by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
When discussing freedom, we tend to focus on politics and social issues. In doing so, we are not seeing the whole picture, not by a long shot. Yes, freedom depends very much on the political, economic, military and social issues in the news. We should indeed pay close attention to them.
The future of freedom, however, may very well depend on something we take for granted, but rarely think about. Very few of us understand the inner workings of our cell phones, our laptop computers, and the “check engine” light in our automobiles. These miracles of technology are too complicated for most people to understand. It is no longer possible to simply take things apart and figure out how they work.
Technology has literally transformed our lives in the past few years, both for the better and for the worse. On the bright side, it has placed more and more power in our hands. On the darker side, it has placed vastly more power in the hands of a very few. The future of freedom will be determined by an unforeseeable series of events which will decide whether increased technology will empower the many or the few.
Add to this the fact that technology is not only advancing, it is advancing faster every year than it did the year before. Computing power has doubled every two years for decades now. Technologies still on the drawing board aim to multiply that speed by thousands.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has computers that take up entire multi-story buildings, housed on acres of land. It has been estimated that those computers are able to track every telephone call, every email, and every automobile global positioning device in the nation, and this is only a part of their capabilities. Just those three things alone allow the federal government to track anyone it chooses in extraordinary detail. There is more: the electronics in your cell phone enable the government to hear everything you say, even when the phone is turned off. Your home is a virtual zoo of electronic spying devices, such as for example in or on your television. Spies no longer need to plant “bugs” in your house. You have already done that for them.
It’s not paranoia if they really are eavesdropping on you. Organized criminals are very aware of this, especially the ones who are spending the next decade or more in prison because they thought they could keep secrets from the government. That is a good thing. What is not so good is that the government can easily turn its weapons against loyal citizens who dissent from government policy. Lois Lerner was only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to suppressing the freedoms of those of us who advocate freedom.
Nor is the threat only from within our borders. One official, when asked whether Hillary Clinton’s illegally erased emails are lost forever, quipped that they are not— the Russians and the Chinese assuredly have exact copies of everything that was ever on her server.
Small, hostile nations such as Iran and North Korea are building nuclear weapons. These nations are ruled by certified homicidal maniacs who have not only murdered untolled thousands of their own people, but who actively subsidize terrorist groups that have killed thousands of Americans. They aim to multiply their atrocities by a factor of millions, and to do so by attacking our nation.
Technology has made us strong, but it has also made us weak. An attack on a single, small but critical component of our national power grid can cause a cascading effect that would shut down the entire nation for weeks, even months. The death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. This is not hyperbole. We would hope that our surveillance technology could prevent that, but the enemy need find only one weak point for them to wreak havoc on the entire national structure.
Finally, the number of people who can work in the central technology power structures of our nation are only a tiny fraction of the population. Command and control are becoming concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and none of us may even know who these people are.
What will happen when you need health care, and the doctor looks not only at your medical reports, but at your NSA-generated political report? What happens if your credit card is cancelled because an email you sent is offensive to the government?
What happens when the computer in your automobile malfunctions, and not even the mechanics can start your engine?
The future of freedom is fragile. It comes only at a very high price. Once lost, it may take lifetimes before its lamps are lit again.
by Sean A. Langley, Guest Contributor
Today, racism is all over the place. It’s rampant throughout the news and media (perhaps the most evil and awful thing currently going on right now). Stop and look at the Ferguson incident: “A BLACK. UNARMED. TEEN. was SHOT TO DEATH by a WHITE. POLICE OFFICER. Investigations are ongoing to determine if the police officer, Darren Wilson, Ferguson, Missouri, will be facing charges.” This is a perfect example of the way this type of information is conveyed.
Thanks, “news” –make sure to give a very biased, desperate-for-ratings version of the story. What would an unbiased version sound like? More like this: “An unarmed teen matching the description of someone who stole from a convience store was approached by a police officer for questioning, when he then attacked the officer, tried to grab his gun and shoot the officer. The gun went off inside the policeman’s car. When the teen failed to pull the gun away, he turned and ran away. The officer pursued, shouting for him to stop, chasing after the teen into a dead-end street. The teen then turned and aggressively charged toward the police officer he’d already assaulted and attempted to steal his gun. The police officer, in turn, fired on the teen, resulting in his unfortunate death. Witnesses say that the officer may have continued firing after the teen hit the ground; an investigation is underway to determine if anything unnecessary was done.”
How do those freaks sleep at night? How stupid are people to believe that horsecrap fed to them on the television? I can’t count the times I was in Iraq and heard stories on the news about Iraq that were edited and said in a specific fashion to strongly give a very different feel to the story.
I remember one time some idiot Iraqi’s were firing mortars and they had no clue whatsoever how to fire them accurately. Time and time again, mortars would fall and they’d hop in their trucks and drive off, scared to death. 90% of the time, the mortars just harmlessly landed on some dirt patch.
One time, by sheer luck, it hit an ammo cache on FOB (Forward Operating Base) Falcon. We had all kinds of investigations, but there was no sign that those moron terrorists even knew which half of the FOB the mortar round would land.
What did the civilian news say? They went into detail labout how a “severely accurate and significant SURGICAL STRIKE with a mortar was made on U.S. forces the other night, in “Irohck” ;they never can pronounce the country right). The entire ammo of a U.S. military base was seriously compromised, reports are still coming in on casualties, injuries. No one knows for sure when they’ll have more ammo on hand.”
Yeah, thanks for scaring the Bejeezus out of my family, you insensitive jerks.
We had dozens of ammo caches on each and every FOB. That strike did nothing to deter or prevent us from doing our jobs. Patrols continued as normal, once the fire stopped (which took many hours), we simply had EOD check it out, we cleaned up and simply moved on. No injures, no deaths. No one was really in any danger – it was just a fluke that one small ammo building was blown up by the Iraqi insurgents. True, they still had reports coming in on casualties and injuries. Same reports every time: ‘No deaths, no injuries.’ True, we didn’t know for sure when we’d have more ammo on hand for that particular cache, but we really didn’t need additional ammo – we had plenty.
Do any of you see the point I’m trying to make here?
The hard truth is, we’ve come to a point where white people are the “bad guys” and minorities are “entitled” to something. A lot of minorities think that they are owed something because they go through hard times. A fact that the news media has picked up on and is manipulating for their own agendas, regardless of who gets harmed in the process.
I hate to break it to you, but the hard times are on Whites just as bad as minorities. There’s no question that Black people have suffered due to racism in our history but so many of them right now are so prejudiced in their beliefs, they cut off their White American brothers and sisters, then turn around and blame them for what’s wrong in their life.
You gripe and complain about the police, claim every single case of a Black person dying because of a cop due to “racism,” but you don’t show a single shred of proof racism is any cause of it. Are there racist White cops? Absolutely. There are also racist Black cops.
There are also cops on the freakin’ edge and strugging with insane amounts of stress that can cause PTSD, and not getting checked out for it. Cops are getting assassinated and assaulted. They have video footage of them edited to make them look like bad guys and are fired for it airing on YouTube.
And you act like they won’t get angry? The issue is, part of the Black community in America thinks they can get violent, tear up towns, shops, cars, assault people, even kill some, then point at a White cop and say, “it’s all his fault and I won’t take it anymore” and think they’ll be feared and get their way.
What happens when a child throws a fit to try and get their way?
This isn’t about Black or White; it’s about a mob mentality and people wanting it to be a race issue. Because, if it IS a race issue, then Blacks are innocent victims and they have to be compensated and they can blame someone else for their issues. I think the brutal truth here, is that nobody cares about skin color half as much as most angry Black Americans WANT them too. The news media just knows it’s an easy way to rile them up and get ratings.
I’m not blind to the fact that police brutality and racism are issues in America, but they are nowhere as big of a problem as some people would like them to be; the problem is these racist mobs are only making Blacks look dangerous, violent and untrustworthy. These mobs and riots are supporting KKK nonsense propraganda by living up to it.
If the Black community decides to punish entire White community of America for their problems, commit violence, terror and looting on White communities, what do you think is going to happen?’
Increasingly more White people are going to want nothing to do withBlack people, because they have a mother or brother or child that was hurt or threatened in a riot over an issue brought up by the news, an issue their family didn’t have anything to do with but had to pay a horrible price for with their security and safety threatened or even violated.
This is only going to cause racism to increase. Whites are going to look at Blacks and think, “I can’t trust them. Evil, vicious, violent, racist…they hate me. They hate me because of my skin. I can’t and won’t trust them. I hope they stay away from me.”
We’re talking about struggling Black fathers and mothers wanting to walk in and get a job, honest, good-natured people who are going to get turned away because the White business owner had a shop blown up due to a riot and lost a lot of good employees and have friends and family hurt by them.
These riots build resentment, hatred, rage. In the end, it segregates people, but this time, Blacks aren’t the ones being segregated; they’re the ones doing the segregating.
Times are hard, but you don’t go destroying other people’s things or throwing fits and blaming another race for it. You work hard, you tough it out through hard times and then you get the reward you deserve in the end. You don’t whine and complain, throw fits, walk around with a chip on your shoulder and act like the world owes you a favor and if you don’t get it become violent!
I had a hard childhood too. I grew up poor. My father struggled for work and he was a white guy. He lost job after job due to his bad knee or his lack of job skills. I struggle for a job now. I’m a vet, served three tours in Iraq and I barely managed to get a part-time job as a phone operator for minimum wage. I know that whining and complaining doesn’t improve things, so I just decided to do my job, be grateful for what I have and take the money I can while I sit and wait and hope for something better to happen to me. I do all I can to contribute to the company that hired me, on and off the clock, believing that it will reap its own rewards.
We don’t just get things and not contribute to America. We’ve always been a Land of Opportunity … to those that contribute. Give to America and get something back. Not just take and take and take for your own convenience because you’ve no pride or dignity and just want to sit on your ass and let someone else take care of you.
What kind of people just want to take things and not earn them or contribute and give back to the country that gave them so much?
I’m Sean and that’s what I think… (rant to be continued).
by Nadra Enzi (aka Cap Black)
The following acronym is from my stating the obvious file: one four letter-family friendly, word describes the Waco, Texas motorcycle gang massacre and it is T.H.U.G., “threatening-harmful-unruly-goons!”
I assume it’s not racist to call them thugs since these homicidal maniacs were White? I’d like to think the fact that someone is a homicidal maniac trumps his skin color but that’s not absolute.
In New Orleans where I’m typing, a liberal mayor pretends violent, vulgar White gutterpunks are ambassadors whose diplomatic immunity includes not being arrested by police. A local millionaire briefly had off duty officers on his payroll to remove them from the French Quarter, but the mayor still allows them to infest Black areas via stoplight pan handling, littering medians and crowding sidewalks.
Liberals treat Black homicidal maniacs like pets to be taken from one non-Black slush fund to another with excuses aplenty about why it’s society’s – not their – fault. Violent criminals of all colors are enabled by a harmful hands-off policy progressives feel will tame them by osmosis.
Black street gangs are renamed street organizations; White motorcycle gangs are allowed to gather like they’re the Rotary club and hostages have to run for cover when inevitable mayhem happens.
Along with the Baltimore riots, this motorcycle massacre in Waco, Texas, serves notice that being soft on crime makes life hard for hostages in criminals’ crosshairs.
Nadra Enzi akaCap Black. Anti-Crime Activist
#Cap Black Is Here! blog http://www.capblackishere.blogspot.com
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
In a recent speech, Barack Obama accused conservatives of unfairly blaming poor people for their poverty. In particular, he accused Fox News of insulting them. Here is an excerpt of that speech.
OBAMA: “I think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated.
I mean, I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu — they will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, ‘I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obamaphone,’ or whatever.
And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up and very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical, who’s raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills. And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like and how budgets connect to that.”
Obama either fails to recognize, or refuses to acknowledge, that the insults from conservatives are not directed toward the poor, but toward the government, and in particular, those government policies which help perpetuate poverty. A biased person might easily miss, for example, what Bill O’Reilly is saying when he says that among the true causes of poverty are poor education, addiction, irresponsible behavior, and laziness.
That may sound like an indictment of poor people, but O’Reilly puts his money where his mouth is, by helping to fund an inner city school which not only educates children of the poor, but instills in them high standards of educational excellence, hard work, and self-discipline. Absent these, poverty is all but inevitable.
Liberals also fund schools, but they do it with your money. In their schools, they teach children to blame others for their unfortunate circumstances, and to demand reparations from people who are not to blame.
Which approach do you think leads to helping poor children out of their poverty?
I have personally met immigrants (legal) who came to this country and lived for several years in poverty before lifting themselves from it. During those several years, they lived in ramshackle dwellings, worked seventy hours or more per week, and saved every penny they could. They then risked their savings to start a business— more seventy hour weeks—enduring failures and setbacks, some of which were due to ridiculous government regulations. When they finally paid off their debts and were able to buy a house and send their children to college, they were accused of being greedy, of not giving back to the community. They were told by the president, you did not build that business, someone else did that for you. The implication is that, you do not really own your business, the government does. Give it to the bureaucracy. Hand it over.
One remark I heard an Asian immigrant make was, in a country this rich, how does anyone manage to be poor?
Obama points to the hard working waitress who cannot support her children. I have met such people also, not only waitresses, but janitors, salesmen, and indeed, even government workers. Their lives are hard. They struggle. They seem unable to save a penny, much less invest.
While I have never been in poverty, I am very far from being rich. My twenty years in the armed forces left me with a retirement that pales in comparison to retired people who thrived in the private sector. I get a monthly social security check. I eat three nourishing meals per day, but even though I live only an hour’s drive from Orlando, Florida, a Disney World vacation is out of my reach. Still, I am content.
Obama would point to all that and claim that without government checks, I, too, would be in poverty.
From my perspective, I accept my own faults and flaws which prevented me from starting my own business, from climbing the corporate ladder, from skillfully investing in the market, and so forth. There is no one else to blame but me. I sometimes reflect on how narrowly I missed destroying my own life with bad habits and credit God with His miraculous interventions in keeping me from doing more harm to myself than I did. But for that, I would be living in poverty.
Obama’s final line in the excerpt above is, “how budgets connect to that.” Clearly, Obama is single-mindedly focused on his belief that only more taxpayer funded government programs can lift people from poverty. He seems completely oblivious to the fact that, as President Ronald Reagan pointed out, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Government’s proper role is not to lift people from poverty, but to get out of their way, so that they can lift themselves. It is to enforce laws, such as anti-trust, anti-fraud, and contractual obligations, that make the free market free not only for the rich, but for the poor.
The problem is that when people are set free, and are no longer poor, they no longer need government programs. Government budgets could then be cut. Government power and privileges would then be reduced. Government would have fewer duties, but would be more accountable to the public. Lazy, incompetent and corrupt officials would then be fired, including many legislators who pass laws that keep people poor.
Does it now become more clear why there is poverty in a wealthy nation?
by Robert Arvay, Contributing Writer
American liberalism has entered a very peculiar phase. Of course it always has been peculiar. It has always held that productivity should be punished, while indolence should be rewarded, and of course, rewarded with money confiscated from those who produce wealth.
In its latest phase, however, liberalism has gone down the rabbit hole. Its distaste for religion has become illogically selective. It continues in its disdain for Judaism and Christianity, which both teach and practice love,forgiveness and charity—but it has developed a bizarre affection for a religion which both teaches and practices intolerance of traditional liberal principles.
That religion is radical Islam, the religion which forces women to wear head-to-toe coverings called burkas. It stones to death suspected adulteresses. It kills homosexuals. It condones the murder of women who by expressing their desire for freedom thereby “dishonor” their male family members. It beheads those who choose to leave Islam for another religion. Among its severe penalties are many which are mandatory, and very few (if any) which allow for lenience.
We ask of liberals, what organized religion is more opposed to liberal principles than the radical form of Islam, the religion practiced and enforced, in more or less degrees of extremism, by millions worldwide?
One might understand if liberals were attempting to introduce Buddhism or Hinduism into the American culture. Indeed, Buddhists and Hindus, with their mantras of peace and tolerance, are already widespread in the U.S. They do not, however, issue fatwas, which are religious licenses to kill on sight, anyone who disagrees with them. Islamic radicals do.
One might understand if liberals would welcome Islamic scholars who seek to reform their religion into one which practices mercy and forgiveness, and which respects individual freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. One might expect liberals to applaud such activists if they are black women. Strangely, pacifist and feminist Moslems are the only practitioners of Islam who are openly condemned by liberals, even to the point of forbidding them to speak in otherwise open forums on college campuses.
American liberals have always maintained double standards. For them, freedom of speech means censoring opposing views. Tolerance means “making room” for those who wish to destroy, riot and loot, but arresting those who peacefully demonstrate for the right to life of the unborn. Liberalism condemns those who would draw a picture of Mohammed, but praises taxpayer funding of supposed art which desecrates Christian symbols.
To be sure, liberals are not entirely unaware of their hypocrisy. When challenged on these points, however, they immediately resort to condemning the questioner, accusing him of racism, intolerance, bigotry, and other traits of—of well—of radical Islamists. They deflect direct questions with convolutions and diversions designed not to illuminate the issues, but to cloud them. They pontificate on the purported evils of the United States, and filibuster when asked to answer even the simplest questions.
All the while, they attempt to introduce, into public elementary schools, special activities designed to indoctrinate young children into believing that Islam is a benign religion with no serious discordances in its practice. Of course, any such attempt to regard Christianity and Judaism on similar bases are immediately met with outrage masquerading as the separation of church and state.
Hypocrisy after hypocrisy layers the liberal doctrine. Among the many sins which Jesus condemned in His ministry, hypocrisy was at or near the top of the list.
No wonder liberals hate Him.
by Nadra Enzi (Cap Black), Contributing Writer
As a safety commentator and participant who is a Black man, I look at the recent Garland, Texas attack and compare its motive to portrayals of Black men in society.
The Right keeps track of Black-on-White violence and let the record reflect I’ve defended White victims and self-defense claimants on the streets and in media. While there is daily insulting commentary about Black men, attacks on commentators aren’t lethal gurantees – unlike with Islamist Muslims.
While our ranks include gangs, hate groups and individual thugs (oops- did I use the T-word?), we aren’t the ones issuing death sentences on offending spokespeople. If this were so, independent journalist Colin Flaherty, FOX NEWS hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity or IHeart Media’s Michael Berry would have to travel in armored personnel carriers. While not above protests, on air shouting matches or twitter rants, that’s the extent of our outrage.
Most Black men, Muslim and non-Muslim, don’t run around hunting down disrespectful White people. Were this true, instead of bad sides of town, America would resemble Baghdad.
Black men still get painted with the brush held by outside observers of our worst actors. A double standard held over from segregations’ bad old days still has some bite.
As eyes turn toward Texas, Americans should consider this point: Black men are nowhere near as bad as Islamists. After the high profile series of Black male death after encountering police, this point could prompt much-needed unity. –
Nadra Enzi akaCap Black. Anti-Crime Activist. #Cap Black Is Here! blog http://www.capblackishere.blogspot.com
It is for them as a drug. They are addicted to it, nor seek they to free themselves from their slavery to it.
Haters seek revenge. Whether the offense is real or imagined, it is for the hater as real as his hatred.
Haters seek to harm the person whom they hate. To them, that person is not human, has no value as a creature of God. It matters not to the hater that God loves everyone, both the hater and the hated alike.
The hater’s desire for revenge can never be sated.
As quickly as one perceived injustice is avenged, another one demands his attention, and commands anew his hatred.
Hatred has a long memory. Lives may be short, the generations may rise and fall in vast succession—but vendettas last forever, long after the original offense is forgotten.
Hatred knows no limits. There is barely a pause after the hated person struck is down, then that hatred is redirected at the next victim.
The only person the hater hates more than any other, is himself. It is he whom the hater casts into the flames of abhorrence, there to writhe in eternal agony, a spiritual desolation which the hater neither recognizes, nor would escape if given the opportunity.
Hatred knows no reason nor needs it, for hatred contrives its own justifications.
The only love the hater ever knows is the love of hatred itself. The Upon the altar of that false god the hater willingly places himself, a futile and pathetic self-sacrifice to that which mocks him, and then destroys him.
Avoid it before it ensnares you.