Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Friday, August 28, 2009

RESTORING THE REPUBLIC - CAN WE RECOVER OUR COUNTRY? "TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION..."

I find the direction in which our country is being surreptitiously guided, while generally ignored by our citizens, to be absolutely incomprehensible! There is no acceptable explanation for subverting the Constitution, yet - on the whole - Americans are sitting on their hands as the United States of America is being converted into the Socialist States of America.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have sacrificed their life all over the world so that others may be free. Yet when our own freedoms are threatened, we sit idly by. The word you're probably looking for right now is either "incredulity" or "apathy". For many of us, the thought of the USA possibly becoming anything other than a Democratic Republic is absolutely "incredulous" - totally outside the realm of believability. Since we don't believe it could happen, we adopt an attitude of "apathy" toward the possibility even when an exercise in "connect the dots" tells us it IS happening - right here, right now.

What are these "dots" that we should be connecting?

Dot #1. A few short years ago Anthony (Van) Jones was a Bay Area radical agitator - a committed Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, waging war on the police and capitalist system. Van Jones' meteoric rise was assisted by many different liberal-left foundations, including the Open Society Institute of George Soros, which helped finance his "Green for All" organization. Today Van Jones holds a key position in the US government and has the ear of President Barack Obama as the Green Jobs Czar. (A non-elected, non-vetted political appointment.)

Dot #2. Mark Lloyd, a left-wing radical who supports stifling our rights of free speech one small step at a time, has been appointed as the Communications "Diversity" Czar. Besides just wanting to "backdoor" a newer, more strict version of the "Fairness Doctrine" (which was abandoned by the FCC about 25 years ago as "unconstitutional), Lloyd thinks we should "model our governance after Hugo Chavez" president/dictator of Venezuela. Chavez has forced the closure of all media opposed to his administration, effectively nationalizing Venezuelan television, radio and the press! How would Lloyd accomplish this destruction of the First Amendment? By taxing privately owned broadcast media stations at the rate of 100% of their annual operating costs, and then institute a fine, if the station is not meeting his definition of "diversity"! And how are the revenues from those fines used? They are given to PBS to support their radical left-wing agenda! Lloyd also espouses a "revolution in America". Apparently he has never heard that one should, "be careful of what you wish for - you may get it." And he may discover that the revolution he gets is not the revolution he desired.

Dot #3. Cass Sunstein, a radical left-wing Harvard Law professor, appointed to the position of head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is the next nail in the coffin of the First Amendment. Below are a collection of quotes attributed to Cass Sunstein. It is believed that these quotes are accurate:
On The First Amendment -
“Consider the view that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own guns. The view is respectable, but it may be wrong, and prominent specialists reject it on various grounds. The National Association of Broadcasters and others with similar economic interests typically use the First Amendment in precisely the same way the National Rifle Association uses the Second Amendment. We should think of the two camps as jurisprudential twins.” (The most recent "prominent specialists" to support the Second Amendment was the 9th Circuit Court and the Supreme Court of The United States.)

Hunting & Animal Rights
“We ought to ban hunting. [Humans’] willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seen … as a form of unconscionable barbarity… morally akin to slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.”

Free Speech - “A legislative effort to regulate broadcasting in the interest of democratic principles should not be seen as an abridgment of the free speech guarantee.”

“I have argued in favor of a reformulation of First Amendment law. The overriding goal of the reformulation is to reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.”

“Consider the “fairness doctrine,” now largely abandoned but once requiring radio and television broadcasters:
…[I]n light of astonishing economic and technological changes, we must doubt whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals. It is past time for a large-scale reassessment of the appropriate role of the First Amendment in the democratic process.”

Taxes
“In what sense in the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?… Without taxes there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the public fisc. … There is no liberty without dependency. That is why we should celebrate tax day …” (The singular answer to all the questions asked is a resounding "YES!")

This idiot's list, which looks like something taken directly from Mao-Tse Tung's "Little Red Book", goes on and on. Sunstein stands firmly against anything remotely resembling our Constitution and the Democratic Republic to which it gave birth! He emphasizes the "democratic" part, but fails to even recognize the republic aspect of our system of government, and that is what differentiates it from a strictly democratic form of government.

Dot #4. Obama has called for "a civilian army, equal in number and strength to that of our military". Excuse me?? Why do we need a "civilian army" when we have a standing military, and against whom are these civilians supposed to "defend" us? Or, are they not supposed to defend the citizens of our nation... just the administration? Perhaps Obama feels the need for this "civilian army" because all our military personnel have taken an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". It is the principles set forth in that document - above all else - that they have sworn to defend. Nowhere in the Constitution is the protection or defense of the Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches of the government mentioned. The Constitution IS the establishment of the rules of governance of the free people of the United States.

This is just a sampling of the undermining of our nation by our own government. More than 90% of the so-called "Czars" (interesting choice of labels for somebody working within our government), are far-left radicals appointed by Obama to assist him in his elimination of the United States of America. In the immortal words of Pogo Possum, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The Democratic Republic of the United States of America can be rightfully restored. The accepted means would be by way of Congressional impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama. If Obama is replaced, then all his Czars would have to go, along with any other appointments he may have made. Our country is not safe so long as avowed Communist/Marxist/Socialist left-wing radicals are in unelected power positions within our own government!

"How could they impeach Obama?", you may be wondering. If intentional violation of the Constitution, mismanagement of national resources, and gross fiscal irresponsibility don't qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors", then I have no idea what might. Realistically however, with a lopsided Congress being controlled by the Democrats, the chances of impeachment proceedings being initiated are probably somewhere on the negative side of ZERO... unless there is an uproar from the public sector that Congress simply cannot ignore! You can be heard, but only if you speak loud and clear, in unison with a chorus of hundreds or thousands of voices. The question is... "Who will organize and lead that 'chorus'?" Will it be you... or will you wait for "George" to do it... and George doesn't?

May God save us from our own apathetic ignorance.

Ted's Dead, 'nuff Said!

Why is it that when anybody in the public eye departs this life, our media bemoans their passage for a week or more? Death is the final physical act of life. Inasmuch as life is a terminal disease, death is no surprise in our "later years", but rather it is to be expected. The only real surprise may be in the time, place or manner of death. Nonetheless, WE SHALL ALL DIE!

Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy was no JFK... nor was he even an RFK. He was imposing, but he lacked the charisma of either of his younger brothers. Comparing Ted Kennedy to either John or Robert is like comparing Willie Nelson to Pavarotti. His genuine personal accomplishments for our country were quite limited outside of Massachusetts. Kennedy was no George Washington, John Hancock, or Patrick Henry. He failed on at least one occasion as both a driver and a swimming instructor.

He's dead, and the doctors have little hope of any change in his condition. Bury him with dignity, and let's move on.

Just my opinion, so I can't be wrong. The validity of any opinion is always subject to challenges, but challenges don't make it any less valid as an opinion.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

DOJ Investigates CIA Over Use of "Severe Techniques" During Terrorist Interrogations

According to one of the wire services - "Several key Democrats and officials with Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union said Tuesday that the potential prosecutions are a start, but they said the probe does nothing to investigate the actions of officials who sanctioned the brutal interrogation program."

So, lets see just who is upset over this... the left-wing headhunters who blame the Bush administration for everything since the crucifixion, the bleeding hearts who always side with those who have done wrong, and the American Communist Lawyers Unlimited who expend great time, energy and money defending anything designed to destroy the foundations of our nation. (It's always good to look past the heroic-sounding names to find out who the players really are and identify their true agenda.)

What is it they are upset about? Probably the only thing even close to a "severe technique"in this "brutal interrogation program" is waterboarding... which is something akin to a face washing on steroids. After waterboarding, comes those vicious techniques of threats and intimidation, and embarrassment.

Look at this word: TERRORIST. The first six letters spell TERROR, and the last three letters mean "practitioner of". So the CIA interrogators were dealing with PRACTITIONERS OF TERROR.

The first step in a successful communication - of any kind - is to use a language that the other party understands. It logically follows that if the party with whom you are trying to have a successful communication deals in inflicting terror upon others, then that is a language he or she will understand.

The next consideration is fluency in the language of the communication. In order to be effective, the interrogator must be generally as fluent as the person with whom he/she is trying to communicate, to insure the message is not misunderstood, without having to use the nuances of beheading, maiming, castration, murdering, or setting fire to their captive terrorists to "get their point across". If you are communicating in a language which is foreign to you, you do not want to be embarrassed by your clumsiness/inabilities in that language! Terrorists understand TERROR, so let's terrorize them... and feed them nothing but pork products!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

545 versus 305,000,000 - Exactly HOW Does This Happen? BLAME CONGRESS!

I received an email from a friend this morning that I thought was worth passing along to the entire country... the entire world even. This work is attributed to Charlie Reese, a journalist with the Orlando (Florida) Sentinel from 1971 until his retirement in 2001. I have performed my due diligence and verified the following as an "accurate attribution". (The only deviations from the original being some inconsequential topical political references, such as substituting Nancy Peolsi's name for Tip O'Neill's, and our military being in Iraq as opposed to "on UN missions"):
________________________________________________
The 545 People Responsible for America's Woes
by Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 305 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
___________________________________________________
I have said before that we should "throw the rascals out", and I will say it once again - THROW THE RASCALS OUT! If we do that, perhaps the next few crops of elected officials will get the message that "We the People" are tired of being ignored, and fed up with big business, big money and big union interests buying our government and running it by remote control.

How far can a dog run? Until it hits the end of its leash. Congress is that running dog, and, until this point in time, it has been allowed to run without any leash and has unquestionably run amok! The year 2010 presents us with an opportunity to get a new dog, and perhaps train it a bit better. I say we should replace the dog because everybody knows that "You can't teach an old dog new tricks". (Term limits in the House and Senate would go a long way toward repairing our system. But, the House and Senate are the ones who make those laws and they won't police themselves as they should.)

As always, there is a remote possibility that I could be entirely wrong about this. The odds of that being true are about the same as the odds that Congress has actually been diligent in protecting the best interests of the citizens of the United States of America. We can replace at least 535 of the 545 directly through the ballot box - constitutionally it would be up to them to replace the other 10!

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Obama's Birth Certificate... or A Forgery? You Decide?

Speaking of SCAMS, the video below either is or is not one. Since I neither shot the video, nor retrieved the "birth document" from the hospital myself, I have no personal knowledge as to the credibility of this claim. I do, however, believe it is something to which the American public should have access...




What do you believe? And, if you do believe that Obama is the Great Usurper of the U.S. Presidency, then the greater question becomes "What is the power that placed him there?" followed by "Why?"

Addendum: As of today, 26 August 2009, the document in question has been declared a "clever forgery" based upon the following information -

"The document appears to have the following defects:

  1. Kenyan News Sources have called into question the use of "Coast Province" or "Coast Provincial" as a correct reference to the official name of the Mombasa general public hospital in 1961, citing Professor Dan Branch of the University of Warwick who noted that the term "Coast Province" was not used in the early 1960s when Kenyan provinces were typically referred to as "regions."

  2. Until 1964, Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya, not the Republic of Kenya, and Mombasa was part of Zanzibar until Dec. 12, 1963, not a coastal province of Kenya.

  3. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa, the physician who was named in the document as the attending physician at Obama's birth, was a physician who worked in Kenya during the 1960s; however, he worked at Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi. Dr. James O.W. Ang'awa never worked at any hospital in Mombasa.

  4. The dates on the document are formatted in U.S. style, listing in order the month, day and year; this is not the British format which typically follows the order of day, month and year.

  5. The footprint on the document appears nearly perfect in definition; real infant footprints typically show signs of smudging because of foot movement.

  6. The footprint on the document is densely black, revealing few natural lines on the sole of the foot; footprints used for document identification are typically inked much lighter to allow for natural lines to be clearly apparent.

  7. Footprints taken for document identification are typically taken for both feet, just as fingerprints taken for identification are typically taken for both hands.

  8. The document does not look remotely like the 1961-era birth certificates used in Kenya; infant footprints were not displayed on Kenyan birth certificates in the 1961-era."
And, there you have it! The best, most objective information I have access to as of this date. Now the question becomes one of:
"Can we trust what we see or hear... anywhere?"

CIA Conducts Mock Executions of Terrorists

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – CIA interrogators carried out mock executions and threatened an al Qaeda commander with a gun and an electric drill, according to an internal report that provides new details of abuses inside's the agency's secret prisons, two leading U.S. newspapers reported on Saturday."

The "al Qaeda commander" was not shot with the gun, nor did his interrogators perform a lobotomy upon him with the electric drill... which, for me anyway, begs the questions:
SO WHAT? AND WHO CARES?
The CIA interrogators are dealing with TERRORISTS!! What part of that do some people fail to understand? These al Qaeda pukes are folks who routinely decapitate, dismember, shoot execution-style, and burn alive their captives. If you expect people who indulge in those behaviors to give you information, you must pose the questions in a language that they understand! The language of fear and intimidation... even if you do foolishly let them live afterward. Embarrassment and intimidation are not "harsh techniques" regardless of what anybody says. However, while the bleeding hearts are passing out blame for using "harsh techniques", why do we never hear of them identifying al Qaeda as a user of "harsh techniques". Are beheadings, maimings and burning alive internationally acceptable forms of interrogation, while embarrassment and intimidation are not? Did we fail to get that memo?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Saturday, August 22, 2009

CORRECTING HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S.A.

Correcting just the end product of health care is not the answer to America's health care "problem". Health care is indeed a problem, but the problem is systemic and must be attacked at all levels, not just at the hospital level. However, in order to correct the system we must first correct GREED at the individual and corporate level.

How do we do that? In reality, we probably cannot/will not because everybody likes money. For me, personally, I have never made so much money that I ever had an excess of it. I have owned some nice cars in my life, but they were bought used, owned one at a time, and financed for YEARS. I do not own any stocks or bonds, nor do I belong to a country club. I have been fortunate enough to live indoors all my life, but never in opulence (unless you compared my domicile to the ones in some 3rd world ghetto... a Somali native might consider my abode to be opulent by comparison to his). I have never really known "want", but like most working-class Americans, I have always had sufficient. I have always been able to afford everything I truly need, and most of the things I have wanted but could have lived without. I suppose you could call me "content" with my lot in life. Don't misunderstand me though - I am not the reincarnation of Mother Teresa - if I were to win the lottery I would not refuse the money, but I rarely buy a lottery ticket, and I don't worry about not winning. I like to think of myself as "Joe Average" in most respects. Now let's get to the GREED problem...

For many people in this world there is no such word as "enough" - it simply does not exist in their vocabulary. This is a big part of the health care problem, and many other "social ills", but we do not correct it by redistribution of the wealth. That which an individual has earned (through honest and noble means) as the fruits of his/her labors entitles them to enjoy that wealth, however massive or paltry it may be. On the other hand, what honest and noble human being walking the face of this Earth produces fruits worth $10,000,000 or more per annum, other than perhaps the founder of his/her own corporation? There is no level of hired management worth that kind of money! But our major corporations pay that much and more for CEO's, CFO's, COO's and other executives, ostensibly because "they can't get the best and brightest for less" . On top of their obscene salaries, they get expense accounts, stock options, bonuses, company cars/limousines, (and in some cases drivers)/airplanes, and health, dental, life and vision insurance as part of their compensation packages.

If the government feels the need to get involved in something in industry, that would be a good starting point, but the government's job is to regulate industry, not manage it. Therefore the Congress would need to pass legislation something to the effect of:

1. No executive compensation packages worth more than $2,000,000 TOTAL - in any industry. That would eliminate the possibility of one industry "raiding" another for top executives, and anybody should be able to live very nicely on $2,000,000 per year!

2. No "Golden Parachutes" for any executive who is terminated for cause, or who fails to live up to the terms of his/her contract, or who has not increased the market value of the corporation by at least 15% during his/her tenure. Naturally there would be no "Golden Parachutes" for executives who left or were discharged from a failing corporation. We do not reward failure!

3. Corporate stockholders would receive a fair return on their investments, of say 20% - not to exceed $1,000,000 per year in total cash value regardless of the amount of corporate stock held. It would be against the law for American corporations or private investors to invest outside the United States of America.

4. Manufacturers of durable goods items, such as automobiles, appliances, and medical equipment, would have a restricted wholesale markup of not more than 20% of the total manufacturing cost. Retailers of those items would likewise be held to a 20% markup over and above their acquisition cost.

5. Union labor compensation package rates would be reduced to the average level of non-union workers performing the same work within the state where they are employed, plus 20%. A union member may be terminated at any time for just cause, as would any non-union employee, and a union member will enjoy no more recourse than that which would be available to the non-union worker.

6. Successful corporations would pay bonuses equal to one weeks earnings to all employees twice a year. Corporations posting losses during the fiscal year would correct those losses by replacing marketing and sales personnel beginning with executives - unless the product was found to be defective. If sales were down due to defective or inferior merchandise, Quality Control and responsible production workers would be replaced.

7. Outsourcing American jobs to foreign countries would be eliminated, thereby reducing our unemployment rates. Any corporation with existing foreign operations would be allowed to maintain that operation for 5 years, however those corporations would be required to pay to the state(s) in which they have production facilities, full U.S. unemployment benefits for each job created in those foreign countries on a worker-for-worker basis. One hundred employees in Sri Lanka would mean that Corporation "X" would have to pay full unemployment compensation for 100 unemployed Americans in the USA, even if they do not have production facilities in the USA.

Health Industry Specific Requirements
Items 1 through 3 and five through 7, as outlined above, would apply throughout the Health Care Industry. Additionally:

8. A cap of $500,000 maximum payment per medical malpractice lawsuit would be established.

9. Doctors working in a hospital/clinic/urgent care environment would be salaried. General Practitioners would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,250 per week and would work no more than 50 hours per week. Specialists would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $1,500 and work no more than 50 hours per week. Nursing Staff would be compensated at the after-tax rate of $875 per week, and work no more than 50 hours per week. Support personnel would be paid at the prevailing rate for their employment type within that state.

10. Medical Schools may charge no more than $150,000 for any training provided, to be repaid by the student over a period of not less than 20 years.

11. Health Insurance will be made available nationwide - from any state to any state. For example, all health insurance companies will be able to offer coverage in any of the 50 United States, thereby increasing competition to give the consumer the best value for his/her money.

12. Health Insurance companies may charge, based on reliable actuary data, at a rate not to exceed $10.00 per month per $1,000 of potential annual loss, based upon all physical contributing factors, such as age, sex, weight, race, general physical health at the time of application, pre-existing conditions, use of tobacco, alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, and the potential for loss over the length of the contract.

13. All prescription medicines offered for sale by pharmaceutical companies will be sold at a global rate, not to exceed the rate billed to the poorest of nations.

14. Corporate R&D costs will be recouped over a 5 year period via a tax credit of 20% of the total R&D cost per year, per new product. R&D costs will not be passed along to the consumer.

15. Hospitals/clinics/urgent care facilities providing over the counter (OTC) medicines or medical supplies (i.e. - aspirin, band-aids)can charge for those medicines and/or supplies at a rate not to exceed five times the per unit cost for said medicines and/or supplies.

This is certainly not meant to be the "be all and end all" of health care system regulation, but it could provide someone more intelligent than I with a "jumping off point". And, by the time our legislators - 95% of whom are lawyers - got through rewording and earmarking it, these 15 items would have been transmogrified into 1500 PAGES of government regulation!

There is certainly a remote chance that I could be "fulla" in this area, since I am neither a health care professional nor a lawyer. It just seems to me that something that appears to be so simple doesn't have to become Labyrinthine as it passes through the House and Senate!

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Obama's Belgrade Montana "Town Hall Meeting" SCAM Unveiled

I received most of the following as a forwarded email, originated by a local resident of Belgrade Montana, regarding the "Presidential Town Hall Meeting" held there on August 18th. I personally have no knowledge of the accuracy of any of it, but it does support my assessment of Friday, August 14th, regarding the staging of the meeting and the general makeup of the audience.

(See: "TOWN HALL MEETING" Defined - Obama did NOT have one in Montana)

___________________________________________________
SMOKE & MIRRORS, TRUCKED IN GANGS, SELECTIVE TICKET HOLDERS AND PRE-SUBMITTED QUESTIONS.
By now you have probably heard that President Obama came to Montana last Friday. However, there are many things that the major news has not covered. I feel that since Joe and I live here and we were at the airport on Friday I should share some facts with you.

On Wednesday, August 5th it was announced locally that the President would be coming here. There are many groups here that are against his healthcare and huge spending so those groups began talking and deciding on what they were going to do. The White House would not release ANY details other than the date.

On about Tuesday Joe found out that they would be holding the "Town Hall" at the airport. (This is only because Joe knows EVERYONE at the airport) Our airport is actually located outside of Belgrade (tiny town) in a very remote location. Nothing is around there. They chose to use a hangar that is the most remotely located hangar. You could not pick a more remote location, and you cannot get to it easily. It is totally secluded from the public.

FYI: We have many areas in Belgrade and Bozeman which could have held a large amount of folks with sufficient parking. (gymnasiums/auditoriums). All of which have chairs and tables, and would not have to be SHIPPED IN!! ($$$$$)

During the week, cargo by the TONS was being shipped in constantly. Airport employees could not believe how it just kept coming. Though it was our President coming several expressed how excessive it was, especially during a recession. ($$$$$)

Late Tuesday/early Wednesday the 12th, they said that tickets would be handed out on Thursday 9am at two locations and the president would be arriving around 12:30 Friday.

Thursday morning about 600 tickets were passed out. However, 1500 were printed at a local printing shop per White House request. Hmmmm......900 tickets just DISAPPEARED.

This same morning someone called into the radio from the local UPS branch and said that THOUSANDS of Dollars of Lobster were shipped in for Obama (Montana has some of the best beef in the nation, and it would have been really wonderful to help out the local economy!) Anyone heard of the Recession?? Just think...with all of the traveling the White House is doing ($$$$$). One can only imagine what else we are paying for.

On Friday Joe and I got out to the airport about 10:45am. The groups that wanted to protest Obama's spending and healthcare had gotten a permit to protest and that area was roped off. But that was not to be. A large bus carrying SEIU (Service Employees International Union) members drove up onto the area (illegal)and unloaded right there. It was quite a commotion and there were specifically 2 SEIU men trying to make trouble and start a fight. Police did get involved and arrested the one man but they said they did not have the manpower to remove the SEIU crowd.

The SEIU crowd was very organized and young. About 99% were under the age of 30 and they were not locals! They had bullhorns and PROFESSIONALLY made signs. Some even wore preprinted T-shirts. Oh, and Planned Parenthood folks were with them... professing abortion rights with their T-shirts and preprinted signs. (BTW, all these folks did have a permit to protest in ANOTHER area)

Those against healthcare/spending moved away from the SEIU crowd to avoid confrontation. They were orderly and respectful. Even though SEIU kept coming over and walking through, continuing to be very intimidating and aggressive at the direction of the one SEIU man (apparently the head thug).

So we had Montana folks from ALL OVER the state with their homemade signs, and their DOGS with homemade signs. We had cowboys, nurses, doctors you name it. There was even a guy from Texas who had been driving through. He found out about the occasion, went to the store, made a sign, and came to protest.

If you are wondering about the press... well, all of the major networks were over by that remote hangar I mentioned. They were conveniently parked on the other side of the buildings FAR away. None of these crowds were even visible to them. I have my doubts that they knew anything about the crowds.

We did have some local news media around us from this state and Idaho. Speaking of the local media...they were invited. However, all questions were to be turned into the White House in advance of the event. Wouldn't want anyone to have to think off the top of their head.

It was very obvious that it was meant to be totally controlled by the White House. Everything was orchestrated down to the last detail to make it appear that Montana is just crazy for Obama and government healthcare. Even those people that talked about their insurance woes... the White House called our local HRDC (Human Resource and Development Committee) and asked for names. Then the White House asked those folks to come. Smoke and mirrors... EVERYTHING was staged!!!!!!!!!!!

I am very dismayed about what I learned about our current White House. The amount of control and manipulation was unbelievable. I felt I was not living in the United States of America, more like the USSR!! I was physically nauseous. Joe and I have been around when Presidents or Heads of State visit. It has NEVER been like this. I am truly very frightened for our country. America needs your prayers and your voices. If you care about our country please get involved. Know the issues. And let Congress hear your voices again and again!! If they are willing to put forth so much effort to BULLY a small town one can only imagine what is going on
in Washington DC. Scary!!

Sue
Bozeman, Montana
_________________________________________________
Thank you , Sue!

This may be the closet thing to the truth that the American public will ever see about Obama's Montana town hall meeting. I performed due diligence, and researched all the newspapers (the 3 B's - Bozeman, Billings, and Belgrade) in that area for further information about the attendees, and found nothing about the rank and file citizens, other than a few pre-approved questions that were asked of The Usurper. There was no mention of busloads of SEIU members, or of even minor confrontations... nor was there any mention of a single difficult question being asked. According to the media, everybody loved Obama and his National Health Scare Plan.

This could be explained, according to Sue, by the placement of the national media out of view of the health plan protestors. That, together with media's love affair for ├ťbermeister Obama makes for very slanted reporting. Interestingly, our local town hall meeting in Grants Pass, OR was also heavily attended by SEIU members. Until then, I had never before seen anyone in Grants Pass wearing an SEIU T-shirt (The Service Employees International Union is the largest and fastest growing union in North America.)

The closest information I could find reflecting anything even slightly negative about the Montana town hall meeting was in the Belgrade (Montana) News: "Most people in the largely Obama-friendly crowd were favorable of the president's funding formula." The fact that it was "largely Obama-friendly" is most likely due to the busing in of supporters from outside the Belgrade area, and the White House's total orchestration of the event. (Look at it this way - if you were throwing a party, would you invite - and be surrounded for an hour or more by - people you knew didn't like you? As Homer Simpson might say... "DOH!" (Granted, Homer is neither a great intellect nor a respected philosopher, but he does recognize stupidity [at least after the fact] when he has been a part of it. Oh, and for you liberals who may think The Simpsons is a "reality show"... IT'S A CARTOON!)

Each day, more and more liberals are slapping their foreheads and going "DOH!" as they reflect upon their choice for President of the United States of America. Obama has eight months in office and has yet to keep one promise he made to the American people! However, with the creation of his Czar Zoo, he has obviously kept his promises to his political allies and fund raisers.

Exactly how stupid are the American people? Watch closely as Obama pushes the envelope in his attempts to make that determination! SMOKE AND MIRRORS..........

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Left Wing "Fairness Doctrine" versus the First Amendment

The Obama administration’s new federal communications "diversity" director may try to regulate talk radio with a "backdoor" method akin to the Fairness Doctrine.

Senator Charles Grassley, (R-IA) expressed his concerns because of a paper in which Mark Lloyd, the diversity director, alleged a “structural imbalance” in political talk radio and suggested increasing government involvement to regulate it. Lloyd co-authored the paper for the liberal Center for American Progress.

Grassley sent a letter Friday to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski voicing strong disagreement with the idea that government needs to regulate talk radio and arguing that a return to the Fairness Doctrine would end the diversity of views on the airwaves.

“Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market,” Grassley wrote. “I am concerned that, despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means."

“Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd,” Grassley wrote about the paper’s conclusion that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system."

First of all, in a free society that supposedly enjoys a Constitutional "freedom of speech", why is there a need for a "diversity director" in the Federal Communications Commission?

Secondly, in a "free market economy", why is there any need for the government to regulate what the electronic media chooses to air? Advertisers and listeners should be the determining factor in that. If there is no listener market for a program of type "C", the advertisers will soon withdraw, thereby ending further broadcasts of that type. And, if somebody wishes to air contradictory information to that presented on the type "C" program, it is not - nor should it be - the responsibility of broadcast corporation "C" to provide an unpaid venue for them to do so. Let them take their contradiction to PBS (broadcast corporation "LWL"), which is already sponsored by our tax dollars (and losing money hand-over-fist). Perhaps the "fair" thing to do would be to provide PBS with a short PSA at the end of the type "C" program to the effect of, "For the other side of the story, tune in to PBS, 870AM, at 3pm today". That should satisfy any need for "fairness" in a true free market economy.

Thirdly, Mark Lloyd's claim that "the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system." is utter nonsense! "The Gap" exists - in spite of the efforts of liberals, spearheaded by George Soros' billions of dollars - because there are more listeners supporting advertisers on conservative radio than there are listeners supporting liberal radio! The conservatives are that "silent majority" we've been hearing about since the 1950s! Unfortunately for the liberals, that silence is slowly disappearing, and true mainstream Americans are beginning to be heard from.

The liberal definition of the word "fair" seems to be, "anything which goes the way we think it should", which is significantly different than the English dictionary definition of the word. Fair means "free from favoritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards".

In August of 1987, the "Fairness Doctrine" was abolished by the FCC in a 4-0 vote.

In June 2008, Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that Obama (then a Democratic U.S. Senator from Illinois and candidate for President):

Does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters ... [and] considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible. That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.

In February 2009, a White House spokesperson said that President Obama continues to oppose the revival of the Doctrine. And now one of his appointees wants to reinstate it? Does the tail now wag the dog? Or, does this "it wasn't me", back-door action by an underling, provide Obama with the several degrees of deniability he so loves? According to Harry S. Truman, "The Buck Stops HERE". According to the Obama administration, George W. Bush is responsible for every evil and incompetent act since the crucifixion!

There is nothing "fair" about the "Fairness Doctrine", and there is even less fair about government intrusion into First Amendment issues! And that is precisely why the FCC also suggested that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:
The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

Perhaps, as Dick said, in Shakespeare's Henry VI - "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." (That's now a "two birds with one stone" deal, since 95% of our politicians are lawyers!)

I suppose I could be completely wrong about this... but that's just a supposition, and far removed from reality.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

HR3200 - ObamaCare, The "Real" Bill... For Now, Anyway

For those of you who may be interested, the entire 1018 pages of the proposed legislation, replete with legalese and political doublespeak is available at:
I have seen documents floating around in the "real world" that purport to explain what the bill is all about, and how it will impact us. A brief perusal of the bill itself - and comparing page by page to several of the pages specifically pointed out in these documents - gives me the impression that the documents reflect the absolute worst case scenario of what could possibly happen if the language of the bill was very loosely interpreted. (On the other hand, loose interpretation is the one place where our government truly excels. And, after a bill is passed into law the government bureaucrats generally take the position that "it means whatever we say it means".)

I do not know how current this iteration of the bill is, since there is no date on it. I assume that it is the most current one, since it is on the government "Ways and Means" website.

Friday, August 14, 2009

"TOWN HALL MEETING" Defined - Obama did NOT have one in Montana

A town hall meeting is an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Similarly to those meetings, everybody in a community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials.

That, my friends, describes how a Town Hall Meeting should be conducted! However, your illustrious President, His Royal Highness and Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama turned the meeting in Montana into a lecture, simply stumping for his socialistic "universal Health Care" program. As you may have noticed from my previous blog posting, this was an unsurprising tactic. Obama's audience was carefully chosen to insure there would be no dissenting opinions expressed as he, once again, bamboozled the American public with yet another well-received speech. There was no doubt going in that this campaign tactic would work in his favor, inasmuch as he, his staff and his Secret Service detail insured that those opposed to expanding government and government controls over our private lives would be denied entry into the event.

Montanans, on the whole, are neither followers nor political lapdogs - they are independent, hard-working, self-sufficient, conservative citizens who are still imbued with much of the pioneer spirit of the 19th century American West. The true spirit of Montana was not accurately represented at Obama's "Town Hall Meeting"... but, what else can we expect from the smoke and mirrors philosophy of this administration?

There is transparency in this administration, but you have to be willing to remove those rose-colored glasses and actually look through the smoke screen. What one sees is not a better America, but simply an attempt to change America into a European-style socialist nation, ruled by government and special interest groups as opposed to representing, reflecting, and preserving the will of the people and the Constitution of the United States of America! Obama also seems intent upon insuring American energy needs remain hostage to the greed of his middle-eastern, Muslim brethren.

The acceptance of this so-called "Town Hall meeting" as being anything other than deliberate, choreographed political theater should be an embarrassment to us all... and shame on those of us who see it as anything other than the political sham it was!

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Town Hall Meeting - Grants Pass OR - Aug 12, 2009

Well, by golly... I went to my first Town Hall meeting this afternoon. The meeting was scheduled for 5:15pm, and people began arriving around 3pm, which I know because I took a motorcycle ride past the Ann Basker Auditorium at 3pm and there were two people already waiting. I returned there about 3:30 after ironing a collared shirt to wear, so I'd "look respectable". By the time 5:15 rolled around there must have been about 4oo people crowded outside that venue.

You may recall that I have mentioned before how these politicians seem to choose their venue carefully and based upon limited seating capacity, so they don't have to hear too many complaints about how Washington is ruining the country... well, today was no exception! The Ann Basker Auditorium seats (or did for this particular event, anyway) 140 people, when 3 blocks away there was the Grants Pass High School Performing Arts Center that has a capacity of several thousand people.

Defending Obamacare was Congressman Peter DeFazio (D - 4th District, OR), whose voting record is generally liberal, yet he didn't impress me as a radical left-wing nut job. In the past, DeFazio has shown flashes of courage and independence, by not always keeping in the prescribed "party lock-step" mode. "Perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" (thank you Henry David Thoreau) sometimes. These actions are not so infrequent as to be called rare, really, but they are infrequent enough to enable him to avoid the label of "Blue Dog Democrat". ("Defending" may not be the right word to begin this paragraph with either. He pimped the party line, but he did so without great enthusiasm. My take was that he was beginning to lean in the direction of Obamacare, but that he lacked the moral conviction to commit his full energies to that bill.)

By now you're probably wondering to yourself, "Well?? How the hell did the Town Hall meeting go?" Prior to the meeting there were some lukewarm exchanges outside, but no fists were thrown, nor were people really "getting in each others face", nor were they raising their voices much above that volume necessary for normal conversation in a crowd of that size. All-in-all it was pretty boring outside. Once the doors opened there was a semi-uncomfortable rush to get inside, since they had announced how many seats were available just before they opened the doors to the auditorium. (Luckily, I was the tenth person in line and made it inside within the first 5 seconds after the doors opened. And yes, I did push past a couple of left-wing, union line jumpers to accomplish that feat.)

After everyone was seated and awaiting the arrival of Rep. DeFazio, there was a bit more of the "lukewarm" antagonism tossed back and forth between the liberal, left-wing "I want the Government to be my daddy and take care of me forever." crowd, and the conservative, right-wing "We want the Government to stay the hell out of our lives, to follow the Constitution, and to allow us access to what we need to take care of ourselves!" group. And again, nothing got out of control. There were several times one group or the other tried to shout down a speaker, but regained their composure and returned to acting as adults within 10 seconds or so. Feelings ran strong on both sides, but there were no physical confrontations at all, and the verbal confrontations (also called "disagreements") were of very limited duration, and only at a slightly elevated volume. I believe there was an unplanned balance in the attendance, and it seemed that the number of people either for or against Obamacare was about even. There are certain media outlets that are claiming the Obama administration has "plants" in the audience of the Town Hall meetings, and that may be true to some small degree, but I believe the left - at least at our Town Hall meeting - was primarily represented by genuinely concerned citizens... as was the conservative right. BUT - those so-called "Town Hall Meetings" at which Obama appears are another story entirely. Of course they will be stacked with Obama supporters! What good politician (isn't that an oxymoron?) who is pimping his pet project wouldn't want to be seen on national TV with maximum support if he could arrange it? And, since the Secret Service provides the entry control at any Presidential event, they determine who gets inside and who doesn't. If you don't know the "secret handshake" (which would literally be something like having an invitation or your name on a guest list) you don't get in. Wearing a T-shirt that reflects conservative values, or if it displays any message that is contrary to Obama's socialist plans is also enough to keep you out.

According to plan, Representative DeFazio was Mr. Punctuality and arrived at precisely 5:15pm, and he departed at 6:16pm ( I won't fault him for a 1 minute overrun, but I will report it because it was so close to being perfect timing). The Josephine County Sheriff attended in his official capacity, along with a Deputy and two Grants Pass City Officers. DeFazio had a good handle on the subject matter (even if it was replete with party propaganda), and had obviously "done his homework". He even claimed to have read the entire 1108 page bill!

There were the usual concerns on each side - National health care vs private insurance; "How old will the government let me live to be"; and, "Where's the money coming from for this program?", etc. The only question he really dodged was, "IF Obamacare is so good, why aren't the House, Senate and Executive branch using it instead of just the rest of the citizens... why do YOU need gold plated health care?"

Did I come away from the Town Hall meeting feeling that I had learned anything new, or was inclined to change my mind about how I felt? No. Did I feel more comfortable about the ever-increasing role of our ever-expanding Government in our lives? Not a bit. Did I feel as if I had just wasted an hour of my life? Not exactly... it could have been more enlightening, but it wasn't exactly a Black Hole in my life either. Besides, anybody that goes to a meeting with any politician, and expects to come away from that meeting with a different understanding or perspective is going to be sorely disappointed.

I'm certain there are others who were in attendance, and heard the same words I heard - but carrying a totally different message than the one I heard - that felt as if the weight of the world had been lifted from their shoulders by Rep. DeFazio. I am equally certain there were those who left the meeting feeling as if the weight of the world had doubled in just 61 short minutes. And then there were the rest of us...

There's no way I could be wrong about this, since it is my perception of what I experienced this afternoon. So, neener-neener-neener to those of you who may think I am wrong!

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Your Government Says: "Trust Us - We Have Your Best Interests At Heart"

The United States Government does not enjoy the same level of trust the people had in it 100 years ago... or even 50 years ago. Some of our politicians seem incapable of understanding how and why they lost that trust. Let's take a look at the history of the U.S. Government's ethical treatment of it's citizens -

1. This is the same Government that, between 1778 and 1894 made and (forced upon) Native American tribes more than 750 land cessation treaties. The government broke the majority of those treaties before the ink was dry.

2. This is the same Government that - authorized and conducted the "Tuskegee Experiment" - For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 black men in the late stages of syphilis. These men, for the most part illiterate sharecroppers from one of the poorest counties in Alabama, were never told what disease they were suffering from or of its seriousness. Informed that they were being treated for “bad blood,” their doctors had no intention of curing them of syphilis at all.

3. This is the same Government that, in 1932 allowed units of the United States Army, commanded by Major General Douglas MacArthur to initiate a cavalry charge which was led by Major George S. Patton against the so-called Bonus Expeditionary Force. The BEF (also known as the Bonus Army) was made up of some 15,000 veterans and their civilian families, who had staged a protest in Washington, DC in hopes of obtaining payments of the World War I bonus which the Government had promised them.. and WWI ended in July of 1919.

4. This is the same Government that, on July 16th,1945, conducted testing of the atomic bomb on human subjects at White Sands Proving Ground, NM. Excess risk associated with radiation started to appear about ten years after exposure. (Although there were no reported serious injuries as a direct result of the testing, the military personnel that were in attendance eventually reported an extremely high incidence of various cancers.)

5. This is the same Government that, in the 1960's and early 1970s exposed our soldiers in Vietnam to Agent Orange (Thank You, Monsanto!), a defoliant herbicidal chemical for which the government had not developed protective gear. Agent Orange has been linked to cancers and other diseases in several epidemiological studies. The Agent Orange cancers and diseases include prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, (lung, trachea/bronchus, larynx), soft-tissue sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Hodgkin disease, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma.

6.This is the same Government that controlled our Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security Programs... and bankrupted those programs!

7. This is the same Government that now asks us to trust them to manage our health care! How stupid do they think the American people are? Or, I suppose the proper question to ask is, "Are we just as stupid, complacent and gullible as the government thinks we are?"

Will Americans allow their loved ones to be led "like lambs to the slaughter" because they are chronically ill, developmentally or physically challenged, or because they have committed the sin of aging? Dr. Jack Kevorkian could have been the poster-boy for the Obama administration!(Remember, if you are 35 today you will be 65 in 2039, and that may just be the age at which your government decides you are to be recycled... unless you become chronically ill or disabled before then!)

I could be wrong about this... after all, we do have the best politicians that money can buy in the USA! I'm certain they have our best interests at heart... but then, I might have thought the Edsel was a good idea, too.

Monday, August 10, 2009

PROFILE: Geert Wilders, Dutch MP, Shares His Views of Islamic Threat To The World

BACKGROUND ~
Dutch MP Geert Wilders, who has produced a short film on Islam, is no stranger to death threats. Which, given Wilders position on Islam, and the radical fanaticism of many Muslims, is not much of a surprise. On a recent - albeit short-lived - visit to England, the far-right politician branded the British Government "the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe", after he flew into Heathrow airport this year, and was promptly put on the first plane back under the Home Secretary's banning order. It became clear that Jacqui Smith's prohibition order had brought Mr. Wilders massive publicity in Britain, and many more around the world searched online for his controversial anti-Islamist film, Fitna (for those of you who may be interested, Fitna is available for viewing online at -http://www.groepwilders.com/website/details.aspx?ID=65). The Home Office said: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from comping to our country." (If that were true, why hadn't they stopped the mass migration of Muslims into Britain, since Islam is a religion of "extremism, hatred and violent messages"?)
____________________________________________________

WILDERS VIEW OF ISLAMOFACISM ~

A MUSLIM EUROPE - How Close?? - THE FACTS

In a generation or two, the US will ask itself: "who lost Europe?" Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, a member of Parliament from the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York on Sept 28, 2008:

AMERICA as THE LAST MAN STANDING
-by Geert Wilders.

I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe. This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.

The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, sometimes a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration. All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their husbands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead, with mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos controlled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighborhood by neighborhood, city by city.

There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.

Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils...

The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system...

Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of
anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.

A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now...

Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their
loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays.

The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey. Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers' because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.

Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.


















The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem.
But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.

Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins, but in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.

Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it
dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.

This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand,
Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War. The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.

Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim minorities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West. It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West
is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything.

So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe
faster than you can imagine.

An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs... (end)
_______________________________________________

Geert Wilders knows whereof he speaks. Those of us who have paid attention to international news events have seen the film footage of Muslim riots in France and England. Islamists intimidate governments - by their sheer numbers and acts of violence - into accepting and incorporating their Muslim values, such as sharia law, into the host country's legal system. Islam is the only religion/political/"legal" system in the world which punishes female rape victims with the death penalty! The word "coexistence" is not in the Islamic dictionary - instead is requires Muslims to convert the infidels or put them to the sword.

Probably the best way to counter this Islamic takeover of the world would be to deny them immigration rights into any predominantly Christian, Jewish or secular country. The next best way would be to refuse to kow-tow to their demands for special accommodations within those countries, and specific prohibitions against the practice of sharia law, thereby making them less comfortable outside a primarily Islamic nation. If they wish to practice paganistic laws that punish victims let them do it elsewhere!

There is a infinitesimal chance that I could be entirely wrong about the desires and motivations of those who practice the Islamic religion and its variations (Sunni, Shi'ite, and Wahhabi being the best-known). There a slightly greater chance that I could also be from the planet Urantia...