Slogging Toward Liberty

Free E-Book: Operation #EFAD set for March 1st

2012-02-24T19:57:00.010-07:00

Matt Bracken: former Navy SEAL, current cruising sailor, but most importantly, the author of a series of books relating to the concept - and the reality - of a government out of control. His series begins with EFAD: Enemies Foreign and Domestic, followed by Domestic Enemies, the Reconquista, and finally Foreign Enemies and Traitors.

These books are excellent as entertainment, but they are also valuable because Matt has painted what may be the future faced by the citizens of this country, the United States of America. A number of scenarios he postulates as he describes a government tightening down restrictions upon the freedoms that previously were available to many of us Americans have actually come to pass.

Many of us recall what it was like to walk up to an airline ticket counter and purchase a ticket without showing any ID, without removing our shoes, emptying our pockets, or being irradiated and/or groped. Try flying commercially today without experiencing those impositions upon our freedom. Then ask yourself if you know how many terrorists have been caught or stopped by these methods (answer: ZERO).

Operation #EFAD is an attempt to get the mainstream media to become a little more forthcoming about what is happening, instead of refusing to report on the growth of governmental restrictions upon our travel, our banking, and other aspects of our lives, as well as the incredible encroachments being perpetrated by the current administration, such as the ATF debacle known as Operation Fast and Furious.

On March 1st, 2012, a mass download of Matt's book Enemies Foreign and Domestic will begin. It will have been posted as a free e-book, and everyone involved with Operation EFAD is asking that you download a copy, as well as encouraging everyone you know to down load a copy as well. The novel is a very entertaining read, even if you aren't aware of the close correspondence between what takes place in the book and what is currently taking place within our government right now. When you read the book, you will be amazed by how much of what Matt describes has taken place since he wrote it.

I don't "tweet" or do Facebook, but if you do, please feel free to mention Operation #EFAD and try for a viral response to this mass download. Pass on this link, http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/bookefad.htm

and do your best to push this over the top. BTW, you do not have to own a KIndle to download and read the book. There are a number of apps out there (including for any Mac/Apple product) that will let you read e-books. Here is one for your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ebook-reader/id381260755?mt=8 or http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/kindle-read-books-magazines/id302584613?mt=8

For those folks who read this who might see it as simply another "tin foil hat" conspiracy, a delusional response from those of us "bitter clingers" who see gun control looming behind every bush, please take a moment to consider this: I have been advised by several on-line companies who sell firearms (through licensed FFL dealers as is already required by law) that in the last couple of weeks they have experienced the largest number of firearms sales they have had since they started business (years ago for some of them). Many people from both the Left and the Right have decided now is the time to arm themselves. Whether it is because they fear further restrictions upon their right to purchase and own a firearm or because the fear the possibility of violence at sometime in the not-too-distant future, I cannot say.

As Matt Bracken states, "The society of gun-owning Americans is like a great lake: vast, deep and placid. Their firearms are rarely seen above the lake's surface from day to day, but they exist in their countless millions just the same. It is the contention of the author that it would be extremely unwise to push millions of firearms owners past their boiling points, with unconstitutional laws depriving them of their right to keep and bear arms. The unintended consequences of such a mistake would be disastrous for all Americans."

Read more posts about Matt and Operation #EFAD:

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/bracken-operation-efad-communique-2-d-day-minus-six-february-24/#comment-22112

http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2012/02/matt-brackens-plan.html

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2850992/posts

http://wethepeople09171787.blogspot.com/

Non-aggression vs self-defense as regards Iran

2012-02-16T11:47:00.005-07:00

I agree with some of what the Libertarian party stands for, like fiscal responsibility and limited government. I also agree with the notion that it is not nice to start a fight - part of what I think they mean when they speak of “non-aggression”. Unfortunately, many Libertarians take that too far, to mean it is never right to initiate aggression until you have first been attacked. They do not believe that the presence of a serious threat is reason enough to take military action.

This does not square with the notion of self-defense, which they profess to believe in. If a man stands in front of you with a gun in his hand - even if not actually pointed at you - and states his intent to kill you, is it wise to wait until he makes an actual attempt to do so? Or do you have the right to combine his stated intent to kill you with his obvious current capability of doing so, and therefore take action? [BTW, it is my understanding that this is part of the ROE - Rules of Engagement - our troops are suffering under in the Middle East, that they may not fire until fired upon.]

I believe you do have the right. I believe this applies not only to individual confrontations, but to confrontations between nation-states, as well as when confronted by terrorist groups, and those who materially support those terrorist groups.

At the blog Ontoliberty, there is a post concerning an interview with a fellow named Doug Casey. No, I don’t know who the hell he is either, but he apparently believes in the Libertarian notion that non-aggression means our country does not have the right to defend itself if doing so could start a war. It sounds from his statements that he sees no difference between Russia or China or Pakistan having nuclear weapons and Iran - which has repeatedly and loudly proclaimed its intention of wiping Israel off of the face of the Earth - having them.

Now, I agree wars are horrible, that they are best avoided if possible to do so without putting the country at further risk of harm from some state actor or terrorist group. But if said nation or terrorist group states the intent to destroy your country and makes an attempt to do so, or even simply attacks it in an attempt to damage it seriously, then a response is called for. It matters not if there were “reasons”, legitimate or otherwise, for a bunch of Saudis working for Al Qaeda to bring about the attack on 9/11. It remains an attack, and not upon our armed forces, but upon helpless citizens, most of whom were innocent of any harm to anyone.

War for unsavory purposes – such as a distraction from the scandal of semen on a blue dress, or to shore up a lame presidency or a re-election campaign – is morally wrong. War that occurs as a natural consequence of our right to defend ourselves, our servicemen and our country is not.

We made no talk of war when Russia developed a nuclear capability (until they placed missiles seventy miles off of our shores), nor when China or Pakistan or India or even North Korea did the same. None of them (well, perhaps North Korea, in a non-specific manner) threatened to destroy another country, nor did they send terrorists and suicide bombers into that country to kill their citizens. There is a world of difference between Iran and the others, due to the tenets of Islam (kill all infidels) and the behavior of Iran’s leader, Ahmadinejad, who has stated on numerous occasions his intention of destroying Israel. [It should be noted that the Cuban Missile Crisis - during which my father flew photographic missions over Cuba to document the presence of those missiles - was indeed a direct and imminent threat, and was appropriately treated as such.]

The current threat itself – as real as it is – is not enough to take us to war with Iran, but it is right for us to bring pressure to bear to see that this threat is not carried out. The situation is far different from merely the possibility of war, it is the possibility that the entire nation of Israel (which is quite small and could be taken out with just two or three nuclear weapons) and all of her men, women, and children, could be destroyed in one massive launch of rockets and aircraft. Were that to happen, Israel could not prevent nuclear weapons from causing a second – and perhaps final – Holocaust. It matters not - and apparently not to Ahmadinejad - that Israel would then destroy Iran in legitimate response.

I’m sorry, but Casey has his head up his ass. The U.S. has indeed initiated military action – as in Kosovo and Libya – that it had no moral reason to start. But the defense of our nation, and of an ally that is the only other true democracy in the world, a country which has striven to defend itself against the constant and unending attempts of the muslims to destroy it – but has even so NOT gone to war with those countries and peoples, in spite of a moral right to do so to end the very real threat, – is a righteous endeavor.

Even the anti-Semites among us cannot claim Israelis have no right to defend themselves, and can present no logical reason for us not to assist them in their attempt to prevent the destruction of their nation, their people. We are not talking about helping them in a war of aggression against another country, but of not refusing to help when they are attacked. That would be equivalent to standing and watching a woman being raped, when you had the means to stop the rape and keep her safe. No man with balls, no man who claims to love his wife and family, no man who believes himself to be a man will stand by when innocents are being injured or killed when he is in a position to stop it. Only a craven and cowardly individual would do that.

Casey sounds like a Libertarian who isn’t intelligent enough to tell when force against a very real threat is justified. Waiting for the hammer to fall and the bullet to pierce your chest is not a bright idea. Especially when the entity making the threat has already shown a willingness to kill.

Botched paramilitary raids

2012-02-14T22:56:00.003-07:00

View Original Map and Database

I am attempting something I don't have the knowledge of how to accomplish, i.e., I'm "winging it". This is a map I discovered at Kerodin's blog, which he got from the Cato Institute. It is supposed to list incidents of police abuses, the use of excessive force by law enforcement, the assault and killing of innocent citizens, the injury or death of police officers, raids upon patients and doctors by law enforcement, etc. Basically, we are talking about the police state that America has become.

Apparently, the HTML code doesn't bring the active map up on my blog page. You have to click on the link, but then it will bring you to Cato's web site and the interactive map.

Take some time and examine the map. Click on the markers for areas you might be interested in, or click at random. It is disgusting to see how many times police power is abused across our "free" nation. How many times innocent people have been terrorized, physically and verbally abused, and sometimes killed by out-of-control law enforcement. Law Enforcement encouraged to mutate from protecting and serving the citizens they were hired to protect and serve into paramilitary SWAT teams, drug enforcement teams, and simply jack-booted thugs who enjoy playing with the military equipment given to them by the Federal government, either directly or through grants.

Then ask yourself if this is still the land of the free.

Freedom of religion

2012-02-11T09:14:00.006-07:00

It took me many years to discover that the "history" I was taught in school bears little resemblance to what actually took place. I have attempted to correct that in my reading, from books offering a different slant, as well as the writings of men and women who have given me reason to trust their take on it more than what I had been taught. As with so much of what we hear and read (and "see", if you still watch TV or view snippets from YouTube), you need to develop a means of measuring the likelihood of this newer information being true.

There are questions you can ask yourself: is it logical to believe a particular fact? Cui bono - "who benefits" from accepting that history or explanation as being true? Does it seem likely that it could or would have occurred in that fashion? The story of Hannibal crossing the Italian Alps with almost forty elephants during the Punic Wars is difficult to believe for a variety of reasons: where would he get that many elephants, how would you feed and water such a herd while on the march? How would elephants fare on mountain trails where surer-footed horses and mules would need to struggle to maintain their footing? How would elephants deal with and survive the cold when their bodies were evolved (or designed, if that is your belief) for hot climates, with acres of skin giving up or taking in heat from the air around them?

In the formation of America, begun with the founding of a number of colonies on the East Coast of this country, we are told that some were founded by groups fleeing religious persecution in England and elsewhere. Considering what we have read of such persecution in England and Europe, of the many stories of the people of one religion fighting and killing those of another religion, or of people simply persecuting and killing the members of a particular religion irrespective of their own beliefs (the Jews being persecuted by those who were non-believers as well as members of other religions), it is easy to believe that some emigrated here to escape such persecution. We have seen it in this country as well, and some of us currently living have experienced it.

It is further supported by what we are seeing today. The "progressives" (aka liberals, including many Democrats) deride Christians today, calling them "bitter clingers (to the Bible and their beliefs). More and more we see the State and the courts mobilized to restrict their practices: prayer in the schools, the display of the Ten Commandments (which are displayed prominently on the walls of the Supreme Court where SCOTUS has ruled it cannot be allowed on State buildings anywhere else). We now see the man who styles himself as Barack Hussein Obama (formerly Barry Soetero) telling churches across the nation that they will be required to pay for healthcare practices that are not permitted by their beliefs.

Obama attempts - major fail - to claim that they will not be required to fund such medical and social practices such as abortion and birth control. That is a specious and deceptive (as in lying) argument. Since those organizations, such as Catholic hospitals, must pay for the insurance that will permit these procedures, they are indeed being required to pay for and support practices that run directly against their beliefs, practices they find as abhorrent as murder (and indeed believe is murder, when it pertains to aborting a living fetus). Many of them are self-insuring, which means they are directly paying for activities that are sinful and against what they are permitted by their beliefs to engage in.

The State - the Federal government - has twisted and perverted the meaning of the Constitution for many, many years, to suit its purpose of developing more complete control over the citizens of this country. We have seen the perversion of the Interstate commerce section - meant to keep individual states from interfering in each others ability to engage in such commerce, as by instituting tariffs, restrictive taxes and regulations for example, into court rulings and Executive Orders which claim that the Federal government can control every aspect of commerce - even when no commerce takes place. During the Wilson administration (IIRC), the Federal government determined that a farmer could not grow grain used solely by himself to feed himself and his livestock because it "deprived" the rest of the country of whatever benefits might accrue to his selling that grain, had he chosen to do so. So, even though NO commerce whatsoever had occurred, the Federal government decreed that it still affected commerce, and therefore came under their control.

We have seen this twisting and perversion of the words and meaning of the Constitution applied over and over again. Now the Federal government seeks to extend its control - and its abrogation of the rights of its citizens as they are listed in the Bill of Rights - to religion. Where they have already made serious inroads into the free practice of religion, under the spurious guise of "separating" church and state, now they feel comfortable and justified in forcing members of the Catholic Church to pay for things that are completely prohibited by their beliefs.

This is equivalent to forcing muslims to eat pork, sleep with dogs, or treat women with respect. Obama would never even think of requiring the muslims in this country to do those things, but has no problem forcing Catholics to do what is even more morally abhorrent - paying to end the life of a fetus. Based on current statistics, paying to end the life of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of fetuses.

Men who I respect have stated in their blogs on the Internet that they hope the Catholics and other religious people who are now speaking out against this travesty will subsequently realize that many of us have lost liberties or been forced to do things which are against our dearly-held beliefs. Kerodin, T.L. Davis, and others hope that they will realize it is similar to what the pastor Martin Niemoller spoke of after the Holocaust -

"First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

This can certainly be applied to the attack on the various Amendments listed in the Bill of Rights. The First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth have all suffered from damage done by Congress and various Presidents (of both parties). Perhaps Catholics and members of other religions will see that we all need to come together to stop the restrictions upon our liberties that government insists on fomenting.

I have openly stated, on numerous occasions, that I am not religious. I was raised as a Roman Catholic (common for those of us who are of French-Canadian descent), but became an agnostic when I was thirteen. Nonetheless, I support the rights of those who are religious to practice their faith freely - except where it harms others, as would the free practice of islam, which calls for killing those who don't accept islam and Allah. This country was formed upon Christian and Deist principles, and while it indeed permits the practice of other faiths, it should not be required to "Change" into a country that is destructive of its Christian roots. If it is important to a person to be allowed to practice islam and Sharia, move your ass to a country where it is permitted and encouraged. Don't seek to "Change" this country, or to interfere with the rights of Christians in this country to practice their faith. That includes you, Barry Soetero. Take a hike.

Anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in a so-called Patriot

2012-02-06T21:37:00.016-07:00

It is with great regret that I find it necessary to remove a blog from my list of those that I follow with pleasure and the anticipation of reading great ideas and insightful thoughts. However, when I find that the individual writing the blog has stepped away from rationality, and displays a taste for the beliefs and ideas of the Third Reich, I must part ways with him.

The Arctic Patriot and I have disagreed before on whether or not Nazi Germany had any redeeming characteristics. If I understood him correctly, he felt that they were a worthy nation, based at least in part on their fight against the Communists. I supposed at the time that he meant in the fashion of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I cannot countenance a nation which supported the planned and very efficiently carried out death of millions of Jews, along with Gypsies, Poles, the "defective" (retarded men women and children, the aged and infirm, etc.) and many others, including political dissidents (just as the Communists killed political dissidents, or consigned them to gulags). I truly believe, however, that his appreciation for the Third Reich consisted of more than simply their distaste for Communists. I was unable to get any feeling from him that the murder of more than six million - even though this was indeed far surpassed by both Stalin and Mao Tse "Dung" in the numbers of their own people they killed - was actually a crime against humanity.

Now, I find in the side notes of his blog demonstrable distaste for Jews and Israelis, as well. Providing a list of "choices" (talk about stacking the deck in favor of the responses you wish to get, much like the apologists for the "Global Warming" scam) for whether or not America should go to war with Iran, he lists:

Iran is a Muslim country and Islam is evil. Israel is Jewish and Jews are Gods Chosen People. We should protect Israel even though their religion holds Goyim in utter contempt.

Now I don't know where he gets his info - probably from his autographed copy of Mein Kampf - but Jews do not hold goyim in utter contempt, any more than Catholics hold Jews in utter contempt. Judaism does not seek the death of all non-believers the way Islam does, the way Islam requires it, but he acts as if Judaism is no more morally correct than Islam, although anyone with half a brain - who does not worship either Mohammed or Adolf Hitler - can read both the Torah and the Quran and tell the difference.

He then goes on to another choice:

Israel should be the only nation allowed superior military hardware in the region even if they do sell it to our enemies.

We sell our technology and our weapons to our enemies, and have for many years. The muslims in Afghanistan are currently using weapons we gave them, let alone sold them, to kill our troops. We have done this before and during every war. We sold equipment and technology to the Germans before (and during - as did Rockefeller and Joseph Kennedy) the war, as well as steel to the Japanese that was made into ships and aircraft and weapons with which they killed many thousands of our troops and sailors. We continue to supply the Palestinians with money that they buy weapons with, which are used against the Israelis on an on-going basis. But the Israelis are bad because someone in their country has made some money by selling to people who may - or may not be - our enemies. I don't hear AP condemning America for giving aid to the Germans before WWII. But they were German, so that makes it all right, I suppose.

Finally, along with many other slanted, biased, and infantile "choices" he lists:

Yes, lets start World War 3 just for the hell of it. Supporting Israel is worth dead US soldiers and crashing our economy.

Not only does he get ridiculous here (World War 3? Did invading Iraq - twice - bring about World War 3?), but he shows his contempt for Jewish life, Israeli life. We would never have become a country if France had not given us significant aid against England. That was partly because they were willing to help anyone who would cause trouble to, or weaken, England. But it was also because they understood the desire for liberty that burned within the breasts of so many in what was to become America. The desire for freedom, the right to live without fear or tyranny or oppression.

Israel wants these things as well. They have never sought to oppress the Arabs, the muslims, living within their country. They have allowed many thousands to become full citizens of Israel, and have even allowed them to participate in their government, in the Knesset, their equivalent of Congress. They do not seek the death and destruction of any country, even those which have sworn death and destruction to them, who have attacked them on their own land and killed thousands of their own citizens. They wish only peace, to be left alone, to survive and live their lives without the constant fear of death and destruction. Yes, they have attacked other countries to secure their own survival, or in response to the murder of their own people, as well as due to incursions by terrorists supported and equipped by Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and elsewhere.

A wise man once put it this way. Take away the arms of the muslims, and there will be no war. Take away the arms of the Israelis, and there will be no Israel. That is not to suggest that there should be total disarmament of the muslims, however desirable that might be. It is merely to demonstrate the difference in intent between the two factions. One seeks the destruction of Israel. The other simply seeks the survival of Israel.

Yet the Arctic Patriot, lover of Germany as it went to war with not just the Russians but with humanity itself, feels that Israel and the Jews are out of line. That they are unworthy of our help, our support. I imagine, if I were to waste my time attempting to discuss this with him, that he would fall back on Ron Paul's anti-Semitic stance of isolationism - a failed attempt to claim that we shouldn't get involved in any other country's defense, but which I believe he has demonstrated to be due to his dislike of Israel and Jews (just as AP has demonstrated it). Yes, I feel quite certain he would claim that,in spite of Israel being the only other functioning democracy in the world (Britain is a socialist country, not a functioning democracy, although they are worthy of our support as well, as we did in WWII), let alone the Middle East, it is not our place to give them aid of any sort.

Actually, that would suit the Israelis quite well, if it also included a promise that our government would not interfere at all. If they would simply stand aside while Israel defended herself appropriately, instead of demanding that Israel give up what little land they possess in a ridiculous attempt at swapping land for peace. (That has never worked. It has only allowed the Palestinians to move ever closer with their Katusha rockets, their mortars and their homicidal bombers.) Instead of demanding the Israel "show restraint" in her response to the murder of her women and children by muslim scum.

I wonder if AP loves the muslims the way Nazi Germany and Hitler loved the muslims, knowing full well they were partners in the attempt to rid the world of any and all Jews? From the stance he has taken on the subject of Jews and Israel, I would guess he does.

Consequently, I must purge his biased and bigoted blog from the list of those I am willing to read. I wish I could still call him a compatriot in the fight in America for the freedom and liberty we have lost, and that many of us wish to regain. But I have sworn to withhold myself from those who are proven anti-Semites. I need no "friends" among the neo-Nazis, the muslims, or other trash who hate the Jews just for being Jews.

I am a gentile - a "goy", as it would be said in Yiddish. I have no Jewish blood in me, to the best of my knowledge, although I would gladly claim it, if it were the case. Both sides of my family have been French-Canadian and Roman Catholic as far back as we can tell (although I am a heathen, a lost sheep now).

Nonetheless, after much reading about Shoah and the Jews, after knowing many Jewish people - nice and not-so-nice, as is true of all groups of people, save perhaps the orthodox followers of Islam - back in New York when I lived there, after some slight familiarity with their religion and their culture, I find I like them, with all of their virtues and their faults as a people, a culture, and a religion. Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) once wrote a short article on the virtues of the Jews, what light and knowledge they have supplied to human civilization through the centuries, and I find myself in agreement.

Those ignorant enough, base enough, those biased and poisoned of mind enough to hate the Jews and the Israelis deserve to be shunned. They deserve to be separated from any approval or acceptance as being worthy of friendship or contact. How you choose to deal with them, dear reader, is up to you. But I find them disgusting and completely without any redeeming features. I am done with the Arctic Patriot, as he calls himself.

On-Line Onanism, and the Gingrinch who stole the primaries

2012-01-26T23:15:00.008-07:00

Onanism has been used as a euphemism for masturbation, although my very limited understanding of the Bible is that Onan was being advised to engage in coitus interruptus, rather than masturbation, as is often believed. The alliteration felt clever, even if not quite accurate, at labeling this post as a bit of mental masturbation (like the staff meetings we used to have at the VA). The end result of either is likely to be infertile, and I am afraid my feeble attempts at encouraging the few who read me to actually move toward liberty are likely to be less than fertile as well. Some are already there, and the rest will likely never see the reason for it.

It is discouraging - not conducive to bringing about feelings of courage - to think that the Republican Party will not put forth a candidate good enough to beat the campaign of lying propaganda, the voter fraud and electoral college manipulation I expect from the Obama regime. Feeling discouraged is not the same as cowardice, and does not equate to hopelessness or unwillingness to try, but it does reflect my difficulty in feeling hopeful.

Some of our most brilliant pundits, such as Thomas Sowell, have spoken of the need for a candidate with fire, with a willingness to go beyond the mamby-pamby polite disagreement with the current administration as evidenced by such as Romney and Santorum. They speak of the fact that, while Gingrinch (forgive my Dr. Seuss allusion) is certainly one of the last choices a true conservative would make for President, he still comes in line before the two limp men he is running against.

For those of you who have just sat up in your chairs or recliners, shouting "Ron Paul is the only one worth voting for," know that I agree with you. Even though I strongly believe Paul to be an anti-Semite who would sacrifice Israel to the "Palestinians" in order to keep the peace, and keep America isolationist, I would vote for him - if he were electable, which he is not. As in 2008, he will continue to be marginalized, dismissed not just by the media, but by the Republican Party itself, which refused to count the votes for him in the primaries of the last Presidential election, and will certainly do the same this time.

Even if we were able to conduct a strong write-in campaign - which I suggested to Paul's own campaign staff last time (although they never responded to my suggestion), I feel certain the Republican Party would see that those votes were buried. So, unless a miracle candidate appears with the appeal to us true conservatives of Sarah Palin, who definitely "will not run, and if elected will not serve", we are stuck with death by wimp candidates or the acceptance of a candidate distasteful to us, but who possesses fire-in-the-belly, as does Gingrinch, who after all is indeed an experience politician, a man who pulled off quite a coup during the Clinton administration, even if he did fail to follow through on his promises, as all politicians do. Check out Goldberg's article at

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-newtzilla-20120124,0,673873,print.column

A good friend of mine, whose opinion I greatly respect, recently said he didn't think he could "hold his nose" and vote for Gingrinch. He agrees with a long-held belief of mine that voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you nothing but evil. That is one reason why I did not vote for a Presidential candidate in 2008. McCain is as arrogant as Obama, is as much an elitist as Obama, and I remain convinced he conceded the election to Obama even before any votes were cast. I truly believe he is perfectly happy to have Obama as President, and that his agenda does not differ from BO's in any significant manner.

This is one time in my life, however, that I feel there is enough difference in the level, the degree of evil, that we will experience if Obama is elected. Four more years awarded to a creature as arrogant, as obsessed with islam, as desirous of seeing America become a socialist country where Sharia is more acceptable than Constitutional law, will be the death of this grand experiment called America.

It will certainly be bad enough if BO is successful in stealing the election through voter fraud or other manipulations of the system. It will be bad enough if he simply does as Ahmadinejad did in Iran, and declares himself the winner. However, if he is able to actually get a majority of the vote fair and square (unlikely as it would be given the voter fraud we know will occur, but still possible, nonetheless) he will consider it a mandate to take complete control of our country, to become the total tyrant that he has shown himself capable of being.

As rotten as Gingrinch is, as poor a choice as he will always be, an America under his administration will be far safer than with a no-holds-barred Obama presidency. If I can be allowed a bit of exaggeration here, a bit of "over-the-top" hyperbole, I would rather experience a Gingrinch dictatorship than the socialist paradise envisioned by Obama, with him as our fearless leader. Although we would continue to suffer the further loss of our liberty under Gingrinch, it would not be the blood in the streets I expect if Obama is permitted another four years to destroy our economy, our identity, and our national security. The blood that will be lost if he stands idly by while Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel (yes, they might destroy Iran in retaliation, but that would not save the Israelis, a good people who would live in peace if they weren't surrounded by those who will be satisfied by nothing less than their total destruction).

I feel quite certain that the media does not attack Romney strongly because they want him to be the Republican candidate, that they realize he is so like Obama that many will simply vote for Obama the way they did when McCain was the other option. So, unless someone comes up with a better idea, or some saint throws his or her hat in the ring soon, I am suggesting Gingrinch is the only candidate who will take a hard enough stand to actually defeat Obama in the November elections. I wish that were not the case, but that is how I see it. Please, feel free to prove me wrong, but not with wishful thinking, such as Ron Paul making a third-party run.

wanderlust and a wandering mind

2012-01-15T22:57:00.006-07:00

My wife and I have been on the road for a while, so my frequent long pauses between posts have been exacerbated (no, that's not something you do by yourself in the privacy of your own home) by our travels. Our RV is currently sitting in Southern Utah, but we are in Oregon. My wife needed to get her yearly checkup from her OB/GYN doctor (obviously the OB part is non-essential at this late date), along with her yearly mammogram and her bone scan for osteopenia. Since her doctor is in Oregon, we drove on up there and have been spending some time visiting good friends while we are here.

There are a number of issues I have wanted to post on, even though I haven't really had that much free time between our visits and the actual driving for hours and/or days getting from place to place. One of these issues is the incredible behavior of our President.

I know I have posted about what I consider his many peccadilloes as well as the major errors and egregious violations of Constitutional law that he has been guilty of, especially lately. I feel the need, however, to list some of the most outrageous of these violations.

Recently, he has committed treason, which is defined as: the act of betraying one's country (yes, there are several other definitions, but this is the pertinent one). Why do I make such a bold and seemingly indefensible claim? Because Obama has decided it was appropriate and acceptable to share our secret missile technology and capabilities with the Russian government, which bears us no good will. (http://news.investors.com/Article/597158/201201091847/obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm)

He has also appointed several individuals to cabinet-level positions while Congress has been in session, without getting Senate approval for the appointments, in spite of this being blatantly unConstitutional behavior.

In addition, he has issued "signing statements" wherein he has admitted that HE will decide whether or not legislation written and passed by Congress is actually Constitutional or not, and that he will act based upon his own interpretation of said Constitutionality.

Obama has made it quite plain that he is willing to ignore the rule of law that the rest of us - well, with the exception of Congress and the unions and the Occupy cretins - are required to abide by. Ask yourself: is it true that politicians lie? Is it true that Presidents lie? Is it true that Obama has lied?

Now, do you know what the penalty is if a common citizen, such as you or I, should lie to a federal officer? Since it is a felony, it means you go to prison. Martha Stewart did not go to prison because of insider trading - which our Congressmen and Congresswomen do routinely, and have amassed great fortunes thereby. She was convicted of lying to Federal law enforcement during their investigation of her possible insider trading, and went to prison for lying, not trading.

Would someone like to hazard a guess as to why it should be permissible for federal officers (such as our Congress-persons and our President) to lie to us, but not for us to lie to them? Perhaps because it gives the Feds the power to control and punish us rubes, us simple, bitter clingers, when we stray from the path our politicians and bureaucrats would have us follow? Or is it also because our legislators and bureaucrats simply desire to be free of the constraints that we are expected to operate and live under, and write the laws to allow themselves that freedom?

Is this really the kind of government you want? Is this really freedom, the kind of liberty you would like to experience as a citizen of this once-great country? Is this the President you want come the general election in November? I sincerely hope not.

This is unbelievable. Join the Army. "Ride" a camel.

2011-12-27T19:18:00.011-07:00

I just came across a site which states that the NDAA - the National Defense Authorization Act, an incredibly vile attack upon our country and our Constitution, which permits the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, representation, or any redress - has sections in it which are difficult to believe. Remember, this legislation was approved by 93 to 7 in the Senate, and 283 to 136 in the House.

The bill contains a provision which removes any punishment for military infractions of sodomy or bestiality.

I. SHIT. YOU. NOT.

Now, there are those who may say this is because of the fact that "don't ask, don't tell" and the discouragement of gay sexuality in the military has been deemed unacceptable. I suppose if you are going to have gay men in the military, there must be some thought given to how you are going to deal with sodomy, since that is their standard mode of sexual interaction, or so I have been told.

Frankly, when I was in the Navy, we were able to keep it in our pants until we got out on leave or liberty, and then found appropriate female company with which to interact. We didn't have access to many female sailors back when I served, so that wasn't an issue. I don't know how they keep them apart these days. But the few gay guys we had in uniform back then - the few we were aware of, anyway - kept it in their pants until they were off on leave or liberty.

So, my first thought was, OK, this is so they don't have to court martial every swinging Richard who engages in such behavior off-duty, although it is unlikely they would be surveilled simply to catch them out (or "in", as the case may be). Unfortunately, it also protects those caught slipping into their "buddy's" rack when they are on base or on board a ship, or what have you. That is not so good.

But where does the bestiality enter into it? Then the light appeared: muslim in the military. We know from our dealings with the Pakis especially - ask any soldiers or Marines you know who have returned from duty in Pakistan, or Afghanistan - muslim troops prefer sodomizing each other over having sex with women, including their wives. As the saying over there goes, "Women are for making babies. Boys are for pleasure."

Our Army and Marine officers have been told to look the other way. "Different cultures", they are told, "We musn't offend our hosts" and other such tripe. While the muslim troops have a go at each other in the barracks they have been assigned to bunk in. Back in the sixties we used to say "Different strokes for different folks", but this might be carrying that just a little too far, don't you think?

But bestiality? Sure. Who hasn't seen the famous YouTube nightvision video of a muslim having sex with a donkey? I've been told by returning soldiers I had on my ward at the VA hospital I worked at that sex with donkeys and goats was valued higher than sex with wives, although in truth much of the bestiality is more likely due to the proscription against muslims having sex with a woman they are not married to, while there is no sin in islam for having sex with an animal, nor with a boy. That's right, islam says homosexuality doesn't count if the partner is a boy instead of a male adult. There is a term for "beardless boys", Bacha Bereesh, and they are permissible for having sex. I've posted on this before, here is the source.

So, we have a win-win situation here for the "Obama Loves islam" carnival in progress. We encourage open homosexual behavior in the military by removing any possibility of punishment, and we set up the military for the addition of as many muslims as our muslim-loving President wishes to bring aboard, from the thousands who have been approved for, and assisted in, immigrating to this country, from Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, by this administration. Since most of our gay servicemen aren't into bestiality, this is the only reason that makes sense to me.

Perhaps if Major Nidal Hassan had been provided with his own donkey he wouldn't have felt the need to kill and/or wound all of those soldiers at Fort Hood.

Islam agrees. Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals here hat tip Michael

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:
"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."
The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:
"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man. In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."
Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?
"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him who sodomized it."
Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal
rights groups?
"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into other foods their consumption is not forbidden."
"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary."
Editor's note: It does not say who should have ablution: the animal or the man?
"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."
From Khomeini's book, "Tahrirolvasyleh". More here

An excellent essay: Support and Defend

2011-12-26T19:06:00.011-07:00

I came across a blog today by a man named Dave Hunter, named simply "Thoughts Aloud". He wrote a post titled "Support and Defend", alluding to the oath he took back during the Vietnam Era when he joined the Army - just as I took back then, when I joined the Navy - to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. It contains a superbly written explanation of the difference between the representative republic we started out as being when our country was first formed after gaining our independence from England and the democracy that we have been "Hope-a-doped" and Changed into during the last 150 years of our history. Here is the pertinent section:

The essential difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy is that a republic enshrines protection for the rights of individuals and minorities in its constitution, protecting them from the whim of the majority; while a democracy is essentially mob rule, where the collective can utilize the coercive power of government to impose their will on individuals and minorities. Republics employ “representatives” to defend citizens’ interests from the natural inclination of government functionaries to overreach limited authority; the rights of the individual are paramount. Democracies select “leaders” with grandiose “visions” to utilize the coercive power of government to impose their model of an ideal society on others, the welfare of the collective is paramount.

Those of us old enough to have studied American History back before the Progressives invented “Social Studies,” understand that our Founders formed a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The notion that it would ever be empowered to violate the property rights of a minority, at the whim of the majority, and confiscate the earnings of industrious citizens for redistribution among the indolent, would have been anathema to them. These proud representatives of our self-sufficient pioneering stock considered charity, and such “social engineering” by nosey busybodies as they might have tolerated, to be within the purview of the church, not a coercive Federal government.

Our Constitution was not designed as a plaything for pandering demagogues to act out their altruistic Robin Hood fantasies. Government functionaries at all levels were meant to be servants of the people, with their activities closely monitored and regulated by the people – not the other way around. It only established a federation of thirteen individual sovereign states, as a combination free trade agreement (think European Union) and mutual defense pact (think NATO). Unrestrained commerce, sound money, and international relations were what was foremost on our Founders’ minds as they debated how best to govern themselves as a nation – not regulating the activities of individual citizens, whom they regarded as the true sovereigns in their classical liberal view of Natural Law. By design, the power of the Federal government to interfere in the affairs of its constituent states was extremely limited. Its ability to interfere in the routine daily lives of their citizens was virtually nonexistent.

As inspired as the Constitutional Convention’s work product was, Patriots freshly shed of the tyranny of a monarch routinely violating their Natural Rights as freemen, were mistrustful of surrendering any of their hard-won sovereignty to another distant and powerful central government (just as Patriots today balk at the Progressive NWO agenda for surrendering our sovereignty to a global government). Thus, several of the states refused to ratify the Constitution until the Bill of Rights was included. This was to make damn sure the Federal government they were agreeing to join understood that its powers were strictly limited to only those specifically enumerated, and the Natural Rights of its citizens would remain forever inalienable.

The resultant federation of individually sovereign states worked splendidly for nearly 100 years, as unfettered and productive sovereign citizens were empowered to flourish in a relatively safe free-trade zone with sound money. Admittedly, the basic nature of our government began unraveling with the Civil War, and was effectively eviscerated by the Progressive atrocities committed in 1913, our darkest year (Amendments 16 & 17, and the Federal Reserve Act). Still, thoughtful students of our true history cannot be faulted for pining for a return of the halcyon days of our nation’s youth, when individual opportunity trumped collective victimhood for industrious citizens. Only the numbed minds of the easily deluded could consider the pernicious slide back into serfdom offered by the collectivists, as anything even approaching “progress.”

I reckon our Constitution, if it has any meaning at all as the supreme law of the land, must mean precisely what our Founders intended it to mean at the time they penned it, except as duly amended. Since the process for amending it is clearly prescribed, I utterly reject the notion of a “Living Constitution” that can be capriciously modified by creative “interpretations” of partisan judicial activists, to give the government powers to meddle in our daily lives they clearly were never meant to have.

They are our employees, dammit, not our rulers. As a sovereign citizen, I owe no respect or allegiance to judicial fiat, and no duty to obey any statutes, rules, or regulations common sense alone would deem unconstitutional with regard to original intent. Born a freeman in the land of the free and the home of the brave, color me an unchained and incurably contumacious Patriot, who has had quite enough of such tomfoolery. If we somehow survive the looming Constitutional crisis, resolving this issue should be paramount in the aftermath.

Ah, but this man has got it nailed. I have relatives and friends who are so compassionate and caring toward their fellow man that they have been suckered into the collectivist mindset that the ends justify the means. That it is all right to change the meaning of the Constitution or to "interpret" it in whatever way they choose simply because it will help their fellow man. That the needs of the many overrule the rights of the few. That it is OK to steal the product of the labor of one man simply because there is another man who needs help. As Karl Marx said (and these relatives and friends are mostly ignorant of the fact that it was Marx), "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Now, I understand and believe in charity. But the followers of this "philosophy" of theft via taxes given out as entitlements are not talking about voluntary giving, voluntary charity. They are not talking about reaching down into their pocket to provide. They feel it is perfectly acceptable to reach their hands down into your pocket, whether you like it or not. And they will take a grope while they are down there, just to make sure you aren't a terrorist.

A commenter on a different blog paraphrased Marx's famous line in a clever and very appropriate manner. He wrote, "From each according to their gullability, to each according to their greed."

Anonymous

For me, the primary, most significant difference between true conservatives (screw "Republican") and liberals/"progressives" is in how they value the rights of the individual. If the group, the collective, is more important than the rights of the individual, it is liberal - not to mention Marxist/Communist/socialist (but I repeat myself). If the basic, natural rights of the individual cannot be denied or overruled simply to satisfy the needs or desires of the group, it is conservative. L=g1, i2. C=i1, g2.

The other dimension to this is personal choice: it is never, ever acceptable for the group to choose for the individual. The Left believes it is acceptable to tell the individual what he can and cannot do, what he is required to do, what he must ask permission to do. The Right (as in true conservatives) neither wants nor tries to tell an individual what he must or must not do.

If there is anyone on the Left reading this, including my relatives and/or their spouses, answer me this: if the best outcome for the country would be the election of a particular man or woman to the office of the President of the United States, would it be OK for the group to tell an individual how he or she must vote? I'm not talking election by a majority (which is still "democracy" and means the individual gets screwed when a monster like Obama is elected), but actually forcing a person to vote for someone simply because it is obvious to most people that he or she really would be the best choice?

Those who favor Obamacare, excuse me, the Affordable Care Act, would mark this box a big "YES". Those who supported forcing drivers to purchase automobile insurance in order to be allowed to drive would have to mark this "YES" as well, if they are going to be honest. The same with seat belts, helmets for motorcycles, and a host of other rules and laws that have come into being, all for our own good. (Logically, we would all end up wearing bubble wrap and drinking our meals from a sippy-cup, because we could not be trusted to keep ourselves safe.)

Most of the few folks who read my posts more than once are likely to be conservatives - people who want to be left alone, and who will leave others alone. Progressives, who I'm told no longer want to be labeled as liberals, want to control other people. They don't want to let you alone. They want to tell you what you can drink, what you can eat, what you can smoke, and a host of other intrusions upon your day-to-day living, as well as the general direction of your life.

That was never the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution, and especially not the people who insisted upon a Bill of Rights before they would agree to ratify the Constitution. The rights of the individual are enshrined in those documents, because "the People" never meant "the Mob". The Founders wrote, as did De Tocqueville and others, that democracy was the bane of a free man's existence.

Please read all of Dave Hunter's essay at the link above. Then honestly ask yourself how much you like it when someone else tells you what to do. Does it matter if a thousand people tell you the same thing? If you truly think that having a hundred or a thousand or a million people telling you to do the same thing makes it valid, makes it necessary to do, let me know. I will gladly buy you a one-way airline ticket to North Korea. I'll buy one for Whoopi Goldberg at the same time. I'll try to get you seats next to each other, but I can't guarantee it.

The Jews in the Attic Test

2011-12-23T12:59:00.002-07:00

Wandering across the Internet a few days ago, I stumbled across a post called, “The Jews in the Attic Test”. It was a post by a gay activist who was involved in firearms training for the Seattle gay community (actually LGBT, for those of you who are a bit more knowledgeable than I about these things). His group was called “Cease Fire”, and predated the “Pink Pistols”, which replaced it.

This gentleman was simply trying to help his community become safer and better able to protect themselves, mostly from those who specifically targeted the LGBT community, but toward self-defense in general. In the course of his activities, he was trying to raise the consciousness of the people in his group concerning laws that have been or might be written. He developed a yardstick to measure them by for their impact which he called his “Jews in the Attic Test”, referring to how they would affect your ability to protect a targeted group from a tyrannical government bent on imprisoning or killing them. In his case, the group might be gays, were that choice outlawed, as were the Jews. We can also extrapolate this onto those in the Liberty movement, or perhaps gun owners, if Schumer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Bloomberg, Obama and other socialist cretins got their way.

[Allow me to digress for just a moment. When Diane Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco, she pushed very hard to have all residents of S.F. turn in their handguns, in order to make the city a “safer” place to live. At the very time she was pushing for this, and telling her constituents that there was no reason for them to own a handgun, she had six of them registered in her name. I know this for a fact, as I saw them on the screen of a computer connected to the California State computer system that covered concealed weapons permits and gun registration. I worked for the California Highway Patrol at the time, and one of the dispatchers had run her name for “weapons registered to”. Typical socialist elite hypocrisy.]

So here is the gist of this fellow’s post:

One of the discussions we had amongst ourselves as we walked from shop to shop was how to explain to others how important our right to keep and bear arms was to our freedom. People tend to understand the importance of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press pretty well and some of the other rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But the Second Amendment was and is viewed as unimportant and perhaps even counterproductive by many in today's society.

I explained to the others in my little band of activists that I looked at all laws that restricted freedom with a view to the impact it would have in a worst case scenario of our government run amok. Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?

Although I pretty much made everything up on the spot I told them I called this test my "Jews In The Attic Test". Furthermore I told them that if it fails this test no further discussion is really needed, the law must be opposed in the most vigorous manner possible.

Some laws that fail the test and why:

Government mandated ID cards and the authority to demand them at any time. The

oppressed class will be unable to masquerade as a member of the neutral or oppressor

classes.

Searches without probable cause. Imagine you are attempting to smuggle your "Jews in the

attic" to a safer hiding place. If the police at the roadblock can search all vehicles then you and

your precious cargo are headed to the "work camps".

Government monopoly on medical care. This is a bit surprising -- isn't it? If it is illegal for

you to pay someone for anonymous health care then how can your "Jews in the attic" receive

health care?

Firearm or firearm owner registration. The registration information can be used to

confiscate the firearms used to protect innocent life -- as it was under the 1938 Weapons

Control Act in Nazi Germany.

Elimination or severe restriction of anonymous financial transactions. The purchase of

food and other supplies for your "Jews in the attic" would show up in the records as being

excessive compared to what your needs were. Just as power consumption records are used

today to catch home marijuana growers.

I continue to use this test to this day and advocate its widespread use by others.

Last update: February 11, 2009

Others on the Internet have posted this info, but we need a reminder as we face increased oppressive legislation at this time. Passage and signing of the NDAA in the past few days means that every American citizen is now at risk, but this legislation can, and may, be used to target groups that our government deems undesirable.

Groups such as veterans who support Ron Paul, which DHS has already described as “domestic extremists”. Groups such as members of LDS (Mormons who are required by their religious beliefs to stock a year’s supply of basic foods and other necessities*) or anyone else who stocks supplies of food and other sundries - as encouraged by FEMA as protection against natural disasters or other unforeseen events, but whom the government now views as possible terrorists.

Any group vilified by the cretins at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), who have appointed themselves as “watchdogs” of “domestic terrorist groups” - any group they do not like - the SPLC has been accepted by law enforcement as a legitimate source of such information, in spite of the fact that their choices are completely motivated by their political (socialist) leaning and not by any resemblance to reality.

So, think about the groups that could become the new “Jews in the Attic” in our current political climate, and in light of the accelerating push towards full socialism that are country is being subjected to by the current administration and Congress. And if you find yourself sitting there smugly, thinking, “Well, I’m not like those people,” remember what the minister wrote about the National Socialist (Nazi) round-up of people during the Holocaust and WWII: “When they came for the Jews . . . “

______________________________________________

* It should be noted here, for the education of those who think the LDS is nothing but a “cult”, that the most common use of these supplies in the LDS church is when a member finds themselves unemployed, or in extremis due to serious health or financial issues. These families then at least have food and the basic necessities covered so that they do not have to choose between signing up for government welfare or starving their children and themselves. The LDS church also provides in other ways for their members when they fall upon hard times, but it then requires them to work within the church in exchange for that help, at their canneries, food outlets, or other facilities. A protocol that our government could certainly learn from.

islam goes digital or "Why I love islam" [Not]

2011-12-19T01:30:00.006-07:00

As in removing digits. This is from a post by Sultan Knish:

Islam is peaceful. At least that is the likely defense of Rafiqi Islam, a loving husband, who told his wife that he had a present for her, blindfolded her to make it a surprise and then cut off her fingers. Then the rest of the Islam family mopped up the blood, while Mr. Islam threw her fingers into the trash, and after a few hours took her to the hospital where they warned her to tell the doctors that she had an accident.

The proximate cause of this event was that Mrs. Islam wanted to continue her education and Mr. Islam being a good Emirati Muslim was not so fond of the idea. Islam must be given credit for directness. When Muslims want to punish women for their sexuality, such as not wearing the Hijab, they throw acid in their faces. When they want to punish them for getting an education, they cut off their fingers with a machete.

Read the rest. And weep for this woman.

I hate to say this, but upon re-reading this post, I realize there are those (within our government, to be sure) who could spin this post to make people believe I approve of this obscene behavior by muslim scum. So, in the interest of protecting myself, allow me to state unequivocally for the record that this is one more reason for me to believe that islam is a cult, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It needs to be eradicated from polite society, and relegated to some island or cordoned off land mass where those who wish to abuse themselves with islam can be kept apart from contact with reasoning humans.

You don't think it could happen here?

2011-12-18T23:22:00.007-07:00

I wrote something on another blog tonight, in response to thoughts that Obama has no intention of staying within the rule of law, nor of giving up the White House to anything as inconvenient as a national election.

Stay with me here: yes, I realize it sounds completely insane and in the realm of conspiracy theory to posit that Obama might have plans that include remaining in office whether the American people want him to or not. However, as I have been saying for some time now, he has been behaving as if nothing he does matters, or is allowed to be questioned by anyone, certainly not by Congress. Not simply having Pelosi force through Obamacare with illegal procedural tactics, nor in providing hundreds of billions of our tax dollars to political favorites in the banking industry under the guise of a bailout, nor in taking over General Motors and then giving control of it to his union cronies, nor in shutting down oil production and oil exploration in this country (while giving Brazil billions of our tax dollars to underwrite their oil production), nor in allowing the EPA to create new regulations that shut down a number of working and viable coal-fired electrical plants, nor even in joining in a war on Libya without ever consulting with Congress, but also in ignoring or refusing to engage in every responsible act that a President could make to keep this country safe and economically viable.

When the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress, he treated Congress as his own rubber stamp, and when the Republicans regained control of the House, simply acted as if there is nothing that they can do to stop him. He ignores them, and ignores his Constitutional duties and responsibilities, as well as his Constitutional limitations. His arrogance is boundless, as is the arrogance of those who work for him, most notably Attorney General Holder, who is responsible for the state of Federal law enforcement in this country. Holder, who has openly stated he will not prosecute "his people" (aka African-Americans) for any crime against non-African-Americans - especially whites. And he calls us racist.

Obama's latest foray into declaring himself and his administration untouchable consists of having Holder tell the country - via the New York Times and Charlie Savage - that the investigation by Congress of the whole "Fast and Furious" operation run by ATF (wherein thousands of firearms, including Barrett fifty caliber rifles, were allowed to be bought and taken across the border into Mexico, where they have been used by the drug cartels to kill over three hundred Mexican citizens as well as two U.S. Federal law enforcement officers) is simply a partisan attempt to harass Holder and Obama - as Holder characterizes it, "election-year" rhetoric, and that it is also because "We are both African-American". What a racist remark!

As Mike Vanderboegh states in this article, this is essentially "Catch-22". There is no way to answer or refute someone who declares that they simply will not respond to your valid concerns. Someone who ignores the validity of your argument. Someone who resorts to dismissing everything you have to say as nothing for which they need to answer or account.

This is more than the usual playing of the race card to turn away any talk of personal responsibility. It is Holder and Obama saying - as Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street put it - they can do anything we can't stop them from doing.

Think about that. When the most powerful individual in the world and his lackey tell you they don't care what you think, they don't care what you want, they don't care what you say the rules are, do you imagine they intend to play by the rules when the rules say they need to pack up and go home? When the rules say they need to submit once more to the approval of the voters of this country? Why on earth would they? They have already demonstrated their disdain for your rules. They have already shown you quite clearly they have no intention of following your rules, especially the rules written on a 224-year-old piece of parchment with which they have already wiped their collective bottoms.

So, back to what I wrote on that blog in response to another comment:

"Millerized: perhaps that is also why we are reading that Barney Frank and some others won't be seeking re-election next year. Perhaps some of these scum - especially Frank, one of the architects of the recession/depression - want to get out of public view before it all comes apart.

Add in NDAA, FEMA opening some camps, the Army advertising for Detention/Resettlement Specialists, DOD training their people that protest is "low-level terrorism", the collapse of the EU and the euro, and I truly believe they are expecting things to come apart before they need to really worry about who might win an election.

In the meantime, Barry and MicHELLe are cramming in as many vacations and perks as they can before the crash they have been working towards takes place. They are loving the fact that they are enjoying millions of dollars of our money in the last days of that money having any value."

Imagine my surprise when I go to another blog and read that the Obamas are taking another Hawaiian vacation which is expected to cost over $4 million dollars of our tax money. At a time when many families aren’t sure where their next meal will come from let alone any Christmas presents for their children.

Does this not underline the disdain they feel for the citizens of this country? Does this not give the lie to everything these two scum say when they talk of their concern for the poor, the minorities, the unemployed? At a time when so many people are unemployed and underemployed, making sacrifices simply to keep going, and they spend millions for yet another vacation? Have we ever had a President and First Lady (I want to vomit on the word "lady" where MicHELLe is concerned) who took as many vacations as these two, let alone spent as much of our tax money as these two enjoying themselves at our expense?

Doesn't that piss you off just a little bit?

Add it up, people. If they care so little for America, its economy, its people, its Constitution and the rule of law, what makes you think a little thing like an election is going to keep them from enjoying our money for a lot longer than the next twelve months? What makes you think Obama won't take a page from the playbook used by Armadinejad in Iran, and simply declare himself the winner, no matter what the count is when the election is done? Anyone care for a little wager?

The Bottom Line

2011-12-16T20:10:00.004-07:00

I was reminded tonight of a truth written of by Jeff Cooper, posted on a couple of blogs I read:

Not long ago it was easy to tell who the bad guys were. They carried Kalashnikovs. Now it is much more complicated, but one thing is sure – any man who covers his face and packs a gun is a legitimate target for any decent citizen. – Jeff Cooper

Think about that, for just a minute. Can you conceive of any reason for a police officer to cover his face when doing his job? I worked in law enforcement for over thirteen years, and never felt the need to cover my face, or even to cover my name or badge number. Yet, every time we see a SWAT team at work these days, their faces are covered. It didn't start out that way, but now the police are following the tactics of the Feds, like ATF and DEA. I haven't seen HRT out operating lately, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that they are covering their faces as well.

Actually, there is an excellent reason why they cover their faces: they do not want anyone to know who they are, because they are ashamed of what they do. Oh, not really ashamed, but they would be embarrassed if someone knew that they personally were doing what they are seen to be doing. It is easy to abuse, hurt and even kill when they can hide behind a mask, when they can act anonymously. Especially knowing they will never, ever be called to task for the crimes they commit against those they swore to protect.

When they intentionally shoot a mother holding her infant daughter, through the mouth, directly into the brain stem - the money shot for a sniper, and a piece of cake at 200 yards. When they enter a house, awakening a man who only got to bed a few hours before after working all night in a mine, and shoot 71 rounds at him, reportedly hitting him 60 times, and then refusing to let EMS people get to him for two hours, making certain he bled to death. When one of their number leaned into the doorway to fire several shots into his supine body after all of the other officers had stopped shooting, just so he could "get his licks in". These are the acts of men who hide their faces so that their neighbors, their families, their friends, won't know them, won't recognize them as the type of thugs who would murder a man in this fashion.

These are the kind of law enforcement officers who need to cover their faces. In fact, these are the kind of creatures who should be simply removed from society so that none of us have to look at them. Tactical teams of any flavor - Federal, state or local - should be kept behind glass, to be broken only in the case of extreme violence, or an actual hostage situation. Even then, most of these boyos are so trigger happy that the hostages are often more at risk than those holding them hostage. They definitely should not be the first response in any attempted warrant service or contact with a "person of interest". I've arrested felons on warrants as an officer with the San Diego Police Department, and most of them went peacefully when I treated them fairly and with a modicum of respect. We were quite short-handed back then (late 70's, early 80's), and we didn't have teams that would respond when arresting for warrants. Sometimes we did it solo, on a one-to-one contact when a radio check revealed the subject had warrants, sometimes with another officer for backup.

No, I'm not talking of actual warrant service, which usually involved two or more officers, more if it was a felon with a history of violence or resisting arrest. But even then SWAT was never called out simply for serving a warrant, especially a search warrant, as is the case today. When they train with the submachine guns and M-16s, they obviously develop a desire to use them, which is a very dangerous - and frequently deadly - situation for the person being served with a search warrant or warrant for arrest.

So, I'm with Colonel Cooper: being a decent citizen, any armed man with a mask becomes a legitimate target to me. Come to my door with an open, uncovered face and in uniform to serve a search warrant and I will comply. Break into my home with masks on, and I promise you that at least one of you will not be going home to your family and loved ones. If I see you coming, plan on losing more. That statement will give Janet Napolitano more reason to call me a "domestic terrorist", I am sure, but it remains my position on the use of armed and masked men to assault me and my family. Jose Guerena didn't know you like I know you.

The Obama Presidency, by the numbers

2011-12-13T20:14:00.002-07:00

The good folks at the Gormogons posted a chart showing the discrepancies between Obama's speeches, his promises, and the reality of his administration. The chart shows - by the numbers - how badly he has done, how worthless his claims and promises have been. Since it really speaks for itself, please go there and take a look at it, would you? http://www.gormogons.com/2011/12/maybe-they-should-have-voted-for-yellow.html

Wake Up! Obama continues to deceive America

2011-12-13T15:49:00.004-07:00

Obama deceived America as to his true intentions when he was campaigning and elected in 2008. He is continuing this behavior in his efforts to be re-elected.

I am not a fan of the NRA or Wayne LaPierre - they only pretend to support the Second Amendment, and are actually in the business of lobbying for profit (the NRA has helped write all of the major gun control legislation since the GCA of 1968). However, I just read an article written by Mr. LaPierre that contains a great deal of truth, facts that are important for anyone who supports the Constitution to read. Yes, I say "Constitution" rather than simply "the Second Amendment", because all of our rights are under attack, from the Second to the Fourth, to the Tenth, and even the First.

I think even the people who run the NRA realize that the destruction of our Second Amendment rights would put them on the unemployment line. Many of us who were formerly members of the NRA dropped them when they helped pass the Lautenberg Amendment without even informing us of the dangers inherent in that legislation. Remember the NRA's relative silence on how strongly anti-gun Obama was when he was running for the Presidency in 2008? Do you really think they only now realized this fact? If Obama manages a stealthy - or blatant - gutting of the Second Amendment, the NRA won't receive another dime from any gun owner. Or - sadly to say - former gun owner. Here is the whole enchilada:

"Obama administration officials are deliberately keeping gun owners in the dark about the president’s gun-control agenda as we head into next year’s national election, because administration officials know that when NRA members and gun owners show up at the polls en masse, antigun candidates lose.

The Obama campaign’s strategy goes like this:

1. Neutralize gun owners and NRA members as a political force in the upcoming national election by pretending to be pro-gun or at least not focused on pushing a gun-control agenda;

2. With gun owners neutralized, Obama will be able to win the election. After the president is re-elected, he won’t have to answer to voters because he won’t have to face another re-election battle;

3. Launch a full-scale, all-out assault to rip the Second Amendment out of the Bill of Rights through legislation, litigation, regulation, executive orders and international treaties — in short, every lever of power at the administration’s disposal.

Barack Obama spent his entire political career proudly and publicly pushing for the most radical anti-gun positions you can imagine. He endorsed a total ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He opposed right-to-carry laws. He voted to ban nearly all commonly used hunting-rifle ammunition.

During the presidential primary debates, Obama even vowed to re-impose the discredited Clinton gun ban, which banned many commonly owned firearms used for hunting and self-defense. [Again, why didn't the NRA publicize this during the last election? Ed.]

Obama hasn’t had a sudden change of heart; rather, he’s making a purely political calculation by staying quiet on the gun issue until the time is right. In the meantime, he’s gearing up for his second-term assault on the Second Amendment in a number of ways.

Just consider …

*Obama loaded his administration with anti-gun zealots bent on destroying our Second Amendment freedoms.

*With the help of his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama made the U.S. an active partner to the U.N. gun-ban treaty. The U.N. will unveil this unmitigated attack on our sovereignty this summer and the Obama administration has vowed to implement it.

*Obama appointed two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court justices and continues to flood our lower courts with dozens of anti-gun, activist judges. [Literally, dozens, and many in Federal courts that deal with appeals. Ed.]

*With the help of his attorney general, Eric Holder, Obama led a campaign to demonize law-abiding gun owners, claiming our Second Amendment rights were to blame for drug violence in Mexico. And in fact, emails recently released by the Justice Department prove that Operation “Fast and Furious” was a deliberate attempt to build the case for a gun-control agenda.

*Obama unilaterally imposed gun registration in four border states — requiring gun dealers to register the sales of any law-abiding citizen who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within one week.

It isn’t hard to see the writing on the wall. The actions that President Obama has taken so far in his presidency clearly show his disdain for the Second Amendment and hint at his plan to gut our firearm freedoms in his second term.

But the key to President Obama’s strategy is keeping gun owners complacent for now.

After all, Obama knows what happened in 1994, when the politicians who voted for Clinton’s gun ban were swept out of Congress. Even Clinton admitted the NRA was the reason Democrats lost their 40-year lock on control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama saw what happened in 2000, when Al Gore built his campaign on a platform of gun control and then watched as the NRA and gun owners derailed Gore in the battleground states of Arkansas, West Virginia and even his home state of Tennessee — costing him the White House.

Obama administration officials know that it’s good politics to avoid making gun control a public issue. They hope that they can lull gun owners into a false sense of security and then play us for fools in the 2012 election.

NRA members, gun owners and liberty-minded Americans should not be fooled. Next year’s presidential election will be a referendum on our freedom."

Wayne LaPierre is the executive vice president and chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association of America.

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/12/the-obama-administration-is-planning-a-second-term-attack-on-gunrights/

Want to be an Internment/Resettlement Specialist? GO ARMY!

2011-12-06T15:27:00.007-07:00

OK. There is no way I can post this without someone twirling their finger next to their head and proclaiming, "I always knew Reg was a wing-nut, Right-wing whacko." I mean, let's face it - resettlement camps in the United States of America? Can you imagine the U.S. government ever doing something that bizarre? Next thing you know, whack jobs like Reg will be claiming you could get thrown into a camp simply because of your religion or your ethnicity. That you could be rounded up and put in a camp simply because you were Jewish, like the Germans did, or Japanese like the - who did that? Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Wasn't he one of our President's?

Yeah, it has happened here before. There are still Japanese-Americans (who simply thought of themselves as Americans) alive who spent time in internment camps, put there simply because they were of Japanese descent. Old men, old women, young men, young women, children and babies. Not because of anything they had done. Not even because of anything they were suspected of having done. Simply because of their ethnicity.

[At the time, Executive Order 9066 (by FDR) was justified as a "military necessity" to protect agaist domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that, "our government has in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." Michi Weglyn, 1976.]

Here is the hook for this post: the U.S. Army is hiring people for the position of Internment/Resettlement Specialist (31E). Go to goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs. Don't take my word for it. Use the link or look it up yourself. Here is one of the listed "Advanced Responsibilities":

Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility

Now, we already have places to put enemy combatants, like at Guantanamo Bay. The military has plenty of detention facilities for criminal activity within the military. And our country already has far too many places to detain those suspected of terrorist activity. Even for "domestic terrorists", however that is being defined this week (last week it was me: a veteran with a Ron Paul bumper sticker on my car. Just ask Janet Napolitano). With the Department of Defense describing anyone protesting our government as a "low-level terrorist", they even have room for any Right or Left winger who doesn't like what is going on and publicly says so.

With all of the military coming home from the Sandbox, you wouldn't think they would need to hire more. They could simply assign soldiers to take the training and perform those duties. Would some decide to get out instead of doing that kind of work? I imagine some would. Some would also stay in for the paycheck and benefits. The clincher for me is that hiring new people would allow the Army to screen for those most suited to performing that kind of duty. You know - people who couldn't make the grade as TSA agents, young men who got picked on in junior high school, or guys (and gals) too dim to make it onto a police department payroll, but who really, really want that "authoritah". Maybe some folks who want payback from the "rich" who "stole" from them, or "those whitebread crackers who kept my great-great grandaddy as a slave".

So. What are the chances that someone has decided that there may be a need to intern Americans at some point? Or to "resettle" Americans? With all of the floods, the fires, the tornados and hurricanes we have had, even after Katrina, were any civilians "resettled"? Hell, no. The Feds whipped out the old credit card - you know, the one you pay the bill on every April 15th - and put them up in hotels. Paid for their meals. Even bought them X-Boxes to play with while they were living off of tax money most of them hadn't provided.

However, should enough of us American citizens stand up and shout "That's it. All of you traitorous bastards are out. Leave D.C. and don't come back!", you will find out why the Army feels a need to hire and train some of what I am certain will be our most upstanding citizens (and maybe a few guys from MS-13 or ex-cartel members working as CI's for the FBI). Perhaps some of us will get a chance to experience what our Japanese-American citizens experienced of FDR's hospitality. I'm sure they'd be glad to show us re-runs of Stalag-13 or maybe Hogan's Heros. Or the Wolverines visiting their families and friends at the chain link fence.

Be honest now: can you come up with a good reason, a rational explanation, for why the Army would be needing to hire Internment and Resettlement Specialists? Other than the suspicions I have voiced? Let me know if you can. Then back up and dissect that explanation with Occam's Razor, would you please?

A necessary blog to follow

2011-12-05T23:30:00.007-07:00

I've been reading Kerodin's blog, III Percent Patriots, for some time now. There was a time when I felt that some of his material was a bit too strong for my tastes. As our current political situation continues to worsen, and our government increases its inroads upon our rights and our freedom - what is left of it - I find that it was I who was too weak in my assessment of the threat we face as a country. Kerodin has been a much better judge of that threat, and has been unrelenting in his presentation of just how bad things have become.

He has suffered directly and personally at the hands of our government, and continues to as I write this. His experience, his insight, and his training enable him to cut to the chase on what is important to us politically and in the fight we face, and is just as spot-on as is Silicon Graybeard's assessment of the continuing financial debacle.

Again, I need to be clear with those few folks who read my blog that we are not speaking of far-out conspiracy theory here. We are talking about the very tangible threats we face thanks to a government which refuses to accept that debt is real and cannot be ignored, nor can it be corrected by inflating our currency until it becomes worthless, like the Weimar Republic Reichsbanknotes (like this 20 million mark note from that time period). We are talking about the very real threats to American citizens as in the Patriot Act, and the new Senate bill 1867 (House bill 1540) which would allow the government to declare any of us "enemy combatants" and detain us indefinitely. Do you understand the significance of habeas corpus no longer existing? Lincoln was the last President to take that right away from us in order to punish those who didn't approve of going to war with the South. It is quite likely, if this bill passes, that anyone who disapproves of what the government does - Right, Left, or Independent - could be held indefinitely, with no legal recourse.

Think that is far fetched? DOD (Department of Defense) has written and put into practice a training program for their employees which describes political protest as "low-level terrorism". No, that is not a mistake, not a typo, and not a paranoid fever-dream of a right-wing wingnut. It is fact. The ACLU can hardly be considered spokesmen for the Right, yet they are speaking out against this. England, as well, is already treating their protesters, like them or hate them, as terrorists as Kerodin recently posted.

The more you follow Kerodin's blog, the more you will see that as strong as his language may be, as bleak as the picture he paints may seem, as dire as the threat he describes, it all rings true. We may wish it wasn't so, but I'm afraid you'll have to put that wish in one hand and see what it's worth. If you can't read him every day, check in with him frequently. You'll benefit from his personal insights, and the info he posts from other bloggers and news sources that provide facts, opinions, and ruminations which will open your eyes to how precarious our plight truly is right now.

"There is no such thing as moderate islam"

2011-12-04T00:55:00.006-07:00

I've been saying it for some time now, and here is a French politician actually admitting it. She is a brave lady, exposing her knowledge in a country currently becoming overrun by muslims, with arrondissements in Paris where the police fear to tread, due to the muslims who inhabit and riot in those areas.

Jeannette Bougrab is a French minister of Arab descent. Algerian in origin, she is familiar with muslims and Sharia. Orthodox islam calls for the death or subjugation of all "infidels", and even prescribes death for other muslims if they convert, speak against islam or Sharia, or fail to follow any of the dictates of the Quran, Haddith, or Sura. We won't even go into the many petty violations for which a woman or girl can be put to death under Sharia, along with the required genital mutilation (clitoridectomy at the very least) of female children.

Those who claim there is such a thing as moderate islam are either ignorant or liars. If they are muslim themselves, this is permitted under the cover of taqqiya. Read the brief article at Jihad Watch.

More photos of muslim sex slaves

2011-12-03T23:50:00.003-07:00

It's late and I'm feeling silly after seeing BillyBob's post at Hell On Earth showing photos of some lady hogs for any muslims that might wander onto his web site.

Well, we all know that a muslim would never touch a pig. While I have seen video of muslims utilizing donkeys for sex, it is my understanding that goats are the preferred partner if a young beardless boy is not available. So, for those few muslims who might wander onto my blog, here is some goat porn for your enjoyment.

The first is a young Nubian. Hmm. Nubia was in Africa, wasn't it? Not too far from home, eh? The one on the left in the next photo is either La Mancha, or a La Mancha cross. La Manchas are earless. Can't imagine someone breeding for an earless goat, but there you are. (Do muslims grab the ears when they get started? Is that why they prefer Nubians?) The third photo is of a Toggenburg, a goat that used to be common in Switzerland, along with the Saanens and Alpines, I believe.

I used to raise Toggenburgs. Calm, easy to milk, good mothers, easy keepers all around. Clean, chilled goat's milk is sweeter and better - IMO - than cow's milk. Making various cheeses from their milk was easy and fun. My wife kept and raised goats, too. If we ever settle down and stop traveling, we'd like to get a few again. If I see a muslim within 600 yards of my goats, he's toast.

Sit down, put your feet up, smoke 'em if you've got 'em

2011-12-03T09:39:00.007-07:00

I’ve read various and sundry blogs and comments upon them concerning secession from the United States by individual states. While it certainly makes sense to me - if not to my liberal/Democrat family members and few friends who are also liberal - it will never happen. I would love to live in a free state that has rejected what has become of America, but I realize it is a pipe dream.

Oh, I don’t doubt an attempt might be made, and it would certainly be better for everyone involved if it could happen without an uncivil war, but the Left - the collectivists - will never accept the possibility that some of us should be allowed to live apart from those who enjoy ruling or being ruled and nannied by a large and powerful government.

Those who remember their history may recall that this was tried once before, and we all know how that ended. I can see no reason to believe a current attempt would have any better ending, in fact it would either be worse or would never occur in the first place. There simply doesn’t exist the desire for freedom from governmental diktat that did just before the War of Northern Aggression - “Civil War” (although it was decidedly uncivil) which was between the Southern states and the Federal government. Not between the Southern and the Northern states - it was Lincoln and Congress who decided it couldn’t be tolerated, not the governments or population of the Northern states.

The Left and the Powers That Be, aka: Those Who Would Rule Us, will never allows us to separate from them. They could not exist without the fruits of the labor of the productive. They will never give up their addiction to other people’s money, as they know they would starve and die if they became dependent upon their own efforts. Unfortunately for all of us, they also cannot seem to get the fact that abusing those who are productive will never increase their output. It will only damage them until they can no longer be productive, or until they realize they are pushing a rock uphill and give up on their own.

We have seen in microcosm - the Occupy protesters - how the Left feels it is the responsibility of those of us who are productive, who are better off due to our willingness to work and provide for ourselves and our families, to support and provide for those who do not wish to work, as well as those who feel it is their “right” to have someone else pay for their healthcare, their childcare, their food, their housing, their transportation, even their entertainment. We have seen that the Left has no desire to recognize the right of the individual to his own property, be it his land (as in Kelo ) or his economic property, his income and bank account.

The Left, supported from below by the FSA ["Free Sh*t Army", for my liberal relatives who might not have heard the appellation] , the entitlement culture, has deemed that there is such a thing as having “too much”, “more than you need”, “what you ‘ripped off’ from the rest of us” [true in the case of crony capitalism, where Obama and Congress rewarded the large financial institutions which were the major beneficiaries of TARP and later bailout schemes]. Those in power on the Left actually understand that there needs to be a productive segment of society, or they would have no source of income themselves, but as unwilling as they are to give up their income to succor the entitled, the “poor and hungry”, they feel it is acceptable to tax the productive into poverty in order to supply those entitled souls who vote them into office in exchange for the spoils of this theft from the productive.

I have a cousin whose husband is a very compassionate registered nurse at a hospital in Connecticut. He is a principled (not my principles ;-) and intelligent man who wishes to help others, especially those in need. Unfortunately, he appears to be unable to understand that the theft of property from those who produce actually reduces what is available to be used to help those who are truly in need, because so much goes to those simply unwilling to work and provide for themselves and their families. He is unaware of the fact that the Right gives to charity much, much more than those on the Left who talk about the “poor” but then cling to their own money like a drowning man to a floating log. He has bought into Karl Marx’s line about “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Sorry, John, but it is true. Marx knew that a lot of compassionate people would swallow that one, hook line and sinker.

I have a young friend and former co-worker who is also a registered nurse. He and his mother, whom he lives with and helps to support, have experienced hard times. They had some periods in their lives when they needed healthcare that they could not get covered by insurance, or when they couldn’t afford insurance. I don’t recall his exact explanation, but IIRC he might not have even been able to get the care he (or she) needed, although that seems unlikely given that few emergency rooms will turn away those in need simply because they cannot - or will not - pay. Perhaps he could not pay and did not wish to end up in debt for the needed care.

[We both worked with an orderly who made a great deal less money than we did as RNs. He needed neurosurgery for his neck, which he received in spite of not having any insurance at the time. He is still paying it off, but he is paying for it out of his own pocket. He is my age, and even though he may not live long enough to repay the entire debt, he is doing what he knows is the right thing. Believe it or not, he votes Democrat.]

Whatever the case, my fellow RN is totally in favor of stealing from the productive - the 50% (is it still that high?) who pay taxes to support the 50% of Americans who do not - in order to provide healthcare for those who cannot afford it. He works in healthcare, so he is aware of how many who claim not to be able to afford it simply feel it is their “right” to get it without having to pay for it, but he remains adamant that it should still be “free” (aka: paid for by us tax payers) because there are a few truly destitute people who cannot afford it. He is another compassionate and bright individual who abandons reason when it gets in the way of what he wants - to provide for those “in need”, including his mother and himself. When asked about it, he cannot discuss it, as questioning his worldview angers him too much to be willing to discuss “politics”.

Hell, yes, I know I am singing to the choir here, as most of the folks who follow my blog are reasoning adults with a fairly firm grip on reality and who believe in personal responsibility as well as the inviolability of personal property - aka: conservatives, members of the Right (not to be confused with “Republican” or even “Libertarian”, although the small “L” libertarians come fairly close). People who understand that America does need to defend herself, although that doesn’t mean attempting to bring “Democracy” to countries that are still living in the seventeenth century and are incapable of doing otherwise at this time. People who support our men and women in the military, if not the military adventurism and manipulation we have seen in Bosnia, Libya, Iraq, and - to a certain extent - in Afghanistan, although I find myself in favor of whacking Al Qaeda and the Taliban, even if I understand that the real target should be Saudi Arabia, who funds and supports those groups.

So, here I sit. One more small voice trying to awaken a few souls who otherwise might not ever get the message. One barely articulate fellow hoping to shed a little light upon what we are facing, and how it has come to be this way. Better men - and women - than I have tried and failed. I fear that most of our fellow citizens will not awaken until it is too late, when they find themselves prisoners in the gulag of oppression to which America is headed.

Silence Is The Goal

2011-11-27T13:03:00.006-07:00

The assault on free speech by many countries across the globe is gaining a foothold here in America, as well. While we still enjoy the ability to say what we will, and to post what we will here on the Web, free speech is nonetheless under attack in the media and in the halls of government, where such scum as Harry Reid and John Kerry whine about how we shouldn't be allowed to voice any opinions that offend their particular sensibilities. Those That Would Rule Us do not wish us to say anything which might awaken others to our actual plight as their chattel. Any criticism of government, socialism, "social justice", wealth distribution, etc. are deemed damaging, subversive, seditious.

The excellent owner of the blog Eternity Road, Francis W. Porretto, has written an article under his nom de plume (or alter ego), Curmudgeon Emeritus. It is entitled, Silence is the Goal. Our silence, that is. The silencing of Those Who Would Not Be Ruled. We are not talking about anarchists (for the most part ;-), but simply those who believe in the natural rights of the individual, and their inviolability by those who think they know better, or simply wish to exert power and control over the rest of us.

Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly has taken an incredibly nasty hit in Merry Old England, where those whom the government disapproves of suffer beatings and arrest even when peaceably convening in the venue of a pub. In Canada, people have been sued and harassed for expressing an opinion about muslims and islam, the "religion of peace". We won't even start on the long and tortuous trials of Geert Wilders in Denmark.

There is a strong movement by liberals, Democrats especially, to silence those of us who feel threatened by the changes occurring both in our government and in our society. They have already muddied the waters significantly by redefining our language to mean what they wish it to mean, making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion of these issues as what they mean by a particular word is diametrically opposite of what the word formerly meant. Bringing this country to the condition where it is no longer permissible to voice an opinion contrary to "political correctness" would be tantamount to silencing any dissent they wish to be silenced.

Please read Silence is the Goal, and take it to heart.

An excellent post on the upcoming ruckus and how cops may respond

2011-11-27T10:36:00.006-07:00

Mike at http://mike-istan.blogspot.com/ did a must-read post on "Concord Bridge or Fort Sumter". There were some responses to it speaking to the likelihood of the police following their oath to the Constitution vs how they may actually behave. Some felt that "small-town" cops would have more invested in their community, as opposed to "big-city" cops. Some of the folks in law enforcement and former military (as am I) claimed that they fully supported the Constitution and honored their oath. Here is my response (which I posted there), as I see it:

As a former peace officer in both big city and small town departments, I have to take some of the people who responded to task.

As Mike stated in response to a post about small town police:

It is probably unavoidable with big-city police who see bad stuff

every day, but it is disconcerting to see nice suburban officer Jones

all buffed out from gym time, head shaved, wrap around tactical

sunglasses, and tactical pants bloused into tactical boots (black of

course). I'm sure he is a fine officer, but it looks like he has

succumbed to early onset thinblueline-itis.

I guarantee you, having not only worked in two small town departments as well as at the California Highway Patrol and as a San Diego police officer, many of today’s young officers have indeed succumbed to “them vs us”. Being members of the community, small and local as it is, does not define them. They revel in their position of “authoritah”, shaved head and heavy badge and all. The time of the Andy Griffith style f police officer is long gone.

I saw this just a few weeks back, when my flight instructor was yanked out at gun point of the Cessna I was preparing to taxi from the apron to the runway. He had had a non-violent domestic disagreement with his wife for which she had pressed charges, and the young city cop treated him as if he were a piece of filth, instead of the patient, compassionate, and friendly man that I - and all of his friends in town - knew this 65 year old man to be. The deputy sheriff who was backing him up (an older, more mature man) was polite and professional, but not this young town cop.

Those who responded here, claiming they always supported and defended the Constitution are not being honest, with us or with themselves. If they enforced the laws that are on the books, they have gone counter to the Constitution. If they have arrested anyone for any sort of weapons violation - gun, knife (too long, double-edged, concealed), billy, loaded firearm, etc., they have violated the Second Amendment. If they have arrested anyone for drug use, they have violated the Constitution, for wherein does it give the government the right to legislate a private activity such as self-medication? If an arrest - and a ticket is an arrest with a promise to appear in place of being taken into custody - is made for lack of insurance, driving without a license, driving without a seat belt or helmet, then again, the Constitution has been ignored. [Yes, the states do have the power to pass various laws, but I submit that those such as being forced to purchase insurance - automobile, as opposed to healthcare, but both are wrong - and I believe the seat belt and helmet laws are equally wrong.]

I was as guilty of this as anyone else, although I did let a _lot_ of people go on these violations of “law” when I was in law enforcement. In California, it was a felony to ignore a felony, so there were times when I had a partner and my choice was to arrest or be arrested myself if that partner snitched me off, so I took the safe route (rather than the Constitutional route).

I’d bet a month’s income that these folks responding here to Mike’s post are as guilty of this as I was, hence my statement that they are not being honest. As far as military folks go, their ROE _used_ to be broader than those of the police, although I understand that isn’t the case anymore, thanks to the Pretender-in-Chief and those he has running the military. The former ROE were reasonable and necessary, given what the military was tasked to accomplish. I have no argument with that.

However, given the psychology of those sworn to obey their orders, trained to obey without thinking (for the most part, though most military folk do think in spite of such training), and the psychology of those acting in a group, thoughts of rights and Constitutionality are almost always far from their minds. Recall Tom Baugh’s brief essay on “When to Shoot the Colonels”.

Even some of the liberals get it

2011-11-20T09:27:00.004-07:00

Incredibly, Yahoo - which I use for my email base, preferring it slightly over Google - has just posted a news release not only critical of Obama's damage to our economy and the job market, but also speaks of the damage that eco-extremists do to our economy and the functioning of our society.

"The six-month delay was ordered to allow for time to study the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing or fracking. The Environmental Protection Agency has stacks of studies and monitoring reports on the practice dating back to the 1950s. President Obama's move to satisfy a fraction of extreme environmental groups fearful that fracking would harm waterways shattered the economic hopes of an entire state.

Planned drilling in multiple Ohio regions offers more than direct drilling and transportation employment. A steady paycheck for shale and natural gas industry workers would be spent in towns across the state providing funds for non-drilling businesses. Communities would benefit from increased sales at local businesses, delinquent property taxes would get paid helping public levies and struggling homeowners would be able to prevent foreclosure.

Anti-drilling rhetoric by some environmental groups opposed to drilling in the national forest is juvenile and not based in fact. Ohio Environmental Council spokesman Jack Shaner said drilling in the Wayne would turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley. There have been a multitude of oil and gas wells pumping in the forest for years without causing a harmful impact on either the environment or muscle-powered recreational opportunities."

Although I don't read much of Yahoo News, being disenchanted with their liberal slant upon most issues, from what I have seen, it is quite unusual to see Yahoo publishing anything either critical of Obama or less than completely supportive of the "green" eco-extremist camp. The clear and rational treatment of this particular issue by the writer, Tara Dodrill, is refreshing, and seeing it presented on Yahoo News is simply amazing. Please read the whole thing, and consider contacting Yahoo to thank them for "printing" such an accurate portrayal of the damage Obama has been doing to our country, a thing routinely ignored by the mainstream media.

A beautiful artifact, along with some introspection

2011-11-08T21:14:00.030-07:00

The wife and I have been a bit busy. A 7000 mile trip East and back, visiting family and friends. A stop at Oklahoma, where we had the unfortunate experience of discovering how thin blood can be, along with some unpleasant work emptying out an old house we owned (sold now to a neighbor) of the last of our belongings we wished to keep and transport into storage here in Montana. The trip lead to a new acquisition, which we will come to, anon.

I wish my insight was equal to my willingness to be introspective, but alas, it is not. Somehow, in spite of the best of intentions, my character is faulty enough to alienate many of the people I would have chosen to remain friends with, had I the wit to behave in a more acceptable fashion, whatever that might be. (This is true of relatives, as well as acquaintances.)

A former friend in Baton Rouge, who I still think well of, once made the statement that a true friend was someone he would "take a bullet for". For those of you who are not members of the gun culture, or supporters of our Constitution, in which the Second Amendment reiterates the natural right of self-defense via firearm (and how a free country requires that the general populace be willing to train and equip - be "well-regulated" - in the use of arms if it wishes to remain free), my friend meant that quite literally. He would step between a bullet fired and someone he considered a friend.

That is a laudable stance to take, and shows how strongly he values true friendship, but it falls short for me. Yes, I would take a bullet for those I love well enough to call "friend" (to include many of my relatives), but for me, a true friend is someone who takes you as you are, warts and all. Since some of my warts seem to be as large as the Rock of Gibraltar, I can count the number of my true friends on the fingers (and thumb) of one hand. People who have seen me be foolish, or self-involved, or forgetful of the needs of those around me, or hurtful without intent, but hurtful nonetheless. For that (literal) handful of stalwarts, those saints willing to continue to value me in spite of my shortcomings, I say a heartfelt "thank you". Those few are indeed friends. My two uncles in Connecticut, who we visited this trip, are in that category. One is conservative, the other a loving and compassionate liberal who remains dear to my heart even though he consorts with those who have damaged, and who wish to further destroy, my very liberty (Democrats and other liberals).

For my wife's sister and brother-in-law who live a half-mile from the property we just sold, sayonara, baby. They are still upset because we will not join their brand of Fundamentalist, Holy Roller, lie on the floor and speak in tongues brand of Christianity. They were very helpful while we were there, but when we stopped by to pick up a few items we had left in storage at their farm, they insisted on also returning every single gift we had ever given them in the last ten or so years. I think it was meant to be a slap in the face. I won't miss them, but my wife is sad that her only sister could be so cold.

Now for the fun part, which I hope you will enjoy much more than my rambling introspection. I do not understand the operation of this blog site well enough to insert photos where I might like in the text, so what you saw at the start of all of this - a photo of a replica 1874 Sharps rifle - is what we will talk about next.

I'm certain the folks at the Shiloh Rifle Company of Big Timber, Montana get down on their knees and thank Tom Selleck and the producers of Quigley Down Under every night before they go to sleep. As so many of us have told them, seeing his rifle in that film has caused a longing that could only be requited by the purchase of one of their gorgeous rifles.

Now, the company was well known amongst shooters for the high quality of their rifles long before the movie, but it has generated such an interest and increase in customers that I know they will always be thankful for that exposure of their excellent craftsmanship.

I actually had no intention of buying one of their rifles at this time. My wife and I were returning to Montana when we stopped at a truck stop just west of Butte, MT for fuel. As the pump at the RV part of the station wouldn't take my credit card for some reason, I went inside to leave it while I fueled up. The gal at the counter insisted I needed to pick a particular value to spend, in spite of the fact that I wanted to fill up, and had no idea what that would cost. I wasn't willing to guess and have to leave with a tank less than full, so I left without buying any. About twenty miles further west, we saw signs for a station at Big Timber, MT. While I was pumping the tank on the UHaul truck full, I noticed a building across the street labeled "Shiloh Rifle Company".

Knowing this was the maker of the "Quigley Down Under" Sharps rifle, I just had to go look. My wife was excited to see it too, as she is a fan of the movie and Tom Selleck. Understand that I knew I was perfectly safe, as there is a twelve-month waiting period for the making of one of these rifles. No worries that I would spend $1800 up on a rifle. When we got inside, the various models were sitting on pegs on one wall, and we were told we could pick them up and handle them all we wanted. They were gorgeous. I especially liked the Quigley and the Long Range Express models. Absolutely gorgeous.

When I spoke to the wife/co-owner Lucinda, she told me about the waiting period for a custom rifle. When I spoke of liking the Long Range Express model, she pointed to a rack behind the counter, and said they had several Montana Roughrider models there, which were identical to the LRE, except that they had the cheek rests sanded off (for those wanting a more traditional look, or at least no cheek piece). Then she hooked me - these rifles were "pre-made" and for sale right now. Oh, no. I picked up two of them, and was instantly lost, as needful of one of those rifles as a junkie needing a fix.

The base price of the Roughrider was $1900. The cost for my rifle, with the extra custom additions, was just over $2900 (with an extra $175 to re-chamber from 45-70 to 45-110). It should be noted that $223 of that was for Federal Excise Tax. Yes, they tax the entire sale, custom extras and all. Eleven percent. It's a crime. If some portion of it is due to the Pittman-Robertson Act, I wouldn't mind so much. Restoration of wildlife habitat can be a good thing (if the eco-freak liberals don't go overboard with it), and the fact that the funds cannot be diverted the way Social Security funds have been is good, too. But I'm not certain that is where the money is actually going. Anyway, $3200 for a rifle was way, way more than I had any intention of spending, but as we had just sold the Oklahoma property (for a slight loss) and could easily afford it, my wife told me to go for it. She didn't have to say it twice, for sure and for certain.

Sorry I couldn't seem to get a better overall photo, but this is the Shiloh Montana Roughrider model, chambered in 45-110. It has a number of upgrades: semi-fancy wood (you should see what "fancy" entails!), "pack harden" finish (absolutely beautiful bone and charcoal case hardening), a lovely pewter fore-end tip/escutcheon, double set triggers, full-buckhorn rear sight, a case hardened shotgun style buttplate, and a 34" heavy full-octagon barrel.

The second shot shows the locking block lowered, the breech face exposed, and the chamber open. Next is the pewter fore-end tip, then the right side of the lock work, with the lever down and the triggers exposed, then a closer shot of the pack harden finish, followed by a still slightly out-of-focus overall shot to include that 34" barrel.

The barrel is the heavy full octagon, which I believe weighs 16 pounds all by itself. I don't know what the total weight is, but I do know I will be glad for it when I start touching off those 45-110's loaded with a 535 grain Lyman Postell alloy bullet at around 1400 fps. For those of you who are not shooters, the heavier the bullet (in any particular caliber), the heavier the recoil. A heavy firearm (due to the physics involved of mass vs momentum) will deliver less felt recoil than a lighter firearm. The forces actually remain the same, but when the same amount of energy has to move a greater mass, the mass moves less (a shorter distance). So the "shove" feels significantly less when the weapon is very heavy.

The pictures do not do this rifle justice. It is a work of art, with the wood-to-metal fit being excellent, the case hardening superbly beautiful, the lock work smooth and solid in operation, the set trigger so light I will either re-set it a bit heavier or simply not use it. I am hoping the brass and loading paraphernalia arrive tomorrow so that I can start loading some rounds to fire. (I will be using the afore-mentioned Lyman 535 grain Postell pushed by about 60 grains of a new black powder substitute called Blackhorn 209. It is sold by the Western Powder company (the Accurate Arms powder company) , and it is supposed to be clean burning, non-corrosive, and very accurate. I intend to load 100 rounds, to take with me on my trip to St. George, Utah, where my wife and I will be spending the winter months in our fifth-wheel.

We plan to visit Bryce Canyon, Zion National Park, the Canyonlands, the Arches National Park outside of Moab, Mesa Verde in nearby Colorado, Canyon de Chelly (and other sites such as Kiet Siel near Kayenta) in Arizona, and whatever else we come across. We have been to Tuzigoot, Montezuma's Castle, and a bunch of other locations, but may hit some of them again. The Four Corners area is replete with amazing ruins, rock formations, and incredible landscapes. We are looking forward to it.

While we are in that area, I intend to find some place where we can shoot at 1000 yards, to try the Shiloh Sharps out, as well as my 7.62x51 with some 175 grain BTHP rounds that simulate the old M118 long range military cartridge. I read an article where some forensic scientists who thought the 45-70 couldn't reach out to 1500 yards tested it and some 45-110 rounds. Firing at a 35 degree, the 45-70 landed a heavy bullet (675 grains, heavier than most people normally shoot, but a duplicate of an historic long-range cartridge used back in the 1800's) 3600 yards away. [ Correction: This was a round fired from a 50-90, not a 45-70. Billy Dixon used a 50-90 Sharps, and that is what was being tested, along with a 45-110 they brought along as well. I am including a photo of a 45-110 round next to a 45-70 round for comparison.] The 45-110 was fired with a standard load in common use, and it landed over 3500 yards away. For you engineers out there, the 45-70 round reached an altitude of 4000 feet in its trajectory. We pilots should take note, as well. I hope the folks at ATF who acquired some aircraft are listening, too.

America: the Republic that we were, but no longer are

2011-10-23T20:41:00.002-06:00

The content of this video should be taught to every student in school, beginning in grade school. It should be repeated and reinforced in high school. The study of the spectrum of government and its various forms - which indeed can be reduced to either an oligarchy or a republic - should be a mandatory class in college as well. Instead, most of us have been brainwashed into believing that we are supposed to be living in a democracy, that we should prefer to live in a democracy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=player_embedded

Robert Anson Heinlein, a great author and wise libertarian, should be mandatory reading, too. A science fiction ("speculative fiction") writer, he wrote a book called "Starship Troopers", in which the government of Earth's future placed a requirement of military service upon suffrage, the right to vote. I realize the many liberals of today abhor the military (just as the Clintons did and the Obamas do), but the full investment of one's very life in service to our country perhaps should be a requirement for the ability to cast a vote. (I would love to see it as a requirement for public office as well.) He also wrote a novel called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", about a time in the future when the moon is used as a penal colony, perhaps as a metaphor for Australia, but also one for the Thirteen Colonies that became America. Revolution takes place, and those residing there become free of the abuses of the government on Earth.

A very bright historian named Alexis De Tocqueville wrote a book back in the early 1830's called "Democracy in America". In this book he states that every democracy (as opposed to a Republic) has ended badly, followed by a dictatorship (actually an oligarchy, even though some of them appear to be rule by one individual). He was quite accurate, as America has become a country ruled by an elite, an elite that says we must accept laws and legislation that is written by Congress even if we don't want it, even if no one has read the full document to know what is in it. "We need to pass it before we can know what is in it," if you accept the irrational dictates of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Our country was created as a republic, as noted in the famous exchange of Ben Franklin with a lady curious as to what the Constitutional Convention had settled upon as a form of government: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution is "democracy" mentioned, as the united States (they didn't capitalize "united" back then, because the Federal government was meant to be subservient to the States and the citizens of those States) was never intended to be a democracy.

It is only in recent history - and in the revision, the perversion, of history that is taught in most of our public schools - that people have come to speak of America as a democracy, and to talk of bringing democracy to the people of other countries who suffer under repressive rule by tyrants. The old adage states that "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner". The rights of the individual, especially his right to own property (including the fruits of his own labor, which is economic property, ever bit as real as intellectual, physical, or "real" property) are not protected in a democracy.

Look at the Kelo decision in the Supreme Court, where any property may be taken from an individual if it will benefit a federal, state, or local government to do so.

Consider also that you only rent the house you thought you bought and paid for. Even real estate which has been completely paid for can be taken from you if you fail to pay taxes upon it. Not only may you be imprisoned for failure to pay taxes (debtor's prison, anyone?), but your property can be confiscated and permanently taken from you if the taxes levied against it have not been paid. How can you be said to actually own something that some other entity can take from you for taxes owed (a minuscule fraction of the property's value) at will, or simply at the whim of government? When someone holds the paper on your debt, say for a car which has not been completely paid for, it can be repossessed by the bank or agency which has loaned you the money to buy it. Once you have completely paid for it, it cannot be repossessed. Your home and your land can be. Can you see how totally wrong that is?

Democrats in Congress (and most Republicans, for that matter) want democracy instead of a republic, because that is the way they can insure that the oligarchy, the elite, our "representatives" who all believe they are so much wiser than us and wish to make our decisions for us (i.e., they themselves), will remain in power. They all want a very strong and dominating central government which will allow them to wield the power to decide what is best for us simple folk, while it also enriches them monetarily. They have arranged it so that they are not subject to the very laws they create to control us, have arranged to be able to draw a full pension after only one term of service, and receive benefits that none but the most wealthy of our society - most of whom have actually earned their wealth - can possibly afford.

So. Do you wish to live in a democracy, where your needs can be ignored or your property taken from you at the whim of a majority - even the tiny majority of a town council, consisting of perhaps four or five people - or in a republic, were law and government properly protect your rights and property? Learn the difference here and try to choose wisely. We have already lost our Republic, but a concerted effort by enough Americans might somehow be able to turn things around and get us back to a republic, and the Rule of Law that was meant to protect each and every one of us.

H/T to WRSA and Small Dead Animals for posting the video.

islam and sexuality

2011-10-22T21:40:00.001-06:00

A great series of videos by Ann Barnhardt on how islam deals with sexuality. It is in four parts, but they are each short and concise. They are very well done, and it doesn't take long to view all four. It is well worth your time, as this is material that everyone should know about islam and should share with everyone they know. I can't impress upon you how important these are in describing reasons why we must not let islam gain a greater foothold here in this country.

islam is a cult. It is a totalitarian political system that masquerades as a religion, but isn't one. It merely pretends to be one because that advances its agenda, which is to rule the world via Sharia law and the ravings of a pederast and murderer.

Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCfbYkXtHuA&feature=player_embedded

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mZPIbz-n_c&feature=player_embedded

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKAuJewbXg&feature=player_embedded

part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqNPJVWzpw&feature=player_embedded

Honor and the cult of islam, aka: the definition of oxymoron

2011-10-22T12:53:00.001-06:00

I should have done as Lever Action did on his blog, and advise those few folks who visit here (less than his blog, I'm sure) that I would be away from the 'Net for a while. The "missus" and I have been traveling around the country visiting friends and family, and have not had easy access in some of the locations where we have stayed.

Currently, I am in a town near Dallas called Gun Barrel City - great name, isn't it? - visiting my best friend from high school (not to diminish my other best friend, from grade school and junior high. Sad to say, I don't really have many close friends who value my weird - if interesting - friendship. Frequent readers here probably aren't surprised ;-)

My friend, Glenn, showed me a poster which I simply had to post. We all have failings as individuals, and some cultures and societies have failures as well (we seem to be heading that way, presently), but some - such as islam - exhibit the worst features, the worst failures of human spirit possible.

Those who deny American "exceptionalism" are worse than fools. They are traitors to what our best people do to help others across the world. They betray the young men and women who place themselves in harm's way to protect the helpless. When our own President bows to those who embrace a cult which demands the death of those who do not believe as it does, he demeans both the office of the Presidency and all that America stands for. He shows himself to be a fool, or worse.

Where is the honor in using human shields, as the muslims do? In making living bombs out of their own retarded children? In stoning women to death for the crime of being raped by a male relative? In cutting off the noses and ears of young girls who have dated an unapproved boy? In causing the death of over a dozen school girls because they couldn't be allowed to leave a burning building without their burkas? In using young "beardless boys" as sex toys for the gratification of their own perverted urges?

I am quite certain that some of my relatives believe I am way out in left field on the subject of islam (yes, I refuse to capitalize it anymore, as I have been refusing to capitalize "muslim" for some time now). Understand that most of my relatives are either Roman Catholic or formerly so. They are loving, compassionate people who care about others and many of them have gone far beyond the norm in donating time and money and even their own homes, taking in foster children and adopting children. Unfortunately, though, some of them are Democrats, and end up supporting politicians who think the ends justify the means. Politicians who do not care that islam is a cult of death, not a peaceful religion that we could actually co-exist with (don't you just love the "Co-exist" bumper stickers that include the symbol for islam, which prescribes death for any muslim who converts to a different faith?)

I would hope that even left-leaning people (who still have their wits about them) could take the simple concept offered by this poster on Honor and conclude that islam is not honorable. That islam is about death, not love of our fellow humans on this earth. That islam will only permit life if that life is muslim, and is especially harsh toward those who have renounced it. That the very books (quran and haddith) that are the foundation of islam declare that lying and deception (taqqiyah), are perfectly acceptable if they advance the cause of producing a universal caliphate, a world where islam is the only permitted religion or mode of government.

Let me say it for the cheap seats: THERE IS NO HONOR IN ISLAM.

A Culture in Regression

2011-09-27T23:40:00.000-06:00

My perceptions aren't especially erudite or deep, but sometimes I get a glimpse of what appears to be significant phenomena occurring in our country and our world. For some years now, the last twenty-five at least, I have been telling the few who would stand still long enough to listen that we have reached the "bread and circuses" stage of the Roman Empire, our version being Oprah and Mc D's (was Oprah on back then? I can't recall). That our society is in a decline indicated by what the majority of people across the country seem to hold dear, believe to be valuable.

Television is something I stopped watching back in 1987. At that time I had been watching cable TV in order to see the Discovery channel and one or two other channels providing educational information. When I bought a little 40 acre ranch outside of town, the choice was either satellite dish or nothing. I chose nothing, and it has remained that way since 1987. I enjoy watching videos now, but I have no connection to any form of television programming, nor do I wish any. Books and the Internet have been my mainstay, including books available on the Internet. (Speaking of which, check out Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road and then go to smashwords.com, deactivate the adult filter, and download all of his novels. Some are free and all are cheap. He is a superb writer, very entertaining, and is a strong libertarian. He is also a religious individual, so that directs some of his writing quite strongly, but it actually enhances his work. He does not proselytize or beat a drum, merely informs some of his stories with strong Christian values and a connection to Judeo-Christian morality and philosophy. I speak as a moral atheist who does not believe (by definition) in G-d or any "Supreme Being". Porretto's religious leanings add nicely to his stories when he displays them.

[Be advised, he is not a prude, however. His collection "A Dash of Spice" is quite erotic, done in a nice way. Perhaps not what you want your twelve-year-old to be reading, but it wouldn't be harmful if he or she stumbled across it.]

OK. This is all in service of an essay written by Fred Reed at Fred On Everything called, "A Culture in Regression". It is an excellent look at the state of our society today, with its trivialization of those things which are/were important, replaced by "social networking", immediate gratification, and a loss of manners, consideration, and true civility (not the pretend "civility" of the liberals, which is actually their insistence on censorship of anything they don't want you to say). The sorry state of education, and the fact that - if you really want to spare your children a lot of agony and wasted time (not to mention keep them from being twisted into little "progressive clones") - home schooling is almost mandatory for parents who wish to have children who are not the barbarians so many of them are these days. At one point he says,

"If you correct a high-school teacher's grammar, she will accuse you of stultifying creativity, of racism, of insensitiviy. If you reply that had you wanted your children brought up as baboons, you would have bought baboons in the first place, she will be offended.

Home-schooling, it seems to me, becomes a towering social responsibility. I have actually seen a teacher saying that parents should not let children learn to read before they reach school. You see, it would put them out of synch with the mammalian larvae that children are now made to be. Bright children not only face enstupiation and hideous boredom in schools taught by complacent imbeciles. No. They are also encouraged to believe that stupidity is a moral imperative.

Once they begin reading a few years ahead of their grade, which commonly is at once, school becomes an obstacle to advancement. This is especially true for the very bright. To put a kid with an IQ of 150 in the same room with a barely literate affirmative-action hire clocking 85 is child abuse."

This is so true it almost beggars the imagination. The complaint I have so often heard mentioned, that children home-schooled will lack "socialization" is absurd. Would you want your children to become socialized to pre-teen sex and drug abuse? To learn how to suck up to the most popular children in their school, willing to submit to any misbehavior or indignity in order to belong, to fit in? To be willing to beat up children who don't fit the "norm" of the group they have attached themselves to?

Fred goes on to say,

"In an age of blinkered specializaton perhaps we should revive the idea of the Renaissance man. Today the phrase is quaint and almost condescending (though how do you condescend up?), arousing the mild admiration one has for a dancing dog. A time was when the cultivated could play an instrument, paint, knew something of mathematics and much of languages, traveled, could locate France, attended the opera and knew what they were attending. They wrote clearly and elegantly, this being a mark of civilization. I think of Benvenuto Cellini, born 1500, superb sculptor, professional musician, linguist, elegant writer, and good with a sword.

If there is any refuge, it is the internet. Let us make the most of it."

I have an ex-brother-in-law (thankfully for him - my sister is a total bitch) who is a modern-day Renaissance man. He was in the small group that left Xerox to start up Adobe. A software engineer with post-doctoral work in mathematics, a superb chef who demonstrates during some of the culinary conferences at the Awahnee Hotel in Yellowstone, a man who sings and plays musical instruments, does fine woodworking including furniture, builds houses for Habitat For Humanity, is very well read and quite funny. (Dr. Richard Sweet is an extremely nice man who deserved so much more than to be deceived into marrying my gold-digging, money-grubbing sister.) He is a complete gentleman, and although I don't believe he has ever wielded a sword, I would gladly have taken him in hand and introduced him to the fine art of gunnery if our friendship had been able to withstand the damage done by my sibling.

Read all of Fred's little essay, and understand that our culture truly is in decline. Short of a full sea-change in the direction we have taken (including the firing of all the socialist drones currently infesting our educational system right now, which will never happen), I am afraid we will not recover. The best we can do is attempt to better-equip our children via home schooling and teaching them the moral qualities that were once prevalent in our society. Instilling an appreciation for good manners, consideration of others, and a good work ethic - along with a hunger for the written word - will serve them well. Teach them to shoot and be able to defend themselves, and they may prosper even in these times.

Various and sundry thoughts

2011-09-23T02:39:00.000-06:00

Tonight (this morning, as it is currently 0140 MST ?) I believe I am going to ramble a bit.

While "zoning out" (a little zen, perhaps, or dharma yoga?) at my reloading bench earlier in the evening, it occurred to me that those of us who reload are the new alchemists: turning lead into gold. Even if you don't sell your reloads (and I do not), they sure feel like gold, sitting on your shelf or in your safe. Should we be reduced to a barter economy in the not-too-distant future, they may become more valuable than gold. When food and other necessities become scarce, would you trade gold for food you need to survive? Sure. Would the fellow who has the food be willing to take gold in exchange, if it were winter and the possibility of obtaining more food was questionable? Maybe not. Ammunition that could be used to hunt and kill an elk, a moose, or a deer would be pretty valuable though, as would ammo needed to protect and defend your self and your family from marauders or gangs. So, loading hundreds of rounds of .45,.44 Mag, .40, .357, 9mm, .308, .223, and .45-70 feels even better than putting gold into the safe.

If you are a shooter, it is possible to get into reloading fairly cheaply at the start, with better equipment possible if and when you are able to spend a little more. Customizing your ammo for your own particular needs (say a hard-cast 405 grain flat nosed .45-70 bullet loaded to 1800 feet per second to deal with bear or moose in the brush) is fun, a lot less expensive than in the sporting goods store or even Walmart, and will continue to supply you when the stores don't have your ammo available (and maybe stop selling it altogether?). Learn to cast your own lead bullets and save even more. Learn how to anneal your brass cases, and make them last for many, many reloadings. Plus there are good sources for all of the specialty bullets - soft-nosed, hollow-point, full metal jacketed, etc. - that you may wish to load for self-defense, hunting, or target shooting for practice. Lots of good info on the Internet on reloading and bullet casting, and many good books on the subject are available as well, some at your local library.

Tonight I read a post by Francis W. Porretto at his web site, Eternity Road. It concerned socialism and the sort of "thinking" that goes along with leaning in that direction. One of his points, if I may restate my understanding of his point, is that even people who are otherwise conservative in outlook have gotten suckered into believing things which aren't true, but have been stated and repeated so many times - as well as being taught by left-leaning teachers and professors - that they appear reasonable to said conservative. Like "taxing the 'rich' ". At the end of his post, Francis says,

"The point of all this, of course, is that even people we think of as solid conservatives of unquestionable allegiance to Constitutional principles and the free market have adopted some socialist assumptions. All such assumptions will display the defining mark of any sociopolitical assumption: the word "should."

Watch for that little word. When a normative statement -- that is, a statement that asserts a particular condition or policy as a "should" -- is offered to you as if only a lunatic could disagree, the speaker is attempting to assert that you and he share it, and any assumptions that underlie it, beyond question.

Some normatives are completely incompatible with freedom and the prerogatives of free men. When someone with whom you agree on most specifics of public policy comes out with a clinker of that sort, inform him, as gently as possible, that he's spouting socialism. He might not understand. Indeed, he might take offense. But he's revealed a chink in his argumentative armor. If you can convey the vulnerability it imposes on him, and if he's truly a devotee of freedom, eventually he'll thank you for it.

They who are staunch in maintaining a bedrock socialist principle as a premise are, of course, unreachable by argument. But by their premises -- their "shoulds" -- shall ye know them. It will save you the effort of arguing with them in the future."

Unfortunately, the "he'll thank you for it" isn't likely. There are a lot of folks out there who like to believe they are devotees of freedom, but simply cannot accept that some of their thought has been shaped by liberal, socialist memes. A fellow who moderated a list I was a member of for almost fourteen years took serious offense to my informing him of a socialist assumption he was making (although I tried to soften it by calling it "liberal"), and said fellow then proceeded to hold all of my posts until he had approved of their content. After his numerous complaints about my comments on a number of topics, I stopped commenting on the articles and essays I was posting. Then he decided to require me to explain, for each and every post, why the other members should or shouldn't be interested in what I was attempting to share with them. As he was requiring none of this from any other member of the list, I took the "hint" and retired.

Francis would, I'm sure, simply say this fellow was definitely not a true devotee of freedom, but he certainly thought he was, as did some of the more vocal members of the list. I'm afraid that those who are big enough to accept the fact that some of our thinking has been warped by socialist memes are fewer than might seem likely. I experienced that myself in my belief, for a period of over twenty years, that the NRA stood for freedom, and supported the Second Amendment. It took a Russian immigrant to our shores to demonstrate to me, factually and logically, that the NRA exists simply to fund their own salaries and perquisites. When I discovered that every piece of gun control legislation since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (and actually some before that) was written with the assistance of the NRA, it woke me up to the fact that the NRA makes a living off of working with the gun control crowd in order to stimulate its members into donating large sums of money. Like two attorneys working together to bilk their divorcing clients of as much money as possible before finalizing the divorce.

Examine some of your beliefs and assumptions from time to time in light of whether or not they truly support freedom, the rights of the individual, and the free market economics that have been responsible for all of the good years this country has experienced in the past. You might be surprised, especially when you find yourself using the word "should".

Active Shooter - don't just stand there!

2011-09-19T16:40:00.000-06:00

An excellent article from Gabe Suarez, a combat firearms trainer known to most shooters. He has had some issues in his life, and there was talk at one time about financial ethics, but it is impossible to argue about the man's skill and the value of his training, even if you disagree with some of his specific techniques - I don't, because I don't have the knowledge or experience to question what works for him and most of those he trains.

When the Loughner shooting in Tucson took place, where a young girl and five other civilians were killed, and fourteen others wounded (oh, yeah, there was a politician involved as well, Giffords, IIRC ;-), a mail group I was a member of discussed the issues involved. One of our members questioned whether or not it would have been wise to become involved if you were armed and present. Not to put too fine a point on it, I questioned how anyone who was armed and present could not become involved. How anyone with the least bit of training (and all of us who carry should have received some training somewhere or we are fools) could stand by and not try to stop the psychopath who was shooting women and children. The induhvidual who thought this was an issue to be discussed became irate when I made that point, as if I was questioning his courage or moral compass. Well, he may have been morally challenged but he was at least bright enough to understand that I was indeed questioning his courage and moral compass.

Women and children. An imperative that has existed since we began to walk upright, I believe. At the very least, it is a biological imperative, to protect your genetic resources, your ability to pass on your genes to the human race. For many thousands of years it has also been a moral imperative, to protect those who are helpless, who need our protection. Finally, it is a function of love, as we should love our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and our children, and by extension, the wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and children of others, and lay down our lives if necessary to keep them from mortal danger.

Mr. Suarez uses superb logic in detailing how, when it is obvious you are not watching a gun battle between gang-bangers, or an armed dispute between a couple of deranged individuals, a moral man will do what he can to protect the helpless, by stopping the shooter. One hopes "stopping" involves terminating the scum, but if it merely involves distracting him from shooting the innocent, that is fine. Perhaps it will also, as Gabe points out, cause him to shoot himself - as these psychos often do - now, instead of after killing more people first.

One of my favorite Clancy novels is Patriot Games, in which Jack Ryan takes out some Irish (IRA?) terrorists attacking the Royal family, being wounded in the process. Yes, it is a novel, but it took Ryan only a second to get his family down and safe before he ran to do what was right. Ran toward danger, not stopping to dial 911. Now, I am not suggesting we should always run unarmed into a gun fight - although there may be a time when it is a good choice, or the only choice, or the most moral choice - but in a situation where you are armed and able to respond, not doing so is IMNSHO an act of moral cowardice. If you are concerned for your family, I understand making sure they are not in danger, or are moving away from danger, but the best way to make them safe is to stop the shooter (we are talking a single active shooter here - the dynamics change if there are two or more shooters, as in Mumbai, as protecting your family becomes much more difficult).

Gabe Suarez makes the excellent point for those who - as did several in our mail group - claim their only concern was their own family, hang the rest. Would they have wanted someone to take that stance if it was their family being targeted? Or would they have wanted anyone armed to respond and try to save their wife and/or children from being shot and killed? I think we all know the answer to that one. If someone out there wants to say, "No, don't save my family, let them die even if you have no family of your own there to protect", I am afraid I would have to call that person a liar.

Please read the article. I am over sixty myself, and I know my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I practice with my carry weapon at one hundred yards when I am at the range, and if I had a clear shot at that distance, I believe I could hit a man if necessary. If he were moving and not shooting, I might well attempt to get closer first, but if he were actively shooting at people, I would take the shot. Those of you who practice - as you should if you are going to carry - should try your hand at a B-27 (or B-21, 29, 30, etc.) silhouette at that range. It is life-sized, and you may be surprised at how manageable a torso shot is even at that distance.

Imagine that you are going to meet your wife and two children at your local IHOP and see a man shooting at the restaurant with an AK while you are still one hundred yards away. Think you'd take the shot? Or would you use your iPhone to contact your buddies on the Internet to ask their opinion as to what you should do? While the people in the IHOP are dialing 911 and dying (Dial 911 and Die).

As it is in England, and could be here

2011-09-15T00:29:00.007-06:00

Billy Bob at Hell On Earth posted this and I simply had to pass it on.

No matter what your view on firearms, every rational person knows

that we possess an innate human right to defend ourselves from harm.

In England, the socialist State has legislated against that right for its subjects.

They consequently suffer extreme punishment for simply trying to protect

themselves. It could happen here.

The Shotgun

Posted by BillyBob at 5:00 PM

A friend sent me this email this morning. I felt obligated to pass it along.

Read it if you have a chance. It will make you stop and think...

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like

a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second

man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are

privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar

has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably

plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot

are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims"

have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career

criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up,

then the international media.

The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several

times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack

of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced,

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison...

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one

burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted, and is now serving a life term..

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and

established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all

firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by

private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford

mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the

streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded

even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan

used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,

Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and

a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable,

or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity

and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms

still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most

gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to

be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming

that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals

were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,

and several elderly people were severely injured

in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences.

Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection

trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns

were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police

and threatened with ten-year prison sentences

if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from

private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority

keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important,

please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing,

over here, if he can get it done.

And there are stupid people in congress

and on the street that will go right along with him.

Bob Beckel - poster boy for "Useful Idiots" and another Che lover

2011-09-14T02:57:00.005-06:00

Thanks to Silicon Graybeard (http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/), I just read a Town Hall post on Bob Beckel getting slapped down by Humberto Fontova over Beckel's love for Che Guevera. I guess Jane Fonda isn't the only one who regrets not bedding Che. Here is the article in full (sorry I couldn't figure out how to delete the ad to the right):

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

A History Lesson for the Racist Bob Beckel

By Humberto Fontova

9/9/2011

“I still have my Che Guevara poster. Che Guevara was a freedom fighter.” (Bob Beckel on FoxNews’ “The Five” Sept. 5th)

If Bob Beckel’s “freedom-fighter” had been allowed his fondest bit of “freedom-fighting” Bob Beckel’s incinerated remains would fit in a gin bottle today. “America is the great enemy of mankind! Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination!...If the missiles had remained, we would have fired them against the very heart of the U.S., including New York City.”

For the record: Ernesto “Che” Guevara was second in command, chief executioner, and chief KGB liaison for a regime that jailed more political prisoners per capita than did Stalin’s during the Great Terror and murdered more people (out of a population of 6.4 million) in its first three years in power than Hitler’s murdered (out of a population of 70 million) in its first six. Many, perhaps most, of those murdered and jailed by the regime Che Guevara co-founded were Batista opponents.

The Stalinist regime Che Guevara imposed on Cuba also stole the savings and property of 6.4 million citizens, made refugees of 20 percent of the population from a nation formerly deluged with immigrants and whose citizens had achieved a higher standard of living than those residing in half of Europe. Many opponents of the regime Che Guevara co-founded qualify as the longest-suffering political prisoners in modern history, having suffered prison camps, forced labor and torture chambers for a period three times as long in Che Guevara’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s Gulag. Most of these had been Batista opponents.

“Don't put him in a list of fascists. The fascists (Batista) were the ones he was trying to get rid of.” (Bob Beckel on FoxNews’ “The Five” Sept. 5th)

For the record: According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps, torture and drownings at sea – has caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. According to the Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War, Nazi repression caused 172,260 French civilian deaths during the occupation. France was nation of 42 million in 1940. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million in 1960. My calculator reveals that Beckel’s freedom-fighter caused an enormously higher percentage of deaths among the people he “freed” than the Nazis caused among the French they enslaved and tortured with the SS and Gestapo.

Beckel tells the “Fox Five” that the CIA killed many more people than Che and implies that in the 50’s the agency was Che’s enemy.

In fact during the late 1950’s the Castro brothers and Che Guevara had no better friends--and Fulgencio Batista few worse enemies--than the CIA. “Me and my staff were all Fidelistas,” (Robert Reynolds, the CIA’s “Caribbean Desk’s specialist on the Cuban Revolution” from 1957-1960.)

“Everyone in the CIA and everyone at State was pro-Castro, except (Republican) ambassador Earl Smith.” (CIA operative in Santiago Cuba, Robert Weicha.)

“Don’t worry. We’ve infiltrated Castro’s guerrilla group in the Sierra Mountains. The Castro brothers and Ernesto “Che” Guevara haveno affiliations with any Communists whatsoever.” (crackerjack Havana CIA station chief Jim Noel 1958.)

“Listen, we (the U.S.) did not have the most stellar reputation in Latin America and South America during the 1950s and '60s….when the CIA was complicit in the assassination of Allende, that was killing a head of state.” (Bob Beckel)

Ground control to Major Bob: Allende died in the 70’s. But whatever. The leftist proverb that he was assassinated by the CIA was spun and spread only by the hardest of hard-left wackos. Not even Allende’s own family believed it. An investigation including an autopsy by Chilean authorities just last month confirmed that Salvador Allende committed suicide. Surely you read the New York Times, Bob?

“(Che) did help Fidel Castro get rid one of the biggest thugs and murdering bastards there ever was, and that was Batista in Cuba.” (Bob Beckel)
Batista was a mulatto grandson of slaves born on the dirt floor of a palm roofed shack in the Cuban countryside. As President (via honest elections 1940-44, bloodless coup 1952-58) he always enjoyed the support of Cuba’s labor unions. And under Batista, according to a study by the International Labor Organization, the Cuban workforce was more highly unionized than the U.S. work force, with Cuba’s Industrial laborers earning the 8th highest wages in the world.
“Cuba’s laborer’s always maintained a stony indifference to Fidel Castro’s movement,” admitted Cuba’s richest man and Fidel and Che bankroller Julio Lobo, who knew because he employed thousands of them.
So here’s Bob Beckel bashing a black politician of lowly origin who enjoyed overwhelming unionized labor support--while hailing the lily-white rich-boys, Fidel and Che, who outlawed labor unions and sent such as Richard Trumka and Jimmy Hoffa to the firing squad or prison. Where’s Trumka, Hoffa and Maxine Waters on this? Using liberals’ own standards Beckel sure sounds like an elitist--and a racist to boot.
No doubt Beckel picked up the leftist proverb about Batista as “one of the biggest murdering bastards there ever was” from a meme hatched in 1957 by a Fidelista Cuban magazine publisher named Miguel Angel Quevedo. The meme asserts that Batista’s police and army “murdered 20,000 Cubans” and is still parroted by the MSM/Academia axis.
For the record: Ten years after he hatched and spread the lie, Quevedo (from exile, he scooted out just ahead of a Fidelista firing squad) confessed to the lie and greatly regretted how the lie helped the propaganda campaign to put Fidel and Che in power. The regret for the calamity he helped bring upon Cuba was such that, that right after signing the letter, Miguel Angel Quevedo put a gun to his head and blew his brains out.
“The idea of picking Che Guevara and calling him a mass-murder is crazy.” (Bob Beckel)
“Certainly we execute!” boasted Che Guevara while addressing the hallowed halls of the U.N. General Assembly Dec. 9, 1964. “And we will continue executing as long as it is necessary! According to the “Black Book of Communism,” those firing-squad executions (murders, actually; execution implies a judicial process) had reached 14,000 by the end of the ’60s, the equivalent, given the relative populations, of almost a million executions in the U.S. “I don’t need proof to execute a man,” snapped Che to a judicial toady in 1959. “I only need proof that it’s necessary to execute him.”
Humberto Fontova
Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who idolize Him and Fidel; Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant. Visit www.hfontova.com

TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Che lovers, and would-be lovers

2011-09-10T00:36:00.003-06:00

How many liberals - especially women liberals - have you seen pictures of wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt or sweatshirt? I can't recall off-hand if I have spoken about my hatred for Jane Fonda on this blog before, especially her treatment and betrayal of our servicemen in Vietnam, but I just now finished reading an essay by Humberto Fontova where he quotes Fonda as saying one of her greatest regrets was not having had intercourse with Che.

Fontova goes on to talk about all the feminists and pretend-supporters of women, their rights, and of the need to protect them from abuse. As we have seen with the incredible and total silence on the subject of the abuse of women and female children by those followers of the religion of pedophilia, islam, these women were - and continue to be - silent on the subject of the horrible abuses of women in Cuba, by Che as well as by Castro and his regime. Here is the complete article:

Jane Fonda's Crush on Che Guevara

By Humberto Fontova

9/7/2011

A new biography of Jane Fonda by Patricia Bosworth reveals a lifelong lament by the famous actress: “My biggest regret” Fonda is quoted during a “feminist consciousness-raising session,” according to the book’s account, “is I never got to f*** Che Guevara.”

In case you read Townhall, Ms Fonda, here’s some consolation, honey: “I used to call him El Gallo (the rooster)” recalled Carlos Figueroa who was Ernesto Guevara’s adolescent friend in Alta Gracia, Argentina. “I’d be visiting him and eating in his family’s dining room and whenever the poor servant girls would enter Ernesto would promptly grab her and force her to lay on the dining room table where he’d have rapid intercourse with her. Immediately afterwards he’d throw her out and continue eating as if nothing had happened.”

“Es un gallo—un gallo! (He’s a rooster!—rooster”) complained a scowling Berta Gonzalez a few years later upon emerging from her Mexico City bedroom summer of 1955. This was shortly after his Motorcycle Diary trip, when the hobo Ernesto Guevara was scribbling unreadable poetry and mooching off women in Mexico City, where he met Fidel and Raul Castro. Berta Gonzalez was a Cuban exile in Mexico at the time.

Gallo, as you might have guessed, is a common pejorative by Spanish-speaking women against men who terminate carnal encounters prematurely.

Alas, how the feminist sessionists reacted to Ms Fonda’s above-mentioned confession, and thus, the “raising of their consciousness,” is not mentioned in the book. But we can guess. After all, feminist swooning over Cuban Stalinism started early, and by the feminist movement’s very founders.

“Not only is (the Cuban Revolution) a great success but an example for the rest of the world!” gushed Simon De Beauvoir in March 1960. Her bellhop, Jean Paul Sartre, was not to be outdone. He crowned Che Guevara “the era’s most perfect man.” These “intellectual” hyperventilations 1960 set the tone for future ones of everyone from Maxine Waters’ to Jimmy Carter and from Ted Turner’s to George Mc Govern’s, and from Barbara Walters’ to Andrea Mitchell’s.

“Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a thoroughly fascinating figure!” (NBC’s Andrea Mitchell)

Alas, Cuban feminists view the Cuban Revolution somewhat differently from Hollywood, Georgetown and Manhattan feminists. When feminist icon Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel Castro in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful!” dozens of Cuban feminists suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the hyperventilating Ms Barbara Walters.

“They started by beating us with twisted coils of wire recalls former political prisoner Ezperanza Pena from exile today. “I remember Teresita on the ground with all her lower ribs broken. Gladys had both her arms broken. Doris had her face cut up so badly from the beatings that when she tried to drink, water would pour out of her lacerated cheeks.”

“On Mother’s Day they allowed family visits,” recalls, Manuela Calvo from exile today.” But as our mothers and sons and daughters were watching, we were beaten with rubber hoses and high-pressure hoses were turned on us, knocking all of us the ground floor and rolling us around as the guards laughed and our loved-ones screamed helplessly.”

“When female guards couldn’t handle us male guards were called in for more brutal beatings. I saw teen-aged girls beaten savagely their bones broken their mouths bleeding,” recalls prisoner Polita Grau.

The gallant regime co-founded by Che Guevara jailed 35,150 Cuban women for political crimes, a totalitarian horror utterly unknown—not only in Cuba—but in the Western Hemisphere until the regime so “magnetic” to Barbara Walters, Andrea Mitchell, Diane Sawyer, Jane Fonda, etc. Some of these Cuban ladies suffered twice as long in Castro’s Gulag as Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered in Stalin’s.

Their prison conditions were described by former political prisoner Maritza Lugo. “The punishment cells measure 3 feet wide by 6 feet long. The toilet consists of an 8 inch hole in the ground through which cockroaches and rats enter, especially in cool temperatures the rat come inside to seek the warmth of our bodies and we were often bitten. The suicide rate among women prisoners was very high.”

Upon the death of Raul Castro’s wife Vilma Espin in 2006 the Washington Post gushed that: “she was a champion of women’s rights and greatly improved the status of women in Cuba, a society known for its history of machismo.” Actually, in 1958 Cuba had more female college graduates as a percentage of population than the U.S.

This Castroite “improvement of status” and “good life “for Cuban women also somehow tripled Cuban women’s pre-revolution suicide rate, making Cuban women the most suicidal on earth. This according to a 1998 study by scholar Maida Donate-Armada that uses some of the Cuban regime’s own figures.

On Christmas Eve of 1961 a Cuban woman named Juana Diaz spat in the face of the executioners who were binding and gagging her. Castro and Che’s Russian-trained secret police had found her guilty of feeding and hiding “bandits” (Cuban rednecks who took up arms to fight the Stalinist theft of their land to build Soviet –style Kolkhozes.) When the blast from Castroite firing squad demolished her face and torso Juana was six months pregnant.

Thousands upon thousands of Cuban women have drowned, died of thirst or have been eaten alive by sharks attempting to flee the Washington Post’s dutifully transcribed “improvement of status.” This from a nation formerly richer than half the nations of Europe and deluged by immigrants from same.

In 1962, a Cuban Catholic nun named Aida Rosa Perez was overheard in a private conversation saying things about Fidel Castro and Che Guevara similar (but milder) than those Jane Fonda and Joy Behar trumpet about Republicans. Sister Rosa Perez was sentenced to 12 years at hard labor. Two years into her, while toiling in the sun inside Castro's Gulag and surrounded by leering guards, Sister Rosa collapsed from a heart attack.

The Cuban Archive project headed Mrs Maria Werlau has fully documented the firing squad executions of 11 Cuban women in the early days of the regime. Another 219 women died from various brutalities and tortures while in prison. The Taliban has nothing on the regime co-founded by Che Guevara. So I trust you’ll excuse these Cuban ladies if they regard the “struggles” of Betty Freidan, Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda as a trifle overblown. And for many of them, though it’s utterly ignored by the MSM, the feminist struggle continues.

Humberto Fontova

Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who idolize Him and Fidel; Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant. Visit www.hfontova.com

A reminder of our duty to each other at http://fija.org/

2011-09-08T11:27:00.002-06:00

Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this fact. Then, every judge on the bench goes to great lengths to lie to the jury, to tell the jurors they have no right to judge the law, and convince most jurors to convict even when the jurors can feel how wrong it is to do so. Interestingly enough, judges nowadays - in the appeals courts and at SCOTUS - feel the need to judge the law themselves, and do. More and more these days they have become social activists, applying their own amoral beliefs to what was legislated in the Constitutional, correct and accepted manner (even when morally wrong, nonetheless).

People, this is important. The jury box is the last, and perhaps the greatest, protection we have from bad government short of reaching for the cartridge box. If more citizens could be informed - and convinced - of the need to protect all of us from being convicted of bad law, the State would grow tired of the embarrassment of being overruled each time by the citizens it seeks to control. Can you see how liberating this could be?

Yes, the State would then seek to limit or outlaw jury nullification, but again, short of completely doing away with habeas corpus and imprisoning people without benefit of trial, that would fail in a jury trial. Only if they sought to "rendition" every one of us, use the Patriot Act to hold large numbers of us without bail or right to representation would we be forced to take steps we would rather refrain from. Only if they resorted to that would it become necessary to take up arms, a thing we all would fervently wish to avoid. Short of that, the serious and frequent application of jury nullification could actually turn this government around, could return us to a rule of law. Law determined by us citizens, not corrupt and venal government employees.

Please think about this. Visit the Fully Informed Jurors Association web site. Then make sure your family and your friends learn about this as well.

A Wide Departure From The Usual

2011-09-04T23:47:00.005-06:00

This blog is meant to be more politically/socially/morally oriented, but I just got a wild hair and decided to do something different. More for family and friends - although some of you folks who read this have become friends through our interactions here and at your own blog sites - than for those who stop by to read my conservative maundering.

I've started taking flight lessons in a Cessna 152. This will hopefully lead to a private pilot, single-engine, land rating added onto my commercial helicopter (rotorcraft) rating. Friday morning my instructor, a great guy about my age named John Parker, had me fly to a nearby airport to demonstrate that the techniques used to land at one airport will work equally well at any airport, as they are not based on particular landmarks, but the measurement of distances and the timing of turns based on airspeeds and your position relative to the runway you intend to land upon. Unfortunately, there was severe turbulence in the area, due to an approaching cold front, and the turbulence at the airport we flew to was significant all the way to the deck, with the addition of a strong crosswind. We discontinued the landing (a "rejected" landing, per the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook), poured on the power, and climbed out to return to our home field, Ravalli County Airport, in Hamilton, Montana. Upon arriving back home, the turbulence had decreased, but we had an 18 knot crosswind, and I had not yet had any training in crosswind landings (only ten hours logged in fixed-wing aircraft at this point), so I gladly let John do the honors.

When I was training in helicopters (nine months back in 1993-94 getting my commercial and CFI ratings), my instructor told me that learning to fly an airplane would be much, much easier than a helicopter. He flew both, so I took him at his word. I have a little over 200 hours in the Robinson-22 two-place piston engined helicopter, the R-22. Learning to hover is one of the more difficult evolutions in helicopter training, but once you have that down, the rest actually comes pretty easily. Autorotations were pretty exciting, especially when you do them all the way to the ground, as you need to in order to qualify for a Certificated Flight Instructor rating. Landings, however, were a piece of cake, once you could hover and safely do an autorotation if you needed to do so.

One of the nicest things about landing a helicopter is that crosswinds are never a problem. To a helicopter, which simply sets down from a hover, there really isn't any such thing as a crosswind. Whatever direction the wind comes from, you face into it. Oh, certainly there are some very limited situations where you may be restricted by obstacles on the ground, coupled with canyon walls or other terrain features which can limit your options somewhat, but basically it is a non-issue. Consequently, I am finding landings on a runway to be more challenging than I expected. The other nice thing about landing in a helicopter is that you only need room for your rotor. If an area is big enough to set down in from a hover without damaging your main rotor or tail rotor, it's big enough to land in. No need for a runway, field, or street (in an emergency).

After just four hours of fixed-wing time, I was able to shoot some landings on my own, without the instructor's assistance, which impressed the hell out of him. What frustrates the hell out of me, however, is that I have not been able to translate that into consistently good landings. Most of the time, when I round out just off the surface, I get too nervous and end up pulling the nose too high too soon, "ballooning" and floating too far down the runway before my main wheels touch down. I've got it down to about six out of ten poor landings, with four out of ten being good. I'm sure not satisfied with that. Landing a helicopter seems so much easier.

The evolutions involved with crosswind landings and take-offs, when one wing must be lowered, ailerons, and elevators controlled, with rudder added for crabbing, and such, seems to be a lot riskier than coming to a controlled hover at five feet off the deck and rolling off just enough power to settle onto your skids in a helicopter. No need to balance all of those control surfaces, just pitch and power. However, not being wealthy, I can't afford to rent even a little R-22 when I want to go flying, so learning to fly this Cessna is a must if I want to spend any time aloft. I'll certainly master this, but I have to admit I think my helo instructor was FOS. (I know he was FOS when it came time to find a job flying helicopters, which he claimed would be easy to do. Lied his ass off, he did, as I couldn't get hired anywhere in the US or Canada. I'm sure he enjoyed the $32,000 I paid him getting my commercial and CFI ratings, though.)

Anyway, from time to time I may come back to this topic, to speak about how much fun it is to fly. How I enjoyed doing the helicopter search and rescue work I did briefly in the Marble Mountain Wilderness of Northern California, and once looking for a downed F-16 pilot outside of Klamath Falls, Oregon. Flying around Mount Shasta and the other mountains up there was a hoot. Much more fun than training in the flatlands. I even got to do a half-dozen landings on a ship that was docked in the harbor at Eureka, California.

I hope to get some mountain flying in here in Western Montana as well. Hamilton is surrounded by mountains, with the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness to the west of us.

Take care. and thanks for stopping by.

Sodom and Gomorrah revisited

2011-09-02T17:16:00.006-06:00

On the JWR web site, I came across an essay where a Rabbi (Moshe Averick) wrote "A Plea To Atheists", concerning the fact that, apparently, many atheists hold to no moral standards, believing that moral standards are a religious construct that have no truth value to those who do not believe in G-d or a Supreme Being of some sort, or that moral standards are a social convention at best. Rabbi Averick is especially concerned about the attempt on the part of some people, notably atheists again, to change the way society looks at pedophilia.

In reading about this, I discovered that there is a recent move to try to change the DSM IV, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, removing pedophilia as a disorder. These people want to have us all treat pedophilia as sex between consenting partners, irrespective of whether a child can actually consent. These disgusting, immoral (characterizing themselves as "amoral", although they do know better) creatures speak of twelve-year-old boys who desire (so they claim) sex with an adult, as if these children simply cannot bear to not have homosexual encounters with aged chickenhawks with rouged cheeks and toupees askew upon their bald heads, simply must be fondled and penetrated by these perverted creatures. Man-Boy Love, indeed.

I have written elsewhere (not on this blog) about a book by Piers Anthony, who has written many science fiction and fantasy novels. He wrote a book called Firefly, in which a five-year-old girl is mad to have sex with a middle-aged adult male. She seduces and practically rapes the man, who struggles mightily to refuse her charms, but simply cannot, and succumbs to the little witch's wiles, penetrating her repeatedly over a period of time, weeks or months, IIRC.

Right. I never finished the book, so perhaps I missed where this adult male admits it was only a fantasy and never happened, or where they got married when she turned eighteen, or whatever. No matter the outcome of the book, it was a paean to pedophilia, an apologia for child sex, demonstrating (in the author's mind alone) so vividly how difficult it is to spurn the sexual needs of the very young. What a load of horse manure.

Obama appointed one of his many Marxist and totally immoral fellow travelers to the post of Education Secretary, who then appointed Kevin Jennings to head the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Per Erick Erickson at Redstate, "Working in a school system, Jennings was approached by a 15 year old boy who told Jennings that a much older man had picked the boy up in a bus station bathroom. Jennings encouraged the boy to pursue a sexual relationship with the man. Kevin Jennings is Barack Obama’s 'Safe Schools Czar.'"

With a society that has made homosexuality - considered a perversion of nature for thousands of years (how would a species not die out if the very fluids of reproduction were routinely deposited in places that made procreation absolutely impossible?) - an acceptable practice for everyone, a society that encourages child sex ("Man-Boy Love"), that looks upon incest as being merely an embarrassment rather than a perversion, that teaches our very school children to look upon homosexuality as simply an alternate yet very reasonable choice, we are destined for the kind of social aberration that was the downfall of the mythical (or real?) Sodom and Gomorrah. When our country has sunk to the low of even considering making pedophilia an accepted practice, it is time to stop our slide into such corruption and complete immorality.

How an otherwise intelligent and rational human being could consider pedophilia acceptable is beyond my ability to conceive. There is no way a child has the experience, the insight, the education, or the freedom to choose his or her own path when it comes to having sexual relations with anyone, even another child, let alone an adult who would take advantage of the child's innocence to gratify their own desires. It is even sicker, more destructive, for an adult to seek to convince a child that such activity is good, or an expression of love for another person, as some incestuous parents and pedophiles have done.

How have we sunk so low? I realize child sex has been a feature of other cultures, accepted as either normal or at least permissible in places like the Middle East (Arabs, muslims), Greece (in the past more so than currently), and in Thailand. That certainly doesn't make it right, any more than the prevalence of cock fighting or dog fighting makes those activities proper. America was meant to be a grand experiment with improving the way people interact with each other as well as with their government, protecting the rights of the individual against the wishes of the mob (that being the definition of true democracy: the wishes of the mob). How has a nation based on the correct moral strictures of Judeo-Christian thought and religion come to this point, that children should be a commodity for the gratification of the sexual pleasure of adults? That is something we may have come to expect from the muslim freaks who are orthodox followers of Islam - the religion not of peace but of pedophilia - but not from American citizens. Yet, here we are.

I explained to Rabbi Averick that, although I am an atheist, I try to be a moral man. That not all of us atheists believe morality is in the eye of the beholder, that some of us do understand there are mala per se, things that are wrong, that are bad, in and of themselves. Pedophilia is one of those things. Let us please not lose sight of that fact, not allow the Left and the repugnant moral relativists to put all of our children at even greater risk in this aberrant society which seems to have replaced the world we knew and loved.

There is a difference. And then, a similarity.

2011-08-26T19:16:00.006-06:00

The Arctic Patriot posted on his web site that the Germans in WWII were valiant fighters defending their homeland from Stalin and the Marxists of Russia. The tenor of his post - if I understood it correctly - is that Marxism is far worse an evil in the world than the Third Reich was or could ever have been. I believe it was partly based on the fact that Stalin and Mao killed many, many more people than Hitler and his willing accomplices managed to kill, and partly on the very real fact that Marxism is responsible for so much of what is wrong in the world today, including the fools in our own government - indeed, in the White House - who wish to turn America into a socialist state.

Without getting into the fact that National Socialism - the Nazis - and Marxism are/were both collectivist ideologies spurning the rights of the individual, who was expected to submit to the will of the State, the "needs of the many", let us talk about the inherent evil in both of these ideologies. While it is certainly true that Marxism has been directly responsible for the deaths of many, many more of its own citizens than Nazism (supposedly around 40 million in Russia and between 70 and 100 million dead in the People's Republic of China, mostly during Mao's reign there), I think it is necessary to look a bit more deeply.

As I wrote in my comment to the Arctic Patriot, the Germans of the Third Reich must be judged by more than simply numbers. They must also be judged by the fact that they turned their considerable intellect as well as their engineering and organizational skills to the creation of an industry of death. They utilized their best minds and their abundant resources to make the extermination - not the mere killing in large numbers, but an actual attempt at extermination - of Jews as efficient as possible, while gathering unto themselves the wealth and the production and the physical labor of those same Jews while they were trying to eradicate them as a race, a culture, and a religion.

Add to that their torturing of so many of them, along with Poles, and Gypsies, and so many others. The "medical" experiments performed upon pregnant Jewish women, Jewish children, and of course the Jewish men and boys. Of the incredible cruelties perpetrated upon those people. Of having fathers shave the heads of their wives and their children, knowing that the next step for them was into the "showers" where they were gassed to death, instead of cleansed. Of Jews who were forced to strip the corpses of their families and friends of their gold teeth or other parts desired by particular orders from the engineers of the Holocaust.

There was a video made years ago called Shoah. It displayed not a single corpse, no pits of stacked dead awaiting the lime the bodies were covered with to make them break down more quickly. It never showed an oven or shower full of bodies, not a single act of violence was depicted. It consisted entirely of interviews with some of the survivors of the camps. It also included interviews with a couple of the camp guards who did not realize they were talking to Jews, but thought they were talking to other "good" Germans who had participated in this atrocity, thought they were talking to someone sympathetic to their work as enablers of the death camps. So they told of their true feelings, of the accomplishment and honor they felt in being part of the efficient German machine designed and built to rid the world of the Jewish filth, the Jewish vermin.

If you can watch this video, listen to these men and women speak of the horrors they experienced, the loved ones they watched die, and remain convinced that these people of Germany who were responsible for orchestrating such cruelty and murder and destruction were not the most evil creatures in a long history of human cruelty, I will be surprised.

I agree with Arctic Patriot and others who understand that Marxism is certainly much more of a threat now than National Socialism is now, and perhaps even a greater threat than the Third Reich would have been if it had been successful (but maybe not, if it had spread its evil control over the rest of the world). Marxism is certainly undermining what is left of America's legacy of a Constitutional Republic (not "democracy"). But it is not possible to compare the evil, the complete and utter soulless degradation of human spirit that was national Socialism under Hitler and his crew, to anything else that mankind has created as an ideology.

Except, perhaps,for the creation of Islam in 622 AD, that is. There is a reason the Grand Mufti and Adolph Hitler were such good friends. They both had many of the same goals. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

The only difference being - and it is a significant one - that the ignorant savages who follow the true teachings of Islam will never possess the skill, the efficiency, of the German people when it comes to killing Jews. At least until Iran finishes building its nuclear weapons, and the Taliban takes control of the nuclear weapons in Pakistan. Then they might actually realize the dream they share with Hitler: the total destruction of the Jewish people as a viable race, culture and religion.

"Want human rights? Leave the U.N."

2011-08-26T01:13:00.002-06:00

Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish nails it once again. This article is not a biased diatribe of secret conspiracies, but a simple, factual relating of the worthlessness of the U.N. as an agency for the protection and promotion of human rights.

"Human rights don't come from international bodies. They emerge from freeing ordinary people to live the way they want to live. To choose their own systems and their own leaders. The UN does not represent those people, but the systems that rule over them. It is a vehicle for those people to make war on countries where individuals actually do have rights. The UN has done nothing to bring rights to the Muslim world, but it has taken away rights from Americans and other people in the free world.

The best thing we could do for human rights is to toss away the UN and its armies of bureaucrats and useless blue helmeted peacekeepers. Leave them by the side of the road, along with the World Bank and the WTO and all the rest of it, and actually build an alliance of civilizations based on countries that practice democracy and human rights. If you want a loan, don't cry to us about your poverty or your starving children. Hold free and open elections. Toss away your blasphemy laws and free your political prisoners. That is a lot more likely to bring about human rights, than funding building after building of scuttling bureaucrats moving around pieces of paper and dining out in posh restaurants. "

Read the whole thing. Please.

"We don't need no stinkin' warrants"

2011-08-25T04:16:00.004-06:00

Coming soon to a police department near you? Law enforcement in Houston, Miami, and other cities across America have been playing with drone technology for some time now. Apparently, it is no longer sufficient for them to be used for warrantless surveillance, now they are also capable of being armed with Tasers and/or lethal weaponry, such as shotguns and grenade launchers. Feel safe now?

The Shadowhawk comes in five different varieties and can be outfitted with a turbine or piston engine, CCD TV optics, infrared and thermal cameras, laser pointers, illuminators and range finders. Law enforcement has the option of adding 37 mm or 40mm grenade launchers, or if they feel adventurous, a 12 gauge shotgun. And who knows what other features come with the specialty military version of the chopper.

The Shadowhawk would be able to patrol the land or the sea for up to 2.5 hours at a time at speeds of up to 70 mph. You might think a gust of wind would knock the mini-copter out of the air, but it’s capable of withstanding gusts of up to 50mph. Through out it all, the camera keeps rolling.

Big Sis Gives Green Light For Drone That Tazes Suspects From Above
Mini chopper can also carry shotguns and grenade launchers
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The ShadowHawk is a 50lb mini drone chopper that can be fitted with an XREP taser with the ability to fire four barbed electrodes that can be shot to a distance of 100 feet, delivering “neuromuscular incapacitation” to the victim. The drone can travel at a top speed of 70MPH and can operate for 3.5 hours over land and sea.A video clip of the drone shows off its impressive maneuverability as it tails a suspect attempting to evade capture with sophisticated object tracking technology. Another video shows the drone conducting surveillance of two individuals involved in a firearm transaction.
The drone also has the capacity to carry 37mm or 40mm grenade launchers and or a multiple shot 12 gauge shotgun.
ShadowHawk will not only be used to target Americans, owners Vanguard Defense have just signed a contract to use the drone against pirates in east Africa
Technology that has been used to track and kill insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq for years has now been approved by Homeland Security for use in the United States.
“There’s a good chance ShadowHawk’s spine tingling buzz could be heard approaching a city near you,” reportsSingularity Hub.
“As a sign of new law enforcement tactics to come, the Sheriff’s Office of Montgomery County, Texas was recently awarded a grant by the Department of Homeland Security for a squadron of ShadowHawks. Montgomery County’s Chief Deputy Randy McDaniel is psyched. “We are very excited about the funding and looking forward to placing the equipment into the field. Both my narcotics and SWAT units have been looking at numerous ways to deploy it and I absolutely believe it will become a critical component on all SWAT callouts and narcotics raids and emergency management operations.”
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.
http://vanguarddefense.com/online-demo/

In favor of religion.

2011-08-24T18:27:00.003-06:00

Folks that have known me for any length of time will probably be aware that I am an atheist. I was raised a Roman Catholic, and I won't go into my reasons at this time, but I have no personal interest in religion. It is important to me that you understand this does not mean I am against religion. I have a great deal of respect for those who honestly try to live their religious beliefs. [Except for the death cult known as Islam.]

I support Judeo-Christian moral values, the values this country was founded upon. I try to live by them as best I am able, with many failures, of course, but not from lack of trying. I have little respect, however, for those who claim to be Christian, or who pretend to follow those Judeo-Christian moral precepts, but are actually only interested in being known as "Christian", not living as one.

I subscribe to a news-gathering web site known as The Jewish World Review. One of the writers or commentators whose words are reposted on that site is Dennis Prager. I cannot tell you much about him save that he always seems to write sensible, logical, and morally correct essays. His post about the Ten Commandments is not a long one, so I will reproduce it in its entirety here. He provides some insight that you might not have read before, but which I hope you will see as quite important, as it applies to the world today:

Jewish World Review August 16, 2011 / 16 Menachem-Av, 5771

Still the Only Solution to the World's Problems

By Dennis Prager

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | There is only one solution to the world's problems, only one prescription for producing a near-heaven on earth.

It is 3,000 years old.

And it is known as the Ten Commandments.

Properly understood and applied, the Ten Commandments are really all humanity needs to make a beautiful world. While modern men and women, in their hubris, believe that they can and must come up with new ideas in order to make a good world, the truth is there is almost nothing new to say.

If people and countries lived by the Ten Commandments, all the great moral problems would disappear.

Or, to put it another way, all the great evils involve the violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments.

Here is the case in brief for the Ten Commandments (using the Jewish enumeration, which differs slightly from the Protestant and Catholic):

1. I am the Lord your G0d.

There are moral atheists and there are immoral believers, but there is no chance for a good world based on atheism. Ultimately, a godless and religion-free society depends on people's hearts to determine right from wrong, and that is a very weak foundation.

Plenty of people have died in history in the name of G0d. But many more have been killed, tortured, and deprived of liberty in the name of humanity and progress or some other post-Judeo-Christian value. Religion gave us an Inquisition and gives us suicide terrorists, but the death of G0d gave us Nazism and Communism, which, in one century alone, slaughtered more than a hundred million people. All the founders of the United States -- yes, all -- knew that a free society can survive only if its citizens believe themselves to be morally accountable to G0d.

2. Do not have other gods.

The worship of false gods leads to evil. When anything but the G0d of creation and morality is worshiped, moral chaos ensues.

[Reg T: Allow me to add here - that includes worshipping "The One". How anyone can miss seeing that BHO is morally bankrupt and devoid of love for anyone besides himself is a mystery to me.]

	STIMULATION AND INSPIRATION
	Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes "must-reading". Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

No one is godless. Either people worship God, or they worship other gods — nature, intelligence, art, education, beauty, the environment, Mother Earth, power, fame, pleasure, the state, the fuhrer, the party, progress, humanity. The list is almost endless. And no matter how noble — and false gods are often noble — when they become ends in themselves, they lead to evil.

3. Do not take G0d's name in vain.

People have misinterpreted this commandment. They think it prohibits saying something like, "Oh, my G0d, what a home run!" But the Hebrew literally means "do not carry" the name of the Lord in vain.

In other words, we are forbidden from doing evil in G0d's name. Only when thus understood does the rest of the Commandment make sense — that G0d will not "cleanse," or forgive — the person who does this.

Thus, the Islamist who slits an innocent's throat while shouting "Allahu Akbar" is the perfect example of the individual who carries G0d's name in vain and who cannot be forgiven. These people not only murder their victims, they murder G0d's name. For that reason, they do more evil than the atheist who murders.

4. Keep the Sabbath day and make it holy.

Leaving the world one day a week and elevating it above the others is the greatest vehicle to family harmony and to harmony with friends.

One day a week without video games, without parents leaving to go to work or to do their own thing on the computer forces parents and children to spend time together and to actually talk. It even encourages couples to make love. It also weakens the institution of slavery. If even your servants get a day off because G0d commands it, that means you do not have absolute control over them. [Editor's note: According to Jewish ritual practice, there are specific ways to both observe and celebrate the Sabbath and, by extension, the holy festivals.]

5. Honor your father and mother.

The first thing every totalitarian and authoritarian movement does is to try to undermine parental authority. That's why it is dangerous, even in a democracy.

Take our universities, for example. Woodrow Wilson, the first progressive president, said, "The use of the university is to make young men as unlike their fathers as possible."

And that is exactly what colleges have been doing for over a half a century. Instead of searching for truth and beauty, the universities have been alienating American youth from their fathers' — and the Founding Fathers' — values.

6. Do not murder.

If people lived by this commandment alone, the world would enter a heavenly state. At the same time, the commandment has been widely misunderstood. The Hebrew originally prohibits murder, not killing. By mistranslating the Hebrew as "Do not kill," too many modern Westerners have been taught that pacifism is moral and noble. It is neither. It is an accessory to murder, since it prevents pacifists from doing the only thing that stops mass murder — killing the murderers.

The Nazi death camps were liberated by soldiers whose job was to kill murderers, not by pacifists or "peace activists."

7. Do not commit adultery.

Observance or even near-observance of this commandment alone would end the formation of the underclass. No amount of state aid can do what marriage and commitment to a spouse do to end poverty and almost all social pathologies.

8. Do not steal.

This commandment prohibits the stealing of people, the stealing of property, and the stealing of anything that belongs to another. The first prohibition alone, if obeyed, would have rendered the slave trade impossible.

Protecting the sanctity of private property makes moral civilization possible. That is why the recent riots in London should frighten every citizen of the U.K. and the West generally. Just as the burning of books leads to the burning of people, so, too, the smashing of windows and the looting of property leads eventually to the smashing of heads.

The rampant violation of this commandment by the governments of Africa is the primary reason for African poverty. Corruption, not Western imperialism, is the root of Africa's backwardness.

9. Do not bear false witness.

Lying is the root of nearly all major evils. All totalitarian states are based on lies. Had the Nazis not lied about Jews, there would not have been a Holocaust. Only people who believed that all Jews, including babies, were vermin, could, for example, lock hundreds of Jews into a synagogue and burn them alive. That similar lies are told about Jews today by Arab governments and by the Iranian state should awaken people to the Nazi-like threat that anti-Semitism still poses.

10. Do not covet your neighbor's spouse, property, etc.

The cultivation of class warfare — i.e., the cultivation of coveting what richer citizens legitimately own — inevitably leads to violating the other commandments, most particularly the ones that prohibit stealing and murdering.

There is only one way to achieve a great society, and it is not by creating a massive state that doles out other citizens' money. It is by cultivating citizens who try to live by these Ten Commandments. They are as relevant today as they were 3,000 years ago.

An Imperial Presidency?

2011-08-20T00:59:00.003-06:00

Much has been made of the President's vacationing again on Martha's Vineyard, at an expensive and exclusive residence. It was reported on one site that the usual fee for said location was $50,000 a week. Staying ten days - if the owner is crass enough to charge The Voice Of The Teleprompter (Biden would, if he owned it) - would therefore cost around $70K if prorated, but that is just the beginning. Add in transportation costs, the cost of all the Secret Service agents to secure the place before and during his stay, the cost of all the ass-kissing friends and sycophants that MicHELLe is sure to bring along, and you are beginning to talk about enough money to support a goodly number of citizens whose unemployment benefits ran out months ago.

Several web sites and blogs have mentioned how damaging this is likely to be to BO's re-election campaign, and what a weapon it provides the Republicans when they speak to the many reasons for not re-electing him. Francis Porretto at http://www.eternityroad.info/index.php gives some excellent reasons to believe it will keep him from winning re-election.

I fear that might not be the case, though. Paranoiac that I am, I worry that TVOTTP has good reason to be unafraid. That there just might be a reason for his arrogance and evident lack of concern.

Between his placement of newly appointed Marxists in the Civil Rights and voting bureaucracies, his control of the Department of Justice (he has a grip on Holder where his balls would be if he had any), his connections with the latest iteration of whatever "ACORN" is called now, and the fact that no election irregularities or even outright fraudulent activities have been acted upon from his 2008 nomination and election, doesn't fear any such issues in 2012.

Any bets on whether or not we will see an Executive Order shortly before the 2012 elections allowing all of the illegal aliens in this country to vote? And that Holder will uphold its validity, supported by (a new "Super") Congress?

I really don't think Obama's handlers would permit him to cut his own throat this way unless there were other forces in play to counterbalance the obvious effects of this behavior. He, himself, is obviously dumb enough to make that kind of mistake (which we have verified every time he strays from his teleprompter), but I don't believe Soros and Valerie Jarrett and some of the other puppet masters would allow him to behave this way unless they have something up their sleeves (or arses). I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not.

I am sickened by this.

2011-08-15T23:35:00.005-06:00

I have been reading Gates of Vienna, and have it listed as a blog I follow, but I am not certain I can continue to do so. Although I value much of what I have read concerning the fight in Europe against the dangers of, and damage caused by, multiculturalism and islam in particular, I have just read a post by the distaff side of the couple who runs the blog that has me wondering at her sanity. (Having worked Psych for over eight years as an RN, I have a slight familiarity with the DSM IV.)

Dymphna, the female half of the couple just posted an article called, "Sluts, Stupidity, and Cassandras". In it she opines that women who dress like "sluts" are complicit in their own rapes. That's right, she thinks that "If the act of strutting your stuff results in an equal reaction, a girl must take at least half the responsibility for whatever transpires as a result. " Can you believe such an attitude from the keyboard of a woman? Based on the photo she uses as an icon for her profile on this blog, I would guess she has some sort of religious affiliation, possibly Catholic, yet her statement is one of the least Christ-like things I have heard in a long time. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, although I am no longer a religious person, but it sickens me to think there are women who could actually spew this kind of unforgiving, unChristian nonsense.

If men canot control their own behavior enough to not rape a woman they find sexy or slutty or simply female, that is all on them. Short of a woman getting naked with a man and allowing him to penetrate just before saying "No", I can't think of an excuse for rape. Frankly, at that point, I don't think it could even be considered rape. Our sex crimes instructor at the San Diego Police Academy back in the late seventies was fond of repeating, "Penetration, no matter how slight, completes the crime," but if a woman permits the penetration, all bets are off. I can't imagine that happens very often, though. It's not bloody likely a woman would let it get that far.

I dated for quite some time in the sixties and seventies, during the "sexual revolution", and certainly am not a prude. There have been a number of occasions when my dates had permitted significant intimacy, even getting naked on several occasions for some serious foreplay, but then said "No". None of them suffered rape, at my hands (I can't speak for anyone else they dated). That doesn't make me a saint, simply a responsible adult male who doesn't indulge in rape. Nor would I ever force my wife. (Ask my first wife: she permitted sex about three times a year during our eight years of marriage. Thank goodness my second wife has a great libido. Is this too much information? :-)

To hear this woman voice her belief that merely dressing in a provocative manner excuses rape makes me want to cease reading anything else she has to say. Perhaps she is simply a fat, friendless, foolish female who resents attractive women and enjoys knowing some of them suffer being raped, but no matter what her condition I have lost any respect I might have previously held for her thoughts and opinions. Your mileage may vary.

Western Complicity in the Rape of Boys in the Islamic World

2011-08-13T20:41:00.003-06:00

Not just in the Middle East, either. This is so prevalent, the soldiers of several Western nations have been counseled by their superiors to "look the other way. It's a cultural thing." This certainly is gross to anyone who cares about children, but anyone who feels the muslims have a right to practice their "religion" as they see fit should be aware what they are supporting.

I started to post the whole article, but it is far too long. Be sure to read the third comment, by someone who has been there and seen it.

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=36550#more-36550

Jury Rights Day - September 5th

2011-08-13T15:51:00.003-06:00

I've written before about the legal procedure called "jury nullification". I believe I have spoken to the fact that it remains one of the very few ways that remain which allow American citizens to have any effect upon the justice system whatsoever. It is so potent a weapon when used properly that every judge in every courtroom across the country tries to negate it by lying to the jury and telling them they may only judge the facts in any trial. The truth is that it is the jury's right and duty to judge both the facts and the law.

If the law is unjust, if it is unfair, if the punishment does not fit the crime, or if a juror's conscience simply will not permit them to convict, it is that juror's right and duty to vote for acquittal. Even though I am in favor of the death penalty in some cases, if a juror cannot support the death penalty, if they believe it is unjust or morally unacceptable, it is their right to vote against it. (These days, in far too many cases, they would probably be saving the life of an innocent person, railroaded onto death row by an overzealous prosecutor.)

Remember, in jurisprudence there are two concepts which speak to what is right and what is wrong: "malum per se" and "malum prohibitum". "Malum per se" means "bad in itself": murder, rape, child abuse or molestation. Things that every civilized (which is why it doesn't fit in with the teachings of Mohammed) person knows to be wrong. "Malum prohibitum" means "bad because it is prohibited", forbidden by those who rule. Running a stop sign, "cheating" on your taxes, catching a fish without a license.

Now, running a stop sign can be dangerous, could cause an accident injuring or killing someone innocent. However, if you are given a ticket for running a stop sign when it is three A.M. and you can see a mile up the road that there are no vehicles or pedestrians or horse-drawn buggies that you will put at risk by rolling through the stop, you are being punished by "malum prohibitum", punished for doing nothing that could possibly cause any harm, something someone decided they just don't think you should be allowed to do. Like smoking a cigarette in a building in many cities, buying an alcoholic beverage in some counties of some states, riding a motorcycle without a helmet in many states, or getting circumcised in San Francisco (they were almost successful in passing that law).

By extension, if a man is charged with a civil rights violation, or with the "crime" of "hate speech" because he openly speaks of the fact that some muslims mistreat, beat, abuse, and rape their wives, that some muslims kill their daughters when they feel the daughter has compromised their family "honor", does he deserve to suffer imprisonment because of this "malum prohibitum"? Has he caused an individual harm by speaking the truth? Would it not be appropriate for a juror to decide that, while he may have indeed committed the "crime" he was charged with, that he did not deserve to be punished for telling the truth? Ask Geert Wilders of the Netherlands how he feels about that.

If a man loaned a rifle to another man and, while shooting it at a shooting range, the rifle malfunctioned and fired twice when the trigger was only pulled once, does the owner of that rifle deserve to be arrested, convicted, and sent to prison because a broken part in the rifle caused it to malfunction? Does he deserve to be stripped of thousands of dollars defending himself, impoverish his family, lose his job and his good name, and be sent to prison? Even though it was proven his rifle malfunctioned and there was no intent by anyone to make it fire more than once per trigger pull? Ask David Olofson, who is now a felon because he owned a broken rifle.

When the government and our elitist legislators and the regulators of the various alphabet agencies (IRS, EPA, FDA, ATF, FBI, DOE, etc.) have citizens arrested for laws and regulatory violations that the people of this country had no say in creating, laws which criminalize behavior or activities that neither you nor I would deem wrong, it is the right and the duty of the citizens of the jury to vote for acquittal, even if the facts indicate the "crime" was indeed committed. Please visit FIJA.org and read about the history of jury nullification, of the purpose of this organization, and of the upcoming "Jury Rights Day".

14 years old. 44 pounds. Will she survive?

2011-08-13T10:41:00.002-06:00

Apologists for islam will claim this is an aberration, a "one-off" that is rare, that it only happens a few times involving "radical" believers of islam, not the "moderates" they have come to know and love (as Obama loves them). In reality, this is an oft-repeated, common response save that this muslim's particular version of islam allows him to torture his daughter rather than kill her, as the orthodox version of islam commands (see the first line of the article). Consider the fact that she would have died, if not for her neighbors and her pastor.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/uganda-father-tortures-daughter-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity.html

Uganda: Father tortures daughter for converting from Islam to Christianity

Muhammad said, "If anyone changes his religion, kill him." All Susan Ithungu's father did was torture her. He must be a moderate.

Seriously, however, evidently Beya Baluku, Susan's father, belongs to the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence (madhhab), which differs from its three Sunni counterparts in teaching that a female apostate should not be executed, but rather confined to a room and beaten until she returns to Islam (cf. Al-Siyar Al-Kabir, vol. 4, p. 162).

"Girl in Uganda Loses Use of Legs after Leaving Islam for Christ," from Compass Direct News, August 11:

NAIROBI, Kenya, August 11 (CDN) — A 14-year-old girl in western Uganda is still unable to walk 10 months after her father tortured her for leaving Islam and putting her faith in Christ, according to area Christians.
Susan Ithungu of Isango village, Kasese district, has been hospitalized at Kagando Hospital since October 2010 after neighbors with police help rescued her from her father, Beya Baluku. He was arrested shortly afterward but quickly released, sources said.
Susan and her younger brother, Mbusa Baluku, lived alone with their father after he divorced their mother. In March 2010 an evangelist from Bwera Full Gospel Church spoke at Susan’s school, and she decided to trust Christ for her salvation.
“I heard the message of Christ’s great love of him dying for us to get everlasting peace, and there and then I decided to believe in Christ,” she said from her hospital bed. “After a month, news reached my father that I had converted to Christianity, and that was the beginning of my troubles with him. Our father warned us not to attend church or listen to the gospel message. He even threatened us with a sharp knife that he was ready to kill us in broad daylight in case we converted to Christianity.”
Pastor Joseph Baluku of Bwera Full Gospel Church in Kasese said neighbors took her to the government hospital about 45 kilometers (28 miles) from Kasese town after she was freed.
“He locked her up in a room of the semi-permanent house for six months without seeing sunlight,” the pastor said. “The younger brother was warned not to tell anyone that Susan was locked up in a room and was not given any food.”
Young Mbusa said that when their father was away, he roasted bananas for his sister.
“I also dug a hole under the door, where I could pour water through,” he said. “My sister could drink the water using her tongue. But most days she could only feed on mud.”
A nearby resident who requested anonymity said neighbors became concerned after not seeing her for several months.
“Her brother then disclosed to us that Susan was locked up in one of the rooms in the house,” the area resident said. “We then reported the case to the Harukunggu local council and then to the Bwera police station. The police went to the house and broke the door.”
Susan was immediately taken to the provincial government hospital about 17 kilometers (11 miles) away near Bwera town, where Pastor Baluku visited her.
“The miserable young Susan was bony, very weak, and not able to talk or walk,” said the pastor. “Her hair had turned yellow, she had long fingernails and sunken eyes, and she looked very slim, less than 20 kilograms [44 pounds].”...

Why Islam must be eradicated, like a cancer.

2011-08-09T23:42:00.005-06:00

Yes, many will consider that title to be irrational, even obscene - to speak of doing away with a religion? Who but a madman would think such a thing? Who but a bigoted, hate-filled, right-wing loser could possibly think of outlawing or refusing to permit the worship, as he saw fit, of another man?

I do. I say that Islam really isn't a religion, unless your definition of religion includes death cults that actively preach the killing of non-believers, including targeting their infant children. And if somehow it actually was a religion, it is one which should be eradicated from the face of the earth, or at the very minimum, should be practiced only in a walled community, a Coventry from which none who followed Islam would be permitted to leave.

In my wandering around the Web tonight, I came across a post by Daniel Greenfield (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com) from March of this year, entitled "The Muslim Terrorist War against Israeli Families" (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/03/muslim-terrorist-war-against-israeli.html). In it he writes of the direct and intentional targeting of not only Israeli families per se, but their infant children. Specifically targeted, in spite of the availability of (nonetheless innocent) adult parents.

I posted a blog on the Fogel family back when they were killed. I spoke of my rage at what had been done by these flea-ridden, an-orchid, goat-raping, camel-fornicating muslim scum. But until reading Daniel's post tonight, I had no idea it was actually policy to target and kill infants.

For any of you out there - and I include my otherwise lovely family members who remain Democrats in the face of reality - who wish to marginalize this, to claim that only "radical" muslims do these violent things, I'm afraid I must correct you. As I have written before, these are the followers of the true and orthodox Islam, not muslims who have "perverted" the "Word of the Prophet" (may he burn forever in a fire on a spit - transversing his body from facial orifice to nether orifice - basted in bacon fat and rubbed with the offal of pigs). These are the die-hard believers of what Mohammed taught. The parts of the Quran or Hadith that are held up for view by those muslims who would deceive you into thinking Islam truly is a "religion of peace" are the writings of what Mohammed said early in an attempt to create a make-believe religion he could use to bend a bunch of goatherds and farmers to his will. When he was able to raise enough of an army to start putting his enemies to the sword, the truth came out. Islam has never been a religion of peace, and it never will be.

Once you come to terms with that fact - and believe me, you will learn it to your eternal sorrow if Islam is allowed a greater foothold in this country - you will understand that there is no room on Earth for an ideology which feels comfortable with, brags about, the brutal murder of defenseless infants, children, mothers and even fellow muslims. How could you close your eyes, your ears, and your hearts to such senseless killing? To deny the fact that Islam refuses to permit the very existence of anyone who does not follow their beliefs, to not grasp the fact that they are willing to even kill fellow muslims who do not accept all of the same tenets as they do, Shia against Sunni, is to deny reality.

Islam is a melanoma upon the skin of civilization. It is fast spreading and fatal. If it is not cut out in time, if it is allowed to spread, it will kill us.

A Failed Presidency

2011-08-07T20:54:00.002-06:00

I use Yahoo for my email. I rarely read their news because Yahoo is so hopelessly liberal that it just isn't worth the heartburn. Imagine my incredible surprise to see a news heading that read as above:

Amazing, isn't it? Yahoo published an article by Forbes that actually tells it as it is. I'm not familiar with the author, John Mariotti, but it could as easily been written by Mark Steyn or Victor David Hanson. Here it is in its entirety:

A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem

By John Mariotti | Forbes – Sat, Aug 6, 2011

Few Americans needed Standard & Poor to confirm the mismanagement of the United States government and its finances. The downgrading of American credit will raise interest rates on America’s huge debt and ultimately on all Americans. Popular polls say that most Americans blame Congress—but that’s too simplistic. As much as Barack Obama would like to shift that blame onto Congress, the fault lies squarely on the shoulders of President. It is first and foremost a leadership problem that is crippling America—and the leader is President Barack Obama—not the many members of Congress.

No matter how many speeches he makes, the conclusion is clear: Obama’s greatest failure is spending America into enormous deficits, and being clueless about how to get the economy to recover. His speeches, riddled with “I” and “We” are mostly serving to indict him for his failings. Appearing on TV more than any other sitting president, Barack Obama is constantly “explaining” why things aren’t working, when he should be working on what to do different and better.

Instead he is “campaigning,” which is the only thing he knows how to do reasonable well. But he can’t fix the economy; he has neither the experience nor the knowhow to do it. His failed, misguided policies have only exacerbated the size of his mistakes and shortcomings.

----------------------------------------------------

“I didn’t say ‘Change we can believe in tomorrow.,.’ I didn’t say, ‘Change we can believe in next week…’ “We knew this was going to take time.” —Barack Obama, Aug. 4, 2011.

Obama has surrounded himself with academics, theoreticians and politicians and all of their solutions are wrong, flawed and ineffective. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the evidence. Nobody in his inner circle has meaningful business experience. He not only doesn’t understand business, he dislikes businesses; they are only useful as a way to collect taxes to redistribute.

For Barack Obama’s first 18 months, and occasionally even today, he and his loyalists try to place the lion’s share of the blame for America’s problems with George W. Bush. There is little doubt that Bush erred seriously on several counts: he initiated two expensive wars and then saw the Iraq war mismanaged for at least 2-3 years.

Then Bush failed, along with the (then) GOP led Congress to rein in spending to compensate for the cost of these wars. Finally, he reduced tax rates and created the Medicare prescription drug program (which turned out to work better and cost far less than was feared). Coincidentally, the much-maligned TARP initiated by Bush actually staved off a financial collapse and is largely being paid back by the banks and insurance companies involved. In perhaps his greatest mistake, Bush failed to veto a single spending bill sent to him by Congress.

Bush’s mistakes were clearly serious errors, but they pale in comparison with Obama’s failures since he took office. The Democratically controlled Congress was complicit with Obama’s failures. They have not submitted, and Obama has not submitted a realistic budget for the country in over 800 days—a clear failure to meet their responsibilities. (Exception: Obama’s irresponsible Feb. budget, which was voted down 97-0 by a Democratically controlled Senate.)

To chronicle Obama’s failures and his shortcomings is impossible within the length of a simple blog post. A few of them are most notable. Obama aided and abetted by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid rammed the new health care legislation down the throat of America—and Obamacare was created. Parts of it are well-intentioned, but much of it is feared by Americans and especially small businesses. Arguably some of Obama’s greatest damage to the economy has been done by his appointees in the EPA, NLRB, CPSC, et. al., and the Justice Department.American business is oppressed by regulation.Sadly, Obama barely realizes this.

Next came the $840 billion “stimulus” package, (mostly pork and patronage), which worked poorly or not at all—unless you consider creating jobs at $275,000 each to be a good solution. Not enough “shovel-ready” projects were really “shovel-ready” Obama admitted recently, chuckling awkwardly at his naiveté. Obama and his experts (now mostly gone back to finance or academia) predicted a drop of unemployment to under 8% when the number of jobless went the other way—upward. Now, more Americans have been out of work, for longer, than any time in the past half-century.

Obamacare not only violated many of his eloquent campaign promises; e.g., Taxes on Americans earning less than $200/$250,000 per year will no increase one penny—except for the new Obamacare tax to 3.8% applied to investment income—which will hit millions of Americans. When faced with his party’s impending losses in 2008 elections, Obama dispatched Rahm Emmanuel to attempt buying-off candidates in the 2008 primaries with a promise of high-level jobs, a legally questionable practice at best, and unethical one at worst.

During Obama’s term in office the deficit has grown astronomically as he continues, even to this day, to insist on more spending and more taxes (especially those on “millionaires and billionaires” a category that most Americans earning $200-250,000 per year hardly imagine including them.)

Those who point to his achievements name “bailing out” GM & Chrysler—but many experts feel that was done by using executive power for further illegal actions, denying legal bondholders their rightful returns. There is also a strong belief that ordinary bankruptcy could well have accomplished the same result at a cost of almost $20 billion less of taxpayers’ money. But then spending too much of taxpayers money has never bothered this White House.

To make Obamacare’s outrageous financial claims, Obama & his Democratic Congressional minions desperately needed to cut its cost. Thus, buried in the 2000+-page bill, Obama and his accomplices Reid and Pelosi cut $500 billion out of Medicare. Now he pretends to worry about seniors while ignoring Medicare’s impending insolvency. After all, even if Obama could win a second term, he will be gone before Medicare fails, and be able to blame it on his successor.

Barack Obama was going to close Gitmo—until he realized that it was as unrealistic as much of his campaign rhetoric. Obama has violated the law, which requires the president to act within 15 days after the Medicare commission advises him of a financing problem. His Democratic allies gave him a waiver in his first year, but this year—he simply ignored the law.

Obama followed Bush’s foreign policy and even left most Bush appointees in charge, until recently. Obama’s vanquished primary opponent Hillary Clinton has precluded him from making as big a debacle of foreign policy as he has on domestic policy. He tried, early in his career, kowtowing to foreign dictators and despots, apologizing for America instead of protecting and defending it.

The ultimate failure of President Barack Obama is that he is unable or unwilling to lead; to define anything more than vague generalities as a solution to America’s daunting problems. Even his own allies in the GAO state, “we can’t value a speech.” In his desperation to run for reelection, Obama continues to abdicate his responsibilities. The debt ceiling was a showcase of his failings as he periodically jumped in and out of negotiations until he literally neutralized himself.

The president made himself an outsider in the decision, even as he tried to sound like a voice of reason, making speech after speech, saying less in each successive one. Senator Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner finally fought through massive partisan problems to reach a compromise agreement—but it was clearly too little, too late. Kicking the hard work down to a twelve person “super-committee” was not enough to settle financial markets.

While Barack Obama campaigned, making still more speeches at his 50^th birthday celebrations, the Wall Street voted with its money and the Dow-Jones average dropped over 500 points and the S. & P. dropped even more—5%+. 117,000 jobs created in July don’t even approach the number needed to offset new entries to the workforce. The drop in unemployment from 9.2% to 9.1% signals more unemployed Americans giving up, not more of them being hired.

Happy Birthday Mr. President. You have accomplished something no other president has done. You’ve spent America into a hole that will take a decade to fix, and kept more Americans out of work longer than anyone in recent history, and you’ve accomplished all this in record time, only 2-1/2 years. Who knows how much harm you can do given still more time.

--------------------------------------------

John Mariotti is an internationally known executive, consultant and an award-winning author. His book, The Complexity Crisis was named one of 2008’s Best Business Books. In a recent novel, The Chinese Conspiracy, he merges an exciting fictional thriller with the factual reality of America’s risk from Cyber-Attacks. (www.thechinesecomspiracy.com). Mariotti does Keynote speeches, serves on corporate boards and is a consultant/advisor to companies. He can be reached at www.mariotti.net .

Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/failed-presidency-american-problem-162509281.html

and here (in case Yahoo should remove their site):

http://blogs.forbes.com/prospernow/2011/08/06/a-failed-presidency-the-american-problem/

Slogging Toward Liberty

Free E-Book: Operation #EFAD set for March 1st

Non-aggression vs self-defense as regards Iran

Botched paramilitary raids

Freedom of religion

Anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in a so-called Patriot

On-Line Onanism, and the Gingrinch who stole the primaries

wanderlust and a wandering mind

This is unbelievable. Join the Army. "Ride" a camel.

An excellent essay: Support and Defend

The Jews in the Attic Test

islam goes digital or "Why I love islam" [Not]

You don't think it could happen here?

The Bottom Line

The Obama Presidency, by the numbers

Wake Up! Obama continues to deceive America

Want to be an Internment/Resettlement Specialist? GO ARMY!

A necessary blog to follow

"There is no such thing as moderate islam"

More photos of muslim sex slaves

Sit down, put your feet up, smoke 'em if you've got 'em

Silence Is The Goal

An excellent post on the upcoming ruckus and how cops may respond

Even some of the liberals get it

A beautiful artifact, along with some introspection

America: the Republic that we were, but no longer are

islam and sexuality

Honor and the cult of islam, aka: the definition of oxymoron

A Culture in Regression

Various and sundry thoughts

Active Shooter - don't just stand there!

As it is in England, and could be here

The Shotgun

Bob Beckel - poster boy for "Useful Idiots" and another Che lover

A History Lesson for the Racist Bob Beckel

By Humberto Fontova

9/9/2011

Humberto Fontova

Che lovers, and would-be lovers

Jane Fonda's Crush on Che Guevara

By Humberto Fontova

9/7/2011

Humberto Fontova

A reminder of our duty to each other at http://fija.org/

A Wide Departure From The Usual

Sodom and Gomorrah revisited

There is a difference. And then, a similarity.

"Want human rights? Leave the U.N."

"We don't need no stinkin' warrants"

In favor of religion.

An Imperial Presidency?

I am sickened by this.

Western Complicity in the Rape of Boys in the Islamic World

I started to post the whole article, but it is far too long. Be sure to read the third comment, by someone who has been there and seen it.

Jury Rights Day - September 5th

14 years old. 44 pounds. Will she survive?

Uganda: Father tortures daughter for converting from Islam to Christianity

Why Islam must be eradicated, like a cancer.

A Failed Presidency

A Failed Presidency -- The American Problem

RELATED CONTENT