So a gay, black man, built intellectually by a progressive society to believe he had been victimized—and oppressed by the dialogue of the day, committed an ultimately heinous crime. This is how MSN reported the incident which occurred during the day on 8/26 2015.
MONETA, Va. — The fatal shooting of a reporter and cameraman unfolded on live TV during the early morning show, as tens of thousands of viewers watched a horrified anchor struggle to comprehend what had happened.
Within hours, the carefully scripted carnage carried out by a disgruntled former colleague spread to millions of viewers gripped by what had transformed into a social media storm. The governor initially described a car chase on his weekly radio show, with police on the shooter’s tail on an interstate highway.
Then, social media posts referencing the slain TV pair surfaced on an account under an on-air pseudonym used by the gunman — culminating with a first-person video of the ambush filmed by the shooter.
The 56-second clip shows Vester Lee Flanagan II quietly approach WDBJ reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, gun in hand, as they conduct an interview. But Ward’s camera was aimed at the mini-golf course nearby instead of the reporter. So the shooter waited, cursing Parker under his breath, for 20 seconds until the live television picture was back on the reporter. Then he fired eight shots without saying a word.
The attack seemed carefully planned. Flanagan was captured in a rental car he reserved at some point before the shootings; his own Mustang was found abandoned at the local airport, Franklin County Sheriff Bill Overton said. The interview was done at a shopping center not yet open for the day at a remote lake in Moneta, some 25 miles away from WDBJ’s studios in Roanoke. The station promoted where the reporter would be, including a plug on Twitter just a half hour before the shooting.
The shooting was an act of pure hatred and took viewers on a journey they were not quite ready for. It’s not often such evil is so obvious, and immediate. Flanagan had been told that the world would give him special privileges because of his skin color, and his sexual preference and at mid-life he finally discovered that people didn’t like him because he was just an asshole. It had nothing to do with who his parents were or where he likes to park his phallic intentions. He was a difficult personality who used race and sexuality to justify his vile hatred—and society allowed him to hide that anger behind a mask of progressivism. Society allowed him to not be accountable as an individual giving him a collective focus on social victimization, instead of forcing him to look at himself as a way to be better as a human being.
Immediately after the attack progressives of all shapes and sizes immediately called for more gun control with the same lunacy that they declare that black lives matter while also supporting Planned Parenthood abortions. The same society that would think it was marvelous to discover a single strain of bacteria on Mars as evidence of life, is the same that looks at the selling of aborted fetuses to research companies as hacked up body parts and declares that life begins at birth. Progressives just can’t take responsibility for anything. They created the murderer Vester Lee Flanagan II through policy and the first thing they want to legislate regarding his behavior is guns. What a shameful misdirection of responsibility.
Guns were illegal in France but that didn’t stop a radical Muslim extremist from trying to take over a train in Belgium all in the name of Allah. The only thing that stopped him was four brave passengers who overtook the threat with good ol’ fashioned bravado, something that isn’t being taught anymore to young people. France had already taken the steps of making guns illegal. All of Europe in fact is pretty much gun free where even the mere mention of a firearm is taboo, like saying a curse word in church. It’s just not something they do in progressive riddled Europe, yet a gunman still had a gun and was on a train ready to take lives until the unexpected happened. Four heroes stopped him with personal initiative.
Alison Parker’s father shouldn’t have been on camera talking so soon after his little girl had been shot dead by a cold-blooded killer. He shouldn’t have been talking to the governor, or the press. Yet he did, he was on with Megan Kelly that very night on Fox News speaking about more gun control! Amazing. I felt sorry for him, but then wondered how he was even able to talk about his daughter on such a public stage after such a grotesque murder. It was reckless to put him on the air—anywhere—and even worse for him to speak from a grieving heart. Yet the progressives were happy to use him to advance their gun grabbing agenda—immediately.
But the gun argument is just a diversion from the real problem—and that is the type of utopian society progressives have tried to build. Their values, such as the White House’s hiring of the first transgender employee, or the media obsession with Bruce Jenner’s freakish foray into womanhood—progressives advocate freakish behavior then wonder why the product of their philosophy explodes under the pressure of reality—which flies in the face of their decisions most of the time. One fine example is the progressive support of radical Islam while those same lunatics routinely abuse women and kill gays—just because they believe a book of religion told them they could commit those crimes. Progressives support evil in every form then feel they can preach to the rest of us how we should live and think. Embarrassingly, we are supposed to believe from them that gun control would help in some way when it clearly hasn’t worked in Chicago, or France. Bad guys still kill people. The only difference is that they knew that nobody would shoot back.
Vester Lee Flanagan II cursed Alison Parker’s name under his breath just moments before the shooting, it is a good bet he didn’t think any of the three people standing at the interview scene would have a gun to return fire. So his plan could be hatched without being foiled—much to his liking. In all reality, all three people should have been armed and ready to shoot back the instant there was an indication of violence. People in the vicinity should have also been armed. When they heard shots, they should have been ready to discover the trouble and had the weapons to put an end to it. But Vester was allowed to believe through his homosexual temperament and race baiting past that he’d be able to commit evil without ramification—so violence occurred on live television shocking the world—and the fault rests completely on progressive society.
The reason that progressives blame the gun is because the gun doesn’t look back at them in the mirror each day. It’s much harder to look at the real problem, and for progressives, it’s the society they have built for themselves. When they realize they can’t have the world they imagined they have nowhere to turn. Most of them turn toward drugs and alcohol hoping to numb the reality. But in extreme cases, such as with Vester Lee Flanagan II they intend to hurt those who won’t allow them to be parasitic victims of vile filth and debauchery. That’s when they lash out. And by that measure if insanity is a measurable criteria for Second Amendment participation, then gun control of the type Alison Parker’s father is proposing should be established based on whether or not a person is gay or a Democrat—and if they happen to be both, they should be on a watch list for the safety of us all. That is how you get to the heart of the problem.
The White House issued a number of remarkably stupid statements during the week of 8/24 2015 specifically in regard to the China devaluation of their currency and the reaction that global stock markets have had as a result. Dear reader, this has been illustrated for everyone for several years now; I have covered the topic extensively. The sheer stupidity of those within the United Nations created on the heels of World War II to ensure that war would never again occur on an international stage only traded the aggressions of mankind from guns to finance—which effectually is much more dangerous. War with guns are often isolated to the battlefields and involve the killing and maiming of those under the command structure of government armies. Financial wars involve everyone in the world and can be much more dangerous as a slow killing, life depraving enterprise.
Reading and understanding The Art of War from Sun Tzu is extremely important. If we had schools that worked correctly, it would be required reading for every 7th grader. Every member of the house and senate on Capital Hill should be profoundly familiar with the classic book on oriental strategy. West Point does teach The Art of War to their students, and there are some other classes provided with an emphasis in military might from higher education that instructs on the Sun Tzu military philosophy, but it is grossly evident that most of the world is oblivious to the thinking of oriental thought due to the lack of actions to prepare for the knowing insurrection.
The book is established by thirteen chapters and they are as follows.
Detail Assessment and Planning (Chinese: 始計，始计) explores the five fundamental factors (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership and management) and seven elements that determine the outcomes of military engagements. By thinking, assessing and comparing these points, a commander can calculate his chances of victory. Habitual deviation from these calculations will ensure failure via improper action. The text stresses that war is a very grave matter for the state and must not be commenced without due consideration.
Waging War (Chinese: 作戰，作战) explains how to understand the economy of warfare and how success requires winning decisive engagements quickly. This section advises that successful military campaigns require limiting the cost of competition and conflict.
Strategic Attack (Chinese: 謀攻，谋攻) defines the source of strength as unity, not size, and discusses the five factors that are needed to succeed in any war. In order of importance, these critical factors are: Attack, Strategy, Alliances, Army and Cities.
Disposition of the Army (Chinese: 軍形，军形) explains the importance of defending existing positions until a commander is capable of advancing from those positions in safety. It teaches commanders the importance of recognizing strategic opportunities, and teaches not to create opportunities for the enemy.
Forces (Chinese: 兵勢，兵势) explains the use of creativity and timing in building an army’s momentum.
Weaknesses and Strengths (Chinese: 虛實，虚实) explains how an army’s opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of the enemy and how to respond to changes in the fluid battlefield over a given area.
Military Maneuvers (Chinese: 軍爭，军争) explains the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon the commander.
Variations and Adaptability (Chinese: 九變，九变) focuses on the need for flexibility in an army’s responses. It explains how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.
Movement and Development of Troops (Chinese: 行軍，行军) describes the different situations in which an army finds itself as it moves through new enemy territories, and how to respond to these situations. Much of this section focuses on evaluating the intentions of others.
Terrain (Chinese: 地形) looks at the three general areas of resistance (distance, dangers and barriers) and the six types of ground positions that arise from them. Each of these six field positions offers certain advantages and disadvantages.
The Nine Battlegrounds (Chinese: 九地) describes the nine common situations (or stages) in a campaign, from scattering to deadly, and the specific focus that a commander will need in order to successfully navigate them.
Attacking with Fire (Chinese: 火攻) explains the general use of weapons and the specific use of the environment as a weapon. This section examines the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack and the appropriate responses to such attacks.
Intelligence and Espionage (Chinese: 用間，用间) focuses on the importance of developing good information sources, and specifies the five types of intelligence sources and how to best manage each of them.
Verses from the book occur in modern daily Chinese idioms and phrases, such as the last verse of Chapter 3:
故曰：知彼知己，百戰不殆；不知彼而知己，一勝一負；不知彼，不知己，每戰必殆。
So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose. If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
This has been more tersely interpreted and condensed into the Chinese modern proverb:
知己知彼，百戰不殆。 (Zhī jǐ zhī bǐ, bǎi zhàn bù dài.)
If you know both yourself and your enemy, you can win numerous (literally, “a hundred”) battles without jeopardy.
Common examples can also be found in English use, such as verse 18 in Chapter 1:
兵者，詭道也。故能而示之不能，用而示之不用，近而示之遠，遠而示之近
All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
This has been abbreviated to its most basic form and condensed into the English modern proverb:
In short, the failure of the United Nations has been to assume that all nations of the world, particularly communist countries, would give up their ability to deceive and open themselves to vulnerability to all for a global group hug, which will never happen. Not in a million years—not in ten million years of progressive philosophy. Every academic throughout the world who thought like Woodrow Wilson and his successor Franklin Roosevelt and believed in the ridiculous United Nations practice of global unification failed to understand the nature of those from the orient. The Art of War is their governing philosophy and in the case of China, they use communism to unite the flags of the world behind their centrally planned cause. That is why oriental countries are so prone to communist regimes—because at their heart is The Art of War. It is the most important book available in understanding the current crises in China.
China has been deceiving the United States openly for quite a long time and using a ruse of friendship to lull all capitalist nations to commit themselves into a vast amount of debt out of a mutual relationship of deceptive trust so that they can crush all resistance to them in the future. They are playing a global game inspired by The Art of War. So keep that in mind while the White House continues to pretend that relations with China are good and marching in a positive direction. China is poised to crush the United States through a devalued currency and a trade imbalance, and they don’t care if lots of innocent people are hurt in the process. We are talking about a communist country that openly kills babies when they turn out to be girls—because the state has designated a one child per family policy. China is looking to expand—they have an unnatural imbalance of males within their society and they look to The Art of War as a way to expand their society. And they are doing it right now.
This is not a warning, or a bit of political theater. It is a fact that anybody familiar with The Art of War would easily understand.
One of the most common rebukes to the Trump potential presidency is that his companies have filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy several times, the Atlantic City Taj Mahal 1991, the Trump Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels and casino Resorts in 2004, and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009. The cause of those bankruptcies was due to over-leveraged assets which can happen when financing speculative endeavors, and on those he came up short. Casinos are dangerous endeavors, because they are essentially parasitic business practices that rely on strong economies to consume expendable income. If a society does not have expendable income, it won’t spend money on casinos—which has led to trouble in places like Atlantic City. However, what I find very interesting about Trump is that he has still managed to build up a personal wealth of billions of dollars in a very traditional way which makes him for me even more of an Ayn Rand hero presidential candidate than virtually any other possible billionaire who could run for president. To see to what extent he is qualified watch this interview with Judge Jeanine from Fox News.
For me the fact that Trump is a billionaire who is willing to identify with Tea Party politics makes him gold in my book. He’s willing to put himself out there to break down a bad political system. Because the real fight is not on Capitol Hill, or even American politics, it’s in the billionaires who work behind the scenes to advocate progressive endeavors that politicians are expected to dance to. Nothing will change so long as George Soros is pouring his money into left leaning causes, or Bill Gates is trying to advance common core. Gates has a net worth of $67 billion dollars. Michael Bloomberg who is a bleeding heart leftist has $27 billion. Mark Zuckerberg is worth $13.5 billion and is the golden boy for the millennials, and these are all people who are politically active. Rupert Murdoch is worth $11.2 billion. Charles Koch is worth $34 billion and his brother David is worth an equal amount—personally. These are the people who are shaping American politics from the political right and left. Trump during his recent speeches has stated that Carl Icahn wants to work in his presidential administration—Carl is worth $20 billion dollars. In comparison, Donald Trump doesn’t even make the top 100. But he is willing to stick it to the entire system, fund his own campaign free of all their input and turn the entire system completely on its head. That is something I can get behind in a big way. It’s a unique once and a lifetime opportunity that may not come again. Billionaires like to stay in the shadows. They don’t do what Trump is doing, and this is a key strategic opportunity to advance our political system beyond the control of the two-party system in a way that Trump is leveraged to do.
Most of the billionaires listed have managed to get their wealth through stock investments—such as Gates, Soros and Zuckerberg. If Trump had done what they had, he might be far wealthier than they have become, because the wealth is created by anticipated value of their products as opposed to a tangible asset. Trump is an old-fashioned guy—he has largely stayed out of stocks and has built his wealth nearly entirely on actual assets, such as golf course, real-estate developments, beauty pageants, entertainment media, etc. Trump actually owns things, and he has done it in a sole proprietor way as opposed to diversified investments managed from afar. Trump has remained throughout his career remarkably hands on and to this day has respectable access to liquid cash and very little personal debt. The Trump brand is actually worth more than his personal assets ranging around $3 billion dollars. In a brilliant move by Trump and his organization he looks to be aiming to accomplish two things, increasing his personal brand as President of the United States—which will likely triple, perhaps quadruple that brand value, and he will be able to as an insider increase market forces which will increase his holdings with a healthy economy. As president, Trump could exceed his personal wealth well beyond that of Bill Gates, which is likely the real motivation for his presidential run. How better to leave his kids with a great company? But that’s not a bad or selfish thing. For Trump, he has remained extremely traditional as an investor which has left him vulnerable to market fluctuations, such as what he saw in the early 1990s, and again in 2008. With the national debt at nearly $19 trillion Trump has the most to lose in a collapsed economy which is inevitable under the current market trajectory. So for a healthy “A-type” personality, there is no better way to kill two birds with one stone than to do the job yourself. And I believe that is what Trump is doing.
Then there are the other motivations. A good negotiator will align their needs with those they are dealing with. Trump may be the only person available who can fight against these billionaire investments while increasing his own wealth and still helping America find its way again. I believe those intentions are 100% real and there is nothing wrong with trying to do all those things at the same time. If Trump wasn’t in the game than what would be the option? A government ran by billionaire leftists, or a government-run by billionaire conservatives. Both have shown that they aren’t completely authentic in their adherence to the American Constitution and are philosophically weak to the founding ideals of the United States. Trump made a choice to maintain his personal integrity in spite of the risks associated so that he could own his assets personally—without the usual protections of being able to sell off anticipated value quickly on the stock exchange. Physical property is much less liquid but Trump made a choice to deal with that in exchange for personal ownership because of ideological commitments that could easily translate to the core problem within the United States—the national debt.
The next president of the United States will have to tackle that $19 trillion-dollar debt, the bankruptcies of the Medicare system, Social Security and the tragic implication of Obamacare starting in 2016. Much of that debt is in perceived value—anticipated liabilities based against devalued currencies and projected forecasts. Strategically, Donald Trump is tackling the brand of America and trying to increase its perception globally, by declaring that we need to limit immigration, so to make American citizenship perpetually of an increased value Once that is accepted, he will gain bargaining leverage with other countries as a president that will make them pay for tariffs that they wouldn’t accept under an open border policy, which is right now most advocated by George Soros—the billionaire most aggressive in advocating for the progressive destruction of America so that he can capitalize off the hedge funds generated off that destruction. There isn’t another American presidential candidate except for Trump who can actually increase the value of the United States brand to off-set the penalties that will incur if the national debt climbs up over $20 trillion. At that point bankruptcy is the only way out, and that would cause America to lose its sovereignty to other nations.
From what I see, Donald Trump is all in, his investments are real and his risk is high. Unlike his fellow billionaires he can’t just have a massive sell-off. He is taking a gamble as we speak; his companies are buying low hoping for a market turn-around. Trump, being a patriot at heart—if you don’t believe it, read his books, has jumped all in with no turning back. There won’t be any bankruptcy to save his companies from complete collapse this time. He’s doing the only thing he could do, he’s stepping down from the billionaire Mount Olympus to fix the situation himself. His ego wants to be the richest man in America so he doesn’t have any issues with attacking his rival billionaires by out-maneuvering them. But he wants to save his companies from an economic collapse so that his children will have something left when he’s no longer around. And to do that he has to save America from that collapse—and the only way he can do that is by becoming president. There isn’t anybody else who is in his position who can do it—because it is fellow billionaires who are actually running the government anyway. Donald Trump is a traditional guy who believes in personal ownership almost to a fault, he is chained to the destruction of America with the rest of us. But unlike the rest of us, Trump is a billionaire who can actually make a difference, and he’s all in to do it. He’s come too far to turn back and he’s going to need our help. I think he shares with us the knowledge that 2016 is a do or die moment. He can either take the party system out of the hands of the billionaires from both the right and left for the good of the country. Or we lose our country, he loses his wealthy status, and we all go down the drain together. Donald Trump has a lot more in common with most of us than anybody has yet given him credit for. And it really comes down to his personal belief in ownership—which he likely inherited from his father and older brother. Thus he is now taking the biggest gamble of his life. For the benefit of us all, I hope and trust that he knows what he’s doing. Because I see his maneuver as the only strategic way out of a minefield of destruction set by the billionaires who really run the federal government.
Also consider this, Barack Obama will be far more destructive as an ex-president advocating socialism and returning to the political scene as a community activists. He will become very wealthy as a public speaker and will be given a platform to really advance the global intentions of Socialist International within the United Nations. There isn’t a Republican in the party presently except for celebrities like Clint Eastwood and Donald Trump who can steal away the potential air of a dangerous ex-president Obama in the news cycle. Trump would have something new happening ever day as president forcing Clinton and Obama to struggle for attention—which would bring an end to their efforts. If Donald Trump has learned anything over the years with all the hard knocks he’s endured, it’s how to survive this current time. And for my money I will bet on a tangible asset—Donald Trump—a proven commodity in every way who is highly motivated—and leveraged—to be successful. Trump is my guy—and like him—I’m all in.
For some bizarre reason French President Hollende called President Obama to think him for the heroics of the three American passengers on a high-speed train in Belgium who stopped a knuckle-dragging Islamic radical from committing terrorism. At the first sign of trouble French employees on the train locked that particular car to isolate the terrorist essentially imprisoning all the people in that part of the train. Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone took immediate action to subdue the slug and their childhood friend Anthony Sadler helped beat the terrorist into unconsciousness. That type of bravado is common in people born free in a society that advocates that kind of behavior. Stone additionally had military training in the Air Force whereas Skarlatos was from the National Guard. But their heroics was home-grown in spite of President Obama’s attempts over the years to turn America more into France with collectivist endeavor and passive approaches to danger.
Obama if he had things his way would have done as the French employees did, and that would have been to sacrifice the members of that particular train car so to save the rest of the passengers—which is a collectivist mentality. Hollende is an open socialist who somehow believed that Obama had something to do with the heroics by some American policy, just as he spoke on behalf of all France for thanking the three American heroes from saving their progressive country from their own failed policies. Europe is breeding these terrorist idiots because of their lack of a philosophy that is centered on individuality. A collective based society, which France is, is not far off ideologically from the collectivism of radical Islam, so these young religious fanatics like this terrorist on the train can feed off society’s passivity. In this case it was 26 year-old Ayoub El-Khazzani from Morocco who had been on a French intelligence watch list since February of 2014. Somebody obviously missed the fact that the Islamic terrorist had bought a ticket for the high-speed train complete with bags of weapons. Not a very effective watch list. El-Khazzani had been radicalized in the southern Spanish city of Algecians at a mosque which had been under surveillance due to its extremist teachings.
Obviously there were a lot of fails, El-Khazzani slipped through security, the French employees on the train behaved like a bunch of wimps leaving a couple of American guys trying to have a good time in Europe to quell all the failures with their bravado. The heroic actions are something to feel good about for all Americans—but I would remind everyone that it’s also expected. That’s not to take anything away from what they did, it’s just that America shouldn’t be the only culture on earth with some testicular fortitude left in its up and coming heroes. This kind of thing should be a lot more common—specifically, somebody should have kicked the snot out of Ayoub El-Khazzani way back in Spain well before he ever got on a train in Amsterdam.
Collectivism in every aspect breeds the kind of cowardly behavior that made Ayoub El-Khazzani possible and put him on a train to inflict danger to innocent people. France, and essentially all of Europe functions under that same brand of collectivism as a culture believing that the needs of the few must be sacrificed for the benefit of the many. That’s why French employees isolated that train car—to protect the rest of the train. Such people make easy targets which empowers radicals seeking to impose their version of collectivism on the masses. Lucky for the French in this case, there were Americans nearby to stop the furtherance of such terror.
This brings us back around to why the socialist President Hollende would even call Obama. I can understand him thanking the guys who stopped the terrorist attack. But why would he even think to call Obama—as if the American president had done anything to contribute to the endeavor. That is an insult to the heroics of the young men. Rather, they behaved heroically in spite of Obama’s efforts in creating a socialist utopia hell-bent on extreme leftist political positions. Those young men went to American schools which teach socialism these days, but thankfully they had a love for American film and had in their minds a little heroics put there by an art that still relishes individualism. I saw a picture of one of the boys with their mom which featured Clint Eastwood from the Fist Full of Dollars films. Probably not a coincidence.
It is good to see the young men so happy after they discovered that they wouldn’t die from their heroics. I’m sure Spencer Stone would not trade his nearly severed thumb right now for a comfortable night in a Paris hotel, and without question Alek Skarlatos is proud of the blood on his shirt and may never wash it again just so he can remember it. This is something that President Hollende and Obama do not understand about this terrorist attack. Sure the young men saved lives, yes the terrorist son-of-a-bitch nearly shot Stone and luckily the gun was jammed. But those young men are happy to have proven themselves under duress and that is something they will live with for the rest of their lives—and it will carry them all to lofty highest for which no amount of money can ever provide. The injuries Stone endured he will tell this story proudly each time he gets the opportunity. Most young men would trade these three, even with the possibility of death, for a chance to feel what they are feeling right now—and that is a foreign concept to Hollende—obviously. Those guys didn’t attack that terrorist thug for any other reason than raw heroics—the need to do what was right. They didn’t do it to save France from the embarrassment of another terrorist attack by Islamic radicals. They did it because it felt good to act heroically rather than cower like a chicken in a seat trapped by French employees to seal their fate awaiting an afterlife—totally at the mercy of a 26-year-old Moroccan who wanted to kill innocents in the name of Allah. Being a hero is the best feeling in the world. It’s worth doing even if death is the result—because no young man wants to be condemned to a lifetime of suffering knowing they were too wimpy to face down danger when it presented itself.
I’m proud of those boys, but they didn’t do it for me, America, or France. They did the right thing because it felt good to do. All it took was for Alek Skarlatos to tell his friend to get the terrorist, and those guys in that moment got the monkey off their back which plagues all young men—the nagging question of whether or not under a dangerous situation they would have the courage to act heroically. And thanks to a radical Islamic terrorist, those American heroes can now carry with them a badge of honor that will last a lifetime. And they deserve to be proud of it. Because in American culture we still have as a standard that an individual life lived under the cloak of a coward is far worse than death. And young men, and old in America because of their focus on individuality—still know that when such an opportunity presents itself—you do what you have to in order to remove that cloak from personal identification forever.
I’m not writing this for my usual readers, who would expect approximately 1500 words of substantiation to validate whatever argument I’m putting forth. What I’m about to say they already know. Rather, this article is for those on the other side who plan to vote for Hillary Clinton. I have news for you since by your lifestyle choices; you probably don’t know what’s happening involving her right now. For those people I will make this a lot shorter so to hold your attention spans. I am of course speaking to the communist slugs, the Democratic socialists, the labor union supporters, the welfare recipients, the bloods and the crips, the community activists, the “he she” types, the criminals, the lazy, and the vile progressive. Your candidate is in deep trouble. Just watch her in this very revealing Vegas press conference.
She was of course making a campaign stop in Vegas trying to maintain her lead during a presidential election—which can also be seen below. But at this point because of the guilt implied in what she said in the press conference, her campaign just ended. There is no possibility to recover. The Democrats are now without a candidate. Bernie Sanders is an open socialist. Joe Biden is attached to the sinking ship of the Obama White House and is extremely gaffe prone and there isn’t another viable candidate. So there you have it. Welcome to reality.
I’m not going to rub it in anybody’s face. Like the cockroaches that most of you are, the light has been turned on and your first instinct is to flee to the cracks and hide. But there isn’t anywhere to shelter you from your own stupidity. Those days are—in effect—over. It will take a while to clean up the mess, but the progressive party is effectively over—and it starts with this press conference. Hillary has no defense and it is so painfully evident. She is guilty as guilty could possibly be of not only misleading a federal investigation by destroying evidence, but gross misconduct while holding a public office directly connected to two American presidencies. And there isn’t enough pot (marijuana) in the world to numb that reality.
I know this has been a lot of words for your tiny minds to contemplate; I have tried to be as brief as possible. But I just thought you’d want to know that you don’t have a candidate for the 2016 election. Have a nice day.
Before anyone says that the real life Oskar Schindler was a Nazi war profiteer and has no comparison to Trump, or that the situation in Schindler’s List is not even remotely the same as the current state of America—I would argue both points. Oskar Schindler was a businessman who worked the Nazi Party into making himself huge profits. But during his experiences he realized how evil the party under Hitler truly was and he had a change of heart, so he decided to save some lives and work the system from his position of strength to do it. Without talking to Trump personally about the situation I think a few really big things happened to him over the last couple of years where he has had his own Oskar Schindler moments. First and foremost I think the smart money of New York sees the writing on the wall. 19-20 trillion in national debt will crush America and likely Trump knows George Soros personally, and everyone on the financial end of the country’s business knows that the left leaning billionaire is trying to topple the American economy. Trump and his financial friends will lose a lot of money when that happens, so now is the time to fight to preserve America as a safe haven of financial independence. Second I think the birther issues involving Trump’s push to get the Obama administration to release the president’s birth certificate, which was done in April of 2011, was an extreme revelation to just how corrupt the political machine truly was—at all levels. Trump won that hard fight but immediately Sheriff Joe Arpaio went on CBS and proved that the birth certificate was a fake. There was something very fishy with the whole deal and since Trump was one of the only people not to back down on the birther issue, he felt vindicated from the shower of criticism and decided to do something about it. There was obviously a shadow party at work within the federal government and there wasn’t a single Republican in the field who was poised to fight it, so Trump out of self-interest, and a since of righting a wrong decided to step forward to fight it.
I can say those things with some level of certainty. If I were in Trump’s situation, I would spend a billion dollars of my own money to fight it. Heck, I write a blog every day for free to fight these things staying up late at night, getting up early in the morning with nothing in it for me at all, but the sense of righting wrongs. Speaking from personal experience, I would say that Trump’s wife Melina probably has something to do with his sudden rush of conservative value. A good woman does put lead in the pencil of A type personalities, and a new son gives a man something to fight for. I’m sure if you peel back Donald Trump that those are some of the core motivations. There are a lot of things that Donald Trump does and says that I completely understand. If he were president, I could convince him to stay off my guns. He’s a New York guy so his policies are largely shaped around the gun laws of that crowded city. But it’s my hope that a Trump presidency will take the fight to the enemies of America making it so that I won’t have to use the Second Amendment to defend my property from an out-of-control nation in debt to a world looking to collect. Once that debt gets over $20 trillion, the lights start to go out and a collapse is inevitable. But listening to Trump, he is conducting his campaign the way I would if I had the resources and time—so I trust him. I know a lot of people in business who put on a metaphorical mask when they do their work, but once the mask comes off they are normal people. I think Trump put on his mask to do his deals over the years, sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat, but he discovered that some of the people behind the masks of people he was dealing with were really bad people, and he is in a unique position to do something about it, so he is. I would too.
After all the controversy I watched Trump closely, particularly after the Megan Kelly situation. Trump has been playing the situation of president in the classic deal maker fashion, just like playing a simple game of Poker. He has baited pundits to discover their positions, and then he takes control of the situation after they show their cards. He is a lot smarter than he has let on, and he’s in far more control than many believed. His ego maniac position is not part of his true character, but a device he uses to discover the kind of cards people are holding. By insulting people directly and indirectly, you provoke them into showing their hands. It’s a classic trick that has obviously made Trump a lot of money over the years, and he’s now performing it on a world stage. He’s not just playing this game to win the presidency; he’s setting the stage for global negotiations when he becomes president. I’d bet everything I have on the matter. He’s playing the game that far ahead.
Watching his speeches in Michigan, then New Hampshire, then flying out in his helicopter to Iowa—no teleprompters, no handlers, just straight talk speaking with extreme confidence knowing that every word he says will be analyzed and cut-up any way possible—he gave three of the best speeches I’ve ever heard from him. He is a master at the top of his game and there are hints that he has a lot more in the tank. And that is scaring the crap out of establishment types. Standing in front of his personal helicopter in Iowa he was asked if he’d be willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money to become president, and he said without pause—yes. It’s over for the other Republican candidates. This race is over. The 2016 election will be between Trump and whoever the Democrats can put up. And Trump will not run to lose, he’ll do anything and everything in his power to win and the money men know it.
I say that because soon there won’t be any donors to the other candidates. Now that word is out that Trump is serious, the funding for them will dry to a trickle. It won’t take but a few months from now. Trump has another advantage over them that nobody has yet picked up on. Donald Trump is a hard worker. He is willing to work harder than any person running for office. After listening to his recent speeches I am convinced that he read voluminous amounts of information and he was quite comfortable in reciting what he had been learning. He is a smart guy, and I doubt he sleeps much. I understand that because I’m the same way as is in evidence by the voluminous amount of work I produce. Trump will out work and out spend anybody running against him Republican or Democrat. That’s why he’s already shaping global opinions about him in a way that gives him negotiation power once he holds office as president. He is speaking a language that Putin understands, the Saudi’s are terrified of, and Mexico is silently stunned about. The “shadow parties” of world governments are really scared of Donald Trump and his unstoppable campaign during this mythical 2015 “Summer of Trump.”
There really isn’t a policy issue in the 2016 race that is bigger than the economy. Only someone like Trump can wrestle the economy back from this staggering debt. If he can’t than it’s over, and many people like me see it from the front-of-the-train. Those in the back will discover it soon enough. Glenn Beck is not a back of the train person, but he is when it comes to faith and religion. He has had to turn too much toward religion to hold his life together as a person and his opinions about Trump are largely shaped in the context of faith. I don’t have those handicaps when thinking about Trump, and Trump doesn’t live by those limits. I understand his religious position. Donald Trump is an Ayn Rand president. Many Objectivists that I know have taken issue with my assessment of Trump comparing him to Howard Roark from the great novel The Fountainhead. They countered to me that Trump was not like Roark, but more like Gail Wynand—the newspaper tycoon who married the hot wife and traveled the world in his boat once he realized the futility of the fight against him. I can see that, which plays into the whole Oskar Schindler comparison. But Roark loved building things, and so does Trump. I think Donald Trump is a lot deeper person than he shows most people and deep down inside, he is more a figure out of an Ayn Rand novel than out of The Bible, which is the heart of Glenn Beck’s issue, and one that Christian conservatives will have to come to terms with.
To say it’s unfair, or not an apples to apples comparison to say that Oskar Schindler saved Jewish lives and Donald Trump is just a selfish businessman who wants attention, is to miss the real tragedy of the present moment. If the economy fails, more people will die than they did in the German/Jewish holocaust—that is for sure. But think of the evils going on presently from the aborted fetuses at Planned Parenthood to the obvious shadow government conspiracies happening at every level of political endeavor. Trump is wonderfully free of any control mechanisms within that system, and I think his crusade is more out of moral obligation than self fulfillment. His life already is like that of a president. It would be a step down for him to reside in the White House. His ability to make decisions without the temptation of making money off the deal is an ability that I would put my money on over any potential candidate. With the current problems facing the nation, I don’t see any other way out of it, but through someone like Trump.
If Trump comes after our guns, I will happily fight him on it. I am happy to argue and throw mud at him over issues involving the Constitution. As I’ve said, I know for certain he’s not as conservative as I am—but few people are—if any are. But I see in him a man who will work harder than anybody, who can finance himself and owe nothing to anybody, and who can actually stop America from being a debtor nation. I’m even open to his health care options because Obamacare will further bankrupt America, and without that insurance still raises 7-15% each year. That is unsustainable as well. America doesn’t need a church pastor in the White House. It needs a cut-throat Ayn Ran type of money man who is self-sustaining and seeks his own advice 100% of the time. Watching how Trump handled the “birther” issue convinced me that he’s the only one who can be president in this current climate. Everyone backed off that issue except for him. Without Trump, Obama would have never produced the birth certificate, and what they did produce was obviously tampered with. The story died, because nobody in the media had the will to take the next step for fear of being called names by the administration. But somewhere in there Trump made his decision to become a modern Oskar Schindler. Critics might say Trump is running for president to satisfy his own ego, that he used to be a progressive—Democrat—a liberal who is working with Bill Clinton to sabotage the political system for the aims of the Clinton Foundation. But I think Trump’s 2005 marriage to Melania Knauss is the real secret to his behavior. I think deep down inside, behind all the bolster and theatrics is a man in love with his wife—and I think he wants to make the world better for his family—so there is something of it left for them. His new son Barron is likely the primary motivation. I say that because it would be for me, and I see a lot of myself in Donald Trump—particularly in his will, and ability to fight for what he thinks is right. That is why this is the Summer of Trump with an administration to follow.
Again, I’ve said it before—but because the news is just now catching up to things I’ve said years ago, I have to address them, particularly in regard to the destroyed Lois Lerner emails at the IRS, and the same involving Hillary Clinton on her private server destroying classified information hoping to prevent a modern version of Watergate for her presidency which is occurring before she has even been elected. Both women should be in prison for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They are notoriously criminal, both of them and it is disgraceful that they are both free to roam about unmolested currently without prosecution. They clearly committed crimes and are showing the world that criminals are in charge within the federal government. And you know what they have in common dear reader? Barack Obama was at the center of both their lives directly and if the evidence had not been destroyed it would likely point directly to the President’s office.
“High” in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of “high crimes” signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.
The Judiciary Committee’s 1974 report “The Historical Origins of Impeachment” stated: “‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has traditionally been considered a ‘term of art‘, like such other constitutional phrases as ‘levying war’ and ‘due process.’ The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it.”[2]
The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
As can be found in[3] historical references of the period, the phrase in its original meaning is interpreted as “for whatever reason whatsoever”. High indicates a type of very serious crime, and misdemeanors indicates crimes that are minor. Therefore this phrase covers all or any crime that abuses office. Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive “rendered himself obnoxious,” and the Constitution should provide for the “regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused.” James Madison said, “…impeachment… was indispensable” to defend the community against “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.” With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, “loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.”[4]
According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, “Prior to the Clinton investigation, the House had begun impeachment proceedings against only 17 officials — one U.S. senator, two presidents, one cabinet member, and 13 federal judges.”[5]
The very difficult case of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and removing that person in the Senate by a vote of two-thirds majority in the Senate was meant to be the check to balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors”. It was George Mason who offered up the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as “high misdemeanor”, “maladministration”, or “other crime”. Edmund Randolf said impeachment should be reserved for those who “misbehave”. Cotesworth Pinkney said, It should be reserved “…for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.” As can be seen from all these references to the term “high crimes and misdemeanors”, there is no concrete definition for the term, except to allow people to remove an official for office for subjective reasons entirely.
Proof if it can ever be retrieved will show that Lois Lerner received marching orders from the IRS union rep who met directly with President Obama, to use the IRS to derail the Tea Party movement through audits and other legal harassment. Lerner has showed horrendous behavior toward conservatives in the emails that had been scanned through and released to authorities. Imagine what they destroyed! What’s most troubling is the communication between Lerner and her husband who advocated that he wanted to vote for a “socialist-labor candidate.” Out of all the bad things I have said about these people in the past, I hate being so right about them.
But Hillary, she used a former President in her husband to gain access to secret service and a plausible reason to have a private server to begin with, then used that security to hide acts she committed as Secretary of State under another sitting president in Obama. If that’s not high crimes and misdemeanors, nothing is. Obama is guilty and so are both Clintons, the one who used to be President and the one who wants to be. They are all inconceivably bad, so bad that people can’t even fathom the treachery on display, because we are not accustomed to comprehending it. That is why there are terms for such things so that those trusted with such delicate information can be prosecuted if they violate that trust. And until that happens, our legal system is a joke not worthy of a single tax dollar for further substantiation.
I remember what it was like in the 80s. Actually I campaigned for Ronald Reagan as a 7th grade student. In my history class I was the leader of the debate team defending Reagan from supporters of Jimmy Carter, which was hosted by three of the most popular girls in the school at the time. The two people I had to help me with the debate were not comfortable speaking in public, so I ended up doing the whole presentation and I had the class on Reagan’s side by the end of the discussion. At the time I didn’t know that Reagan had been a labor union leader, a Democrat, and had tendencies toward bleeding heart liberalism. I just liked his confidence, and what he created during his presidency was enthusiasm for capitalism that America has been missing since. In many ways Donald Trump does remind me of the early days of Ronald Reagan. He’s not conservative enough for me, but I think he can sell what conservatism he does have better than anyone running—and could at a minimum create in America a resurgence of enthusiasm similar to the 1980s. Somehow Republicans will have to break loose the current split that the country finds itself in and create new demographics favorable to those who call themselves conservative. And the first hint of that potential enthusiasm I can see clearly in the two wonderful women rising in popularity of late who are unapologetic Donald Trump supporters, Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson. Check them out! I featured them in yesterday’s article, but they have continued to impress now making the television rounds.
I first heard that interview with Lynnette and Rochelle on Doc Thompson’s The Blaze Radio Show from 6 AM to 9 AM and it had me laughing out loud. Each morning I have been riding a bicycle 24 miles and during that time I catch Doc’s show, and it’s often that he says funny things. But it’s pretty rare where laughter cannot be held back, and I was in traffic, and I’m sure people were wondering what in the world I was laughing so hard at. The Viewer’s View girls were funny and passionate—their enthusiasm was intense–so I really couldn’t help but laugh out loud as people in the car next to me looked on in bewilderment. It instantly reminded me of the type of hope and enthusiasm I remembered from the 1980s where artists like Michael Jackson would do appearances at the White House with Ronald Reagan, and social and economic barriers weren’t as pronounced as they were in the 60s and 70s. Hope was alive and it was exciting.
Communists, socialists, progressives and Democrats—which are all the same thing in my book, didn’t like Reagan because he put a stop on the Soviet plans to spread communism to every corner of the globe. I never thought of Reagan as a bastion of conservative value. Much to my dislike, he was a little too socially liberal in regards to Nancy Reagan, and other aspects of this life. Reagan believed in astrology and strange superstitions, which is clearly not something I believe in. But, wow, did Reagan get Americans feeling good about themselves again, and the byproduct of that enthusiasm was undeniably present in our music, movies, products and global presence.
In the early stage of the Trump run for president I identified the power of his celebrity and fighting ability to pull people into the party who would otherwise reject Republicans. Lynnette and Rochelle are clearly the types of women who would not get excited about Jeb Bush or Scott Walker. Even though Walker, Cruz, or Rand Paul might be better candidates as far as people go—they do not have the power of celebrity and charisma to win people over who would otherwise stand against them. Trump in just a very short time has elicited a passion from demographic groups who would not otherwise call themselves Republican, and that is a very powerful thing. It is interesting that Lynnette and Rochelle have so directly connected Trump to job creation. That was the type of environment that Reagan was able to create. If a person wanted to make money in the 1980s, they could—there were jobs and barriers to entry that were being removed. There were hopes and dreams of wealth that Americans had which led to much critical appraisal of excess—particularly from the political left and generally lazy. But the option was there and it was a generally very positive time. I knew it would be that way as a 7th grade student and I felt passionately enough about it to actually work on behalf of the Reagan campaign as a young person.
But Reagan then and now was not conservative enough for me, even though just about every Republican refers to him as a way to tie themselves to former president. Reagan to me was not “Republican” enough. However I saw the strategic opportunities of his presidency early on, and turned out to be glaringly correct. Even older people who were skeptical about my enthusiasm for Reagan as such a young person doubted that my passion was anything less than youthful hope. It wasn’t. I saw in Reagan an ability to unleash opportunity that had been suppressed for a long time within the United States. I was able to pretty much dominate any social situation, overcome most legal hurdles, meet people of any demographic, and make all the money I wanted before Reagan was in his seventh year as president. I was making as much money as an 18-year-old as my dad was making after 25 years at a regular company. The only limits to my life were in the things I needed to learn—which I worked very hard at. The music was great, the money was excellent, and the direction of the country was very promising. Then came George H Bush. Within four years of his presidency, the establishment Republican had me leaning toward Ross Perot. Clinton won the election of 1992, and everything went downhill from there. Literally.
If a true conservative had been available to take the reigns of Ronald Reagan after he left office, things might have gone very different for America. We might in fact look like the film Back to the Future II and have flying cars, and hover boards. Instead we have iPhones and Facebook. If there had been a Ted Cruz in 1992, we might have to this day a shopping mall on the Moon complete with hotels and night clubs. Ronald Reagan was a paid spokesman for GE and learned to speak the benefits of capitalism from them before becoming a governor or president. His liberalism evolved the older he became into a more conservative personality. I was however born extremely conservative, so everyone falls short in my book. Reagan did a good job of making America feel good about itself, and I think Donald Trump has that same quality. It will be up to some good candidates in 2024 to be ready to take that enthusiasm so evident in women like Lynnette and Rochelle and apply it more toward a laissez-faire capitalist system instead of the socialism of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and of course Bernie Sanders.
There is a reason that Bernie is packing stadiums, socialism is very real and is the policy of Democrats. If you want to beat them in elections and pull spirited Democrats who are questioning that system back to the Republican side of the political spectrum, you need someone who can sell capitalism to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. If they are on board with Trump, it is only a matter of time before a whole lot of other people will be on board as well. And what they are boarding is unapologetic capitalism blasting against a world slipping into socialism. This is the most important election of our lives, and if I were still in the 7th grade, I’d be supporting Trump just as I did Reagan. And that youthful ambition would not be derived from naiveté. It would come from scientific plausibility and deductive reasoning. It’s a numbers game, and Republicans have been too weak in the past to appeal to people like Lynnette and Rochelle. And we’ve lost them to the Democrats and along with them, a hunger by them for the opportunities of capitalism.
The 1980s weren’t perfect. But they were a whole lot better than what has happened since and before. I should know, I experienced it first hand. I think that explosive enthusiasm could in fact be much greater than what we saw in the 80s. For me in the next election it’s not the border, the Iran deal, ISIS, or Planned Parenthood, it’s the $18 trillion dollars in debt that is facing the United States. I think only someone with the ego of Donald Trump has the fortitude to take that on with the gusto it will take to pull off the task. And solving that problem gives me hope that wasn’t there before he announced himself for President of the United States. In that hope I share in common a lot with Lynnette and Rochelle. It is in the purity of their passion that I found myself laughing as sweat poured off my face in the early morning sun and motorists looked at me wondering why I was laughing so hard. It wasn’t them that was funny, it was that they unlocked within me the enthusiasm I have been yearning for in America really since the 1980s to come again, and it has in the wake of Donald Trump.
Even I am amazed at the political left’s extreme denial of the evils of Planned Parenthood. When I heard the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest deny watching the released videos from the Center for Medical Progress, I knew without question that we were not only dealing with a corrupt administration, but a vile, and evil political party. And that evil deserves a level of ruthlessness indicative of war. There is no way that Earnest—who is in the business of knowing everything related to the media did not see clips from the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. His desire to lie openly is a strategy commonly used within Obama’s administration, and the Clinton connections over the years, which were formulated around the basic concepts of progressivism. Those basic thoughts about the world were formulated by some founding members of the progressive view of the world of which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger personally shaped. To progressives and the feminist outlook, Margaret Sanger is a hero. To people like me she is a vile villain that has destroyed human integrity and is steering humanity over a cliff of despair. To understand the extent of that evil read an article by The Blaze shown below interviewing David Daleiden, the project leader behind the Planned Parenthood videos. Then read the 13 things you probably didn’t know about Margaret Sanger—then you’ll understand what the typical progressive stands for and measure to what extent you’ll choose to listen to them in the future. At the end of the article is a brief history of Sanger who Hillary Clinton has described as her personal hero.
The head of the group responsible for releasing a recent series of videos which purport to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of aborted fetus parts discussed the most difficult parts of the investigation Tuesday.
Speaking to TheBlaze’s Dana Loesch, David Daleiden spoke after the Center for Medical Progress released its fifth undercover video earlier in the day.
“I would say definitely the hardest moment, the hardest moments were reviewing the footage of the body parts of the unborn children themselves. Especially the second trimester case that you see in the video released today,” Daleiden said on “Dana.”
“That was absolutely brutal. It is absolutely brutal,” he continued. “It’s truly a little slice of hell. That place, that was easily the hardest part of this entire investigation.”
13 Things You Probably Don’t Know About Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger
Planned Parenthood, engulfed in a scandal following the release of two undercover videos, is the largest abortion provider in the United States.
On its website, the organization compliments Margaret Sanger as one of the pro-choice movement’s “great heroes.” Sanger started the American Birth Control League in 1921; it became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.
Planned Parenthood praises Sanger for “providing contraception and other health services” and “advancing access to family planning in the United States and around the world.”
In addition to Planned Parenthood, Sanger also founded the Birth Control Review, a journal about contraception and population control.
Here are 13 things Sanger said during her lifetime.
1) She proposed allowing Congress to solve “population problems” by appointing a “Parliament of Population.”
“Directors representing the various branches of science [in the Parliament would] … direct and control the population through birth rates and immigration, and direct its distribution over the country according to national needs consistent with taste, fitness and interest of the individuals.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
2) Sanger called the various methods of population control, including abortion, “defending the unborn against their own disabilities.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
3) Sanger believed that the United States should “keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, Insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
4) Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
5) People whom Sanger considered unfit, she wrote, should be sent to “farm lands and homesteads” where “they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives.” —“A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, pages 107-108
“The results desired are obviously selective births,” she wrote.
According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
7) While advocating for the American Baby Code, she argued that marriage licenses should provide couples with the right to only “a common household” but not parenthood. In fact, couples should have to obtain a permit to become parents:
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman’s part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
“All that sounds highly revolutionary, and it might be impossible to put the scheme into practice,” Sanger wrote.
She added: “What is social planning without a quota?” —“America Needs a Code for Babies,” March 27, 1934, Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress, 128:0312B
8) She believed that large families were detrimental to society.
“The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children,” she wrote.
9) She argued that motherhood must be “efficient.”
“Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 18:The Goal
10) Population control, she wrote, would bring about the “materials of a new race.”
“If we are to develop in America a new race with a racial soul, we must keep the birth rate within the scope of our ability to understand as well as to educate. We must not encourage reproduction beyond our capacity to assimilate our numbers so as to make the coming generation into such physically fit, mentally capable, socially alert individuals as are the ideal of a democracy,” Sanger wrote. —“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 3:The Materials of the New Race
11) Sanger wrote that an excess in population must be reduced.
“War, famine, poverty and oppression of the workers will continue while woman makes life cheap,” she wrote.
12) “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” Sanger wrote. —Letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble on Dec., 10, 1939
13) In an interview with Mike Wallace in 1957, Sanger said, “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically.”
“Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit,” she said.
Margaret Higgins Sanger (born Margaret Louise Higgins, September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term “birth control”, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Sanger used her writings and speeches primarily to promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US. Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion. Though she has been criticized for supporting negative eugenics she remains a recognizable figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]
In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[3]
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.
In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[18][note 2][19] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22][23] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[24]
Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[25][26][27]
This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.
Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[9]
On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[28] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[29] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[30] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[31] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[32] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[33] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[34] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[34] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[35] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[36]
Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[37] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[38]
While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[76] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[77] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[78] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[79] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[78]
However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[80][81] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[82] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[83] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[84] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[85] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[85]
One of the reasons Barack Obama has such a problem with his open support of gay rights and Islamic radicalism when it would appear that the two factions are completely opposed to one another only joined together by the sympathies of a sitting American president, is because both subjects share a deep love of collective salvation at the core of their social value system. Islamic radicals have such extreme views of women, religion, and money that they actually kill known gays in their culture without any remorse. Obama as a champion for gay rights should condemn those Islamic extremists, but he can’t because he shares with the radical Muslim and the gay, a love of collective salvation of which communism and socialism are natural offshoots.
Collective salvation is where individual rights are superseded by the rights of a collective whole, where majority rules even if that majority is made up of complete idiots. It doesn’t matter to a collective based culture because their value salvation comes from collective acceptance. Those types of societies are what America has always stood against, because of their very nature. And the roots of that evil from the perspective of American value was never more evident than in the brutal killing of a beautiful young woman named Du’a Khalil Aswad. This story is a few years old, and newer examples could be found as early as just a few minutes ago somewhere in the world. But this poor woman has always broken my heart. I want so desperately to help her, because what happened to her was absolutely abhorrent. Following is a bit of the story as it was reported to the world along with a link to the source material.
The killing of Du’a Khalil Aswad is shown in the included videos. Up to 1000 men from the Yezidi Kurdish community of Mosul killed a teenager who’s only crime was running away to marry a Muslim man whom she loved and for possibly converting to his religion. For four months the girl had been given shelter by a local Muslim Sheik. It was reported that in the last few days her family persuaded her to return home, convincing her that she had been forgiven by her parents and relatives for her mistake. In a short mobile video clip which appears to have been taken by locals, the girl is seen being ambushed on her way home by a group of up to 1000 men who were waiting for her to return; the men killed her in the most brutal way possible, by throwing large stones on her head. The following clips show that while she is alive and crying for help she is taunted and kicked in her stomach until someone finishes her off by throwing a large stone on her face.
In spite of the brutality of that episode and obvious evil of killing the girl, the vilest aspect of it was that the community of 1000 men with the obvious endorsement of her family felt they had the right to destroy her life to protect the collective will of her village. That is the reason there were only a few arrests, that went nowhere, because the entire society was in on the killing—with either their stones, or their silence. It is because of this dangerous brand of collectivism that America has the Second Amendment, and is the reason that there are more guns than people in the freest country on earth.
If young Du’a Khalil Aswad had been carrying a gun, those maniacs would not have been able to harm her. There would not have been an ambush in the streets and her young lover might have had a recourse to assist her. But the culture that killed the young woman is a barbaric one, not just in their 12th century belief in religion and economics, but in their commitment to social collectivism, a trait that the Troubadours long ago abandoned, for the betterment of the human race.
A woman should have a right to marry whom she wants, to build a family along the lines of her desires and to raise off-spring under that independent philosophy. And if anyone stands in her way, they should be destroyed—because nobody should. No woman should have to endure what Du’a Khalil Aswad did. There is nothing she could have done that was worth that kind of insult and horrendous death.
So dear reader, you think about that when you hear Obama preach about equality, or hear some left winged loon speak against the Second Amendment. Even though American liberals think we should accept people who prefer anal intercourse over a vagina, they also think we should take a few notes out of the pages of the loons in the Middle East, people who think they have a right to kill poor young women for doing nothing but falling in love with a man outside of their social circle. I personally have NO tolerance for that kind of thing, and I am more committed than ever to helping poor people suffering under collectivism such as young Du’a Khalil Aswad was. Social collectivism may be the preferred choice of the modern academic, but they are all wrong, and dreadfully out-of-step with the direction of humanity. It was the Troubadours who put a stake in that European practice changing forever the direction of the human race. The rest of the world hasn’t yet caught up, but those who escaped from that life after centuries of trying settled America. And that fight will not die, let me tell you that. There are a lot of Du’a Khalil Aswads out there; they die every day just as she did. And they shouldn’t. They need our help, not our silence.
The Overmanwarrior 