A response to utter ignorance (forever unfinished)


So I started this adventure, and it really pissed me off, but I did put quite some hours into it so it shall be published. It is mostly finished until the end.


Notice: This meme is not mine. I do not support it, the whole purpose is to point out the logical flaws.

Disclaimer: I am a human being that believes that race, gender, imaginary lines, political views, religious views, matter not when it comes to being a human being. We are supposed to have a bond that extends from those imaginary ideas. So I am biased as far as the chaff of society is concerned.

I do not know if this is really the image of the poster. That is not the point of this either, I am not going to attack someone, just the idea. Even if it not his, I have seen this garbage on the internet enough to know this is the feelings of a portion of the population.

It is simply my need to destroy this. If you do not agree with me, then we do not agree.

DZRf4iDX4AAnmAi

When you claim Cuban heritage:

We start this conversation with a classic ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking an American citizen, who also happened to be a child. This girl is simply demanding to not be killed on the soil so lives on.

I question how one “claims heritage,” it is inherited. Hence the name. I wonder how Mr. King stacks up to his own positions.

We must establish what it is that Mr. King believes, going to his Congressional website we read the following:

Steve King grew up in a law enforcement family in Storm Lake, Iowa. He attended Denison Community High School, where he met Marilyn Kelly, whom he married in 1972. They have lived in Kiron since 1976 and are members of St. Martin’s Church in Odebolt.

So we can see that Mr. King maintains a religious background and is active in the church. Continuing on Mr. Kings Congressional website, he touts his drive towards:

Constitutional principles, traditional marriage, and family values

Mr. King should update some of the words in this. I find it difficult to claim religious values, yet not actually follow them. I am moved to believe that the values of religion should spark some interest in protecting children, not mocking them when they seek assistance from the adults that are in positions of power.

The Bible and God kind of have a thing for protection:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Proverbs 31:8-9

He who despises his neighbor sins, but blessed is he who is kind to the needy.
Proverbs 14:21

Perhaps Mr. King has been given a hall pass by the Lord. I am unaware of the private dealings he might have. Except, of course, the private dealing that has spurred him to go on the attack of a child. I can think of several tyrants who have specifically attacked children.

On Mr. King’s Congressional profile, the following statement appears:

He believes the Constitution means what it says and that it should be read with the intent of our Founding Fathers in mind. King is never caught without a copy of the Constitution in his coat pocket. He is a strong advocate of the Rule of Law and enforcing our borders.

Rule of Law is defined as:

rule of law. noun. 1. the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government bylaw.

Dictionary.com

Mr. King clearly must understand the following statement from the Constitution:

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

This attack occurred on United States soil, so the domestic violence aspect is covered. A slight oversight by Mr. King is an explanation for this misunderstanding.

AMENDMENT XIV

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Another line of the Consitution that simply must have been over looked. Or perhaps, a few pages of his Constitution book have been torn out. There must not be much in the Constitution protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States… Except for this additional one:

AMENDMENT XV

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Returning to Mr. King’s Congressional website, we read the following statement:

King is also a member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he sits on the Constitution and Civil Justice Subcommittee and the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee.

Civil Justice is a component of Mr. King’s focus. He surely must be aware of this:

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, created in 1957 by the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, works to uphold the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans, particularly some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, disability, religion, familial status and national origin.

Civil Rights Division of the Dept. of Justice

Being a staunch proponent of the laws of this country, surely, Mr. King is aware of the harassment laws of the United States. This attack in no way shape or form can be considered anything less than harassment. A government official, on a publically accessed media, and with the intention of tearing down this girl, can be present as nothing else.

Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

The victim does not have to be the person harassed but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.

Harassment laws

Since the entire topic is regarding school shootings, the following interesting statement can be found on the Rasmussen College webpage for Cyberbullying:

“The last thing anyone wants is a suicide or school shooting because of cyberbullying.”

Rasmussen College School of Justice

According to Mr. Kings Congressional webpage:

Steve King, for more than a decade, has chaired the Conservative Opportunity Society

Jumping over to the website for this society, the following statement is made as to the mission:

The mission of the Conservative Opportunity Society is to be the full-spectrum, Constitutional, conservative conscience of the House that advances policies based on our country’s founding principles: the Rule of Law, limited government, a strong national defense and strong family values. The Conservative Opportunity Society will continue to restore the pillars of American Exceptionalism and get back to the ideals and principles of our Founding Fathers.

Conservative Opportunity Society

So we are facing a Congressman, who claims to support the Constitution, yet is calling out a girl for her supposed false claim of being of Cuban heritage.

  1. We went to war in the Middle East because we have to “kill them on their soil, so they do not kill us on ours. It seems that it is only important if there is something to gain out of it. The only gain that seems to be here is the disgusting fact that people who fund and elect him are more important than any presentation of the simple concern for human life.
  2. Never once, is the actual point of school shootings, mass shootings, or gun control actually brought up in this meme. This is simply a childish attack.
  3. Mr. King states “this is how you look. What exactly is the meaning of this statement?
  4. She is standing with her eyes closed. What is “how she looks?”
    1. Taking the actual event into consideration, she was silent to provide a tangible feeling of the length of time it took to kill “17” students.
    2. She can at least put together a coherent argument and position. While adults flounder and flail like the dead-eyed fish they are, in the name of their imaginary paperwork that they have wiped their ass with since the ink first was laid down.
  5. How does on, “claim,” Heritage?
    1. It is inherited… (Hence the word…)
    2. Citizens are heavily criticized, assaulted, and disrespected for their “culture.”
    3. America is supposed to be a land of immigrants. Just don’t be from any brown countries.

“Yet, does not speak Spanish.”

Mr. King called her out for not being Spanish speaking. This is interesting considering Mr. King demand English to be the official language in the State of Iowa. This fact happens to be noted on the Congressional website:

He worked in the State Senate to successfully eliminate the inheritance tax, enforce workplace drug testing, enforce parenting rights, including parental notification of abortions, pass tax cuts for working Iowans, and pass the law that made English the official language in Iowa.

So, I suppose the man speaks his mind when it comes to his oddly defined values.

  1. Ignored fact? How?
    1. Do we even teach children this in school?
    2. Lets do a history lesson on the Spanish American War and see how Cuba faired
  2. Americans fled (or were kicked out) for “religious persecution” and taxes
  3. Dictatorship? Look inward
    1. How did that dictatorship get established?
    2. They learned it from us.

I am not going to state that Steve King is a dictator. However, he is a proponent of the United States being a dictatorship power in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

He is a proponent of controlling these countries forever if possible.

He is a proponent of besieging the civilians of these countries a military dictatorship, to replace the last ones of course.

He is a proponent of the bombing and the vaporization of children in these countries.

[Steve King] Voted NO on removing US armed forces from Afghanistan.Congressional Summary:

    Directs the President, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution, to remove the U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan:

  1. by no later than 30 days after this resolution is adopted; or
  2. if the President determines that it is not safe to remove them by such date, by no later than December 31, 2011.

Opponent’s Argument for voting No:
[Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, R-FL]: This resolution would undermine the efforts of our military and our international partners in Afghanistan and would gravely harm our Nation’s security. 3,000 people died on Sep. 11 because we walked away once from Afghanistan, thinking that it didn’t matter who controlled that country. We were wrong then. Let us not make the same mistake twice. Completing our mission in Afghanistan is essential to keeping our homeland safe. This is about our vital national security interests. It is about doing what is necessary to ensure that al Qaeda and other extremists cannot reestablish safe havens such as the ones they had in Afghanistan when the 9/11 attacks were planned against our Nation and our people. The enemy, indeed, is on the run. It is demoralized and divided. Let us not give up now.

Reference: Resolution on Afghanistan; Bill HConRes28 ; vote number 11-HV193 on Mar 17, 2011

Mr. King, with his strong stance against dictatorship, voted on the following bill by:

Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days.To provide for the redeployment of US Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. Requires within 90 days to commence the redeployment; and to complete such redeployment within 180 days after its commencement. Prohibits the use of DOD funds to increase the number of US forces serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving in Iraq as of January 1, 2007, unless specifically authorized by Congress. Authorizes retaining in Iraq US forces for providing security for diplomatic missions; for targeting al-Qaeda; and for training Iraqi Security Forces. Requires the President to transfer to the government of Iraq all interest held by the US in any military facility in Iraq.

Opponents support voting NO because:

This legislation embraces surrender and defeat. This legislation undermines our troops and the authority of the President as commander in chief. Opponents express concern about the effects of an ill-conceived military withdrawal, and about any legislation that places military decisions in the hands of politicians rather than the military commanders in the field. The enemy we face in Iraq view this bill as a sign of weakness. Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. It is absolutely essential that America, the last remaining superpower on earth, continue to be a voice for peace and a beacon for freedom in our shrinking world.

Reference: Out of Iraq Caucus bill; Bill H R 2237 ; vote number 2007-330 on May 10, 2007

Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.

    Voting YES would support the following resolution (excerpted):

  • Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
  • Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
  • Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror:
    • Now, therefore, be it

Resolved,

     That the House of Representatives–

  • Honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror;
  • Declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
  • Declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
  • Declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

Reference: Resolution on Prevailing in the Global War on Terror; Bill HRES 861 ; vote number 2006-288 on Jun 12, 200

Mr. King is a proponent of the Constitution and has stated that he finds it imperative that

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Mr. King believes deeply in the rules of the Constitution. He has to believe these rights are universal and apply to all humans equally. Yet, he has no problems with rejecting the rights of other humans the same protections contained within, such as:

AMENDMENT III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Mr. King is not quartering soldiers in the homes of citizens of the United States. He simply has no issue with quartering two armies within the boundaries of countries we have invaded as a colonial power.

Being a proponent of the Constitution, Mr. King no doubt believes in the Amendments, such as:

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

One need only look at the voting record to see the stance Mr. King takes:

Voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant.Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to allow the President & Attorney General to authorize electronic surveillance without a court order to acquire foreign intelligence information, after certifying that the surveillance is directed at the acquisition of communications of foreign agents.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terrorism. That means we have to have intelligence agencies and capabilities that are agile, that are responsive to changes in technology, and that also protect the civil liberties of Americans. Let me make an analogy. With modernization, we replaced Route 66 with Interstate 40. We no longer have the stoplights and the intersections. We created on ramps and off ramps and concrete barriers to protect the citizens where traffic was moving very quickly. That is like what we are trying to do here–FISA needs modernization.

Reference: Update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978; Bill H.R.5825 ; vote number 2006-502 on Sep 28, 2006

This vote could be simply a misunderstand Mr. King had with the Constitution. Yet:

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight.A resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities. Voting YES indicates support of the current methods for intelligence-gathering used by the CIA and other agencies. The resolution’s opponents say:

  • This bill could have and should have required a dedicated funding line for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. The 9/11 Commission recommended this board to serve as a civil liberties watchdog on the potential erosion of the basic constitutional rights. Now, 15 months later, we find our concerns about basic civil rights to have been well founded, but the oversight board is barely up and running [and is not funded].
  • Many of us believe that when the President authorized the NSA surveillance of Americans, he broke the law, plain and simple.
  • We are talking about the most basic fundamental civil liberties that protect the American people, and the Republican leadership will not even let us debate it. What are they afraid of?
  • If you believe that this President should have the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant and without going to the FISA court, then they should write that bill and bring it to the floor, then have a debate and a vote.
    The resolution’s proponents say:

  • We have had the good fortune in this country for the last 4 1/2 years to have not had another terrorist attack on our soil, and it is not because they haven’t tried. The reason for that success boils down to two things: the courage of our soldiers and the quality of our intelligence. Exceptional intelligence is the first line of defense for America in the long war on terrorism.
  • I think as a responsible body we have to start out by getting the facts. That means hard work that is done largely in secret. Oversight is under way, and, for the most part, the National Security Agency has been very forthcoming.

Reference: Intelligence Authorization Act; Bill HR 5020 resolution H RES 774 ; vote number 2006-108 on Apr 26, 2006

I find it interesting Mr. King holds up the Intelligence community, being the main force against terrorist attacks on the country.

Yet, it was an intelligence failure that led to the September 11, 2001, attacks.

It was intelligence failure after intelligence failure that prevented the United States from assissaniating Fidel Castro, most notably the Bay of Pigs. Mr. King had no involvement in this, just an interesting aside. This kind of action is clearly not dictator behavior at all.

It was an intelligence failure that led to the bombings in Pearl Harbor.

Dictators enjoy military forces, because they are the iron fist of the dictator. Mr. King has to be against it……

Set minimum spending on defense at 4% of GDP.King co-sponsored setting minimum spending on defense at 4% of GDP

The resolution supports a base Defense Budget that at the very minimum matches 4% of gross domestic product:

  • Whereas the defense of the US is contingent unconditional moral and monetary support from the Congress;
  • Whereas the US is engaged in a long war with those who employ terror;
  • Whereas current equipment is being worn out and damaged and must be rebuilt or replaced;
  • Whereas there is a broad consensus that there must be significant personnel increases of 94,000 soldiers within the next 5 years;
  • Whereas the defense budget is scheduled to drop in the coming years, to just 3.2% of GDP by 2012;
  • Whereas a defense budget of 4% of GDP is far lower than during the Cold War and almost a full percentage point lower than the ‘hollow force’ era following the Vietnam War;
  • Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House, That it is the policy of the United States to commit a minimum of 4% of the Nation’s gross domestic product to the base defense budget in order to meet the fundamental National security requirements of the United States.Source: Resolution for Minimum Defense Budget (HJ.Res.67/SJ.Res.26) 2007-HJR67 on Dec 6, 2007

This slightly clashes with other voting records Mr. King has implemented, such as:

Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate.King signed the Contract From America

The Contract from America, clause 6. End Runaway Government Spending:

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

Source: The Contract From America 10-CFA06 on Jul 8, 2010

Dictator military oppression must not be considered runaway government spending to Mr. King. This again must be an oversight, because the Constitution clearly states:

SECTION 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Perhaps a different understanding of “no,” and “years,” was held when the Constitution was written.

Mr. King seems very concerned that the island of Cuba was transformed into a prison camp?

  1. What about Guantanamo Bay? which is a prison camp.
    1. It must be okay since we did it.
      1. “To deny the guerrillas food and intelligence, Lord Kitchener ordered the British army to sweep the veld clean. The farms were burnt, the stock looted, the women and children concentrated in camps along the railroad lines. Between twenty thousand and twenty-eight thousand Boer civilians died of epidemics in these ‘concentration camps’…The conscience of Britain was stirred by the ‘holocaust’ in the camps, just as the conscience of America was stirred by the ‘holocaust’ of Vietnam.”

        http://www.worldlymind.org/creelcuba.htm

         

…boys who only moments before were playing leapfrog were mowed down. In just a matter of minutes, at least 150 Sioux (some historians put the number at twice as high) were killed along with 25 American soldiers. Nearly half the victims were women and children.

The dead were carried to the nearby Episcopal church and laid in two rows underneath festive wreaths and other Christmas decorations. Days later a burial party arrived, dug a pit and dumped in the frozen bodies. For decades, survivors of the massacre lobbied in vain for compensation, while the U.S. Army awarded 20 Medals of Honor to members of the Seventh Cavalry for their roles in the bloodbath.

Remembering Wounded Knee

…Pulitzer-Prize winning biographer John Toland wrote that Hitler was inspired in part by the Indian reservation system – a creation of the United States.

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history,” Toland wrote in his book, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. “He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination—by starvation and uneven combat—of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

Hitler and the Natives of the United States

      1. https://fcit.usf.edu/florida/lessons/s-a_war/s-a_war1.htm
      2. Sounds like a penal island we created, just a large Alcatraz
      3. Our incarnation rate
      4. Death Sentencing
      5. Law in Cuba?
    1. Do we allow travel and trade with Cuba?
    2. Do we provide assistance?
    3. Is it a US terrority? (Yes/No)
      1. So we claim ownership, yet we have all these problems? Sounds like we are a slight cause of this.
  1. Natives
    1. PreCherokee trail of tears
  2. Mexicans
    1. “Come and take it,” their own land
  3. Japanese (Concentration camps, you can call it an internment camp if you want.  “forced relocation and incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry”
  4. Ghettos
    1. Do we teach about these?
  1. Cuba, we still lock them
    1. Economical blockaid
    2. Going back to the Cold War (beginning of Cuba Soviets)
  2. What countries did we strip weapons from?
    1. Kind of a COLONIAL THING.
    2. We disarmed the Natives.
      1. Then we positioned them and who lived, were thrown into prison camps that still exist to this day.
      2. This Date in Native History: On June 2, 1924, Congress granted United States citizenship to Native Americansborn in the United States. But even after the IndianCitizenship Act passed, some Native Americansweren’t allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/native-history-citizenship-thrust-upon-natives-by-us-congress/

  3. Self-defense is an illusion against a government, military or a superpower, since when have citizens possessed nuclear weapons? That is reserved for the elite of the race. Along with tanks. Attack helicopters. Professionally trained waves of murders.
    1. Whoever has colonized is in charge until someone new steps in.
  4. The irony that you use self-defense as a platform in your response towards a request for defense from the people who are supposed to protect them. Sounds like a lack of self-defense to me.

Got to find all the logical fallacies

The person managing King’s page responded: “Pointing out the irony of someone wearing the flag of a communist country while simultaneously calling for gun control isn’t ‘picking’ on anyone. It’s calling attention to the truth, but we understand that lefties find that offensive.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/steve-king-facebook-post-emma-gonzalez/index.html

I would like to point out the irony of someone vilifying another countries flag. A flag is a symbol, that is all. when the flag they are represented conducted a continental genocide. Not to mention the war crimes conducted against those very same “communist.”

This coming from a country that invaded two countries, “officially,” over a decade ago. The bodies are still dropping, but hey, it is the name of freedom right? We must kill them over there so they cannot kill us here. Apply the balm of genocide, it seems to be the answer for every problem.

We have a colonial empire. For those who we do not own, we threaten with the largest military ever assembled.

Define commie / facism = to the same

Who became the US dictator for the island?

Teddy Roosevelt and “killing Spaniards.”

All # tags

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: