Americans (period)

Last week, I was blasted by referring to a certain group as "black."  As I explained to this person, who was supporting BLM, that is how my friends in that group prefer to be described. One friend points out, African-American doesn't apply: they've never even been to Africa, and have no connections there. They are American.

After processing this some, I came to the question of "What if I had to describe myself using the ethnic or region + American?" I'm German, Swedish, Irish, Native American (tribe unknown due to lack of records) and Scotch/Irish/Celt.  Usually, I describe myself as being a mutt. So what does that make me? A mutt-American? Do I list all of the countries? No, that's ridiculous.   If I were to stand in front of  you, would you go through all of those countries to put a label on me? Most likely, not. That's not what we do as a society. 

This brings us to: Why do they want to be referred to as African-Americans then?  To me, it sounds divisive.  If they don't want division, why don't they refer to themselves as Americans? 50 years ago, they were fighting to be included.  Now they want segregation.

What if we were to drop the labels? Not Democrats. Not Liberals. Not Conservatives. Not Republicans. No colors. No industry related labels. Working or not.  College-educated or not. We are all Americans. Reach out and shake hands instead of raising fists.  That is the only way we are going to start healing.

A bunch of whiners!

If you scrolled through Facebook in the last day or so, you probably saw a meme denouncing the Keystone and Dakota pipelines.  In the same meme is a black man holding a sign regarding the water pipes in Michigan.  Of course, the left are just sharing this thing over and over.  What they don't think about is the left has been in control of Flint, Michigan the entire time there's been a drinking water problem.

Another one pointed out that "45" is dumb because he put a hiring freeze in place at the same time he expanded the Border Patrol.  Again, not paying attention to the details, the fact that the military is exempt from the hiring freeze covers this action.

Then there's the meme of the Boston Tea Party, eluding to the "crybabies" not wanting George III to control their country.  Once again, ignoring historical facts.  The Patriots were mostly businessmen tired of paying extreme taxes. (you know the line..."taxation without representation.")  The revolution was to take away government overreach.  While today's "crybabies" are upset about a government trying to create a smaller government.

Planned Parenthood and beyond

One would think the sky is falling with all of the screaming about Planned Parenthood being defunded.  The "Mexico City" laws are (back) in place.  The left acts like it's the end of the world. Yet, this law is enacted and retracted with every president since it came into law.

There are finally voices speaking out against the marches and PP.  These are not politicians, but everyday "Big Joe's."  (Google "Big Joe's" video clip.)  This man was simply riding his bicycle through a group of women marching, when a woman decided it was her duty to verbally assault this man.  Instead of hiding tail and running, he addressed her.  Not only did he address her, but fully stated the truth behind PP's existence: to eradicate the poor and blacks, or any other "undesirable" group.

Then today this article pops up on Facebook:

http://www.cheriberens.net/womenrsquos-march-towards-islam.html

The article is written by a woman living in Egypt, and is a real eye-opener!

If you were to take the correlations between the Women's March and the Muslim Brotherhood, it should scare the living crap out of you! Yet it makes sense.

When reports started to appear stating that Muslim groups were behind the marches, it didn't make sense.  Yet, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other organizations like it, is promoting these activities for the same reason Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger: to eliminate the undesirables.  

So who and what would the Muslim Brotherhood want to eliminate? Infidels, of course.  This includes the LGBTQ groups that are being used to promote these marches.  Think about it: Muslims pushing abortions and homosexuality, and supporting women "rights."  Doesn't make sense, does it?  But to look at the two going hand-in-hand, it does make sense.  Encourage the undesirables not to produce offspring, then there will be fewer of them to deal with in the future. 

So if you want to really march for Women's Rights, fine.  Next time, you might want to look a little deeper into who is really promoting the event and what the true motive is behind it.

Hypocrisy much?

One would think Christians would be rejoicing over the number of prayers said during Trump's inauguration.  Instead they became secular and marched against him. According to the Oregon Synod of the ELCA's Facebook page, followers were encouraged not to watch the inauguration or even be on social media.  Some of their pastors even held safe-zone type vigils.

Then came The Women's March, which was for the left-leaning women only.  Groups that supported pro-life were not allowed to "sponsor."  Some were even attacked physically.  If you were a white (privileged,) heterosexual, pro-life/anti-abortion female, you're not included in the all-inclusive group of women. According to a snippet on The Blaze's Facebook page, pro-lifers were not allowed but sex workers were.

Along came the pink pussy hats.  These were supposed to be a backlash against a comment Trump made years ago, on a hot mic.  Some reports even stated some showed up in costumes of full female genitalia. If men were to have worn hats representing their genitalia, they'd be called dickheads.

This group was protesting violence and vulgarity while dropping F-bombs and saying they thought about blowing up the White House (now that Trump is in it.)

Then there's the irony of the reports stating one of the organizers has connections with a group called "American Muslims for Palestine," which has ties to Hamas.  So this woman is organizing a march against violence against women, yet she supports Sharia Law.  Sharia Law is the epitome of oppression of women.

So what was this march really all about?
Abortion? That's protected by Roe v. Wade.
The right to birth control? That is available at any women's clinic, or condoms can be purchased at a nearby Walmart.
LGBTQ rights? There's already laws protecting that.
Equal pay?  Those laws were passed years ago.
Race equality? Again, those laws were passed years ago.

The only reason to celebrate these marches is to celebrate the freedom of speech and the freedom to gather.  The irony is, some would burn the Constitution in which those freedoms are declared.

Hypocrisy much?

Where's the real news?

Instead of focusing on the first FLOTUS being a Nationalized Citizen, the majority of coverage is on the "protesters."  For the fear-mongering crowd that states President Trump is going to shut down immigration need to really look at who stands beside him.  His stand is on ILLEGAL immigration...basically follow the rules in place. If you go to other places, Mexico for example, and don't have the proper paperwork, you would be imprisoned or even killed.

At the writing of this blog, a picture was posted on Facebook of weapons being confiscated in Seattle at the "protests."  A protest with weapons isn't a protest, it's a riot.

Instead of focusing on the plans to get people back to work, (note: Ford, Carrier, etc.) the media is focusing on losing welfare payments and subsidies.

Both Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow stated in their post-inauguration responses that making "America First" represents Nazis and Hitler.  (Really!?) Could someone please explain how being the best at something (unless it's evil) is a bad thing.  That's what happens when everyone gets a participation trophy.  Surely, every athlete plays their sport to come in second.

Then there's the protesting going on.  How is burning and looting going to change who's in the White House?  How is wearing a pink hat going to change what is going on in DC?  It's sad that this energy and effort couldn't be used towards March of Dimes or breast cancer marches--something that is good for all women, not just the left.

It's going to be interesting to see and hear what people say in four years.

Like using a cloth?

"Like using a cloth?" Sorry to use a line from Killery, but it just seems to fit.

Once again, the left is in need of smelling salts.  This time it's thanks to The House voting to repeal the ACA.

Back in the day, when teachers used chalk boards, the boards were wiped clean before starting the next lesson.  This is what Congress has to do, if we are going to create a bigger and better healthcare plan.

No where does anything state that what was originally on that board couldn't be rewritten. For example in math, we wouldn't have been able to go back over previous lessons to build up to algebra or even calculus levels.  That being said, if Congress is going to do this right, they have to use what was working and build upon it.  If they're smart, this is what they'll do.  Otherwise they'll be looking for work in 2-4 years.

Can't wait until Trump starts to drain the swamp.  There might be a spike in smelling salts' manufacturing companies' stocks.

Taxes and funding Planned Parenthood

Since when is it the government's responsibility to cover your ass' actions?  The left is all up in arms about the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  "We're going to lose our abortions and birth control!," etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.

First off, if they would research the reason the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger's  true intent of the organization, the left would run like hell away from them.  Her intent was to do away with the poor.  In theory, if they didn't have any more children, there would be fewer of them to contend with.  The race she was trying to eliminate? Blacks.  Of course this is an inconvenient truth.

Who should really be responsible for your reproductive system? You? or the government?  Roe v Wade has already established that the right to those services is legal.  Not anywhere does it say that it should be provided for by the government.

PP or health insurance?  Everything that is provided to a woman at Planned Parenthood is now covered under the (not-so-)Affordable Care Act.  That being said, doesn't PP lose it's niche?

It's bad enough that a woman in menopause has to "select" birth control coverage on her insurance plan, and PAY for it, knowing full well it will never be used.  (Don't even get started on the pediatric coverage. That needs to be saved another rant.)

What happened to consequences?  Oh yeah, that went out the door when Participation Trophies were invented.