Watch these three video’s about women:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPtOm9UXfnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS-BziPW6FQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFG6W2_iiQE
—
During President’s week, the military and our two most recent Presidents
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIHz5tevLAw
Also posted at: http://www.armyparatrooper.org/dropzone/showthread.php/22772-How-Marines-wel
—
From: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/02/18/university-textbook-says-reagan-was-extreme-sexist-and-pessimistic-n1796447/page/full
“University Textbook Says Reagan was Extreme, Sexist, and Pessimistic
Michael Schaus |
February 18, 2014
What is a leftist supposed to do when history doesn’t perfectly fit their ideological narrative? Well … If you’re in charge of creating textbooks for college students, you just write your own version of historical events (They do it for public schools so why not universities too?—my addition). And while you’re at it, throw in a few editorial comments cleverly disguised as ‘facts’. Apparently, the end result should look something like the textbook that a University of South Carolina student was required to read. In a nutshell, it explained that Ronald Reagan was a sexist, that Conservatives hate people, and that the ‘rich’ like to exploit the lower classes because they don’t want to rake their own yards … Or something.
CampusReform.org reported the story of Orwellian indoctrination on the University’s campus (I know, I know… Nobody’s surprised). According to Campus Reform:
‘The mandated reading includes sections such as ‘Conservative Extremes in the 1980’s and Early 1990’s,’ which claims Reagan ‘ascribed to women primarily domestic functions (Housewife? Soul mate? Nurturer? I thought GOD did that?—my addition)’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency.’
‘Conservative Extremes’? Is that what we call it when a President gets elected with 489 electoral votes (Maybe the Republican Party should run more Conservative Extremes for President?—my addition)? Oh, and for the record, Reagan appointed over 1,400 women to positions of power; including Sandra Day O’Connor (first female Supreme Court Justice [And one of his worst all time appointments!—my addition]), and Jeane Kirkpatrick (First female US Representative appointed to the United Nations) … But I guess neither one of those are ‘significant positions of power’ . (I mean, really, who cares about the first female Supreme Court Justice? Right [If only he had not! She continued the baby MURDERING unconstitutional sanctions of the Supreme Court!—my addition]?)
But, it gets worse. The ‘textbook’ then makes an attempt to define ‘conservatism’. I guess we should be thankful they didn’t put a picture of Ted Nugent wearing a tin-foil hat holding an AR-15. (Nothing against the Nuge… I’m a huge fan.) The definition was, however, pretty cartoonish:
‘Conservatives usually oppose change and thrive on tradition. Conservatives tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being corrupt, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity.’
Pessimistic? Well … I’m beginning to get that way, if this text is typical of university ‘enlightenment’. It’s true: socialism is a morale buster for free-market advocates. So … Yeah. Euro socialist entitlement programs bum me out a little (Everyone should be! Socialism does not work! Socialism can not work in the long run! Socialism is a fantasy!—my addition).
As for the rest of the text’s ‘definition’ … Well, let’s address this piecemeal:
Corrupt? Is there really an argument that corruption exists? To argue that corruption is a minimal risk in any institution is bordering on ignorance of incomprehensible proportions (Just consider the Obama Administration! Chicago! Democrats!—my addition). Conservatives don’t believe everyone is corrupt … But then again, it doesn’t take everyone in the IRS to target the political opponents of the President. The simple fact is, there will always be a degree of corruption. Conservative philosophy hinges on minimizing government’s influence over daily life so corruption (to any degree) is incapable of infringing on the rights of average citizens. (After all, it’s a lot harder to misuse government resources when there are less resources to misuse (Logical!—my addition.)
Self-Centered? So … Did the authors of this text book read the footnotes of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and scrape together a cartoonish definition of objectivism for their well-documented indoctrination educational material? I guess I wasn’t ever made aware that all my neighbors were looking out for my family. I kinda thought people went to work and saved so they could provide their own families with comfort and opportunity (What kind of collective is that?—my addition)…
Lazy? Well … Only when sloth is subsidized. It’s kinda tough to argue that anyone would turn down ‘more money for less work’ … Especially when you’re being promised more of other people’s money (The only kind of money the Left likes to use!—my addition). But lazy still seems like a strong word. Especially when a robust economy (in the minds of Conservatives) depend upon masses of motivated hard working middle-class folks trying to climb their way to success.
By far, the most insulting few words in this passage had to be the supposedly conservative belief that people are ‘incapable of true charity (Just Left’s who prefer to take other people’s money! Known as redistribution of wealth! Also known as State sanctioned stealing! Often achieved through the tax system and government programs!—my addition).’ The truth is, Conservatives believe intensely in the charitable nature of average Americans. In fact, it is the fundamental decency of human nature that propels the faith in Laissez Faire economics. Private charity, raised through the goodwill of individuals, has traditionally proven to be far more effective than cumbersome bureaucratic wealth redistribution (Not to mention that GOD established charity! GOD did not establish government redistribution!—my addition). In fact, government ‘charity’ is non-existent; it is a confiscation scheme orchestrated to reallocate private property to key political constituencies. True private charity is a gesture of benevolence, among members of a community, without the coercive and invasive nature of government force (When taking is involved, it can NOT be charity! Charity is an act of individual free will! Even Microsoft’s dictionary uses the term VOLUNTARY in its definitions of charity! There is NOTHING voluntary about government taking!—my addition).
Oh … And by the way, this is why wealth creation is a good thing. You know all those rich people that are demonized by the left? Yeah… They’re the ones who have the monetary capital to contribute to ‘good causes’ (Although percentage wise they are far less charitable than low to middle class Christians! From my years of experience as a tax consultant, on a percentage wise basis, those who identify themselves as Christian are far more charitable than those who do not!—my addition).
Which brings us to the final stage of the textbook’s Orwellian trifecta … (Slang deleted—my addition), they’ve already re-written Reagan’s Presidency, redefined ‘Conservatism’, what’s one more factual edit? (Karl Marx may deserve co-author credit for the following passage.)
‘The wealthy find that having a social class of poor people is useful. First, poor people can do the ‘dirty work’ for rich people that the latter don’t want to do … Second, having a poor social class emphasizes that the wealthy are higher in the social-structure (Seriously!—my addition) . . . and allows them to look down on classes below them (Do you think they really care? It is the Left that needs a poor class. Then they can steal more money for the government to “distribute” to the poor! What is the so-called “War on Poverty” all about? Take, build up big government to give some to the poor to keep them dependent upon government so the government can justify taking even more! A distribution scheme is unsuccessful if it actually works for then there is no more need for distribution!—my addition).
Yeah … Poor people are useful. Of course, so are rich people (AKA: employers). The insinuation that the rich enjoy being rich so they can ‘look down’ on the other classes may be plagiarized from Marx’s Capital … The Euro-socialist trash pushed through these handful of sentences should be sickening for Americans who have grown up in a nation with unparalleled income mobility. While the leftists and progressives concentrate on class structure, conservatives focus on the ability to move upward on the socioeconomic ladder.
Who likes class structure? Leftists. Only by demonizing the rich, can the Bill de Blasio’s of the world create a political class. And what exactly is the alternative to a world with classes? (Oh, how did the Soviet model turn out? From what I remember, it wasn’t such a big hit.) The rich like the poor because they can employ them … And the poor generally have the rich to thank for employment. You want to start a business? You better hope a rich guy decides to invest, directly or indirectly, in your start-up. You’re going to have a tough time raising capital from the impoverished.
The Ministry of Truth is hard at work on the University of South Carolina campus. Remember when half the country called themselves ‘Conservative’? Remember when Reagan was elected in a landslide? Remember when textbooks were used as a tool to educate instead of indoctrinate? Remember when Orwell’s 1984 was considered far-fetched science fiction? Maybe the textbook was right … Maybe I really don’t like change.”
As I have said, change occurs all the time! Each day is new and different. Change in and of itself can be good, bad, or neutral! Would you call the last five years, in total, good change, bad change, or neutral change? Would you rather have Ronald Reagan as President or Barack Hussein Obama?
—
This is my two part suggestion to Tea Party groups, social conservatives, Constitutionalists, and anyone else who wants to save our Republic from the approaching destruction.
1) Run as many conservative candidates in as many Republican primaries as possible.
2) Then, run as many independent and/or third party candidates as possible in as many races as possible where we did not win the primary.
That is why I am working to get the Constitution Party on the ballot in Texas. If we get on the ballot, we will have two Congressional House candidates running and two State candidates running. Getting on the ballot is the first step. Winning elections is the second. Winning elections will grow the Party. The Constitution Party is much more in line with the Tea Party movement than is the Republican Party. And I have been involved with all three!
—
The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/
If elected to Congress,
I will not,
under any circumstances,
vote for present Speaker of the House John Boehner to be Speaker of the House.
I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (
in writing)
make the same pledge.
It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge. See my post at
http://christiangunslinger3.blogspot.com on December 16, 2013 entitled “Speaker of the House John Boehner Attacks the Tea Party Again for Being Fiscally Responsible!”
—
If I am elected to the House, I will use the Constitution, as written, to do everything in my power to stop judicial tyranny! Will the other candidates pledge the same? I know our present Representative has NOT done everything possible to stop judicial tyranny! Why is that?
—
If elected to Congress, I pledge that I will do everything within my authority as a member of the House of Representatives to begin and complete impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States for violating the Constitution, the laws of the United States as passed by Congress, and his oath of office. I call on every Republican primary candidate running in Texas Congressional District 19 to publicly (in writing) make the same pledge. It would not be a bad idea for every Republican candidate running for the House of Representatives to give the same pledge.
—
Competition is good for the economy and competition is good for the Republican Party!!! Competition keeps Congressmen committed to we the people!!! Primary Republicans who do not support the Constitution as written.
The Constitution Party of Texas website: http://cptexas.us/home/
