They're heeeere!

Daily, I read of outrageous occurrences that seem impossible. ACORN continues to function in spite of multiple convictions for voter fraud in signing up more fraudulent voters for B. Hussein Obama. Black robed minions of Hell cram marriage based on nothing more that a shared perversion down our throats. Here's another, rather ominous such occurrence from a premier news site, World Net Daily. (Add a link to it or put it on your favorites list.)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77825

Read it and weep.

And in case you don't want the government to know you are looking at news sites that aren't controlled by liberals (a wise choice in my opinion), here is the article.

They Came for Jessica, and I will not be Silent by Roger Hedgecock

After World War II, trying to explain how good Germans allowed the monstrous evil of the Nazi regime, a pastor recalled that the Nazis came for the communists, and he did nothing; then for the trade unionists, then for the gypsies and Jews; then for the Catholics – and each time he did nothing. When they came for him, none were left to defend him.
Last week, here in America, they came for Jessica Hughes, and I will not be silent. I will not turn away, hoping, in the end, they will not come for me.
Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK.
The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president.
Jessica replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." Then Jessica hung up.
The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service.
The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, "I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."
Jessica's husband had heard Jessica's side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, "Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?"
Jessica replied that the Obama volunteer was probably unhappy about what Jessica had said about her candidate. The female agent then said "That's right, you were rude!"
The male agent then displayed a file with Jessica's full name prominently printed on it and asked her how she felt about Obama. At this point, the former Marine told the agent "in no uncertain terms" (as she later recounted) that this was America and that the last time she checked, she was allowed to think whatever she wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. And was being "rude" a federal crime now too? The agents then admitted they had no tape of the conversation, just the quote from the Obama campaign.
Responding to Jessica's questions, the agents would not identify themselves by name, nor reveal the name of the Obama volunteer who had made the complaint. The agents did indicate that Jessica was not in a court of law yet, and that they were trying to not embarrass her "by going to all her family and neighbors."
To these implied threats, Jessica invited the agents to speak to whomever they wanted, and stated she would happily go to court since she had done nothing wrong.
Jessica asked the agents, "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate, and I can't tell them why I don't?"
The Secret Service left Jessica that day, but she could not get the "visit" out of her mind.
Jessica wrote later, "The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn't cooperate is not the tragedy here.
"Because that girl on the phone doesn't have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer."
Taken together with the intimidation campaign against WGN Radio because it aired an interview about the Obama-Ayers connection, the use of local criminal prosecutors to intimidate TV stations in certain states to not run ads critical of Obama, and the use of race to rally black voters and shame white voters, the Obama campaign's M.O. in Jessica's case is a warning.
The pattern is unmistakable. The drumbeat of jackboots echoes now faintly, but persistently, in the fall breeze.
They came for Jessica, and I will not be silent.

How to Win When Liberals Use Names like Bigot and Racist

The tactics used by Liberals in the immigration debate are fascinating to watch. Their techniques are becoming better and better but also more predictable. I recommend reading Patrick Buchanan's "Death of the West" for a longer treatise on how and by whom these tactics were developed. Suffice it to say that labelling is one of the most useful tools.

Who will not think that anyone labelled fascist or racist is bad? And if you say "No, I'm not" then you are left trying to prove something you're not with lame lines like "some of my best friends are black" and "I have queers in my family who I love and respect". And as soon as you say something stupid like that, you've lost.

The proper defense is to go on the attack. Throw in the word "liberal" which is almost as bad as racist to most people. Let them come up with lame excuses and proofs. But more importantly demand that your foe name a specific instance.

Now you have the control. Anything they say will now be about fact rather than emotion. Make them show that they really don't have any instance of racism or fascism to support their name-calling. Then do some name-calling of your own. "Liar" is a good comeback at this point. Other good names are "propagandist", "fascist" and "manipulative". And then add, "since you've lied about this, why should we trust anything that comes out of your cake hole?"

Now you're back on the issues rather than some label and truth is always superior to error when given equal time.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Get US out of the UN!

The urge to impose democracy on the unwilling world has really gotten us into trouble again. Like all UN sanctified wars (Korea,Vietnam, Iraq, etc.) , the Iraq war is now out of control and we are planning withdrawal without fixing the problems. And I'll bet you didn't even notice the brief UN Security Council Vote to keep us in Iraq.

The same countries that complain about US "imperialism" want us there to stabilize the area.

But what this mess points out most strongly is that the UN has to go.

First of all, if you have any feelings of fairness or democracy, the UN is the agency that least represents these values. The balance of power is held by countries in Africa and Asia that are not even viable. Basically they are corrupt kleptocracies designed to enrich the ruler, the rulers' family and a select few elite. These same elite send a representative to the UN where they can live high on the hog and spend American money (since we pay most of the operating expenses). This group of crooks are the least democratic group of people you could ever imagine. And they hold all the power, and this will never change.

Therefore, along with getting out of Iraq since winning is not something that will happen with the liberals controlling Congress, we also need to get out of the UN and stop giving it money. This is the only right thing to do to help the oppressed masses that are misruled by these criminals.

Second, notice the votes about Israel - labelling them aggressors, ordering them to surrender, and never even mentioning that daily rocket attacks from a neighbor is an act of war that the Israelis have a perfect right to go to war over. Usually only the US votes against these. Israel doesn't even get to vote. (How democratic is that?) Australia, which currently has a conservative government usually supports us. And that's it. None of the African countries, none of the Europeans (some of whom bravely abstain), none of the Pacific Islanders whose very existence depends on our aid. Not Germany, not Japan, not Korea, not Haiti, not El Salvador, not Chile, not Mexico, not Panama, not Costa Rica, not any one of a hundred countries who owe their very existence to the US. What kind of democratic assemblage ever votes 200 to 2 on some controversial issue? Further evidence of the lack of morality, and lack of fairness at the UN.

The John Birch Society, a non-political organization of patriots and of which I am a proud member, has for years pushed the slogan "Get US out of the UN" and "Get the UN out of the US" has been right all along.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Rangel and the draft

At first listen, this is just a crazy liberal trying to offend. Rangel uses the old liberal complaint of minorities in the military.

Problem is, the military is an all volunteer force. And the demographics are fairly representative of the country as a whole. And the military is an excellent way to take a poor minority out of the repression of minority cultures where any black child that does well academically is called an "Uncle Tom". And the ratio of those in harm's way, that is front line troops, is way over-represented by whites. So Rangel is just another chip-on-the-shoulder minority.

But does the idea have some merit? Would we be nation-building in some hellhole if the Kennedy's and the Clinton's children could be drafted as cannon fodder to drive up and down mined roads? I don't think so. (Could you imagine Chelsea Clinton in the army? Wouldn't that be fun? I knew a guy in the military who was based in Washington. He was some kind of White House liaison in the Clinton years. He tells a fair number of incidents when a bratty teen-age Chelsea would remark to some military guy that her daddy hated the military and thought they were all fairies.)

I enlisted in the military myself out of a sense of owing something back to this country that has given me so much. But I see less and less people with this attitude. What I see are more and more people looking at the country and government as nothing more than a source for welfare, whether it be elderly on medicare and social security or younger people on medicaid and disability. I think a draft, with no exemptions for marriage, college or being rich, would get people to pay more attention to what their government is doing, and would instill patriotism in a lost generation. (Look at the demographics of the under-30 crowd).

Rangel quickly removed any thought that he actually supported the military by quickly saying that draftees wouldn't have to be in the military, but could be part of a giant new Public Works boondoggle. In which case, I would be against this as the government would take tax money to fund liberal social causes.

But still, wouldn't it be nice to have a draft that would take just enough people to fill the present manpower needs without having to recruit? And wouldn't a new GI bill that would send these people to college after their 2 to 4 years change the liberal bastions of education? I mean, do you think someone who has been shot at by people he's trying to save would listen very long to some nut-case liberal rant about how evil the US is? I think a few hard rights to the chin would patriotize even the most inveterate liberal professor with tenure.

But then with socialists controlling the house, and a President doing all he can to turn the US military into the world's policemen, dissolve our borders with corrupt kleptocracies like Mexico and allow criminal aliens to destroy our middle class and export our manufacturing base, I suppose we shouldn't dare let these Republicrat crooks in office have such a power.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Liberals shedding their sheep's clothing

In just the few days since the election, the gloves have come off and the democrats aren't even bothering to pretend they are conservative. Unlike the Republicans who were so reticent about using their power, the Democrats have no such compunction.

Quite a few Republican commentators are blathering about how Americans are still conservative. Oh yeah? Says who? They voted in a rogues gallery of committee chairmen from Rangel to Waters to Conyers. They rejected marriage protection in "conservative" Arizona and barely passed it in other states. They lost abortion restrictions in South Dakota. They lost Missouri's cloning/stem-cell debacle. Even attorney generals like the one in Kansas who actually came out publicly with a conservative stand went down in flames. And haven't school boards who were for intelligent design all lost? I could go on and on. How can the same commentators who thought the Republicans would do ok, continue to keep their heads in the sand and pretend that there is not an on-going shift in demographics?

The only thing they can turn to are polls which are notoriously easy to bias just by how you ask or preface a question. In an America where real freedom of speech has gone the way of the dodo (Did you ever hear a single Republican candidate point out that homosexual behavior is wrong, immoral, or perverted?), people often answer polling questions based on how they wish to be perceived, not how they truly believe. Take the black exit polls for example. Almost 100% claim to vote Democratic but 15-20% actually vote Republican in black districts. But you would never know by asking. The reason is the conservative blacks have (correctly) observed that saying they voted Republican and being found out or overheard will lead to persecution for them and their families.

Well that same principle works in reverse. People recognize that conservative positions are inherently fair and moral. It is wrong, for example, to steal - even if such theft comes by government forced legal plunder and taxation. They know this deep in their waffling hearts. And so they will all claim to be for lower spending. But when it comes time to actually say that less money needs to be spent on welfare, they run screaming from the camera that they are "compassionate" conservatives (a la GWB- thanks a lot for nothing.) and really have no intention of cutting spending. And we will see more and more of this as the liberals consolidate their power. The liberals have controlled the cultural institutions of this country for way too long to expect anything different in the future. Have you seen the numbers on conservative versus liberal in the under 30 crowd? Shudder if you haven't, because they look really, really bad. With liberals in control of print and television media, arts, literature, education of all levels, main-stream religion and almost everything else you can think of, there is no source for people to learn conservatism. Do you really think your average 18 year old listens to talk radio? So there is no prospect for change and the Republicans utterly failed to advance conservative ideas, being too caught up in molesting boys, spending money, and making crooked deals to actually try and educate the public. And so the self-labelling polls where more voters call themselves "conservative" than "liberal" are really meaningless.

And to return to the true colors of the Democrats: 1) Hillary has restored socialized medicine 2) Democrats are already talking of raising taxes (under the guise of fiscal responsibility) 3)Pelosi's constituents are already drooling over impeachment prospects 4) Iraq being abandoned is just a matter of when - not if (And I agree on this point. No reason to waste american lives if we're not going to fix the problem which would require some really heavy fighting and casualties. I just point this out to show that the Democrats are liars who just pretended they weren't going to surrender in Iraq) 5)Unindicted Abscam co-conspirator Murtha is being pushed for head of Heimatland Sicherheit (homeland security in German) - and so much for the 'fight corruption' lies of the Democrats. 6) Any conservative like Bolton will never be confirmed. And the list goes on and on.

And just a word on spineless republicans - They still control both houses. Why don't they confirm Bolton and about 10,000 ultra-conservative judges? What do they have to lose? They've already lost their jobs, their political power and their souls. Satan's hellfire awaits and the flames are growing higher. Why not go out with a bang? But you know and I know that they are morally bankrupt and fit only for being opposing political commentators on some political show that comes on at 2 AM.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Part III - Speaking your mind may well lose your job

Not too long ago, I responded to an on-line question from someone who wanted information to counter claims that homosexual behavior is genetically determined. I wrote an answer complete with footnotes refuting this view. (To this day, there is almost no evidence that this is the case) Now in the end, it doesn't matter whether or not there is a genetic component to such behaviors - it doesn't matter if you are pre-disposed to alcoholism, drug addiction, adultery, violence, child abuse, child molestation, theft or any other sin - these actions are still morally wrong.

But there is little evidence that there is a genetic component to any of these behaviors. Twin studies for example have never found more than a 50% concordance for any of the above behaviors - and many are much less - indicating that choice and environment are probably the greatest determinants. There have been many attempts to link genetics to homosexual behavior. The reason you don't see any of these studies is that they are all unable to find this link. For a while, there were 2 or 3 studies that have been refuted. One was done by someone who practiced homosexual behavior and found an obscure part of the brain was smaller in men who practiced homosexual behavior. Others who studied the same thing later found this not to be true and the researcher used bias, subjects who had died of AIDS (wouldn't be all that surprising that such a devastating illness might also affect the brain), and non-random selection. Another study had some of the main researchers charge each other with fraud and lying about the data. Anyway, there still isn't any evidence. An editorial in Scientific American pointed this out not long ago. And there are lots of papers showing that homosexual behavior is mostly or completely learned.

Now, anyone reading this may disagree with me. They may point out one of the refuted papers. Or bring up evidence they feel shows things differently. Or (and this is the most common liberal reasoning) because they feel something really, really, really strongly, then it must be true. All of that is just fine with a conservative. A conservative would not for a moment consider doing you harm because you disagreed.

And by the way, I refuse to use the word "gay" to label those who practice homosexual behavior. Gay means happy - not perverted. Interestingly, I note that teens use the word "gay" to mean stupid - which I think is only fair since those who practice homosexual behavior twisted a nice word to their purposes. I feel that people are more than their sexual behavior - for good or ill. I refuse to label other people this way. We're all people - begotten sons and daughters of Deity (if you believe that kind of thing), and we all have divine potential.

Anyway, after I posted an answer to that comment I got a summons from the legal department of the company I worked with. Apparently, those who practice homosexual behavior have a network that monitors print and internet media for material damaging their cause. They respond to it in a variety of ways -letters to the editors, anonymous threats, and complaints to local discrimination agencies and employers. It turns out this large company that bought my little company (Phycor) had some kind of lawyers who ran a department that somehow felt it had power to tell employees what to think, say and write about moral, religious and scientific matters - even if your expressions were done on your time, at home, and on your own equipment. And even though this company would shortly go bankrupt, destroying millions of investors dollars, they still had time to investigate an anonymous complaint made by some cowardly little puke who practiced homosexual behavior. Now, I went to this meeting loaded for bear. The 2 administrators who read the post laughed at the whole mess and that was that. But that I had to even respond to such crap shows that this homo lobby has way too much respect and power. To think, an anonymous claim, where the motivation of the claimant is unknown could cause me trouble. And what if the administrator who fielded the complaint had practiced homosexual behavior? Would I have been fired, disciplined or worse - sent to sensitivity training - a kind of moral brainwashing? Just because I noted there is no proof of genetic links to immoral behavior of any kind?

One more example of the coming totalitarian state. You know and I know this will just get worse. In Canada, saying that the Bible preaches homosexual behavior is wrong can get you imprisoned and fined. It's just a matter of time before it comes here. I note that 7 of the 8 states who tried to make marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion (the proper label for "gay" marriage) succeeded in protecting marriage for now. But in none of them was the margin very large. Arizona actually defeated marriage laws. Only 2 years ago, such laws passed by large margins in even Massachusetts and California. The handwriting is on the wall. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin. (We are being weighed, and are found wanting, and our kingdom will be taken from us) Faggot is treated like the n-word. Anyone who points out homosexual behavior is wrong is labelled fascist or racist.

Not long after my internet comment, I wrote an editorial in the local paper outlining these same points. I received so much opposing mail - much of it hate mail calling me names - that the paper printed a letter saying no more responses to my editorial would be printed. Also, they never printed even one letter in my support, even though several people mailed me copies of these letters - so I know they were sent. Again, this group of people supporting immoral behavior monitors all the media. So if you are thinking of speaking out against them, be warned, you'll be made to pay for it. Worse, your children will be made to pay for it when closeted teachers insult your children or "friends" no longer talk to you or your spouse. But don't think I'm discouraging you. I encourage getting the truth out there. If we allow the liars to repeat their same lies over and over without opposition, some will believe what they say is true. Goebbels learned this lesson well and the immoral lobby has learned it well. (Isn't it interesting that the Nazis like Goering and Goebbels who came up with this concept of repeating lies over and over until they were accepted reportedly practiced homosexual behavior themselves? But I digress)

And a word to those unfortunate individuals who find themselves practicing these behaviors or even tempted by these behaviors. These behaviors are wrong. They are damaging mentally, physically, morally, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually. You can act morally by not succumbing to these behaviors. God will help you if you ask. Your loved ones will help you if you ask. Pastors, priests and counselors will help you if you ask. God guarantees in the Bible (1 Corinthians 10.13) that he will not give any of us a temptation that we can't overcome. Please realize that pointing out your behavior is wrong is actually the nicest, most respectful thing that can be done. Letting wrong behavior go uncorrected would be like letting a 2 year old play in a busy street because he wants to and gets mad if we try and stop him. (Not that you are 2 year old's - but I think you get my point)

Anyway, just another example of how free speech is being stamped out it America

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Part 2: San Francisco and the meaning of tolerance

Another learning experience was as a teenager in San Francisco. I had gone with a friend to a music store in South San Francisco that sold dozens of kinds of drumsticks. My friend (now a studio musician in LA) wanted to try some new sticks out.

Then as now, tolerance was a word that got lots of play. In San Francisco, you could do and say lots of things that would get you arrested anywhere else. You could pee, take a dump or drop your pants in public. You could yell obscenities. In San Francisco of the 70's, all you had to do to get a cheer was yell loudly, "**** Nixon". You could dress up like a nun, yell obscenities about religion and drop your pants in the middle of a parade. (You still can for that matter) Hookers and drug dealers were everywhere in the parts of town that attracted wayward teens. I remember waiting in line to get into the massive Rock Concerts they held in the Oakland Coliseum called "Day on the Green" and being amazed at the amounts and types of drugs being publicly used and sold. A van tried to get through this line of dazed concert-goers (this was an hour before the concert even started) and no one moved to open a space for the van to get out. One entrepreneur in line who couldn't afford enough weed to get blasted offered to open a space in exchange for a giant "doobie". (Appropriately, the Doobie Brothers were one of the 3 groups playing that day, along with Gary Wright and Fleetwood Mac - great concert by the way) He cajoled and pushed a space for the van to get through and was rewarded by a giant doobie the size of a small football. Anyway, almost anything went.

Except morality. A common teen word in that time was to call someone "homo" if they did anything nice - or just if you felt like it. My friend and I were horsing around and calling each other various names - one of which was homo. Some guy came up and started telling us how evil we were. We were puzzled and didn't get what great sin we had done. Anyway, this was the first time I noticed this California attitude of anything being ok unless it made a moral judgement. Over and over, friends who went to San Francisco began to notice that they were treated rudely, sworn at, given the finger and even spit on if they were even overheard in a private conversation to comment on things like the streets smelling like urine from all the bums (oops, homeless) or wondering why the police didn't do something about the hookers and drug dealers.

Another valuable lesson for modern American Society - tolerance only works one way. It means that you must tolerate every kind of sick and twisted behavior even though it is obviously harmful to practitioners themselves - and that no one need tolerate decent views. I remember my church urging its members oppose a law legalizing bestiality in the early 70's - it passed anyway of course.

Anyway, freedom of speech is long gone in California. You don't dare speak out there about religion, morality or conservative principles. And this is coming to the rest of the US too. These last elections were a big jump toward a future where you can speak of anything except God and morality.

Next blog - Closing In: Part III Loss of freedom of speech continued

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Closing In

Do you get the feeling your freedoms are slipping away? The world is closing in and there's no place left to go.

I first felt this way growing up in Northern California in the early 1970's. Several specific instances follow.

I took a class at Fred C. Beyer High School in Modesto California in 1974 called "Rise of Red China". I was interested in history and there was (and is) a fairly high Asian segment of the population. Kung Fu was the hit on TV. A fair number of people were taking martial arts training and it wasn't unusual to see guys with numchuks whacking themselves in the 'nads during lunch hour.

Anyway, the teacher was Mr. Chan and he was even a fellow Mormon (though lapsed). He was personable and the subject seemed fun. I did well in the class, scored the highest grade in the class, did extra-credit news projects etc. One of the class handouts started something like "Mao Tse-tung came to power in China because he was exactly what the people wanted and needed."
One of the tests asked a question where this was the answer. I, however, wrote "Mao Tse-tung is the world's greatest mass murderer, being responsible for the death of over 100 million of his own people." So what if I missed the question, because there was no way I would fail. And Mr. Chan never gave one hint at his true self.

Well, when grades came out, I got an F. I went to Mr. Chan. He mumbled something about I had never turned in my tests. I was raised where pretty much anything they did at school was deserved. I never complained to my parents because if I got paddled at school (still done in those days) then I would just have got paddled at home if I complained. I had had a few teachers who treated me unfairly but that was just something kids had to put up with. But getting an F for the semester was different than being kept in after-school for "disrespect" for asking questions contrary to the current liberal line. This would affect college.

Eventually I complained to my parents after getting nowhere with Mr. Chan, the school office or my counselor. My father, a lone conservative voice at the Junior College where he taught, then went to the school board. Dad had a history with the local education nazi's. He had been instrumental in starting the first local teacher's union. He went on the radio occasionally and wrote guest editorials and the like for conservative causes. It was actually common to have a swastika spray-painted on our fence or garage by the local "more tolerance" crowd. I just thought that was normal living in California.

The grade was switched back to an A - probably because I had a notebook with the saved tests. No one ever asked me what happened. I never talked to an official. No one ever did the obvious thing - ask me about my knowledge of the course subject. The teacher was not disciplined. Nothing happened except there was a vague undercurrent of treating me like a leper. Friends would tell me of rants from teachers about "nuts like Baxter" (my Dad presumably.) Turns out that a lot of my F was due to my Dad - although I never knew it until then. I never once heard anyone defend me or my Dad. In my last year, there was one other teacher I got to know fairly well. (After the F, I was quite careful about saying anything to a teacher, and the teacher's were likewise careful not to be too friendly with me.) I took several history classes from him and he was new. (I won't use his name in case he's still around and might be punished by the nazi's who run California now.) One time while talking after class, the subject somehow came up and I told him the story (The only other person I ever shared most of the story with - until now. I never shared the whole story with my parents out of concern that my Father would lose his job, and I don't share the whole sordid story now to protect the innocent. And don't you think a 14 year old being scared to tell his parents how he was treated daily out of fear his father would lose his job says volumes about the state of liberty in the USA?) He didn't say a word, but transferred to another school that next year. I saw him once in a bookstore a few years later. He asked me a little about my college studies, seemed uncomfortable, and then moved on. Welcome to the future of America, where innocence is irrelevant, and anyone who stands out or up will be mercilessly crushed.

What I learned was that you had better not rock the boat. Keep your hand down and your mouth shut. The liberals were all powerful - so powerful that they didn't even bother to pretend that they were fair or had any concern with the truth. Useful lessons, learned the hard way.

Next blog: Part II Closing In - San Francisco and the meaning of tolerance.