Bitching On The Anniversary

On this day in 1776 a bunch of subjects of the British crown declared themselves and their fellow Americans to be the free citizens of a free nation.  Needless to say King George III and the British Aristocracy objected to this revolutionary act with deadly force.

Although the United States Constitution clearly prohibits the establishment of an aristocratic class one has been brought into effect by judicial fiat.  Homosexuals -- a group once commonly identified as depraved or mentally ill -- have been granted a separate and superior status with respect to the citizens of our nation.  Anyone who refuses a demand from a homosexual on any grounds are now subject to civil punishment.  Given this it would not be a surprise when the refusal of a demand by a homosexual will result in a criminal penalty as well.

In reality this is called oppression.  In the last year the Pink Triangle of the Homosexual Collective has changed from a sign of victim status to being a symbol of the oppressors.  It has become a symbol of tyranny like the Red Star of Soviet Communism and the Broken Cross of National Socialism.

What are your questions on this rant?

UPDATE 1735 CDT:

I'm reposting  a rant on the subject of Gay Rights.


The Myth Of Gay Rights


What is a right?

In Objectivism a right is a moral principle that defines and sanctions an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.  There’s only one basic right, a person’s right to their own life.[1]

So what is a Gay Right?

The so-called Gay Right is a political privilege, a law enacted for the private benefit of homosexuals, which negates the freedom of non-homosexuals.  In most of the cases on record it’s the freedom to not associate with homosexuals.

Why disassociate from homosexuals?

In the cases that have come up for judicial action individuals are being punished for complying with the Christian moral code.  In Christianity homosexuality is identified as a sin and as a result they are to be shunned.  In reality the act of shunning a homosexual does not violate his real rights because in a free society all personal interactions are voluntary.

In a case that came up for judicial action a homosexual couple entering into a pretend marriage sought to buy a wedding cake for their ceremony.  When they were refused on Christian moral grounds they sued the baker for the act of discrimination.  Instead of choosing a different baker to voluntarily provide the cake as is proper in a free society they chose to reject the principle of freedom and to judicially inflict their will upon the baker.[2]

Are there grounds to disassociate from homosexuals and thus a rational basis to do so?

In reality homosexuality is a mental dysfunction.  The homosexual act runs counter to the normal biological functions of human life.  And homosexuals have been disruptive to the normal interactions in civil and military groups. [3]  

Given that there are both religious and rational grounds for disassociating from homosexuals it’s no surprise that the adherents of tyranny, those that seek to establish the Primacy of the State with themselves fully in control, have quickly and firmly moved to exploit the homosexual voting block.  In exchange for the privilege of negating the rights of non-homosexuals this collective is consistently supporting the complete effort of the tyrants to impose their rule upon our nation.  This should result in a negative outcome for the homosexual collective.  When the present cold civil struggle becomes an open war the victims of the homosexual collective will seek an end to their problem.

A permanent end.

What are your questions on this block of instruction?   
    

Footnotes

1.  Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness.

2.  In finding for the homosexual couple the judge acted in the opposite manner of a judicial officer in a free society.  For this he should be taken out and shot.

3.  The ancient Greek city state of Thebes had a dedicated all homosexual military formation.  It was wiped out in action.

A Proposal

I now propose the following amendment to the United States Constitution:

The People of the United States, being the sovereign authority of the nation, shall not be disarmed.  To petition for, to enact, or to enforce legislation to disarm the People shall be a capital offense. 


What are your questions on this proposal?

The Price Of Freedom

We the People of the United States of America must take back our country from the tyrants and looters.  We must reestablish full authority over every level of government.

And in doing so a price must be paid.

Yes, some of us will die in the process of taking back our nation.  But under the control of the tyrants and looter our lives are already forfeit.   We are allowed to exist solely because we are of some use to them.  When we cease to useful we will be disposed of.  Under the rule of the tyrants and looters we are in practical effect already dead.

What are your questions?

Video Update

Doriangrey1 had posted the following video on his (or possibly her, no insult intended) blog:

The disarmament of The People only benefits the criminals.  It benefits those within The State by intent.  And it benefits those outside of apparatus of The State by accident.

The claim that members of the public will be protected by their own disarmament is an absolute lie.  And disarming the citizens of the nation is clearly an act of treason.

Proposal Of The Day

Yesterday I repeated my proposal for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution and proposed a 29th Amendment.  Today I shall propose the 30th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XXX

Congress, nor the States, shall make no law respecting the establishment of an institute of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Now why would I propose this?

At the time of the founding of the republic the process of education was carried out by the churches in general.  Thus Freedom of Education was an inherent right of the People of the United States.  But late in the 19th Century the move to government run "Public" schools took off. This was in part because of the influence of collectivists of the Progressive Movement.  In the last generation the process of falsifying history and the general dumbing down of the students has become too obvious to ignore.  When I finally escaped from high school I promised myself that I would never send any child of mine to a public school.

In this amendment we restore to the parents the authority and responsibility of educating their children.

Go ahead, ask some questions.

Another Proposal

In November I made the following proposal:

AMENDMENT XXVIII

All religions which deny the validity of the Constitution shall not claim protection under it.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Today I put forth another proposal:

AMENDMENT XXIX

Section 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Neither a tax upon upon the income of a person, nor upon the income of a commercial enterprise, shall be levied within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 3.  Neither a tax upon land and structures built upon it, nor the unsold inventory of a commercial enterprise, shall be levied within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

  Let's see the Donks and RINOs run against this.