplish unless a third party is involved. At least all the same-sex partners have their bizarre "wedding" photos and that ring on their finger! Sort of how Dave Rubin desperately proclaimed on the Steve Crowder show, "I'm married!" (not really) with pictures of his partner in the background.

Homosexuals are desperate. They're desperate for approval.

New link added.

It's called askthebigot.com.

Like Robert Oscar Lopez, the writer - Katy - was raised in a household with two parents of the same sex -- that were in an intimate relationship. Like Lopez she does not support same-sex adoption. And like Lopez, she - and a very telling way - has been threatened and cyber stalked by actual homosexuals.

I want to drive more traffic to her site because I believe it's a place that's worth visiting, reading and knowing the side that opposes children to being raised in same-sex households that were actually in that very same situation.

The "telling" which I mentioned is that her site wasn't really well-known to the traditional family crowd or even to the pro-equality BS crowd. It's my hunch that the LGBT Gestapo, with their tentacles deep in the pockets of lobbyists and education, have scoured the internet for sites that oppose their view. Now, these sites can't be the run-of-the-mill sites (like mine, I admit), but those that (1) are strongly known in the conservative blogosphere and (2) have writers that can potentially damage the narrative of "Gay Is Good" and "Nothing To See Here." That's why National Review, Breitbart, American Thinker and Daily Caller have so many assholes from the modern leftist side posting.

Katy has mentioned that a homosexual from Spain (?) found about her site and threatened to reveal her personal information - her real name, her home address and where her husband worked. Eventually her information was leaked. People who do this are unbalanced, seek revenge and have vitriol in their hearts. If this isn't evidence that same-sex attraction isn't 'normal' then I don't know what is.

So, please, visit Katy's site. Read the posts. And read the combox section. I guarantee that the crazy, narrow-minded side will be those who support same-sex "marriage" and adoption. Oh, and many of the crazy, narrow-minded side are homosexuals. Talk about desperation.

Khitchary & Andy sitting in a tree.

Warning: Foul language ahead.

Even though same-sex "marriage" has been legalized (I will forever remember June 26, 2015 but not for good reasons) and the decision most likely will forever be in "the books"as a "right," that all the sane, normal people have to deal with the bullshit that is same-sex "marriage," the supporters are still a bunch of indignant cunts. And the supports think the oppositions are cunts. Fair enough.

Take for instance posters like Khitchary and Andy.

It's safe to conclude that Khitchary is just a dumb person. Andy's character is revealed when he admits that even if studies revealed that children in households led by same-sex parents showed to be worse off than children in a household led by opposite sex parents he'd still vote for "their right" to adopt. Let alone his questioning of what is "traditional", because ya know, "traditional" according to Andy is just a vague word with little meaning aka same-sex parenting is nowhere to be found when one thinks of "traditional family" therefore the word and concept should be rendered near meaningless.

Don't worry, "love" may have "won" and "equality" may have been achieved, but your side still has shitty arguments.

#Lunacy

The oxygen in safe spaces has caused you to go full-retard. Students across the nation have marched in support of Mizzou's and Yale's racial "crisis" while attaching movements like "free tuition."

Even though I'm irritated by the arrogance that resides in the hearts of all those that participated, I can't but admire their cleverness to bandwagon the current racial tension.

#MillionStudentMarch will be a day of local actions all across the country to show support for tuition-free public college, a cancellation of all student debt, and a $15 minimum wage for all campus workers. Each action will be a march followed by a rally.

Never go full-retard.

Someone said this about #MillionStudentMarch, "You see why now Hillary is going to win…… its the entitlement generation that is ruining America and their ranks continue to grow."

This is a huge gain for HRC and Bernie Sander if they were struggling to find traction. Every thing the movement wants Clinton and Sanders promise. Let's list 'em: Free tuition ("Hey, Europe does it, why not the US?"). No student debt ("Capitalism just doesn't work!"). Rise of the minimum wage ("It's inhumane to pay so low!"). 

There's one demographic that the GOP will never win over: The college students. It's not because the student know any better or see what the GOP really is, it's just that The Left have taken over college campuses. The college campus is their church; the professors & administrators are their priests. Obama is the pope that will be "replaced" in November of next year. Who will be the next pope for The Left, Clinton or Sanders?

I will call it before it even happens - I don't believe the GOP will win the 2016 POTUS race. The momentum is too strong for the DNC and The Left - culturally. I don't think it'll be a blowout, though. I have Hilary beating out Sanders for the DNC nomination and later defeating whoever the GOP nominee is.That's three terms of Democratic power in office. I know the Reagan Administration and Bush H.W. Administration counted three for the Republicans, but that seems like it really had no stronghold on the nation. The Left took over academia, entertainment and journalism. They now control the courts. This POTUS race will be defining in that it will dictate how the economy in the US is reformed, the further irrelevancy of how religion plays into the lives of the country's citizens, and how the GOP will further slip down the path of irrelevancy due their inability to actually accomplish something when they do win elections. 

Lights out, America. And shame on you conservatives over 35 for failing to fight. Shame on you.
 

Put down what you're drinking. Swallow what's in your mouth.

I don't want you to spit it all over your monitor and keyboard.

Now read this -

Just another form of control and teaching of hate brought to you by the organized religions. This is exactly why I left the Catholic faith before the rush to get out and swore never again join any religious group be it Baptist, Jehova witness , Luthern etc. They to me are all cults designed to brain wash and teach hate in the name of the lord. My Lord and God taught forgiveness and tollerance and told me he is the sole judge.

This was in response to The Church of Latter-Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormonism, currently deciding to accept children of same-sex partnerships into their organiztion.

According to this poster Catholicism is a cult alongside all organized religion. Well, I can't wait to dabble in unorganized religion. I heard it's simple stupendous and without corruption, neither is it brainwashing nor is it filled with hate. Except hate for organized religion and the brainwashing that all organized religion is a cult. I would attribute the personal corruption which is brought forth by pride as well.

Whoops. We got a smart-cookie in our midst. 

No Whites. Anti-White?

Mizzou blacks segregates itself from their white activists brethren.

This is comedy gold.
 
The ConcernedStudent1950 activist group do not need their "white allies" right now. Maybe later.

"I stand by my blacks! I stand against racism! Let's all lock arms together!"
"Yea, uh, we appreciate your solidarity, but you gotta leave."

It's All Good: We Spit On You

William Buckley Jr. Program, a Yale student organization dedicated to conservative ideals, invited the President of FIRE (a college free speech advocacy group) to talk at the university. As with most talks done by conservative speakers, there's at least one audience member whose ears and tape recorder are peeled to catch any controversial statement. The audience member sort of succeeded this time.

“Looking at the reaction to [Silliman College Associate Master] Erika Christakis’ email, you would have thought someone wiped out an entire Indian village,” Lukianoff said, according to Gian-Paul Bergeron ’17, who was present at the event and posted the quotation online just after 4 p.m. According to seven other attendees interviewed, the remark was followed by laughter in the crowd, although students present gave different accounts of how many audience members laughed. Lukianoff is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit organization committed to defending individual rights on American college campuses. In addition to speaking at the Buckley conference, Lukianoff was also a guest at a Silliman College Master’s Tea Thursday evening about the importance of free speech on college campuses. He is the author of “Coddling of the American Mind,” an article in The Atlantic that Erika Christakis tweeted last week in response to criticism of her Oct. 30 email defending students’ rights to wear costumes that might be deemed culturally appropriative.

Once this "controversial" statement went viral students at Yale did as they did when they were offended by Yale professor Nicholas Christakis' email concerning the free speech - or non censorship - of objectionable Halloween costumes, and the (probably false) allegations towards SAE fraternity of racism: They acted like passionate idiots young adults who proved once again they have no clue about the world are willing to stand up against social injustice.

Before the comment was made, Edward Columbia ’18 — a white male who did not register for the event — walked into the room and began putting up signs along the front of the room  which read “Stand with your sisters of color. Now, here. Always, everywhere,” according to Columbia and Bergeron. They both said a security guard asked Columbia to leave because he was not registered and because he was putting up posters, but he refused to do so. Shortly after, Lukianoff made the comment about the Indian village, and Columbia shouted at Lukianoff and asked him why he thought it was funny, according to Columbia.

Mr. Columbia, feeling very self-righteous, enters a conference to protest when he isn't even registered. Because social justice and then shouts (it seems like if you're offended shouting without waiting your turn is the default choice) at the speaker because he's offended.

(Edward Columbia, a freshmen, according to his Yale athletic bio took a gap year to study theater before coming to the university. He has something in common with Jonathan Butler and Jerelyn Luther: Privilege).

While Columbia resisted, the guard dragged him outside of the room, where he was pinned down and handcuffed before being taken to a squad car, Columbia said. Both Bergeron and Columbia said the officer used an appropriate amount of force. Columbia was given a citation, which he called “a mere slap on the wrist,” and said he will appear in court, though he declined to specify when this will happen.

“I couldn’t let the joke go. It was too f—ed up,” Columbia said. “All of the officers treated me well, and I feel bad for putting a security officer who was just doing his job in a position where he had to drag me out. But I also wonder whether I would have been released so quickly … if I weren’t a white male.”

Some Buckley fellows present at the event gave a slightly different account. They said they were not bothered when Columbia put up signs and only asked him to leave when he interrupted and shouted at the speaker. The signs were taken down after Columbia’s removal.

How is "“Looking at the reaction to [Silliman College Associate Master] Erika Christakis’ email, you would have thought someone wiped out an entire Indian village," 'fucked up'? It's not. Maybe a but insensitive but not 'fucked up.' What's fucked up is Columbia's reaction and all those that feel the same way - they think any comment about race when it's not talked about in the context of injustice is "offensive" and 'fucked up.'

 Lukianoff;s Indian village comment quickly found its way to 'Overheard At Yale' Facebook page (a gossip/'did-you-hear-what-so-and-so-said?' interest) and was read by a Yale Native American student, which inspired her and several students of color to gather outside the conference room and protest.

The situation escalated when Young [Buckley Program President] and another attendee left the room where the conference was taking place to offer food to the protestors in the hallway. Students demanded that a representative from the protesters be allowed to join the conference and voice their views. But one attendee engaged with the protesters, stating that unregistered students were not allowed into the room and adding that speakers within the conference were entitled to their views as well. The standoff quickly became confrontational, with speakers on both sides raising their voices. Young said he did not stay to address the protesters because he was busy organizing the event. He stressed that the protesters were not allowed into the event because they had not registered.

“I will share the University’s policy on free speech,” Dean of Student Engagement Burgwell Howard, who arrived near the end of the conference, told the crowd. “You have a right to free expression, and so do the people inside. As long as there’s a clear path [to allow attendees to leave the conference] you can hold up your signs.”

Howard reminded the student protesters that any attempt at blocking the attendees’ departure would risk arrest, which the students acknowledged.

Around 5:45 p.m., as attendees began to leave the conference, students outside chanted the phrase “Genocide is not a joke” and held up written signs of the same words. Taking Howard’s reminder into account, protesters formed a clear path through which attendants could leave. A large group of students eventually gathered outside of the building on High Street. According to Buckley fellows present during the conference, several attendees were spat on as they left. One Buckley fellow said he was spat on and called a racist. Another, who is a minority himself, said he has been labeled a “traitor” by several fellow minority students. Both asked to remain anonymous because they were afraid of attracting backlash.

Mitchell Rose Bear Don’t Walk ’16, a Native American student and one of the leaders of the protest, said she has spoken to the fellow who said he was spat on. She emphasized that spitting is “disgraceful” and not the message the protestors were looking to convey, but she confirmed that it did happen.

“The spitting happened,” she told the News Sunday night. “Our movement is founded in the idea that all people’s voices should be heard. We cannot maintain the integrity of this message whilst questioning or silencing other accounts.”

Well, if you can chant in protest I don't see how spitting in a fine alternative. It's clear that the student protesters could not block the pathway of exit and no one said they could not chant, so resulting to spitting and saying that they couldn't "maintain the integrity of this message whilst questioning or silencing other accounts" is just pure bullshit.

An emotional rally soon followed as the last attendees emerged from LC and left the conference. Bullhorn in hand, Bear Don’t Walk shared her anger with the crowd, which had grown in size, about the comment made at the Buckley event. She expressed despair that this comment came on the heels of discussions about racial issues on campus.

“About an hour ago, we were sitting at the Native American Cultural Center and we were talking. We said today was one of the only days we felt okay on this campus,” Bear Don’t Walk told the crowd. “Then we looked at our Facebook feed and we saw this message about what someone at this freedom of speech conference said. But we rallied and we gathered here to tell them that this is not okay.”

Ending on the chant “We out here, we’ve been here, we ain’t leaving, we are loved” — a phrase that was also used during Thursday’s gatherings on Cross Campus with Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway — protesters soon dispersed. Before leaving, protesters left their signs along the building’s walkway.

Buckley Fellows interviewed said the Facebook post misrepresented what occurred during the conference. Connor Wood ’19 said while there was laughter following Lukianoff’s comment, many attendees were made uncomfortable by the statement. Gabriel Ozuna ’15 added that most audience members were Yale alumni and donors who were not fully aware of the past week’s racially charged events.

“Although I think the protesters misinterpreted the ‘Overheard at Yale’ post, I think the protest is a good sign of healthy debate and free speech at Yale,” Woods said.

They were uncomfortable about it because they were sure that another Yale bitch fest was going to happen, not because it was a racist joke. And that bitch fest happened.

Also, what's with every controversial statement about race, sex and sexuality, when things have calmed a bit after the initial anger, needing to have a "healthy debate" or "open dialogue" as the silver lining? There's nothing to really debate about. Lukianoff's statement was a joke. I'm not even white and I immediately caught it. The man was mocking the anger over Christakis' email to an actual horrid event: The genocide of a group of people. He did this because you would think a few Yale students were hanged in one of Yale's courtyards from the reaction. You can debate that the joke was ill-advised but this shit storm was the true thing that was uncalled for.

#YaleFail 

My eye on Yale.

I've decided a couple of months ago that an MBA might actually help my career & personal goals. The recent student bitch fest is making me hesitant to even apply to Yale SOM.

I'm starting to think the students at Yale aren't nearly as smart as they, their parents and the institution's administration believe to be. It just feels Yale's a poser of enlightenment and brilliance. The vibe is of regression. Honestly, I'm not even impressed with most Yale alumni I've come across - in fact, I was turned off by them and it made me question the quality of the student body not it terms if they can test well on an entrance exam or their book smarts, but their ability practice critical thinking and their maturation to surrender to humility. There's almost zero humility in what I've witnessed.

The saving grace is that Yale College and its graduate programs tend to keep to themselves, so if I ever do apply, am accepted and attend I'd mostly avoid the arrogant know-it-alls in the College for the most part due to the segregation of the programs. The flip-side is that it's an MBA, and the top MBA programs - so I heard - tend to have its own arrogant students. 

"But it's Yale!"

It is, but given some reflection and the recent pathetic chaos - So What. The Yale brand is shield against criticism and that's what I detest in the institution's dealing of its child-like tantrum among the student body.

Below is a parody done by a handful of Harvard undergraduates that poke at Yale students and what they say about their institution. It's mostly harmless stuff and plays off the (friendly) rivalry between each institution.

Given the recent events at Yale I think the video should updated to include Shrieking Girl. The great irony of this video is at the 3:59 mark. Does the man in the blue oxford shirt look familiar? That's professor Nicholas Christakis who almost became a sacrificial lamb because he dared to allow un-PC costumes to be worn on Halloween at, you guessed, Yale. He was a Harvard professor during the time of this video. 

Voting patterns: Catholic immigration is the "enemy."

I presume that poster "orson" is a non-Catholic or maybe is fallen away, or he's a Christian but non-denominational. I'll throw in the possibility he's a non-believer even. This type of conservative who is suspicious of Catholicism to a degree that "Catholicism is the enemy" is probably the most frustrating of the conservative type that I've come across, especially on sites like American Thinker. His issue with Pope Francis is understandable, but it's been a common characteristic of anti-Catholics on The Right to constantly bring up the religious figure to prove that the entire denomination has gone sour. He writes -

America can accept immigrants, of course. However, we face the largest tidal wave in history.
We the need them to spend time here, so that their offspring can learn American political and cultural values.

While it worked in the past, can it work with Marxist, American-hating teachers and profs today? Of course not.

About 10 years ago, those under 30 embraced American Exceptionalism by a healthy 70%. Today, that figure is around 50%.

American liberty will only survive via ‘time out’ on immigration and new citizenship. Followed by a revolution to undermine the corrupt educrat establishment.

A buddy of mine argues that the enemy of liberty is Catholic immigration. Look at California, Maryland, Massachusettes – all states with the highest percentage of Catholics…. And places most welcoming to socialism.

The reason? Probably the doctrine of Original Sin, which leads them to distrust other people, thus requiring FORCE of STATE to succor altruistic performance. People cannot be trusted to choose on their own, for them.

By contrast, Gordon Wood’s short history of the American Revolution points out that the Founders famous Deism and wide Renaissance reading were impossible for the common man to replicate. So, how were they moved to join the Revolution?

Because their pastors were imbued with the value of radical Protestantism – self-ownership, direct relationship with God, covenantal obligation and self-responsibility – all values missing from immigrants whose Latin culture produced the first Commie Pope in Francis.

Official statistics offer this exception to the rule – Nebraska!

It is also very high in percentage of Catholics, and yet is a loyalist to Republican right. Why? I’ve long puzzled over this genuine outlier.

Until I realized that this was a classic proof of early versus later immigration: Nebraska Catholics are dominated by German arrivals from late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Thier second and third generations became American by acculturation, and thus more conservative, unlike later arriving Catholics, eg, most obviously California.

What about Texas? Well, I’ve not got an answer for that, yet. Except that Mexican Catholics there both came earlier and long ago (pre-statehood), as well as more recently. And the answer probably lies somewhere in this division among migrants there.

He does have a point when it comes to Catholic immigrants who vote (D) because they've been told or even truly believe that (D)s are "for the middle class." These are low information voters. But then again so are many young teenager who could vote if of legal age would lean left. Another large demographic that votes (D) when it comes to social issues are college students.

Another poster, "snopercod," followed up -

Excellent post. I never thought much about the Catholic factor, but it makes sense. My late grandmother was soft spoken and never talked about politics. She did take me aside once and warn me about Catholics, though. She didn’t elaborate so I pretty much put it out of my mind.

 Maybe dear old grandma didn't understand Catholicism and she was of the Protestant bent, if she was anyway religious that is.

I agree with many things on the right but their evaluation of the Catholic Church is like I stepped into paranoia land. Basically everything is threatening America except, well, themselves.

"Michael Adams" entered the discussion and put a more reasonable perspective forth, yet he made crystal clear he wasn't a part of Catholicism -

Orson, I skipped down past your comments re:Roman Catholic immigrants, so some one may have covered this, but, Mexico is only about one third Roman Catholic. There are tons of Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Also, Texas has had a Mexican Baptist tradition for about a century. OTOH, Mexico has had a very authoritarian government for nearly a century, too, and that has a definite, strong influence on how Mexican immigrants and even second generation Mexican-Americans see things. AND, of course, importing poor and unskilled people is guaranteed to make them gravitate to the candidates who offer the most goodies.

BTW, I am most assuredly NOT a member of that denomination.

 Why the determined clarification, Adams?

Are these posters even Catholics? Maybe they view Catholicism as some Catholics view the Seventh Day Adventists: Sort of like a cult. Maybe they just think Catholicism is "big religion." Whatever the reason I can assuredly say they have a skewed vision of Catholicism; it's no doubt anti-Catholic in nature. It's not "disagree" it's "be weary of them." You'd think Catholics are extreme Muslims, or that Catholic immigrants are Middle Eastern immigrants flooding Europe. 

Catholicism are the like Jews of the world when it comes to religion. If it were a nation it would be Israel.

EDIT: "Orson" is an atheist.  In his words, "One fervently prays for it (and I’m an atheist)."

GOP #4 Debate: Fox Business Network

John Kasich is a smart man. Kasich is an experienced politician and is a positive asset to the Republicans. He's also a "time" theft interjecting in almost every question focused on another candidate.

People tweeted #GoHomeDeRay for not wanting any violence when it came to protests against brutal and questionable police actions because they didn't want encouraged violence. In this case people should start tweeting #GoHomeKasich for the debate to not turn into Late Night With Kasich.

EDIT: A point for Kasich for saying that being for free markets is a great thing but such a system, or any economic system, needs a sound moral foundation when practiced by humans - it needs values. 

I blame the professors and the parents.

There's something extraordinarily pathetic that is going on US university campuses nationwide. I'm speaking of the moronic tantrums that have occurred at the University of Missouri and Yale University. Each have to do with race.

At MU charges of racism - without any evidence - have angered a small group of (black) students which transitioned into 30 black athletes of the university's football team to boycott playing until the university president resigned  - which he did. Someone supposedly yelled the n-word at a group of black students on campus and drew a swastika made of feces in a bathroom. These incidents were brought to the attention of the president and he issued a statemnet for "further investigation" but that wasn't enough. Due to his "lack of action" a student staged a hunger strike and few others took notice and created the chaos that is currently happening. It doesn't help that several Missouri politicians have supported the resignation of this president. The language used to support this activism? "Healing," "family," "safe space," "inclusiveness" etc. It all sounds very communal. Of course Michael Sam made a cameo stating that "gay or straight" can fully back this type of activism.

Currently the football team has a losing season.

At Yale University, one of the most renowned and coveted institutions for higher learning, students at the residential college, Silliman College, are angered over an email of their House Master wrote, and his wife - the Associate Master - who supported, defending controversial Halloween costumes in the name of free speech and personal maturation. Her husband, who is a professor of sociology at the university, never said that he agreed with controversial costumes (e.g. black face, fake dreads) but clearly stated that the university should not control what the students wore on Halloween night; it was a form of censorship and that the university's way of combating controversial costume, though thoughtful and had the psychological well-being of the students in mind, was a poor attempt. He opted for the freedom to wear costumes that might make people offended, and with this offense would strike up a conversation between the wearer and the offended - face to face. It's confrontation in a civil manner that, with hope, each party would learn the other side's thoughts to become more aware of their mistake. The students of Silliman College were not pleased.

The Assoicate Master offered Sunday lunch to the offended with discussion but they declined. Instead DOWN (magazine for black Yale students) issued a petition, rather long winded, on how Silliman's House Master was out of line and how it invalidated Yale's minorities. The petition garnered over 740 signatures of current students, alumni and other students from various universities. The House Master's husband was willing enough to have a public talk in the college's courtyard. Bad move. The students surrounded him, arms crossed, and demanded an apology to the students he offended. One student said that if he were not to apology she'd leave; another urged the crowd to walk away and that the House Master did not deserve their time; an enraged student dropped her backpack, got into his face and said that he was unsuitable to be House Master due to him not creating a "home" for current Yale students - that his actions were urging several current Yale students to transfer.

Welcome to Yale.

MSM is trying super-duper hard.

The media doesn't like Ben Carson. There's many: Seth Rogen, to a couple of pop/on-line journalists giving Carson a big middle finger, to academia - funny enough, all have been from the social sciences, to networks trying to rip the surgeon over pyramids and whether or not he was actually given a full-ride to West Point (at least it wasn't affirmative action like Obama when it came to Columbia & Harvard).

I couldn't care less about on what he thought about the pyramids. The man's a surgeon, that's his specialty. How many people in such niche fields that needs dedications practically 24/7 seven days out of the week know what the pyramids were built for? Heck, I can't even remember and I was a big Egyptian history nerd in my grade school days. If you ask me upfront I'd shrug my shoulders and say, "They're used mainly as a burial chamber?"

The West Point tabloid like phenomenon, though more juicy that the aforementioned gossip, is still hand full of sand. Once you're admitted to West Point there's no tuition to be paid. Technically Carson did not lie; he just wasn't precise with his words and thoughts like he is with a knife while in surgery. It's unfortunate and he should've clarified for his own sake, but the media's laughable obsession of it is telling. They aren't obsessed with Hilary's emails. They're obsessed with framing Carson into a liar. To them Carson should be vetted like a suspect under a swinging ceiling lamp as he is questioned by the investigator. Too bad they got the wrong suspect: They let Hilary get away.

Capitalism is oppressive, says Thinking Housewife.

Thinking Housewife appeals that a capitalistic monopoly hoards money that might, if given a supposed better and equal economic system, provide "the basics" (whatever that means) to every human. Hmmm. This sounds familiar. It sounds like all the international do-gooders who think that if America wasn't so greedy that all the starving African children wouldn't be starving.

Let's see how deep she goes into delusion in response to another comment on her post -

Thank you for writing.

Note the hypocrisy of The New York Times article on the stressed family. The Times promotes and glorifies stress all the time. And then it turns around and tears our hearts out by parading the wreckage before our eyes. If it didn’t have these occasional pieces bemoaning the demolition of the family, more people would see it for what it is — a propaganda arm of centralized money power. 

You write:

 Society now lives in denial about the real decline in wages because it has turned to abusing credit in order to have all these things.

Exactly.

We live in an economy ruled by debt money and economic cartels. What do you see all around you? Monopolistic cartels in every field. And the invisible hand of centralized power. In every area of life. And we’re supposed to believe this is “free markets?” Gimme a break. We live in the Total Work Society caused by pervasive, invisible debt and institutionalized, concentrated greed. Even people without jobs are working, engaged in the consuming task of finding jobs that are not there in a world which is competitive and anxious because there is always a sense that there is not enough. A society without leisure, choked by a “web of debt,” is enslaved. 

Full employment is not a realistic goal in an industrialized world. But ample money is a realistic goal. Everyone deserves the basics. Everyone deserves the basics by virtue of being a human being, not by virtue of being a human dynamo. And there is enough to go around, contrary to what we are taught to believe. An economy founded on usury does not provide enough and is inhuman. Our monetary system depends on the creation of constant, dizzying growth to pay off debt, mindless consumerism and the centralization of economic power. Families are experiencing stress by design. Capitalism is oppressive. 

There is hope. In economies that offer interest-free credit, such as those proposed by the Social Credit movement, there are ideals to embrace. See many great, informative articles on Social Credit here. These offer serious systemic solutions for the binds families are in today, not that any of it could be brought about easily or that economics is all. 

The blinding rhetoric of Capitalism vs. Communism is losing its power. Neither represents economic democracy. Usury, the blogger Anthony Migchels writes, is “pure murder.”

It has nothing to do with ‘oh, it’s so honest, so reasonable, that 5% per year’. Look at how complete nations are gutted to pay off some filthy rich trillionaires.

Billions of people live in desperate destitution because of Usury, dying prematurely, completely unnecessarily. People commit suicide, haunted to the grave by creditors. It tears families apart in financial stress. By the millions. Throughout the West. The World. It is purely genocidal, there really is no way to get around it.

And we have built our entire economy on this horrid plunder. On this monstrous sin!

When will we again see the simple truth as the ancients always did?

Banking is simply institutionalized Usury. Capitalism is simply Banking.

The two rose to prominence together in Amsterdam, London and New York. The whole Capitalist monopoly has been bought with the proceeds of compound interest lending. They are emasculating the West with interest on the debt. The Banks openly try to endebt us to the point where all our income is sucked up by debt service! Years of deflation have made our debts weigh even much heavier in real terms. 

Look how the tumors of ‘the financial sector’ are metastasizing, with their ‘bonusses’, ‘derivatives’, LIBOR manipulation, asset bubbles, defaults, bribing politicians, evictions and repossessions, Gold manipulation, media power, globalism, bail outs, bail ins, fomenting of wars. It is all an outgrowth of the cancer of Usury.

We are already thoroughly enslaved through Usury, it’s not a doom scenario, it is the way we live!

In the aftermath of Usury prohibition in the medieval era, around the time of Luther, the main argument for allowing Usury was that without it people wouldn’t lend. And lending was necessary for the economy, the rationale went. There was (at least perceived) a scarcity of credit.

But today we can provide all the interest-free credit we will ever need at zero cost. In several ways!

The ‘time value’ rationale that Jesuits in Salamanca cooked up in the 16th century has been totally discredited and is irrelevant in a decent monetary system. 

Notwithstanding credit and money scarcity, the medieval man worked only 15 weeks to feed his entire family in the Usury free economy. Bones found in England show that people there only achieved the same height as the late medieval Briton in the sixties of last century. 

Compare that to the sweatshops of the 19th century, the heyday of Capitalist domination over Labor.

Imagine what our life would look like without Usury, and with plenty of dirt cheap credit  plus today’s technology!

 I want to single out this part:

Everyone deserves the basics. Everyone deserves the basics by virtue of being a human being, not by virtue of being a human dynamo. And there is enough to go around, contrary to what we are taught to believe.

What is considered "the basics"? A roof over ones head? Food on the table - three meals a day plus an afternoon snack? Healthcare? A car? Decent clothing for every occasion? A job that provides contraception? A job, if you are working in retail or food services, that provides a living minimum-wage?

Contraception was deemed a "basic" healthcare requirement by those who wanted it in their healthcare plan, if not freely provided. I highly doubt Thinking Housewife would agree with that.

You know what else was brought to national attention and deemed a "basic" - actually a "right" - by sheer proselytizing of so-called dignity aka virtue of being a human being? Same-sex "marriage" and adoption.

At least with the above two cases so-called "basics" were crystal clear; you knew what the supporters wanted. But with Thinking Housewife and her major beef with capitalism? Vague as can be. Maybe she means being debt free? Possibly. Then again, if you aren't deep in credit debt, the only debt I can see one struggling with is academic loans and medical debt.

Luckily, my parents were extraordinary with their money and my sibling and I graduated our undergraduate years with zero debt. My father is amazing when it comes to budgeting. If there's one thing Americans are horrid at, and I mean horrid, is budgeting. They purchase houses and cars they know they cannot comfortably pay off. They go into six figure debt for undergraduate work. They consume merchandise they don't even need or barely use - this isn't a "treat" after a year's hard work or spending a bonus - no. This is buying a brad new car when a used one from a reputable dealer does just fine, looks just fine and feels just fine once you're in it. This is yearly Disney vacations with the kids. Why not a regional road trip? Medical debt was never a reality. 99% of the surgeries my family had were mostly covered by their health insurance via job. If it didn't cover all of it the balance was doable where our budgeting skills saved the day. We never dived into our retirement savings to pay for a anything medical - we have an account for general savings which was used. My parents mortgage was also never crippling. They now just hate paying their property tax (as does everyone who pays attention to such things).

Many of the ailments caused by debt can be less harmful based on several factors.

(1) A decent job. My mother is a nurse and my father was an accountant. McDonald's won't provide the health insurance that private practice or a state run hospital does.

(2) A wanted skillet. Both my parents have a skill set that is always needed in a functioning society.

(3) Be debt averse. To use my parents as an example again: They see debt as one of the worse things a person can get himself into. If they can minimize the debt, all the better. If they can go without it while still getting what they want, or opting for a fine alternative - the ideal.

(4) Budget for almost everything.

(5) Spending restraint. This isn't necessarily the same as budgeting. Budgeting implies that you have saved money for certain items and expenses. By "spending restraint" I mean not buying shoes that cost $150 when you need that money for your monthly groceries or phone/internet bill. It means not buying a $1000 suit when the suits in your closet do just fine - there is no real need to by that suit. It means forgoing vacation and instead spending that time exploring your own city or metro area. It means creating homemade meals - breakfast, lunch, dinner and snack - six out of the seven days and just going out to Sunday brunch once a month.

In other words my parents in many ways hoard their money to themselves, they save and they don't spend full-price when buying almost anything - be it groceries, a car, clothes and vacations. They aren't "charge it" trigger happy. Cash is always in their wallet.

I'll give Thinking Housewife credit for bringing up usury and the phenomenon that is excessive consumerism. The rest? Please move to Sweden if you think capitalism is "oppressive." I guarantee you'll be happy there. If one isn't complaining on how backwards America is in terms of healthcare providing, socially and transportation wise, they're complaining on how capitalism is oppressive. I guess Thinking Housewife has something in common with modern leftists.

You have sexual standards? Too bad.

People have lives of their own. They have lives without you. They had lives before you came along into theirs. No one belongs to you. The world does not revolve around you, get over it. Or don't, and don't be surprised if people don't apologize for being their own person and don't worship you above all else like you might think you should be.

and

Listen I don't know how old you are, but most adults have had multiple sexual partners. And that isn't a bad thing. If you get mad at your adult partner or take it personally when you learn she has had previous sexual encounters when she didn't know you, you're what we call a "child."

Not getting upset that your partner didn't predict the future and save herself just for you doesn't mean you don't give a sh** about her, it means you realize that she's a person. After all, I'm sure you (who knows) might eventually have multiple partners. When you move on when it inevitably doesn't work out the first couple times, it's not like you unbang those girls. Does having been with them suddenly make you undateable to every other girl? After all, they have standards, why would they want to be with someone who has had a sexual past with some other girls?

If you go into life looking for relationships, and are emotionally damaged by everyone that isn't a virgin for you, you're going to have a rough time out there champ.

Of course it's a bad thing. Why? It most definitely has formed their view on sex and sex practices. If they have any kids the advice that will be used will most likely be "Just use birth control, please." They don't want to deal with the natural consequences of sex. They're fine with their teenagers or young adult "kids" having sex but they're not fine with a possible baby due to sex.

And what's with this "she's a person" claptrap? Yea, she's "a person" but just because her significant other has issues, even minor issues, about his girlfriend's past sexual relationship does not, in anyway, mean he isn't seeing her as "a person." If we give into "da feelz" and be all "whatev, hon," then we help grow the indifference that pervades modern sexual norms.

Because "I'm a person."

Because "no one belongs to you." Then why the f_ck do people commit to a romantic relationship then? Why do people want to get married to their lover? Go tell that to all the elderly couples who have been married 30+ years. They'll say they belong to each other and no one else.

Thinking Housewife

I don't think she's an idiot despite a couple of questionable views or a racist (yet). She posts many things that interest me and she comes across as sharp. On the flip side, I think she can be a bit paranoid and somehow relishes seeking out news that give rust on Asians.

"Why do you think this way?" you might ask.

First off she and the regulars on her site are "9/11 Was An Inside Job" types.

Second, she seems to enjoy pointing out the less than admiral actions of Asians, whether in North America or abroad, always with the title "Model Minority: ... "

As an Asian I will say we are a model minority despite what other Asians say so and think. We don't have the incarceration rates of blacks. We achieve more academic success on average than whites. We tend to have sound homes when compared to other minorities in America. As a whole, Asians - when they aren't cheating on the SATs or making money on fake designer purposes, are the model minority that others should look at and Asians should strive for to achieve regardless if they don't want to enter law, medicine, academia or tech.

Being part of a minority that is deemed "The Model Minority" is a good thing, even if that stereotype doesn't fully live up to the fantasies of really white-washed Asians (these are the Asians that have contempt for this stereotype) and what a (white) woman thinks.

TH has her strengths, but she also has her weaknesses and those weaknesses are telling. It shows her (lack of) character and her strange biases. I mean, I'm not going to have posts talking about supposed white-trash living in Kentucky or Missouri to show that whites aren't the ideal despite the whole Western Civilization thing. 

Pro-choicers.

They hide under "women's reproductive health." They hide under "choice." They hide under "liberation." They hide under "gender equality."

Beware of these wolves. Beware of these liars. Beware of these fools.