Latest posts

Re: Are you having fun or going crazy....

You're so right, if we had an happenings where you can check out replies that would be nice...

Police Department Disbanded After Councilwoman, Son Arrested : by Tad Cronn

Officially, the City Council of Wellston, Missouri, disbanded the town's entire police force without warning in order to cut expenses.
Police officers came to work earlier this week to find that all 23 of them had been fired, the locks on the police station had been changed, and they were required to turn in their guns and badges.
Many residents of the town blame one councilwoman and her ongoing efforts to protect her self-confessed drug-dealing son.
The Wellston council voted on Monday evening in a closed session to shut down the police department in a 5-2 vote. In the most amazing of coincidences, Councilwoman Janet Dixon had been arrested just that morning on suspicion of carrying a firearm with the serial numbers filed off.
The conflict between Dixon and the police department goes back to 2013 when police raided the home of her son Terrence Dixon, who had been recorded admitting that he dealt drugs out of his home.
Shortly thereafter, three of the officers involved in the raid, including the one who had caught Terrence Dixon on tape, were fired by the City Council. Those firings were eventually reversed.
Not long after that, police were called to a domestic disturbance in which Terrence Dixon was again arrested. Predictably, the officer who made the arrest was fired.
Wellston Police Chief G.T. Walker calls the disbanding of his department "dirty politics" and the result of a vendetta led by Janet Dixon after her arrest and the arrests of her son.                                                                                                        Councilwoman Linda Garner opposed the disbanding and told reporters she was angry that the vote seemed to be made in haste, without discussion and without opening it to the public. Garner was kicked out of a public meeting following the disbanding of the police. She has filed a sunshine law request to make the new contract with a neighboring police department public.
Police from the neighboring community of Vinita Park will be covering Wellston for the time being. Walker was offered a job in that police department but turned it down in support of his former officers. The other Wellston officers have been told they can apply at Vinita Park, but there is no word of how many job openings there may be.
It doesn't take much imagination to view the circumstances surrounding the Wellston controversy in light of the vilification of police that has taken place under President Obama.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/22858/police-department-disbanded-after-councilwoman-son-arrested/#hczCtLKjyruXiBlk.99

SCOTUS Opens Door for Home Invasions, Burglaries, Rape and Murder : by Dave Jolly

In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. A summary of that case is:    http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html
"Handgun possession is banned under District of Columbia (D) law. The law prohibits the registration of handguns and makes it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm. Furthermore all lawfully owned firearms must be kept unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock unless they are being used for lawful recreational activities or located in a place of business."
"Dick Heller (P) is a special police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller's application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on Second Amendment grounds. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the home."
"The District Court dismissed Heller's complaint. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and directed the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals construed Heller's complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it in his home only when necessary for self defense, and held that the total ban on handguns violated the individual right to possess firearms under the Second Amendment."
Heller was concerned for his safety at home because over the years his area had gone from a family friendly one to a drug and crime infested neighborhood. He sought the right to legally have a handgun operational and ready in his home at all times for his own protection. Keeping a gun unloaded with trigger lock or disassembled renders a gun useless for self-defense.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does provide an individual the right to own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the home. They also ruled that the DC ban on all handgun possession amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of arms and in lieu of the fact that handguns are the most favored means of armed self-defense in the home, the ban was unconstitutional. Additionally, the high court stated that the requirement of trigger locks and keeping the handgun disassembled violated the Second Amendment right of owning a gun for self-defense in the home.
However, on Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit challenging a San Francisco ordinance that requires all handguns be kept in a locked case or have a trigger lock in place. The only exception would be to allow anyone living in the home that is 18 years old or older to physically carry the gun on them while in the home.   http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-gun-rights-withering-away-094518101--politics.html

 http://godfatherpolitics.com/22974/scotus-opens-door-for-home-invasions-burglaries-rape-and-murder/#LGSEeuTYMW82Phuu.99

THE NEW PRUDES? In the Duggar Scandal, Leftists Re-Discover Sexual Purity and Self-Control : by Steve Pauwels

Chiropractors have gotta love the cultural Left – I mean, an attentive observer could suffer whiplash tracking the whipsawing, confused, self-contradictory tenets of modern, libertine Liberalism.

Consider the purple-faced reaction to the revelation that twenty-seven-year-old Josh Duggar (of TLC's 19 Kids and Counting) had inappropriately touched a number of young girls twelve years ago (his sisters and a babysitter among them). Demands were seething: the now-married father of three should have been jailed for his malefaction; his openly Christian family — all of them, mom and dad, throng of offspring, their spouses, grandchildren — should be drummed out of enlightened company and lose their reality TV program permanently; legal sanctions were even mentioned for the parents for what some observers consider an insufficient response to their son's early-2000s' actions.

Meanwhile, for decades society has been subjected to prurient progressives blowing out their cheeks and rolling their eyes at the mere suggestion of abstinence-based instruction for young people. "The kids," we're relentlessly, patronizingly tutored, " are not going to listen. No matter what we say or do, they're going to have sex!"

Take the the Daily Beast, which lately reported on a San Francisco "hero judge" who "rule[d] abstinence-only Sex Ed ... illegal". The same site exulted ("All Hail Scandanavia") over a female doctor who demonstrated sex techniques for a classroomful of adolescents.

Best option? Train the panting lads to strap on a condom at some point during each tryst. Turn the young women – as many as possible, as early as possible – into fervid devotees of modern birth control technology. Sandra Fluke, anyone?

Humans, they imperturbably lecture anyone within earshot, are really just animals; "naked apes", barely an evolutionary step above rutting canines. And kids? Especially TEENAGERS, for pity's sake? Gland-driven little beasties. Incapable of keeping it in their pants.

Pubescent hormones uber alles!

Give the Duggar's eldest man-child some credit for one thing — atrocious as was his misbehavior, reportedly no intercourse was involved — so no condom was needed at all! Doesn't he get some props for that from the "do-it-but-just-don't-contract-an-STD-or-get-anyone-preggers" set?

Admittedly, he didn't keep his hands to himself — but, according to the kids-are-gonna-be-randy fatalism predominating trendy Left-Think, did he actually have any choice? Remember, teenage boys in particular are going to be teenage boys, right? Or so we're unflaggingly informed.

On the other hand, if Josh Duggar's baying denouncers insist he should have been expected to "Just say 'No'" to those illegitimate, fourteen-year-old impulses in this one context, why is it assumed libidinal self-restraint can't reach much beyond that among his peers? So he's supposed to be ostentatiously scolded — his life practically ruined, in fact — for not curbing his youthful lusts in this notorious case? Why then oughtn't those exacting standards be expanded some to apply to all interaction between members of the opposite sex? If it's being required he — and other boys like him — govern themselves when it comes to respecting a little sister or not copping a feel on a clueless neighbor, why is it so inconceivable that sexuo-relational boundaries be pushed a bit so that tempered, gentlemanly conduct is demanded from them across the board?

In sum: the Lothario Left's attitude has been: Self-control for Josh Duggar? He** yeah! For the fumbling dork, however, in the backseat of Bob Seger's "60 Chevy" (see "Night Moves")? Or the frisky couple sneaking off for an alcohol-fueled, post-prom romp? Nothing much to be done to deter that. Those situations are inevitable. Where's the prophylactics?                            http://clashdaily.com/2015/06/the-new-prudes-in-the-duggar-scandal-leftists-re-discover-sexual-purity-and-self-control/

Re: HOW THE INTERNET STARTED

And shortly after all of this had transpired the young prince Mark of Zuckerberg, had an idea to put forth a  
social networking book, where one could post their faces for all to see, this became known as Facebook and enthralled millions.

Ultimate White House trolling: Obama to “diversify” wealthy neighborhoods

Over-reach?  You betcha.


 I remain hopeful that no matter how old you get you can continue to learn. It's with that in mind that I should begin this article by noting that a number of our regular readers have chided me in the past for being too optimistic when it comes to the lengths that the current administration might go in reformatting America's hard drive. I can think of several recent examples where I essentially dismissed the concerns of some of the commentariat, invoking a few different variations of, I'm not that concerned. They couldn't seriously get away with that.

Allow me to take this opportunity to apologize. I was obviously wrong. It would seem that when it comes to the Obama administration, there probably aren't any limits. I realized this when I saw an actual, Not The Onion article at The Hill describing a new initiative being unveiled by Barack Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development. They want to incentivise the "diversification" wealthier neighborhoods.

The Obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to help diversify America's wealthier neighborhoods, drawing fire from critics who decry the proposal as executive overreach in search of an "unrealistic utopia."

A final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rule due out this month is aimed at ending decades of deep-rooted segregation around the country.

The regulations would use grant money as an incentive for communities to build affordable housing in more affluent areas while also taking steps to upgrade poorer areas with better schools, parks, libraries, grocery stores and transportation routes as part of a gentrification of those communities.

"HUD is working with communities across the country to fulfill the promise of equal opportunity for all," a HUD spokeswoman said. "The proposed policy seeks to break down barriers to access to opportunity in communities supported by HUD funds."

It's a tough sell for some conservatives. Among them is Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), who argued that the administration "shouldn't be holding hostage grant monies aimed at community improvement based on its unrealistic utopian ideas of what every community should resemble."
Normally I would assume this was the script to a bad movie being cranked out in the run up to the next election. I mean... they can't be serious, right? But in fact they are. Now, to be clear, this doesn't sound like a "mandate" in the sense that the feds will be coming in with bulldozers and shovels, knocking down single family homes and piling up towers of "affordable housing" in the empty plots while the displaced homeowners look on from their Obama Relocation Camp rail cars. (Well... not yet, anyway.) But plenty of communities – even formerly prosperous ones – are facing hard financial times and the prospect of a nice payday from Uncle Sam can sway a lot of minds on local city councils.

Grabbing on to that apple may carry a price, though. How would it impact the local economies, particularly in the real estate market? Our colleague Leon Wolf at Red State has some thoughts to share.

I am all in favor of the diversification of America. However, that is not what this policy will achieve or is designed to achieve. This is designed flat out to punish rich people for being rich and the ultimate result of this program may very well be the decimation of the real estate sector of the market. The plan essentially has two parts – the first is to spend money on improving poor neighborhoods by adding schools, libraries, etc. The second, however, seeks to move "affordable" (i.e., lower quality) houses directly into affluent neighborhoods.

The first part of this plan is likely to largely be a waste of money (if history is any indicator) but is otherwise harmless. The second, however, will have devastating economic and social effects. It is no secret to anyone at this point that a large part of what drives real estate cost is the quality of surrounding property. Wedging lower cost housing into expensive neighborhoods will not result in more minorities living in expensive neighborhoods – it will instead result in there being no such thing as an expensive neighborhood anymore.
Leon focuses on the economic fallout and it's not a consequence to be dismissed. But on the cultural and political fronts there are other concerns to be addressed. The Eternal Race Card crowd will be quick to grab on to any objections raised to this scheme and begin the chant which says, you just don't want black folks moving into your tidy white gated communities, you racists! And to be completely fair, taking only a brief glance at the unrest going on on some of the larger cities these days, there's probably some concerns to be raised in terms of throwing gas on that particular fire. But the underlying reality is found in the difference between neighborhoods comprised of primarily single family homes and ones with predominantly rental properties. While it obviously doesn't apply to everyone on either side, rental areas tend to be less well maintained. When you don't own the property, you're less likely to invest a lot of your time and money in caring for it. (This is the same as the common lore about how often people put high test gas in a rental car.)

When a community begins to suffer economically and rental properties creep into the single family housing areas, the general appeal of the neighborhood goes down and the property values follow. Increasing concerns over rising crime rates are generally not far behind. This isn't some fictional theory out of a KKK handbook... I've watched it happen first hand myself. And it happens even in areas where the renters are primarily white or in more affluent minority communities as well. It's not race dependent. This is just economic reality.

If I might humbly offer a bit of advice to the White House, this is the wrong approach. Offering incentives to ship large numbers of people out of impoverished communities and into more prosperous ones doesn't change the people. It only changes the community. If you want to raise up the standard of living in areas afflicted with poverty, start with some leadership. Empower those working to effect positive change, emphasizing greater focus on the community, the churches and the family. Make the communities safer. Rather than tearing down the police, help law enforcement create an atmosphere where residents feel safe in investing in their homes and opening businesses without fear of being looted. Let them hire more people from the neighborhood. Help the parents feel that their kids are walking to school through a safe neighborhood, not a war zone. The best public empowerment program in the world is still a job. Push struggling communities up from the grass roots rather than shipping them out without addressing the underlying problems. This is likely a generational change and I don't expect Barack Obama to snap his fingers and make it happen overnight, but he could take the lead and start the process today.

As to this plan for "reverse gentrification" under discussion, is this something we should worry about? HUD cant really do this, can they? There was a time (as recently as... last week) when I would have dismissed such a possibility as the fever swamp dreams of the paranoid, as I noted at the top of this article. Well... it turns out I was wrong. Welcome to the fourth quarter of the Obama administration. There are no limits and this is the new reality. Not only could it happen, it probably will.

 http://hotair.com/archives/2015/06/12/ultimate-white-house-trolling-obama-to-diversify-wealthy-neighborhoods/

GAYSTAPO: New Versions of Fairy Tales Used to Teach Kiddies About Homosexuality : by Newsmachete

The gay agenda is in full force and your kids are one of the primary targets to normalize it in our culture.

Hulu is broadcasting a cartoon meant for children about a boy who rescues a prince and a princess but then chooses to marry the prince. Yes, the prince, the BEARDED GUY in the photo below. This effort to teach children not only the joys of gay marriage but also borderline pedophilia is simply reprehensible. It's especially obscene to start in on this topic with preschoolers.
Now imagine a creepy pedophile saying the following in a soft voice — "Kids deserve stories and fairytales that represent the whole spectrum of human love and experience" — and you've just experienced the HuffPo spin on the subject.
I don't expect it will be long before classic fairy tales will all be twisted to suit the homosexual agenda:
Sam White and the Seven Boy Scouts: Sam goes for an overnight camping trip with seven boy scouts and helps them earn a new kind of merit badge.
Cindarello: Cindarello is a young man who simply wants to wear women's clothing and go to the ball to meet the prince. His wish is granted when his fairy godfather appears.
Little Red Riding Crop: A little girl meets a wolfish dominatrix who teaches her that pain can also be pleasure.
InALad (formerly Aladdin): A young boy, eager for three wishes, rubs a lamp that turns out to be a body part of another man.http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/new_versions_of_fairy_tales_being_used_to_teach_toddlers_about_homosexuality.html#ixzz3cfKYdTt2

Re: HOW THE INTERNET STARTED

:)  Thank you for the history lesson.   

Re: What are you listening to right now?

Little Girls Tangle With the Man Over Lemonade Stand : by Tad Cronn

Hard work and entrepreneurial industriousness are the key to success in America.

Unfortunately, they're also the key to harassment by police and bureaucrats, and possibly a citation with a fine.

That's what two young ladies learned in Overton, Texas, when they thought to enter the competitive world of concession operations by selling generously sized cups of lemonade for 50 cents and bags of homemade kettle corn for $1.

The Green Girls Lemonade Stand, as their sign says, no doubt was a threat to local purveyors of fast food, soda pop and the like, so the law pounced in protection of its local chamber of commerce.

The Overton Police Department released a video showing a police officer pulling over near the stand and asking the young ladies to get their mother outside pronto.     http://www.kltv.com/Clip/11586369/police-video-shows-officer-questioning-about-lemonade-stand-permit   

Once mom showed up, the police interrogation began.

Officer: "You get a permit with the city to serve this?"

Mom: "I didn't know I had to."

Officer: "Yes ma'am."

Mom: "Really? For a lemonade stand? I had no clue."

Officer: "Yes ma'am."

Mom: "I knew we had to for garage sales and stuff like that, but I didn't know little kids had to for a lemonade stand."

Officer: "We just have to enforce it."

 http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/06/little-girls-tangle-with-the-man-over-lemonade-stand/#uiJq5Qf6dQVeMufZ.99