This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Socialist vs Socialist

KCBS news reported today, 4-17-10, about a violent protest near City Hall in L.A.. CBS (fairly liberal “mainstream media”) was unable to find any link between the opposing groups and the Tea Party movement, with its thousands of rallies and millions of demonstrators on 4-15. This is unremarkable since both groups were Socialist, and nearly all Tea Partiers would have opposed both.

The forty (40) White-Supremacist “NAZIs” (National Socialists) were predictably racist and antagonistic. They waved American flags disfigured with swastikas, and gave fascist salutes. The hundreds of counter-protesters were a Progressive mixed-bag: illegal alien advocates, anti-capitalists, anarchists and probably some just opposed the NAZIs’ overt racism. They waved Mexican and other flags, and many wore masks.

The first rocks and bottles came from the Progressives as police tried to keep the groups apart. The NAZIs were apparently also able to bait some Progressives into beating a NAZI or two. Some arrests were made, but no details were given. Injuries appeared to be minor.

This is very similar to 1932/33 Germany. The NAZIs (not “far right” as Progressive teachers taught for 50 years) and German Communist party shared membership rosters before becoming violent in their partisan recruiting efforts. The differences were mostly “who’s the boss”. Those fights grew into shootings and battles.

Tea Parties were and are non-violent and positive events, well and increasingly supported by passers-by, and one was even organized and attended mostly by Blacks. They oppose reckless amnesty and open borders, due to economic and terrorist concerns, but not beating or violating people’s rights, especially for ethnicity. They want a safe country for their families and sensible economic policies, not violent confrontations among masked and violent Socialist thugs, or Marxist threats to capitalism.

The rule of law (a.k.a. Constitution) is what guarantees basic fairness and equal opportunity (not freebies and bailouts) and prevents a few (from the left or the right) from imposing their hidden agenda on all of us.

Dems divvy up kids for sex & votes.

It sounds inflammatory, but it is simply the truth. April 17th’s article “Scouts’ honor creates tumult” (AP), reports that California Democrats argued and ultimately defeated what should have been a simple resolution (Curt Hagman, R - Chino) recognizing Boy Scouts' 100th anniversary. This was to be for a century of citizenship, leadership and survival training; trails cleared, bridges built, old folks’ homes painted, schools and churches beautified, etc; and boys steered toward productivity instead of drugs and crime.

It is not the BSA or Hagman that created the tumult, but the Progressive Democrats’ agenda. The Scouts have simply gone about the same business for a century. As an affront to BSA and conservatives, Dems went on to commend the younger Girl Scouts of America; not for their decades of good work with girls, but specifically their more recent pro-gay stance. The California Dems are following the lead of Obama’s “safe schools” czar, Kevin Jennings, who openly plans sex TRAINING (as opposed to education) and encouraging homosexuality, for kids as young as preschool (check on-line). Dems demanded a roll-call vote to use as political propaganda: Republicans wanted to approve both resolutions, but could not in good conscience endorse the sexualized GSA position while the BSA is disrespected on their anniversary.

Democrats tried to paint BSA as racist. Mike Feuer (D – L.A.) said, “Were the Policy of the Boy Scouts to be that we exclude all African-Americans or Latinos, or any minority group, I don’t think there would be a single member of the Legislature that would commend them.” But Scouting (160 countries, 28 million members) does NOT have any such policy, nor do they permit bashing of any group, including gays. “A Scout is kind”. BSA prohibited homosexual leaders decades ago, but only for one reason: when a bunch of boys are taken camping by men who are not their fathers, there can be no sexual abuse if no one there sees any other as a sexual target. No one is required to join Boy Scouts and learn their skills and ideals, so the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld their stance and recognized the tremendous contributions to America by the BSA.

Once again, over a simple resolution, decency is slapped down and American family values are attacked by Progressives, as California and the Nation circle the drain.

Thursday, April 15, 2010

TRUTH - check for yourself.

In his April 15th letter “Bogus claim”, a reader tries to tell us that the “commerce clause” gives the federal government authority to regulate individual behavior with it’s new “health care (and student loan) bill”. He tells us that saying otherwise is “propaganda”. This is just repetition of Progressive deceit. They want you to believe that YOU are interstate commerce; and don’t want you to look into this and other violations of the Constitution.

Article 1, section 8, grants federal power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”; as well as coining money, forming an army, building roads, etc. This obviously means significant trading laws and has nothing to do with every individual human being simply living within the U.S. (picking up a pack of gum in Stateline, etc) My family is not “commerce”, but even if we never set foot outside the state we were born in, this bill still forces us to buy a certain, government-approved product. Even the insurance companies we can choose from in our state are restricted by the government (Republicans tried to correct this). If we refuse or fail to buy it, we are fined. This fine is imposed by the I.R.S. as the enforcement arm of the “health (and student loan) bill”, and if it is not paid, seizures and jail would result.

If mere existence in the U.S. makes everyone “commerce”, then there is no limit at all to the laws that the feds can impose, and the Constitution is just a massive fraud perpetrated upon the states and People. With no payoff for 211 years. Madison, Jefferson and other founders’ writings prove this is not the case, and their intent was to have the smallest, least intrusive government possible - - read them for yourself on-line! The Tenth Amendment then gives supremacy in all other matters to the individual states and the People.

There are frauds and “propaganda”, but they come from the left.

Monday, April 12, 2010

How about these specifics?

In an April 12th letter, a reader agrees that illegal aliens who commit crimes (we assume meaning “other than illegal entry into a sovereign nation”) cost us a little for deportation for minor offenses and housing for major ones. But he complains that concerns about other costs are not specific enough and claims that “just like regular citizens”, they pay taxes that support the system. Other than sales tax, that's simply not true.

Now, despite the fact that years of intentional weakening of records-keeping by Progressive and pro-illegal groups makes it difficult to trace, Homeland Security, eVerify, state records and other entities show that we lose annually:
-$2,000,000,000 in various food assistance;
-$2,500,000,000 in Medicaid;
-$3,000,000,000 in jail/prison housing;
-$12,000,000,000 in education for actual illegal aliens;
-$17,000,000,000 in education for “anchor babies” and their families (those improperly granted citizenship by intentional misinterpretation of USC title 8 and 14th Amendment);
-$12- 20,000,000,000 in welfare by individual states’ Citizens;
-$50,000,000,000 in welfare by U.S. Citizens;
-$200,000,000,000 in job loss to Citizens (recent studies showing there are very few “jobs that Americans won’t do”);
plus, in 2005:
-over 4,000,000 illegal aliens brought with them 6-10 million pounds of cocaine and 30-60 million pounds of marijuana;
-240,000 illegal alien sex offenders had to be found, convicted and housed.

Now, when Al Qaida and other enemies are trying their best to kill your family, tens of thousands of unknown persons cross our borders every week, carrying God knows what. Last month, a blue-collar rancher in Arizona, going to “help some illegals in distress”, was murdered on his own land.

Let me be clear: we need a flow of bright, hard-working aliens (like my grandparents) to keep America fresh. But there are over 6,000,000,000 people in the world, and most would like to be in America. We CANNOT possibly accept them all. And those who simply happen to live nearby (or in China, Russia or anywhere else) CANNOT just be given a free pass on violating our laws.

Wrong fuel

In 4-12's letter "Fueled by hate", a writer says that, “All this current violence and threats of violence from right-wing Republicans/Tea Baggers”, comes from hate, rather than anger, because Obama is (half) African American. He discovered this in 1988, which is before Obama even became an Illinois state senator.

Now, “tea bagger” is an obscene pejorative, used only by those who aren’t aware of it’s semi-obvious sexual reference, and those on the hard left. But let’s move on.

I am aware of several acts of violence. Each violent person left statements and writings. All of them are from the left: the plane crasher, the teacher shooter, the Ft. Hood shooter, the finger biter, the S.E.I.U. black protester beaters, etc. There is one group, that any conservative would call ‘crazy’, which is under investigation for “plotting” violence against cops. As a conservative (and retired cop) I am against this and I’m glad they’re being investigated.
There have been claims of threats and people spitting (all of which somehow avoided being recorded by phone systems and dozens of camcorders), some un-witnessed vandalism and one bullet fired into a (Republican) Congressman’s office.

I am also aware that at all the Tea Parties I have attended, I have observed exactly ONE (1) fool who let kids yelling from a passing car bait him into using the “N word”. We shouted him down ourselves and he left the rally. I also noted that everyone else was smiling and even picking up their own trash. Also, “Republicans” were just a large minority, with most being Independents and a few Democrats and Libertarians. About half appeared to be Black, Latino or Asian (I’m sorry, I didn’t think to ask for specifics).

Over 70% of Americans, in various polls, are increasingly anxious. The numbers grow daily. They said basically that they didn’t vote for radical, leftist “change”; that they are worried about reckless spending and debt; that they want reform but not the destruction of their own insurance and would prefer that the current plan be scrapped in favor of simple reform; and they get angry when their “representatives” lie to them and call them names.

One true difference between the left and right: the left wants to “create” (and take away) rights as they see fit. The right knows that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, which no politician (today’s Progressive or tomorrow’s Republican) can give or take away.