Goodbye Barry - Welcome Home AMERICA!

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Fire!! FIRE!!!!

Everybody who has heard of this organization please raise your hand: the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)........ I see only one raised hand.

How many of you have heard that a program proposed at the University of Minnesota would result in required examinations of teacher candidates on "white privilege" as well as "remedial re-education" for those who hold the "wrong" views? The term "remedial re-education" carries with it the stench of Communism. Why would I say such a thing? Because it's true.

1. After the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese men, from former officers in the armed forces, to religious leaders, to employees of the Americans or the old government, were rounded up in reeducation camps to "learn about the ways of the new government." They were never tried or convicted of any crime. Many South Vietnamese men chose to flee on boats, but others had established lives in Vietnam, so did not flee but entered these camps in hopes of quickly reconciling with the new government and continuing their lives. The Hanoi regime defended the reeducation camps by placing the "war criminal" label on the prisoners. A 1981 memorandum of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam to Amnesty International claimed that all those in the reeducation camps were guilty of acts of national treason as defined in Article 3 of the 30 October 1967 Law on Counter-revolutionary Crimes (enacted for the government of North Vietnam, now imposing its will on South Vietnam) which specifies punishment of 20 years to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

2. Re-education Camp is a favorite phrase of Communist nations, and is a euphemism for "concentration camp" or "political gulag".

Interestingly, Minnesota State Representative Michelle Bachman said on Minnesota radio station KTLK-AM (podcast) recently (in reference to The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, a proposed expansion of the AmeriCorps program that Obama has since signed into law):

"It’s under the guise of — quote — volunteerism. But it’s not volunteers at all. It’s paying people to do work on behalf of government. I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums."

Of course, the socialist-"progressive" leftists have dubbed Ms Bachman a "right wingnut", for daring to verbalize the obvious. Personally, I believe the extended Americorps concept smacks of Hilter's Jugend - his "Youth Corps" - and the fascism Hitler instilled therein. Young minds were indoctrinated to believe in his way, and only his way. They were trained to spy and inform upon friends, family and neighbors should their attitudes or words indicate deviation from the governmentally approved (Nazi) doctrine. They were especially observant of the inferior ethnic deviants (Jews) who could potentially pollute the gene poll of the "Master Race".

"Recruiting and training a Youth Brigade"... how about that? If you have been paying attention during the last several decades, you are undoubtedly aware that the halls of academia - especially the "institutes of higher learning" - have long been a bastion of left wing thought and indoctrination, and those ideologies have naturally trickled down into our primary and secondary government-supported public educational system. After all, the new teachers have been well indoctrinated at those colleges and universities. It is therefore no surprise that the University of Minnesota is considering requiring examinations of teacher candidates on "white privilege" as well as "remedial re-education", and re-educating those who may disagree with the views of the University. A discussion of "white privilege" comes at the end of this post.

Indoctrinate the younger generations if you wish to impose your personal will upon the country - they don't know enough to challenge you. Besides, it's so much easier than trying to re-educate an older and wiser generation.



WHITE PRIVILEGE

Rather than get sidetracked on peripheral information, I chose to devote this section to a distracting subject. Inasmuch as I am not a product of one of those institutions, I cannot personally comment on the concept of "white privilege", but I can supply a definition of the term - courtesy of Kendall Clark, (a man who seems to have some race issues of his own):

1. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.
b. A special advantage or benefit of white persons; with reference to divine dispensations, natural advantages, gifts of fortune, genetic endowments, social relations, etc.

2. A privileged position; the possession of an advantage white persons enjoy over non–white persons.


3. a. The special right or immunity attaching to white persons as a social relation; prerogative.
b. display of white privilege, a social expression of a white person or persons demanding to be treated as a member or members of the socially privileged class.


4. a. To invest white persons with a privilege or privileges; to grant to white persons a particular right or immunity; to benefit or favor specially white persons; to invest white persons with special honorable distinctions.
b. To avail oneself of a privilege owing to one as a white person.


5. To authorize or license of white person or persons what is forbidden or wrong for non–whites; to justify, excuse.


6. To give to white persons special freedom or immunity from some liability or burden to which non–white persons are subject; to exempt.

If I were defining "white privilege", I would probably have defined it as "wealthy white privilege", or at the very least, "moneyed white privilege". You know the old saying, "Money talks...". Being a white, middle-aged (if I live to be 132 years old) male, from a working-class background I am unaware of any particular "privilege" that simply being Caucasian has bestowed upon me. But I am of an age that I can remember the beginnings of the civil rights movement in the United States. Rosa Parks, Julian Bond, George C. Wallace, Selma Alabama, Martin Luther King Jr., Medgar Evers, et al. -these were the names in the news at that time. I am also certain that there were many hundreds of "unsung heroes" during that time. Young people who sacrificed their lives in the furtherance of civil rights, and older people who simply disappeared from the face of the Earth.

However, the only "privilege" I can remember having access to simply for being "white", was not suffering the many social indignities that were visited upon many people of color. I did have to ride in the back of the bus. I did not have to learn the "survival shuffle". I did not have to be off the streets - or out of town - by a certain time... other than that prescribed by my parents.

I did have to use a separate restroom, a separate drinking fountain, and attend separate schools from "colored" people. I did see the signs proclaiming "Colored Only" on restrooms, at drinking fountains, and in public waiting rooms. I did not see these things as particular "privileges" for whites, but more as an indignity for colored people. It was the living explanation of the term "equal but separate", and I never really questioned why - it was just "the way things were" at that point in time. A child's mind doesn't normally dwell on things like social inequity. Had I asked "Why?", and gotten an answer from anybody - including the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan or Huey Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party - my child's curiosity would have been satisfied, and I would have returned to riding my bicycle, or shooting marbles, or whatever other child-like activity I was involved in prior to my inquiry. The vast majority of children are as apolitical as they are asexual! It's the unfettered "pursuit of happiness" (or, sad though it may be - in some cases, it is the avoidance of unhappiness) that occupies the waking hours of a child.

I am not responsible for the social conditions that existed when I was a child, but I am a product of those times. Having looked into my family's history to the early 1730's I feel safe in saying that neither I nor any of my forebears have owned, or been involved in the buying or selling of, slaves. I am aware that several of my ancestors shared the prevalent prejudices of the citizens of the southern states, even into the 1950s - which is nothing to really brag about, but it is philosophically superior to believing that any human being has a right to own another human being as if he/she were nothing more than livestock or a tool. There is no such thing as human property.

I cannot say with any certainty that I have been afforded any true "privilege" based on my lack of skin color. On the other hand, I can say with great certainty that until the early 1960s, people of color - not just black Americans - were, to a very large degree, denied their dignity and any sense of social or legal justice in the southern United States.

But, does denying something to one group of people truly instill "privilege" upon those with the power to impose and enforce that denial? For some time as a child, I thought black people were "privileged". After all, they had their very own special drinking fountains, bathrooms and schools!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Lt. Colonel Allen B. West - AMERICAN PATRIOT AND LEADER WITH INTEGRITY!

A few days ago I received the below in an email from a friend. I was struck what I read, and was moved to do some research on the author - Lt. Col Allen B. West, US Army, Retired. The results of my research follow this open letter by a man who "tells it like it is". I post this with the Colonel's kind permission:
__________________________________________________

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) Statement on Fort Hood
Shooting.


"Tragedy at Ft Hood"


This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas.
As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004.


My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing. A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our "Band of Brothers and Sisters" can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units.

A military installation is supposed to be a place w
here our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation. On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism.


There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post.


We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; "pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)" is unconscionable. This is not a "man caused disaster". It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack.


We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target.


What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing. What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids. Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statement
s, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive.


However, what we have is a typical liberal approach find a victim. No , not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief.


We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting "Allahu Akhbar", same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and t
hose we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation.


No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional health care bill and resolve the issue of "protecting the American people".


The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don't have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded. We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are "Reaffirms" and "Infidels" allowed travel to Mecca?


So much for peaceful coexistence.


Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Shabbiness ideology, one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks, which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools.


We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic... that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason.


There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional.


When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan.


I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone.


Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point… the reality of your enemy must become your own.


Steadfast and Loyal,

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret)

_________________________________________________

What I discovered through my own research made me like him even more!

"An officer in Iraq who used shock interrogation tactics to thwart an impending attack on American soldiers was punished with forfeiture of two month's pay, according to his lawyer.

Previously faced with the possibility of a court martial, Lt. Col. Allen B. West accepted Article 15 non-judicial punishment from the commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division at a hearing today in Tikrit, Iraq, said Neal A. Puckett, a retired Marine officer.

Puckett said the loss of pay amounts to $5,000.

"I'm pleased that it's over with," West told WorldNetDaily by telephone from San Antonio, Texas. "But I thought that taking $5,000 away from a guy who is about to retire was a little bit unnecessary."

"I didn't think that needed to be part of a sentence in order to send whatever message the commanding general thought he needed to send," he continued.

"Simply a letter of reprimand should have done it," Puckett insisted.

At his preliminary hearing, West acknowledged he allowed two soldiers to beat an Iraqi policeman who refused to reveal details of an ambush plot and fired his pistol near the man's head, threatening to kill him.

As WorldNetDaily reported, under threat of an attack, West took charge of the interrogation of an Iraqi policeman, Yahya Jhodri Hamoody, determined to flush out details as he warned subordinates "it could get ugly." Threatening to kill the Iraqi if he didn't talk, West fired a pistol near the policeman's head.

The scared policeman then immediately disclosed the information, leading to the arrest of two Iraqis last August and cessation of attacks on West's 4th Infantry Division battalion.

At the hearing last month, West was asked by his defense attorney if he would do it again.

"If it's about the lives of my men and their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." he said.

YA GOTTA LOVE A GUY LIKE THIS!

He is presently running for election as the Congressman from Florida's 22nd Congressional District... GOOD LUCK to him!!THEN VOTE FOR THE CHANGES YOU DO WANT!

Friday, November 20, 2009

Another of Those "TOO BIG FOR EMAIL, TOO IMPORTANT TO FORGET" POSTS

I'm not real crazy about the way this was edited together, because it does raise a question about the producer's intent. On the other hand, I have seen on television most of the individual segments that have been spliced together here, and can attest that they present a valid picture of who our President really is... so if you have 10 minutes to spare, watch this video and learn.



No dolphins were hurt in the making of this video...

EXACTLY WHAT IS A POLITICAL "CONSERVATIVE"?

Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.

Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.

Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.

Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.

Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.

Conservatives support energy conservation - and
, by and large,
we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...

"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an
emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.

Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.

Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.

Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!

Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!

That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!

Here's A Tidbit That Got No Attention From The Lamestream Media!

President NObama dispatched a delegation this week to The Hague to explore issues involving the United States' possible participation in the International Criminal Court, an organization critics charge could be used to prosecute Americans under international legal standards for actions that are not crimes in the U.S.

I'm sorry, but since when are our laws insufficient to identify crimes and establish suitable punishments for people who commit those crimes? Our system has worked well enough for over 200 years - dealing with everything from spitting on the sidewalk to mass murder. Where is the need to place a United States citizen under the auspices of an International Criminal Court? If a US citizen is in the UK, or France, or anywhere else in the world, and they commit a crime they are then subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the courts of that nation. Where is the need for an "International Court" of any kind? Are not the sovereign nations of the world capable of creating and enforcing their own laws? This appears to be another step bringing us closer to that One World Government. To that New World Order which the leftists in our midst so enjoy looking forward? International Court, Global Currency, European Union, NAFTA, open borders, government nationalizing giant corporations, bailouts, financial indebtedness to those who wish us nothing but failure, forced union membership for those who wish to work, government-controlled health care... surely I can't be the only person that sees a pattern here?

"The Obama administration would like the U.S. to be a party to the International Criminal Court," said Brett Schaefer, an international regulatory expert with the Heritage Foundation. "The Obama administration would like to establish closer ties with the ICC if it turns out the U. S. can join the court. The objective in dispatching that delegation is to address the major objections to the U. S. joining the court."

The court was introduced to the U.S. when President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 1998. But President George W. Bush pulled the U. S. out in 2003 over concerns that the ICC might prosecute American soldiers for war crime charges coming from the U. S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have no need to be like the rest of the world!
Why would anybody want to emulate mediocrity? Until recently we have done quite nicely. Intrusive government is responsible
for our nation's financial disaster, issuing thousands of pages of regulations concerning the production and processing of things like lettuce, and forcing lending institutions to make loans to those who would not normally qualify for those loans. The only concerns of the government in the affairs of private business should be:

1. Is the working environment safe for the employees?
2. Is the product of that company legal?
3. Is it safe to use when the instructions are followed, or - in the case of foodstuffs - is it safe for human consumption?

That should be the extent of government involvement in private business. I can understand deeper involvement with those corporations that provide goods and services to the government, since the government is their customer and thereby entitled to specify the style and quality of product they want, and the conditions under which it will be produced - from design to delivery.
Beyond that, the government should have little control over private industry!

WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT IS TO LATE!
The path we are on today is unhealthy for "We the People". It is a path that returns us to the governmental tyranny against which our forefathers fought and died. It is a path that only has one destination if we do not create a fork in the road, for the government will surely not create such a fork. The single destination is one which hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to help other nations avoid, and it is the left branch of that (presently non-existent) fork! There is no Constitutional protection at the end of that path, only subservience, severe taxation, poverty, and enslavement of a once-free people!


CONTACT YOUR ELECTED "REPRESENTATIVES" TODAY, AND DEMAND THAT THEY CHANGE THE COURSE WHICH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION HAS SET FOR AMERICA!

The toll free numbers for the Congressional Switchboard are:

1-800-459-1887

1-800-614-2803

1-866-340-9281

1-866-338-1015

1-866-220-0044

1-877-851-6437

If you cannot get through to one of those numbers try (202)224-3121 and ask for your senators' and/or representative's office.

Army Concerns Over Palin Book Signing Trumps First Amendment!

The U.S. Army plans to prevent media from covering Sarah Palin's appearance at Fort Bragg on Monday, fearing the event will turn into political grandstanding against President Barack Obama, officials said Thursday.

Fort Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum told The Associated Press that the military post's garrison commander and other Army officials had decided to keep media away from Palin's book signing, which will not include a speech.

"The main reason is to stop this from turning into a political platform," he said. "There are Army regulations that basically prohibit military reservations from becoming political platforms by politicians."

Those Army regulations have never been bought to bear against any other politicians. Senators and Congressional representatives have made political speeches on military installations for decades, and now, suddenly, there is an enforcement of those regulations? How about this fact - Sarah Palin is not presently a "politician". She holds no political office, nor has she announced her candidacy for any political office. How is she a "politician"? She is, at this point in time, a private citizen.

Since when does the "Army's" concerns over what may be, at an otherwise open to the public event, allow the garrison commander to suspend the First Amendment rights of Sarah Palin and the press? Or, could it be that the Fort Bragg garrison commander is taking his directions from higher up the chain of command? And if that's the case, how high up did the order originate? The Pentagon? Or the Pentagon by direction of the White House? That's where the real politicians are. Generals are appointed, so Colonels (Captains in the US Navy) and above suck up to every Congressperson and Senator they can find, hoping that their name will be passed along to the President. The President nominates military and naval officers for the rank of Brigadier General (or Naval equivalents) and above, and that nomination is historically rubber-stamped by the Senate.

It's a sad state of affairs when our Constitution is so easily contravened by the government and/or the government's agents. Will this decision be upheld? We will just have to wait and see. The AP and The Fayetteville Observer are protesting the decision to ban media. Let's hope they are successful! It appears the Democrats and the liberal left fear Sarah Palin more than they fear Muslim terrorists - they are taking every opportunity to belittle, berate, denigrate and marginalize everything Sarah says or does. If they didn't fear her, they would ignore her.

BLOGGER'S NOTE: 24 HOURS AFTER THIS POSTING, THE ARMY APPARENTLY SAW THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS AND DID WHAT WAS RIGHT.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Pink Slips to Congress - Hear The Voice of The People or File For Unemployment

The wake-up call that began with the Tea Parties on April 15th, continues. Over FIVE MILLION "pink slips" have been sent to members of the house and Senate, putting them on notice that we will not allow them to remain in office if they fail to heed and respond to the unified voice of the people.

At a cost of almost $30 per person, 5,000,000 Americans anted up to send the above to all members of Congress - individually and collectively. If that doesn't get their attention, nothing will.


Remember those who are willing to sell out our sovereignty as a nation, our Constitution and our people as you vote during next years elections! Let THEM enjoy the "rewards" of unemployment. For decades our legislators have ignored the expressed will of the people in favor of the desires of corporate America and PAC lobbyists, and it is time we ignored their desire to continue to live on our taxes. The reason our laws have become so complex, and almost impossible for Joe Average to understand, is because they were made by lawyers! To my way of thinking, this is like having a pack of jackals providing security for a hen house. Perhaps we need to get rid of all the lawyers, and replace them with working class folks who would restore some common sense and sanity to our laws.

I could be wrong about this... and we could have a genuine American in the White House. What are the odds...

GOD SAVE US FROM OUR "LEADERS"!

Are You Ready For The GLOBAL ONE-WORLD CURRENCY?

In late March 2009 US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner confessed that he had not read the plans by China's central bank governor for a "super-sovereign reserve currency" run by the International Monetary Fund, but nevertheless let slip that Washington was "open" to the idea. China's suggestion – backed by Russia, Brazil, and India, is clearly aimed at breaking US dollar hegemony.

In July of this year, at the G8 Summit in Italy, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev illustrated his call for a supranational currency to replace the dollar by pulling from his pocket a sample coin of a “united future world currency.”
The coin, which bears the words “unity in diversity,” was minted in Belgium and presented to the heads of G-8 delegations, Medvedev said.

In early September of this year the U.N. said the U.S. dollar should be replaced with a global currency.

In mid-November, the head of the International Monetary Fund proclaimed, "The imperative of greater global currency stability means the world can no longer rely, as it has done since the end of the gold standard, on a currency issued by a single country."

Is this the first step toward the long-rumored One World Government? The New World Order? Will you not be able to buy or sell without it... could it be "the mark of the beast"? It appears that most of the world is aligned to accept this global currency, and at first glance it may be appealing, but... if it is controlled by the International Monetary Fund, the whoever controls the IMF controls currency of the world, and by logical extension controls THE WORLD! How's that grab ya, Bubba? There will be no more sovereign nations, no more Constitution, no more freedoms - other than those permitted by Big Brother. True freedom needs no permission! Yet there are those among us who will welcome their enslavement - as long as Big Brother puts beans on their table. And I will tread upon their decaying bodies as I march/walk/crawl to engage those who would dare to attempt to rule free men! Live free or die is more than just an idea - it's an ideal, a credo and a value.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Iran Sentences 5 More To Death in Postelection Civil Turmoil

The sentencing of five more opposition leaders to death brings the total number given an order of supreme sacrifice by Islamic justice to eight. This is not surprising given the Islamic culture of the Arabic countries.

It began almost 3,800 years ago during the reign of Hammurabi, a little-known (outside of Biblical and Legal scholars) King of Babylon. A man of his time - a time of violence and upheaval - he instituted the "Code of Hammurabi", the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view.

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.

There were 282 of these "laws" established in the code, most of which call for a penalty of death if violated, which today's western culture views as outrageously cruel. But there was no "western world" known at that time. The Code of Hammurabi is the foundation of all law in the majority of middle eastern countries. Add to that Muslim sharia law, which is itself draconian in nature, and you have a recipe for extreme punishment for what westerners would consider relatively minor offenses.

During the period of unrest and civil disturbance following Iran's recent questionable election, the only fatalities were inflicted upon the opposition by the government security forces. Those prisoners identified as being members of the opposition were, for the most part, charged with civil disturbances and property crimes (vandalism), neither of which would warrant the death penalty in any civilized society. But sharia "law" is a law that punishes victims of crime as quickly as it punishes the criminal.

Where is the world's outrage against such extreme penalties for relatively minor violations of law? Where are the bleeding heart liberals? Where is the loud voice of the international press? Where is a statement deploring these Draconian punishments from the President of the United States? Why are these actions treated by most as a footnote rather than a headline? This is the 21st century, not the 16th century BC!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Obama Revives Talk of U.N. Gun Control - All Our Rights Are In Danger!

As you enter the U.N. Plaza you will see one of the UN's signature pieces of art, a gun with a knot in the barrel. This should give you an idea of how the U.N. views our 2nd Amendment Right.The United Nations is, as the name implies, a concentration of voting representatives of 192 nations of the world, and two non-voting "Observer States" - the Mission of the Holy See (Vatican City) and the Mission of Palestine (Terrorist City). Those states are "united" only inasmuch as they attend meetings in a single place. Even as this blog is being composed there is some discussion among the sovereign nations of the European Union not just to have a President of the EU, but to convert the EU into a single government state with a single president! (Front runners for this position are rumored to include Belgium's center-right Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, and French President Nicolas [get 'em while they're young] Sarkozy.)

As most of us are aware, the United Nations makeup is primarily left-wing nations, dictatorships, and "enforced governments" (voting permitted, but ballots ignored in favor of the incumbent). We are also aware that our Constitution is what makes the U.S. unique among world governments... it GUARANTEES us certain rights that most of the people of the world do not enjoy. Among those rights is the Constitutional right - and power - to replace a non-responsive government that has forgotten the its people ARE its power.

We are NOT Europe, nor do we wish to imitate Europe. We ARE the United States of America. We do not need the United Nations, "International Law", or the "International Court" to dictate how we will run our country. We do not need the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 29 to supercede our Constitutional rights -

Article 29.

  • (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
  • (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
  • (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Vaguely worded, legal mumbo-jumbo that can be interpreted in any fashion the dominant authority, which, in this case would be the United Nations (after Obama signs over ownership of We the People to the U.N.) desires. It's a "they win, we lose" situation, just waiting for an opportunity to manifest itself.

Obama's plan seems to be designed to destroy both our national and our individual economies, thereby making submission to a One World government more attractive to those who cannot see through the smoke, and are not misdirected by the mirrors. Our government has spent its way into a very large hole, which it made even deeper by borrowing money from our "good friends" in Communist China. Then Obama has more US currency printed and minted, thereby further devaluing it, and reducing our personal buying power. From March to September 2009, the dollar's value fell 14.9% against the Euro. How did this happen? The dollar is declining for the following reasons:
  1. The U.S. debt has risen to over $12 trillion. Foreign investors are concerned that the U.S. will let the dollar decline so the relative value of its debt is less.
  2. The large debt could force the U.S. to raise taxes to pay it off, which would slow economic growth.
  3. As more countries join or trade with the EU, demand for the euro will increase.
  4. Foreign investors may want to diversify their portfolios with more non-dollar denominated assets.
  5. As the dollar continues its decline, investors will be less likely to hold assets in dollars as they wait for the decline to stop.

The government is fully aware that this path to destruction will not rest well with "We the People". And, much to the chagrin of that same government, it realizes that it cannot just rescind the 2nd Amendment without a firestorm of response. What's the politically correct, high-deniability, cowards way out? Be able to blame it on somebody else - like the United Nations - by way of "treaty"or "agreement". To me, that doesn't seem like a really feasible way to avoid that firestorm... does it to you? But then, I'm not a politician... I just "call it like I see it"- not how somebody else thinks it should be. If any of these things happen we need to...

‘The Way Some People Treat Animals Is Just NOT Acceptable!'

"Abandoned dog’s condition appalls shelter manager"

As the shelter manager for the Rogue Valley Humane Society, Margaret Varner is used to seeing abused animals. She thought she’d pretty much seen it all, but then along came Freedom.

Last Saturday, a couple dropped off the white pit bull mix they said they’d found in a ditch in the Sanitarium Road area near Merlin. The dog was emaciated. Her ribs were sticking out, and she weighed less than 40 pounds. All of her teeth had been filed down to the gum line so that her teeth roots are exposed. She had a few pressure sores where the bones rubbed against the skin and caused sores.

She had also given birth to nine puppies earlier that day. One puppy later died. “The puppies still had umbilical cords attached and were wet,” said Varner. “It just broke my heart. I couldn’t sleep because I kept thinking about what she had been through. And she is still a love. She just wants to snuggle up to you and be petted.”

Freedom was taken to a veterinarian on Sunday for emergency treatment. Varner estimates that Freedom is between 2 and 4 years old. Without teeth, it’s hard to determine a dog’s age.

Freedom was also full of tapeworms and had to be treated. She will be tested for heartworm later this week. If she has it, the shelter will have to hold off treating her until her puppies are weaned in another six weeks or so. The puppies will soon be dewormed as well, once they are a few days older. The white and brown litter has one female and seven males. “We’re hoping people will call in and give us suggestions for names. We’re trying to keep them all patriotic, though,” she said. Varner believes Freedom’s teeth were filed down to prevent her from attacking other dogs when she was forced to breed. “Her teeth are filed too uniformly to say she was a rock chewer or chewed on her kennel,” she said. “Someone had to do that to her.”

Currently, Freedom is being fed a mixture of boneless-skinless chicken breasts and puppy chow to give her more nutrients for feeding the puppies and to help her safely put on weight.

The Rogue Valley Humane Society has established a fund, Truman’s Fund, to help pay the medical bills of some of the most abused animals that come through its doors. The fund is named after a 5-year-old Great Dane that had been severely neglected and needed serious medical care earlier this year. “We can’t save them all, but we can help out some of them,” Varner said. The shelter manager is also disturbed at the number of pit bull mixes that have been dropped at her door in the last few months.

“In the last week alone, we have had three female pit bull mixes dropped off,” she added. Varner said shelter staff continue to work on educating the community and children about animal abuse, hoping to prevent more cases like Freedom. “The way some people treat animals is just not acceptable,” she said. “Freedom already has so many strikes against her. She’s a pit bull and they get a bad rap,” Varner continued. “She will be a special needs dog because of her teeth. I just wonder how much more this dog has to endure. It is just heartbreaking.”

THE PEOPLE THAT DID THIS TO THAT POOR DOG NEED THE SAME THING DONE TO THEM!

Saturday, November 14, 2009

OBAMA DICTATES KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED TO BE TRIED IN NYC!

Barack Hussein Obama, as part of the "change" he promised, chose to ignore 2000 years of history and determined that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed must be tried in a civilian court for acts of war against the United States. This self-professed, mass-murdering, terrorist scumbag is in New York City awaiting trial, rather than facing a military tribunal - as those who commit acts of war against a sovereign have for millennia. Never before in the course of history has there been an instance recorded where a known enemy combatant was given a civilian trial! Acts of a military nature are - and always have been - subject to military law and military justice.

First of all, why is Obama even involved in the process of determining where and how this coward will be tried? Because he chose to insinuate himself into it. Only Obama understands the warped reasoning behind that choice. This is the one instance where he really should have just voted "present". His role as "Commander in Chief" is laughable inasmuch as he has never had any military training, much less worn a uniform. How does one "command" that which he has never experienced himself? Obama isn't qualified to lead an orchestra! Why did all you left-wing, bleeding-heart, pinko liberal-"progressives" put him in charge of our nation's security?

Perhaps Obama involved himself in this military issue to placate his Muslim pals, and maybe he has assured them that all will be forgiven, and that their terrorist minions will all be returned home (at U.S. taxpayer expense, of course) alive and well... and a few pounds heavier than when they left. The only thing he's accomplished since elected is to vacation around the world while apologizing for the USA at every stop!

Friday, November 13, 2009

US seeks to seize 4 mosques, tower linked to Iran

That is how the AP headline reads. The story opens with - "NEW YORK – In what could be one of the biggest counterterrorism seizures in U.S. history, federal prosecutors sought to take over four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a Muslim organization suspected of being controlled by the Iranian government."

There are some Constitutional concerns about that government action - specifically 1st Amendment "freedom of religion" issues. There may also be some 4th Amendment questions to be answered. If the government is successful in its suit to seize these "terrorist" assets, including the mosques, would they be in violation of the 1st Amendment protection of "freedom of religion"?

Not being a lawyer of any kind, much less a Constitutional law expert, my layman's opinion is no, they would not. They will not have banned the religion, they will only have removed the availability certain specific, questionable, places of worship. The practice of the Muslim religion can still go on... just not in those particular mosques.

Thursday, November 12, 2009

LOU DOBBS QUITS CNN! Apparently Lou Had Too Much Personal Integrity For CNN...

CNN's Lou Dobbs, a lightning rod for criticism following his transition from a business journalist to an opinionated anchor on such issues as illegal immigration, told viewers on Wednesday, November 11, that he was quitting his nightly show to pursue new opportunities.

Lou was one of the original on-air founders of CNN back in 1980, which causes one to wonder... why, after almost 30 years, did Lou decide to jump ship? If you are old enough to remember, you'll recall that CNN made its name in television news broadcasting by covering, in-depth, those news stories that the established broadcast networks would either ignore completely, or perform a Mongolian ballet very lightly around the edges. Hard-hitting, gutsy reporting was their stock-in-trade back then. The network itself demonstrated journalistic integrity, even when the left-wing pansies of America began shrieking "That's too graphic! We don't need to see that!". But, that was before they sold their integrity for the 20th century version of thirty three pieces of silver. They jumped into the mainstream... and have barely managed to stay afloat since!

Lou was paddling and bailing as fast as he could, but the weight of slanted journalism finally became too much of a burden for him. Here's a typical example of the things he began reporting in the recent past -



His honesty and desire to inform the American people, rather than sell journalistic swill to them, made the corporate suits a bit uncomfortable, which is probably where his desire to "pursue new opportunities" came from.

Lou Dobbs will be missed by the viewing audience, but perhaps his "new opportunities" will permit honest reporting of what is really going on in our country and around the world. I wish Lou the absolute best of luck, and hope we have not seen the last of him!

DOES THIS GOVERNMENT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MANDATE HOW WE SPEND OUR MONEY?

Where does the government get the right to mandate how the citizen spends his or her money? It's certainly not in the Constitution! Yet, the pending legislation requires that we either buy "government approved health insurance", or buy into the government controlled option! When did the government get the right to prescribe stiff fines and prison sentences for those who choose not to let them dictate how we spend our own money? When did the government get the right to use our tax money to compete against private business? (Can you say "TYRANNY"?) Why does the government prohibit health insurance companies from competing across state lines? Could it be that the health insurance industry's lobbyists bought that arrangement from corrupt government officials, thereby insuring there would be extremely limited competition in any state, thus providing their corporations with maximum opportunities to collaborate and FIX PRICES?

Wouldn't a more responsive (and less costly to the taxpayer) plan be to establish a requirement that any company offering health insurance must offer it nationwide, thus increasing competition and providing the consumer with a greater range of plans and costs from which to choose?


Are "We the People" so gullible as to believe that this continuous and blatant government intrusion into the private sector is anything less than the action of a tyrannical dictator? A dictator so intoxicated by the fumes of his own power that he has forgotten the true power rests with the people? Or, is it we who have forgotten that we are the power - and he is just taking advantage of that fact? I am so embarrassed by this left-wing socialist-progressive government that if I were traveling overseas I'd be telling people "I'm a Canadian, eh!"

Long-term Effects Of High Unemployment, Recession and Devalued Currency

Does the average person not think it odd that when the country goes into a recession, unemployment spirals upward like a two-bit skyrocket, and the value of the U.S. dollar plummets to lifetime lows - that the cost of everything, including things produced in the USA, goes UP? That's how it strikes me, anyway... but I'm not an economist.

I am an observer of human behavior, though, and here's what I think we can expect to see as our current government-sponsored economic disaster continues:
1. As experienced older workers who - for the most part - draw higher wages, lose their jobs due to personnel cutbacks and impending retirements (retirements which corrupt employers love to avoid paying), they will find themselves taking entry-level positions just to earn a living so they can support themselves and their families. That's the way the older generation is wired - most of them still have what is called a "work ethic". (They have worked all their lives, and will continue to do so, if/when work of any kind is available. These people have character flaw called "personal pride". This pride will dissuade many of them from applying for unemployment compensation, even though they have paid into it all their working life, and that same pride will not allow them to stand on a street corner holding a sign asking people who are working to give away that which they have earned... at least, not until they are totally discouraged, and their family is going without.) This creates another problem...
2. Older, experienced workers are now competing with youngsters just entering the workforce. An employer (in any business other than one which is "youth-oriented") can now pick up proven workers for the same cost as a totally inexperienced worker. Because the cost in wages is the same, the experienced worker will probably get the lion's share of whatever work is available. The experienced worker is also less apt to have lost time (illness, work-related injury, pregnancy leave, etc.), so the employer will snatch him up and call it a bargain at that price.
3. There will still be high unemployment among the older segment of our population, but the youthful worker will see an excessively high unemployment rate - probably double that of the experienced worker. The younger generation will be quickly frustrated because they are used to getting what they want and getting it now. They will foment civil unrest - protests, vandalism, rioting, burning, looting, etc. - to the country. Metropolitan areas will feel the effects first, followed some time later by the suburbs. Rural America may feel it somewhat, but with nowhere near the passion - or the impact - of the disturbances in the cities. Existing street gangs will mobilize to take full advantage of the chaos, and new street gangs will be formed. "Turf" will gain even more importance than it has among gang members today, because it will literally become a matter of survival for them. Many gangs are fairly well organized, and in some instances they outnumber the police... and they are better armed.
4. Citizens who have otherwise been law abiding their entire life, will commit acts of theft, burglary, strong-arm robbery, and armed robbery when those things necessary for the survival of their family become generally unavailable.
(At this point we may reach the worst case scenario, which goes like this)5. Martial law is declared, and curfews established - by the same people responsible for the financial crisis. U.S. military forces are called out to quell the disturbances, and are told to use all necessary force -an intentionally vague, and politically satisfying term, which gives those issuing and those executing the "orders" a reasonable level of deniability. For the issuers it would be "That's not what we meant.", and for those carrying out the orders the retort becomes "But that's what you said!", when both parties are pointing at the other while trying to explain away the high body count.
6. The government is now seen by the populace as out of control and running amok, and the citizens take up arms to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Half the military defects and joins the revolution.
7. Enemies of the United States now see their opportunity to pick a side, support them, and then eliminate them once the conflagration is ended... or, perhaps they will not pick a side. Rather, taking full advantage of the chaos, they will wait until our numbers have been decimated, and then just invade and kill or enslave the remaining population.

As I see it, the bottom line is this -
1. People are naturally inclined do whatever they feel they must to protect themselves and their loved ones.
2. People will engage in uncharacteristic, immoral and/or illegal behaviors, when threatened with extermination. What do they have to lose at that point?
3. Loyalties will be restricted to family, close friends, and a fairly small group of like-minded individuals. All others will be looked upon with suspicion and considered a potential threat - until they prove themselves to be otherwise.
4. A government that does not represent the expressed, free will of the people is a government well worth replacing! Such a government would be a "domestic enemy" of the people, and under the United States Constitution should be replaced.

And those are my thoughts about the social probabilities of an extended financial crisis. Just thoughts... not a plan, not a call to arms... more of a "HEY! Look at these unsatisfactory possibilities that could come to pass." Could our country become nothing more than a series of armed camps with private checkpoints every 10 blocks or so? I believe it could... but I pray that it won't.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

GUN CONTROL!! GUN CONTROL!! STOP THOSE VIOLENT GUNS TODAY!

The most recent act of domestic terrorism has left the nation stunned. The calculated slaughter of 13 American soldiers by one of their own was, by all reports, not an unforeseeable incident. Army Major Nidal Hasan, had been repeatedly overheard making negative remarks about the USA and our commitment in the middle east, and espousing his Muslim faith at inappropriate times - like the time he was supposed to present a paper at a medical conference.

Major Hasan is a Muslim. As soon as his identity was revealed, his religion became the subject of a ferocious public debate: bloggers claimed the massacre cast doubt on the loyalty of all American Muslims, while commentators on the other side argued that even to consider the role of Hasan's faith was Islamophobic. To NOT consider his religious beliefs would be sheer stupidity! Islam is not a religion of peace, love and brotherhood. Looking back through the world's history, no religion has unwaveringly remained in that category. We have the Christians behind the Spanish Inquisition, the Jewish Zealots at Masada after being defeated at the rebellion against Rome, and the several conflicts between the Christians and Muslims known as The Crusades. All religions are man-made... and therefore they are just as flawed as the men who created those varying systems of belief. God did not create "religion". He was too busy creating the universe and all the things therein... so he left it up to mankind to devise the means by which they could learn to hate one another - even in the name of brotherly love.