Monterey Tea party Protest: We're BACK!!!

Monterey Tea Party Protest


I have a hunch you won’t be reading about this protest in local, Monterey County papers, but there was another Tea Party Protest at the Window-by-the-Bay in Monterey yesterday (16 January 2010).

My estimate is there were about 120-150 people attending. (Anyone who was there and has a more accurate count can correct me.)



The protest seemed to go rather smoothly for the most part. There was one brief confrontation between two of the attendees, one who was carrying a sign which said in part “Gays are afraid to debate me” and another who was apparently a sodomite and was offended by the sign. The argument was brief and I wasn’t close enough to hear much of the conversation. Eventually the apparent queer swished off back to where he came and the other gentleman disappeared to parts unknown. I never saw him for the rest of the protest. Even I would have to admit that a sign about queers is a bit out of place at a Tea Party protest which is generally meant to be a protest against big government and unconstitutional spending..



Many of the people passing by either waved or honked their horns in support of us. Of course if you were to believe Congressman Sam Farr(left) and his ilk, you would think there was little opposition to the attempted government take over of health “care”.

Speaking of Farr(left) and his ilk, I overheard one of his mindless minions at the Sand City Border's calling Republicans “know nothings” because they’re opposed to government health care (and rationing).

But then again it was Farr(left) who claimed people opposed to government health care “didn’t care” about those less fortunate. But what can one expect from the Prince of Pork and his followers.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Lunch with a Liberal (Don’t do it.)

Being as I thoroughly despise liberals and barely consider most of them to be human beings, I would never knowingly date a liberal, but a mutual friend told me she was a Conservative. I don’t hold that against them, the woman (as are most liberals) was a bit deceitful.

I do have to admit, my “Spider sense” was going off a bit when we first met, as it sometimes does when I’m in the presence of liberals. I was a bit fooled by her during an earlier discussion with her when she said she was a gun owner and feared there were people (Her people I would have added had I known she was a liberal) who wanted to ban guns.

(Note: Many liberals, may nearly completely follow the liberal line, but still differ from the pack on one issue or another. That often fools some Conservatives into thinking that some liberals can be reasoned with and that we can work with them. Not so.)

Lunch began with her arriving 30-60 minutes late.

After a few pleasantries, she mentioned she was going to a local law college. I asked her if she knew one of the professors there, who I knew was a member of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), an organization recognized by a Congressional Committee as a Communist Front group. This same individual is associated with several other far-Left causes and groups.

When I mentioned this professor was a Communist she asked me with a completely straight face, “What’s wrong with Communism?” The lunch date went downhill from there. I don’t remember what my response was, but generally government ownership and/or control of businesses that should remain private is a bad thing. Their habit of stifling speech and religion probably isn’t a good idea either.

She asked how I felt about certain issues like infanticide, AKA: abortion on demand, anytime, anyplace for any reason. I of course take the view that a baby shouldn’t be killed because the mother refuses to either keep her pants on or use protection.

Of course my liberal date feels that the baby is “Leeching” off of her body and that she has the “right” to murder it because carrying it to term would be an inconvenience to her.

Like most Black liberals, she is opposed to homosexual “marriage”, but on every other issue, she’s a typical liberal.

As liberals are wont to do and especially liberals who attend law schools that have professors who associate Communist front groups, she claims the “separation of Church and state” is in the Constitution. I pointed out that phrase does not appear in the Constitution. (I should have also added it isn’t even implied in the Constitution)

She insisted that it was and told me I could look it up. Unknown to her, I keep a copy of the Constitution in my vehicle. I retrieved my copy and showed her the First Amendment, which of course say nothing about the “separation of Church and state”. Still being in the state of denial (another liberal habit) she asked me where I got my copy and I told her it may have been from an NRA meeting.

The poor airhead told me I couldn’t believe anything coming from the NRA, as if they would put out their own edited version of the Constitution. Perhaps she thinks the NRA has some liberal habits.

She also commented on my bumper stickers. She told me it was dangerous for me to have them, stating some liberal may take a shot at me or attack me in some other violent way.

Her statement confirms another reason why liberals are dangerous, because many of them think it is ok to use violence to quiet any opposition to their agenda. I had another erstwhile friend who told me my vehicle should be vandalized because the bumper stickers were “Hate speech”.

Needless to say, me and this liberal won’t be dating anytime soon, but she still had no problem leting me pay for the meal.

Typical liberal.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Kwanzaa: Celebrating Racism

When I first heard about Kwanzaa, back when I was in my pre-teen years it sounded to me like an attempt by race-baiting Black activists to have a holiday similar to, but completely separate from the “White” Christmas holiday. In other words, a way to build a greater divide between Blacks and Whites, and I never took it seriously or even as a legitimate holiday.

It wasn’t until twenty years or more later that I found that what I thought instinctively was in fact, true.

Kwanzaa was the “brainchild” of professional race-baiting activist and criminal Ron Korenga. (Formerly Ronald Everett) Korenga formed a Black racist cult called the United Slaves, a group formed in opposition to the Black Panther party.

In 1970, Korenga and two of his followers were arrested for torturing two of his female followers. Korenga thought they were trying to poison him. But then again, Korenga did have some problems determining fact from fantasy.

A 1971 psychological profile of him described Korenga, “as a danger to society who is in need of prolonged custodial treatment in prison.” And that while he was legally sane, was not in complete touch with reality.

It’s amazing that any sane person would take a “holiday” created by this racist nut job as serious.

Kwanzaa, no thanks, I’ll stick with Christmas.

For those of you who’ve recently attended public schools or have liberals as parents, Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, also known as the Son of God who came to reconcile fallen Man with God.

Granted, the actual day The Christ was born is debated even by Christians and while the Christmas as celebrated in December may have been taken from a pagan holiday, there’s no debate that today, Christmas celebrates the Lord’s birth.

Christmas is a Holiday all races can celebrate.

Robot

Robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Whatever Happened to the Patriot Act?

When the Patriot Act was passed, something I was opposed to, the Left in This Country whined, bleated and moaned about how it would be used to end all Constitutional rights as we knew it and investigate anyone opposed to President Bush.

I honestly can’t tell you what is in it, but I have plenty of company. Most of Congress voted for it without ever reading the bill.

As a rule of thumb, I’m generally opposed to anything that will give the government more power to investigate citizens without a good reason. I did however know that President Bush would use it for its intended use, investigating and conducting surveillance on suspected terrorists. My concern was that a demoncrat president would use the Act to investigate anyone (read, Conservatives) who disagreed with him and his socialist agenda.

I predicted when it was passed that if the Reds took over congress that they would quiet their whining about the Act until the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election. While I’m no psychic, what I predicted came to pass. The Reds won the Congressional elections and complaints about the Patriot Act faded. When the Mocha Marxist won the Presidential election, all talk of the Patriot Act went oddly (not really) silent.

Shortly after B. Hussein Obama took office, the Left started bleating about fears of violence from the “extremists” on the Right. The fear of violence from Right-Wing “extremists” was being propagated by the DHS, and Left-Wing propaganda groups such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and MilitiaWatchDog.org and other assorted Left-Wing sites.

It appears to me that the Patriot Act, using “warnings” about Right-Wing “extremists” from the above mentioned groups will be used to target Conservatives groups and individuals.

But then again, I could just be one of those paranoid, Right-Wing “extremists”. Don’t be surprised if you hear about DHS, Jack Bauer-types storming my house.

Robot

BryanGrasper@live.com

831-869-9932

Prayer for B. Hussein Obama

Psalms: 109:8; Let his days be few; [and] let another take his office (KJV)

The above Bible verse has been adopted by many patriots as a prayer for B. Hussein Obama, and has been made into a (now, hard to find) bumper sticker.

As could have been expected, the Left, who generally don’t believe in The Bible or God in the first place sniveled and whined about the use of the Verse. There have even been a few misguided Christians and Conservatives who voiced their complaints about using this verse as a prayer
They claim that verse 8 is a coded way of calling for B. Hussein’s assassination and that the following verses call for bad things to happen to his children.
Oddly enough (not really), there wasn’t one peep from the Left when an actual movie was produced about the assassination of President George Bush.
No one using that verse as a prayer for B. Hussein intends it for “trolling for assassins” as one Christian commentator calls it, nor do we want any harm to come to his children
The hope and prayers of the people using that verse is for the days of B. Hussein in office to be few, i.e. removal by way of impeachment, perhaps due to him not being a U.S. citizen or removal from office by some other non-violent means.
Again, I mention how the left didn’t make ONE PEEP about the movie about Bush’s assassination.
I’ve attempted to find one of the bumper stickers and as of yet, have been unable to find one.
CafePress.com apparently carried the stickers at one time but due to whining, and perhaps their political leanings have stopped carrying them.
While I buy most of my Conservative bumper stickers from CafePress.com and their RightWingStuff.com section, CafePress also has a LeftWingStuff section, which tells me they’re mercenary and are only out for a buck and are either left-wing or that they have no particular political leanings. I personally prefer to deal with True Believers, but alas I haven’t been able to find the Obama prayer stickers on their sites either.
I came close using a website that customizes bumper stickers, but several days after placing the order, I received an e-mail from the telling me they were much too cowardly (granted, I’m paraphrasing) to print the sticker.
What the Left needs to accept is there are some Patriots, who care about This Country and aren’t going to silently stand by and let this Mocha Marxist destroy The Country.

Robot
BryanGrasper@live.com
www.InsideTheCompound.com
831-869-9932

Has The GOP Moved too far to the Right? (Only if you’re a Marxist)

We’ve all heard it before the Republican Party is moving too far to the Right and is being taken over by Christian Fundamentalists. The people who say this fall into one of either two categories, the uniformed fools who actually believe a particular commonly held GOP stand is “extremist” and the shameless Marxist degenerates who want to fool the afore-mentioned group into going along with them out of fear of being labeled an “extremist” if they use their common sense.

Lately, within the 20 years or so two of the views labeled as only being held by “extremist” is opposition to queer “marriage” and the use of infanticide (abortion) as a method of birth control. The past ten years have added opposition to illegal aliens (and providing them with government handouts) and questioning the reality of “global warming” as “extremist” views. Since the election of B. Hussein Obama, opposition to socialized health care is labeled as “extremist”.

Those of us in the real world and who have been around for longer than say, two weeks realize that opposition to the above-mentioned social issues didn’t just start with the election of George Bush. (Either Big Bush or the Shrub)

Some of you may not know it but killing a baby as a form of birth control wasn’t always legal or even morally accepted. To be honest, abortion isn’t one of my main issues, mainly because it is usually liberal females who abort their children. To paraphrase one of the dons from The Godfather (The original one), liberals are animals. Let them lose their souls. My attempts at being kinder and gentler since I first thought those words haven’t been fruitful. However, I do think abortion should never have been legalized and it should again be criminalized.

The abortion lobby claims that banning abortions will lead to (slutty) women dying in back alleys due to botched abortions. I tend to think that instead, young (and older) women will think twice before jumping in bed with someone they aren’t planning to marry.

While on the subject of marriage, the label “extremist” is also placed on people opposed to queer “marriage”.

Years ago, perhaps 20-30 years ago, two men, two women or even an adult of either gender could marry a sheep or any four-legged creature of their choice. During those years before the “extremists” took over I remember attending many a wedding where two men or two women would stand in front of a pastor to be joined in (un)Holy matrimony and then go skipping down the isle, hand in hand for a life of bliss and possibly some bizarre sexually-transmitted disease.

Actually, NO! There have never been queer “marriages” in This Country and 10-20 years ago nearly everyone recognized homosexuality for what it was, an amoral, unnatural act performed by people with serious sexual identity problems.

Basically, the point I’m making is the Republican Party isn’t “moving to the Right”, much to my disappointment. As can be seen by “Republican” candidates like John McCain, “Republican” governors like Arnold Schwarzen-Kennedy, the party is moving to the left.

The problem the degenerates have is that it isn’t moving to the left far enough and there are real Republicans (at least until they switch to Independent) who will fight the RINOs every step of the way.

Robot

831-869-9932

Crying Racism is the new McCarthyism

First off, the title of my piece isn’t meant to give any credence to the Left-Wing slanders against Senator Joe McCarthy (Who was right), it’s meant to point out how the Left uses the false accusation of “racism” to silence any opposition to B. Hussein Obama’s Socialist agenda, in the same way they cried “McCarthyism!”, whenever someone points out their attempts to move This Country toward Communism.

One would think anyone would feel like a total fools for believing opposition to Obama equals “racism”, especially considering that Conservatives and some Moderates (Moderate means you’re only wrong half the time) opposed the Socialist agendas of the Clinton administration and the Socialist agendas proposed by the presidential campaigns of Gore and Kerry.

No, while some of the people crying “racism” are indeed simple-minded morons, that’s only part of the picture.

When people like John Conyers claim the KKK will be doing their night-riding again and Jimmy Carter, the worst president in U,S. History (pending the end of Obama’s term) rants about “racism”, one knows they don’t really believe that, it’s just their way of trying to silence the opposition.

For some reason, many Whites will say, do or believe anything to avoid being labeled “racist”. Many would probably be afraid to admit some of their best friends may be black, Hispanic, Jewish whatever, because in the mind of a Leftist, noticing the race of a minority is itself “racist”.

You may remember the reports in the news of “racists” showing up outside of the buildings where Obama was giving speech with their legal firearms. Not much airtime was given to the black man (No, it wasn’t me) who was carrying his legal firearm outside of an Obama speech.

Due in large part to the Tea Party events and non-liberal controlled talk shows, Obama’s agenda may be hitting some speed bumps.

Screams of “Racism” is just a desperate attempt by the Socialists to silence opposition to their agenda.

Robot

831-869-9932

robot@mbay.net

B. Hussein Obama: Bringing the races Together???

You’ve heard it before and undoubtedly, you’ll hear it again that B. Hussein Obama “has brought the races together”. One hears that a lot from the mentally deficient, starry-eyed obama-worshippers.

I ask HOW???

Speaking for myself, I got along great with Whites before b.o. got into office. I get along great with them now. I dare to say, some of my best friends are White.

Are we to assume that Whites who didn’t like Blacks before b.o. got into office now love blacks and would be proud to have their daughters come to Thanksgiving dinner with their Black husbands? Are we to assume that the Blacks who blame Whites for all of their failures and disappointments in life now accept personnel responsibility for their accomplishments or lack thereof?

Has the KKK now thrown away their robes and the Nation of Islam traded in their bowties for neckties?

You’d have to be a simple-minded fool to think so.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Libertarians (for peace) Against B. Hussein Obama

On 20 June 2008, I attended a talk sponsored by the Libertarians for “Peace” and put on at the “Peace” resources Center in Seaside, California.

The main speaker was Libertarian Anthony Gregory and was titled “Is the new boss the same as the old boss: has Obama kept his promises”

Such a talk would never be given by any of the other “Peace” Coalition (PC) members. Some of the PC people would oppose b.o, but would never have the stones to say so publicly for fear of being labeled “racist” or Heaven forbid, Republican.

I spoke briefly with Gregory before the talk after he told me he liked my hat (Which had “NRA” embroidered on it”).

Unlike any speech that would be given by anyone in the PC crowd, Gregory points out that some of the policies the left bashes Bush for were started under Clinton. One of which was the “renditions” program, where the CIA took captured terrorists to countries where actual torture (not water boarding) was allowed. Gregory pointed out this program started under Clinton and was expanded under Bush. Of course, there wasn’t a peep from the Left when Clinton was using the program. The program currently continues under b.o. also, without a peep from the left.

Gregory displayed a lack of honesty (i.e. lied) when he claimed the “Right” has only recently become concerned with big government and the Constitution. A more honest person would have said while some Bush-bots have recently been concerned about big government since b.o. has gotten into office, real Conservatives also opposed Bush’s Big Government spending programs..

Gregory claims he never voted for anyone who’s ever killed anyone, something I as see nothing to brag about.

Obviously, there are some people worth killing, or a better way of putting it would be there are some causes worth killing for.

Gregory pointed out that b.o. attempted to block lawsuits dealing with “illegal” wiretaps and keeps the log of visitors to the White House secret, broke his promise to post bills 5 days prior to him signing them, all of this after promising his administration would be one of “transparency”. Kind of reminds you of how Clinton claimed his administration would be the most ethical one.

(I predicted several years ago, shortly after the Demoncrats won a majority in Congress that you would hear very little about the Patriot Act unless a Republican (or McCain) won the 2008 election. I’m predicting now that the Demoncrats will use the Patriot Act against Conservative groups, especially if they can’t get their “hate” (thought) Crimes legislation passed.)

Gregory also mentioned that b.o.’s CIA Director Leon Panetta supported destruction of CIA interrogation videos. Given the dubious loyalty to This Country some of the Reds in Congress have, the CIA would be suicidal to give them all of their information.

I’ve heard one liberal describe Libertarians as Republicans who want to smoke dope, so accordingly, Gregory whined about b.o. making fun of dopers who posted they wanted him to legalize dope on his website.

Gregory also mentioned that Cal Thomas and Bush were against the raids on “medical” marijuana clinics and gave the usual b.s. reasons to explain why dope should be legalized.

Gregory whined about Cheney and b.o. agreeing that the U.S. has the right to defend itself. Gregory mentioned that most of the people freed from Gitmo (so far) were released under Bush. (Some of whom ended up back on the battlefield, fighting against coalition forces with Al Qaeda)

In following the usual left-wing talking point, Gregory calls the war in Iraq a “deluded act, mainly influenced by “Neocons””

Gregory whined on about how b.o. supports drone strikes on terrorist bases in Pakistan (which Pakistan apparently allows) and sniveled about b.o. supporting an anti-missile defense system (which if he said he supports, I doubt he actually means it.)

Gregory lost even more of his credibility when he said he wanted the U.S. to abolish its nuclear weapons, but he did gain a little bit of it back when, during the question and answer period he said the United nations was started by Stalinists (Which is probably why so many on the left support the UN)

I think this was in response to a question about the U.S. going through the UN to “solve” world problems.

One worthless, Marxist puke “Frank” told the crowd that the Soviets should threaten to nuke the U.S. and Israel if either one of them attacks Iran’s nuke sites.

I muttered under my breath “Jew-hating Communist” and the woman sitting next to me apparently agreed. She also seemed to scoff at some of the more outlandish statements uttered by some of the leftists.

One goofy nut (by goofy, I mean he obviously had mental issues beyond the usual liberal mental illness) said bush should face a firing squad.

Gregory responded that he was against the death penalty, which of course took away any credibility he gained by bashing the UN.

One Red said b.o. was a “centrist” and that “activists” (read: hard corps communists) needed to move him (more) to the left.

Gregory said that voters didn’t really want “change” or else they would have voted for Ron Paul. Ron Paul would have been “change”, but I don’t support all of the changes he would have tried to bring. However, he would have been a much, much better choice than McCain.

Gregory mentioned that 9-11 was the result of Clinton policies and that Americans really didn’t care about foreign deaths.

A woman mentioned that people gave b.o. a tremendous amount of slack and asked how that can be changed.

The goofy nut called for an armed revolution in the Country, something I’m starting to agree with, but obviously from a different perspective. My ideal end goal of armed revolt would be a total and physical separation of the left and Right in this Country.

One silly airhead said that b.o. has "brought the races together". (She didn't give any examples how) Gregory asked what has b.o. done since then.

I would add he hasn't even done that.

While b.o. has given the Reds and Libertarians For Peace a few things to snivel about, I'm sure the reds will be pleased at what he does to This Country. By that I mean, destroy It.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Abortionist Reaps What he has Sown

An Abortionist Reaps What He Has Sown

The killing of “Killer” Tiller is no cause for celebration. His killing (I refuse to call it a “murder”) only gives the savages more ammunition to bash the anti-abortion movement.

I personally prefer the term “anti-abortion’ to “pro-life”. As any pro-abortion person will tell you is that many of the people who call themselves pro-life support the death penalty. Now to any thinking person (which of course rules out most liberals) that isn’t the contradiction of beliefs that the pro-abortion mob would have you believe. A thinking person would instead see the major contradiction on the pro-abortion side, most of whom oppose the death penalty, but more about that in a later post.

Upon hearing about the killing of George (killer) Tiller (I refuse to call him “doctor”. Doctors save lives) a friend of mine expressed his pleasure over the killing. He feels the killing of this mass murderer was a fitting punishment and hopes no jury will convict the shooter. We both found it ironic and more than a little disgusting that a mass abortionist (Killer Tiller claims he’s done nearly 60,000 abortions) would for one, feel comfortable in a church and two, that a church would make him feel comfortable. One would think that the pastor, a deacon or even an average, pew-sitting member would mention to Tiller that “thou shalt not murder” is one of the Ten Commandments.

I don’t think that Tiller’s death is any big loss and have no doubt that he’s now convinced of the evil of his ways, but in the long run Tiller’s killing will hurt, not only the anti-abortion effort, but the Conservative Movement in general.

This short-sighted act allows the left to more easily claim (falsely, of course) that any Conservative activist is plotting and waiting to kill an abortionist, queer or illegal alien. Already left-wing activists, namely so-called extremist/militia-watchdog, left-wing media (read: “mainstream” media) groups and B. Hussein Obama’s DHS are calling for the “Right-Wing” to be scrutinized more.

See: http://tinyurl.com/mjpq6w

Because of the Tiller’s killing, things will be much harder on legitimate Conservative activists.

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

The True Definition of Marriage Upheld in California (for now)

There’s an old adage that proclaims, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day”. Today that applies to the California Supreme Court in it’s ruling on Proposition 8.

For anyone who lives out of state and could care less what goes on in California, Proposition 8 is a ballot initiative that confirms the common sense and natural definition of marriage that marriage is between one MAN and one Woman).

As is usual in California, whenever a vote of the people doesn’t go their way the Left, the alleged lovers of democracy filed a lawsuit to oppose the will of the public.

While the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of the Proposition 8, they also ruled that the sexual degenerates who were allowed to “marry” during the court battles were allowed to remain “married”.

The battle is over for now, but the degenerates will return with another scheme to thwart the will of the voters.

Robot

831-869-9932

Arlen Spectre Returns Home

Arlen Spectre crossing over to the dark side isn’t a matter of him “defecting” it’s the case of an enemy operative finally returning home.

I think the only reason the RINO puke switched from the DNC 40 years ago is because he could do more damage to the Republican Party from the inside. As a “Republican” he’s often sided with the enemy in his senate votes.

Ironically, probably the only reason he’s still in office is because Bush Jr. supported him in the Pennsylvania primary. There was a real Republican running in the primary, but Bush Jr. instead backed the RINO.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Spectre went against Bush Jr. on his war policy.

I suspect Bush Jr. may not be as incompetent as he lets on and may be in fact, one of “them”.

Human Events Magazine placed Spectre as #3 in a list of Top Ten RINOs (Republican In Name Only), the top two on the list being Lincoln Chaffee (R.I.) and Olympia Snow (Ma). (I don’t see how McCain failed to make the list)

Spectre claims his reason for leaving the Party is because the GOP is “moving too far to the Right”, a claim which sounds demented or drug induced considering the Republican Party chose notorious RINO John McCain as its presidential candidate.

Spectre’s true reason for “defecting” is because the Republican voters in Pennsylvania are (finally) starting to figure out he isn’t, nor ever was one of them. A recent Pennsylvania poll shows that 66% of Republican voters want to dump him in the next election in favor of a real Republican.

Spectre was one of the three “Republicans” to support B. Hussein Obama’s trillion dollar bailout plan.

The GOP shouldn’t be upset over Spectre’s “defection” and instead should welcome his departure. Not only should his departure be welcomed, it should have been encouraged….no, DEMANDED years ago.

Hopefully Snowe, Chaffee and McCain and all the other RINOs will follow him.

Robot
831-869-9932



P.S.

Less than a week after Spectre "defected" The Democrats sold him out by stripping him of his seniority. Apparently, there's no honor among Reds.

Is anyone else as laughing their butts of over Spectre being sold out by the same people he's been selling out to for over 30 years

A Real Republican Revolution

The last election is evidence that there needs to be a serious purge of the RINOs who infest the Republican Party. I mean a Stalin-like purge, not with the violence but with the same intensity of Stalin’s purges.

The RINOs have been an influence in the Republican Party since the 50’s, though they seem to have fully taken control in the past 20-30 years.

RINOs can also be called Country Club Republicans and they look down on those who hold to true Conservative principles and pretty much consider us the unwashed masses.

My hatred of these pukes has been brewing for years and has started to boil over after seeing the way some of the RINOs have treated true Conservative (so far) Sarah Palin. Some of them have the nerve to blame her for arch-RINO McCain loosing the election.

Many Republicans (such as me, for which I’ve sincerely repented) ONLY voted for McCain because Palin was on the ticket.

What needs to be done is to purge any “Republican” politician who doesn’t adhere to the main planks of the Republican Party Platform.

Obviously any “Republican” who supports a Demoncratic candidate, except for the most extreme circumstances should be purged.

I think most true Republicans would see the main points as being; a strong national defense, smaller government, pro-gun rights, anti-abortion, traditional families (i.e., no homosexual “marriage”), and rejecting the global “warming” nonsense.

By “purge” I mean, any “Republican” who goes against any two and definitely any three of the above positions would receive no support or endorsement from the official Republican Party and no official Republican Party representative will refer to the individual as a “Republican”.

Perhaps the Platform can be updated to clearly state the above positions, or if the RINOs manage to remove some of those main issues, true Conservatives can break away from the Party and form another party.

Whatever we do, this has to change. Otherwise we’ll either get more Obamas, or RINOs who would be no different from an Obama or a Clinton or Kennedy.

Just a thought.

Robot

WiRogue@aim.com

831-869-9932

The Attempted Queering of Black America

Proposition 8, which confirmed that true marriage is between one MAN and one WOMAN passed with nearly 70 percent of the black vote. The sodomite lobby (which doesn’t just include the perverts who engage in the practice) have expressed surprise and outrage that most blacks voted against them. For some reason, the degenerates think that because blacks were once a persecuted minority (yes, I did say ONCE, i.e. in the PAST a persecuted minority) we should also support their unnatural practices.

True, there are some blacks who’ve been hanging around white liberals too long and have been brainwashed into feeling that sodomites are just another minority. One of my former best friends is one of them (I don’t mean as in queer (but I wonder sometimes), I mean he’s been brainwashed into accepting buggery as normal) others however, will nod in agreement to their liberal friends but are thinking to themselves “of course homosexuality is unnatural”. It was these blacks who while voting for the most pro-homosexual presidential candidate in history, also voted to uphold the ban homosexual “marriage”.

All of the pro-homosexual propaganda, including Hollywood putting a homosexual into nearly ever TV sitcom still hasn’t convinced the majority of Blacks that homosexuality is “normal”.

Unlike Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the NAACP (Negroes Are Actually Colored People) I don’t pretend to speak for all Black Americans, however few things infuriate me more than to have the degenerates of the Queer lobby try to justify their perverted activity by comparing themselves to blacks.

A basic knowledge anatomy shows that homosexuality isn’t normal, therefore there is no such thing as homosexual “marriage”.

No ifs, ands, or butts about it

I do have a prediction for the next years. The sodomite lobby and Hollywood will direct more pro-homosexual propaganda toward Blacks. There will be an increase of black homosexual characters on television and in movies and it won’t be the usual hairdressers and fashion store owners. It will be tough black guys who just happen to bugger other men when they aren’t out kicking butt.

Homosexuality is also a hard sell in the Asian and Latino community, so there will also be more of them playing butt-rangers.

If This Country ever fully accepts homosexuality as “normal” that will be the end of it.

Robot
wirogue@aim.com
831-869-9932

Fight Crime, Shoot Back (Better Yet, Shoot First)

I know this will never happen in our politically correct (i.e. cowardly) society, but what if crime-ridden cities and counties offered a bounty for any convicted criminal killed or captured DURING THE COMMISION OF A CRIME.

In other words, if a homeowner shoots a criminal during a burglary or home invasion or if a business owner or one of his employees shoots a criminal while they are attempting a robbery, either the city or county would pay the individual a few thousand dollars. I think if the convicted thug is killed, the individual should be paid roughly ten percent of what it would have cost to run the thug through the legal system.

Along with offering a bounty for the thugs, either law enforcement or better yet, private instructors could provide firearms training for law-abiding business owners and other private citizens (After a background check).

There are several obvious speed bumps to this plan. One: the thug (if the defending person’s shooting ability isn’t what it should be) or his relatives may try to sue the defender, and Two: pro-crime and/or other “peace” groups will try to stop the program

There are two ways to deal these fools. The city or county (or better yet, private citizens) could host a website where the home and work address of the person(s) suing the defenders are listed. The law-abiding public could contact the people supporting the criminal and tell them why they are fed up with the mindless thugs who are practically running their city.

Left-wing pro-crime organizations could be countered by forming organizations of honest citizens and crime victims who could speak and protest in opposition to them.

Granted, as I wrote in the beginning, this will never happen. Obviously my plan wouldn’t completely stop violent crime, but it would make living in a crime-ridden city as dangerous for the criminals as it is for the good people.

Robot
Wirogue@aim.com
831-869-9932

Vote Yes on Propositions 4 and 8: It's Only Common Sense

There may be a few grey issues on the California ballot. Proposition 4 and Proposition 8 are two that definitely are not.

Proposition 4, would require parental notification before an UNDERAGE female can murder her unborn child. To any somewhat, moral thinking person, that would be a no-brainer, but of course we are talking about liberals, who generally have no actual moral issues and basically have a “if it feels good, do it and if you screw up, the government will bail you out” mentality .

The pro-infanticide crowd claims that abused girls would have a problem going to their parents if the abuser is a family member. Of course, that’s probably the lamest argument against the proposition they could come up with.

Were the abuser a father or stepfather, he would be more prone to rush the victimized girl to an abortion mill.

A “no” vote on Prop. 4 would be sort of an old pervert’s protection act. An adult pervert who knocks up a 15-year-old would be able to take her for an abortion with no questions asked.

Surely, a Planned Parenthood (infanticide) abortion clinic would ask no questions, nor would they report it to the police.

The real problem the Left and especially Planned (infanticide) Parenthood has with Prop. 4 are they fear that somewhere, someplace a young girl will actually keep her baby. After all, Planned Parenthood (Infanticide) really makes a killing out of doing abortions and if Prop. 4 passed, it would cut into their profits, and undermine their social agenda. Also, I think abortion is a form of pagan sacrifice for some of those on the Left.

Proposition 8 is even more of a no-brainer, again, unless you’re a liberal. Prop. 8 would define marriage in the California Constitution as between one Man and one FEMALE. Duh. A basic knowledge of anatomy will tell any thinking person that homosexuality and therefore, allowing them to “marry” is unnatural. Sodomites can already have domestic “partnerships”. Homosexuals know what they do is unnatural. They want to “marry” so that they can convince themselves that what they engage in is normal.

Proposition 8 is not “discrimination. If I read the proposition correctly, I didn’t see anyplace where it called for separate water facets and restrooms for homosexuals and normal people (though given some of the diseases many of them are prone to get, that may not be a bad idea), nor did I read anywhere in the proposition where homosexuals were to be denied the right to vote or own property.

A yes vote on Proposition 8 is just common sense.

Robot

www.InsideTheCompound.com

elishewitz@gmail.com

831-869-9932

McCain Bad, B. Hussein Obama Worse (but just barely)

I don't have the words to describe how much I hate Mccain. He's arguably, one of the 5 biggest RINO's (Republican In Name Only) in the Republican Party. I've talked to some of the most Anti-American, Anti-Christian, degenerate liberal pukes, and they like McCain, and why shouldn't they? He's one of them. The idiot even said he would have Al Gore on his staff to deal with the (mythical) issue of “global warming” and he supports amnesty for illegal aliens.

However, not only do I hate B.O., I fear what he will do to This Country. I was seriously considering voting for Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, but after seeing B.O. is worshiped by the mindless masses on the Left, I'm considering voting for McCain.

I know I'll regret it if he gets into office. Should he get in, he'll do what he always does, run across the aisle to work with the enemy. Yes, Democrats in general and Liberals in particular, ARE THE ENEMY. To save This Country, we (True Republicans and other Conservatives) should not be working or compromising with the left. We need to defeat them.

That won’t happen with a RINO, sellout like McCain, but for the time being it’s all we have.

Personally, I’d prefer we split up the Country between the Right and the Wrong (left).

Robot

www.InsideTheCompound.com

elishewitz@gmail.com

831-869-9932

The Left Finally admits it, they’re Racist

Of course, that isn’t news to any thinking person. The Left has always operated on the belief that Blacks and other minorities can’t succeed in life without their liberal, White massa’s to he’p them with government programs. Race-baiting poverty-pimps like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other assorted left-wing activists help them promote the myth.

Now after the failure of enviro-Marxist Al Gore and light-Marxist John Kerry to beat George (RINO) Bush Jr. in the last two presidential elections, the left is now running the Mocha-Marxist, B. Hussein Obama (B.O.) as presidential nominee.

Surprisingly, they even appear to be doing so with a straight face so far. B.O. is a one-term U.S. Senator who has no qualifications other than hating America , being close friends with a 60’s era terrorist, (Ayers) having had for twenty years a goofy, racist, anti-American head case as a pastor, and being a community “organizer”. By the way, the community group he “organized” with is a group called ACORN which is well known for voter fraud.

The Left claims people may not vote for B.O. because he’s *gasp* a Negro. (The horror, the horror.)

Even if B.O. was a blond-haired, blue-eyed Aryan-looking man or even a hot-looking blond woman with Ann Coulter’s looks, no Republican (with the possible exception of some RINOs (Republican In Name Only)) would vote for him.

So, the only logical conclusion one came come to is the Left fears their own racist, white comrades will refuse to vote for the black guy. Sure, they feel it’s acceptable to scare blacks and other minorities into voting for them and their policies, but to actually have one as PRESIDENT? Lenin forbid! (Perhaps they also fear there’ll be fried chicken and grape soda at the inaugural ball)

Why wouldn’t any liberal feel comfortable voting for McCain? After all, he’s practically one of them. Other their stand on the war in Iraq (which will probably be all but won by the time the next president takes office) there’s not much difference between them.

Of course now that McCain needs the support of the Conservatives he’s trashed his whole time in office, he’s now posing as a real Republican. He even chose Sarah Palin (Who’s more qualified than either McCain or B.O.) as his running mate and Conservative “beard” to fool some Conservatives into voting for him.

Of course Palin will only be VICE-president and her main job after waking will be to check to see if McCain has died overnight.

The left knows this (even if many Conservatives don’t) and some will have no problem voting for McCain rather than the unknown black guy.

So basically, the Left fears the racists among their own comrades.


The race card has been played, and it’s a Spade.

Robot

robot@mbay.net

www.InsideTheCompound.com

831-869-9932

The Common Sense Definition of the Second Amendment Reigns Supreme (Finally)

The recent decision by the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices only emphasizes the obvious, that the 2^nd Amendment refers to an INDIVIDUAL right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

The fact that four of the justices refuses to see that only goes to show that just because a person wears a black robe and has a law degree does not necessarily mean they’re intelligent or even have much common sense. Perhaps they, like many elected officials and public “servants” fear that if they go too far they may find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s firearm. A more foreboding thought is that they INTEND to eventually go too far, and impose laws and regulations that no free person would tolerate.

One has to be simple-minded and cowardly to deny that the Founders recognized the God-given right for INDIVIDUALS to be armed and that the right did not refer to a standing army. Standing armies, either military or civilian (as in civilian police agencies) are organizations that would be used to enforce the directives of a tyrannical government, and the type of organizations an armed citizenry would have to defend against.

In all the other places in the Bill of Rights where rights of the “people” are mentioned, it refers to an individual right. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, etc. was not referring to a collective right, nor was the right to free speech referring to the right of the government to put out their propaganda unopposed.

The Los Angeles Times published an editorial shortly after the ruling, claiming the Supreme Court “…opted for the interpretation less suited to a 20^th century America bedeviled by “gun” crime”. Apparently in some crime-ridden areas of this Country firearms are victimizing people without the need of a criminal hand to guide them.

The editorial also claims the court went against the “majority” and “traditional” (i.e. the wrong) interpretation of the amendment. The interpretation they’re referring to is only held by anti-gun, anti-self defense extremists.

Of course, the anti-gun eunuchs are claiming that because the law-abiding people of Washington D.C. (all two dozen of them) will now be allowed to arm and defend themselves gun violence will increase. Perhaps, but the only increase will be the violence done to criminals by their intended victims, which most people, other than liberals will see as a good thing.

It’s interesting to note that while the anti-gun zealots want to disarm law-abiding citizens, they always snivel and whine to no end when someone suggests we should actually punish criminals more severely.

But as Forrest Gump said, “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Robot

831-869-9932

California: The Sodomite State

In a move that shows their utter contempt for the people of California, Common sense and nature (God) Itself, the California Supreme Court ruled that not allowing same sex couples to “marry” was “unconstitutional.

I’ve said it before and will doubtlessly say it again, a basic knowledge of anatomy will show the average person, queer or not that homosexuality is unnatural and perverted. Nope, as far as human sexual relations go tab “A” doesn’t (or shouldn’t) go into slot “A”.

I’ve often said that if homos are allowed to “marry” there will be no reason to keep people from engaging in polygamy or “marrying” animals. Of course the queer lobby scoffs at the obvious conclusion. That is, MOST of the sodomite lobby scoffs at that. There is one notable exception. Frank Kameny, a hero of the queer community wrote to a pro-family group that a person should be able to knock boots (hooves, paws whatever) with an animal if that’s what gets them off. http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66060

Kameny was instrumental in getting the American Psychiatric Association into reclassifying homosexuality as “normal”.

In spite of the victory given to the degenerates by the California Supreme Court, there is a glimmer of hope for the State. Yesterday the California Marriage Protection Act qualified for the November ballot. The initiative needed just under 700,000 signatures and it received over a million. This is a proposed California Constitution Amendment that will state the obvious, that MARRIAGE is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Robot

831-869-9932

The Democratic Party’s True Color is Red

I mean Red as in Communism, Marxism and Leninism. I’ve always said there’s little to no difference between most liberals and Communists. The only difference being what they will admit to believing in public.

A Liberal for example, wants all the same things that a communist would want, but they will deny to the death that they are in fact, Communist. A communist on the other hand will freely admit what he is and will tell you he wants the government to collect and manage your private property.

Rep. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California showed her true colors during a House panel “investigating” the high cost of gasoline.

Waters told the panel and several oil company executives that if gas prices aren’t lowered the government should take over and run the companies. One of the executives pointed out that Venezuela, under Dictator Hugo Chavez (Who, along with Fidel Castro is a hero of the left) did the same thing. I’m sure Waters had Chavez and Fidel Castro in mind when she dusted off this old, faded idea.

While that is the feeling of most democrats and liberals, it’s surprising to actually hear one admit that in public. However, Waters is not one of the sharpest knives in the drawer.

It should also be remembered that Waters is a member of the House Progressive Caucus. The Progressive Caucus consists of the most Marxist-minded of the House Democrats.

(See the New American article on the Progressive Caucus: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/905)

For years I’ve been listening to Liberals praising all things Communist. Their plans for society consist of having the government not only providing every needs of U.S. citizens, were they to have they way, we would also be providing handouts to the rest of the world. That is, more than we already are.

As I mentioned before one of the Left’s primary heroes is Fidel Castro. About a year ago or so I attended a discussion about Castro’s Cuba put on by the Pastors For “Peace’ and the local “peace” activist. During the lecture (rant) one of the speakers said there are no rich in Cuba. He ecstatically proclaimed “In Cuba you’re not allowed to be rich”

At a more recent event put on by the same Reds, the praise of Castro continued. Among the group was a businessman who has legal and illegal dealings with Cuba. He had the audacity to tell this group that most of the recent (presumably positive) reforms in Cuba would not have happened had Castro still been in power rather than his brother Raul.

This of course enraged some of the attendees of this Castro worship service. (Ironically, this meeting was held in a Church fellowship room.) There were outbursts from several of the worshippers who opposed hearing their god so “slighted”.

One woman claimed Cuba is the example the U.S. should follow in order for us to deal with global “warming” and water “shortages’, etc.

Were these Marxist fools simply confined to Carmel, Santa Cruz and Berkeley, the situation wouldn’t be so grave. Unfortunately, we have at least two of the same ilk running for president, and a third while though he calls himself a Republican, will not be much different.

We’re screwed.

Robot

831-869-9932

'Rather a Bullet in the Brain, than a Vote for McCain

We Are So, So Screwed

This upcoming presidential election, barring some miracle is a battle of the liberals. On the Red side, the choice will either be an evil Marxist broom jockey AKA: HilLIARy (Shriek) Clinton or Obama Hussein, the Mocha Marxist. On the Republican side the choice is RINO, Pink Elephant John McCain and whichever liberal chosen to run with him.

No one with a brain and who doesn’t use drugs, or is dependent on government handouts needs to be told what a disaster for this Country Shriek and the Mocha Marxist will be, but some people who don’t follow the political scene may be fooled into voting for the Pink Elephant.

Other than his support for the continuing Iraq War, nothing much separates him from The Shriek or the Mocha Marxist.

As pointed out by Ann Coulter and others, mccain: supports illegal aliens, opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning queer “marriage”, called U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito “too conservative” wants to shut down Guantanamo supports taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell use, believes in the myth of “global warming” and not only opposed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but considered being a running mate to COMRADE JOHN KERRY!

If that weren’t enough, he opposes overturning Roe v. Wade (frankly, while I’m generally opposed to abortion, it isn’t one of my major social issues because the vast majority of the people who have them are liberals, and anything that keeps them from overpopulating can have its uses) he bashed Pat Robertson and the Reverend Jerry Falwell and “agents of intolerance” and part of the “forces of evil”.

Lastly, mccain has been endorsed by California RINO Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger-Kennedy. That alone should be enough for anyone true Republican to not support him.

In general, the Country Club, Pink Elephant RINOs, have nothing but contempt for Conservative Republicans and their push to do away with them began in the 50’s with groups like the Ripon Society and continued (successfully) in the 90’s with the “Mainstream’ (liberal) Republican group, which took over many of California’s County Republican central Committees.

You may notice how some of their ilk are joining online forums and attempting to herd the people who aren’t fooled by mccain into voting for him using insults, claiming refusing to support the clown “aren’t true Republicans” and attempting to use the specter of a HilLIARy presidency to scare us into voting for into voting for the RINO, Steve Martin look-alike.

While I would never even jokingly consider voting for Shriek or the Mocha Marxist, I sure as HELL won’t be voting for mccain.

The worse thing about a mccain presidency is that if he wins, the principles of the Republican Party will be forever abandoned and anyone even slightly more Conservative than mccain will be labeled as an “extremist”.

Unfortunately, this Country appears to be finished and sadly, there’s no other country to run to.

Robot

831-869-9932

Gun Checkpoints: Trading Liberty For Security

There was a letter published in a local Monterey County California Newspaper where a simple-minded (liberal) writer suggested using “gun checkpoints” to solve the problem of gang violence in Salinas.

I’m always amazed at how anti-gun cowards want to rely on someone else to protect them, and thus allow the protector to put themselves at risk because of the anti-gunner’s cowardice.

Salinas California is a city with a population of about 148,350 people with a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 people. Compared to Richmond (population 103,470, with 38 murders per 100,000 people), it’s practically Mayberry, but for Monterey County, it’s a dangerous city.

Never mind the fact that guns aren’t the problem in any high crime area (criminals, are) there is another slight problem with the airhead’s idea of gun checkpoints, namely, the Fourth Amendment. For those who don’t remember that’s the one against unreasonable searches and seizure.

Perhaps the writer thinks only gang members should be stopped. But of course, that would involve “profiling” and liberals hate that.

As Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

A better use for “gun checkpoints” would be to ensure people entering a high crime area of Salinas (or especially Richmond) were carrying a gun.

Robot

831-869-9932

Another Second Amendment Victory

Today, by a unanimous 3-0 decision, the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of a lower court dismissing a lawsuit filed by the District of Columbia and nine families of gun crime victims against 25 gun manufacturers.

The court ruled that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (and common sense), signed into law by President Bush (So he is good for something) required that the lawsuit be dismissed.

One would hope (at least I do) that the news over these past two days would have members of the Brady Center, Handgun Control (confiscation) Inc. etc. jumping out of windows.

Given the good Second Amendment news yesterday and today, one wonders if we'll get a third victory tomorrow.

Perhaps Michael Moore and or Rosie O'Donnell will choke to death on a Big Mac

A Rare Win for the Second Amendment

Today I received somewhat of a birthday present. While I don’t live in the West Coast’s Sin City (San Francisco), I was born there. (Before all of the hippies, sodomites and other various freaks moved there) The California State Court of Appeals struck down a law in the City of Sodomy that would have banned the sale and ownership of handguns and all ammunition.

The NRA successfully sought an injunction against the law’s enforcement in 2005. But regardless, the Sodomite City’s Board of Supervisors lead by Mayor Gavin (Gruesome) Newsom approved penalties consisting of a $1000 fine or 90 days to six months in jail.

This is a big win for the Second Amendment. But, as one person posted to the Ca-Firearms Yahoo group,“Socialists NEVER give up trying to control every aspect of life in the proletariat.” and that Gruesome Newsom and crowd can still appeal the ruling to the California State Supreme Court.

For now, I just accept this birthday present and the rare win against the anti-gun cowards.

Robot

831-869-9932

Bush; The Best President Mexico Ever Had

Once again, Bush has refused to pardon or to even commute the sentences of Border patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, even though prosecutor Johnny Sutton, the assistant U.S. Attorney in the case admitted Drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila lied under oath when he testified.

Agents Compean and Ramos were convicted and sent to prison for shooting Aldrete-Davila after he turned and pointed what appeared to be a gun at them as he fled back across the border into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was only slightly injured and the two agents didn’t know they hit the smuggler.

A Federal Appeals Court judge, E. Grady Jolly remarked that it seemed the government overreacted in the prosecution of the two agents.

“Overreacted” may be an understatement. Government prosecutors went to Mexico and offered the smuggler immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against the two agents. Prosecutors also withheld from the jury that Aldrete-Davila was arrested several months later for, of course drug smuggling.

One would think that would be enough for Bush to give Compean and Ramos a full pardon, but no. Bush Is Mexico’s punk and quite possibly the best president Mexico has ever had.

Since Bush has been in office he’s pardoned nearly a hundred people, more than a few of them had been convicted of drug dealing and manufacturing. Several of these dealers weren’t just into marijuana and hashish, several dealt in cocaine.

Unfortunately, we will probably get no relief after this next election. Obviously if one of the Marxists, posing as a Democrat wins they’ll do all they can to suck up to Mexico and will probably do everything in their power to allow illegal aliens to vote.

Several of the alleged front runners of the Republican Party, namely Giuliani, McCain and Huckabee won’t do much about illegal aliens either.

Once again, we’re screwed.

Robot

831-869-9932

The Monterey Reds, Still Supporting Our Enemy

Last weekend, the local Monterey bay area Reds held a “vigil” to protest the so-called U.S. torture of Muslim terrorists. The secondary point of the vigil was to protest Ft. Benning’s School of the Americas.

One of the main sponsors for this vigil was the “Peace” Coalition of the Monterey County. The “Peace” Coalition is an umbrella group consisting of several leftist and anti-American organizations. Generally, any organization with “peace” in their title can be counted on to support the usual Communists and their causes.

For those who don’t know, the School of the Americas (which the reds slander by calling the School of “assassins) is a school that teaches our Central and South American allies to fight Communist, and I assume drug-running guerillas operating inside their countries.

Of course American Reds hate it when the U.S. trains people to fight their allies. One would be hard-pressed to find any enemy of the U.S. whom these reds won’t support. These people are of the same ilk, and probably in most cases the very same people who opposed the U.S. in Vietnam and supported Central and South American Communist terrorists during the 80’s. Now, they support Our Muslim extremist enemy.

Several of the speakers for this vigil should tell a lot about their true leanings. One speaker is Macgregor Eddy of the Salinas Action league. The league is another close associate of the “Peace” Coalition. In the weeks prior to the second war with Iraq, Eddy was calling on like-minded Reds to trespass onto the Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) when the attack began in an attempt to disrupt operations there.

Another speaker was Bill Monning, a member of the National lawyers Guild (NLG). While you’ll rarely hear it these days, the NLG was listed by a Congressional committee as “The foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party”.

The Peace Coalition, Salinas Action League, Eddy, Monning and their ilk can always to be counted on to support our enemies.

I only wish they were as concerned about the torture of our soldiers and other victims of Muslim terrorism.

Robot

831-869-9932

www.InsideTheCompound.com

The Left And Their Relentless Attack On Free Speech

“You can do it your own way, if it's done just how I say”-Metallica

Last year I had a post about liberals and their opposition to freedom of speech. The left only supports freedom of speech when it’s treasonous, seditious, blasphemous (against Christians anyway) and or obscene.

At that time I was mainly speaking of the vandalism done to my vehicle and about a Marxist (Who ran a pirate radio station called “Freedom of Speech’ ironically) who told me I should remove bumper stickers from my car because he didn’t agree with them.

Now most leftists would say those were isolated incidents and that the left really does support freedom of speech.

Several incidents over the past year or so have proven that to be a lie. There is the example of KSCO 1080 AM out of Santa Cruz. The left wanted a boycott of the station because of it having Rush Limbaugh on their station and a bit more recently, a Marxist/Trekkie geek blogger attempted to have several hosts on KSFO 560AM fired. When that failed he and his collaborators tried to scare advertisers away from using the station. As is typical of the left, they accused several of the station’s commentators of using “hate” speech. By definition, “hate” speech is anything said or written that a liberal puke would disagree with.

Two of the most recent offensives by the left against free speech are the attacks on radio host Michael Savage and columnist Ann Coulter.

On Tuesday, August 14^th Gerardo Sandoval of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, introduced a resolution to condemn Michael savage for, you guesses it “Hate” speech. When speaking about of left-wing students who were doing a hunger strike in support of illegal aliens, Savage said they should fast until they starve to death, which by the way seems like a decent plan to me.

Sandoval claimed the remarks were “symbolic of hatred and racism”. The left always attempts to slander people opposed to illegal immigration as being opposed to legal immigration and of hating Hispanics.

The resolution needed a unanimous vote but failed because supervisor Ed Jew voted against the resolution. Not surprisingly, Sandoval attempted to play the race card and claimed Jew would have supported the resolution had Savage made the comments against Asian-Americans. (Jew is a Chinese-American)

The next example yet to happen but is now in then planning stages. The Marxist/Atheist group the People for the “American” Way, a group opposed to the freedom of speech and religion (Christianity anyway) are plotting a protest against Ann Coulter at her upcoming talk at the Xavier University in Cincinnati. The protest will be joined by the usual collection of Reds, Xavier’s Gay-Straight Alliance, Amnesty International, and Habitat for Humanity etc.

Perhaps the Ohio National Guard can make an appearance and hopefully their aim has improved since 1970.

The endgame of the lefts attacks on non-liberal speech is to bring back the “Fairness” Doctrine and other laws that will limit the free speck of non-liberals. The “fairness” Doctrine will require “equal” time for opposing views. With most of the successful shows being somewhat Right of center, non-liberal radio will be adversely affected. Why? I for one, for the most part do not care to hear what some left-wing puke feels. (I say feel because few leftists actually think about issues. To paraphrase Ann Coulter, if liberals would actually think, they’d be Conservatives.)

The “Fairness” Doctrine has been defeated for the time being, but the left has other ideas in mind. One, reported by WorldNetDaily would require broadcasters to show they are operating in the “public interest”.

Does anyone want a bunch of liberal pukes deciding what the “public interest” is?

Brian

831-869-9932

Bush Lied, Illegals Ride (at taxpayer expense)

It’s bad enough that Bush is calling for amnesty to be given to illegal aliens under S.1348, the miss-named “Secure” Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration reform Act of 2007, he insults our intelligence by claiming the bill doesn’t call for amnesty. That’s a flat out lie. Basically, Bush is peeing on our backs and telling us it’s raining.

Some of the amnesties this bill include (as reported in TheNewAmerican.com, the webpage of the John Birch Society) are:

Z-Visa AMNESTY, for illegal aliens who CLAIM to have been in the U.S. prior to 1 January 2007.

Agricultural AMNESTY, for illegal aliens in the Country as farm workers

Dream Act AMNESTY, for illegal aliens who’ve snuck into the Country and have graduated from an American high school

Employer AMNESTY, for businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens

If one wants to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, you could either say he’s an idiot and/or totally out of touch with much of the Republican base. I didn’t see his speech about the issue, but I assume he spoke with a straight face when he claimed people opposed to the AMNESTY bill didn’t want what was right for America.

Bush seems to be accomplishing what the left has been trying to do for years. That is destroying the Republican Party. (Come on libs, you can tell me. Bush is really one of you isn’t he?) This bill isn’t “right for America” and it definitely isn’t right for the Republican Party. The Republican National Committee has laid off all 65 of their phone solicitors. While the RNC claim it’s because they’re updating their phone system, several solicitors told WorldNetDaily it was because of a 40% drop in small donor contributions. (Presumably, the RNC is still getting donations from businesses that rely on the cheap labor of illegal aliens and from the checked-pants, country-club Republicans, who’ve never had loyalty to any true Republican principles other than lower taxes.)

One solicitor told the Washington Times donors have been angry about the immigration issue

Note to Bush, when you find yourself on the same side as (Red) Ted Kennedy, whether it’s the No Child Left behind Act or immigration “reform”, you’re on the WRONG SIDE.

For those who forgot, or who weren’t paying attention, Red Ted supported the 1965 immigration bill, claiming it would not the bill would not flood cities with immigrants or cause Americans to lose their jobs. The drunken Marxist also sponsored the 1986 amnesty bill (Under Reagan, who at least had the decency to call it an amnesty bill) claiming the bill would only give amnesty to only 1.3 million or so illegal aliens and that the borders would be secured and there would never be another amnesty bill like it proposed.

Now the clown is calling for the same thing now that we have nearly 13 million illegal aliens in the Country.

Another person who supports the current AMNESTY bill is John McCain, a totally worthless individual who would best serve the Republican Party by switching to the DNC.

One other person of questionable reliability who supports the AMNESTY bill is former Clinton aid and ex-toe-sucker (?) Dick Morris. Morris claims if the Republicans oppose amnesty, the illegal aliens who are allowed to stay in the Country, and the many, many who follow won’t vote for Republicans. Let me understand this, illegal aliens who enter this Country and receive government handouts will vote for the Republican Party who generally support less government handouts (perhaps Morris sees the Republican Party heading into another, more socialist direction in the future) instead of the Democratic Party who rely on providing handouts to keep their base voting for them.

But then again, Morris predicted Hillary Clinton would never run for senate, the DNC would be destroyed in the ’98 mid-term elections (the reds won five House seats and held their Senate seats) and other failed predictions.

If Bush were serious about dealing with illegal aliens, he would secure our borders, cut off handouts to illegal aliens and severely punish employers who hire them.

Instead, if this bill is passed we will have more illegal aliens (and no Dick, they won’t be voting Republican) and more of the crime and government spending associated with them.

Meanwhile, two Border Patrol Agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean sit in prison, for doing their jobs and Bush refuses to pardon them or give them amnesty.

Robot

831-869-9932

President Bush< Please Take Your Balls Out Of Vicente Fox's Pocket

If there was ever a reason to impeach Mexico’s second president George Bush, it isn’t because of the left-wing myth he lied about Iraq having WMD’s it is because of his refusal to protect our border’s from the terror of illegal aliens.

It’s difficult to take Bush’s “war on terror” when he refuses to make any serious attempt to seal our border with Mexico and allows the wrongful prosecution of those who actually try.

Currently, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are in federal prison for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler as he was bringing nearly 800 pounds of marijuana into our Country. Career drug smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila fought with agent Compean, knocking him down. Aldrete-Davila ran back toward the border and while he was running, he turned several times and pointed what appeared to be a weapon at the agents. The agents fired at the smuggler, but he escaped back into Mexico. What the agents didn’t know was the thug had been shot in the ass. (Too bad it wasn’t in the head)

Aldrete-Davila is a friend of Border Patrol agent Rene Sanchez, a nationalized Mexican who is suspected of ties to Mexican drug cartels. Sanchez told Aldrete-Davila he should sue the agents for violating his “civil rights”. Rather than investigating why a Border patrol agent has current ties to a Mexican drug runner, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sent agents to Mexico to find Aldrete-Davila, and give him immunity to testify against the agents. The prosecutor for this case was U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, a Bush appointee.

The agents were prosecuted for shooting at an unarmed, fleeing subject. The agents say the smuggler was armed, while the smuggler claims he wasn’t. Who does the prosecution believe? The smuggler of course.

Family members of the smuggler were interviewed by a newspaper and they report Aldrete-Davila has been smuggling drugs since he was 14, and that he is always armed when running dope.

While waiting for the trial to testify against the agents, Aldrete-Davila was again arrested for running dope into the U.S. The gang of Sutton freed him and suppressed information about the arrest at the trial to keep from “prejudicing” the jury.

Agents of the DHS LIED about aspects of the case, claiming Compean and Ramos “knew” the drug smuggler was unarmed, destroyed evidence and said they were out to shoot Mexicans. When asked by several congressmen to support their claims, they refused to do so.

Agent Ramos was placed in the general population of the prison where he was brutally assaulted by several Mexican prisoners. One has to ask why a Border Patrol agent or any law-enforcement officer would be placed in a prison’s general population. I tend to suspect (My personal theory) DOJ and DHS officials wanted him to be killed so their handling of the case could be covered up.

U.S. Attorney Sutton has prosecuted another Law-Enforcement officer for doing his job. Texas Sheriff's Deputy Gilmer Hernandez attempted to stop a van full of illegal aliens after its driver ran a stop sign. The driver attempted to run Hernandez over and he shot at the van’s tires. One of the bullet fragments struck an illegal alien in the mouth and broke two of her teeth. WorldNetDaily reports the Texas Rangers were not going to prosecute Hernandez, but they had been removed from the case because the federal government was taking the case over. I strongly believe state and local governments should refuse to allow the federal government to take over cases like these and have the moral courage to refuse federal funds and be willing to take them to court for violating states rights under the Tenth Amendment.

Hernandez was convicted of violating the illegal alien’s “civil rights” and is now in a Del Rio prison awaiting sentencing.

WorldNetDaily has obtained documents showing the Mexican Consulate role in demanding Border Patrol agents Jose Compean, Ignacio Ramos and Texas Deputy Sheriff Gilmore Hernandez be prosecuted for the incidents involving Mexican citizens in this Country illegally.

President Bush has either pardoned or commuted the sentences of 8 drug dealers. He should pardon these three law-enforcement officers who are in prison for doing their jobs.

Robot
831-869-9932
www.InsideTheCompound.com

Information for this post obtained from www.TheNewAmerican.com and www.WorldNetDaily.com

No Sodomites on Parade in Moscow

There is something seriously wrong with this Country when a mayor in a Communist country takes a moral stance that few, if any mayors in this Country would dare to take. But that’s exactly what happened several days ago in Russia. Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov refuses to allow a Gay "Pride"(as if being a sodomite was anything to be proud of)parade in his city, describing such a parade as nothing less than satanic. The mayor has been pressured to change his stand by several western governments. So far, he's holding firm. Good for him. If only more politicians in this Country would be so firm in upholding moral values.

Robot

831-869-9932

Elton John, Queen of Pop Bashes Christianity

It was reported yesterday that Elton John, the homo pop artist said he would ban religion completely. As the colorful queer whined,

"I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people," John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. "Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays."

He added, “Organized religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

In the case of Judeo-Christianity, and with the exception of the nutcase Reverend Phelps, “hatred” against homos isn’t preached, instead it’s their perverted sexual practices that are condemned.

I didn’t just find out Elton was a backdoor man, I found that out back in the 70’s when he was one of my favorite singers. I really liked Bennie and the Jets, Saturday night’s Alright for Fighting and other of his songs. I also liked his Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy album. When I found out it was other men, rather than horses he rode, I stopped buying his music for a time. As years passed by however, I began to listen to his music again. After all, he wasn’t the first queer performer and he wouldn’t be the last. (He especially won’t be the last queer British performer)

However his bashing of religion (and I’m sure, like most homos he’s mostly hates Christianity) is going too far for me. Starting today, I won’t listen to the Christian-hating homo’s music.

As I said before, I liked Elton’s Captain Fantastic album. I bought the CD about a year or so ago and on the day I read about his Christian-bashing I had the CD in my vehicle’s CD player.

I won’t be listening to it again. Three shots from my slingshot and several more from my Air Soft MP5 and Crossman Nightstalker air rifle saw to that.

The Day The Country Died

It's over. The animals have won. When I go to bed tonight I'm almost hoping I die in my sleep.

The End

Today's election will most likely be the beginnings to the end of this Country. If the Reds win this election, and it appears they will we will see in the next election more RINOs running as "republicans" and trying to outdo the demoncrats in driving this Country into socialism.

As Black Sabbath said in one of their songs, "If you listen to fools (liberals), the mob rules"

Robot

831-869-9932

We’re Screwed Part II: The Election about Everything, and Nothing

With the election this Tuesday comes the real threat of the Marxists (Demoncrats) coming into power again. While the Republicans may deserve to lose, the Demoncrats definitely DO NOT deserve to win! If those fools win this Country is finished and there is no longer any hope for it. I can’t say I’m too disappointed with Bush, I didn’t expect too much from him to begin with. Warning to Conservatives, never trust a person who calls himself “Conservative” but feels the need to add the qualifier, “compassionate”. “Compassionate Conservative” is him admitting in a deceptive way he’s just another Demoncrat, though slightly less Marxist.

I am however disappointed with the “Republicans” in the House and Senate. They should have had the balls to stand up to Bush, his big-spending and his protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our job in Afghanistan was finished when the Taliban was removed from power. Likewise in Iraq, our job was done when Saddam was defeated. We’re wasting time, money and American lives by trying to get Muslims to accept democracy.

The war and illegal immigration are the main reasons the Republicans will lose the House and maybe even the Senate this election. Even if they win, there will still be the usual RINOs blocking any real reform.

The national election aside, California will choose as governor an enviro-marxist, anti-gun, pro-queer goofball or an even more pro-queer, anti-gun and bigger enviro-marxist goofball. (I’m only mentioning the Republican and Demoncratic candidates as the other parties have no chance of winning anything larger than a local election) If you believe the polls, it looks like we’ll be stuck with the former. The former, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been endorsed by one of the most pro-marxist local papers in Monterey County, the Monterey County Weekly. As for me, I wrote in Tom McClintock

For Lt Governor, we have the choice of the pro-family, pro-gun Tom McClintock and near-marxist Demoncrat, Garamendi. Again, I chose McClintock. For Secretary of State we have the choice of the RINO Bruce McPherson (pro-queer, pro-abortion and often anti-gun) and some other guys who’s an even worse choice. I however refuse to vote for a liberal Republican in this case, especially one who was part of the liberal faction who took over the Monterey “Republican” Central Committee. I instead wrote in the name of one of my friends, Peter Kaiser. It was the voter guides provided by him that helped me make many of my choices.

For Attorney General, we have the choice Chuck Poochigian and (no joke) ex-governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown. (The horror, the horror) If Brown wins, and especially if he wins because of his name recognition, it will be proof that California is indeed overly populated by idiots.

In the 17th Congressional district we have an interesting situation. On one hand we have Sam Farr(left) who’s an enviro-marxist, anti-gun. Pro-queer world government goofball (he’s the only congressman to display the UN flag outside of his office) and the missing Republican candidate Anthony De Maio and write-in candidate Jeff Taylor. De Maio dropped out of sight since making it onto the ballot and I suspect he may even be a Demoncratic Party plant, set up to run so a real GOP candidate could be found to run to oppose Farr (left). Taylor, on the other hand describes himself as supporting traditional values and says he’s involved with Young Life, which I think is a Christian Youth group. However, my friend Kaiser spoke with him and reports that Taylor supports some gun control and supports bans on semi-auto weapons. Also highly distressing is the RINOs of the Monterey County “Republican” Central Committee support him. For those outside of this area, the MCRCC HATES Republicans with traditional values and actively works to keep them off of the Central Committee.

For the 27th State assembly district, we have the choice of a “big-tent”, pro-queer (Endorsed by the Log Cabin (queer) republicans) Michael Morrison and practicing queer and anti-gun Jim Laird. While Morrison is pro-gun, I refuse to vote for a “Republican” endorsed by the queer lobby.

There are also several bond issues on the ballot which I voted no on, and an initiative to protect private property rights from Imminent Domain confiscations, which I voted for. (Liberals hate private property, other people’s private property anyway)

Either way, California is as screwed as the rest of the Country.

God help us.

Robot

831-869-9932

We're Screwed.

As I've said before, liberals are a bigger threat to this Country than Al Qaeda.

When you hear or read about some worthless, atheist liberal puke (this post is mainly just me letting off steam in response to a letter printed in a local paper, written by one such puke)screeching about the "Far Right", "Fundamentalist Christians”,” Christian fascists" or "zealots", etc translate that into what the left-wing savages really mean. What they're really saying is, "We're amoral degenerates and hate the fact that people with even the most basic moral values make us face how perverted we really are and, in order for us to feel good about ourselves, we MUST do away with the basic moral standards this Country held up until about 40 years ago".

40 years ago, would anyone outside of a few outspoken degenerates seriously be suggesting queers should be able to marry, or that abortion should be used as a form of birth control? For people under the age of 30, let me answer, NO! 40 years ago, would people opposed to the above be bashed as intolerant extremists and even compared to the Muslim fanatics with whom we are now at war? No. (Don’t bore me with the e-mails sniveling that all Muslims aren’t terrorists. I know that already)

I’m amazed at how far this Country has fallen just in my lifetime. Thanks in large part to the amoral left in both major political parties, this Country is on Its way down the toilet and It’s barely clinging to the rim.

As bad as it is now, (and Bush isn’t helping matters) it will be much worse if the Party of Degenerates and Traitors, (the DNC) win next Tuesday’s election. It looks like they may have an excellent chance.

Should they win, can anyone suggest a country I can escape to in a hot air balloon or something?
Robot
831-869-9932

Boycott Wal-Mart: Oppose the Degenerate's Agenda

Several months ago, I posted an article in defense of Wal-Mart. The left at that time, while they hate private business in general, had a near slobbering and maniacal hatred of Wal-Mart.

Well now Wal-Mart, perhaps in an attempt to suck up (so to speak) to the left are now embracing the homo-lobby and supporting queer “marriage”. Also, Wal-Mart has joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. Wal-Mart also sells multiple pro-queer books.

The degenerates are on the march. People who hold to even the most basic traditional moral values should be on the march too.

Boycott Wal-Mart.

Robot

831-869-9932

Time for the U.S. to GET OUT of the United Nations

24 October is the anniversary of the United Nation. UN propagandists claim that the UN was “founded to uphold international law and prevent pre-emptive aggression.” The purpose of the UN was to be a socialist, world government. Several of the key U.S. officials who planned the UN were later exposed as Communist agents to include Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White.

The UN picks and chooses when it wants to “prevent pre-emptive aggression.” In 1961 when Katanga succeeded from the Congo, which at the time was run by the Soviet puppet Patrice Lamumba, UN forces bombed schools, hospitals and private homes to bring Katanga back under the control of the Communist Congolese government. By comparison, in the 50’s during the unprovoked Soviet attack on Hungary, and when Red Chinese were murdering Tibetans during the 60’s or when the Soviets were murdering civilians in Afghanistan during the 70’s and 80’s, the UN did nothing. Today in the Sudan where the Muslims government is fighting a war of rape, genocide and slavery on the country’s Christian population, the UN is doing nothing.

It also should be remembered that Bush Sr. was following the mandates of the UN and advice from Colin Powell when he refused to allow Saddam to be finished off for good.
I could also get into the amount of waste and corruption at the UN or about how the only people who benefit from UN “peacekeeping” is the child sex trade, but I think by now you get the idea.

There has never been a better time for the U.S. to get out of the UN.

Robot

831-869-9932

The Old Monterey Traitors Are Still At It

The Monterey Reds are still at it, and now with an even greater hatred of Jews. Believe it or not, the Reds think Israel should just roll over, let the Islamic destroy them and die. Fortunately for Israel, they don’t confer with American reds and ask for their permission before they decide to defend themselves


Here are a few photos of two of the old reds at the Window-By-The-Bay Park in Monterey. Note how they accuse Bush of being a “Nazi”. If Bush were a real Nazi, they wouldn’t be allowed to conduct such treasonous protests. If they want to see real examples of Nazism, they should take a visit to a country controlled by the Islamic extremists they support.





robot@mbay.net
831-869-9932

XXX: State of the Union: The Movie, the Propaganda

I finally saw XXX: The State of the Union. The plot of the movie was XXX (Ice Cube) attempting to thwart a coup d’etat of a liberal president and cabinet. The point of this writing isn’t to complain about the movie’s lack of realism, i.e., a group of thieves and gang-bangers fighting and beating a group of highly trained, however treasonous (depending on your view on the true state of the union) soldiers. What irritated me was the leftist propaganda in the film.

Now I’ve long since accepted that movies, theatre, television and cable often have a left-wing bent to them. The left-wing slant in XXX was a bit more than I usually tolerate. If I hadn’t had one of my friends over, I wouldn’t have continued watching it.

The first piece of propaganda was when Ice Cube (XXX) was speaking to a senator’s aide and an NRA lobbyist approached table to speak with the aide. Cube told the lobbyist he was a Baptist minister and the lobbyist asked how the NRA could get more support among blacks. Cube told him they, (the NRA) could stop burning crosses and shooting black people. Normally, that would have been the point where I would have turned off the movie and perhaps watched Swordfish or Blackhawk Down again.

I’m under 50 years old so perhaps there was a time prior to that when the NRA “burned crosses” and “shot black people”. However, I’m pretty sure Cube was only spouting off a load of crap. The last time I checked most black people were being shot by other black people, not the NRA or for that matter, not the police. Perhaps Senator Byrd can tell Ice Cube, how many of his allegedly “former” KKK associates teamed up with the NRA and terrorized Negroes.

The other heavy-handed piece of leftist propaganda was the movie president’s speech, which blended in bits of Comrade-presidents Clinton and Carter and the worst of a President Bush. The “president” called for the U.S. to decrease defense spending and give more to international aid and of wining the “hearts and minds” of our enemies and making them our “friends”. OK, will someone remind me why anyone wouldn’t want this clown overthrown? If I didn’t already know the outcome of the film, I would have rooted for William Defoe (The “bad” guy) and his crew.

Now I am reasonably sure the main goal of the film’s writers was entertainment and not to propagandize the viewers. The writers may have just thought the views presented were the opinions many of the audience already held.

That’s scary, very, very scary.

Robot
robot@InsideTheCompound.com
831-869-9932

Pastors for Castro

Yesterday I attended a showing of a pro-Cuba propaganda film put out by the Pastors for Peace. The presentation was sponsored by the Monterey area Peace and Justice Center and Women’s International League for Peace and freedom.

First, a note about groups with the word “peace” in their title, at the very least such groups (with the possible exception of the Peace Corps) will have a socialist bent to their ideology and most of them will be flat-out communist. Such groups will always be opposed to the best interests of the United States and will most always embrace our enemies.

This presentation was promoting the 17th “Friendship Caravan” to Cuba. Travel to Cuba is illegal and this group travels there to send humanitarian aid in an act of civil disobedience. (and treason)

First off, I’ve always wondered why we have an embargo against Cuba and at the same time, embrace Red China and the Soviet Union. It was the U. S. State Department, with the help of media Reds like Herbert Matthews of the New York Times, who helped to put Castro in power. If it weren’t for the Communists in this Country opposing the embargo, I wouldn’t care much about an embargo against Cuba.

One of the people in the film said the U.S. embargo took more of an effect on Cuba after the Soviet Union “fell”. Considering we were trading with the Soviets during the height of the Cold War, in effect, we were also supplying Cuba.

One of the narrators blamed the continuing embargo on the Miami’s Cuban exile community, claiming they were the rich who were most hurt by Castro’s rise to power. The narrator mentioned there are no millionaires in Cuba and they “were not allowed”. I hope to never live in a country where millionaires are “not allowed”.

“Nancy” the person who led the discussion following the film said lately, there’s a problem with pilfering in Cuba and of people not putting out all they can when they work. (this is often a problem with government workers and government programs) She said there’s ongoing discussion in Cuba about how to return to basic socialist “values”, that of “each according to their ability to each according to their needs”. (in other words, how to convince people to put out for people who won’t produce for themselves)

Nancy said many people who want to join the Pastors for Peace asked if they had to be a pastor. She said one doesn’t have to be a pastor or even religious, adding many members of the group were agnostics or atheists. (Big surprise there, most Communists are agnostic or atheist) She mentioned many of the religious people involved were Unitarians. (in other words, agnostics or atheists)

My favorite part about presentations is the question, answer and comment time. One of the first people to comment was a person with an Australian (or New Zealand) accent who spoke of the poverty in Cuba and how women giving birth had to have a friend stand near their bed so that their property wasn’t stolen. He also mentioned the lack of worth ethics due to the communist system.
As expected, Nancy claimed the poverty was due to the embargo.

Another person spoke of the lack of freedom in Cuba and how people aren’t allowed to leave Cuba and have to sneak out in homemade rafts and boats. Emboldened by the two anti-communist speakers, I asked if anyone was allowed to run against Castro. Nancy told me the politics in Cuba were much different than our, (God willing, our political system will always be different from Cuba’s) she said the voters in Castro’s district could nominate someone other than Castro to run, but they wouldn’t have much of a chance.

Of course, most of the people commenting were the usual Reds. In responding to comments about the oppressive government in Cuba, a person claimed the U.S. has an oppressive government. (not so oppressive, however that is punishes people who speak against the U.S. government, its president and even allows reds to travel to an enemy country and yet allow them back into the Country)

One person said many of the people flee to the U.S. to obtain things they “don’t need”, i.e. computers, I pods, DVD players, etc. Hopefully, this Country will never get to the point when socialists can decide what I “need” or “don’t need”.

I briefly spoke with the second anti-communist I mentioned earlier. He said he was opposed to the embargo because it gave Cuba an excuse for failing. He added it should be allowed to collapse like the Soviet Union without an embargo to blame it on.

Later that night, I had the Spanish channel on at home. They showed a demonstration against Castro. (I assume in the U.S. some of the signs were in English and Castro doesn’t allow opposition in Cuba) One of the signs said Cuba is one of the countries with the highest numbers of imprisoned journalists.

Frankly, I think when these people break the embargo and travel to Cuba, they shouldn’t be allowed back into this Country.

Maybe Castro will take them in. Then they would get the opportunity to see how the Cuban really live on a day to day basis.

Robot
robot@mbay.net
www.InsideTheCompound.com
831-869-9932

Wal-Mart: The Evil Empire

Several years ago, the K-mart store in the city of Marina California closed down. The building has remained unused since then. Wal-Mart offered to open a store in its place and some of the local leftist (and not so local leftist) have been sniveling.

While I didn’t follow the initial arguments too closely, I was soon to notice it was the usual cast of local left-wing neo-Marxists doing most of the whining. Reading the letters to the editor in local papers, I saw the authors were the Usual Suspects. That alone makes me more prone to support the store.

I know some Conservative activists have sometimes complained about the store. From what I’ve read, the complaints are due to the store providing the “morning after” birth-control and sometimes abortion-inducing pill, the store’s sucking up to the queer lobby and its selling of “pornographic” magazines like Maxim, Stuff and FHM. I personally don’t see what makes it much different from many other retail stores.

Several Sundays ago, I attended a showing of the Robert Greenwald film, Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. For those of you who don’t recognize Greenwald’s name, he’s the leftist filmmaker who’s produced such films as Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election, Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War, The Big Buy: How Tom DeLay Stole Congress and several other left-wing films. He’s also a co-founder of the group Artists United to Win Without War (AUWWW). Needless to say, his involvement doesn’t add much to the credibility of the anti-Wal-Mart side.

The showing of the film and following discussion was put on by the Citizens Against Wal-Mart in Marina. The flyers distributed at the event complained of Wal-Mart’s low wage jobs, its competition with local businesses, traffic and environmental (A red herring often used by anti-business socialists) problems, increased “light” pollution and several other real or perceived problems.

The movie started off showing several family businesses, apparently owned by Republicans and Joe Average-types being forced to close because of Wal-Mart. I would assume that is often the case whenever a large store moves into a community.

The movie complained of the high number of Wal-Mart employees on public assistance and of its hiring of illegal aliens. (I managed to keep a straight face after hearing liberals complain about something they usually support) One of the practices Wal-Mart allegedly engaged in, I thought was a bit sleazy. Wal-Mart supposedly hires many part-time workers so as not to pay the benefits of a full time employee. The film also claimed Wal-Mart harasses anyone who attempts to join or start a union.

The film described the brutal and inhumane condition of workers in Red China. Like pretty much any store, Wal-Mart sells many products made in Red China. I had a very hard time seeing why they chose to bash Wal-Mart over its dealings with Red China when one barely find a product in ANY store not made there.
(I recall going to a local Republican Party picnic where each table had a small plastic American Flag on it, with “made in China” printed on them. Disgusting)
At the end of the film there was a question and answer period. I asked, except for Wal-Mart’s anti-union activity, what made them any different from any other large chain store? One of the hosts of the program answered, Wal-Mart is the largest store of its type and they set the example for all other stores in the U.S.

Basically, I’m left without much of an opinion either for or against Wal-Mart. I’m sure had there been as many left-wing activists as currently pollute Monterey bay, they would have opposed the K-Mart store that the Wal-Mart will be replacing

Muslim bashing, or Just The Facts?

An article written by Moustafa Bayoumi, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/opinion/14196147.htm., a professor in the English Department at Brooklyn College, City University of New York snivels about Muslim “bashing’.

Bayoumi writes “A new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 46 percent of Americans hold negative perceptions of Islam, 7 percentage points higher than after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The poll also discovered that a third of the respondents have recently heard prejudiced comments against Muslims.”

Now why anyone have that opinion of this religion of “peace”? (For non-Muslims, it’s more like Rest In Peace, or pieces) For this writing, I won’t get into the false teachings of Mohammed and his followers.

Could the negative view be because several years ago, if you recall, 19 MUSLIMS hijacked planes and flew them, or attempted to fly them into occupied buildings? Could it also be because of the brutal beheadings of hostages and captured prisoners in Iraq and the Philippines?

Maybe they remember that currently, there is a man in an Afghanistan jail facing death because he converted to Christianity. Death is a clear and present danger to Christian converts in Muslim countries. In most Muslim countries, even owning a Bible is a crime.
C
ould it be because of the way women are treated in (mostly Arab) Muslim countries? Perhaps some of the people polled have heard the stories of how in Muslim countries, rape victims are murdered by their husbands or male family members for reasons of “honor”.

Perhaps many of the people polled heard of the rapes in Sweden, Norway and Australia by Muslim men on girls they considered sluts because they don’t dress themselves in sheets, or they’ve heard of the rapes of Christian girls in places like Pakistan, the Sudan and other Muslim, or Muslim-controlled countries.
In Pakistan, women are sometimes sentenced to be raped. http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001009.html I wonder if they have trouble finding men to carry out the sentence.

Bayoumi whines about opposition to the Dubai ports deal, speaking of the use of “scare tactics” in opposing the deal. The UAE may not be on our list of terrorist nations, but the UAE has been used to support terrorism. In fact, a plan to bomb Bin Laden was abandoned because he was in the company of UAE citizens.

Could it be because people remember the bombings, hijackings and terrorist attacks, more than often, committed by Muslims during the 70’s and 80’s?

It’s usually at this point that some apologist for Muslim terrorism will bring up the bombings of abortion clinics and killings of abortionists. Here are two questions for you. Since the last attack on an abortionist or abortion clinic, how many violent attacks have there been by Muslims. Also, when a misguided Christian (?) commits such an attack, who are among the first to condemn it? Christians.

Obviously, not all Muslims or Arabs are terrorists, but it is rare to hear a Muslim condemn terrorist attacks without adding “but” and going on to snivel about Israel and/or the U.S.

Robot

831-869-9932

Alabama Baptist Church Arsons: My Theory

***************************UPDATE****************************************************

It appears that I was mistaken when I thought a group of sodomites were behind the arsons. It seems that the culprits were three college students with no apparent connection to homos.

There are reports however, that the arsonists, Russell Debusk, Matthew Cloyd and Ben Moseley were involved in satanism. www.WorldNetDaily.com reports that Debusk and Moseley told friends that they weere satanists on a hunt for knowlege. WND also reports that Cloyd wrote to to Moseley that they should defy the morals society and their parents instilled in them. So far I haven't read any reports that they were part of a larger conspiracy
*************************************************************************************

I have a theory on who’s committing the rash of Baptist Church burnings in Alabama. I think when the people are caught, it will turn out to be a group of queers, perhaps enraged because a Baptist Church wouldn’t “marry” them. I tend to think that the individuals were outraged at the Baptist’s observance of the Biblical condemnation of sodomy.
I’m not the first to suggest that and as can be expected, the Left is sniveling at the idea. The reports say that two men, driving in a black SUV were observed near the scene of several of the arsons

While I haven’t read the complete details of the arsons, one of the reports mentioned that a swastika was painted either on or inside the Church. Had the Churches consisted of mostly minority congregations, it could be assumed that Skinheads or Nazis are the terrorists. But the torched churches consisted of black, white and mixed congregations. Labeling people as “Nazis” is a common slander used by the left against people they disagree with.

I also think that the investigation should focus a lot on the first, two or three churches burned. I think the arsonists were more than likely offended by a specific Baptist Church, and after torching that Church, decided to go continue the burnings.

I first suspected Satanists, or Secular Humanists (as if there is a difference between the two) but I doubt they would be as picky to only single out Baptist Churches.

I’m 95% sure that I’ll be proven correct.

Robot
www.InsideTheCompound.com
831-869-9932

The Old Monterey Reds Are Still At It

Today I went down to the Window by the bay park in the city of Monterey California and took some more photos of the anti-war, anti-American protestors. As usual, there were only about five of them. They seem to only have a large crowd when the protest is inspired by the Communist-linked A.N.S.W.E.R. organization.

They protest here every Sunday afternoon and it’s usually the same, few people. I think they’re hatred of Bush and the U.S. has made them delusional. Last summer or so, one of them sniveled about my photographing them and posting them on my site, too bad. The freedom of speech doesn’t only apply to anti-U.S., anti-military reds.



I don’t see what the Iraq war has to do with the Palestinians,



I apologize for the wording in this photo. This old red was kind enough to cross the street so I could get a better picture of his sign.



It’s common practice for reds to accuse people they disagree with of being “Nazis” which goes right along with what Lenin once said, "We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us."






These signs and the upside down American Flags speak for themselves. I have many problems with President Bush, but if these reds are the alternative, I’ll take Bush.

Watch Out Israel!

If anyone really believed that the Palestinians wanted peace with Israel, the landslide win of Hamass in the Palestinian elections should be a wake-up call for anyone but a total idiot or Jew-hater.

I’m no psychic, but I think terrorism in Israel will double by the end of this year. Of course, there’ll be the usual cast of fools and simpletons who’ll claim that Israel should work with Hamass and will condemn Israel for responding to their attacks.

The only kind of "peace" Hamass wants with Israel is of the Rest In Pieces type.

Robot

The Tribulations of a Traitor

**********************************UPDATE*********************************************

Eddy was sentenced to two years probation and fined $2500. I sure her Red pals can come up with that easily.

In a letter to the Salinas Californian, she wrote a tirade of the like usually seen in the Peoples Daily World.

Are we at war or not? Why didn’t this traitor get time in prison? Her light sentence will only encourage this activity.
*************************************************************************************


In a past posting, I mentioned Monterey area, “peace” activist Macgregor Eddy and her calling for protestors to enter the Vandenberg Air Base to disrupt the operations there in the event of an attack on Iraq. Surprisingly, (not) the base barred her from the installation. Vandenberg is a launch site for missiles used in our missile defense system and is also a launch site for our intelligence-gathering satellites.

“Peace” activists like Eddy see our having such a capability as a crime against “peace” I see not having such weapons as a crime against victory, and against the U.S. Constitution as violating the “provide for the common defense” section.

It shouldn’t be news to anyone that “peace” activists will most always take positions against the best actions of our Country, such as opposing our having nuclear weapons, a missile defense system etc.

On 19 January, Eddy was arraigned in a federal Court in Santa Barbara for trespassing onto the base last October. It wasn’t her first time trespassing onto the base. Eddy claimed she was trying to make the base officers see that a “higher law was being violated”. Her hearing was attended by 40 or so of her anti-U.S. supporters. The case continues next February.

I don’t know what usually happens to these traitors, but in my opinion they should be shot. Vandenberg has allegedly issued shoot to kill orders for people who threaten the satellite systems. I think it’s time for them to start making that more than just a bluff.

Robot

Liberals, Are They Fully Human?

I’ve often wondered how liberals can hold the goofy, degenerate, and amoral feelings they do and still (presumably) have brains. Consider these examples. Liberals will defend a convicted murderer to the death, some claiming we can’t take the chance of killing an innocent person and others claiming executing a murderous, sub-human savage is simply wrong. At the same time they fully support infanticide (abortion) and claim that the fetus isn’t actually human. One thing a thinking person knows for certain is that the fetus is innocent. (One liberal savage I once spoke with argued, “doesn’t the Bible say we’re all born in sin and doesn’t that mean the fetus isn’t innocent?”)
The majority of liberals are opposed to basic self-defense, both on a personal and national level. You’ll find most of them are anti-gun, and anti-military to the point of opposing missile defense systems. I recently read a newsletter put out by a Quaker group (a religion of cowards) crowing about how they opposed the U.S. having a missile defense system. It’s also true that liberals are easily led. A friend of mine who once claimed we should only have a missile defense system now (at least several years ago) opposes such a system, probably as a result of listening to liberals arguing against it. Liberals also support same-sex deviants. A basic knowledge of anatomy will show anyone that homosexuality is wrong and unnatural.
The hatred liberals have for anything Judeo-Christian is nothing less than satanic. They only seem to have this hatred for Christianity and will fully accept a religion like Islam which opposes (in words at least) queers and women’s rights.
My conclusion may be controversial.

Liberals believe in evolution. Anyone who would dare look at the facts knows that evolution is a myth that can’t be backed up by science (the "god" of liberalism) without great leaps of faith, assumption and twisting the facts.

I have a new idea that may involve a form of evolution, or rather de-evolution, alien (space aliens, not illegal aliens) abductions and Genesis 6.

In many of the goofier UFO circles, you’ll hear talk of “God” as being a race of space aliens who spliced our genes with theirs several hundred thousand years ago or more.

While at first, an intelligent person (or even me for that matter) would dismiss the idea as mere gibberish, they may have a point, sort of.

In Genesis, chapter 6 (for you liberals, that’s in the Holy Bible. Ask a Christian if you can borrow their copy. I doubt you would have one) the Bible speaks of there being giants in those days (during the time of Noah prior to The Flood) and afterward. It speaks of the sons of God (fallen angels) mating with mortal women and having bizarre offspring. Perhaps the alien abductors that the UFO geeks believe in are these rebellious, “sons of God”.
Some of these offspring were giants, others were “men of renown”. These beings were called Nephilim. The Nephilim who existed prior to the flood were destroyed in the world-wide deluge. But Genesis 6 points out that they existed afterward. Perhaps after the flood the Nephilim began to look a little more human and fit in better with mortals.

My theory, which I admit I’m still developing, is that liberals are these Nephilim. How else can one explain their degenerate, bizarre beliefs?

Take a look at Al Franken, James Carville, Bono (ever wonder why he won’t take off the dark glasses?) and other notable liberals. (I won’t even begin to get into how some of the leaders of the man-hating, lesbian group NOW look) Do they look fully human? I say no!

Of course, this is jest a working theory, but still, think about it.

Robot

Taking Aim at the Second Amendment

Yesterday I attended the Heisler Moot Court Competition put on by the Monterey College of Law. The competition was titled “Taking Aim at Guns and privacy”. A “moot” court is where the competitors argue on whether a fictional, proposed law is Constitutional. The people arguing the case are students of the law school and the three people judging the case are sitting or retired judges.

The claim being made by the law-geeks was that the U.S. Supreme Court has never made a ruling on whether the right to bear arms is a collective right or a personal one.

According to my information, the Supreme Court recognized in 1876 (U.S. vs. Crenshank) 1886 (Presser vs. Illinois) 1894 (Miller vs. Texas) 1939 (U.S. vs. Miller) and 1990 (U.S. vs. Verdugo-Urquidez) that the Second Amendment applied to the individual. I admit that I’ve never read the actual wording of these rulings so maybe there’s room the anti-gun geeks have some room for arguement.

One interesting point about the U.S. vs. Miller case is that the court claimed that the weapon, a sawed-off shotgun that Miller possessed was not suitable as a militia weapon. Frankly, any hand-held weapon is suitable as a militia weapon. A sawed-off shotgun is a great weapon for room clearing. (If you can stand the noise)

The law being argued called for the owners of “assault” weapons to have a tracking chip put in their hand and another tracking chip placed into the weapon.

The person taking the pro-2nd Amendment side, Lynn Maddock (representing the “National Gun Association”) argued that the law was unconstitutional because it infringed on the right to keep and bear guns.

To most people, other than lawyers and cowards, the Second Amendment is clear, The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The first part of the amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” doesn’t take away the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Under the U.S. Code, any able-bodied male between certain ages IS the militia.

Lynn mentioned the Miller case and the U.S. vs. Emerson case as rulings that confirmed the individual right to own assault weapons. One of the judges told Lynn that the Emerson ruling didn’t involve “assault” weapons.

I should mention that many times during the “case” the judges and the team representing the anti-gun side claimed that “assault” weapons are the most dangerous of dangerous weapons. That load of crap was repeated almost to the point of my yelling out “B.S.!” One of the judges, Wendy Duffy claimed the only weapon more dangerous was a hand-held atomic weapon. I suppose she thinks grenades, mortars and hand-held surface to air missiles are less dangerous. Judge Richard Silver (ret) (thankfully) claimed “assault” weapons are the most dangerous weapon a terrorist can possess. It’s distressing that we’ve become such a nation of cowards.

Another false claim used by the law-geeks was that there is no legitimate purpose to use for an “assault” weapon. One of the judges spoke of them being a collector’s item. (I sometimes actually shoot mine)

Lynn’s partner Eric Fonferek argued that microchips would be an invasion of privacy. One of the judges mentioned that the right to privacy isn’t in the U.S. Constitution. He added, however that the right to privacy is in the California Constitution. He’s right. Which, of course means that the Roe vs. wade decision is illegal, being as it violates a right that IS in the Constitution, that right being the right to LIFE. But I won’t get into that now.

The antigun side, represented by Judith Derenzo and John Maddock argued that a microchip was not an invasion of privacy. One of the judges, I think it was Silver who mentioned that only the law-abiding ‘assault” weapon owners would allow their weapons or themselves to be microchipped. He added that maybe the law should only make terrorists have chips placed in them and their weapons. One of the judges also mentioned that the microchips could be used to track political opponents, i.e. a democrat president tracking people who went to Republican rallies.

Judge Judith, who appeared to be the dizziest of the three judges, claimed “assault” weapons could threaten police and military vehicles. Police also have assault weapons and in most cases, they’re actual assault weapon (full-auto) and not the semi-auto weapons owned by civilians.

It appears to me that our God-given rights, to privacy and weapons are too important to be left to lawyers and judges.

Robot

The Continued Bashing of Senator Joseph McCarthy

Recently, I saw the film Good Night and Good Luck, a film that bashes Senator Joseph McCarthy. During his day, McCarthy was one of the biggest threats to liberals and Communists (same thing) and they still despise him for his work despite the overwhelming evidence showing that he was not only right, but didn’t go far enough. (Personally, I think the Communistic threat then and even now needs a Phoenix Program-like operation to contain it)

The film was about CBS (i.e., See, B.S.) broadcaster Ed Murrow’s bashing of McCarthy on his television program. Murrow claims “McCarthy is wrong 100% of the time.

Early in the film, Murrow and his Leftist cohorts snivel about taking a loyalty oath to hold their jobs. When I enlisted into the U.S. Army decades ago, I had no problem affirming my loyalty to my Country. But, for most liberals and definitely Communists, such an oath is like sunlight to a vampire.
During the film, McCarthy (via of recorded broadcasts from the era) mentions the ACLU as being a subversive organization. Again, McCarthy was being kind. Murrow, however, claims that the ACLU was never listed as a subversive organization. Murrow (and the writers of the film) should have checked their facts. As early as 1931, a report by the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated;
The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press and free assembly, but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is an attempt to protect the communists. (1)
The founder of the ACLU, Roger Baldwin, wrote;
“I am for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State itself ... I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.
While this particular House report doesn’t flat-out call the ACLU a subversive organization, a thinking person (which of course rules out any liberal) would come to that conclusion.
The film bashed McCarthy over his investigation of Annie Lee Moss, an elderly colored woman who worked with classified messages for the Pentagon. The woman lost her when an FBI informant testified that Moss was a member of the Communist party. When Moss testified before the Senate, she denied being a member. Her supporters claimed McCarthy confused her with another Annie Moss who lived at a different address. Moss got her job back in 1954.

Murrow made Moss a hero in his broadcasts, citing her as evidence that McCarthy was persecuting innocent people. In September of 1958 however, the Subversive Activities Control Board reported that membership records from the Communist Party showed that an Annie Moss, who lived at the same address as the Annie Moss investigated by McCarthy was a Communist in the 1940’s.
Murrow and his cohorts expressed glee when they heard that McCarthy was being investigated by the Army. What the film didn’t point out was that the Army investigation wasn’t about any of McCarthy’s claims being untrue, it was over McCarthy and his staff attempting to get preferential treatment for G. David Schine, one of the Committee’s consultants, who had been drafted. The hearing eventually found that McCarthy was completely innocent and that it was McCarthy’s chief counsel Roy Cohn who attempted to influence the Army. On an interesting note, the Army’s charges came eight months after the alleged incident and after McCarthy announced that he planned to subpoena several members of the Army Loyalty and Screening board. Another interesting note is that Schine was 26 and nearly too old to be drafted. Apparently, the Army didn’t like McCarthy ferreting out communists in its organization.
The film also trumpeted McCarthy’s censure by the senate. The movie didn’t see fit to reveal why he was censured, allowing the audience to think it was because of McCarthy’s actions during the hearings. In actuality, McCarthy was censured for not appearing before the senate to testify after being invited to. That’s invited, not subpoenaed. Given the way he’d been trashed by them, I probably wouldn’t have appeared before them either.
At the end of the film, I was expecting to see updated information about what followed the hearings and what has been revealed in recently released documents like the Venona transcripts that shows there was (and I would say that more than likely there still is) infiltration of government agencies by communists and their agents.
I could get into other aspects of the McCarthy hearings and the “McCarthy Era”. Perhaps I will later. For now my main point is that while McCarthy wasn’t perfect, he tried to the best he could with what and who he had. He also had the demoncrats, the Army and even theRepublican president working against him.

Sources
The ACLU’s Shocking Legacy, 5 Aug 2005, www.WorldNetDaily.com, Alan Sears
The New American Magazine, Vol. 12, #18, 2 Sept 1996, The Real McCarthy Record

This "Splendid Little War"

This may come as a surprise to many of the people (All four of them) who visit my blog, but I don’t necessarily support the Iraq War. Now of course that doesn’t mean I don’t support the soldiers fighting it, nor does it mean that I think the enemy there isn’t a threat. I definitely don’t align myself with the anti-American, Communist “Peace” activists. Personally, as I state in my profile I see their ilk as a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, the Soviets or any foreign enemy could ever be. These worthless, Marxist savages while claiming they support the troops accuse them of intentionally killing non-combatant civilians. These “people” are of the same ilk, and more than often the very same people who accused Vietnam era GIs of being baby killers and supported the Communist revolutions in Nicaragua and El Salvador.

This second Iraq War wouldn’t have needed to have been fought if Bush Sr. had finished off Iraq the first time. He has only himself to blame. Instead of running to the United Nations for permission to attack Iraq, he should have made his case for war in front of Congress, formed an alliance with a few trusted countries and finished off Iraq. Instead, he followed UN mandates and the ridicules advice of Colin Powell and left Iraq, mostly intact. Frankly, I was certain that once we got over there, the Arab countries we aligned ourselves with were going to turn their guns on us.

As far as I’m concerned, our job in Iraq was done after Saddam was removed from power. We shouldn’t be trying to rebuild their country and make them a “democracy”. A democratic government is about as alien to Muslims as soap is to the French.

I don’t support a cowardly retreat from Iraq as the “peace” protesters would have us do. My suggestion would be to take out the terrorist bases in Syria and hand Iraq over to Iraqis we can (to the best of our knowledge) trust and leave. We should also leave intelligence assets behind so that if they do go back to supporting terrorists or building Wads we can easily target and eliminate them.

Queers and the Apostate Church

2 Peter 2:1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.



Last Saturday, I attended a discussion titled “Homosexuality and The Bible” hosted by a local Episcopalian “church”. Not surprisingly, the opinion of the main speaker, a Rev. Susan Miller was that there is nothing Biblically wrong with queers. Miller informed the audience (roughly 30+ people) that the Episcopalian “Church” ordained its first queer in the 1980’s.

I was probably the only person there who opposed homos. While they gave us name tags, I only used my first name. My opinions on faggotry had recently been published in a local paper and I didn’t want t a fight to start before the discussion began. I also saw that a woman (Who later identified herself as a “pagan”, i.e., a lite-satanist) whose letter to a local paper I responded to several years ago was there. Fortunately, I recognized her by name and we had never seen each other in person before.

Miller spoke of the differences of a literal and symbolic interpretation of the Bible, claiming that the symbolic interpretation is the “broader” view. In other words, the “broader” view is twisting what is plainly written until it conforms to whatever you want it to say.

One of the more important things I learned there was that the New Revised Standard version of the Bible was translated and/or endorsed by the World Council of Churches (WCC). The WCC is group of left-wing “churches” who often support Red causes. But, I’ll write more about that in a later post. I’m debating on whether I should burn my NRSV Bibles or simply throw them away.

We broke off into smaller discussion groups several times to discuss, or rather to pervert passages of Scripture that condemn queers.

The first small group discussion question was what was the sin of Sodom. Most would agree that the sins of Sodom were many, homosexuality being one of them. However, the conclusion reached by our group (Me excluded) was that Sodom’s sin was violence and inhospitality toward strangers. Miller used Luke 10:10, which spoke of how to deal with towns that wouldn’t accept Christian missionaries to claim Sodom’s sin was inhospitality, and Ezekiel 16:49 to claim its sin was in not providing for the poor. I’m no expert on ancient history, but I assume that was more than common among most societies in those days.

She, like others who try to legitimize homos, mention Leviticus and how most Fundamentalists reference its passages against faggots, but not the many other prohibitions. Perhaps it was a typographical error, but in one of her handouts, she claimed the Leviticus prohibited temple whores, male and female but did not prohibit “loving” “mutually supportive” relationships between homos.

In her handouts, she referenced Jude 1:7 where it was written that Sodom was punished for indulging in sexual immorality and unnatural lust. Most people would see that as including homos.

I should briefly go over what Episcopalians consider “marriage”. No, it doesn’t include actually being married. As Miller describes “marriage” it consists of two “committed” people, straight or queer.

When speaking on the New Testament passages against homos, Miller claimed that Paul opposed them because in “his” view of the world, heterosexuals are the natural order of God’s world. I would say that it isn’t just Paul’s view; a basic knowledge of anatomy reveals that to all thinking people.

When she spoke of chastity and marriage, Miller claimed that some “Christian” communities wanted their unmarried women to become pregnant before marriage to insure that they could become pregnant. (Presumably by the future husband. This begs the question on what happened if the man changed his mind after she was knocked-up) She also claimed that some “Christians” went to prostitutes. It was more than likely perversions like these that led Paul to write letters like the one’s he wrote to the Corinthians. Just because a person who claims to be a Christian commits a sin, doesn’t change the fact that it’s wrong.

Miller spoke on queers in the Greek and Jewish culture. She states that while the Jews (rightfully) had an aversion to homos, the Greeks accepted it. She spoke of how queers were fully accepted in the Greek military because it was felt that is created a closer bond between soldiers and that the men would be less likely to shame themselves in battle in front of their “lovers”. Soldiers have always risked their lives for their fellow soldiers and it wasn’t because they were sodomizing each other. She also mentioned that upper-class men during the samurai era were often queer. Again, just because a certain perversion is commonly practice doesn’t make it right.

The last discussion topic was what Jesus taught about queers, or as it was put, what did Jesus say against homos. I can’t find any scripture where Jesus specifically spoke against faggots, but neither can I find any scripture where He spoke against, men sleeping with their daughters or sons sleeping with their sisters or men or women sleeping with animals.

During our small group discussion, the discussion leader asked if anyone could find a passage where Jesus condemned queers. I had looked up several verses during a break, and while I couldn’t find passages where Jesus spoke against queers I did find a few where He spoke of a man leaving his parents and becoming one with his wife. The group pointed out that the reference was to divorce to which I agreed but that the passage also confirmed the natural order of the world, that being, male-female relationships and not male-male or female-female.

Even if you don’t believe the Bible, as is the case with Episcopalians, Unitarians the “Church” of Christ and several other apostate denominations, nature and a basic knowledge of anatomy should tell you that homosexuality is wrong. The queer lobby can twist the Bible all it wants, but it won’t change the facts.

Robot

Liberals and Freedom of Speech

For all their talk of “tolerance”, “freedom” of speech and “equality” liberals are in actuality nothing more than hypocritical, Marxist savages. I’ve experienced several incidents of liberal “tolerance” for opposing opinions.

The first was in the early 90’s when comrade-president clinton was in office. I was in a laundry mat in Monterey when I noticed that a local Marxist, James M. was also present. I recognized his name from letters to the editor in local papers. His name and e-mail address was on the back of his truck. At the time, he was ranting about the evils of the tobacco company with the woman working there and anyone else who would listen. By the way, did I mention he was a smoker? He blames the tobacco companies for “addicting” him to tobacco.

My vehicle was parked around the corner because the spaces in front of the laundry were taken. After a few minutes, a space opened up in front of the laundry mat and coincidently, also in from of James, The Red’s truck. I parked my vehicle in front of his and when he noticed the bumper stickers on it he approached me. One of the stickers proclaimed, “Comrade clinton, Coward in Chief “. It was that sticker that incensed him. He was nearly shaking with rage when he demanded, “How can you call clinton a coward?!” I said “Because he’s a draft-dodger”. He told that a lot of people dodged the draft during Vietnam and asked if I would also call them all cowards. I told him “Yeah.” He responded by saying that if I called him a coward he would “stuff me into one of the washing machines.” I decided that getting into a fight in public wasn’t worth it so I didn’t call him one. In hindsight, I wish I had. Cowards are big on talk and little on action and the vast majority of liberals tend to be cowards.
He also added that I should remove the sticker, saying that it wasn’t free speech, it was “hate” speech. I should also note that James the Red also had a pirate radio station and called it “Free Speech Radio.” Basically, “hate” speech is anything said, printed or broadcast that liberals disagree with.

During the last election, I had several bumper stickers on my vehicle. One of the stickers, which read “Liberals Make Me Sick”, was torn off, leaving only the “sick” part of the sticker, when I was parked near a Starbucks in Sand City. I’ve also had one that read “Charter Member: Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” stolen when I was parked at a theater near Santa Cruz. I had another “Liberals Make Me Sick” sticker stolen when I was parked near the Sand City Border’s.

While stealing bumper stickers is petty vandalism, I’ve had more serious damage done to my vehicle. I’ve had a tired slashed when I was parked, again in Sand City. I knew who did it and even confronted the worthless savage. I didn’t see him do it, but the way he commented about my stickers and the way he approached me is proof enough to me that it was him. Of course, it would never stand up in court. (I considered, and rejected an out-of court settlement)
In the latest incident, my vehicle was keyed. Considering the location, I suspect that the traditional marriage (Man-Woman) sticker is what set the worthless puke off.
I started putting bumper stickers on my vehicle because of seeing commie-lib stickers on other cars. I never (seriously) considered vandalizing their vehicles, but if my vehicle keeps getting damaged, I may have to reconsider the out-of-court settlement option.

Some people suggest that I remove my political stickers. If I do that then the animals have won. I’m not backing down from those sub-human savages.

ROBOT

831-869-9932

www.InsideTheCompound.com

A.N.S.W.E.R., JUST ANOTHER CPUSA FRONT

Last Saturday, anti-U.S/anti-War protests were conducted in Washington DC and other places around the Country. The protests were sponsored by the CPUSA front group A.N.S.W.E.R. This is a letter that was published in a local Monterey paper several weeks before Iraq War II:
On January 18^th, the group headed by Ramsey Clark A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is sponsoring a “peace” march to oppose a possible war with Iraq ANSWER also sponsored the April 20^th anti-globalization protests. The April 20^th event was organized with the help of the Communist party USA (CPUSA) which was mentioned in a memo issued by CPUSA organization secretary Elena Mora. ANSWER HQ is in the same building (39 W, 14^th St., NY (212) 633-6646), as another group closely associated with Clark the International Action Committee (IAC) (39 E of the same street). The IAC is another CPUSA front, which also praises Castro and reproduces many of his speeches on their website. Other sponsors of ANSWER are Cop-killer Wesley (Mumia Jamal) Cook, Congressman Cynthia McKinney (Who in 15 January 1998 was an Executive Committee member of the Progressive Caucus, Democratic Socialists of America), CPUSA, WILPF, Women’s Strike for Peace (WSP), Workers World Party, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), International Socialist Organization, the National Lawyers Guild, which was described in congressional investigations as “the bulwark of the Communist Party, etc. The list of Socialist and Communist connected organizations goes on.

The connection of “Peace” groups to Communist and Socialists causes is nothing new. To “Peace” groups, the America can do no right and most Communist countries can do no wrong. Ramsey Clark while Attorney General during the Vietnam War era opposed a federal law that would have made sending supplies to the Viet Cong or NVA illegal. He also brushed off pro-Viet Cong activity as merely “eccentric”. Clark will also never pass up an opportunity to bash the US.

The ADA, during WWII under their previous name Union for Democratic Action supported the Soviets and called for a Communist Revolution in America and has called for a total welfare state in America.

Dagmar Wilson who claimed she actually believed the Soviets wanted to disarm founded the Women’s Strike for “Peace”. During the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings 9 of the 12 WSP “leaders” (The WSP claimed they had no leaders) plead the 5^th when asked about CPUSA membership or activities. In 1965 a 10 member WSP delegation traveled to Indonesia to meet with a delegation Vietnamese Communists (From both the north and South) to sign a declaration deploring US “aggression. One

Jane Addams, who had a long time association with various Communists, Socialists and their causes and was later identified as a secret CPUSA member by one of her comrades, founded WILPF.

Nothing further needs to be said about groups like the Worker’s World Party and the International Socialist Organization. ANSWER is just another Communist front group that will always oppose US military action taken in the interests of the US.

I don’t necessarily support a full-scale war with Iraq. Iraq’s WMD program could be dealt with by using a few tactical air strikes. Also, Bush Jr. claiming he has knowledge of Hussein’s weapons but not sharing that information with UN inspectors takes from his credibility. Also his claiming the US is at risk from Hussein and then appealing to the UN also takes from his credibility.

What Second Amendment?

One of the outrages of the Katrina disaster, mostly ignored by the mainstream (read liberal) media was the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. With reports of looting, assaults and rapes, P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendant of Police ordered that only the police will be able to carry firearms. To be more accurate, only police and people rich enough to hire private security firms to protect them. This of course is an assinine order in light of the the type of animals who tend to surface during disasters.

Not only were most citizen banned from carrying firearms, citizens had their homes, or what was left of them entered and searched by police. Legally posessed firearms were confiscated. As Larry and Erich Pratt of the Gun Owners Of America wrote in a recent article, “So if Mayor Ray Nagin really wanted to help the decent citizens of New Orleans, (given his shoddy performance prior to and during the disaster, he didn’t. My note) he would be issuing law abiding citizens firearms instead of taking them away. Nagin's actions will put people in further jeopardy -- and if one citizen dies in New Orleans because he was deprived of the ability to defend himself or his family, there will be blood on the Mayor's hands."

As I wrote in a previous blog, only a fool depends solely on the government for help during an emergency. Being armed is a must

A local, milder example of government excess occurred in Moss Landing, near Monterey over the Labor Day weekend. Several boats were boarded and searched by the Coast Guard in what were called “safety inspections”. The Coast Guard has the authority to search boats for safety, but according to reports, many of the searches were done at around 10:30 PM. Some of the residents (Apparently, there are people other than Sonny Crockett who live on their boats) felt intimidated because some of the Coast Guard members were armed with M-16s, and the Coast Guard boats had machineguns on their bows. (Of course I don’t expect the guns, which are standard equipment to be removed from the boats for a search)

Being as the people searched were not suspected of any wrongdoing, the searches could have been done at a more reasonable hour.

Hopefully, the two above incidents don’t signal a return to the Clinton regime’s jack-booted thugs.

ROBOT

***UPDATE***

From the National Rifle Association

(Fairfax, VA) - Today, the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a motion in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking a temporary restraining order to block authorities from confiscating law-abiding citizens' firearms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

"New Orleans is the first city in the United States to forcibly disarm peaceable law-abiding citizens and it must be the last. Victims are dealing with a complete breakdown of government. At a time when 911 is non-operational and law enforcement cannot respond immediately to calls for help, people have only the Second Amendment to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

*****GOOD NEWS**********

From the NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Major Victory For Firearms Owners And Freedom In Louisiana

Friday, September 23, 2005

(Fairfax, VA) -- The United States District Court for the Eastern District in Louisiana today sided with the National Rifle Association (NRA) and issued a restraining order to bar further gun confiscations from peaceable and law-abiding victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

“This is a significant victory for freedom and for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The court’s ruling is instant relief for the victims who now have an effective means of defending themselves from the robbers and rapists that seek to further exploit the remnants of their shattered lives,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

Joining LaPierre in hailing the U.S. District Court decision was NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. “This is an important victory. But the battle is not over. The NRA will remedy state emergency statutes in all 50 states, if needed, to ensure that this injustice does not happen again."

The controversy erupted when The New York Times reported, the New Orleans superintendent of police directed that no civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to have guns and that “only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.” ABC News quoted New Orleans’ deputy police chief, saying, “No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons.”

The NRA also pledged that it will continue its work to ensure that every single firearm arbitrarily and unlawfully seized under this directive is returned to the rightful law-abiding owner.

Lessons Katrina Taught Me

There are several lessons people should learn from the Katrina disaster. The foremost of which is DON’T RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL, STATE AND ESPECIALLY FEDERAL TO TAKE CARE OF YOU. It’s a lesson I needed to be reminded of too.

People need to prepare themselves for the emergency situations that are most likely to occur in their area. On my side of the coast that would be earthquakes, in the middle of the Country it would probably be tornadoes and hurricanes on the east coast. In other places, riots may be a concern.

In my opinion, if a major hurricane is coming and you live in an area that’s near or especially below sea level, the best defense is to get out. Granted, some people may not be able to, however, getting out is the best choice. Evacuating the area may also be just heading to higher or safer ground. When you leave, take what you’ll need to live on while you’re away, obviously, food, water, guns and ammo, radio, toilet paper etc. (If you take military MRE’s, you may not need as much toilet paper) A Google search will lead you to survival kits you can either buy or make for yourself.

I think another important part of an emergency survival plan is to have a group of people to work with. If you plan to evacuate, that’s a near necessity. If you’re a Mormon, and have three wives and fourteen kids, you’re already set. If some of the children are too young to carry a gun, they can always carry supplies like extra ammo. You can even assign one of them to carry the toilet paper and body wipes. (I admit, being somewhat clean and having clean underwear in an emergency is highly important to me.)

However, if you’re like most of us (or me anyway) you’ll have to hook up with other, like-minded people. One of my friends, who was in LA during the Rodney King riots considered buying several shotguns. In case of another riot he could hand them out to several trusted friends and have an instant militia.

The point being that a group of prepared, armed people working together is better than a person working alone. Hopefully, you’ll have neighbors that you can band together with for protection and for pooling resources. If you plan to evacuate, group members can trade off with being on watch at night.

As is being demonstrated in New Orleans, human predators thrive during disasters.

The main thing to remember here is that you can’t rely completely on the government. You are your first line of defense.

Robot

831-869-9121

The Continuing Abomination

The abomination continues. I don’t plan to make sexual degenerates the main topic of my blogsite, but the California Senate recently passed a queer “marriage” bill. As I mentioned in one of my previous postings, California citizens voted overwhelmingly (61%) that marriage is between a man and a woman. The sodomite lobby (most of whom are democrats, naturally) are going against the wishes of the people. I Thought democrats were for a “democracy”, the will of the people rules. Apparently, sucking up to the pervert lobby is more important.

If California legalizes queer “marriage” it will pay, and the floods of New Orleans will look like a minor inconvenience.

Robot

831-869-9121

The Abomination Continues

Once again, a degenerate from San Francisco is attempting to legalize queer “marriages”. The bill is being sponsored by state assemblyman Mark Leno, a demoncrat. (Of course) The bill was approved in a California, Senate committee, the majority of demoncrats voting for the bill and the majority of Republicans voting against.

The bill has also been endorsed by the United Farm Workers. I’m puzzled as to why a farmer’s union would go out of their way to support queer “marriage”, but the supporters of sodomy hope the endorsement will influence Latinos to support queer “marriage”. The acceptance of sodomites is a hard sell with the majority of Latinos and if you can get them away from their politically-correct, (and morally-degenerate) race-baiting, quota-black leaders, a hard sell for blacks too.

The city of Los Angeles voted to support queer “marriages” last Tuesday. (12 July) The march toward Sodom, Gomorrah and hell continues.

As reported by today’s (13 July) Monterey County Herald, Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for California families said, ‘Californians are learning (as if they didn’t know already.) that the Democratic Party has become the party of homosexual ‘marriage’”

As I mentioned in my previous post about queer “marriage”, California voted overwhelmingly in opposition to the “marrying” of sodomites. The vote took place on 7 March 2000 and the vote was, as noted by www.marriagewatch.org, 61.4% in favor of normal, traditional marriage and 38.6% in favor of the unnatural, degenerate alternate.

The only good that can possibly come from this is that the news footage of “marrying” queers lip-locking with each other will be broadcast from one end of the Country to the other and inflame (no pun intended) the public to vote another Republican victory in the next national election.

As for California, I can almost hear the heavenly F-18s preparing for a Holy napalm strike.

Robot

831-241-0484

Photo-Shy "Peace" activists

Several days ago, one of the “peace” protestors I photographed at Monterey’s Window by the Bay Park approached me at a local Border’s and threatened me with legal action if I didn’t remove their photos from my photo site.

[http://www.insidethecompound.com/images/tubbyred.jpg]

The woman, named “Hannah” I believe, said her group didn’t appreciate my attitude about them. Too bad, the truth hurts.. If you protest in a public place, you can be photographed.

Coincidently, her picture wasn’t even posted at the time. People visiting the site can get the idea of the type of people these “peace” protests are by the pictures already there. Subsequently, after she threatened me, I posted her picture too. She’s the pudgy one holding “End the occupation of Palestine” sign.

The story is developing…

Robot

831-241-0484

National Guard Anti-Terrorist Intelligence Unit

It’s been recently reported that the California National Guard is forming an anti-terrorism intelligence unit. It’s about time. Much to my disappointment, it won’t be anything like La Femme Nikita’s Section One. Instead, the unit will merely analyze and distribute information on terrorist threats.

Guard officials insist that the unit won’t monitor American citizens. Why not?! If this Guard unit won’t, and I assume it’s because of the Posse Comitatus Act, some official unit should be.

Not surprisingly, American “peace” activists are highly upset about the unit’s forming. I personally think left-wing “peace” activists shouldn’t be ruled out. They have been known to engage in sabotage against military targets. In fact, one of the local Monterey area activist, MacGregor Eddy in the days leading up to the second Iraq war called for “peace” activists to attempt to disrupt operations at the Vandenberg Air Force base if the U.S invaded Iraq. Investigative agencies shouldn’t rule out monitoring such people if they are openly discussing illegal action damaging to National security.

What shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone is that the far-left organization, the ACLU (Which should stand for American Communist Liberals Union) is opposed to the unit. The ACLU has never seen a government anti-subversive unit that they approve of. Considering the Communist connections of the ACLU’s founders, this is to be expected. As mentioned in The New American magazine;

“These ACLU connections to the silk-hat revolutionaries in the CFR have never been well known, but the organization’s notorious record with regard to Communist, subversive, and terrorist groups was once fairly common knowledge. Much of this has been all but forgotten, thanks to the media cartel’s Orwellian memory hole. From its beginnings to the present, the ACLU has been not a champion of, but a dangerous enemy to, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In 1931, a congressional report of the Special House Committee to Investigate Communist Activities stated:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly; but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the government, replacing the American flag by a red flag and erecting a Soviet government in place of the republican form of government guaranteed to each state by the federal Constitution.

The House committee members had good reason to arrive at that conclusion. The ACLU’s membership, leadership, and projects soon gave rise to claims by critics that the organization’s acronym really stood for Atheists, Communists, and Libertines United, or Anti-Christian Lawyers Union. The ACLU was launched at a party given for Roger Baldwin upon his release from prison for draft evasion in 1919. The main attendees at the soiree were Norman Thomas, who would become the patriarch of the Socialist Party; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who would become the Communist Party’s national chairman; and Agnes Smedley, who would become a Soviet espionage agent in China. Top Communist Party officials who became national committee members or members of its board of directors included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Louis Budenz, Corliss Lamont, and Scott Nearing, as well as hundreds of Communist fellow travelers.

Roger Baldwin directed the ACLU for 30 years. Earlier, he described his own philosophy this way in his college yearbook: "I am for Socialism, disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." He gave no evidence of ever having swerved from that goal.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_535.shtml

If the Guard unit won’t keep tabs on these groups, some other official agency should.

ABOMINATION!

It was reported today in the Monterey County Herald http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/nation/12056496.htm and I assume other news sources that the Church of Christ’s rule-making body has voted overwhelmingly to support queer “marriage”. The Church of Christ is one of the larger “Christian” denominations to support the marrying of homos. I assume they will endorse the marriage of people to farm animals next.

Now they aren’t the first “Christian” denomination to do so (Unitarian-Universalists are so far out as to not be even remotely considered Christian), but they’re the latest in a line of sodomy-friendly “churches”. I won’t mention them here. I know some queers occasionally visit this site and I don’t want to assist them in hooking up with a pro-queer church.

One wonders if these “Christian” churches have ever read the Bible. Remember, sodomy was called an abomination. Many among the queers and their enablers mention that Jesus never mentioned queers during his ministry. I doubt there were enough queers in old Jerusalem for him to repeat the obvious. Once God calls something an “abomination” there’s no a whole lot more you need to add in condemnation of it.

How is this possible? The majority of people recognize that homosexuality is deviant and unnatural. California several years ago voted on whether to allow marriage between queer “couples”. If I recall correctly, the polls were allegedly in favor of the queers but when the actual votes were counted, the state voted that marriage was between a man and a woman.

The queers and their enablers were shocked. After all, the polls were in their favor. Never mind that the results of the polls were probably slanted by the liberal, anti-god, anti-American, pro-queer media. One reason for the conflicting polls vs. election results is probably because many people, when asked whether or not they support queers by an unknown person will take the politically correct answer in an attempt to not look “intolerant”.

I fear that if this pro-queer trend continues, our Country is in danger of a Holy napalm strike like Sodom and Gomorrah.

For more on the Church of Christ, see:

http://www.chocd.org/pages/6/index.htm

Robot

robot@mbay.net

831-869-9932

Firearms in the home, are they safe? (Yes!)

The essay, which I've slightly modified here was originally written for my English 111 class.

Are firearms in the home safe? That is a question often brought up, especially after an incident of a child dying as the result of a firearms accident. Whether or not having firearms in the home is safe of not depends mostly on the owner of the firearm. Millions of Americans keep guns in the home for sport and protection. Accidental deaths only occur with a very small minority of the gun-owning population. Merely following the basic rules of gun safety would reduce gun accidents. Overall however, firearms account for relatively few home injury deaths.

A report published on the www.preventinjury.org website states that in 2002, 80 children aged 14 or under died as a result of firearm accidents. While of course, the death of a child is always tragic, the site also states that 620 children aged 14 or under, died of suffocation, 420 died of drowning, 320 died of burns and 160 choked to death.

The Home Safety Council states that for the years 1992-1999, home firearm accidental deaths numbered on the average, 590 per year. However during the same time span, falls accounted for 5,961 home injury deaths, poisoning for 4,833 deaths, fires and burns 3.402 deaths and choking for 1,092 accidental deaths.

While accidental gun deaths are rare, they are even more rare when compared to other home injury deaths and only involve a small minority of the gun-owning public. www.GunCite.com, citing as sources gun supply statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and accident rates reported by the National safety Council that accidental gun deaths overall has declined 60% , from 1975 to 1995 despite gun ownership increasing by about 60% during the same time period. (3)

Obviously and especially if there are children around, guns should be secured from theft or misuse. There are many types of gun lockers and safes available, ranging from the fairly low-security, metal storage locker type to heavy-duty safes. If the gun is kept for self-defense, there are also small safes that can be programmed with electronic combinations so that the gun can be accessed quickly during an emergency. There are also a few biometric safes that can only be opened by the owner’s or other authorized person’s fingerprints that are recognized by an electric reader on the safe. One of the simplest ways to keep most guns safe from unauthorized use is to lock a padlock in the trigger guard, with the hasp behind the trigger which will keep the trigger being pulled completely. Of course, this only works if the hasp is big enough to block the trigger.

Firearms owners with children should consider teaching them about firearms. There are many anecdotal accounts of children being raised around guns and even growing up with guns readily accessible to them and never having any accidents. One of my older friends said his father kept a gun in his dresser drawer and told his children not to touch it without him around. My friend told me they didn’t. While few people these days would consider that an option, teaching them about guns is a wise thing to do.

Paxton Quigley, in her book Armed & Female writes that it would be instructive to show children what a gun can do by shooting a cantaloupe or a full can of soda. She writes that such a demonstration will show young people that guns are to be taken seriously. (My English teacher wrote in her notes on my paper that seeing a cantaloupe explode may increase the interest of children, to which I say Cool! The intention isn’t to make children afraid of guns and become ball-less liberals, it’s to teach them that guns should be respected.)

Although many Americans may only keep firearms for hunting and other sporting purposes, many others, me included keep guns for self-defense. One often-cited claim, initiated by Dr. Arthur Kellerman of the Emory University School of Public Health is that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

Dr. Miguel Faria Jr., writing in the 30 September 1996 issue of The New American magazine states that in over half of the cases cited by Kellerman, the households had a history its members being arrested, over 30% of the households cited had a history of drug abuse. Dr. Faria (and many others) notes that Kellerman did not take into consideration incidents where a criminal was either frightened off or only wounded by an armed citizen.

Dr Faria also notes Professor Gary Gleck’s work in the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, which reported that based on Gleck’s studies, guns are used defensively approximately 2.5 million times a year.

Are guns in the home safe? For the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners, yes. But it also takes common sense and education about gun safety.

Works Cited

Preventinjury.org Home Injury.

30 Nov 2004

Homesafetycouncil.org. Unintentional Home Injury Deaths

30 Nov 2004 <http://www.homesafetycouncil.org/state_of_home_safety/sohs_2004_w002.aspx

Guncite.com. Gun Accidents (and Kids & Gun Accidents)

< http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html>

Quigley, Paxton. Armed and Female. St Martin’s paperback edition, November

30, 1990.

How I Spent Last Thursday (9 June 2005)

Last Thursday I attended two meetings, one consisting of “conservatives” the other, a group of God-hating/Republican-bashing Marxists, or as they call themselves, (in)Humanists.

The first was a meeting or Republican women. The meeting featured a young Republican who said with a straight face that Bush Jr. was the most “Conservative” president we’ve had in years. While he’s obviously more Conservative than HilLIARy’s husband (who’s name I won’t soil my computer screen by typing it) and possibly slightly more Conservative than his father, he’s no Conservative in the classical sense. He’s spending more government money than a drunken Ted Kennedy, he’s pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, appoints queers to public offices and supports treaties damaging to US sovereignty like CAFTA and the FTAA. He contrary to the myth, he supports the United Nations. Despite his many faults, given the same choices I would vote for him again.

The young (23) woman was delighted that Republican-lite Abel Maldonado was elected to the state senate. Again, Maldonado was the better choice over Democrat (Marxist-socialist) Peg Pinard. However, Maldonado prides himself on being an “independent” and says he sometimes votes against the GOP. While that in itself isn’t always a bad thing Maldonado supports classic socialists agendas like, socialized medicine and says he’s an environmentalist. He also supports open primaries.

She also mentioned that Bruce McPherson, a notorious Republican-lite, had been appointed secretary of state by Republican-very-lite Arnold Schwarzenegger. Frankly, I don’t trust any ”Republican” who’s married to a Democrat, much less a Kennedy. *spit*

Given the youth of this woman, she’s probably too young to remember what Conservative really means. Then again, she said her parents were liberals. I suppose to her anything to the right of that, no matter how slight could be considered Conservative.

Later on that night, I visited the heart of darkness side, a collection of people vile, disgusting and treasonous. People I only barely consider to be human beings. That night I went to a meeting of the Monterey Bay Area (in)Humanist Association.

The topic of discussion was the book, “Don’t Think of an Elephant”, written by George Lakoff. The book is imagined by the (in)Humanists to be “the antidote to the last forty years of conservatives strategizing and the right wing’s “stranglehold” on the political dialogue in the United States” Basically, they’re upset that Conservatives, however few still exist and that they can’t “yet” force them into silence. Lakoff claims his book will tell how Conservatives think and how to counter our arguments.

While I won’t bore you with a full account of their ramblings, I will mention some of the “highlights” of their talk. A CD was played of Lakoff addressing a group of like-minded “people”. Lakoff spoke of being confused when Conservatives spoke of family values, which is understandable as liberals have neither family values nor any moral values whatsoever.

Lakoff confused even me when he claimed he was puzzled as to what tax-cuts had to do with abortion and machineguns. (He claimed all Conservatives were for everyone owning a machinegun (?)) He spoke of the “contradiction” of Conservatives being pro-life, but pro-death penalty. He repeated the tired old liberal rant of tax cuts being for the “rich” and that Dr. James Dodson thinks only people with low morals need social programs.

One interesting part of the meeting was when Darby Moss Worth(less) (Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom, Peace Coalition-Monterey County) took time away from making announcements to ask me (I was attempting to keep a low profile) where in the Bible did Jesus favor the rich over the poor or when Jesus supported pre-emptive war. I think it was the association president, Mark Folsom who ended the interrogation. I did manage to add that Jesus valued rich and poor equally.

Also during the meeting, a man described what he thought would be the ideal speech for a U.S. president to make. He said the president should tell the world that the U.S. wants to dismantle its military and that if other countries agree to do the same, we would too.

Now really, is it possible for anyone over the age of twelve to be that simple-minded? I say no. Anyone that foolish would have to have a severe hatred for this Country or just complete fools or total imbeciles.

And how would any collection of Marxists get by without speaking of “overpopulation?” Of course that was brought up during the meeting. Given that the median age of the people there was about 72, they could contribute a bit to depopulation by dying off. Frankly, I think it’s too bad that we can’t start shooting these neo-Marxists pukes (young and old) right now.

But, dare to dream.

ROBOT

831-241-0484

Liberalism=Communism

I’m sure you’ve noticed, especially recently that liberals often use terms like fascism or Nazism when referring to Republicans. It’s ironic that they’ve been using those terms a lot when whining about the possibility of filibusters being halted when it comes to court appointments. Do I understand this right? Liberals, most of whom claim to be Democrats are opposed to the democratic process of voting when a vote may not go their way. Yet, they call the Republicans who want to have a straight (No offense to queers) up or down vote, fascists.

I think their gratuitous use of the terms fascism and Nazism gives an insight to their true political agenda. Lenin once said that Communism must be built with non-Communist hands. While I think it’s accurate to call most liberal Democrats Communists, for the sake of this posting, I’ll consider them the “non-Communist” hands, working to build Communism.

Lenin also prescribed the type of slander used by Liberals against their opposition. “Members and front organizations must continually embarrass, discredit and degrade our critics. When obstructionists (To the cause) become too irritating, label them as FASCISTS, NAZI or anti-Semitic. Constantly associate those who oppose us with those names which already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition become fact in the public mind.”

Why do I consider democrats in general and liberals in particular as working to build and support Communism? Look at their record. Take into account the causes they support, the politics of the people they support and associate with and their seething hatred for the Christian religion and ideals that formed this Country.

During the 40’s and 50’s when Communists, both Soviet agents and fellow travelers infested government agencies such as the State Department, who were the main people opposing the investigations into the traitors? It was mostly Democrats. Back then, it probably wasn’t the majority of them. Several prominent Democrats actively opposed Communism. Names that come to mind are Hubert Humphrey, who helped purge Communists from the Democratic Farmer Labor Party in Minnesota, John F. Kennedy who supported the late, great and often slandered Sen. Joseph McCarthy. There was also Attorney Robert Kennedy who authorized the wiretapping of Martin Luther King because of his working with Communists during the civil rights movement.

On the other hand there are the Red Democrats. Bella Abzug, who has since passed on to hang with Lenin (V. Lenin and John Lennon) supported opposed going to war with Hitler during the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact, when the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) opposed war with Germany. When Hitler invaded Russia Abzug followed the CPUSA’s lead and supported was with Germany.

It was mostly Democrats who supported the Communists in Vietnam and again, it was mostly Democrats (Les Aspin David Bonior, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Richard Gephardt, Charles Rangel, Pat Schroeder and many others who supported the Communist government of Nicaragua.

It is mostly liberal Democrats who oppose U.S. military spending, to include spending for the research of missile defense technology.

A good source for information for the goals of Red Democrats is www.dsausa.org.

While this list is somewhat dated, several of these people are still involved in Democratic politics.

Member/Position/District	Address	Phone	Website
Peter DeFazio (OFFICER, OREGON-04)	2134 RHOB	225-6416	WEBSITE
Dennis Kucinich (Chairman) (CHAIR, OHIO-10)	1730 LHOB	225-5871	WEBSITE
Barbara Lee (Vice Chair) (OFFICER, CALIFORNIA-09)	426 CHOB	225-2661	WEBSITE
Cynthia McKinney (OFFICER, GEORGIA-04)	124 CHOB	225-1605	WEBSITE
Major Owens (OFFICER, NEW YORK-11)	2309 RHOB	225-6231	WEBSITE
Bernie Sanders (OFFICER, VERMONT)	2135 RHOB	225-4115	WEBSITE
Paul Wellstone (OFFICER, MINNESOTA)	136 HSOB	224-5641	WEBSITE

members
Member/Position/District	Address	Phone	Website
Neil Abercrombie (MEMBER, HAWAII-01)	1502 LHOB	225-2726	WEBSITE
Tammy Baldwin (MEMBER, WISCONSIN-02)	1022 LHOB	225-2906	WEBSITE
Xavier Becerra (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-30)	1119 LHOB	225-6235	WEBSITE
David Bonior (MEMBER, MICHIGAN-10)	2207 RHOB	225-2106	WEBSITE
Corrine Brown (MEMBER, FLORIDA-03)	2444 RHOB	225-0123	WEBSITE
Sherrod Brown (MEMBER, OHIO-13)	2438 RHOB	225-3401	WEBSITE
Michael Capuano (MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-08)	1232 LHOB	225-5111	WEBSITE
Julia Carson (MEMBER, INDIANA-10)	1339 LHOB	225-4011	WEBSITE
William "Lacy" Clay (MEMBER, MISSOURI-01)	415 CHOB	225-2406	WEBSITE
John Conyers (MEMBER, MICHIGAN-14)	2426 RHOB	225-5126	WEBSITE
Danny Davis (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-07)	1222 LHOB	225-5006	WEBSITE
Rosa DeLauro (MEMBER, CONNECTICUT-03)	2262 RHOB	225-3661	WEBSITE
Lane Evans (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-17)	2211 RHOB	225-5905	WEBSITE
Eni Faleomavaega (MEMBER, AMERICAN SAMOA)	2422 RHOB	225-8577	WEBSITE
Sam Farr (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-17)	1221 LHOB	225-2861	WEBSITE
Chaka Fattah (MEMBER, PENNSYLVANIA-02)	1205 LHOB	225-4001	WEBSITE
Bob Filner (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-50)	2463 RHOB	225-8045	WEBSITE
Barney Frank (MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-04)	2252 RHOB	225-5931	WEBSITE
Luis Gutierrez (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-04)	2452 RHOB	225-8203	WEBSITE
Earl Hilliard (MEMBER, ALABAMA-07)	1314 LHOB	225-2665	WEBSITE
Maurice Hinchey (MEMBER, NEW YORK-26)	2431 RHOB	225-6335	WEBSITE
Jesse Jackson, Jr (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-02)	313 CHOB	225-0773
Sheila Jackson-Lee (MEMBER, TEXAS-18)	403 CHOB	225-3816	WEBSITE
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (MEMBER, OHIO-11)	1516 LHOB	225-7032	WEBSITE
Marcy Kaptur (MEMBER, OHIO-09)	2366 RHOB	225-4146	WEBSITE
Tom Lantos (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-12)	2217 RHOB	225-3531	WEBSITE
John Lewis (MEMBER, GEORGIA-05)	343 CHOB	225-3801	WEBSITE
Jim McDermott (MEMBER, WASHINGTON-07)	1035 LHOB	225-3106	WEBSITE
James P. McGovern (MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-03)	430 CHOB	225-6101	WEBSITE
Carrie Meek (MEMBER, FLORIDA-17)	2433 RHOB	225-4506	WEBSITE
George Miller (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-07)	2205 RHOB	225-2095	WEBSITE
Patsy Mink (MEMBER, HAWAII-02)	2210 RHOB	225-4906	WEBSITE
Jerry Nadler (MEMBER, NEW YORK-08)	2334 RHOB	225-5635	WEBSITE
Eleanor Holmes Norton (MEMBER, D.C.)	2136 RHOB	225-8050	WEBSITE
John Olver (MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-01)	1027 LHOB	225-5335	WEBSITE
Ed Pastor (MEMBER, ARIZONA-02)	2465 RHOB	225-4065	WEBSITE
Donald Payne (MEMBER, NEW JERSEY-10)	2209 RHOB	225-3436	WEBSITE
Nancy Pelosi (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-08)	2457 RHOB	225-4965	WEBSITE
Bobby Rush (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-01)	2416 RHOB	225-4372	WEBSITE
Jan Schakowsky (MEMBER, ILLINOIS-09)	515 CHOB	225-2111	WEBSITE
Jose Serrano (MEMBER, NEW YORK-16)	2342 RHOB	225-4361	WEBSITE
Hilda Solis (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-31)	1641 LHOB	225-5464	WEBSITE
Pete Stark (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-13)	239 CHOB	225-5065	WEBSITE
Bennie Thompson (MEMBER, MISSISSIPPI-02)	2432 RHOB	225-5876	WEBSITE
John Tierney (MEMBER, MASSACHUSETTS-06)	120 CHOB	225-8020	WEBSITE
Tom Udall (MEMBER, NEW MEXICO-03)	502 CHOB	225-6190	WEBSITE
Nydia Velazquez (MEMBER, NEW YORK-12)	2241 RHOB	225-2361	WEBSITE
Maxine Waters (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-35)	2344 RHOB	225-2201	WEBSITE
Diane Watson (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-32)	2413 RHOB	225-7084	WEBSITE
Mel Watt (MEMBER, NORTH CAROLINA-12)	2236 RHOB	225-1510	WEBSITE
Henry Waxman (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-29)	2204 RHOB	225-3976	WEBSITE
Lynn Woolsey (MEMBER, CALIFORNIA-06)	2263 RHOB	225-5161	WEBSITE

I’ll continue my discussion of the threat liberals pose to the Country at a later date.

Whose side is George Bush Jr. on?

This post won’t make me popular with a lot of people, but the question needs to be asked. Whose side is George Bush Jr. really on? First off, given the same two choices for president I would vote for George Bush again, but if the democrats had run a candidate who wasn’t a total Marxist I would have voted for a third party candidate. No, I wouldn’t have voted for a democrat. The only presidential democratic candidate I would have voted for, Larry McDonald was shot down on flight KAL flight 007.

For the moment, I won’t speak of Bush’s increased government spending or his love affair with the UN. Right now I want to speak of his support for illegal aliens.

In December of 2004, Bush signed into law the National Intelligence Reform Act, which called for the addition of 10,000 Border Patrol agents over the next five years. 80 percent of them were to be added to the southern border. When the time came to fund the 10,000 gents, he only provided for the funding of 210.

Also in 2004, Bush called for giving amnesty to illegal aliens already in the Country. Of course, Bush and the country club Republicans don’t call it “amnesty,” he calls it giving “legal status” to “temporary workers”. On May 12^th, senators “Red” Ted Kennedy, GOP traitor John McCain and Republican-lite Jim Kolbe introduced the deceitfully-named Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act which will result in amnesty being given to illegals. Logically, when amnesty is given to illegals already in the Country, it encourages more to enter in hopes of also being granted amnesty.

Even more disgraceful, when the group known as the Minutemen made plans (and successfully carried them out) to patrol the southern border of Arizona and report illegals to the Border Patrol, rather than support them, Bush bashed them as “vigilantes”. No Mr. Bush, vigilantes would do considerably more than just report them; they would take a more active role and capture the criminals and forcibly sending their asses back across the border. They would probably also engage in a little “direct action” against the treasonous ACLU “monitors”/collaborators. Perhaps that may have to be considered if the federal government won’t do its job, but I digress.

What’s worse, there have been reports that the Border Patrol was told to not make too many arrests while the Minutemen were active as it would give them credibility.

Oddly enough, while Bush doesn’t want stop illegal aliens, on May 11^th Bush signed into law the Real ID Act, which is in effect, a national ID card. Many people who support national ID cards claim it will help control illegal immigration. As written by William Jasper of The John Birch Society, and posted on The New American magazine website, http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1512.shtml, “Attached to the War Supplemental Spending bill, the REAL ID Act was promoted in Congress as the solution to the serious problem of illegal aliens obtaining state driver’s licenses.”

Also mentioned in the same post, Rep. Paul noted: “Proponents of the REAL ID Act continue to make the preposterous claim that the bill does not establish a national ID card. This is dangerous and insulting nonsense. Let’s get the facts straight: The REAL ID Act transforms state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. Nationalizing standards for driver’s licenses and birth certificates in a federal bill creates a national ID system, pure and simple. Having the name of your particular state on the ID is meaningless window dressing.”

Again, whose side is George Bush really on?

ROBOT

Ward Churchill: When Liberals Attack

Ward Churchill, the self-described Indian spoke at the California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB). He was invited to speak by the racist, Mexican-nationalist group MECHA. Churchill is the clown who called the 9-11 victims in the World Trade Center buildings “little Eichmanns”. As he wrote; “True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of Americas global financial empire- the `mighty engine of profit` to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved-and they did so both willingly and knowingly.” Churchill also claims to be a member of the American Indian Movement (AIM, basically Anarchists In Moccasins). It should also be noted that even that bunch of goofballs don’t claim him. The AIM Grand Governing Council, Ministry for Information issued a statement (http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html) condemning Churchill’s statements. They also add that Churchill fraudulently passes himself off as an Indian and a member of AIM. They report that Churchill’s AIM membership card is an honorary one that was issued by the Keetoowah Tribe of Oklahoma. The cards don’t qualify the holder as a member of any tribe. Bill Clinton was also issued an honorary membership card. (This makes him not just the “first Black president” but also the first Indian president.)

Not that his rant would be made acceptable or true even if he was really and Indian.

The local Republican Party, including CSUMB’s college Republicans organized a protest in opposition to Churchill. The protest included the reading of the names of the 9-11 victims and a candlelight vigil.

I went to the gathering to support the opposition to Churchill and see the types of degenerates who would support such a sub-human. The supporters of Churchill were the usual group of college Marxists, with a few old-time Reds thrown in for good measure. Several of the well thought out signs included “Republicans eat ****”, “How are we going to stop US sponsored terrorism?” “No war but class War” “Economic disparity (and apparently not Muslim extremism)guarantees terrorism” “America, love it or give it back” etc. Frankly, it would have been a good place for the Ohio National Guard to do some target practice.

If the anti-US, peace-preaching pukes would have stopped there, I wouldn’t have had much of a problem with them. (OK, I miss-spoke, I’d still consider them worthless savages.) But instead, they began banging drums and chanting loudly and drowning out the young women who were reading off the names. If anyone has any doubt that these savages are enemies of this Country, that act alone should convince them.

While the college Republicans and their supporters stayed outside for the candlelight vigil, I ventured inside to hear the wizened words of Churchill.

Churchill claimed to be with Colorado chapter of AIM and whined on and on for several minutes about the attempts to fire him. He also moaned about people who claim he isn’t an Indian.

Interestingly, (To me anyway) is how he credits O’Reilly and his show for giving him so much publicity. I think that it’s highly possible that this idiot would have been forgotten if O’Reilly hadn’t pumped him up. Following the usual left-wing talking points, he blames the UN sanctions (and not Saddam’s violation of them) for the deaths of Iraqi children. Ever wonder why the left’s concern for children doesn’t extend to opposing their murder by way of abortion? I don’t, I know it’s because liberals are hypocritical degenerates, but, more on that later. He also mentions Clinton’s secretary of state Madeleine (not)Albright and her condoning of the deaths of Iraqis, due to the sanctions.

He makes a bizarre cause and effect statement about wealthy people causing starving children. He whined a bit about the group of bomb-tossing crackpots known as the “Palestinians”. Now of course I know that not all “Palestinians” are terrorists, but it’s rare that you hear “Palestinians” condemning the murders of Israeli civilians.

One possibly redeeming quality of Churchill is that he opposes Kerry, claiming he sold out Vietnam vets. He claims he supports the “draft-dodger’ Bush Jr.

Churchill follows the usual leftist rants, whining about the ’54 Guatemala and Iran CIA-sponsored coups. (Both overthrew Communists, which I see as a good use of CIA resources) He sniveled about the U.S. not paying “reparations” to North Vietnam, leaving out that the reparations were agreed to under the condition that the North didn’t invade South Vietnam, which of course they did.

He snivels on about Japan trying to “surrender” (with conditions) for six months before we dropped atomic bombs on them, which led to them surrendering unconditionally. He bashes the U.S. as the only country to use atomic weapons.

He did point out actual atrocities, such as the fire-bombings of civilian targets in Japan and Germany, the slaughter of the Moros in the Philippines and the Dutch murder of the Indian population in Manhattan prior to the founding of the U.S.

You may find it hard to believe, but Churchill says he more “conservative” than the people outside protesting him. Ask him, he’ll tell you he is. He claims he’s more Conservative because he’s for following the “law”. The laws he’s speaking of are international laws that oppose the best interests of the U.S. He calls for the U.S to follow UN directives and disarm.

He denies saying that the 9-11 victims got what they deserved and claims Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson did say the victims deserved death. Churchill also claims the Right doesn’t read the Bible. Preach on Reverend Churchill.

Churchill is scum, but not unique to college university campuses. Perhaps it’s a good thing Churchill that made his hateful statements. It lets us see the enemy and how he really thinks. Churchill said what many liberals probably believe. As I said in my profile, liberals are a bigger threat to the U.S. that Al Qaida or the Soviet Union could ever be. The liberals live among us and aside from the few who wear their treasonous politics on the bumpers of their vehicles; you won’t see them until they strike.

P.S., I also recorded Churchill’s talk.

Some photos of the protests can be seen here:

http://www.picjar.com/pub/ROBOT/Ward_Churchill_at/

A.N.S.W.E.R., JUST ANOTHER CPUSA FRONT

(Written for a newspaper messageboard prior to the second Iraq War)

On January 18^th, the group headed by Ramsey Clark A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is sponsoring a “peace” march to oppose a possible war with Iraq. ANSWER also sponsored the April 20^th anti-globalization protests. The April 20^th event was organized with the help of the Communist party USA (CPUSA) which was mentioned in a memo issued by CPUSA organization secretary Elena Mora. ANSWER HQ is in the same building (39 W, 14^th St, NY, NY (212) 633-6646), as another group closely associated with Clark the International Action Committee (IAC) (39 E of the same street). The IAC is another CPUSA front, which also praises Castro and reproduces many of his speeches on their website.

Other sponsors of ANSWER are Cop-killer Wesley (Mumia Jamal) Cook, Congressman Cynthia McKinney (Who in 15 January 1998 was an Executive Committee member of the Progressive Caucus, Democratic Socialists of America), CPUSA, WILPF, Women’s Strike for Peace (WSP), Workers World Party, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), International Socialist Organization, the National Lawyers Guild, which was described in congressional investigations as “the bulwark of the Communist Party, etc. The list of Socialist and Communist connected organizations goes on.

The connection of “Peace” groups to Communist and Socialists causes is nothing new. To “Peace” groups, America can do no right and Communist countries can do no wrong. Ramsey Clark while Attorney General during the Vietnam War era, opposed a federal law that would have made sending supplies to the Viet Cong or NVA illegal. He also brushed off pro-Viet Cong activity as merely “eccentric”. Clark will also never pass up an opportunity to bash the US.

The ADA, during WWII under their previous name Union for Democratic Action supported the Soviets and called for a Communist Revolution in America and has called for a total welfare state in America.

Dagmar Wilson who claimed she actually believed the Soviets wanted to disarm, founded the Women’s Strike for “Peace”. During the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings 9 of the 12 WSP “leaders” (The WSP claimed they had no leaders) plead the 5^th when asked about CPUSA membership or activities. In 1965 a 10 member WSP delegation traveled to Indonesia to meet with a delegation Vietnamese Communists (From both the north and South) to sign a declaration deploring US “aggression.

Jane Addams, who had a long time association with various Communists, Socialists and their causes and was later identified as a secret CPUSA member by one of her comrades, was the founder of WILPF.

Nothing further needs to be said about groups like the Worker’s World Party and the International Socialist Organization. ANSWER is just another Communist front group that will always oppose US military action taken in the interests of the US.

I don’t necessarily support a full-scale war with Iraq. Iraq’s WMD program could be dealt with by using a few tactical air strikes. Also, Bush Jr. claiming he has knowledge of Hussein’s weapons but not sharing that information with UN inspectors takes from his credibility. Also his claiming the US is at risk from Hussein and then appealing to the UN also takes from his credibility.

When Lesbians Attack

Early last year, the mayor of San Francisco (Where else?) performed a series of queer "weddings." Shortly afterward, the Santa Cruz Bible Church held a Valentines week contest honoring the oldest and newest married couple. Two dykes who had been attending the church stood up to be recognized as the newest “married” couple. This of course raised some eyebrows. As reported in the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

(Doreen) Boxer and (Cynthia) Zapata, who were married in San Francisco just two days before the church service, were soon the only ones standing. But rather than being greeted with accolades, the couple was met with an uncomfortable pause as the contest moderator proceeded to confer with church leaders on whether to acknowledge a lesbian couple and give them the award, according to parishioners.

One of the parishioners made this comment to The Sentinel:

“It was so awkward," said Elena Steeves, who has been attending Santa Cruz Bible Church on and off for 15 years. Steeves vows never to return after that Sunday’s events.

"I felt so bad for them, and personally I felt betrayed,"

The fact that a person could attend the Church for 15 years and not know that know that homosexuality would be opposed by the church begs the question, just what do they teach there?

The pastor went ahead and gave the “newlyweds” the prize.

The executive pastor did stand up and condemn queer “marriage.”

I wrote and submitted a letter to the Sentinel which they wouldn’t publish. So I wrote the following essay and posted it on the Sentinel’s message board:

The incident with the “married” lesbian couple at the Santa Cruz Bible was clearly a staged event. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise.

There is no homosexual in America that doesn’t know that any truly Christian church opposes homosexuality. If they had any doubts, the Church’s name, the Santa Cruz BIBLE Church should have been a hint.

The article stated that the church ministry was “struggling “to respectfully affirm its beliefs. I’m sure that a minister in a Bible-believing church would have no problems affirming what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Boxer and Dixon claim they thought they were divinely guided to the Santa Cruz Bible Church. Perhaps it was. They seem to have gotten the message there that they apparently weren’t getting in churches they previously attended.

The Church leaders handled the incident better than I ever could have.

Boxer responded to my post on the message board and even left a long-winded message on my voicemail. Following is my response

I’ve finally read Doreen’s rant and will now respond. Don’t worry; my response won’t be nearly as long.

Boxer babbles on a lot about being judgmental, judging, etc. She has no problem being judgmental herself when she accuses others of being “narrow-minded”. Boxer claims that no person can judge her. What’s there to judge? She already stated she’s a lesbian. I would (also) remind Boxer that the Bible is one of the most judgmental books ever written.

Boxer speaks being “legally married”. Boxer, you weren’t legally “married”. The SF Mayor was breaking the law when he allowed such “marriages”

I(t) was amusing for Boxer to ponder the state of same-sex “marriages” if the world were primarily homosexual. Boxer, it isn’t. Being as how homosexuals don’t reproduce (I assume your children weren’t the result of you and your “wife” mating) that probably will never happen. We do know the result of a primarily homosexual society, re: Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was interesting to read the statements you attribute to your sister about homosexuals leaving California. Her statements seem to bring up the usual homosexual stereotypes in regards to home decorating, fashion etc. I’m certain that most of the people performing the jobs she listed are normal people. (Heterosexual) (According to Boxer, her sister said if queers left california the state would lose home decorators, fashion designers, etc)

This brings me to the actions of the Church. While the pastor was right to condemn same-sex “marriages”, he should have re-empathized that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that being a pastor of a Bible church he opposes it too.

I think the pastor should be concerned over how his Bible church was being labeled as “Gay friendly” He should also question how a lesbian couple could attend his church for 5 weeks and not feel convicted of their unnatural practices.

Boxer said she now attends the “Gay friendly”, First Congregational Church. Boxer liked their jazz service. Maybe the “gay friendly”, First Congregational Church should spend more time teaching the tenets of the Bible, rather than having “jazz services”.

As I’ve stated before, same-sex “marriage” is being pushed to so that homosexual couples feel good about themselves and feel normal. Should that ever happen, homosexuals will still know that their practices are an anomaly, not the norm.

Lastly, I don’t believe for a moment that Boxer didn’t expect the reaction she and her “wife” received in response to their self-outing. Boxer will be milking this incident for weeks.

About a year later, I had a chance meeting with a person who attends the Santa Cruz Bible Church and was present during this incident. He said he made his opinion to the pastor known that he opposed giving the queer couple the prize.

Queers at the Presidio of Monterey, Defense Language Institute

This letter, after being edited by the Californian was published in their paper.

The article about the 37 sexual degenerates discharged from the DLI also mentioned there are nearly 4000 students at the school with over 800 taking Arabic. Frankly, the 37 won’t be missed. As the article stated, the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has been effect in the US military for a decade. I would also assume any person considering entering the military would have been advised of the policy when they were recruited.

A basic knowledge of anatomy should tell anyone homosexuality is unnatural. In spite of shows like “Will and Grace” and others attempting to propagandize the general public into accepting homosexuality as normal, most people recognize the life-choice as deviant. The US Military is comprised of people who for the most part, haven’t been propagandized and browbeaten into accepting homosexuality as normal. Common sense should prevail over what Jeff Cleghorn calls “the societal curve”

Soldiers such as Cathleen Glover and others who break the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and are discharged should receive a less than honorable discharge until they pay back the money spent on them by the military.

Surprise, Surprise Surprise!!

Karl Landers had always been a bit of a character. In high school, Karl seemed to be fairly normal. (Or as "normal" me or anyone else who rolled with me) Karl owned several guns and a lot of my early knowledge of guns came from Karl. Karl was also a bit of a genius and had once modified his car to launch model rockets from under the hood.

I had no idea until our 20 year high school reunion that he was also a bit sexually confused. When I walked into the banquet room where the reunion was going to be held, I saw several people that I recognized. While visually checking the room for more familiar faces, I saw a woman with purplish, reddish hair. The “woman” was wearing a black leather skirt and knee-high black leather boots. I was wondering who she was and wondering weather or not she was a hotel worker, as I didn’t remember anyone in our class who dressed that way.

I approached the registration table where the “woman” was standing to sign in. The “woman’s” face lit up as I drew nearer and said “Brian!” I looked at “her” name tag which said Leslie Landers. In the months leading up to the reunion I had received several emails from the committee planning the reunion. Several of them were from Leslie Landers. At the time, when I saw the name I thought Karl must have talked his wife into helping with the committee.

I said to her, “you must be Karl’s wife” assuming he had showed her my picture from the yearbook. “She” said to me “You hadn’t heard? I used to be Karl”. I don’t remember my exact reaction, but I think I kept any surprised expression off of my face.

Prior to the reunion, I mentally prepared myself for the changes some people would make over 20 years. I assumed several classmates would have died, (Fortunately, only two) some would have been on their second or third marriage and others would have come out of the closet. Some one getting a “sex change” and especially Karl was more than a little surprising. This was the sort of thing that only happened in a sitcom episode, bad ones at that.

Later during the reunion, the one of the MC’s announced there was going to be a comedy routine. I hoped the routine would consist of Karl taking off his fake boobs and becoming a man again. Like I said, Karl was a character. Unfortunately, it was not to be.

I didn’t ask him at the reunion why he had the “sex change” but several days after the reunion I emailed him (The term “sex change” is a misnomer. Karl is not a woman. He’s a man with fake breasts and no pecker) and asked why. Karl said he’d had such feelings for several years. It’s too bad Karl couldn’t have received counseling or therapy instead of having a surgeon with a god complex mutilate him.

This was originally written for my English 301 class

Anti-clinton Protest 12 Jun 1998

Subject: Anti-clinton protest, Monterey State Beach: 12 Jun 98.

I know this is somewhat dated but hey, I’ve got to put something up...

This took pace at the Window by the Bay Park in Monterey. By coincidence, Clinton visited on the sane day that a young teen-aged girl was kidnapped and subsequently murdered…

I arrived at about 1145hrs. There were about 35 protesters. Also, there were approx. 3-4 people from what appeared to be a US Indian group. This same group appeared to support the legalization of dope. With this group was one female (?) beating a drum. (She/he was probably on dope at the time) The first person I recognized was C. Carter. I took up a space beside him with my sign, actually an impeach clinton bumper sticker placed on a piece of cardboard. There were also several other people I knew from the Monterey County Republican Central Committee (MCRCC) (The MCRCC has since been taken over by Pink Elephants, i.e. RINOS, traitors to the party, etc.), and others that I recognized from various other meetings and organizations. I also met a JBS coordinator from Fremont named Sam.

I was surprised by the fact that many of the people driving by supported us. Of the people that made any visible responses to us, about 75% made gestures of support. I.E. waving, thumbs up, honking etc. We did however, occasionally get the finger or the usual nonsensical leftist comments. (They truly are a sorry lot.)

Members of the press were also present. The two stations I am sure of were channels 46 and 8. They interviewed several people, me included. Lesson learned: In my case, don't talk to the press, at least not on camera. I stuttered, mumbled, gave 3-4 word sentences and basically sounded like a moron. However, the press did interview several other people better spoken than I am now or ever will be.

There were some leftist who opposed us and had actually had the nerve (liberals are generally cowards) to confront us. One was (The late) Sirrah Burton Harris who engaged a well-spoken protestor several yards away from me in a rather long discussion. Sirrah Harris; had a letter published in the Monterey County Herald on 10 Jun 98, claiming that clinton could not have forced a kiss upon Kathleen Wiley because he is taller than she is. (The logic of that comments escapes me as much now as it did then) (See Red File for letter.) (Sorry, the Red File is classified)

Two more outspoken buffoons, one, a Hispanic male, the other a black male accompanied by a slightly pudgy black female. The black male engaged several of us in somewhat of a debate. The black idiot chose to confront me directly. The clown asked why I did not support clinton, told me how the Republicans were for the rich and how clinton had done so much for black people, basically spouting the usual B.S. from the left-wing-idiots manual. He even told me how all of the other (white) protestors were rich and owned better cars than I did. (Who doesn't?) He went on (and on and on) about how I was being brainwashed and asked “they” “made” me come to the protest because I was dating a white girl. (?) I asked him what had clinton done for black people? He told me "lots of things!" I asked him, "name one." He said "Lots of things!" And so it went. I’ve often run into people who claim Clinton did so much for “the people” but can’t seem to name one. He did manage to tell me that clinton cared about Monterey because he visited here and Reagan never did. He told me that if a serious crime had occurred in Monterey, Reagan wouldn't have come to visit. (?) He shuffled on down the line of protestors talking to several of them, occasionally pointing at me and asking them why they were "brainwashing" me. (At least I have a brain you silly bastard.) Oh well. People that stupid aren't worth the cost of the bullet it would take to put them down. Well, I wouldn’t mind donating one for the cause, but it is illegal. Pity.

Across the street from us were two treasonous females holding up a banner calling for the ratification of some UN treaty. They were probably members of the UN Association. When, oh when, is the UNA going to be made to register as an agent of a foreign government or its membership hunted down and hanged as traitors?

One high point during the demonstration was when a woman and her nine-year-old daughter asked one a well-spoken member of our group to explain to the daughter what we had against clinton. The mother and daughter seem satisfied by his answer. It was a good opportunity to witness to a young person and maybe contradict some of the public school programming.

Later on during the protest, the silly Negro and his two associates drove by, in a brand new red sedan. (The car was probably paid for with welfare checks or drug money.)

Interesting note; during the protest, across the street, was a heavy set, balding black man photographing us. Maybe he was just a tourist. However, to me he didn't appear to just another interested person. Am I being paranoid? I think not. (Since then, I’ve begun to photograph the anti-Bush, anti-American protestors who pollute the park every Sunday)

We didn't think clinton was going to pass our way during the protest. However, several more police on motorcycles appeared and were getting into position to block traffic. Word came down to us that the clinton would be coming down Del Monte Ave. and making a right turn at the McDonalds. About half of us went to the other side of the street with our signs. Behind us were several 20-something people, about 2-3 females and 2-3 males. One of the females said something about how she supported the traitor and another female said that he was “their boss.” I assume they were Military. One of the protestors commented that clinton would try to make a pass at them if he had the chance and one of the females told him that she knew how to say no. He reminded her that according to gloria steinem, he would still have one free grope.

Finally, the motorcade passed by and I and the other protestors began to shout, “TRAITOR! TRAITOR! TRAITOR!” It really felt good. I only wish I had gone to the other side of the street to see the look on his face when he saw us. No, he did not stop at the McDonalds.

I still wonder if the person photographing us was just a sightseer or...?

I guess this means I get another notation in my FBI file.

I originally wrote this rant within several days of the protest. I modified the essay as I saw fit for clarity and updates.

"Peace" groups

"Peace" groups; are they merely unrealistic simpletons or something worse.

The following letter was written by an associate of mine to a local Santa Cruz newspaper. Not surprisingly, it wasn't published.

“Peace” organizations, like the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom always oppose military actions conducted by Western countries, but never those taken by Communist or Socialist countries. WILF and other “Peace” groups only support the military actions of the West if they’re taken on behalf of some ill-advised United Nations fool’s errand. Considering the ideology of WILPF’s founder, Jane Addams that’s to be expected. Addams spent most of her life associating herself with Socialists, Communists and their various causes. Addams, in 1914 was a leader of the Anti-Preparedness committee that opposed defensive and offensive uses of the U.S. military. Addams was also associated with several Communist front organizations. Maurice Malkin, a long-time Communist Party USA official wrote in his book “Return to my father’s house” that Addams became a secret CPUSA member in 1928. (Biographical Dictionary of the Left, Vol. #4)

Joyce Mclean, in the 28th April Sentinel, speaking about WILPF’s “Tax Day at the Post Office” mentioned a Department of “Peace”. One of the people who came up with that moronic, simple-minded idea is Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich, (Surprise!) is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, which is the U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. (http://sovereignty.freedom.org/center/socialists.htm)

The agenda of WILF and most other “peace” groups is to turn The U.S into a Socialist welfare State.

Pacifists Disgust Me

This letter of mine was published in a local paper in response to an article written about the Quakers. I don't know of any religions that are more cowardly.

If the founder’s of this Country weren’t willing to fight for their freedom, the Quakers would still be living under oppression. I have absolutely no respect for pacifists. Pacifists generally fall into either one of two categories; the vast majority being pathetic cowards and the rest, misguided simpletons.

Ellie Hoffman in the 18 August Post claimed there is a part of God in every person. If that’s true, then there’s also a part of satan in everyone. Some people listen to the dark side to the point where the only way to stop them by the use of force. Sometimes the force needed is deadly force.

Pacifists are allowed to live with their unrealistic view of the world because other people are willing to fight to ensure their safety.

If a Quaker or any other pacifist hears someone breaking into their house at 3 AM, do they offer their property, themselves and their family to the criminal or do they call for armed police officers to help them?

No Longer the Grand Old Party

Ann Coulter once said anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster has already decided if he was a Conservative or a liberal by the age of fourteen. Accordingly, I was more Conservative than most of my peers by the time I entered high school.

In one of my high school classes, the teacher wrote a list of the basic issues of both parties on the blackboard. I saw I agreed with most all of the Republican platform issues and few, if any of the democratic issues.

For the most part, I’ve stayed a true Republican, ever since. I did stray form the Republican path briefly when I supported abortion. That was only because I had bought into the myth of overpopulation and because it was mostly liberal women having abortions. I’ve long since repented of supporting that form of infanticide.

Over the years, I’ve discovered how destructive and anti-American the liberal ideology truly is. The democratic party appeals to their supporters via class envy and by promising government handouts that will be paid for by the “rich”.

When I was in the first grade, I would sometimes steal toys from the other kids thinking it wasn’t “fair” that they had better toys than I had. I often wouldn’t even keep the toys and threw them away. My thinking being if I couldn’t have them, no one could.

I’ve long since grown out of that way of thinking. Unfortunately, most liberals haven’t and want to punish anyone with more than they have even if it doesn’t benefit them.

Another big reason I’m not a democrat is they’re anti-gun. While claiming they only want to “control” guns their real agenda is to have them banned and confiscated. I’ll call any gun control advocate a liar to their face if they claim otherwise.

Unfortunately, since I registered as a Republican back in the eighties, some in the Republican Party are taking on some of the corrupt beliefs of the democrats. An recent example of this is how the California Republican leadership ignored Tom McClintock, a true Republican and jumped on the Arnold Schwarzenegger bandwagon, A “Republican” who supports abortion, gun control and homosexual adoption. I also won’t vote for or trust any “Republican” who would marry a democrat. It’s getting to the point where I’m seriously considering switching to another party. One democratic party is enough.