Saturday, June 27, 2015

Blogging Update — On Hiatus, Until?

Getting away from the discouraging news we’ve faced the last few days, I hope your summer is going well.

It is hard to believe that June is almost over, as well as half the year. Now is the time when things start slowing down, as I’ve noticed in the nine and a half years I’ve been blogging here.

With that in mind, I’ve decided that (with the exception of of anything of interest I wish to comment on or report) I’m going to take a hiatus from blogging the rest of the summer

I’ve been here typing away since January of 2006, when I was living in Marin County, CA. Since that time, I moved across the country a year later to the Washington DC area, and got to see and take part in a lot of things, as well as meet people, I probably wouldn’t have unless I’d started my little corner in the blogosphere.

But times change. Back when I started, there were a lot of smaller blogs who rose to prominence because they had interesting stories, found a niche, and had their stuff mentioned that they had an endurance. Today, independent blogs aren’t really what they once were. Many have decided to get out of the game, or perhaps become a contributor to an online news source. Yet in all those years, I wanted to continue my independence, plus the fact that I have a full-time day gig that doesn’t involve politics, kept me from doing this full-time. It was still a goal.

Regardless of whether or not you’re an independent blogger or get to a point where you do it professionally, it has to be fun. That’s the key. Unfortunately, I’ve gotten to a point where blogging just hasn’t been fun.

Some of it started after the November 2012 Presidential election, and continued with the 2013 kneecapping of the GOP Virginia ticket by the GOP establishment, and the full-scale surrender of the GOP leadership in Congress, who have now become the biggest enablers of Richard Milhous-Hussein Obama’s transformation of America (funding unconstitutional amnesty, Obamacare, giving him trade power). It is one thing to be outraged at what Obama is and has been doing. But having the so called “opposition party” enable it has been equally outraged, to the point where I’m “outraged out.”

But my discontent isn’t just political, it’s mostly personal as well. Back in March of 2014, in a post about my father’s miraculous recovery from an aortic aneurysm, I wrote the following:
Those closest to me know that this past year has been one of the most difficult in my life, probably since the struggles I faced when I first left home about this time 22 years ago to enter the "real world." In the last few months, I've undergone personal loss and heartbreak that has forced a great deal of self-examination.
I’m now ready to reveal to you, my friends, the personal crisis I’ve been going through. In the fall of 2013, a mutual decision was made by my wife and I to separate. We are planning to formally file for divorce this summer. Though it has been an amicable process (we are probably greater friends now and dedicated to being good co-parents to our son) for which we are both grateful, it has been one of loss, sadness and heartbreak, sometimes I've been too brave or too proud to show my hurt. Unless you’ve gone through it yourself, you cannot comprehend the heartbreak, and even sense of failure you feel, at the ending of a marriage.

As I mentioned also back in March 2014, all of these trials have brought me back to a right relationship with God. But just because of that, I’m by no means perfect, or “better than” anyone.  I’m just forgiven, even though I stumble every day, sometimes many times and of my own choice.

I know more than ever I am a fallen, broken creature, just as the rest of the world. Though I’m still passionate about conservatism and those ideals that I believe have and will work, I think (as referenced after the Charleston shooting) all of our problems we face today are not of a political nature, and no political solution will fix.

It is a heart problem. I’m at the point where I believe our only hope as a nation won’t be found in any human, it will only be found in a spiritual solution.

With that in mind, I’m going to use this hiatus for rest, recovery, and also prayer for guidance…not only for my own life, but the direction of my future writing projects.

But I won’t be gone completely. Feel free to e-mail (maroonedinmarin-at-yahoo), contact me on my Facebook page, or follow me on Twitter. I’ll be showing up there, so please keep in touch!

And have a great rest of the summer!

A Central Texas sunset -- March 2015

The Same Obama Who Claimed POTUS "Works For Everybody, Not Some" Uses The People's House To Flip Off Same Sex Marriage Opponents

Flashback to September 2012, on the David Letterman show, when Richard Milhous-Hussein Obama made an appearance to chide Mittens Romney, the worst GOP Presidential candidate ever, over his "47 percent" comment.

"I don't know what he was referring to but I can tell you this. When I won in 2008, 47% of the American people voted for John McCain, they didn't vote for me. And what I said on election night was, 'Even though you didn't vote for me, I hear your voices and I'm going to work as hard as I can to be your president.' And one of the things that I've learned as president is you represent the entire country. And when I meet Republicans, as I'm traveling around the country, they are hard-working family people who care deeply about this country. And my expectation is if you want to be president, then you've got to work for everybody not just for some."

That was then. Last night, Obama used the White House, the property of the American people, to show just who he stands with, besides the Muslims.

So to those of us who disagree with same sex marraige, and/or the way it was foisted onto the American people, here's what Obama is using the people's house to tell us.

Utter disrespect. And just because he has the title of the President doesn't mean I have to show respect to someone who I believe is the embodiment of all that is evil in America.

Oh, and one more thing, it's OUR house, not your house, you narcissistic SOB!

Friday, June 26, 2015

While Legalized Gay Marriage Is Being Celebrated...

All Americans--regardless of race gender, ethnicity, even sexual orientation--lost this morning one of the most fundamental rights of our republic, one that Americans throughout the ages have fought and even given their lives in defending.

The right, guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, to having a say (otherwise defined as a vote) in making state laws via the state constitutional amendment process.

Time and time again, a state constitutional amendment process in which propositions are voted upon, has the voice of the people silenced by oligarchs in black robes when the vote doesn't go down the way the liberals want it to go. In doing so, these unelected judges make law from the bench.

It happened again today, as the US Supreme Court decided to overrule the votes of millions of Americans who were opposed to the concept of marriage being anything other than the union of one man and one woman, regardless of the fact that the concept of marriage is not a right that was established by any government, let alone the United States. It is a religious ceremony that existed thousands of years before the founding of this nation. Thus, the five liberal justices of the Supreme Court, have made a right that did not exist in the Constitution, arrogantly thinking their thought process is higher than the laws of nature and nature's God.

And all you liberals, who have not gotten over Bush vs. Gore, and too busy screaming about people being denied the right to vote, you're silent today because your in the streets celebrating and shaking your fist at the heavens, thinking your "religion" of liberalism now trumps any other belief system. You hypocrites!  You just denied the right of millions of Americans to decide state law via the ballot initiatives.  You show today you only care about voting rights only when you need more time to manufacture enough votes to put your candidates into office.

Just like abortion laws, "same-sex" marriage laws should have been left to the states to decide.  Even then, there are more complicated matters to decide, such as the rights of religious liberties issues.

Liberals and same-sex marriage supporters on the right/libertarian side, use the "equality" argument. "You can't tell someone who they can and can't love." Unfortunately, I don't think that's the case. It is the emotional argument made to sugar coat and hide the true aims of the "same-sex" marriage crowd.

Why do I say that? Listen to "America's Pastor," the Rev. Billy Graham, starting at 2:09 in this clip from a 1978 crusade in Toronto, Canada.

"If the home goes, the nation is going to go."

Now, keep in mind the words of Rev. Graham as you watch Glenn Beck from 2013 reference a speech by LGBT activist Masha Gessen, who stated that the fight over so-called "gay marriage" is a 'lie' to meant to destroy the concept of marriage.

And consider this, like South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley found out when she decided (mistakenly, I might add) to get rid of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state grounds, if you give the cultural Marxists on the Left an inch, they'll take a mile. They'll never be satisfied, which is why you cannot negotiate with the Left.

Justice Alito realized the implications of this thinking in his dissent (Legal Insurrection).
Today’s decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage. The decision will also have other important consequences.
It will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy. In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.
Perhaps recognizing how its reasoning may be used, the majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
If you want more of an example of what Alito is warning about, see what happened up north when Canada made same-sex marriage legal, and how Biblical passages against homosexuality have been ruled "hate speech." 

Destruction of the family is one of the tenants of Marxism. It's not just economic, look at all the other assaults on the family up to now that have weakened it...abortion-on-demand, radical feminism, and now "gay marriage."  Not just the family, it is also religious liberty at stake. Marxists have been threatened by religion, because no power can be higher than the state.

Also, one of the consequences of today's decision is, once you go down the slippery slope of redefining marriage for one group, you have to do it for other groups (Politico).
The question presents itself: Where does the next advance come? The answer is going to make nearly everyone uncomfortable: Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.
This is not an abstract issue. In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” As is often the case with critics of polygamy, he neglects to mention why this is a fate to be feared. Polygamy today stands as a taboo just as strong as same-sex marriage was several decades ago—it’s effectively only discussed as outdated jokes about Utah and Mormons, who banned the practice over 120 years ago.
Yet the moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.
... Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
So while homosexuals feel a right has been given to them, the rights of all Americans are threatened because of this judicial activism yesterday and today.

And the nation is much weaker and less free because of it.

Thursday, June 18, 2015

What Is Wrong In America Today?

Last night, an unspeakable tragedy in a Charleston, South Carolina church. Nine murdered in cold blood by a soulless creature.

Instead of unifying with the victims and their families, the usual suspects come out to push their agendas: blaming whites, conservatives, gun owners for this horror. Instead of unifying and representing the whole nation, Richard Milhous Obama comes out, like a buzzard, preying on this tragedy to disarm law-abiding citizens, while attacking opponents of gun control and this nation in the process. He claims no where else in the civilized world is this type of killing happening, yet he could not be bothered to send a US representative to France when Islamists murdered employees at Charlie Hebdo, and Obama is silent about the beheadings, crucifixions, and mass killings of Christians in the Middle East by Islamists.

Violent criminals get killed by police and become martyrs, which leads to police officers being killed in ambush attacks. Riots in Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD. Calls of "police brutality" at pool parties in McKinney, TX and another town recently in Ohio.

What is wrong in America today?

This is just my opinion, and it's come from a lot of thought over the last few months, and even last few weeks.  Obama, the libs, and the gun-grabbers can get all the gun control laws they want, and it won't stop horrible tragedies like Charleston or Sandy Hook.  Just like all the regulations and other nonsense he will do to try and stop the fraud known as gloBULL warming won't cool the planet. It is the supreme arrogance, thinking that their human power is the be-all and end-all.

Background checks, gun-free zones, gun locks won't stop what is in the human heart. You can try and change behavior, but no law, no act of Congress, no President, no political party, can change someone's heart.

It's evident to me that the solution to what is wrong in our country is not completely a political one. The problem we have in America today, I believe, is a spiritual and moral bankruptcy. It is one that didn't start overnight, and won't go away overnight either.

I'm not trying to sound like a preacher, and I'm not trying to tell someone how to live their life, because God knows I have enough trouble living my own. But how many people over the age of 50 will tell us how much this nation has changed over the last few decades, starting to when governments and the courts started telling God he must get out of the public square.

Humans are imperfect, and never will attain perfection. We are all broken people, and we are looking for something to fix that brokenness. People are looking for meaning, for something to take away the emptiness. People are obsessed with money, their stature, pop-culture icons. Thanksgiving cannot go by without people camping out at stores to go on rampages for Black Friday sales, going at each other like animals over some gadget or inanimate object, just for a temporary fix. People are doped up on anti-depressants, or take a number of drugs (legal or illegal) and alcohol, only to get rid of the emptiness and try to find all the wrong things.

There is no political solution to the heart of what ails our nation today. In fact, I think the solution to our problems can largely be found in what the nine people were doing in that church.

They were on their knees, earnestly seeking God.

(2 Chronicles 7:14)

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Neil Peart Proves He Is An Ignorant Sellout, Bashes Rand Paul--"Hates Women, Brown People"

Anyone who knew me as far back as 1984 knew I was a fanatical fan of the band Rush.

They were my first concert, back at the (now demolished) Hemisfair Arena in San Antonio in 1986. I even received a handwritten postcard from drummer and lyricist Neil Peart right before the show in response to a fan letter I sent him. They were great musicians, and what really grabbed my attention besides the musicianship were lyrics like those found in "Subdivisions," "Anthem," "2112," many of which were influenced by Ayn Rand. These lyrics spoke of individuality, non-conformity, and being a free thinker.

Peart told Creem magazine in 1981, around the time they hit their big success album "Moving Pictures."
"I think everything I do has Howard Roark [the non-conformist, protagonist of Rand's The Fountainhead] in it, you know, as much as anything. The person I write for is Howard Roark."
However, Peart and Rush appear to be writing more these days for another character of The Fountainhead, Peter Keating, the polar opposite of Roark, in that Keating was a conformist who craved the approval of his superiors. He's even come a long way from someone who once said "It is a fundemental tenant of my personal philosophy that people should believe what they choose to believe." That Neil Peart and Rush are dead.

Why? The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Rolling Stone(d) magazine, beckoned. I remember several RS writers saying they'd refuse to nominate Rush into the Hall of Fame, because of their lyrical content (music "writers" in the late 1970s called them "fascist"). Even though they claimed they didn't want the Hall of Fame, Rush's sellout began.

In 2007, Rush released "Snakes and Arrows," (first album of theirs I never bought) an album that was full of faith bashing lyrics by the athiest/agnostic Peart, influenced in part by the hater known as Richard Dawkins. Then came the Stephen Cobert show appearance, and the sellout to the Left-wing pop-culture gods began. The band then attacked Rush Limbaugh in 2012 (for which I announced here they had lost me as a fan).

This week, they completed their sellout to the Left-wing, gods of pop-culture, just for the thrill that will getcha when you get your picture on the cover of the Rolling Stone(d), with the supposed intellectual Peart displaying his colossal ignorance by slandering Senator and GOP Presidential Candidate Rand Paul as someone who "hates women and brown people" (Reason).

So I imagine that some fans may be distressed to learn that, according to this excellent new Rolling Stone profile of the band, Peart's self-described "bleeding-heart libertarian" tendencies include automatically voting Democrat, and sending cease-and-desist letters to an allegedly racist Rand Paul: 
Rush's earlier musical take on Rand, 1975's unimaginatively titled "Anthem," is more problematic [than 2112], railing against the kind of generosity that Peart now routinely practices: "Begging hands and bleeding hearts will/Only cry out for more." And "The Trees," an allegorical power ballad about maples dooming a forest by agitating for "equal rights" with lofty oaks, was strident enough to convince a young Rand Paul that he had finally found a right-wing rock band. 
Peart outgrew his Ayn Rand phase years ago, and now describes himself as a "bleeding-heart libertarian," citing his trips to Africa as transformative. He claims to stand by the message of "The Trees," but other than that, his bleeding-heart side seems dominant. Peart just became a U.S. citizen, and he is unlikely to vote for Rand Paul, or any Republican. Peart says that it's "very obvious" that Paul "hates women and brown people" — and Rush sent a cease-and-desist order to get Paul to stop quoting "The Trees" in his speeches. 
"For a person of my sensibility, you're only left with the Democratic party," says Peart, who also calls George W. Bush "an instrument of evil." "If you're a compassionate person at all. The whole health-care thing — denying mercy to suffering people? What? This is Christian?" 
Thus proving once again that politics and music are like bourbon and vodka—generally a bad idea to mix, especially on those rare occasions when they seem to taste great together. 
First of all, why do I need a lecture from a professed non-believer about how to be a Christian, if Peart mistakenly thinks Christianity is about generosity and compassion. Second of all, consider the fact that Peart just insulted and publicly attacked a fan by the name of Rand Paul, who I'm sure had supported him and the band for many years. What a classless jerk! He acts like a lot of atheists/agnostics whom I've had the misfortune to come across--angry and bitter people.

And as far as Rand Paul supposedly hating women and "brown people" (gee Neil, are you a bigot?) let me introduce you to an online friend by the name of Zuri Davis writing at
In a recent interview with The Rolling Stone, Rush’s Neil Peart said Rand Paul “hates women and brown people.” Peart, a self-described “bleeding heart libertarian,” also said “For a person of my sensibility, you’re only left with the Democratic party.”
As a woman who is brown, a few thoughts.
I typically run in conservative and libertarian circles, where Peart apparently believes sexism and racism is abound. Though I am still waiting for someone to tell me to get back in the kitchen or go pick some cotton, I have heard much worse, scarier things within these groups.
Dark tales of “equality under the law.” Folklore regarding something called a “free market.” The mysterious promotion of “economic prosperity.” Advancing something sinister called “liberty.” Protecting a mythical creature called “the Constitution.”
These ideas and values helped create a level of happiness without parallel in history—they all contributed to the American Dream.
The American Dream is not a dog, a house, and a white picket fence. Rather, it is the uninhibited opportunity to obtain such wealth and happiness. Though this does not mean we will all be millionaires, it means we all have an opportunity to prosper.
Sen. Paul the supposed bigot and misogynist took up for Ms. Davis after she was attacked on Facebook for voicing her support for him (The Blaze).
“Last night a Facebook notification showed up on my screen. A friend had posted a picture to my wall. What I saw disgusted me.”
That’s how Zuri Davis, 19, describes the moment she saw a Facebook post targeting her for being a black, female supporter of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
A FEMALE AFRICAN AMERICAN who is standing with Rand,” the post said. “She must not realize the platform. The fact he’s pretty much regarded as racist, sexist, a**hole along with the rest of his party.”
“Honey, honey, honey,” it added.
There is your bigotry and hatred of women, Neil! From one of your fellow liberal Democrats who attacked a black woman for daring to be an individual and not part of a collective. You wrote about that once, didn't you, in "Subdivisions"?

But I guess "glittering prizes and endless compromises," as well as living in the socialist hell-hole of Santa Monica, will shatter one's integrity.

Saturday, May 16, 2015

B.B. King Passes On, An American Icon and Influence To Many Musicians

Those of us who love music, especially blues music, woke up to sad news yesterday morning, as Riley B. (B.B. King) passed away Thursday night in Las Vegas, NV. He was 89.

Name just about any modern guitarist today, and they'll probably tell you how B.B. King influenced them, like Eric Clapton, who called King "a beacon for all of us."

Clapton's comments were echoed by my friend Jimmie Vaughan, another great blues guitarist who (along with his brother, the late Stevie Ray Vaughan) was influenced by King. Vaughan appeared on (excuse the source) Alex Jones' radio show to talk purely about King and his influence.

Among my generation, many came to know of B.B. King by his appearance with U2, "When Love Comes To Town." Don't get me wrong, I've always liked the song, but what really got me into B.B. King was what Clapton in his video, as well as SRV and others had referenced in print interviews, the live album "Live at the Regal." When I was living in Austin, TX in the early to mid-1990s, I heard the version of "Sweet Little Angel" on the hip radio station KGSR 107.7. Being a semi-pro blues guitarist at that time (I still play today), I said "I have to get this CD."

I'd recommend this, as well as "Live At Cook County Jail," and "Live at San Quentin" as other great CD's for one to really get hooked on the man and his music.

Not long after, in September 1995, I saw B.B. King in concert for the first time at the Frank Erwin Center in Austin. He was on the bill with Etta James (who cancelled due to illness days before), Elvin Bishop, Jimmie Vaughan and the Magic Dick/J. Geils Bluestime review. This show took place just as King turned 70. From my recollection, he stood for half the show and sat for the last half, in which he brought Vaughan out to play some and reminisce about Stevie Ray.  I was blown away by his voice, his guitar tone, and just his big-heartedness. He was genuine, the real-deal.

After the show, those of us who were sitting near the stage had the opportunity to come up and see if we could catch pins of his guitar "Lucille" being thrown into the area. I was near the stage but was unable to get a pin, as he ran out. However, since he was standing in front of me, I stuck my hand up, he reached down and shook hands with me. To say I was awestruck was an understatement. It was one of the rare times I got to have contact with a musical hero and influence.

Rest in Peace B.B.! You won't be forgotten.

No Time For Second Guessing: It Was Still Right To Liberate Iraq

The Democrat Media Complex is still arguing about the Iraq War some 12 years after the 2003 invasion, so much so that their big question for the 2016 GOP Presidential Field is this:
Knowing what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq?
Rand Paul was opposed to the invasion, but others (Ted Cruz, Scott Walker) have said they wouldn't. Jeb Bush tripped all over himself before saying he would not have.

Problem is, they had no business answering that question, because if you're going to rely on second guesses or Monday morning quarterbacking to make decisions, you probably should not be running for President. Leadership involves making tough decisions you do have, not by wishing you had a crystal ball or a time machine to look into the future.

With that said, if I were running for President, I would say that it still was the right thing to do. That does not mean mistakes were made and that perhaps "nation building" is not a good policy to have.

Consider the fact we had just undergone the 9/11 attacks. For the previous 10 years, Saddam Hussein had a record of hostility toward the US, our allies, and his neighbors. He had not been forthcoming with weapons inspectors and was suspected for years of reactiving his WMD programs.

This wasn't something George W. Bush just dreamed up, here's Bill Clinton souldning Dubya'esque back in February 1998. Regime change in Iraq was our government's policy as of 1998.

Hussein was suspected of harboring terrorists based on past actions. ABC News (not Fox News) back in 1999 even theorized Osama bin Laden was being courted by Saddam Hussein.

And, after the invasion happened, there were WMD's found, but thanks to Karl Rove, this evidence was not used to put down the liberal Democrat partisans who wanted to lose a war for the sole purpose of humiliting then-President Bush because of their lingering resentment over the outcome of Election 2000.

What the Iraq war also did, was bring out these al-Queda, Islamofascist fighters from the mountains of Afghanistan into an area where they could not hide. The Bush doctrine of going after rogue states also put the fear of God into Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, who gave up his WMD programs voluntarily because of our action in Iraq and neutralized him as a future threat.

Were mistakes made? Yes, in any war, mistakes are made. We changed course in 2007 with the Petraeus surge and it worked. The problem was, the peace was lost by Obama and Clinton, who couldn't wait to get the US out, and thus created the vaccum filled by the "JV team" known as ISIS.

But will any of these "journalists" (I use that term loosely) ask Hillary Rotten Clinton about her vote authorizing force in Iraq in 2002?

Even still, will they ask Hillary if she stands by her and Obama's decision to remove Qaddafi in Libya?

That humorous Clintoon foreign policy moment led directly to the attack on Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and the place where ISIS savages have beheaded middle-eastern Christians.

So instead of relitigating the Iraq War, the GOP contenders need to focus on the foreign policy failures of the cun-and-run pajama boys who have been emboldening our enemies and made the US look like an unreliable ally in world affairs.

Saturday, May 09, 2015

#VEDay70th Double Feature: DC Mall Flyover Footage & "Col. Culpepper'sFlying Circus"

Yesterday was the 70th anniversary of VE Day, or Victory in Europe Day, when Nazi Germany formally surrendered unconditionally to the Allied Forces and ended World War II in Europe.  World War II would not end until September 1945, after the Japanese surrendered as a result of two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ended plans to invade Japan, an invasion that was estimated would have been more catastrophic in the loss of life on both sides.

For those who were on the Washington Mall yesterday at noon, a flyover of US aircraft from the World War II era flew over the restricted airspace of the US Capitol and World War II monument. I wasn't able to attend, but have footage below via YouTube.

Here's much longer footage, including ceremonies at the World War II Memorial.

Also, in honor of VE Day, I'm including this video docuemtary done by the BBC in 1981 entitled "Col. Culpepper's Flying Circus." It is about an organization then called the Confederate Air Force (now Commemorative Air Force). It was shot in the CAF's headquarters in October 1980, during their annual Airsho.

Appearing in the video are World War II aviators Paul Tibbets (who flew the Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima), Tennessee Ernie Ford, and German WWII ace Adolph Galland. What is most significant that you will see during the video is the concern the "Colonels" of the CAF had in 1980 about the state of the world and the lack-of-preparedness of the United States military at that time, during the height of the Cold War, as well as the Iran Hostage Crisis and the fecklessness of the Carter Regime in defending the US, similar to what happened in the years leading up to World War II.

You also see some of the reenactments of World War II air battles, such as the Pearl Harbor attack, done by the CAF during the Airsho.

Growing up in Harlingen, TX, I was privileged to have attended the Airsho filmed above in 1980, as well as every one from 1978 (when I was nine years old) to their last one in 1991 before relocating their headquarters to Midland, TX.  Needless to say, going to these airshows really shaped how I view the world and my political leanings, because what the CAF gave me was a sense of patriotism, love for country, appreciation for our military, and a history lesson I never learned in school, and what most people today are unaware of. I'm sure your average 20 year old thinks Jimmy Doolittle is the proper name of Dr. Dootlittle, and the Ploesti Raid is something that happens on a girl's dormitory at the local college.  I'm sure if most of the founders of the CAF were alive today, they'd be even more shocked at the state of the world in 2015, as they were in 1980.

Though I missed the flyover yesterday, I did go out today to the Manassas, VA Regional Airport and see several of the CAF airplanes which participated in the flyover, including the B-24 Liberator "Diamond Lil"

the P-51 Mustang "Gunfighter"

and the "Queen" of the CAF fleet, the B-29 Superfortress "Fifi"

Last weekend, their B-17 Flying Fortress "Texas Raiders" was in Manassas, VA as well. I had the honor of flying on Texas Raiders back in 1990, and it was the most interesting airplane ride. You got a sense of what it was like to take off with the windows open, and the plane shaking getting off the runway.

Enjoy the videos and the photos, and remember what was done 70 years ago so we might live in freedom today. Don't let the lessons of yesterday be lost on today's generation.

To those who fought 70 years ago and defeated Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, our nation owes you a debt of gratitude. I hope that we may soon wake up as a nation, and get the courage to take on the threats to our freedom with the same sense of purpose and moral clarity as you did.

And to the founders of the CAF, who have been deceased a number of years, thank you for the lessons you taught those of us in the Rio Grande Valley. If it hadn't been for y'all having this living history lesson and patriotic mission, I probably would have grown up to have been a bed-wetting, Obamabot who thought socialism was a pretty cool idea.

Friday, May 08, 2015

Fairfax County School Board Forces Transgender Protection Despite Widespread Opposition

Despite a loud opposition to the policy, the Fairfax County Virginia School Board decided to force a non-discrimination policy against transgender teachers and students, thus redefining the term "representative government" to "non-representative government."

Only one school board member, Elizabeth Schultz, bravely voted against this policy, despite the fact that there is no policy written or verbage being voted on. Instead, a "consultant" will be hired by the district. Clearly, all the liberals who voted for this have a future in Congress under Nancy Pelosi's "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" as their party leader.

Even worse was the stealth manner in which the district wanted to change the policy, in an effort to do it under the radar.

Fox News' Todd Starnes has more background:
The Fairfax County Public Schools School Board voted Thursday night to add "gender identity" to its nondiscrimination policy in spite of massive opposition from parents and the area’s religious community.
Police were summoned to control a standing-room-only crowd as board members approved the controversial measure.
...A plan to add “gender identity” to a Virginia school’s nondiscrimination policy has enraged parents and preachers, but leaders of the nation’s tenth largest school district say unless they make the change, the U.S. Department of Education could withdraw federal funding.
Critics warn the Fairfax County Public School policy would allow boys who identify as girls to use the locker rooms and bathrooms of their choice – as well as participate on athletic teams of their choosing.
Martin Baker, the pastor of Burke Community Church, warned that “the damage and destruction to our children, teens and impacted adults will be incalculable.”
“Everything from locker rooms to bathrooms will be potentially open for people who simply feel that their inner sexuality does not match their outer, physical sexuality,” he wrote in an email to the 3,000-member congregation.
“This is not just shocking, it is morally and spiritually abhorrent, and that is why I am convinced this is one cultural issue where we, as a church, must speak up and out with clarity, compassion and conviction,” he added.
But the deputy superintendent of Fairfax County Public Schools said they have no choice but to provide specific protections for transgender students. A vote on the issue is expected Thursday night.
The Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education is requiring that school divisions revise their non-discrimination policies to include gender identity,” Deputy Superintendent Steven Lockard wrote in a memorandum to school board members.
He also said the federal government was requiring the district to hire a consultant to advise them on how school divisions should handle individual cases of transgender students.
“If FCPS refuses to amend its policy, OCR has the right to recommend the termination of federal funding to FCPS,” Lockard wrote.
That bombshell has infuriated parents and politicians – like school board member Elizabeth Schultz.
“While the underlying issue is somewhat sensational, it is the gravitas in overreach of the federal government and the implications thereof that is so very chilling,” she told me. “It could have implications for every public school district in the nation. If they’re going to come for us, they’re going to come to them next.”
Andrea Lafferty, the president of the Washington, D.C.-based Traditional Values Coalition, lives in Fairfax County. She’s launched a campaign to fight the proposed change.
“This is a beating into submission of the American people and the taxpayers by the Obama Administration and those willfully going along with it,” said Lafferty. “They are going to say if you don’t comply, we’re going to take away your lunch money – your federal funding.”
That is what is troubling. The fact that the Federal Government under Obama's radical Regime wants to dictate to local schools social policies and threaten funding. Especially since Fairfax County schools are more cash-strapped, after being forced to accept thousands of new students courtesy of Obama's open-border invasion during the past year.

On the subject of funding, I keep getting e-mails from the joke of a superintendent, Karen Garza, saying that the school district is facing a $100 million deficit. Well, if you're so cash-strapped, why then use our tax dollars to hire a consultant to craft another liberal social policy?

All I heard before moving here was how Fairfax County schools were some of the best in the nation. Obviously, that's going downhill, especially when the administration wants to lower standards (eliminating zeros) so they can pass more students and get more funding.

Why not concentrate on educating our children, instead of using them as guinea pigs for liberal social experiments? Unfortunately, when you have liberals in charge who set out to remake society in a way that only represents a small minority, this is what happens.