Watch Out Israel!

If anyone really believed that the Palestinians wanted peace with Israel, the landslide win of Hamass in the Palestinian elections should be a wake-up call for anyone but a total idiot or Jew-hater.

I’m no psychic, but I think terrorism in Israel will double by the end of this year. Of course, there’ll be the usual cast of fools and simpletons who’ll claim that Israel should work with Hamass and will condemn Israel for responding to their attacks.

The only kind of "peace" Hamass wants with Israel is of the Rest In Pieces type.

Robot

The Tribulations of a Traitor

**********************************UPDATE*********************************************

Eddy was sentenced to two years probation and fined $2500. I sure her Red pals can come up with that easily.

In a letter to the Salinas Californian, she wrote a tirade of the like usually seen in the Peoples Daily World.

Are we at war or not? Why didn’t this traitor get time in prison? Her light sentence will only encourage this activity.
*************************************************************************************


In a past posting, I mentioned Monterey area, “peace” activist Macgregor Eddy and her calling for protestors to enter the Vandenberg Air Base to disrupt the operations there in the event of an attack on Iraq. Surprisingly, (not) the base barred her from the installation. Vandenberg is a launch site for missiles used in our missile defense system and is also a launch site for our intelligence-gathering satellites.

“Peace” activists like Eddy see our having such a capability as a crime against “peace” I see not having such weapons as a crime against victory, and against the U.S. Constitution as violating the “provide for the common defense” section.

It shouldn’t be news to anyone that “peace” activists will most always take positions against the best actions of our Country, such as opposing our having nuclear weapons, a missile defense system etc.

On 19 January, Eddy was arraigned in a federal Court in Santa Barbara for trespassing onto the base last October. It wasn’t her first time trespassing onto the base. Eddy claimed she was trying to make the base officers see that a “higher law was being violated”. Her hearing was attended by 40 or so of her anti-U.S. supporters. The case continues next February.

I don’t know what usually happens to these traitors, but in my opinion they should be shot. Vandenberg has allegedly issued shoot to kill orders for people who threaten the satellite systems. I think it’s time for them to start making that more than just a bluff.

Robot

Liberals, Are They Fully Human?

I’ve often wondered how liberals can hold the goofy, degenerate, and amoral feelings they do and still (presumably) have brains. Consider these examples. Liberals will defend a convicted murderer to the death, some claiming we can’t take the chance of killing an innocent person and others claiming executing a murderous, sub-human savage is simply wrong. At the same time they fully support infanticide (abortion) and claim that the fetus isn’t actually human. One thing a thinking person knows for certain is that the fetus is innocent. (One liberal savage I once spoke with argued, “doesn’t the Bible say we’re all born in sin and doesn’t that mean the fetus isn’t innocent?”)
The majority of liberals are opposed to basic self-defense, both on a personal and national level. You’ll find most of them are anti-gun, and anti-military to the point of opposing missile defense systems. I recently read a newsletter put out by a Quaker group (a religion of cowards) crowing about how they opposed the U.S. having a missile defense system. It’s also true that liberals are easily led. A friend of mine who once claimed we should only have a missile defense system now (at least several years ago) opposes such a system, probably as a result of listening to liberals arguing against it. Liberals also support same-sex deviants. A basic knowledge of anatomy will show anyone that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural.
The hatred liberals have for anything Judeo-Christian is nothing less than satanic. They only seem to have this hatred for Christianity and will fully accept a religion like Islam which opposes (in words at least) queers and women’s rights.
My conclusion may be controversial.

Liberals believe in evolution. Anyone who would dare look at the facts knows that evolution is a myth that can’t be backed up by science (the "god" of liberalism) without great leaps of faith, assumption and twisting the facts.

I have a new idea that may involve a form of evolution, or rather de-evolution, alien (space aliens, not illegal aliens) abductions and Genesis 6.

In many of the goofier UFO circles, you’ll hear talk of “God” as being a race of space aliens who spliced our genes with theirs several hundred thousand years ago or more.

While at first, an intelligent person (or even me for that matter) would dismiss the idea as mere gibberish, they may have a point, sort of.

In Genesis, chapter 6 (for you liberals, that’s in the Holy Bible. Ask a Christian if you can borrow their copy. I doubt you would have one) the Bible speaks of there being giants in those days (during the time of Noah prior to The Flood) and afterward. It speaks of the sons of God (fallen angels) mating with mortal women and having bizarre offspring. Perhaps the alien abductors that the UFO geeks believe in are these rebellious, “sons of God”.
Some of these offspring were giants, others were “men of renown”. These beings were called Nephilim. The Nephilim who existed prior to the flood were destroyed in the world-wide deluge. But Genesis 6 points out that they existed afterward. Perhaps after the flood the Nephilim began to look a little more human and fit in better with mortals.

My theory, which I admit I’m still developing, is that liberals are these Nephilim. How else can one explain their degenerate, bizarre beliefs?

Take a look at Al Franken, James Carville, Bono (ever wonder why he won’t take off the dark glasses?) and other notable liberals. (I won’t even begin to get into how some of the leaders of the man-hating, lesbian group NOW look) Do they look fully human? I say no!

Of course, this is jest a working theory, but still, think about it.

Robot

Taking Aim at the Second Amendment

Yesterday I attended the Heisler Moot Court Competition put on by the Monterey College of Law. The competition was titled “Taking Aim at Guns and privacy”. A “moot” court is where the competitors argue on whether a fictional, proposed law is Constitutional. The people arguing the case are students of the law school and the three people judging the case are sitting or retired judges.

The claim being made by the law-geeks was that the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a ruling on whether the right to bear arms is a collective right or a personal one.

According to my information, the Supreme Court recognized in 1876 (U.S. vs. Crenshank) 1886 (Presser vs. Illinois) 1894 (Miller vs. Texas) 1939 (U.S. vs. Miller) and 1990 (U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez) that the Second Amendment applied to the individual. I admit that I’ve never read the actual wording of these rulings so maybe there’s room the anti-gun geeks have some room for arguement.

One interesting point about the U.S. vs. Miller case is that the court claimed that the weapon, a sawed-off shotgun that Miller possessed was not suitable as a militia weapon. Frankly, any hand-held weapon is suitable as a militia weapon. A sawed-off shotgun is a great weapon for room clearing. (If you can stand the noise)

The law being argued called for the owners of “assault” weapons to have a tracking chip put in their hand and another tracking chip placed into the weapon.

The person taking the pro-2nd Amendment side, Lynn Maddock (representing the “National Gun Association”) argued that the law was unconstitutional because it infringed on the right to keep and bear guns.

To most people, other than lawyers and cowards, the Second Amendment is clear, The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first part of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” doesn’t take away the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Under the U.S. Code, any able-bodied male between certain ages IS the militia.

Lynn mentioned the Miller case and the U.S. vs. Emerson case as rulings that confirmed the individual right to own assault weapons. One of the judges told Lynn that the Emerson ruling didn’t involve “assault” weapons.

I should mention that many times during the “case” the judges and the team representing the anti-gun side claimed that “assault” weapons are the most dangerous of dangerous weapons. That load of crap was repeated almost to the point of my yelling out “B.S.!” One of the judges, Wendy Duffy claimed the only weapon more dangerous was a hand-held atomic weapon. I suppose she thinks grenades, mortars and hand-held surface to air missiles are less dangerous. Judge Richard Silver (ret) (thankfully) claimed “assault” weapons are the most dangerous weapon a terrorist can possess. It’s distressing that we’ve become such a nation of cowards.

Another false claim used by the law-geeks was that there is no legitimate purpose to use for an “assault” weapon. One of the judges spoke of them being a collector’s item. (I sometimes actually shoot mine)

Lynn’s partner Eric Fonferek argued that microchips would be an invasion of privacy. One of the judges mentioned that the right to privacy isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. He added, however that the right to privacy is in the California Constitution. He’s right. Which, of course means that the Roe vs. wade decision is illegal, being as it violates a right that IS in the Constitution, that right being the right to LIFE. But I won’t get into that now.

The antigun side, represented by Judith Derenzo and John Maddock argued that a microchip was not an invasion of privacy. One of the judges, I think it was Silver who mentioned that only the law-abiding ‘assault” weapon owners would allow their weapons or themselves to be microchipped. He added that maybe the law should only make terrorists have chips placed in them and their weapons. One of the judges also mentioned that the microchips could be used to track political opponents, i.e. a democrat president tracking people who went to Republican rallies.

Judge Judith, who appeared to be the dizziest of the three judges, claimed “assault” weapons could threaten police and military vehicles. Police also have assault weapons and in most cases, they’re actual assault weapon (full-auto) and not the semi-auto weapons owned by civilians.

It appears to me that our God-given rights, to privacy and weapons are too important to be left to lawyers and judges.

Robot

The Continued Bashing of Senator Joseph McCarthy

Recently, I saw the film Good Night and Good Luck, a film that bashes Senator Joseph McCarthy. During his day, McCarthy was one of the biggest threats to liberals and Communists (same thing) and they still despise him for his work despite the overwhelming evidence showing that he was not only right, but didn’t go far enough. (Personally, I think the Communistic threat then and even now needs a Phoenix Program-like operation to contain it)

The film was about CBS (i.e., See, B.S.) broadcaster Ed Murrow’s bashing of McCarthy on his television program. Murrow claims “McCarthy is wrong 100% of the time.

Early in the film, Murrow and his Leftist cohorts snivel about taking a loyalty oath to hold their jobs. When I enlisted into the U.S. Army decades ago, I had no problem affirming my loyalty to my Country. But, for most liberals and definitely Communists, such an oath is like sunlight to a vampire.
During the film, McCarthy (via of recorded broadcasts from the era) mentions the ACLU as being a subversive organization. Again, McCarthy was being kind. Murrow, however, claims that the ACLU was never listed as a subversive organization. Murrow (and the writers of the film) should have checked their facts. As early as 1931, a report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated;
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists. (1)
The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, wrote;
“I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
While this particular House report doesn’t flat-out call the ACLU a subversive organization, a thinking person (which of course rules out any liberal) would come to that conclusion.
The film bashed McCarthy over his investigation of Annie Lee Moss, an elderly colored woman who worked with classified messages for the Pentagon. The woman lost her when an FBI informant testified that Moss was a member of the Communist party. When Moss testified before the Senate, she denied being a member. Her supporters claimed McCarthy confused her with another Annie Moss who lived at a different address. Moss got her job back in 1954.

Murrow made Moss a hero in his broadcasts, citing her as evidence that McCarthy was persecuting innocent people. In September of 1958 however, the Subversive Activities Control Board reported that membership records from the Communist Party showed that an Annie Moss, who lived at the same address as the Annie Moss investigated by McCarthy was a Communist in the 1940’s.
Murrow and his cohorts expressed glee when they heard that McCarthy was being investigated by the Army. What the film didn’t point out was that the Army investigation wasn’t about any of McCarthy’s claims being untrue, it was over McCarthy and his staff attempting to get preferential treatment for G. David Schine, one of the Committee’s consultants, who had been drafted. The hearing eventually found that McCarthy was completely innocent and that it was McCarthy’s chief counsel Roy Cohn who attempted to influence the Army. On an interesting note, the Army’s charges came eight months after the alleged incident and after McCarthy announced that he planned to subpoena several members of the Army Loyalty and Screening board. Another interesting note is that Schine was 26 and nearly too old to be drafted. Apparently, the Army didn’t like McCarthy ferreting out communists in its organization.
The film also trumpeted McCarthy’s censure by the senate. The movie didn’t see fit to reveal why he was censured, allowing the audience to think it was because of McCarthy’s actions during the hearings. In actuality, McCarthy was censured for not appearing before the senate to testify after being invited to. That’s invited, not subpoenaed. Given the way he’d been trashed by them, I probably wouldn’t have appeared before them either.
At the end of the film, I was expecting to see updated information about what followed the hearings and what has been revealed in recently released documents like the Venona transcripts that shows there was (and I would say that more than likely there still is) infiltration of government agencies by communists and their agents.
I could get into other aspects of the McCarthy hearings and the “McCarthy Era”. Perhaps I will later. For now my main point is that while McCarthy wasn’t perfect, he tried to the best he could with what and who he had. He also had the demoncrats, the Army and even theRepublican president working against him.

Sources
The ACLU’s Shocking Legacy, 5 Aug 2005, www.WorldNetDaily.com, Alan Sears
The New American Magazine, Vol. 12, #18, 2 Sept 1996, The Real McCarthy Record