Terror plot thrwarted! Just in time for elections!!

Wow! If you haven't read about it, read HERE, straight from the AP. Another potential terrorist attack averted, due in large part to the apparent ignorance of the perpetrators. Let's get this straight, they were trying to ship packages from Yemen, on board cargo planes, to synagogues in the US. They were using PETN, the same stuff as the Christmas day 'underwear' bomber. That's the idiot who tried to ignite his PETN with water, instead of a match.

My confusion on these events stems from my first hand experience of the bomb making skills that jihadists possess. During my two tours I saw and heard of many different types of bombs, some rather advanced. Explosively formed projectiles (EFP's), heat sensitive triggering, cell phone triggered, to name a few. Often times they synthesized the ANFO explosive in abandoned buildings, we located these sites through the heat the reaction gives off. My point is that these people have advanced bomb makers among them, they go to school and learn how to make and employ them.

We're told from the media and government that these people hate us for our freedoms. They would love to come to America and blow us all up. But... they haven't been able to do that? I'll freely admit that I do not know the capabilities of our nations intelligence agencies. I do know that we have open borders, knowledgeable enemies, and plenty of bomb making resources. It might take a few years, but you could slowly buy enough AN fertilizer to make a huge bomb. Or there are other avenues, you have criminals making meth, which is more complex than many explosives.

Call me a radical, but to me it just doesn't add up. Porous borders + explosives available + knowledgeable people willing to die = zero successful attacks? 

Texas Elections

On a different note, if you plan on voting this weekend, please don't vote for Bill White. Here is a picture of him addressing the National Council of La Raza, or "The Race". A racist organization pursuing the ethnic interests of it's constituents. Imagine a pro White organization named The Race. The FBI would arrest them all as domestic terrorists. However it is normal for other ethnicity's to have a collective interest. Who promotes these double standards as acceptable?

"Coming Out" in America Must be made easier. Huh?

So I was reading Todd Hill's blog over on Burnt Orange Report. He writes about how Joel Burns, a city councilman in Forth Worth, openly came out about his homosexuality, while in session. I ask, why? Why does anyone even need to know?  I suppose the other councilmen and women should work up the courage to come out about their heterosexuality, just so we can be sure. Todd Hill solidly approves, stating that Burn's exhibited "courage", rarely seen in politics, in his opinion.  

I really feel that the whole LGBTG, wait, did I get all the groups, I think so. Anyway, the Gay lobby is just another  "and then?" type of group. Example:

Gay Lobby: You must stop slandering homosexuality as a mental illness! (1970s)

America: Ok, fine, we will strike down biology and western tradition.

Gay Lobby: And then?

Fast forward a few years....

Gay Lobby: We want to be in the military! Regardless of how the troops feel about it. (1990s)

America: Fine you can serve, but you can't be open about it.

Gay Lobby: And then?

....

Gay Lobby: You MUST allow us to marry, our relationships are the equal of yours.

America: No.

Gay Lobby: ...rubbing greedy hands... we shall use the media and our liberal contacts to thwart the people through their own justice system.

America: Fine, we'll roll over and quit.

Gay Lobby: And then? And then? And then?

Okay, maybe I went a little overboard. But it's always going to be a case of "and then" with the gay lobby. Even after gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, there will always be something for them to complain about, some dark corner where inequality still exists. The media, in its quest to abolish any remnant of Christian and European heritage, is always in support of the gay lobby.

Remember  District Judge Vaughn Walker? The one who overturned the California gay marriage ban. Did you know he himself is an open homosexual?  I find it odd how he could even preside over such a ruling, I suppose he is above having a conflict of interests. Here is an AP article from August, there is no mention of him being gay, that was carefully omitted by most of the media.

The unfortunate fact is that our nations Constitution is far too vague. We needed an explicit and direct document to govern this nation as the founding fathers desired. Once they all died off,  criminals slowly took their place, on both sides of the isle. I believe that when you must rule on homosexuality, if it should be legal under the "pursuit of happiness", you must look at the founding fathers themselves. How did they feel about homosexuality?

Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill for Virginia that set the penalty for sodomy as castration.

George Washington commented on the the courts martial of a Lt Malcom Enslin, accused of sodomy. He professed his "abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes".

Those two alone had such "hateful" and "bigoted" views, would they have felt differently when drafting the Constitution?

No one should stop gays from being gay. And no one should have to have the gay agenda rammed down their throat every time they turn on the television. Let's make it a non-issue.

Campuses are targeted solely because they are gun free zones

The Austin American Statesman's editorial board wrote this column on the recent shooting suicide at UT. I wholly agree with their assessment of the campus emergency response. It was decisive, fast, and encompassing. It's obvious they have a well developed plan, and have practiced it.

I was really expecting a "guns are bad" statement in the article, being a major newspaper, and I was not let down! The last paragraph mentions that this incident will likely inflame the concealed carry on campus debate. The editors very predictably state that this is bad! More guns are bad! Curiously, there is no mention as to why Colton Tooley, the shooter, would have targeted UT in the first place. We really don't know much about his motives as of yet. His actions would almost suggest he just wanted to stir things up in the process of killing himself. He could have easily taken lives, yet didn't.

Let's ask ourselves, why do all these nutcases target campuses specifically? If you were a deranged sadistic bastard, that wanted to kill as many innocents as you could, where would you go? I can answer that! Straight to the nearest gun free zone with the largest population, hey, a campus! What does it really take to come to this conclusion? I'm not even smart. 

I have debated this with previous professors, and the common thing I hear is how they don't want everyone 'toting guns', fights would become fatal, and accidents would happen. What they fail to realize is that there are currently over 100 thousand concealed handgun licensees in Texas. When they leave campus, they almost certainly encounter at least one, whether they stop for gas, or while shopping for groceries. If you see me off campus, I am carrying. Wow, so many people are carrying guns, and yet I have never seen an accident. I have never seen law abiding individuals turn an altercation into a gunfight.

It's really sad that I, as a citizen, have to put myself into such danger while attending college. I am at the mercy of any criminal while on campus, thanks to misguided unconstitutional policies. I will admit it is truly tempting to just carry on campus anyway. It might seem like it isn't worth the risk, until that one point where your life is in mortal danger. But alas, at this current time the possible felony charge outweighs the risk of a nutcase shooting, in my mind. To clarify, I do NOT carry on campus.

In closing I would just like to take my hat off to all the school policy makers and bureaucrats that see fit to risk all our lives in the name of their ideology. Thanks!

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Second Amendment

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."  - Thomas Jefferson