Corporate Kings

Corporate kings

rule a new class

of serfs,

peasants

to toil in

the fields

financial

and

the forge

industrial,

for subsistent

living -

Bound down -

"Let them not

rise, they (we)

will become

a threat"

-Bleed

Distract

Feed

Entertain -

"Tell me, Caesar,

how do you rule

so vast a people?"

"Bread and circuses"

On Being Perfect

In my years of experience and study of theology, history, politics, and people, I have learned one thing that is most rewarding to me; I am grateful that GOD, who is perfect, is more forgiving than people, who are not.

Hate to Burst Your Conservative Bubble

We can see with Bush that, from his statement that he would sign another Clinton gun ban to his stand on illegal 'immigrants', he is no conservative. Saying he is an enemy of the American way of life would not be a stretch. Unfortunately, he is not the first 'conservative' republican from this mold.
Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control By Richard PoeFrontPageMagazine.com January 8, 2001ANTI-GUN CRUSADERS seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation's strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure
A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 - only two months after the Littleton massacre - showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.
Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws - the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) - by 42 to 33 percent.
That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.
Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.
Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" - academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.
The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.
The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.
Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media's anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.
When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper's conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.
Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.
Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America's "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.
Obviously, 'W' has shown his true colors as part of the "ruling class". We'll talk about the illegals soon.

Disturbing

Admittedly, I am a little slow and most of you have already thought of this, but when it dawned on me I was disturbed. The technology of today, computer generated film sequences including very 'real' looking characters, combined with security camera film on file from every conceivable location, and driver's license photos in government computers could very well provide 'evidence' that you or I 'committed' a heinous crime while in actuality you or I was at home in bed. This is a reach, you are thinking. Granted. Or is it? Combine the patriot act 1 and 2, with this technology and you have TV usable 'evidence' to convict someone on TV before a jury is even selected. And everyone knows that everything you see on TV is real and true. Follow this conspiracy theory with me for a moment. The Bush administration is one of the most closed and secretive in U.S. history. And to say dissent is not tolerated is an understatement. Now, fast forward to a Hillary Administration and combine her personality traits with patriot 1 and 2 and the groundwork provided by Bush.... See where it's going?
You go to an ATM for a withdrawal, you are filmed, add a computer image generator and you have an image of you committing armed robbery at the local liquor store or worse. The government loves to play with technology, remember Watergate and the Nixon tapes? Remember J. Edgar Hoover and his vast amount of information on thousands of Americans? Much of it gathered illegally? Now government has patriot 1 and 2(most of 2 is under a different name, but a rose by any other name...) and incredible technology. Where do we go from here?

The Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Four Freedoms?

FDR's State of the Union speech for 1941 is famous for it's four freedoms enumerated by the president. It is typical socialist, globalist indoctrination. He used familiar and cherished American Rights to frame an innocent sounding theory that has become a blueprint for big, internationalist government. His first two freedoms are already enshrined in America by the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights, and he then omits the remaining nine amendments. FDR substitutes the "freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" and reaches to extend these globally instead of first being concerned with the U.S On face value his points "sound good" but so does the junk mail stating that you 'may' have won $1 million. Communism in theory sounds good but fails to take into account human nature and natural events. FDR's second points lead only to big government. How to take 'want' and 'fear' out of the human psyche, and why? They are the driving force behind human accomplishment. There are four basic needs: water, food, clothing, shelter, beyond these, all is luxury. 'Want' is what makes people get out of bed and go to work. I 'want' to provide for my family's needs. I 'want' to provide health care and education so my children may not have to work as hard as me. I 'want' to provide luxuries for my wife because she deserves it for putting up with me. 'Fear' is what makes people stay at work - I'm afraid if I can't provide I will lose my family - they will starve, freeze, get sick or leave for someone who can provide. To remove want and fear is to remove motivation and that subjects you to government. Remember, under England, we were not citizens, we were 'subjects'.

Subject I Didn't Want To Address

Homosexuality and homosexuality in the U.S. Military. I wasn't going to address this subject until a group of harpies started screeching about Gen. Pace exercising his 1st Amendment Right of Free Speech. You see the left in the U.S. only approves of free speech if you agree with them. If not, it's a 'hate crime', 'thought crime' , whatever.
I'll be approaching this from various angles:
1. The immorality of homosexuality.
2. The immorality of the attack on Gen. Pace's 1st Amendment rights.
3. My personal view.

1. In the Judeo-Christian faith upon which this country was founded, homosexuality is an abomination. No apologies. It's wrong and not only were the first colonists from Europe Christian, many were missionaries. And, yes, I know about the atrocities during the conquest of the Americas, but I also know about the many more good experiences brought by the missionaries. Two sides to every coin, as it were. The founding fathers of the U.S. understood that the Christian family was the basis of the country and the source of future success. They went so far, however, to protect the religious beliefs of everyone including the right to believe nothing. But, our country's foundation is Christian. In Christianity, sins are forgiven through faith and repentance, and homosexuality is a sin akin to adultery. Gen. Pace is accurate in that we should not accept immoral behavior either homosexual or heterosexual. And, you don't lower your standards, you educate, train , develop, and discipline your people to meet those standards.
2. In addition to protecting all religious beliefs, the founding fathers also built in the protection of free speech, that is to say, unpopular speech. And, over the years unpopular speech has been allowed by mainstream America no matter how vulgar until it would appear, vulgar has become mainstream and moral has become unpopular. Regardless, it is still protected. Although the left can't stand it. The left cannot tolerate dissent because dissent shows the fallacies of the left. Which explains why the Soviet Union imprisoned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents. If you think and understand history or human nature, you cannot believe on the leftist philosophy. It is simply illogical and it doesn't work. But I digress, recently a group of U.S. Military personnel were interviewed about the war in Iraq and their 1st Amendment views were not condemned by the harpies we are hearing now because it is what the left wants to hear and it is what the left wants everyone to hear. Now Gen. Pace's 1st Amendment views draw their ire, see the double standard?
3. Personally, what someone does in their bedroom is none of my business. I don't care. The flip side is that I don't want to hear about it either. I don't care if you shove a lamp post up there, if that's what you are into as long as you are not forcing yourself on someone. leave it in the bedroom. If you are proud enough of having something stuck up your backside to broadcast it nationwide, be man (?) enough to accept that someone is going to say it's wrong. I'll defend your right to privacy and safety and someone else's right to free speech. Freedom/responsibility, it goes both ways. In the mentality of the American left, it's only their way and in my opinion, theirs is the wrong way.

Contact Elected Officials

FYI: On the Gunowners of America link you can access "Contact Info" on the opening page. Click on it and it brings up the search for your elected officials, then you can go for national or state representatives. Wear them out!

Pet Diaries

"Excerpts from a Dog's Diary"
8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30 am - A car ride! My favorite thing!
9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
10:30am - Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
12:00pm - Lunch! My favorite thing!
1:00 pm - Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00 pm - Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
5:00 pm - Milk bones! My favorite thing!
7:00 pm - Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
8:00 pm - Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!
11:00 pm - Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!
"Excerpts from a Cat's Diary"
Day 983 of my captivity. My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength. The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet.
Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates what I am capable of. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Bastards! There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of "allergies." I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage.
Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow -- but at the top of the stairs. I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released - and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded. The bird has got to be an informant. I observe him communicate with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe. For now...

American De-industrialization

The de-industrialization of America is the equivalent to national suicide. With more and more industrial/manufacturing facilities shutting down and relocating to other countries, corporate America is subjugating the U.S. to the whim of whomever has more power. Be it communist China or the U.N. As the eco-terrorists and the EPA prevent building new refineries or developing off shore oil resources, we become more dependent on other countries for the natural resources we need. Communist China, remember them? They massacred their own people at Tianammin Square? They have occupied Tibet for over fifty years despite liberal bumper stickers? They have forced abortion and sterilization? That epitome of free speech and human rights? Any way, they have teamed up with communist Cuba to develop offshore oil resources between Cuba and Florida. Sweet, eh? And why aren't the eco-terrorists trying to stop them?
But I digress, why is 'our' government encouraging this suicide by increasing trade with China and increasing restrictions at home? If the government were responsible to the citizens and national interests, when an American corporation shuts down a manufacturing facility in the U.S. and opens one in any other country, the government should SEVERELY penalize said corporation. Obviously, both parties in our government are responsible to the international-american corporations. It is not that they are stupid, far from it. These corporate leaders, and government lackeys, fully understand that U.S. manufacturing supplied the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and all other allies with the bulk of the war material needed to defeat the Axis powers. And they fully understand that nearly all technology in production nearly everywhere has its roots in the U.S. We are the great entrepreneurs, the great pioneers, the great inventors. So, why are these people so dead set on eliminating American manufacturing? To "even the playing field" to "redistribute the wealth" to nullify American independence and spirit.
Remember, only about 33% of the colonists strove to be free from England, about 33% were Tories, loyal to the crown, and the remaining colonists were like many Americans today, they didn't care. Now we are at a similar crossroads and what to do? How to stop the lowering of the U.S. to third world status? Honestly, I don't know, but a good step is always to communicate to your government representatives. Let them know you realize what is going on, let them know that if the U.S. and all our rights, freedoms, and responsibilities are not first with them, they can be voted out. If everyone who cares will take that step we may have a chance. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
As the old Chinese curse said: "May you live in interesting times." Times are very interesting, indeed.

Poverty and Welfare

If someone really wants to address 'poverty' in America and wants to reduce the number of people dependent upon society, then stop paying people for being unproductive. Eliminate the welfare state as we know it. Make people accept responsibility for their decisions. I'm not saying to put grandma out on the street. If an elderly person of retirement age who has worked their entire life and either failed to prepare properly or met with ill luck (Jake Butcher or Enron) they deserve help. Someone of working age should not be on welfare, assistance, the dole, or whatever PC accepted term is in use. They should not be paid to be nonproductive. (A working family occasionally may need help during a financial crisis, but these are usually the last to ask for help.) And if someone chooses to reproduce with an unproductive person, they should not "get paid to get laid" -- outside of government programs this is prostitution and people go to jail. As the old saying goes, 'you made your bed, now lie in it', don't expect someone to clean it up for you. Another thing to make the liberals cry, why is there no drug test for people applying for "assistance" ? Most American companies require potential employees to pass a drug test as a condition of employment and random drug testing is generally used to help ensure their employees safety. Consider it 'job training', don't pass a drug test, don't get hired, don't pass a drug test, don't get any form of welfare. Period. Come back if you clean up your act. Even the military requires drug testing and we are sending them into combat, all we are asking the welfare class to do is to take the money of hardworking American taxpayers. That is a disgrace.

Extreme Muslims and Liberals

The Muslim extremists and American extreme liberals are similar in many ways. Not the least of which is that both insist on exercising "their" right of free speech and insist that everyone else listen to them. They, however, refuse to listen to any point of view that disagrees with them. So, in the childish mentality of both extreme Muslims and liberals, free speech is "mine, mine, mine, not yours".
They also share an apparent desire to see the complete unravelling of the U.S. as the leading power in the world. One is reminded of the traitor, Ephialtis, who showed the Persians a secret pass to get behind the Spartans at Thermopylae. If we, as a people, do not recognize this danger and act accordingly we are doomed. As it is said, those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it.
The Muslims and liberals are equally determined to rid the world of what they perceive as evil. Which is to say, working Americans trying to fulfill the American dream and following the rules of American society. It is at this point that the liberals and Muslims part ways. Neither understand nor appreciate the "melting pot" that was America. E pluribus unum, from many one; referencing the many states united as one country, but also the many peoples from the world uniting as AMERICANS, under American rules and language. The liberals do not believe in any rules. The "If it feels good, do it" mentality, where rules are a drag. They believe "American values" are too stringent and intolerant, and see the removal of America as a great nation as a means to their goal to "feel good".
The Muslims, on the other hand, see America as a decadent cancer to be cut out of the world body, by whatever means necessary and would control the wealth and strength of America to spread Islam throughout the world. Any who oppose them will die. Liberals refuse to see that their decadence will get their heads on the chopping block if Islam is triumphant. Not being able to see reality is part of the affliction of liberalism.
Just for interest is the response of King Leonidas to King Xerxes demand that the Greeks surrender their weapons. "Molon labe", Come and take them. 'Nuff said.