Swedish flag banned in school for being racist

A glimpse into our future.

The USA isn’t the only country that has been repressing flags. In Sweden they have taken the next logical step by banning the national flag on the grounds that it is “offensive against ethnic groups.”

The reason is that the flag may be offensive to certain groups and breaking the law “offensive against ethnic groups.” Akerlund also believes that by using the Swedish flag one may be guilty of violating the racism law.

These crime-prone, welfare-dependent, largely unassimilable ethnic groups have been imported from the Third World by a government hostile to the people it rules in order to displace them. At least America isn’t dying alone. The ban was imposed at Söndrum school in Halmstad. It may be superfluous, because the principal, Hans Åkerlund, “believes that by using the Swedish flag one may be guilty of violating the racism law.” But in a country ruled by leftists, you can never have too many bans and laws.

Banned in Sweden.


Sunday respite ‘The Night they drove old Dixie down’

The purge of any remnant of our history begins. The media, in a psychotic frenzy this week demonstrated their ability as the propaganda arm of the regime. The burning shall begin. “Gone with the Wind” soon to be banned. A few more as demonstrations of the absurdity of the week. Oh yes, and the “Right” is more dangerous than ISIS. But that is what this really is about. In today’s world the flag represents little about racism but rather represents a culture and way of life and independence that Progressives hate. No Sunday respite really this week. But I will enjoy this song anyway.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the majority leader, said Tuesday that a statue of Confederate president Jefferson Davis should be removed from the U.S. Capitol Rotunda, where it sits just feet from a statue of Abraham Lincoln, whose election spurred the South’s secession.

Washington National Cathedral’s dean said Thursday that the prominent church needs to remove two stained-glass windows honoring Confederate generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee — and depicting Confederate flags, images that he said were installed with “good and noble” intentions but have no place in 2015 as the country faces intense racial tensions and violence.

National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis said Thursday that “stand-alone depictions of Confederate flags have no place in park stores,” a local affiliate reported.

This is a song about a confederate soldier named Virgil Caine and his days in the American Civil War. It is a very emotional and haunting narrative and has always been one of my all-time favorites.

Virgil Caine is the name and I served on the Danville train

‘Til Stoneman’s cavalry came and tore up the tracks again

In the winter of ’65, we were hungry, just barely alive

By May the tenth, Richmond had fell

It’s a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down

And the bells were ringing

The night they drove old Dixie down

And the people were singing

They went, “La, la, la”

Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she called to me

“Virgil, quick, come see, there go the Robert E.Lee”

Now I don’t mind choppin’ wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good

Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest

But they should never have taken the very best

The night they drove old Dixie down

And the bells were ringing

The night they drove old Dixie down

And all the people were singing

They went, “La, la, la”

Like my father before me, I will work the land

And like my brother above me, who took a rebel stand

He was just eighteen, proud and brave, but a Yankee laid him in his grave

I swear by the mud below my feet

You can’t raise a Caine back up when he’s in defeat

The night they drove old Dixie down

And the bells were ringing

The night they drove old Dixie down

And all the people were singing

They went, “Na, na, na”

The night they drove old Dixie down

And all the bells were ringing

The night they drove old Dixie down

And the people were singing

They went, “Na, na, na”

Hillary Clinton and Obama were opposed to gay marriage before they were for it

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were against gay marriage before they were for it. The interesting point is that both clearly believed that a Constitutional amendment would be required to make it legal. No fear. The Supremes have now become the arbiter of social justice. Whether one is for or against gay marriage, the Supremes now have ripped the Constitution to shreds the last two days.

All of the justices had a similar concern, though: The decision substitutes the views of five unelected justices for the democratic process, much as Roe v. Wade did for abortion in 1973.

“If a bare majority of justices can invent a new right and impose that right on the rest of the country, the only real limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their own sense of what those with political power and cultural influence are willing to tolerate,” Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

He concluded, “All Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority’s claim of power portends.”

Recall the halcyon days of yesteryear? Just a few short years ago? Life seemed so much simpler.

At the Saddleback Civil Forum, Barack Obama addressed his definition of marriage.

While he said he believes that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, he also said that he would not support a Constitutional definition of marriage as so.


Now we have Hillary.

“I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that it exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they are to become adults.”


What happens to the baker, photographer who refuses a confederate wedding ceremony?

I think that this sums up the absurdity of the day. What does happen when the thought police move on to the Confederate flag, statute or any item that reflects our past history? After we of course erase Hamilton from our $10.00 bill and replace it with a black female. Standard operating procedures for any totalitarian regime coming into power.

    1. Q. What happens to the baker, photographer, or caterer who refuses to service a Confederate wedding ceremony?

      Embedded image permalink

SCOTUS says to hell with the constitution, Obamacare marches on

Thanks to all who expressed concern during my extended hiatus from blogging. After an enjoyable vacation and a respite from blogging, and a willingness to try and endure Windows 8 and wordpress, I bring this unthinkable story. But we already knew what was going to happen didn’t we? After having our hopes dashed in 2010 after winning back the House, the GOP managed to stick it to us one more time this past fall. Surely with the both the House and Senate in firm control we could make a dent in the Obama juggernaut. But no, the GOPers were more than willing to give the Dems all they wanted and more. Trade deal, no problem. And Obamacare? Word was out that if the Supremes should give Obamacare the heave ho, the GOP really had no alternative and the suggestion was to extend it until 2016. With good luck, the GOP should lose the Senate and the United States continued march into the abyss should continue unabated. Discouraged to say the least, I shall make another attempt to rise to the occasion and scribble down one person’s view of a historical record as did Josephus during the Roman decline.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

READ: John Roberts’ big moment: Will he anger conservatives again?

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy — who is often the Court’s swing vote — and the four liberal justices. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

More over at CNN

Bernie Sanders ‘Just say no to the deodorant aisle’

I can’t think of a clearer example of pure Progressive logic than this example of Socialist Bernie Sanders, the wannabe candidate for President. One has only to look to North Korea and similar locales for the ultimate design. Why do we need options in deodorant choices? Cars? In that case anything? Think of all of the starving children who would be helped if only we implemented total government direction. Hats off to Bernie. He tells us what life will be like as we march down the road toward a totalitarian state. Even the Washington Post had a bit of trouble with this plan. So first we come for the pit spray, then we come for….. P.S. Bonus info. Senator Barack Obama supported Sanders in his run as an independent for Senator, dissing the Democrat candidate. Just to remind us where his heart lays.  Here we go:

It’s a little bit unclear what Bernie Sanders has against the deodorant aisle. It is apparently, in the eyes of the Vermont senator seeking the Democratic nomination for president, a proxy for the ills of the American economy. Too many deodorant choices are bad, and so are too many sneakers. As Sanders told CNBC’S John Harwood, on the day he officially announced his candidacy:

If 99 percent of all the new income goes to the top 1 percent, you could triple it, it wouldn’t matter much to the average middle class person. The whole size of the economy and the GDP doesn’t matter if people continue to work longer hours for low wages and you have 45 million people living in poverty. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.

The literal implication of that last sentence is that there some kind of a national trade-off between antiperspirant/Air Jordan variety and food for children. This makes sense if you believe that the government should be allocating the resources in the economy — in this case, directing fewer of them to personal hygiene and footwear and more to child nutrition. More at the Washington Post

Appeals court slap Obama again on Amnesty. Upholds Texas Injunction

The good news is that the courts are holding tough on Obama when we finally get a hearing. Whether it be FOIA requests, or making the long march to the Supremes. Thank you Texas. First a reminder and then on the latest appeals court ruling

Supreme Court slaps Obama down unanimously once again

Once again the entire Supreme Court knocks down the Obama administration. Funny, this didn’t seem to make the news. This adds up to over 20 unanimous decisions that went against him. His two Supreme picks apparently are not so ready to move to a totalitarian government.

Back to the good news:

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Keep reading…





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,099 other followers

%d bloggers like this: