Monday, November 14, 2016

An Ode to Hillary on Music Monday

Finally. It's over. The Clinton Regime is done. We Conservatives endured 8 years of the liberal, military gutting, law enforcement hating, gun control loving, couldn't keep it in his pants, Clinton presidency. Then, we endured Hillary's progressive tenure in the U.S. Senate. Next, we endured her embarrassing, leftist foreign policy initiatives as Secretary of State. Lastly, we endured her stint as the Democratic nominee for president. Now, thank God, all of that is over.

Through all of it and unlike when things don't go The Lunatic Left's way, we conservatives didn't break and burn things, nor did we riot. Heck, we didn't even threaten to leave the country like a bunch of babies. We endured it and made the best of it.

Now, we only ask for one, simple thing - Hillary, please "Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away." So, on this post-2016 election edition of Music Monday, this one's dedicated to Hillary Clinton. It's Motley Crue with "Don't Go Away Mad (Just Go Away)" from their 1989 #1 record, Dr. Feelgood (click here).

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Proceed With Caution

Today, the ones of us who voted for Trump are at a minimum relieved while some are thrilled and celebrating. If you supported Clinton, then you're probably a little down, maybe even pissed, but the one thing all of us can agree on is that we're glad it's over. For the first time in a long time, I won't have to empty my "BS" filter before going to bed tonight.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...
English: Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If you supported Trump, I want to encourage you to not get too excited just yet. He is just one man and try as he might, he cannot fix all that ails the country overnight. It will take time, and he will have to have help. Plus, there are other things to consider, too. For instance:
  1. Exactly what are we getting with Trump? Are we getting the Trump who years ago was a liberal? You know, the one who was "pro-choice", supported some gun control, and contributed money to liberal politicians. Or, are we getting the Trump who campaigned for the presidency on much more conservative values? The answer is - we don't know. Only time will tell.
  2. Trump smacked the establishment around unmercifully, both Republicans and Democrats. Heck, some of the upper echelon Republicans didn't even support him as the party's presidential nominee. I even heard today where former President George W. Bush didn't even bother to vote for president. So, I'm wondering if the establishment in Congress will even work with Trump in fixing what ails us, which they caused, or if they will just make his life difficult.
  3. The Republicans now control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have absolute power over us, which we have given them, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will they limit themselves to the powers granted them by The Constitution, or will it be "anything goes"? Will they keep Trump in check, or will they set on their asses like they did with Obama and let him do whatever he wants? House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that Trump had been given a "mandate". When I heard that, shivers went up my spine. It's eerily similar to Lamar Alexander, the U.S. Senator from Tennessee, saying, "Elections have consequences" after Obama won the presidency in 2008. One party with this much power could prove to be very dangerous, folks. Contrary to what some may think, just because it's the Republicans, it doesn't mean they're saints. Some Republicans are just as low-down evil as some Democrats. I know from first-hand experience.
So, I want to encourage all of my fellow Americans, and especially the Trump supporters, to proceed with caution in regards to their post-election celebrations. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton was defeated, but the fact is we don't know where a Trump presidency will actually take us as a country. We are in uncharted waters. However, I know one place it better take us to, or we're doomed to failure, and that's the instruction of 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says:
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN (emphasis added) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV).

Friday, October 21, 2016

Pure Evil

Up until now, The Sheepdog's been pretty silent regarding the 2016 presidential race, and there's two reasons for that:
  1. I'm sick of politics. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same - they're in it for themselves, not to serve, and are more interested in what's good for their party instead of what's good for the country. It's why I left the GOP back in 2010. The current GOP disgusts me as much as the Democrats.
  2. Plus, all the candidates, from the more than a dozen so-called Republicans that started the race, to the few Democrats, to the current third party candidates, totally suck. As my friend, The Colonel used to say, "There ain't a statesman in the bunch". Not one. You disagree? Then, let's review some of them.
The so-called "Republicans":
  • Bush III - really? Another one? I can already hear the Democrats if he had won the GOP nomination, "It'll be 4 more years of the same failed policies of the past."
  • The anchor baby (Rubio).
  • The birther (Cruz) - I still don't understand how the GOP supported this guy after raising so much cain about Obama's birth certificate. Cruz was born in Canada. Total hypocrites.
  • The Billionaire, Brattish Bully (Trump)
  • George Soro's boy (Kasich).
  • Chris Christie - pro-homosexual marriage and governor of one of the most anti-gun states in the country.
  • Lindsey Graham - not the sharpest tack in the box and the 2016 version of John McCain.
The Democrats:
  • The Progressive Extremist, and
  • the Socialist.
Really? Is this the best we can do as a country?

English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria F...
English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria Français : Mosquée Khosrowiyé à Alep en Syrie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
And then, of course, there's the third party candidates led by Gary Johnson. You remember him, right? He wants to be Commander in Chief and institute his foreign policies, but he doesn't know where Aleppo, Syria is, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis caused by that country's civil war. Additionally, Johnson is supposedly conservative, but yet he is "pro-choice" for abortion and wants to legalize marijuana. Neither of those stances equate to conservative principles and values. He should actually be a Democrat.

Since all the candidates suck like a Hoover vacuum, who should Americans vote for? Since a third party candidate has as much chance at winning the election as a Volkswagen Beetle does at winning the Daytona 500, and both major party nominees have more baggage than a Boeing 747 headed for Europe, it's a tough choice. That is until you are aware of the information I am sharing below. It's shocking and no one is talking about it.

In fact, what I will share the remainder of this post, regarding this presidential election, is far more important than the economy, foreign policy, gun control, jobs, and even abortion. I doubt you will see this information anywhere else, but in my opinion, it's the #1 issue to consider before casting your vote for the presidency.

Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton proudly went on record as someone who "enormously" admires Margaret Sanger (click here for video). Now, who the heck is Margaret Sanger? She was a well-known proponent of eugenics after World War I. In simple terms, eugenics is the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others. It teaches that people with "undesirable" traits should not be allowed to reproduce and pass their "undesirable" traits to their offspring. Eugenicists desire to reduce or totally eliminate such traits from the human gene pool and are not opposed to eliminating living humans possessing these "undesirable" traits. These traits include:
  1. physical disabilities,
  2. mental disabilities, 
  3. chronic health issues a.k.a. pre-existing conditions,
  4. being poor, 
  5. being an immigrant, and
  6. being a members of a racial or ethnic minority.
Eugenicists consider "undesirables" as "unfit", as in unfit to live, and a waste of oxygen and / or other resources. On the other hand, eugenicists believe people with "good stock", not having one or more of the traits listed above, should be encouraged to have many children. In other words they want to build "a master race." Anyone see a problem here besides me? Eugenics is a dangerous philosophy and has it's pitfalls, such as:

A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation. - Wikipedia
Does any of this sound familiar? Think back to the 1930s and '40s and Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the Jews. The Nazis were huge proponents of eugenics which led to millions of Jews being slaughtered during World War II. The Jews were considered "undesirable", so Hitler wanted them annihilated in order to establish a master race. He might have accomplished his goal, too, if he had not been greedy, arrogant, and power hungry in deciding to go to war with the Russians, while at the same time fighting The Allies. Heck, I even read somewhere that Hitler himself admired Margaret Sanger.

English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy i...
English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy intersection of Mott St. and Bleecker St. in New York City's Greenwich Village. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Take a few minutes and Google Sanger's name. You will find that she is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. You will also find some of the things she said and  / or wrote revealing her racist ideologies and attitudes regarding African-Americans and others. She even conspired with pastors in black communities in order to get them to encourage their members to use more birth control. Her motivation was to reduce the numbers of African-Americans. She was also one of the early promoters of abortion and even spoke at women's chapters of the Ku Klux Klan (read here). So, considering all this, could it be that the original intention of abortion was not about women's freedom to choose to end unwanted pregnancies, nor the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, but it was instead rooted in bigotry and racism as a means of reducing the African-American population and others considered to be "undesirable"?