Regarding Deneen Borelli:

Black conservative commentator and author Deneen Borelli tells Newsmax.TV that she and other people of color who fight for conservative principles against President Barack Obama’s failed policies risk backlash from the liberal left.

“They’re trying to shut down independent thought,” Borelli said in an exclusive Newsmax interview. “The moment someone strays from the liberal left’s ideology plantation of big government, you will be made an example of. And that is something that I have been experiencing for the last several years. I’ve been called all kinds of names in the book — and they are in my book.”

Borelli, whose new book is “Blacklash: How Obama and the Left are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation,” said she has been labeled a racist and described as a “token, trader, and sell-out” for her conservative views.

“Figure that. I’m a black who is a racist because of Obama’s policies. You know, listen, people need to be vocal of what they feel and what they believe. But when you have the liberal left comes out to play the race card, what they’re trying to do is stifle debate,” she explained.

Heard of this? Heard of Deneen Borelli?

Of course not; and that is entirely purposeful.

“Nigger, please.” Neither Mr Obama nor his sycophants would minimize the plight of other blacks, yes? Civility? Goodness? Equality? Lack of bile?

BZ

Perfectly illustrated.

BZ

And why we need the SECOND AMENDMENT of our BILL of RIGHTS supported at every level:

The “Battle of Athens.”

We think that an abuse of government cannot occur in our time and that weapons afforded ordinary citizens cannot overthrow an abuse of government? That scenario has already played out. But the event is primarily unknown because it has remained mostly uncovered in history books and in our schools. Purposely. Shame that we should acknowledge how firearms and weapons can be a force for good — in our very own nation?

Also see this link. And Conservative Perspective.

Governments — and particularly despotic or questionable governments — demand disarming its citizenry. An unarmed populace can do nothing to resist governmental tyranny, except acquiesce.

The more a government wishes to disarm its citizens, the more it wishes to buttress its own power of the state and minimize the power of its people. Because, sooner or later, government will always run out of “other people’s money.”

I took this photograph in the cab of a Union Pacific locomotive:

Local, common citizens who lack the ability to even defend themselves have one word to describe themselves: serfs.

Ask yourself one salient question: who fears and wishes to suppress gun rights the most? Conservatives or Leftists?

I think you have your answer.

Do what I call “the logical extension” with that answer.

BZ

[Thanks, Frank.]

The USS Enterprise is our first (and the world’s first) nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, commissioned in November of 1961. At 1,123-feet, she is still the longest naval vessel sailing today.

After 50 years of constant duty (no other US naval warship has served so long), the USS Enterprise finds herself on her 22nd and last deployment, headed to the Persian Gulf in support of the carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson. The presence of these carrier groups is in direct response to potential conflict with Iran, should it decide to mine the Strait of Hormuz, interfere with tanker shipping or shell civilian traffic in or around the Strait.

The memories are bittersweet. The old lady creaks and groans, demanding constant repair says current and likely last commander, Captain William Hamilton. Built with eight reactors — six more than current carriers — the USS Enterprise was a “one-off” kind of ship, the only ship of its class. Because it was the only unit of its class, there are no real “spare parts” per se. Most all replacement parts must be fabricated from, essentially, scratch.

However, it was a test bed where new and exciting technologies were utilized in preparation for successive classes of American nuclear carriers. Much was learned from the old gal.

Further, it is said that the USS Enterprise (its military website here), because of its plethora of reactors, was and may be the fastest large surface vessel in the US fleet, with a rumored top speed of over 40 knots; that’s 46.1 miles per hour. To clarify: that’s 94,800 tons running at almost 50 mph. It’s a certainty that the Enterprise, wherever it steamed, was the fastest ship in its carrier group.

No one knows what will happen in and around the Strait of Hormuz in the coming days and immediate few months. Some conspiracy theorists are speculating that Enterprise is being sacrificed, a la the USS Maine, in Iran because it’s cheaper to kill her than decommission her. That’s how far the “theorists” have sunk.

That said, the “Big E” has served in a stolid and steadfast fashion for twice her operational design time of 25 years (a major refit occurred in 1979). Resultingly, Capt Hamilton says there are two phrases on board:

• “There’s tough, and then there’s Enterprise tough,” and
• “We eat pain like candy.”

Clearly, Iran will be a challenge as will the Strait of Hormuz.

To the Big E: thousands served upon you. God bless you all, and particularly the 27 sailors who lost their lives from the 1969 ordnance explosion and fire.

BZ

P.S.
Click on the below photo for a much enlarged classic view of Big E.

Rick Santorum has recently said he’ll shut down internet pornography.

This is reason enough for me not to vote for Santorum.

You start to mess with my very dear First Amendment rights and you’re gone, as far as I’m concerned. You’re completely off my radar screen.

Because, as I frequently write: “do the logical extension.” Its an easy reach for me to be next up for suppression (in terms of this blog) under this or another Leftist administration.

Let’s refamiliarize ourselves, shall we, with the First Amendment from the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Once the government officially stops my ability to access information over the internet, then it is a very easy movement to extend these limitations to other venues as well; venues wherein the government tends to disagree with the opinions of those private individuals and/or groups who express them. On both sides of the aisle.

This is path upon which I am not willing to tread.

If Conservatives are successful in cutting off this area completely, then a subsequent Leftist’s administration building but upon only the prior administration’s precedent, may find itself easily deciding to curb Rush Limbaugh, to curb the Heritage Foundation, to curb the Drudge Report, to curb Michael Medved, to curb Alex Jones, to curb Adriana Huffington, to curb Markos Moulitsas when they disagree with the current running meme.

On the other hand, let there be no mistake:

Child porn, animal porn, porn involving individuals or creatures who have no ready ability to understand or make an informed consent of their involvement — that is wrong. Sexual acts amongst consenting adults portrayed on various sites which do not involve violence or suppression of the ability to refuse are not my problem nor should be the concern of government.

If I decide to watch or visit these legal sites, that is my prerogative. If I decide to disdain these sites, that is my prerogative as well. The final decision to view or not view images and sites on the internet should rest with the End User. In terms of children in a home, the overarching End User is the parent(s), whose duty it is to limit or constrain product entering the home.

If you, as the parent(s) don’t deploy your ability to limit your child’s access to the internet, that’s quite not my problem. If you lack the balls to pull the computer or television — if you object — out of your child’s bedroom, that is not my problem. If you lack the spine or ability to speak to your children about these issues and points because you’re insipid, that’s not my problem.

It is my problem when you — the individual or Collective You — cannot make an individual determination for a given situation and instead lump the entire nation into a limitation. Enough “tions” for you yet?

Because, then, you completely misunderstand our Constitution.

You obviously don’t read my blog or grok my thrust.

As I wrote here, there are theories about what some writers — myself included — quantify as positive vs negative rights:

POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

Leftists wish to enable a solid “privileges or immunities clause” which becomes open-ended and — therefore — susceptible to specific ‘interpretation” by such pre-chosen federal judges!

A “logical extension” might be to allow “privileges or immunities” to create new “rights” which could “guarantee” social or economic “equality.”

If the law moves this way, then your possessions, my possessions, could and would be “redistributed” as seen fit by your government.

Your “rights” will be parsed out, in dribs and drabs, by appointed berobed iconoclasts and Leftists.

This will supplant “representative” decision-making and throw decisions onto those who are appointed and — therefore — completely immune from accountability or responsibility.

It is not the government’s job to tell me what I can or cannot eat, what I can or cannot wear, or what I do with the property or items I lawfully purchase. The government increasingly could care less about personal property and does not respect the rights thereof.

And finally: Conservatives can be generally broken down into the classic triumvirate of

• Fiscal Conservatism: less government, balanced budgets, less spending, fewer taxes; you can’t tax and spend your way out of a deficit;
• Social Conservatism: the tenets of western religion place us on the track; our government was founded upon religious principles; abortion, gay marriage – these are abominations that will drag us down societally and collectively;
• Defensive Conservatism: these United States of America need to be sovereign, answerable to naught but domestic positions, strong, vast, overwhelming. We would rather be feared than respected. If something is in the best interest of this country that’s the overarching determinant.

I’ve said it before and I’ll write it again: Social Conservatism is last on my scale. Dead last. Only when the other two are firmly in place and holding do I believe we have the time to focus on Social Conservatism.

Disagree with me or not, these are my views. I may lose some Social Conservative Priority readers. If so, then so be it. You’re always welcome to comment.

When your priority argument involves, for example, contraceptives and, simultaneously, the entire nation is in danger of complete fiscal and defensive collapse — then this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Again, bottom line: Rick Santorum, your priorities are flawed and, as such, I will never vote for you. In my opinion, we just don’t have the time or the resources to waste on this right now.

BZ