American Sniper author Chris Kyle is interviewed by Cameron Gray at the 2012 SHOT show in Las Vegas, Nevada. This poignant video shows a very humble and human Chris Kyle talking about his book, his fans, his love for kids, and the Second Amendment .
Posted on November 24, 2014 at Louder With Crowder by Krystal Heath
It always amuses me how a culture that removes the Bible and prayer from school and panics at the sight of a nativity scene manages to work Scripture into its fabric when, and only when, it’s convenient to its own narrative. For someone who declared, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” the President himself is quite good at this particular feat.
His latest example of using bits of the Bible for his own purposes came during his totally unconstitutional declaration of amnesty for five million illegals.
Democrats from near to far have rallied behind the President’s supposedly Scriptural support for their cause. “Yes! See, you right wing Christian nut-jobs? God wanted us to have executive action amnesty. The Bible says so!” (This, by the way, from the same people who boo’d God at their convention. But I digress...)
So does the Bible actually support the President’s unlawful action? Well, quite frankly, since the President (or better still, his speech writer), didn’t provide us with a reference for what Scripture he was quoting, we’ll have to make some presumptions, as the phrase “you were strangers, too” is found in numerous locations in the Old Testament. The President may have been referencing either Exodus 22:21 or 23:9. Maybe it was Deuteronomy 10:19 or Leviticus 19:34. We don’t really know.
Before I go any further, let me just say, the PRESIDENT made this comparison, okay? I didn’t come up with this myself. All I’m doing is clarifying what he said with some context. Because, you know, if there’s one thing all Biblical scholars agree on (and those topics are few), it’s that the context of any given passage is crucial to it’s interpretation and subsequent application in our lives. (For example, when you read, “Come, walk to me on the water,” Jesus was talking to Peter. Not you personally. You will sink.)
That said, let’s look at just a bit of the context from the four passages the President was possibly quoting…
All of us struggle to make sense out of what we see around us, and we’re frustrated because we can’t. For example, what sense does it make for an unknown Illinois senator who has accomplished nothing on a scale larger than a neighborhood get elected President of the United States? Why do labor unions continually support democrats when Obamacare is wrecking their members’ benefits, and the immigration bill, if passed, will do nothing but lower wages? Why does the Attorney General of the United States think he can stonewall congress, be charged with contempt, and continue to stonewall? Why does any congress vote for any bill that will affect 20% of the economy of this country without reading it or knowing its cost? Why does Obama support the elimination of gun ownership when he knows banning guns will not reduce gun crime? Why do most blacks support the Democratic Party and agenda when it is obvious it has locked them into poverty? And the list goes on. You know it already.
Recently I met a researcher from New Zealand, Trevor Loudon, who offers an explanation. In short, it is that communism is behind all of the things that don’t make sense.
My initial response to this was that Russia is no longer a power to be reckoned with, and its economy is dominated by gangsters. I also pointed out that communist political activity in this country is virtually non-existent. Louden’s response is that one of the great achievements of modern communism is convincing its victims that it doesn’t exist, and it only takes a few highly trained personnel to take over an entire country, even one as large as ours.
Originally posted at Ace of Spades HQ by DrewM
Team GOP keeps talking about how conservative insurgents don’t understand tactics and how we all want to get to the same place but disagree on tactics. “Tactics” is the new “electability” (which itself is really a tactical concept) and we all know how well that worked out.
Tactics exist to advance a strategy which in turn is the plan to achieve a goal. This focus on tactics is masking a major flaw in the Republican party…it has no overreaching goal let alone a strategy for achieving it. Republicans lack a reason for being beyond winning elections and enriching the various donor and political structures that exists in its orbit. There is simply no Republican vision for the country, no coherent ideological vision that it presents to the country as a viable alternative to the Democrats.
The Democrats can broadly be said to have a vision for America that is based on an ever growing and more powerful public sector (especially at that the federal level). From that basic vision all other things flow. What is the corresponding vision from the GOP? It’s clearly not the opposite. No one seriously suggests that the overreaching vision of the Republican Party is to shrink the government at every level and to minimize its impact on the lives of Americans. At best one could argue that the GOP wants to present a somewhat less grand vision of the role of government in people’s lives. And they certainly want to be the ones running that slightly smaller beast. But actively shrink it? There’s no evidence of that. On the other hand, there is quite a bit of evidence that the GOP is quite comfortable with increased spending and the scope of the federal government as it exists.
I’m not saying there are no differences between the parties but they aren’t as great as some pretend or as they should be in a healthy democracy. Don’t believe me? Think of the areas where the GOP-Democrat divide is supposedly the greatest…social issues. And then look at how many Republicans want to de-emphasize abortion and surrender entirely on gay marriage. At one point national security/defense was a significant point of distinction between the two parties. But as many onetime hawks sour on the notion of a robust program of intervention, which is a distinction that has narrowed greatly. With the rise of Rand Paul within the GOP, that’s an area that will continue to lose its ability to differentiate the parties.
Only on spending is the gap still large and when it comes to elected officials that gap is mostly rhetorical.
It’s this lack of a stark competing vision from the Democrats that forces the GOP to constantly focus on “tactics”.
Originally published at Victory Girls Blog
by Kit Lange on January 24, 2014
Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, in a dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago in 1949, coined the phrase “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” The saying is a paraphrase of what he actually said, but fourteen years later in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, Goldberg wrote pretty much the same thing.
What does that even mean? It’s a catchphrase bandied about by the Left; David Corn wrote for Slate in 2011 that “Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation.” It sounds so noble, this assertion that sometimes, the government must—unwillingly, of course—step in and regulate or even take away civil liberties in order to mitigate a threat. What constitutes a threat is determined by the same Government that stands to benefit from the control exerted. It’s to keep you safe, we’re told. The Constitution, according to this school of thought, is a great document to be followed, until the government decides that it should not be followed. You have rights…until you don’t.
We are no stranger to this erosion. It started long ago, and just like water can carve out rock, the relentless and inherent conflict between the government and the governed has managed to corral our society into a morally bankrupt caricature of the beautiful framework that the Founders provided us with. “Morality can’t be legislated,” claim the relativists, yet the Constitution’s entire raison d’être is exactly that: legislated morality, through due process. Peter Brandon Bayer writes that “America’s validation stems from the morality of the Constitution and how steadfastly we maintain it.” It is why we talk about taking the high road in our dealings with both our friends and our enemies. It is why we have men and women who lay down their lives for people they have never met.
The following letter, penned by a US military veteran (who wishes to remain anonymous) to Washington State Senator Patty Murray, came to my attention recently. In it, this veteran admonishes the senator for her role in the budget deal and attempts to present to her the real world impact this “deal” will have on real American military families.
I have never written a member of congress before this week but I feel compelled to do so reference the current budget plan. I recall in 2012 getting a letter from your campaign asking for my support as a military veteran. You touted your track record for fighting for veteran’s benefits and how proud of you were of your father who is a WWII veteran. Your website describes how much you were impacted as you served, what must have been, a very difficult internship at the Seattle VA in college.
As I have watched the budget debate unfold on the news over the last few weeks, it has become apparent to me that I can no longer trust my government to keep its promises to its veterans. I have served two tours in Iraq and was wounded twice. I have spent 17 years in the Army and continue to serve my country faithfully. For the first time in my career, I feel that the trust I had in my government has been broken. The very fact that you mention me and my fellow service members in the same breath as “other government employees” is an insult. Does the Department of Agriculture, the IRS or any other government agency ask their employees to sacrifice as much as the Military does? I have been overseas and worked with other government agencies. Trust me, Madam Senator, it doesn’t even compare. I have literally bled for my country and spent two years of the prime of my life in a dusty desert that most people only see in the movies or on television. I don’t think that is even in the same ball park as a State Department employee that spends their entire career in the beltway and refuses to go to Afghanistan.
The COLA adjustment reduction is a complete travesty. I have heard proponents talk about it only being a one percent reduction and that we will get it back when we reach age 62. Well, 1% is a pretty big deal when the average COLA increase is 2.5%. I haven’t heard a proponent refer to it that way yet. If you do the math, Madam Senator, that is over $120,000 for me and my family if I retire at 45 years old. That may not seem like a lot to you or your colleagues in Washington, but it is to me. Is Congressional retirement impacted in this same deal? I think we all know the answer to that. I fully understand that there are areas in our government, the Department of Defense included, that are wasteful and need to be cut. I believe you called the cuts in this deal “a compromise with smarter cuts”. They have to be to keep Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act going. My question is why do you turn to your veterans first? We are the only current employees impacted in the deal.
I am sure that my letter will never reach you and one of your staff members will delete this email by the second paragraph. On the slim chance, however, that this does reach your attention, know that you can post all of the great things you do for veterans on your official website, but those words are hollow and untrue. As you so eloquently were quoted on the 10th of December “restore trust that had been lost by people across the country that we could function as a Congress and as a democracy”, know that you are doing so as a result of yet another sacrifice by me and my colleagues. I am sure that your father is proud. So, thank Rep. Ryan for me the next time you see him. I look forward to casting my vote in 2018.
Signed ~ A United States Veteran
Military retirees are the only group impacted this way by the budget deal; it doesn’t impact other government employees that are currently in the system. Most men and women joined the military knowing fully the risks involved. However, they also believed the promise that their country would take care of them. This budget deal breaks that promise.
Published on September 24, 2013 at World History Institute
This fall America is facing the possibility of a fourth war with a Muslim nation in twelve years. Despite our attempts at nation building, it appears that the hostility and scope of our conflicts are growing every year. Is there any real hope of peace between America and the Muslim world?
First let’s look at the historical context. For 1,400 years the Christian West has been forced to defend itself against the onslaught of Islam, a religion built on world conquest. The army of Mohammed first invaded the Holy Land, which had been Christian for 300 years, taking Jerusalem in 625 A.D. Since that time hundreds of battles have been fought through the centuries. Charles Martel defeated 80,000 Muslim warriors at the battle of Tours in France in 732, which halted Islam’s attempt to destroy the last vestiges of Christianity in Europe. The Crusades (1095-1192) were largely a failed attempt to regain control of Jerusalem and the holy places of Christianity from the Muslims.
By the 14th century the Ottoman Turks had become the central power of the Muslim world and labored for centuries to prepare armies to destroy Christian Europe. They defeated the Christians at Constantinople in 1453, slaughtering tens of thousands, turning the largest church in the world (Sancta Sophia) into a mosque.
By the early 16th century, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent spent decades training over 150,000 men for an invasion in an attempt to destroy Christianity. Providentially he was turned back at the gates of Vienna as an incredibly rare September snowstorm and sickness contributed to the devastation of his army in 1529.
Then in two Muslim invasions, both on September 11th in two different centuries, the Turks suffered devastating defeats in their quest for worldwide hegemony. First, in 1565, Suleiman and his Ottoman Turks had only one obstacle in their path in their drive to obtain complete control of much of Europe including Rome. That obstacle was the small rocky island of Malta in the Mediterranean. After six months of battle, on Sept 11, 1565 the 700 Knights of Malta, with less than 9,000 soldiers, finally defeated 50,000 Muslim warriors who viciously attacked the small island with 200 warships. The courageous Knights of Malta were determined at all costs to save Christendom (Western Civilization) from destruction.
Then again on Sept. 11, this time in the year 1683, 138,000 Ottoman Turks were routed as they were besieging Vienna, Austria in the Muslim drive to invade and destroy all of Christian Europe. On that day, as the people of Vienna were facing eminent starvation and defeat, the Polish King,
Jan Sobieski, gathered 81,000 Polish, Austrian and German troops. He surprised the huge Muslim army encamped outside the city. Jan’s attack was led by 38,000 men on horseback with 16 foot spears in one of the largest calvary charges in history. Many of them were wearing giant wings as of angels that created a thunderous roar and fear as of divine judgment. Again the Christian world was saved, the cathedrals of Europe were not burned or turned into mosques and Christendom continued its cultural ascendency while the Muslim threat subsided for centuries.
But the struggle continued. Muslim pirates in the Mediterranean plundered and sunk ships and enslaved crews from every nation in Europe. In 1625 the Pilgrims lost one of their ships to these raiders. The Pilgrim ship was loaded with beavers and fish that had been sent back to England to pay debts. This pirating continued for over 200 years. Even America’s founding presidents were forced to pay bribes to the pirates to protect American shipping in the Mediterranean, culminating in a war with these pirates during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency.
Continue reading the article here…
Posted by lisa on Jul 10, 2013 in Political Cummins and Goings
In a backstage interview at Freedom Works “Free the People” speaker series, Senator Mike Lee came in and talked with bloggers, about what is next on his agenda.
His answer was that “The President has motivated me to run a new piece of legislation. I think when he suspended the application of the employer mandate he did something that necessitates a prompt response on the part of Conservatives in Congress…. He lacks the power to just amend Obamacare. He can’t just amend it and what he’s doing isn’t authorized by the text of the statute. So he’s breaking the law that he pushed through as his signature legislative accomplishment.”
Read more and watch the full interview here.
Jun. 14, 2013 12:29pm
Actor Ken Wahl, known for playing several iconic roles in the 1980s and 1990s, has been increasingly vocal about the current state of affairs in America. He has openly decried the Obama administration, made his voice heard about the atrocities at Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s clinic — and is even considering pleas from some that he run for public office.
Considering the rare occurrence of a Hollywood actor coming out as a conservative — and an especially vocal one — TheBlaze spoke with Wahl to learn more about his worldview. The actor, according to his own account, hold views with little rooting in partisan politics, as he embraces values over party ideology.
Wahl’s Background and Apolitical Upbringing
“My family was very apolitical. We were just lower-middle class working people — and sitting around at the dinner table, politics was never a discussion,” Wahl told TheBlaze by phone of his childhood. “It was always about working — and I never considered myself a conservative. I never put a label on myself.”
Wahl noted that he was taught that the world doesn’t owe people anything and that it’s essential for individuals to work for themselves and their families — and to take care of their own.
“I didn’t realize I was a conservative until after I got into show-business,” he continued.
But rather than lambasting Hollywood for its politics or claiming that he was denigrated over his right-of-center views, Wahl said quite the opposite, citing inaccuracies that some conservatives advance about the entertainment industry.
“I think there’s been some misconceptions about that. … In all my experience — I had a very serious spinal injury — my entire career was only 11 years long, I can tell you that no one in Hollywood ever asked me for my political affiliation or my religious beliefs or anything like that,” he said. “What they care about is making money.”
That said, Wahl agrees that Hollywood elite are overwhelmingly liberal.
Kurt Schlichter | Jun 21, 2013 | Townhall
For the Gang of 8, the choice is clear. If it’s a choice between the lives of your kids and keeping the coalition together behind their immigration reform scam, your kids lose.
Under the Gang of 8’s plan, you can stay in America legally – and become a citizen – even if you are a chronic drunk driver.
Their immigration bill is packed with obnoxious features – the “path to citizenship,” the entitlement giveaways, the utterly toothless “border security” lies – yet this one dwarfs them all in terms of pure, shameful cynicism. That the Gang of 8 is perfectly willing to let American kids (and, for that matter, immigrant kids) die seems like a harsh charge. But conservatives must judge policies not upon the vague, amorphous intentions expressed by their proponents but by their real-world consequences.
The real-world consequence of this immigration reform bill will be more dead kids. Maybe yours.
One DUI? No problem. Two DUIs? Good to go. Three DUIs? Well, the law says that after the third time you get caught driving drunk you might have a chance of possibly, maybe, perhaps, not being allowed to stay in the United States. That is, if the federal bureaucracy takes time away from its really important jobs, like persecuting conservative citizens for daring to exercise their constitutional rights, and goes and finds you.
And that’s assuming it doesn’t give you a waiver. Because this joke of a law would let the feds waive the gutless three-time loser provision whenever they feel like it.
But hey, only a paranoid nut could ever imagine that bureaucrats in the federal government might misuse their authority, right?