Arizona Plan

The US Sate of Arizona is situated along the southern border of the US, adjacent to Mexico. Much of the distance along the border is ranch country and deserts. Every day thousands of Mexican nationals cross the border illegally. Many of them bring plastic water bottles and food containers for the long walk to roads on the American/Arizona side of the border. Ranches and farms along the border are trashed with discarded water bottles. Livestock is shot, and ranchers are sometimes shot.

The US Congress passed a law during the Bush Administration authorizing and requiring a wall to be constructed, making it easier to control the border, but the new Obama/Fascist regime has canceled construction of the wall. A huge part of the border problem is drug smuggling. The drug smugglers create huge profits and pay off corrupt politicians, fund lieyers, and cause massive criminal activity in every US city. Control of our border is abaolutely necissary for America, but opposed by our corrupt politicans.

Faced with growing problems of public safety, Arizona passed a law directing their own state blue gun thugs to arrest and deport any foreign nationals found within their state. Law enforcement is also now supposed to stop and question anyone who appears to be a foreign national. Yahoo News Article Of course all the illegal aliens are screaming. American fascist politicians now rely on illegal alien votes to get elected, and even run for high public office.

President Barry Soetoro, born in Zanzibar and now a legal citizen of Indonesia said on Friday:

Earlier Friday, President Barack Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others."

"That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe," Obama said.

On Yahoo news comments several people wondered if Obama would be arrested and deported if he shows up in Arizona. Tha would be the legal solution, but power corrupts.

All the anti-American traitor groups such as the ACLU and the Mexican Defense Fund are protesting the Arizona plan to enforce American law. And the Senate of Mexico adopted a resolution opposing the law.

The People of America are opposed by our corrupt illegal poltiicans and now massive invasive armies of foreign nationals. Its time to run the bastards out and reclaim our nation. Other states should adopt laws similar to Arozona. If our illegal alien President won't enforce our laws its up to state and local authorities.

Just Don't Lose

Bob was watching a documentary on the Military Channel about the US Civil War. The documentary focused on the Battle of Gettysburg which is often said to be the turning point of that war. More specifically it focused on what history calls Pickett's Charge. For two days the Confederate Army of Virginia led by General Robert E. Lee attacked the left and right flanks of the Union Army without success. Finally on the 3rd day General Lee ordered his remaining troops to assault the center of the Union Army's line. Perhaps Lee reasoned that troops had been moved to the flanks where he had attacked the previous 2 days, which would have left the center less well defended. The result of Pickett's Charge was the loss of about 6,000 casualties counting killed and wounded, plus another thousand men captured. Pickett's Charge is often said to be the truing point of the whole war.

Historians have debated the wisdom of Pickett's Charge for almost 150 years. Was Lee overconfident in the ability of his troops to take the hill? Did Confederate planning fail to account for the sturdy fences and road they would have to cross under fire? Were Lee's subordinate Generals, Longstreet and Pickett less than capable leading the charge? Did Lee over estimate the ability of Confederate artillery to silence Union artillery? Was Pickett's Charge just a big mistake?

As Bob watched the documentary that counted the dead, recreated troops crossing fences against a stop watch, and asked all those questions, Bob couldn't help but wonder if the biggest mistake was having the battle of Gettysburg at all. Bob remembered General George Washington's leadership during the winter at Vally Forge. General Washington believed that he did not have to “win” the war. All he had to do was NOT LOSE the war. There is a huge strategic difference between winning a war, and not losing a war. In the American Revolution in the 1770s, Washington lost many battles, but he never lost the war. In the end, the English Parliament got tired of spending the money and men, and agreed to leave. By not losing, Washington had won.

Again in Viet Nam we see an example of not losing a war. In Viet Nam the US military won every battle. But the NVA never lost. At the end of the decade the US Army was called home by politicians tired of paying for a war that never ended. The NVA was the last army standing on the battlefield.

When General Lee took his Army of Virginia to invade the north he had over reached his power. He had abandoned the strategy of “Just don't lose” and was moving out on a campaign for victory. Before Gettysburg, Lee had won all the battles. He was over confident in his army. There is a huge gap between not losing at home, and winning on their territory. The defending army can occupy the high ground. The defending army can dig in fortifications. The defending army does not have long supply lines, and confusion of the unknown territory.

General Lee did not lose at Gettysburg because he was overconfident about Pickett's Charge. He lost at Gettysburg because he forgot the prime directive of a revolutionary army. You aren't trying to win, you just can't lose. At Gettysburg, Lee got overconfident. He tried to win the war, and in doing so, he lost the war. It takes many more troops, many more arms, many more cannon, many more cavalry, and a lot more money to win, but winning is not needed. All you have to do is not lose. General Lee got over confident and tried to win. Big mistake. It was the turning point of the US Civil War. Lee should never have invaded Pennsylvania. He should never have fought at Gettysburg.

Any revolutionary Generals should learn from George Washington. You don't have to win. You just have to not lose. This is one of the great lessons of history. Any General planning any revolution should study and remember the eventual success of George Washington and the failure of Robert E. Lee, just don't lose.

Marriage, Morality, and Men

Anyone who sees any of the popular media recently cannot help but to have seen sex scandals involving Tiger Woods and Jesse James. Both men have hot babe wives but were getting laid on the side by more than one slut. Woods apparently was assaulted by his wife with a 9 iron as he tried to flee her wrath, and the broken cheek bone caused him to hit a tree instead of the driveway. Instead of filing a DV report against his wife, Woods apologized and enrolled in shrink “treatment.”


Tiger and Elin Woods

Jesse James wasn't injured but has publicly apologized. Jesse James is a “bad boy” biker who runs a motorcycle shop called West Coast Choppers. He was featured on a reality show called Monster Garage. Jesse is a distant relative of the infamous outlaw of the same name. His wife, Sandra Bullock, is a Hollywood star. Wimps apologize. Men claim their actions.


Jesse and Sandra James

Were these men as bad as the popular (feminist) misandrist media would have us believe? Lets look at the marriage from historical, moral, and practical views. Most people today have a very confused understanding of marriage. For 160 years feminists have been waging war against marriage, pushing the lie that “marriage oppresses women.” The feminist goal is to have every female a lesbian. Gays have worked hard, supported by liberal media and politicians, to promote the myth that marriage is some list of government benefits given for “love.” Both groups falsely have claimed that marriage is a Christian invention. Some Christians say that you can only be married because of Jesus. But neither feminists nor gays nor Christians gives us truth.

Marriage is the biological union of a man and woman that makes a child and forms a family. In a very real physical sense the child is the marriage. The basic form of marriage has been part of every human culture, tribe, village, city, religion and nation since long before history. Marriage joins two families into one because the child has one foot in each family. Marriage produces the future of tribes and nations. Marriage is not about “love” but whom you breed with.

The oldest surviving written law code, the Code of Hammurabi, included extensive law on marriage. Marriage customs clearly were older than the written law. Every religion and every government has a strong interest in producing and raising the next generation. A few radical religions that have not supported marriage, the Shakers for example, have disappeared in one generation. Another ancient law code on marriage is Celtic law which was in force across much of Europe before the Roman conquest. In Celtic marriage law several “kinds” of marriage are listed depending on the wealth of the parents and who is supposed to pay to support the children. In the first kind of marriage both parents come from rich families and share the cost of raising the child. In the second kind of marriage the husband comes from a rich family and he will pay to raise the child. In the last kind of marriage the mother is a whore. She is solely responsible for raising the child.

Marriage is an important event for the whole tribe, village, and community. The families of both husband and wife gather to celebrate and witness the union of the two families. The religious leader of their faith gives his blessing. Vows are made and congratulations are given. The couple is then given a few days away from normal responsibility to have time for the sexual union that will consummate the marriage. In many places and times, in much of Europe for most of the past two millennia for example, the couple was only “betrothed” and doing sex together until a child was born. When the child is born the marriage is consummated and they are recognized as married by the community. If no child comes forth, the betrothal is annulled and the couple parts. Protestants and some Catholics are ascetic to the point that they frown on sex until a legal “marriage” but even there when there is no consummation the marriage can be annulled.

In many cultures, parents or families arrange marriages of sons and daughters. The western custom of inexperienced youth choosing mates for “love” (lust) is less than two centuries old. The long term success rates of arranged marriages is better than lust choices. A female's situation is quite different from the man's situation, so her needs in choosing a husband are quite different than his needs for a wife. A young female needs to have a man who is old enough and economically well established enough to support her and her children. A man needs a female who is young, healthy, and strong enough to bear and raise good children. For thousands of generations young females often chose men who were 10 or more years older than they are. There seems to be an evolutionary behavior of females to be sexually attracted to older men because of the long history of making this choice.

The vows in a traditional marriage are somewhat different for men and females.

The female promises:
1.To engage in sex with the husband, and husband ONLY, so that she may
2.Become pregnant by her husband, and then
3.To bear and raise his children. She also promises
4.To manage his house,
5.To assist in the work of the family as much as she is able while nurturing the children of the marriage
6.To remain his wife as long as the she and the children shall live.
7.To love, honor, and obey her husband.

The man promises:
1.To engage in sex with the female so that she may become pregnant and bear his children,
2.To support and protect her and his children to the best of his ability.
3.To retain her as his wife as long as he and the children live.
4.To provide guidance, leadership, discipline, and teaching for his wife and children as leader of the family.

In cultures where there are more than 1 wife, the first wife is also expected to manage the household and direct the work of the 2nd or subsequent wives. Note that only the female vows to limit her sexual experience because only she can bring other children to disrupt her marriage.

In Christian, Jewish, and Islamic holy writing the penalty for an adulterous wife is stoning to death. A wife's adultery is literally a matter of life an death. Similar teaching and penalties are common in many cultures and religions. A husband who administers the religious penalty on his wife for adultery, destroying his family, and stealing his children is a moral and virtuous man. So are any from the village who assist him. Feminazi thugs and gangsters who protect the unrighteous whore from her just punishment are immoral and should be shunned from the company of decent people.

Throughout all of history females have divided themselves into two classes, wives and whores. A wife limits her sexual activity to her husband so that her children are his children. In exchange for her restraint and obedience she receives his love, support, and protection. A whore is any female who turns away from the wife career, engaging in sex with a range of temporary “partners.” Often whores were “courtesans” who learned poetry, music, writing, and other education. Whores engage in sex for money, for favors, for manipulation and control, or just for lust. Whoring is sometimes called the oldest profession. It is where all the non-wives, feminists, lesbians, and other bad females spend their lives.

In moral (pre-feminist) legal codes a man is obligated ONLY to support the children he agreed to support, the children of his monogamous wife. He has no moral or ethical obligation to support bastards of a whore. She and she alone is responsible for their support. He may choose to claim his bastards, and may contribute to their support as he sees fit, but he has no moral or legal obligation to do so.

At the feminist Seneca Falls Conference in 1848, lesbian feminists declared war on marriage. They believed that females are owed support whether married or not, whether they work or not. Feminist females believe that they “deserve” to be supported by men. At the Seneca Falls Conference feminists adopted a long term goal of female leaving their husbands, taking his children, and still forcing him to support them. Over the next 100 years feminists lobbied legal changes such as alimony, no-fault divorce, female custody of his children, and finally the indentured servitude (slavery) of fathers under the euphemism “child support.” A big piece of their misandrist agenda was female suffrage which gives them the political power to force these changes, destroy marriage and family, and enslave men.

FemiNazi believe that they are “entitled” claim all the money that all men earn, for no reason other than being endowed with a cunt. They have twisted marriage until the current law has no benefits for men and no obligations for females.

The vows under feminist legal and immoral codes are as follows:

She vows:
1.Not much of anything. She isn't obligated to sex, or bearing his children. She may abort (murder) his child or cry "rape" for sex. She doesn't promise to take his name, nor keep his house. She can fuck any other man she wants. She can leave any time she feels like it, and take his children and property.

He vows:
1.He will give her sex when and if she wants it.
2.He will do the housework in addition to working a killer job to provide for her shoe shopping.
3.He gives her at least half of his property including real and personal property, investments, and all his earnings. Often she gets it all.
4.He gives her ownership of his children, if any.
5.He owes her his future earnings if she bears any children, even those of other men.
6.He promises to support her and her children until hell freezes over or the lazy bums finish college and graduate school and who knows how long after that.
7.He will obey her and not complain if she beats him with a frying pan, etc.

Note that under feminist marriage law he is obligated to much of that list even if he has never agreed to marry the whore. If she gets pregnant (who knows by whom) and claims him as the father of her bastard, she may claim the majority of his “estimated” future earnings for the next 20 years under penalty of prison. Obviously men gain nothing and lose everything in a marriage under feminism. Take Bob's advice and Don't do it. Don't ever do it. You cannot win.

Now getting back to Tiger Woods and Jessey James.

In a traditional marriage, a husband vows to engage in sex with his wife. He does not vow to monogamy under her control and domination. A real man does not kowtow to feminazi control. He does not grovel and beg forgiveness for shagging some other hot twat. In civilized cultures females don't expect to own their husbands lives. In civilized cultures females understand that their part of the bargain of marriage is a claim on his support and protection, but not a claim to own and control him. It used to be said that a good woman wouldn't want a man who couldn't even get a mistress. When French President Mitterrand died a few years ago his wife and children sat in the first row at his funeral. The second row was reserved for his mistress and her children. None of the French whined about “how could she tolerate” a man who was rich and powerful and had a mistress.

Tiger Woods made a billion dollars. His wife lived in a fabulous home with a staff of servants helping her take care of his children. To make his billion he had to spend months moving from town to town staying in hotels and eating in restaurants. There is nothing in traditional marriage vows that precludes taking advantage of the long line of whores who always flock around rich athletic men. Instead of apologizing to the feminist wife, and to the feminist media whores, he should have claimed his power. He should have said something like “I'm a rich athlete. Women line up to entertain me. We had a good time. Take your jealousy and pound sand.”

Jesse James ended up with a rich bitch Hollywood star wife. She was always gone somewhere doing the latest film. And even when she was home, a man gets bored banging the same old tired cunt. At age 40 plus, she isn't going to bear children anyway, so its a marriage that never will be consummated. Ms. Sandra Bullock picked him because he was a 'bad boy” biker. Nice guys don't get laid, every man knows that. So the “bad boy” biker likes to bang kinky tattooed biker babes just for fun. It really doesn't matter if he bangs a few biker babes. As long as he bangs his wife now and then, and lets her play house with his daughter she has no bitch. She gets to show off her “bad boy” biker at fancy Hollywood parties. No problem.

While we are on the topic of marriage, the topic of bride kidnapping or marriage by abduction sometimes comes up. Of course the feminazi anti-marriage men hating press has a feminazi hissy fit, but marriage by abduction is a very old custom among many cultures. A 1950s Major Hollywood musical film, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, celebrated kidnapped brides, all of whom found love and happiness with their new husbands. The great Genghis Kahn captured a bride from every city he conquered. It is occasionally still done in the US, but the femiNazi and their blue gun thug Gestapo go totally bananas. Feminazi demand female control, and bride capture puts the man in control.

In a traditional moral society a good father keeps his daughter in his home and supports her until she is of an age to breed, perhaps 13 or 15. The good father then looks for a good husband for his daughter, and helps her to find an appropriate man who can support and protect her. He seeks men who are old enough to support her. The good father gives her hand to the husband in the marriage ceremony, and his fatherly responsibility for her is ended. Unfortunately for many young females in this society, too many men have been raised under feminist indoctrination. Too many men now think that their daughter is supposed to follow the false feminist life plan away from marriage and into whoring. Too many men want daughters to eschew marriage to pursue a man's “education” and a man's career while she entertains a long parade of men through her cunt. In addition, far too many young females today are born bastards, or are taken from their fathers to be raised as whores by feminist whore mothers.

Recently some feminist asked Bob about the moral situationist of a husband who was banging some whore at work. When the whore got pregnant and created a bastard his wife threw a hissy fit and abrogated her marriage, women no longer vow to stay married. The wife lost face among feminists because she could not control her husband, so she abandoned her marriage. Both females, the whore and the wife, hired lieyers who used the kangaroo “family” court system to take all his property and money plus his future earnings.

The morality of that hypothetical is, first, the whore is solely responsible for her bastard. She and she alone has available birth control pills, abortions, abandonment, or adoption. She has the moral responsibility of a whore for her bastards, plus a new responsibility for all the choices she makes to create the bastard. Second, the wife has no moral reason to seriously harm her children and her own life by tearing up her marriage. She turns her daughters into whores instead of good young women when they lose the protection and guidance of their father. Her sons become fatherless losers, and she goes from a high status wife to a low life whore. Instead of losing face among femiNazi, she should be proud that she is the wife of a man whom so many women want, a very enviable position.

We could also mention the fiction of “gay marriage.” The whole concept of so-called “gay marriage” being pushed hard by loony lefties, feminists, and faggots is a lie and a contradiction. Neither Adam and Steve, nor Sue and Eve can make a baby together. There can never be a marriage of two men or two females. Marriage is a biological union, not a list of government benefits given for love. The government supports real biological marriage because society has a serious interest in supporting families that bear the huge cost of raising the next generation. Two rump riders, or two lolly lickers claiming the modest benefits designed for children has all the moral virtue of adults stealing Halloween candy from kids. Shame on all the perverts and loony lefties who wage war on marriage by promoting fiction and lies called “gay marriage.”

Many men are now refusing to marry because of the legal nightmare that leftist legislatures have created at the request of misandrist lesbian feminists. Until and unless marriage is restored to some common sense with a semblance of equality between men and females there are no benefits for men. Only a damn fool would contemplate marriage under such extreme misandrist law. The biggest mistake that Woods and James made was thinking that the men's nightmare of feminist marriage laws didn't apply to them. They thought they were different. Fools.