Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Common Sense About Gun Rights Just Ain't So Common

My latest book - Give Guns a Chance
It happens again and again. Someone always posts a list of mass shootings and then rambles off about kids accidentally being shot and how it "just makes sense that if you just got rid of guns, that all these senseless killings would stop. 

Well, they wouldn't. It's never worked before.

First of all virtually all of the mass killings they cite were committed by either kids from liberal families (Democrats), registered Democrats or Muslims.
Perhaps we should ban Democrats and Muslims from owning guns. I could live with that.

The stats on numbers of accidental deaths by guns, for instance, are far outstripped by the numbers of accidental deaths by falls, car wrecks, knives, fire and other such things. Should we ban climbing ladders, driving cars, using kitchen knives, matches or flammable liquids? Should we stop drunk driving by taking the cars away from people who don't drive drunk? After all, a car can kill a lot of people.

No one can debate with liberals, because they already have these self-evident truths of theirs and have ready-made "logical" conclusions based on false assumptions. That said, I'll argue with them anyway. Banning guns will NOT take them away from bad people. Yes, it will reduce the number of deaths by guns, but in every case where it's been tried, the murder rate has risen, not fallen because deaths by stabbing, strangulation, poisoning, bludgeoning, and other such delightful methods have increased to more than compensate for the fewer gun deaths. Part of that is because gun confiscation increases the number of potential easy victims and reduces the risk for criminals and terrorists.

And can you tell me how a 5'2" 120 pound woman can protect herself from a 6'4" 280 pound man intent on raping her? Even if she knows karate or some martial art, she's toast against someone that size who decides to break down her door and come after her. Ask a self defense instructor or mixed martial arts guy. With a gun, the odds are in her favor or at the very least equalized. Guns are the only fighting chance the weak have against the strong and criminal who would attack them.

And peeing on yourself as Liberal Representative Joe Salazar airily suggested would NOT prevent rape. Likely it would only intensify the attack.

Gun ownership was always intended as a bulwark against government overreach. Because a militia is necessary to the public defense, the founders recognized that an army or militia can also be used to coerce the citizenry. A heavily armed citizenry is a lot more difficult to coerce. Will there be accidents? Yes. My brother was accidentally shot in the chest by a friend who was playing with a shotgun. He died. He was 16. That doesn't mean I have a right to attempt to disarm every person in the country. It means, someone's parents should have been supervising them. If they don't care enough to keep their guns safely locked away, why would they take other safety measures? Kids are going to hurt themselves because they don't think about safety. The think they are immortal. Kids are going to jump off roofs with bedsheet parachutes, swim in ponds full of broken glass and shards of steel, and break their necks trying to ride railings on skateboards. That's not about guns. It's about supervision.

A disarmed population is a herd of sheep ready to be loaded into boxcars and carried to the gas ovens. The reason most of the 15 million people slaughtered by the Nazis in WWII didn't resist was because they were disarmed and it never occurred to them that they could resist. Americans think about that because we have a tradition of being armed and prepared to defend ourselves. The second amendment does that.

If you're a proponent of gun control, please check out the book I wrote on the subject. It should answer all those "common sense" questions of yours.

© 2016 by Tom King

Monday, June 27, 2016

BOGUS CONSPIRACY ALERT: UN Armored Vehicles on US Highways

Truckload of made-in-USA UN armored trucks
on Virginia highway being shipped overseas.

Recently a photo of truckloads of UN military vehicles rolling down a Virginia Highway has been posted widely on social media, usually with comments hinting that something nefarious involving the UN was taking place on American soil. Usually something about foreign troops helping Obama confiscate all our guns.

Actually the truth is a whole lot less exciting so far as the Prison Planet/Alex Jones crowd is concerned. It turns out that these armored vehicles are built at the BAE Systems plant in York, PA. From there they are carried on trucks down I-81 to I-77, and then I-95 towards the port of Savannah to be shipped overseas.

And why not? Why wouldn't UN troops want good old American made, heavily armored, gas attack proof, bullet proof, IED resistant trucks to ride around in. No matter where they get sent to, their guns aren't loaded and they are not allowed to shoot back. UN troops with their powder blue, non threatening helmets are the Barney Fifes of peace-keepers.

Only they don't even get to keep that one bullet in their pocket.

Just sayin'

© 2016 by Tom King

Monday, June 20, 2016

Full Tinfoil Hat - Why Do Relatively Intelligent People Go There?

Okay, the answer to that question is "I don't know." It's like people get so thrilled thinking they have some kind of secret knowledge that everyone else is too stupid to understand, that they will overlook glaring truth to accept the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Well, the truth is that in 99% of cases, your secret knowledge is a hodge-podge of rumor, innuendo and facts twisted beyond reconition and you are more than a little naive to swallow that stuff uncritically.

Someone recently posted this monumentally snarky video about how stupid we were to believe the "official" story about what happened to 9/11. These guys are the same ones that in the past few days have been saying the terrorist attack in Orlando was a false flag operation too.
Puh-leeeease! You people make me sick!
So I challenge the video's reasoning and I immediately get this snarky post back from someone calling himself "Steve Forbes". Yeah, right. He's a billionaire ex-presidential candidate.
  • So let me get this right you believe that 19 Muslims who barely spoke English !! High jacked airline jets with box cutters flew around for an hr without being shot down by one of the most heavily defended air spaces in the world , flew at speeds that would have ripped those planes apart , into two high rise buildings that eventually brought them down in there own foot prints ? Oh boy
Yeah, I do - Occam's razor, dude. The simplest explanation is the most likely. It frightens some people to think we're that easy to kill, but the truth is we are. So, since I don't want to have to keep repeating myself to the beanie-with-propeller crowd, here's my response.
  1. The planes did not fly at speeds that would have ripped them apart. That part is made up. It's just an out and out lie.
  2. High rise buildings aren't difficult to hit. After all, the twin towers weren't that hard to hit. They were sticking way above the rest of the city AND the planes were banking like all get out because they evidently lined up wrong on approach. 
  3. They actually did know how to fly - just not to land. And they spoke English. Couldn't have taken the flight courses if they didn't. The fact that they didn't stay for the bit about landing the plane should have triggered some alarm bells, but nobody wanted to be thought of as anti-Muslim so everybody kept quite, except for a couple of guys who were thought to be paranoid and anti-Muslim, who were promptly ignored. All the terrorists had to learn how to do was steer the plane and they took enough training for that in Florida. 
  4. No one on the plane challenged them over the "mere" box cutters because, at the time, we had all been trained to not resist. That training lasted right up until the folk on the plane found out they were crashing planes into buildings. After that the folk on the Pennsylvania flight figured out that this was not a good way to survive and they attacked the terrorists, who promptly dived the plane into the ground so they'd have at least a plane load of virgin credit in Paradise. 
  5. The vertical collapse of the twin towers happened because the top floors pancaked into the lower floors and the buildings were designed to resist side force hurricane winds so they really were weakest only straight down. Building 7 caught fire from falling debris and firefighters were so busy at the WTC that it too burned out and collapsed, it's structure weakened by falling debris from the WTC towers.
  6. As to how they attacked us in our so-called "heavily defended" airspace - the USAF doesn't make a practice of shooting down airliners. The Air Force shares that "defended" airspace with some 102,700 aircraft per day, defending it with a handful of fighter aircraft which are prohibited from approaching civilian airliners except when called to do so. Radio silence (at the time) was not considered enough to scramble fighter jets.
So let ME get this right again regarding the motivation for this expensive and massive plot you think you've uncovered: 
  1.  You believe everybody kept quiet. That 4 or five thousand people cooperated with the president of the United States to murder 3000 people by taking them off airplanes and killing them in cold blood.
  2. You believe the CIA did some magical special effects trick that make David Copperfield look like a schlub. The CIA or somebody in some secret agency created some kind of optical illusion to make tens of thousands of New Yorkers and hundreds of millions of television viewers think they saw two airplanes hit the WTC towers?
  3. Then, you're telling me the buildings were imploded with people in them. You're saying that in the weeks before 9/11 (and it would take weeks if not months to do this), a clandestine team of building demolition experts sneaked into the WTC towers every night and rigged them to implode without anybody noticing the explosives attached to every support column on all 150 some-odd floors. 
  4. Meanwhile back in Washington DC, the CIA fired a rocket into the Pentagon. And then, what? Hypnotized all the people in Washington to believe they didn't see a rocket fly into the Pentagon? That they saw a plane instead AND these geniuses were too stupid to realize that people would expect to see the marks of the wings on the 12 foot thick concrete walls.
  5. Then they scattered all these airplane parts and jet engines and stuff all around the site of both "attacks" in what? Invisible trucks? Jet engines and wheels and stuff are pretty large and heavy. So nobody noticed that they were trucking in this phony evidence while they were doing it.
  6. Then the conspirators were able to convince all the people on the planes to call up their loved ones and tell them an elaborate phony story. This all happened right before the planes were landed, the people taken off and murdered in cold blood by evil government minions?  And what? They paid wives and mothers and 911 operators to record this stuff so they'd have plenty of phony evidence?
  7. I just want to be sure I understand what you're saying about the media coverup now. You believe that the entire news media went along with this gigantic coverup - a news media by the way that hated George W. Bush and would have drowned their own grandmothers for a chance to discredit a Republican president.
  8. And you believe that all these thousands of people did this, so that George W. Bush's buddies at Halliburton could make some money? Money that was essentially a pittance; pocket change compared to the other things Halliburton does for money. Bush, whom you all consider to be the stupidest president every, somehow knew he could squeeze a few no-bid contracts out for Halliburton during the Iraq war he planned to start because he knew Americans would be angry enough to let him do that?
  9. And the CIA and the other intelligence serviced HELPED him do it. Let's remember that the Clinton-built and staffed CIA at this time positively hated George W. Bush, so why would they cooperate with him? And George didn't replace Director Tenet till the end of his first term and Tenet really did not like Bush being so nosy about CIA intel. The CIAs doctoring of data was one of the reason Bush never heard about possible terrorist hijackings in the weeks leading up to 9/11. The CIA was telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. He gave them a good raking over the coals for that.
So tell me which scenario makes more sense?

Of course, the giant conspiracy stimulates these people's bulbous naughty places and makes them feel less vulnerable. After all, who doesn't want to believe the only way you can be killed is with the help of some vast government conspiracy? Who knows, Alex Jones might even have time to warn you before they punch paid to your increasingly wacky ticket.

here's video of the plane hitting the second tower which these people want you to believe didn't really happen and nobody really saw it happen despite it's being filmed live from ten different angles.

The truth is there are evil dragons out there and you are crunchy and taste good with a nice white garlic sauce and hummus.

By all means, don't forget the hummus.

© 2016 by Tom King

Friday, June 17, 2016

You Can Have My Dr. Pepper When.....

Well Philadelphia, the home of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, struck a blow against freedom yesterday by passing a 1.5¢ per ounce tax on soda pop. So that buck and a half 16 oz soda down at the 7-11 is now going to cost you an extra quarter. A 32 oz Big Gulp is gonna set you back an extra 50¢. The Philadelphia city council's eyes are glazing over at the thought of an extra 386 million dollars that they count on coming into their coffers. And they did it all to save you from catching the diabetes.

Of course part of the argument for the new tax was that it would REDUCE consumption of sodas by Philadelphians and protect the people's health - the people being too stupid to protect their own health. So if the tax actually does succeed in reducing consumption of Coca-Cola by the citizens of Philadelphia, then they ain't gonna get no 386 million in additional revenue. The trouble is they've probably already spent that money in next year's budget, which is why Democrat-run cities are always in debt. With hundreds of cities outside Philadelphia's city limits, Philadelphians will likely consume just as much soda only they'll buy it in nearby cities and suburbs, that don't have the tax. There will soon be a black market for soda pop in Phillie with pop junkies roaming the streets of quiet leafy neighborhoods. Your kids, instead of playing down at the park will be searching back alleys looking to score some Dr. Pepper or a nice A&W Root Beer.

The argument for such Byzantine laws is that it will help prevent diabetes which kills 70,000 people a year.
This is considered horrific by many nutritionists and diet nazis who say that if we make sugar illegal or at least prohibitively expensive to obtain, those diabetes death rates will come right down. As one wag put it, they didn't have diabetes in Bible times, coz they didn't have soda pop.

It's a specious argument, of course. People did die of diabetes in Bible times. Just nobody knew what the heck it was. People's' body parts would rot off and they would die of infections. They often would just drop face first into the honey pot one morning with a diabetes related heart attack. Then, people would carry them out of the kitchen and into the yard where they buried them. Nobody kept statistics. Nobody knew it was a messed up pancreas behind it, especially since they didn't know what a pancreas even was in those day.

Besides, diabetes doesn't always come from sugar consumption. Of course you should be careful not to eat too much sugar. Fatitude is unhealthy. But trying to write laws to force people not to eat sugar is stupid - as stupid as trying to stop gun violence by taking guns from all the people who don't commit gun violence. 

Also, why is it always the people who say that marijuana laws don't work, who then want to turn around and ban cigarettes and sugar? Kind of hypocritical if you ask me. But that lot really do love their Big Friendly Government and those taxes on everybody else. 

I don't eat much processed sugar at all. I'm not a big dessert guy. Never have been. But I got type 2 diabetes. I was doing okay till a massively stressful job gave me high blood pressure. Turns out that certain blood pressure meds have type 2 diabetes listed as one of their side effects. Should have checked that sooner. I've switched to one that actually protects against diabetes, but reversing that stuff is really difficult. My numbers are coming down, though, but I have to watch my diet now - especially sugar intake. 

- Prostetnik Vogon Gelz, "The Benefits of Bureaucratic Inertia"
© HHGTTG Publishing, PDG 22321
But let's face it, laws against sugar aren't going to prevent obesity. Our world is too stressful. Reading the Facebook thread that got me started on this and arguing with everybody probably put a fat load of stress hormones on me; on all of the argument's participants really. These stress hormones are eating away at our health say the docs. So, are we going to ban Facebook next? Tax it? Somewhere some Senator is already salivating over that prospect you can bet. Are they going to charge us 1.5 cents to post a comment? Two cents if you include a photo?

We're grownups for crying out loud. We worked hard to become grownups. Just because a few of you are still smoking wacky baccy and living in your mothers' basements, doesn't mean you should treat the rest of us like infants. Grow up. Be a man for heaven's sake.

Why in heaven's name do we want to turn our entire nation's government into everyone's Mommy. You didn't like Mom being all up in your bizness when you were a teenager. What makes you think you'll like it anymore as an adult? Take some responsibility, people. You want to avoid diabetes? Easy. Stop stuffing Twinkies and Twizzlers into your pie-hole. Don't wait for the government to try and make you. Though if they do, I plan to become a black market Twinkie dealer and make a fortune.

I don't want the government going after my Dr. Pepper, even if I don't drink it. I actually drink Diet Dr. Thunder mostly (all praise to Walmart for that one by the way), but if I want a Dublin, Texas bottled real sugar Dr. Pepper, I want to know I can still get one. It makes me happy to know I have that option. That's freedom for me.

The reason our nation is at loggerheads over issues like this is that we all tend to get stuck in our own political ideologies. It's the old "If all I have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" conundrum. Essentially, we have two "hammers" in our political system - the "all government is bad" and the "all government is good" ideologies. One says we're all rotten sinners and can't be trusted with power. The other says man is basically good and if we find the right leaders to tell us all what to do we can create a man-made Utopia on Earth. I admit I'm drawn to the first position. Probably being a Christian predisposes me to that, what with the whole Original Sin doctrine. That doesn't mean I can't work with those who believe the opposite. The issues affect us all and need to be solved. The first thing we have to do, though, is everyone must lay down their hammers..

Given the state of our culture, I don't see that happening. We're probably going to end up beating on each other with our ideological hammers until we've killed enough people to get it out of our systems or have worn ourselves out beating on each other.

Just one man's opinion.

© 2016 Tom King

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Please Don't Throw The Donald in That Briar Patch!

© the Walt Disney Co. - Song of the South
Does no one read the Uncle Remus stories anymore? Brer Rabbit and the Briar Patch? The story is that Brer Rabbit is captured by Brer Fox and Brer Bear and they are debating ways to kill him. Brer Rabbit spies a briar patch and begins begging that they not throw him in there and acts terribly afraid. So, of course Brer Fox throws him in the briar patch which is what Brer Rabbit wanted all along. Here's a clip of the story from Disney's sadly neglected Song of the South.

Okay, here's what that has to do with Donald Trump. There is currently a big hullabaloo going on over Donald Trump. Paid protesters have caused violence at his rallies, roughing up people and being roughed up in return. Every time they have such a violent protest, newly converted conservatives rise up and tell us we MUST vote for Trump because of these protests.

"You can tell Donald Trump is good because his enemies are so bad," they say. Well that screwed up bit of false logic is easily trumped if you've ever read the history of Adolph Hitler's rise. His greatest enemy was the evil Communist dictator, Joseph Stalin. Should we then have made friends with Hitler on the grounds that Stalin was worse?

As it turns out, the folk paying the protesters to hit the Trump rallies are FRIENDS OF DONALD TRUMP. George Soros is a huge contributor to the phony riots and, as it turns out Soros is such a good friend of Trump that Soros loaned Trump 600 million bucks to build Trump Tower Chicago (the city, ironically, where we saw the first big anti-Trump protest that netted Trump 80 million dollars in estimated free TV air time). Trump has all sorts of allies in Democratic ranks - he's been paying them off for years. These same people are now, through paid surrogates, making a big ugly fuss at Trump rallies. If they dislike Trump so much why would they want to spoil the Republicans' efforts, when they seem hell-bent on running the worst candidate possible for president?

So how would that help Trump?  Easy. The point is to do just what they are doing with the fence-sitting angry conservatives. They hope the violent protests will convince those who can be persuaded to fall for the "lesser of two evils" argument", to hold their noses and support Trump so that he will win the nomination. And the reason that so many are convinced appears to be...................wait for it. BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENT PROTESTS AGAINST TRUMP!

Do you guys not get it? Their "please do not throw the Donald into that briar patch" protests are a set up. They want Donald in that briar patch (the nomination). Once they've managed to convince us that Donald is the only man the liberal/progressive mob fears, they win exactly what they want - Donald vs Hillary.

Then, once his nomination is secure, watch the mainstream media bring out the dump truck loads of crap they have on Trump's "colorful" past and bury him in it. It's the surest way for the Democrats to insure that the Republican nominee will lose to the appalling Hillary Clinton in November. They WANT enough of us to react to all that fake liberal fear o' Donald and rally round Trump so he can win the nomination. They KNOW the best way to get that to happen is to create a lot of fake protests. 

Get it into your head people; they WANT to run the Hildebeest against the Donald in November. He's the only "Republican" on Earth with more negatives than Clinton. They've done the crossover voting and the media holding back the media tactic against the Republicans twice before now with McCain and Romney and then unloaded once their weak candidate of choice won the nomination. Are we going to be so stupid we fall for it yet again? God help us if we do.

So please, please, please don't throw Donald into that briar patch. I'm not kidding. That's just where the Clintonistas want him.

© 2016 by Tom King

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore!

Support a Mass Walkout at the Republican Convention!

There are a lot of Republicans, mostly Christians, who find themselves unable to vote for the Republican frontrunner in November. Many of them will be at the Republican Convention in July. Many of them are made of stern stuff and are just as angry as any Trump supporter and more than a little desirous to see the GOP establishment brought down.

The GOP and Trump supporters have tried to laugh off the #NeverTrump movement, calling it inconsequential, feeble and failed. In an atmosphere where winning and being part of the victorious herd is more important than principle, these people believe that we'll knuckle under and go along again just one more time.

Pundits talk about what an historical thing it was for us to elect a black president and what it would be to elect a woman. Well, wouldn't it also be an historical thing for a party to lose a third of its members DURING the convention, because the party nominated an unacceptable candidate. It's not unprecidented. The Whig Party lost most of its members as it gradually lost its way philosophically.

For the past 40 years, the Republican Party has gradually lost its soul in its over-powering desire to win. Their history, however, has shown that, for the most part, the Republicans actually have a talent for losing. Starting with the disaster that was "They won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore," Richard Nixon, and the anemic Gerald Ford, the brightest spot over these four long decades was a man that the GOP leadership didn't actually want because he was too conservative and too much a Beltway outsider. George HW Bush was supposed to be next in line and after Reagan was gone, they dutifully put him up to have him knocked right back down when he did what all good Republican establishment folk do once elected - compromised his principles.

Then they gave us Bob Dole in 86, a man whose lackluster establishmentarianism failed to pick off an easy target in the smarmy Bill Clinton, even while Republican voters were busily restoring the Congress to Republican control. George W. Bush managed to engineer a win in 2000 and 2008, pushing aside the presumptive next-in-line, John McCain. Once again, the establishment put up its next in line with John McCain, throwing Sarah Palin in as a sop to the conservative wing who they were increasingly ignoring. After losing dismally to Barak Obama in 08, they ran Mitt Romney, another establishment candidate (his dad was former Republican presidential candidate George Romney). Mitt with a lot of help from the Republican establishment, managed to alienate the conservative wing of the party despite Mitt's being a decent guy and pretty talented businessman to boot. Conservatives sat on their hands in 2012 mostly because the GOP leadership told them they had to vote for Mitt because he was the lesser of two evils.

It's time to send a message to the GOP and it needs to be a very visible and embarrassing one. I think that, if Donald Trump is nominated by the Republican Party, all those who believe he is bad for the nation should stand up out of their seats, throw down their banners and placards and walk out of the building.

What a media moment that would be!  So what if the Republicans lose? They've already told us they don't need us. We can vote for conservative candidates for Congress. We can put in principled people in national offices; people who won't be afraid to impeach one of their own.

Besides, it would make one of those great "historical" moments.

© 2016 by Tom King

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

There Are Quislings Among Us

Vidkun Abraham Lauritz Jonss√łn Quisling certainly did not intend to add his name to the lexicon of several languages. He certainly didn’t intend to be stood up against a wall and shot. He was just a “conservative” trying to get ahead. He started out okay, organizing famine relief to Russia in the early 20s while working for the Norwegian government. He even attacked leftist office-seekers but failed to garner much support for himself and his party. Then opportunity smiled on Vidkun and the Germans invaded Norway. Quisling made an unsuccessful coup de’ tat attempt in 1940, but the Germans didn’t support him. Instead they made him a puppet head of a puppet government during the Nazi occupation, which satisfied his political ambitions, albeit for a brief time only ending in the afore-mentioned firing squad.

Quisling was notable chiefly for his opportunism, taking the easy path to power when he saw the opportunity. His lackluster career as a Nazi puppet seems to indicate that Vidkun’s heart wasn’t really in it, but like the old saying goes, “any port in a storm” and Quisling quickly tied up at Hitler’s docks. Other, more principled Norwegians opposed the Third Reich. Many lost their lives in what more practical Norwegians like Quisling saw as a losing cause.

Better to be with the winners, right? Today, we have an angry electorate that is tired of feeling like a nation of losers, failures and all around bad people whose president has gone to virtually every nation we’ve been attacked by and defended ourselves from and apologized to them for our actions – actions like feeding their poor, propping up their economies, defending them from enemies. That sort of thing. They're mad and looking for someone to blame.

And along comes a fast-talking “businessman” who claims to be one of them – a true red-blooded, free market capitalist, who knows just what we need to do to fix all their problems and end their shame. We need to throw out all the Mexicans and Muslims and build a wall and make them, not us, pay for it. We have somehow managed to choose a Quisling for ourselves; someone with just enough bluster and swagger to impress the masses and just enough “flexibility” to win over the bully boys on the progressive left. The anti-immigrant rhetoric creates a nice “enemy within” so that the weak-minded can line up behind their bully candidate and demonstrate their anger without risking anything personally. You see they have a bully who is going to “take care of it” for them.

Trump (or as I call him “He Who Must Not Be Elected”) wants to run out all the “Mexicans”. This smarmy New York liberal knows nothing about it. He hasn’t haven't seen the colonias in East Texas like I have. No running water, no sewers, no transportation, living in cardboard shacks. There are a couple of dozen of them and it is shameful that they exist. Nobody really knows they are there. They only see the men lined up on the corner of Beckham and Line Street, waiting to be underpaid for a hard day’s off-the-book manual labor. They haven’t seen the fat cat "businessmen" pontificating about the illegal immigration problem, while getting rich off the labor of those illegals.

It makes me sick to see these guys masquerading as good Republicans or good Democrats (whoever’s on top at the time - they don't care). All the while they keep these people poor and downtrodden and do everything to make sure that if you are an illegal, you have no way to get ahead; only to barely stay alive and keep working for the bosses.  Then, like our current pretender to the throne, they try to hide their sins behind the banner "Christian conservative" while doing precisely what progressives have been doing all along - protecting the wealthy. It’s the same noxious strategy of “managing” the lower classes and keeping them in line.  That's why I call them quislings. They certainly aren't Republicans in the traditional sense.

I got in a lot of trouble with that lot back when I was doing stakeholder initiatives back in East Texas trying to get some kind of fair shake for what was basically a slave labor force for rose growers and chicken processors. The so-called “Christian conservative" bosses were doing exactly what they were doing when they were Democrats before Republicans took over the Texas legislature. They were doing what their Confederate ancestors did. They use the government to protect their "peculiar institution". No matter that it’s little more than legalized enslavement of Mexican refugees.

Personally, I've always thought that if we wanted to cream the Democrats and put an actual free market conservative small government in place, we should become much more vocal advocates against the abuse and mistreatment of Hispanic immigrants. After all, we share their values - their work ethic, their sense of family, anti-abortion beliefs, religious beliefs and desire for opportunity in the free market. If, instead of embracing quisling imitation conservatives as our leaders, we started using the free market and our basic Constitution-guaranteed freedoms to do what is right, I think we could turn immigrants (legal or otherwise) into Republicans, the Democrats would make sure to slam the border shut faster than you can say, "Midnight emergency appropriations bill."

Besides, isn't freeing slaves from their Democrat/Big Government oppressors what the Republican Party was created to do?  And if you, just then, felt a surge of hatred toward illegal immigrants, then you’re probably not a Christian conservative. Jesus asked us to carry the gospel into all the world and specifically we are told to "Set the captives free." If we did that, made a concerted effort ot set free the illegal immigrant population and to make them one with us, you’d see a powerful force injected into the conservative movement – a force that would, with our help, turn and fight the drug cartels, the terrorists and invaders that threaten our country. Because then, to the horror of our Democrat friends, they would become Americans; flag-waving, God-fearing, free market capitalist Americans. They are already predisposed to be with us anyway, given the values they cross the borders with. They were looking to find the land of opportunity. Why not use that? After all, "All’s fair in love and war," they say. 

So why aren't we, for the love of God, using the twin powers of love and liberty to recruit soldiers to fight in our war against oppression and tyranny? Don't think it will work? Well I'm from Texas and I know for certain sure that there were "Mexicans" at both the Alamo and San Jacinto fighting shoulder to shoulder as Texians united. Why not again? Of course, we first must eject the quislings from amongst us. They're not helping us anyway.

Just one man’s opinion.

© 2016 by
Tom King