"UNITED WE STAND" - Is It Just A Motto, and Not A Creed?

I was out and about today when I noticed a bumper sticker... one that I have seen probably a thousand times in my life. It stated simply, "United We Stand", but, for some reason, it struck me as odd this time.

Odd that we have it as our national motto, odd that it appears on our money (in Latin, no less; "e pluribus unum" - which translates as "From the many, one"), and even more odd that some people actually choose to display that sentiment on a lowly bumper sticker. It may have applied during our War of Independence -also known as the Revolutionary War - when we had a population of approximately 497,000. But, this antiquated sentiment has little application in the 21st Century, and for reasons of pure selfishness. (How old is this sentiment? Its origins have been traced back to the Greek slave, Aesop, who lived in the 6th and 7th century B.C.)

The current administration is working diligently to undermine our laws by discounting Congress and usurping our Constitution - that document which (until recently) was the foundation of our country's management philosophy, and is the basis for all United States laws (English Common Law notwithstanding). This so-called "transparent" administration relies almost exclusively on smoke, mirrors, misinformation, disinformation and flat-out lies. Obama's attempts to destroy our culture and our economy, incorporates the core precepts of the Cloward-Piven Strategy (Google it if you have no idea how to destroy a country), and is divisive in its implementation.

The areas of division are many, including (but certainly not limited to) these few:

Class Divisions - the old "have-nots vs haves", the rich vs the significantly-less-than-rich

Employment Divisions - the labor unions vs supporters of the right to work, and workers vs the indolent

Religious Divisions - the atheists vs religious, Christianity vs Muslims, Muslims vs the World

Educational Divisions - the educated vs dropouts,

Sexual Preference Divisions - "gays" vs "straights"

Racial Divisions - the whites vs non-whites

and last, but certainly not least...

Political Divisions - Republicans and Democrats are obviously the two major political divisions, but there are several smaller - virtually impotent - political parties. These two parties control our legislative process, and both claim to want what's best for the country. However... their philosophies are diametrically opposed, so it follows that neither is 100% engaged in what is best for the United States. Each is so busy trying to undermine the plans of the other that, more often than not, each party is overlooking any good that the other may proffer! Who the hell is looking out for our Democratic Constitutional Republic?? If you chose "none of the above" as your answer, you're probably right.

The Obama administration is replete with left-wing, "redistribute the wealth", disarm the citizenry (except them), Socialist-Progressives and communists, as I reported in this blog on August 2, 2009. Let's look at the techniques they are implementing to facilitate the destruction of the United States of America as we know it.

Pitting the "have-nots vs the haves" has probably been going on since the beginning of time. The most successful of the hunters and gatherers were undoubtedly envied and/or resented by those who either lacked the requisite skills/sufficient motivation to develop/improve those skills. But, without lifting a finger (with the possible exception of the middle one), they were allowed to gnaw the residual meat from the bones the hunters discarded, and eat the nuts and berries accidentally dropped by the gatherers. However, the insufficient felt that they too should be able to feast on the flesh of the animals and sit close to the fire. Unfortunately for them, this was the time during which the biggest, strongest and smartest made the law. When the do-nothings complained about their place in the Neanderthal society, the tribe either beat them into submission and forced them to work in some capacity, or banished them from the safety and security provided by the tribal lifestyle. Harsh treatment was necessary in order to insure the survival of the many in those harsh times... it was primarily a PoP (Produce or Perish) social structure. The term "entitlement" had not yet been accepted by society.

The employment divisions are equally clear, and is simply a variation of "haves vs have-nots". However, the right to work class struggle, strangely enough, is initiated by those who have. In order to protect themselves, members of labor unions believe that all skill marketing should be strictly controlled within the domain of the union. As tribes expanded into villages, and villages grew into towns, there became a need for job specialization within the community. Initially the specialization process was one of hit-and-miss. Successes were rewarded, failures were not. Trade "guilds" (first formed in the 14th century) were the forerunners of labor unions, and the concept was quite simple then. A youngster was "apprenticed" to a skilled artisan, where he/she would learn that trade from the ground up - first doing the most menial of tasks (many of which were probably not job-related), and eventually developing the skills of the trade. During this apprenticeship the "pay" was provided in the form of room and board. After a period of several years, the master craftsman would recommend his apprentice to the local guild, which body then decided if the apprentice was qualified to set out on his/her own. Today, union membership is about keeping jobs and pay raises for the less-than-qualified and the totally incompetent. The important thing is continuing the influx of union dues. My personal belief is that we have an inherent right to profit from our individual labors... not from those of our neighbors.

Religious divisions are slightly more difficult to identify, but just as easily provoked by those who wish to pit one belief system against another. Each belief system is certain that theirs in the only true belief. Quite simply then, if any one belief is true, then all others are - by default - false. This creates an ideal condition for fomenting inter-religious and, by extension, interpersonal discord! And, by way of comparison, the Judeo-Christian system(s) are primarily ones of tolerance and acceptance of variations in doctrine, whereas the Muslim/Islamic system is one of intolerance toward, and total rejection of, all other belief systems. Even within the Judeo-Christian system there are those who preach divisiveness for a myriad of reasons - most of which have no basis in fact or reality. Nonetheless, they seem to be at least minimally effective in creating those divisions. Everyone in this country has the right to believe - or not believe - as they so choose.

Educational divisions are relatively easy to pinpoint. Those with advanced education are generally in executive and management positions within an organization, and those with insufficient education are more likely to be found in the labor intensive jobs. This does not mean that one is superior to the other as insofar as their worth as human beings is concerned. It just means that one has taken greater advantage of their educational opportunities to prepare them for a work experience that provides them with a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the professors of academia are overflowing with left-wing liberal Socialist-"Progressives" who subscribe to the Marxist philosophy of "to each according to his needs, from according to his ability", and thus it is taught, provoking discord between liberals and conservatives. The proper philosophy for a Democratic Republic should be, "to each by his own means", reflecting that we may only prosper from our own labors.

The sexual preference division is a relatively new social partitioning, and has been accomplished via the granting of "special protections" which are above and beyond those provided to the general populace under the Constitution. These special protections put the minority "homosexual community" at odds with the majority heterosexual community. In essence, it places them on some type of "endangered species" list... which may be an accurate description, since they cannot reproduce strictly within their own community. The creation of "hate crime" laws was instrumental in creating this division, and it includes other minorities including but not limited to, racial, religious and ethnic minorities. Such laws are totally unnecessary, because any physically aggressive action is well-covered in previously existing laws. Laws against assault, battery, theft, maiming, manslaughter, homicide, etc., have been around for centuries, and provide for "equal protection under the law". "Hate crimes" cover the state of mind of a transgressor - or quite plainly put, how he/she felt about the group in which the victim is identified, and the reason they took criminal action against them. Reason makes no difference - a criminal act has taken place, and should be punished under the law based upon that fact alone!

Racial divisions are fairly obvious since identification is based upon stereotypical physical features such as skin color and facial features. According to our president (lower case "p" is intentional), apparently white people don't like anybody of color just because they are "of color". We especially don't like Blacks because of the high contrast, and illegal aliens because most of them are brown (certainly not because they violated our laws entering this country). But, as long as the government can benefit (somehow?) from portraying the majority (white Christians) as basically racist, they will continue to do so. The only possible "benefit" to the political party is at election time, when they capitalize on this strategy at the voting booth. This brings me to...

Political divisions. Political divisions are similar in one respect to religious divisions; we are greatly influenced in our choice of each by the authority figures in our life... mainly our parents. All parents want their children to be "more" than they are, so we intentionally try to pass along our traditional belief systems (which most of us inherited from our parents) to our children. This is not exactly fair of us, but it is "normal" human behavior. It diminishes, to some degree, the child's right to choose. But, to permit that total freedom of choice would imply that we were not strong in our own beliefs, so we indoctrinate our children.

I have a personal theory that we are each endowed by our creator (your choice here - intervention by a "Supreme Being" or the sperm donor's DNA) with a unique internal "blueprint" for our life. My theory goes on to postulate that this unique internal blueprint is socialized out of us, beginning almost at the moment of birth. This is the "Cookie Cutter Mentality" at work. (If you want to be a socially acceptable "cookie" you have to fit the same mold as all the other little cookies.) It has its good points, and a multitude of bad points. What would happen if we were allowed free reign, with the exception of say, physically aggressive behaviors? There would likely be little if any prejudice in the world, because prejudice is a learned behavior, and there is no innate dislike of the unlike.
Reducing learned prejudices from our repertoire of behaviors, would result in minimal racism and less "my belief system is better than your belief system". With little physical aggression, there would be fewer boundary disputes between neighbors, whether next door or across the national border. It's a nice theory, but given human nature, it is not practical to expect such radical changes. We humans are fallible creatures. On the whole, we are not solitary beings, and we do tend to "go along with the crowd" in order to insure and preserve our acceptance in the society into which we were born. And therein lies the rub - to get along, one must go along. But, I digress...

With so many divergent social paths available in a free society, is it any wonder that free societies can be torn asunder from within? Yet oppressive societies also suffer from a similar tearing apart, by the inherent yearning that all people have for certain freedoms, especially the freedom to choose.

The above is not meant to be a "lesson", but rather to provoke thought and perhaps stimulate social discourse. Most sentient beings find it enjoyable to simply think, and consider it good fortune to have someone to share their thoughts with. Try thinking outside the box... you may like it! And remember, "United we stand, divided we fall"... it must be more of a creed than an empty motto, or we shall surely perish!

"In Hasan case, superiors ignored their own worries"

Thus reads today's AP online headline, referring to the infamous Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, United States Army. The article goes on to say - "The picture emerging from the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates is one of supervisors who failed to heed their own warnings about an officer ill-suited to be an Army psychiatrist, according to information gathered during the internal Pentagon investigation and obtained by The Associated Press. The review has not been publicly released."

The rest of this news item goes on to tell how poorly Hasan did in medical school, how weak a performer he was as a practicing Army psychiatrist, and how he was promoted on schedule regardless, carefully avoiding asking the question of "WHY?"

Why was he allowed to spend 6 years completing medical training that normally takes 4 years to complete?

Why, if he was a less-than-satisfactory practicing psychiatrist, did his officer efficiency reports fail to reflect that?

Why was he promoted on schedule throughout his 12 year stint in the Army?

Why did his superiors fail to report their suspicions about his radical and inappropriately expressed Islamic religious views?

The obvious answer to each and every question is the exact same answer...

He was allowed to spend 6 years completing his medical training because he is a member of an ethnic minority group in the US, and to treat him as others would be treated could possibly indicate a personal prejudice by a staff member at the school, or a systemic prejudice within the school itself. Political Correctness dictates that we must not criticize the actions or failures of any minority group member.

Because of his status as a member of the privileged "minority" class, none of Hasan's superiors would dare present an honest evaluation of Hasan's substandard performance without jeopardizing his own career aspirations. To write a performance evaluation that failed to praise a follower of Islam would be politically incorrect, and could quite possibly get that superior officer branded as a "racist" or an "Islamophobe".

He was promoted on-schedule for exactly the reasons explained above. Failure to recommend him at the earliest promotion points could be seen as "institutional racism" within our Army, or - again - personal prejudice on the part of evaluating/reviewing superior officers within his chain-of-command. We must, at all costs, be Politically Correct!

To indicate that one has suspicions about the demonstrated behaviors of a member of a minority group, is (within our military organizations) essentially saying, "I'm against Muslims progressing in our military." This is the accepted government mindset! It has nothing to do with his bogus "evaluation reports". The evaluators really had no choice, other than to end their own military career progression by giving Hasan an honest evaluation.

Hasan got a "pass" at every turn because of our social obsession with Political Correctness, and it is exactly that which allowed him to massacre 19 people at Fort Hood, Texas on November 5th, 2009. The radical religious fervor as demonstrated by his behavior, was a definite indicator that something was not quite as it should be within Hasan's mind. This fact does not make Hasan a victim. His actions were a conscious decision - as evidenced by his giving away his belongings in the hours immediately preceding his vicious, intentional execution of 19 unarmed persons. He did not expect to survive the incident, he was on jihad for the glory of allah (intentional lower-case "a"), and would have no further need for earthly belongings.

There are valid reasons for taking actions that are politically incorrect. There are valid reasons for "profiling" - if you are shopping for a baseball how much time would you waste looking in the
frozen foods section? So what if it makes somebody uncomfortable? It is both logical and efficient!

America's obsession with Political Correctness will bring about America's downfall!