Democide: death by government design

I will ask your forgiveness right now for the photo used to illustrate this post. It is difficult for me to view, and may offend some readers. It does show a victim of death by government, deaths that happened here in our own country in the recent past. It is of a victim, a child, of a fire caused by the FBI at Waco, Texas.

I stumbled across an article wherein a blogger listed deaths directly attributable to governmental action, as opposed to the actual murder of a country's people by bullet, rope, poison gas (Iraq), etc. An example of such is the Holodomor, the intentional starvation by Stalin of millions of "kulaks" in the Ukraine back in 1932-33.

[Do not be confused by the chart on the right. Each of the totals need to be multiplied by 1000 to reflect the actual numbers of dead.]

Genocide is a slippery word, currently being twisted and abused by the Left to describe any killings they do not approve of, but ignored when it suits their agenda to ignore it (like the hundreds of thousands who died in Darfur, to little protest from the Left. Far more than have been killed in Syria, Libya, "Palestine", Iraq and Afghanistan). It used to apply to deliberate attempts to eradicate an entire race or culture or nation.

This blogger defines "democide" as the deliberate killing of people by governmental action, whether it is by enforced starvation, as occurred in both Russia and China, or by gas and firing squads in Germany. It is a more accurate - and less debatable - accounting than genocide, so that attempts to control the populace by killing large numbers isn't ignored for not being actual "genocide".

We have all been aware of the Holocaust and the deaths caused by Hitler and the National Socialists of pre-and-WWII Germany. There was indeed genocide, but quite a few of the deaths caused by these fiends were not actually genocide, however they do fit the definition of "democide". As shocking and disgusting as the Holocaust was in its intent to obliterate an entire race, religion, and culture, it pales next to the deaths Stalin and Mao caused in their respective countries.

Most people accept the approximate figure of 6 million killed during the Holocaust. Close approximations of the deaths directly caused by Stalin approach 72 million, according to articles I have read (62 million in the above article). The deaths attributable to Mao Tse Tung were in the neighborhood of 100 million (78 million in the above article). About twelve and fifteen times those killed during the horror we know of as the Holocaust.

This is not meant to belittle the Holocaust or reduce its significance in the least. It is meant to point out - especially to anyone taught the ridiculous pack of lies we all have been taught in our public schools - that our educational system has ignored the effect of Communism on the lives of over 150 million people just in the 20th Century.

If you have any school-aged children, take a peek at their history books, their social study books. See if you can find any reference to these deaths, these murders by government design, in any of the books your children are taught from in the public schools. I guarantee you that you won't, except for - perhaps - a brief reference to the Holocaust.

Our public school system, as well as the training in teacher's programs throughout the country, has been slowly but surely been moved in the direction of teaching our children the "benefits" of socialism. When members of this administration speak to our school children of Mao Tse-tung being their "favorite philosopher", we can see how far the rot has spread.

We here in this country are pikers compared to Germany, Russia and China, not to mention the many killed in Armenia, Cambodia, and elsewhere. But we are not blameless, either. The approximately 650,000 killed during what is called the Civil War is actually democide. We were taught - as I have written about previously - that it was all about freeing the slaves, but it was not. It was about preventing the Southern states from seceding, leaving the Union and forming their own government. Slavery - which had actually been coming to an end on its own, due to economic forces in play at that time - was merely the "hot button", the spin used by the Lincoln administration to drive the North into a fervor for war against the people of our own country. Lincoln himself was in favor of allowing slavery to continue in most of the country, arguing only that it shouldn't be permitted in the new territories opening in the West and Northwest. Indeed, he attempted to talk black leaders of his time into moving all blacks, slave and freed, to the newly forming African country Liberia.

Waco was another small "blip" in the democide practiced by our government. It passed nearly unnoticed by most Americans, as "only" 70+ men, women, small children and infants were burned to death by the actions of the FBI at that debacle. As has been attributed to Stalin, the death of one person is a tragedy. The death of millions is only a statistic. Compared to the 150 million killed elsewhere in the world during the 20th Century, 70 or so Americans is "nothing" - unless you were one of those 70. Unless you were someone who loved and cherished those 70.

This is not meant to be a diatribe against our government for those the FBI murdered at Waco. It is meant simply to show that our country is as guilty of democide as Russia or China. The scale is certainly different, but that does not excuse it. Indeed, because we are meant to be a Constitutional Republic (not a democracy, where the vote of the majority is allowed to overrule the rights of an individual), we should be judged more harshly. Our country should not be engaging in any democide, any government-sanctioned killing of our own citizens, especially women and children. What civilized country has a right to kill its women and children? I am not a Christian, not religious at all, but as our country has legalized the killing of millions of fetuses, a belief that a fetus is a human being who simply has not been allowed to be born would begin to put us right up there with Germany, Russia, and China (although their numbers would probably be incredibly higher if we included terminated pregnancies in their countries as well).

Well, there you have it. A new word - at least, new to me - which speaks to how uncivilized we all have been during the 20th Century (and earlier, of course). A word which speaks to the effect of Communism on the human race. A word which should cause us to pause and think whether we really want to allow socialism to progress (as in "Progressives") any further in this country of ours. For the flavor of socialism that is being taught and brought to this country is founded upon Communism, by those who wish to see the Great Experiment of freedom that this country was founded upon exchanged for an experiment to see if Communism - and all those lovers of Marx and Mao - will work in this country. That would indeed be real "Change". But not change that most of us want.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.