Friday, December 29, 2006

Obama Presidency: Why we should be concerned

I recently reviewed Barack Obamas’ book “The Audacity of Hope.” [see previous blog] The two most troubling concerns I came away with after reading it were:

  • The self-described tentative manner he embraces his religious and moral beliefs, and

  • The influence he received in his childhood from his parents and his religious training

While he claims he was influenced little as a child by his Muslim/atheist parents or his Muslim and Catholic schooling, he also claims in essence that there isn’t a Christian principle in Scripture that he holds as an absolute standard. He appears to be avoiding any claim of holding an absolute standard about anything, except being totally opened minded to whatever he deems appropriate. This attitude makes for a great politician but a poor leader.

This moral/religious ambivalence would not be so troublesome if it were not for his Muslim background, and the potentially latent Muslim tendencies he may yet harbor beneath his politically-correct veneer. This veneer appears pretty thin, given his statement that he could be dead wrong about any Christian principle he believes at the moment.

So, on one hand, Barack has a Muslim family heritage that goes back to beyond his great grandfather plus his Muslim education, and on the other hand he claims a recent conversion to Christianity, with a self-avowed open mind revealing that he could be dead wrong on his Christian-beliefs-of-the-moment.

To me, this adds up to a giant red flag. And this is what I gleaned from his own book, not from his opponents.

I was asked why I am concerned about Barack’s Muslim heritage. Why would I be concerned about a president with potential, latent Muslim tendencies while America is not afraid of a Catholic or even a Mormon President? Do I really hold a “double standard?” It seems so patronizing of me to have to explain my answer – the distinction seems so obvious to me. Some of the reasons are so old and so often restated that many have become immune to their significance – or, bless your heart – many may not have learned or been taught these things. So here goes…

  • Our nation was created as a haven for Christians to avoid religious persecution.

  • Our constitution and laws were established by those who were Christian of one form or another.

  • The principles of Christianity were the bedrock for the system of laws and legal system adopted and embraced here.

  • While indeed this nation was a melting pot, the primary heritage is Christian. The melting pot was comprised initially mostly of Christians.

  • In our most recent century we have maintained a Judeo-Christian value system which shares basic moral, legal, and ethical value.

  • Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Mormons, and Jews are all on the same page with regard to the foundational and continuing values of this nation.

  • To the contrary, the prevailing beliefs and teachings of the Islamic faith have, especially in the last several decades, demonstrated that they are diametrically opposed to the nature of the freedoms and principles that this nation upholds.

  • The training in many if not all Islamic schools for children and adults throughout the world and in the United States promote Sharia law and a disdain for western Judeo-Christian principles. We have yet to learn or accept these facts.

  • Moderate Muslims are not as moderate as they put on. One day they will expound a moderate sounding Koranic prayer in the US Senate, and the next will be advocating the violent imposition of Sharia law in this nation and installing a mullah as our leader.

  • The differences are as day and night between these two value systems. One teaches tolerance and forgiveness and free choice of religion and a government influenced by all sects and not controlled by any. The other teaches retribution, intolerance, the superiority and necessity of Sharia (Islamic) law, offers only three choices for religious preference: conversion to Islam, dhimmi status (second class citizenship), or death.

The liberals of this nation have a logic problem they are not facing. Liberals purport to be so open minded, somewhat libertarian, embrace the ACLU which fights for the most perverse minority rights. Freedom, freedom is their call. However, liberals also appear to be defenders of the Islamic faith which stands 180 degrees opposite their own expressed values. Or if they are not defenders, they seem to recognize no distinction between the Islamic faith and most others. Just the contrast between the liberal’s call for “freedom of choice” in all things, including sexual orientation of marriage partners, gay rights, abortion rights, and religious diversity compared with the Islamic mandate for absolute adherence to unforgiving Islamic law that absolutely prohibits these choices should get the liberals’ attention. But it doesn’t. Do they ever draw a line? I think this explains how the blind momentum of a species causes their eventual extinction.

Why am I wary of Barack Obama? With his tentative embrace of Christian values, he could easily, in the blink of an eye, flip over to his Islamic heritage. If such flip is not announced, there will always be the strong potential for his latent Islamic biases to influence his choice of advisors, his choice of alliances and his choice of policy, all to the detriment of the value system that enables this nation to remain free and prosper.

Here are two more voices in the wilderness expressing concern about Baracks’ background: 's independent contrarian columnist, Andy Martin says:

“His grandfather was named 'Hussein.' That is an Arabic-Muslim, not African, name. Hussein was a devout Muslim and named his son, Barack Senior, 'Baraka.' Baraka is an Arabic word meaning 'blessed.' Baraka comes out of the Koran and Arabic, not Africa.

"Barack Senior was also a devoted Muslim, and also chose a Muslim name for his son, our own Barack Obama, Junior. Again, his name was an Arabic and Koranic.

Obama has spent a lifetime running from his family heritage and religious heritage. Would his father have given his son a Koranic name if the father was not a devout Muslim? Obama's stepfather was also a Muslim. Obama will be the first Muslim-heritage senator; he should be proud of that fact. There is nothing to be ashamed of in any of the three great Abrahamic religions. [Obviously he must be referring to the non-Sharia law loving Muslim, whereever they may be found. ed.]]

"Fiction: Obama Senior was a harmless student 'immigrant' who came to the United States only to study. Fact: Obama was part of one of the most corrupt and violent organizations in Africa: the Kenyatta regime. Obama's father ran back to Kenya soon after the British left. It is likely Obama's father had Mau Mau sympathies or connections, or he would not have been welcomed into the murderous inner circle of rapists, murderers, and arsonists. I believe Obama's secret shame at his family history of rape, murder and arson is what actualizes him. Our research is not yet complete. We are seeking to examine British colonial records. Our investigation to date has drawn on information on three continents.

"And what about Obama's beloved Kenyan brothers and sisters? None of his family was invited to Boston to share his prominence. Are his relatives being kept in the closet? Where are they? More secrecy, more prevarication.

"It is time for Barack Obama to stop presenting a fantasy to the American people. We are forgiving and many would still support him. It may well be that his concealment is meant to endanger Israel. His Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles where Obama now enjoys support," Martin states.

"Our investigation is continuing. In he meantime, Crown Books should stop selling Obama's novelization of his life. We have asked Crown to do that. Obama is living a lie."

Nicholas Stix says :

Obama the Christian is a devout believer in unlimited abortion rights. He denies the existence of Hell. He came to Christianity through social organizing with activist religious. His devout Christianity derives from the secular humanist "values" his atheist mother imbued him with. He believes, with all his heart, in the separation of church and state – except when he campaigns in black churches, in violation of that separation, and in violation of the tax code. Obama wears his religion on his sleeve in churches, but in dealing with the mainstream media criticizes such behavior.

The only recognizably Christian position Obama takes is his opposition to same-sex marriage, due to the "religious connotations" of marriage. ("Religious connotations"? What about "civic religion"; the "separation of church and state"; the "enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate"? Don't ask.) This is surely due to the fact that blacks are the racial/ethnic group most adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, and Obama does not want to rile the one voter bloc on which his candidacy is most dependent. However, I would expect his position on same-sex marriage to begin "evolving" around, say, … November 3. Once Obama is safely ensconced in the U.S. Senate, he knows that his base will stick by him, for richer or for poorer, for better or for worse. Then he will doubtless begin the sort of "education" of the Christian black electorate in matters of same-sex marriage, which black leaders earlier conducted in the matter of abortion.

Regarding Obama's religiosity, which appeared out of nowhere during his social activist work, following his graduation from law school, a line from Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass comes to mind, when the latter explained why Mike Ditka was not prepared for political life. "Ditka doesn't need a political life. And he hasn't spent decades planning for the scrutiny."
Obama's closest religious advisers -- Fr. Pfleger, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, and Illinois State Sen. James Meeks, who moonlights as the pastor of Chicago's Salem Baptist Church – may have quotes from Scripture always handy, but are theologically closer to Karl Marx and black nationalism, than to Christianity. The transcendent-non-transcendent motto the Rev. Wright has given Trinity is, "Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian."

According to State Sen./Rev. James Meeks' humble, personal church Web page, "Meeks' practical and charismatic style of instruction motivates the hearer to take action and has resulted in accomplishments of miraculous proportions." When the good Senator/Reverend is not accomplishing miracles and other feats "never before documented in history," he serves as the executive vice president of Jesse Jackson Sr.'s National Rainbow-Push Coalition. Why a man of God would want to be identified with Jackson's personal den of iniquity is a question only the Rev. Meeks can answer.

Now that Obama has a Republican opponent in Alan Keyes, Obama's media acolytes are working hard to discredit Keyes, a talk-show host who is a former ambassador, and presidential and senatorial candidate. Meanwhile, Obama, who when Jack Ryan was his opponent wanted six debates, has no desire to debate Keyes. Obama & Co. had better stick to their new script or Keyes, a brilliant man who knows the Constitution better than "Professor" Obama does, and whose own Christian faith comes not from Karl Marx or black nationalism (or possibly Unitarian Universalism), but from Christianity, might put some hard questions to Barack Obama.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Audacity of “The Audacity of Hope...

...the tome of a “Rock-Star.”

A much loved person gave me this book by Barack Obama for Christmas. I think the gift was in retribution for my gift of an Ann Coulter book to her a couple of years ago.

Before I explain what I really think of the book, I want to digress into my distinction between the mindset of a conservative and a liberal.

A conservative (of many degrees) appreciates and acknowledges the heritage of this nation and attempts to perpetuate and refine and improve those qualities that made her great.

A liberal (of many degrees) tends to minimize or dismiss the heritage of this nation that made her great. Even the historical definitions of “great” tend to be castigated as less than good.

The phrase “of many degrees” acknowledges that “conservative” and “non-conservative” labels are not intended to be black and white. There are indeed many shades of grey as well as the potential of excess toward one extreme or another. But the “absolute” that I ascribe to is that there is a frighteningly large number of influential people in this nation who have little appreciation for the qualities that made this nation great and who are, in fact, changing the definition of “great” to mean something less than desirable. Barack Obama is one of these people.
The reality is we are as a nation, polarized. Barack contributes to this polarization with such comments as “when I see Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity baying across the television screen, I find it hard to take them seriously.” That is not a unifying statement that a presidential candidate needs to express. I am one of millions who embraces the message of these individuals. That statement is dismissive of our opinions and values.

Before I digress too far into rambling narrative, I will shorten this book review into a number of bullet points that provide examples of things I find troubling about Baracks’ position on a variety of issues. These are just a few of the many that jumped off the page at me:

  • Page 22 – Health Care: Barack infers that there needs to be more centralized control of our health care system because it “is broken: wildly expensive, terribly inefficient, etc. Our health care system is not yet intended to be an all-inclusive, full bore, government run socialist system. It is intended to be a safety net – with the individual primarily responsible for his own health care. Barack seems to favor minimizing individual responsibility and maximizing federal government responsibility. Most people probably do prefer this “easier path” until they realize that they are the ones who will pay for it through increased taxes. And then these same people will want their taxes reduced which will gut the effectiveness and quality of the socialized healthcare program. But, as Barack does, complaining about the existing system is great for political points.

  • Page 23 – Terrorism: Barack frames our battle against terrorism as either “belligerence or isolationism.” Such framing in extremes is not helpful, if that is how he sees it. Apparently he sees our current policies as “belligerence” and anything less would be “isolationism.” It sounds like he is suggesting we can eliminate the basic Islamic doctrine of intolerance and violence by eliminating “global poverty and failed states.” This is just one of the many areas of the book where he dismisses or ignores the basic character of Islam and assumes it is just another mouth to feed. Could he have a bias toward Islam? More on that later.

  • On several pages (36-38) Barack rails against what he calls “absolutism.” He seems to be concerned that there is a moral distinction between right and wrong. Feeling strongly about the goodness or appropriateness of a particular path is considered narrow-minded. He appears to believe that there is no right path – it is all good. His religious confusion bears this out. As much as I liked Jimmy Carter personally, his presidency is noted as being among the most ambivalent (wishy-washy). Barack seems to mirror Jimmy.
    Page 56: Barack “firmly believe(s) … since 9/11, we have played fast and loose with constitutional principles in the fight against terrorism.” I firmly believe we have done too little.

  • Page 199: He calls the reasons for Pilgrims coming to our shores and the religious basis for our civil rights movement “religiosity”. My understanding of the term, confirmed by a quick web-scan of the definition, portrays the word as somewhat negative: “Excessive or affected piety.” “Exaggerated or affected piety and religious zeal.” I don’t know if he just carelessly used the word, or if he really believes that the Pilgrims’ or Martin Luther King’s faith and piety were excessive, affected, and exaggerated.

  • Pages 202-205: Barack speaks of his “insight into this movement toward a deepening religious commitment…” and then describes the beliefs and experiences of his parents. He recalls, “For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness.” Is this how he sees religion? His father was almost entirely absent from his childhood, was raised Muslim, and later became a confirmed atheist. His mother remarried to an equally skeptical Indonesian who “saw religion as not particularly useful…” and “who had grown up in a country that easily blended its Islamic faith with remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” He continues, “I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school.” I wonder what they taught in that Muslim school? Was it sharia law? Was it dhimmitude? Was it jihad? We need to get a better handle on this kind of background before we entertain it for our president. For those who are ignorant of what Islamic schools teach, even in this country, this may seem to be an insignificant concern. But in Indonesia? Hmmm.
  • Page 206: I have great respect for Alan Keyes. Barack is antithetical to Alan. Alan gets under his skin. That demonstrates how opposite Barrack’s views are from mine.
  • Page 211: Barack again paraphrases Alan Keyes, a characterization I agree with, but one with which Barack intends to discredit Alan, his faith and principles.
    Many pages: Barack favors abortion rights. I guess for some, this is a good reason to vote for him. But it demonstrates again that Alan is right about Barack’s lack of religious principle.

  • Pages 213-214: Barack appears to argue for including a bit more “religiosity” into political debate, while he disagrees with the major principles of such religions. The message I get from all this is that he is confused. It is almost funny how Barack devotes an entire chapter to “Values”. Yet just about every value he discusses he semi-embraces so tentatively. His highest value appears to be doubt!
  • Page 218: Barack is revealing his ignorance of and confusion about Christian scripture when he publicly exposes his uncertainty of which principles should be followed: e.g. stoning your child and advocacy of slavery (from the Old Testament) or the Sermon on the Mount which is a “love everybody” statement not pleasing to the Defense Department. He admonishes the religious folk for being too “black and white”, but then portrays these two extremes of interpreting Scripture. Hrummph.
  • Page 222: (re: “For many practicing Christians…”) Barack states his belief that an acknowledged transgression disqualifies the Christian from any future discernment of right and wrong in others. Any of us who have had lapses in our behavior must now embrace everyone else’s choice of continuing transgression of what we understand to be God’s moral law. My one-time transgression now requires me to accept and support everyone else’s continuing immoral behavior. That philosophy will lead to absolute moral decay and degeneracy. There will be no one left to defend what is morally right anymore. Barack is wrong on this one
  • Page 233-234: Barack sounds like he cannot accept any “truth” as truth. With him, everything is tentative, especially his faith belief system. When he reads the Bible, he says, “I must be continually open to new revelations – whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion.” Or, I might add, or from a convicted child molester, a serial killer, or an Islamic suicide bomber. I don’t think so. Where does Barack draw the line? So, revelation from God should be accepted no matter the source – no matter what the character of the individual? That is so far removed from reality it sounds like the voice of “Chuckie” in a rock-star’s body.
  • Page 278: He continues his longing for the Indonesia of his childhood, despite the calls for the imposition of sharia law, the “vice squads” that attack churches, nightclubs, casinos; the bombings and the absolute loss of any semblance of civil rights. What was he taught in his Muslim school?
  • Page 279-280: No wonder he’s snowed much of the American population, who have difficulty or lose interest in reading beyond the 8th grade level. Here, starting with the last paragraph on the bottom of page 279, we have a 150+ word sentence. This would probably be classified as an incomprehensible graduate-level sentence. This example jumped out at me. Much of the book is written in this style. His erudition is mind-boggling.
  • Page 307: “In coping with the asymmetrical threats that we’ll face in the future – from terrorist networks and the handful of states that support them…” What? Only a handful of states support terrorist networks? Where has he been? Let’s see, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia (good ‘ol Indonesia), several nations in Africa, and Iraq is still questionable. Whether these states willingly support terror networks or are intimidated into supporting terror, they still support terror. Many more states harbor some level of terrorist cells out of fear or inability to control them. This clearly constitutes more than a “handful.”
  • Page 315: Barack doesn’t “dismiss these critics out of hand,” those who “take their lead from left-leaning populists like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, or … to more traditional principles of social organization, like Islamic law.” Well, now, let’s dissect this statement. Barack seems open to just about any and every idea. How open minded of him. Hugo is merely a “left-leaning populist?” Islamic law is merely “a more traditional principle of social organization?” It is statements like these that cause concern. And if Barack’s convoluted writing style or my ignorance of the English language causes me to misunderstand what he’s saying, then I can assure you that there are millions who are also misunderstanding. That leaves me with the conclusion that Barack either cannot express himself clearly without misunderstanding, or he is a threat to the future of this nation.
  • I note there isn’t any entry in the Index on Islam or Muslim, although references are sprinkled throughout the text.
  • He demonstrates little interest in or understanding of the nature and magnitude of the Islamo-fascist threat to this nation and the civilized world.
  • He avoids use of the word “illegal immigrant” or “illegal alien” (the word “illegal” does not appear in the index. He is apparently concerned that feelings might get hurt. In fact, he substantially ignores the difference between an immigrant (“legal” by definition) and illegal aliens. He instead focuses on the need to “recognize the humanity” of illegals. I’ll try to use the “humanity” approach with the cop the next time I get pulled over for violating a law much less significant than the numerous laws most illegal aliens are breaking.

Other than these few minor annoyances, the book was warm and very human – wink wink.

To be fair, there are several positions Barack takes that I agree with. The need for energy independence is one of them. Making the nation more competitive in the world market is another. Simplifying federal programs is another. His occasional criticism of liberals is promising, if not token. Creating opportunity for greater participation in national decisions is another, however unrealistic such participation may be (it makes a great populist statement).

Why is Barack so instantly popular with much of the nation? His good looks – his charisma – his endorsement by Oprah - his “rock star” aura – and his Hollywood-esque disdain of most things reflecting the heritage of our nation.

Overall, Baracks’ background and attitudes frighten me. He will not be good for this nation. No – I will not vote for him.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

A Review of "No More Christian Nice Guy"

The title above provides a link to a review of this refreshingly provocative book that turns the tables on the "politically correct" but useless Jesus.

Here are some excerpts of the review...

"Yes, Christ taught his followers “not to judge” unwisely, but context is important here. He also praised individuals for making wise judgments. Remember John the Baptist? When Christian Leftists hypocritically judge people for judging, they are promoting mindless populism.

"Christians are called to be shakers, not pontificators of slippery values. But the truth is getting out there.

“'Nice' can’t confront this world’s sources of pain. Niceness makes people agreeable, not good. Somehow we have mistaken niceness for righteousness,” maintains Coughlin. American men, of course, need to toughen up for the challenges ahead. They need to stop “making nice” with Martini Marxists."

Sir Elton - Poster "Boy" for Anti-Religion

Its human nature: Smokers do it...alcoholics and addicts do it...gays do it... perverts do it... abortionists do it... thieves do it... Islamo-fascists and their sympathizers do it...illegal aliens and those who benefit from their law-breaking do it. When they tire of hearing that their behavior is wrong, they attempt to eliminate the source of the standard that constrains their behavior.

Sir Elton John is defending his Royal Gayness with a call to ban all religion. You can substitute any of the above-listed destructive predispositions for "gay" and end up with the same hope on the part of the lover of absolute libertarian behavior. You can substitute "law" or "ethics" for "religion" to refer to any standard that is inconveniently constraining.

I've actually heard a smoker defend her addiction by denying the validity of the studies that say smoking causes cancer. She rationalizes that if the same intensity of study were applied to stringbeans that stringbeans will be found to cause cancer, too. Addictions, habits, and predispositions, whether perverted or not, can be mind-bending, indeed.

So much so that a self-rationalization mechanism kicks in creating a Napolean complex that demands the outrageous. Case in point: Gay Sir Elton's defence of his behavior demands a ban on all religion as reported by Matt Drudge:

Sir Elton John wants religion banned completely -- because he believes it promotes hatred of gays. Speaking to the Observer Music Monthly Magazine the singer said religion lacked compassion and turned people into "hateful lemmings". The PRESS ASSOCIATION reports: In a candid interview for a dedicated Gay issue of the magazine he shared his views on topics as varied as being a pop icon to Tony Blair's stance on the war in Iraq. He said there was a lack of religious leadership, particularly in world politics, and complained that people do not take to the streets to protest any more. Sir Elton said: "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays." But there are so many people I know who are gay and love their religion. From my point of view I would ban religion completely." Organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into really hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate."

Yes, Sir Elton, and our standards against murder and rape cause people to have a problem with murderers and rapists. How awful of us. How "lemming" of us. Sir Elton, why don't you just thank your "God of no standards" that you don't have aids...yet...and that you're not burdened with the "hassle" of procreation.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

They Got the Wrong Guys!

But, hey, they're implementing President Bush's "Open Borders" policy.

So, there are these two border patrol guys near the Mexican border...they spot a couple of known drug smugglers; they attempt to apprehend them - they resist - the border patrol guys shoot one in the buttocks. Ouch!

So, there is this prosecutor who is trying to make President Bush happy by making an example of the border patrol guys. The audacity of them trying to stop illegal alien drug smugglers! So this dutiful prosecutor offers the buttocks-challenged drug smuggler immunity if he testifies against the border patrol guys. Hey, if you were an illegal alien drug smuggler, what would you do? "Somebody's got to do it" the smuggler thought to himself. Offer accepted. The result? Border patrol guys were sentenced 11 and 12 years in jail. Sore butt goes back to doing what he does best -being a drug smuggling illegal alien.

And so, in response to receiving a little criticism from the American public (well, OK, a lot), the prosecutor holds a news conference where he proclaims, "We are a nation of laws" at which time I vomit all over my TV set.

Is there something wrong with this picture? This is just too insane/inane for me to comprehend.

This chain of events reflects the priorities of our current presidency - open borders at any price - this will teach the damned, over-diligent border patrol agents a lesson. Viva la corruptionne. Viva la screw the laws of these nationee.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Know Your Enemy - The President Doesn't

After reading a portion of the transcript of a recent White House speech given by our President, I couldn't resist writing him to tell him what I thought. Click the title for the context.

Here it is...

Dear Mr. President:

I have read the following transcript of a talk you recently gave:

"Islam is a religion that brings hope and comfort to more than a billion people around the world. It has transcended racial and ethnic divisions. It has given birth to a rich culture of learning and literature and science... ...Ramadan is the holiest month in the Muslim calendar. For Muslims in America and around the world, Ramadan is a special time of prayer and fasting, contemplation of God's greatness, and charity and service to those in need. And for people of all faiths, it is a good time to reflect on the values we hold in common, including love of family, gratitude to God, the importance of community, and a commitment to tolerance and religious freedom." Link to White House press release of transcript of Iftaar dinner at the White House

Mr. President, with all due respect, you must be kidding. Your words are contributing to the confusion of a nation.

If what you said is true, then...
  • Why is Islam known for such extreme violence?
  • Why does Islamic violence increase during Ramadan, their "holiest month"?
  • Why are Islamic women denied their human rights?
  • Why is Islam known to be the most intolerant religion on the planet?
  • Why does a central point of Islamic theology require forced conversions?
  • Why are the majority of teachers of Islam teaching conquest and Sharia law?
  • Why is this nation spending billions of dollars defending against the Islamo-fascist threat?
The better question is, why are you pandering to such a religion? Are you hoping your kind, but erroneous words will change their theology?

The concept of "Moderate Islam" is a hopeful, but self-deluding myth. Your statements reflect a head-in-the-sand understanding of today's Islam. Or at best, reflect the state of Islam 50 years ago. Islam is going through a reformation - a return to their theological roots. These roots are vested in violence and conquest. The Muslims who may be "moderate" based on our Christian world view are in a reformist-Islam intimidated minority. Few speak out against their violent mainstream counterparts.

We will experience success when we know our enemy. You do not speak as if you know our enemy. God help us.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Back Surgery: Don't Leave Home Without It

It began within months of taking Vytorin for high cholesterol. The "muscle pain" in the buttocks and leg increased over the weeks. I finally went to my cardiologist and asked "what's up with this statin (which is what Vytorin is)...I heard it causes muscle pain and it could be serious and the warnings say I should see my doctor and I'm having muscle pain and here I am, doc." So he took me off of Vytorin. My imagination told me the pain went away over the following weeks...but in fact it was still there and a little worse.

The primary symptoms included soreness and tingling in my theigh, and occasionally, when standing for more than a few minutes, a numbness all the way down my leg, and a loss of feeling. I went to my GP a few months later who immediately guessed "spinal stenosis", a narrowing of the passage in the vertibrae where the nerves pass through. Click on the title of this blog for a web site that describes spinal stenosis.

After a series of x-rays and an MRI, the diagnosis was confirmed. There was indeed a narrowing in the lumbar that was pinching the nerves that run into the butt and leg. A myelogram (a dye-sensing x-ray) was then prescribed and I was referred to a neurosurgeon for further evaluation. Based on the myelogram, he noted a total constriction of fluid between L-2 and L-3 and scheduled surgery. The surgery occurred last Tuesday, six days ago. Its name: laminectomy. It involved the removal of some of the material between two vertibrae, and drilling away some of one vertibra to expand the opening to allow a bit more room for the nerves. The surgery took about an hour. This procedure is described here:

The surgery began at around 1pm and I was in my hospital room by 3pm. I was up walking a bit later that evening. The next day I walked the halls for an hour or two which later led to a discovery that I had muscles I didn't know I had. It's amazing how we substitute the use of one set of muscles for another - which I did. The doc checked me out that afternoon (Wednesday) and I was home by 6pm.

I've been able to perform a bit more unencumbered activity each day... the leg pain is gone, and I've noted a slight daily reduction in back pain at the site of the incision. The doctor and the literature state that this procedure will not reduce pain from arthritis, which is typically also a part of the condition. I am advised not to drive for another week. I expect to be back at work (primarily a desk job) next week. Clarinet practice can begin in two weeks; tennis in a month.

My advice to others who exhibit similar symptoms: Have it checked out...follow through. At this point, the juice seems to be worth the squeeze. It will be interesting to see how many years it takes for the symptoms to return, which I am promised they will. One of my nuggets of wisdom: Everything is temporary. By the way, in case my comments about Vytorin (or statins in general) lead you to believe this was the cause, I can assure you it had nothing to do with my stenosis. Stenosis is a clearly observable physical condition.

Oh, one other thing: If you go for it, please have good medical insurance or lots of money.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Geneva Convention - My Letter to John McCain

I do not understand your position on the Geneva convention. I can see the value when nations engaged in war agree to the terms. But when we are fighting not a nation, but terrorists who are fighting assymetrical warfare and live a totally different standard of morality, the terms of the Geneva convention have no value. If our enemy does not abide by such rules, why should we.

My concern is for the future of this nation. If we fail to adapt to terms of battle established by our enemy, we lose. The analogy is the way the British fought in our revolution - strict rules of battle - the fledgling American fighters were probably thought of as fighting unfair - the British insisted on lining up in nice straight rows with their music playing... we know the outcome. We are doing the equivalent in our battle against Islamo fascists. I sense your thinking is warped by your experience as a POW. Not all sides play "fair". "Fair" is what is agreed to by both sides. We can agree to play by the terms of the Islamo Fascists...that would indeed become "fair." Please don't milquetoast us into oblivion with your soft, "proper" etiquette.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Islam: Religion of Perpetual Outrage

It is proven again that Islam deserves the title of "Religion of Perpetual Outrage."

I am not Catholic...but I wholeheartedly support the Pope's comments...and his refusal to apologize for them.

What did the Pope say to garner the rage of the Islamic world? Here it is, as the Pope quotes from a centuries old book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam:

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war. He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

That was it. The Pope was speaking for tolerance - for accepting one another's faith. He correctly observed that the teaching of Mohammad is the opposite - no tolerance - in fact it is a teaching that good Muslims must force others to the Islamic religion by the sword - by force - by the consequence of Dhimmitude or death.

And once again Muslims - as shown by their rage at the Pope's words - are proving themselves to be the most INtolerant group of people on the face of the planet. At the same time, many of us in the US and Europe feel we have to cringe and apologize on behalf of the Pope when he speaks the truth. Why do we feel we need to be silent and submissive out of fear of the perpetual outrage of Muslims? Is this attitude because we just don't care - that we have so little faith and belief in anything anymore ourselves - so little that our easiest course is to be silent about the practices of a world religion seeking to dominate nations and individuals through terror and intimidation? If this be the case, woe to the next generation - they have little hope of sustained freedom. Woe to this nation - she has little hope in salvaging her heritage.

The Pope has it right. And its about time someone of his stature spoke out.

Michelle Malkin honored Oriana Fallaci, an outspoken critic of Islam, upon her death by quoting her here Her writings demonstrate her passion and her fears of the worlds response to Islam's fanatical aggression. She is worth reading and understanding and sharing with others.

Friday, June 02, 2006

"Core Values Training": Reqired of wrong group

While our troops in Iraq get blown up, shot up and decapitated by the vilest amoral bunch of dogs to roam the earth, we are requiring them all to go through "core values training", which is the military equivalent of anger management training in civilian life. We want them to be sensitive to the culture of those they are fighting.

What is that culture again? The culture that values decapitating those who show cartoons of Muhammad, the leader of the "religion of peace" (gag). The culture that removes freedom of speech and other rights from anyone who practices a different faith from their own. The culture that becomes absolutely psychotic if they are offended in any way. We want to make our troops sensitive to these behaviors? Wow!

Expectations of our society don't seem to match the realities of this war and our enemy.

I deplore killing babies (if, in fact, our soldiers did that), unlike the values of the enemy they are fighting. I deplore the senseless killing of "innocents" (if, in fact, our soldiers did that), unlike the values of the enemy they are fighting.

Core values training. I think our President and Congress could use some "core values training" to remind them of the core values of our own culture. How about our core value of not killing our own babies through the unmitigated practice of abortion? How about our core value of enforcing our own laws and not letting them be ignored for the sake of cheap labor and enhanced corporate profits? How about our core value of respecting our culture and our own heritage and not letting who we are get diluted by rampant, cultural diversity that places a higher value on illegal aliens than on our own citizens?

I think "Core Values Training" for our leaders in Washington should be a much higher priority than Core Values Training for our troops in Iraq.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

I Am So Mistaken - Nation of Laws: NOT

Our US Congress' dumbfounding reaction to the FBI's legal search and seizure of evidence from William Jefferson's office reveals a fatal flaw in my previous posts: I'm understanding now that we are not really a nation of laws. I claimed we were. I thought we were. But there is just too much evidence piling up that proves the contrary. My beliefs are based on an out-dated and wishful notion of our country's ethical standards.

The congressional call to return this evidence in the name of "separation of powers", along with the Senate's stupifying amnesty legislation leads me to these conclusions:

  • Congress does not give a damn about laws or the enforcement thereof
  • They are concerned more about their own welfare
  • As an institution, they are self-serving to the detriment of this nation

One of my pet peeves at any level of government is the establishment of laws for appearances sake, to satiate the complainers, with no resources or real intention to enforce the laws. To me, that is not just politics and "political correctness", but simple dishonesty and fraud.

This congressional call to defend their fellow criminal in the name of "separation of powers" reveals to me why these same self-serving SOBs (save our butts) don't care about enforcing our current immigration laws. There is too much in it for them. There's too many corporate contributions to be had. The laws be damned.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

The Immigration Speech - Why I Believe the President Has Lost His Credibility

...the little he has left.

  • This is the first time he has clearly, publicly articulated "amnesty": making a way for the illegals to become legal with little disruption to their flagrant disrespectful methods of being here.
  • This will encourage still additional thronging hoards yearning to be anarchists storming our borders and violating our laws.
  • He demonstrated he acknowledges there has been a problem; we all know it has built up over the past 6, 10, 20 years.
  • The first six years he could have done something about it but didn't. Why? He doesn't believe in doing anything about it. And he still doesn't.
  • We know his heart is not in doing this; it is in producing cheap labor "for the jobs Americans won't do." I don't believe that, either.
  • Therefore his actions are disingenuous, with no real intention of following through with a long term program.
  • He, like many others, portrays this issue in black/white terms: amnesty or mass deportation. Sure, amnesty is kinder and gentler than deportation and we're really not able to deport 12 million people (especially since we don't really want to). How much of a freakin red herring is THAT! We couldn't (didn't want to) keep them out. We don't even know who they are to kick them out (if we wanted to).
  • He ignored the "middle ground: Attrition. Attrition is achieved by not rewarding the illegals with free education and health care and tax-free jobs. Many will trickle away. You wouldn't believe how much of our resources and taxpayer dollars are spent on these free services, plus the law enforcement problem from their law-breaking predisposition.

And yes, we do need private sector cooperation. It's the private sector that is hiring them and encouraging them to be here. Businesses need to be a part of the solution by exercising some responsibility for becoming a major part of the problem. A "tamper-proof" card system is part of the solution to assure businesses can rely on knowing who they hire. But I'm just waiting for the ACLU or equivalent complaining about the dehumanizing, discriminating aspects of having a card. They conveniently forget that we needed social security cards to get a job, but most of us didn't consider forging them.

Too little, too late, and too transparent (translated "disingenuous"). This is not the kind of transparancy in government we need.

A Spirit of "No Can Do"

China. This is rough terrain, okay. And they didn't have tractors or bulldozers. They did it with sweat and blood. Oh and the weather, not blistering hot but bone chillingly cold (high winds and heavy snow). And the length: 3,946 miles. Built during the 14th century. They built this wall for defensive purposes, and you know what? IT WORKED!!
Contrast the United States. The US/Mexico border is only about 1,400 miles long. We need to build a wall for "defensive" purposes, too. And you know what? IT WILL WORK. We won't keep everyone out, but we will stop the great majority. Let's say 10% make it over. 100,000 is a lot better than 1 million. But we hear excuses: It won't keep everyone out so don't do it, they say. From our President and from our Senate, both Republicans and Democrats. I'm surprised we have the political will to get up in the morning. What is driving our political stupor? Oh, I remember. Greed!

Friday, May 12, 2006

Let's All Support the "Illegal People"

Yes...let's open up all our jails and close our court rooms and lay off our police departments and what little there is of our border patrol in support of the "illegal people" of this nation.

The following is a news story from the Transylvania Times in Brevard, NC:

Locals Attend Immigration March In Asheville

On MondayJuan Martinez closed his restaurant, Cielito Lindo, pulled his children out of school and gathered his employees on Monday to join the thousands of people marching for immigration support in Asheville. “We closed because we want to support the illegal people and Hispanic population,” said Martinez, a legal immigrant who came to the states from Mexico City in the 1980s. “I wanted to show support and help change the laws in Congress. They need to change,” he said. Martinez estimates he lost $3,000 in sales at his Brevard restaurant. But he said it was worth it to support immigrants, both in the United States and across the borders.

Even in little Brevard, NC.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Why Do We Do the Things We Do

We rented a movie the other night - "The Family Stone" Actually my two daughters and step daughter rented it. It's rated PG-13, so most people would not find it offensive.

I did, of course. I'm a prude. I'm old fashioned. The review on the above link doesn't sound bad at all - "love" ties up all the loose ends for the dysfunctional family Stone.

I didn't watch it all the way through. I rebelled. Here's the problem I had with it. It focused on a dysfunctional family - two sexually disoriented men, a couple of selfish egotists, and a couple of other generally confused people. With a personality deficit disorder prevalent in most of the characters throughout the movie, any coming together in the name of "love" at the end must certainly be a fleeting event. The point is that the movie focused on really screwed up people. Maybe that makes those of us who feel similarly depraved feel better about ourselves - as in stupidity loves company - or is that misery loves company.

Why do people spend so much time soaking up violence, bad behavior, and downright destructive action and attitudes in our "entertainment?" Aren't there enough real life problems and counterproductive influences in life without deliberately immersing ourselves in it? It's not like we have to endure it because we have no choice. We actually pay for and spend hours of our valuable time offering up ourselves to have this crap pumped into our brains.

The same weirdness applies to some of the addictive habits we have. Smoking, for example. The facts are clear. Smoking gives people lung cancer. It stinks on people. It gives them yellow teeth. It's addictive. My brother and mom died from diseases caused by smoking. Yet "intelligent" people still smoke. Why? Do they have a death wish? Do they turn off parts of their brain that house most of their intelligence when they decide to light up? What causes them to "feel good" about smoking? And alcohol abuse and drug use - that's a whole different dimension.

If I dare suggest smoking is not good for them and encourage them to quit, of course they will point out that I eat too many brownies and oreos. Ooops. They got me there. Can't argue with reason. Although I do maintain the secret little thought that my habit is neither as anal or as harmful as smoking.

We don't realize how true the digital adage "Garbage in - garbage out" really is in all that we expose ourselves to.

Dysfunctional behaviors, dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional entertainment have become the norm. I am trying to be an oddity. My goal is to be labeled "odd" in the eyes of the dysfunctional of the world. I occasionally hear comments that convince me that I am succeeding. Yesss!

I have experienced and created my share of dysfunction during periods of my life, and frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of it.

It is difficult to understand the processes that lead up to the actual point that inappropriate decisions are made. But I will speculate - and I believe this is true - that all of the influences in our life, from the time we are little children, through the hundreds of hours of interacting with other people (most of whom we choose to interact with), the hundreds of hours we expose ourselves to various forms of entertainment (all of which we choose to expose ourselves to), and the hundreds of hours that we direct our minds to unproductive or destructively inappropriate thoughts (despite the fact that we can control these thoughts) - all of these things together form the path that we take. We have control over all these things that influence, consciously or not, the decisions we make. We can control how we react to our hormones. We can separate ourselves from destructive or negative people. Do we take advantage of the control that we do have to "do the right thing?" Sadly, much of the time we do not.

There is no greater truth than this verse from the Bible:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Philippians 4:8

Selfishness is not pure or lovely. Destructive habits are not virtuous. Spending our time being entertained by dysfunctional lifestyles is not of good report. There is no virtue in these things.

The truth in this Scripture can help us avoid selfish, perverse, degenerate, painful and destructive actions and attitudes. We cannot change the past. We have the ability to focus on the good and virtuous with each decision we make from this moment forward. Long live my disdain for The Color Purple and The Family Stone - despite the fact that our society says they are fine for 13 year olds!

Extremist Habits of the Media

They act like two-year olds...or psychotic adults who see everything in extremes of black and white - they distort to sensationalize. Many are "drama queens". They do this to increase readership at the expense of reality, truth, and reason. They have their audience, and unfortunately, I am part of it.

I am speaking of the media - both liberal and conservative. Here is a typical example from a site I frequent, though I have to admit its blatant sensationalist exaggerated reporting is getting on my nerves...

The headline reads "Church Damns da Vinci" with a closeup photo of burning books. The reality: The "church" did not "damn" anyone. And the chuch is not burning books. CNN, FOX, CBS - they all do this... Drudge is a somewhat more blatant.

This may be my turning point away from the sensationalizing liars.

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

It's Not Like They're Common Criminals - Ya, riiiight...

How often do we hear this line of (screwed up) reasoning regarding the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country: “Let the ones who are already here stay. Don’t deport them. It’s not like they’re common criminals. Don’t treat them like criminals.” Even our President believes this! (Click the title for his true feelings.)

Oh no? Then what are they? Law abiding citizens?

Will the average American citizen be let off of the hook for committing these comparable “petty offences”? (don’t dare call them crimes)

  • Document forgery
  • Driving without a license
  • Breaking and entering
  • Criminal trespass
  • No work permit
  • Income tax evasion
    …and dozens more – you get the point

And this doesn't begin to touch on the other “offences” that these poor, innocent, “immigrants”, just trying to make a buck, commit. Come to think of it, if they are willing to commit all the above offences, what level of conscience or propriety would get in the way of their lovable, petty crime wave expanding to even greener pastures. See the links, below:

Hey, let’s treat American citizens with the same lack of regard for our laws and legal system as some are proposing to apply to illegal aliens. That should prove interesting! Yes, Mr. President, just treat the well-meaning illegals like you would average Jo Citizen.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Sustainability - Alien To Our Immigration Policy

In my planning profession, we have a concept called "sustainability." Growth needs to be "sustainable" to be healthy growth. Otherwise, growth more closely resembles a rampant cancer, eventually killing its host. Successful communities plan and manage their growth to avoid this condition. Some communities may be desperate for "growth at any price" or promote "growth for growth's sake" as their highest priority. This kind of growth is not sustainable - its benefits are short-lived. In the long run, severe economic and social problems are assured.

Our immigration policies and lack of enforcement of our immigration laws result in the same cancerous, out-of-control growth. We have the short-terms benefits of cheaper labor...but at what longer term cost.

Looking back to the pre-depression years of the 1920's, this nation also had liberal immigration policies to facilitatae cheap labor. Then came the great depression, and the years following when we suffered through national unemployment rates of 20 to 30%. There was a backlash not only against non-citizens, but against recent legal immigrants. Many hundreds of thousands were deported back to Mexico as a reaction to the unemployment rate of US citizens. The rate of immigration was not sustainable through the inevitable ups and downs of our economy. Citizens required their government to take the painful action of massive deportation to correct our previous unsustainable actions. That "repatriation" program was not an act of an ill-intentioned or evil government. It was a mandate from the American people!

This graph shows the number of new immigrants in the period from 1900 to 2005. Note the peak in the period 1910 to 1920. The came the depression in the 30's. I wonder what role the unsustainable numbers of immigrants might have had in precipitating our "great depression?". The numbers declined in the following decades. But we didn't learn our lesson as the numbers of immigrants begins it's cancerous rise in the 70's to the present at an increasing rate.

This link provides the current numbers of new illegal immigrants entering this nation each year: 3.7 million. This is far, far from sustainable immigration growth, even if they were legal, which they are not. Those who promote legalizing this number of existing illegal aliens are looking for disaster! The "bleeding hearts" who insist on opening our borders and ignore reasonable immigration limits are clueless to the disaster they our courting via their unsustainable policies. Even if the majority of illegals wanted to be assimilated (which they don't) current numbers do not allow for assimilation. We will end up, not with a melting pot, but with a balkinization that will perpetuate social conflict for generations to come. That does not translate to sustainability.

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Immigration and the Catholic Church

This links to a letter from a Bishop of a Catholic archdiocese in the Florida Panhandle. The Bishop urges his parishioners not to be concerned about immigration law. The Bishop is a great and well-respected man in his field. I believe his error is in being out of his field in this letter. I quote his letter below and provide my reaction to a number of his erroneous, patronizing, condescending, or otherwise outrageous remarks in [brackets] in blue:

"My Dear Friends in Christ,

We celebrate today the resurrection of our Savior, Jesus Christ who laid down his life out of love and compassion for the human family. As followers of Christ, who are called to build a world based on justice and love, [read on to see his convoluted use of the word "justice"] I call to your attention today the plight of the immigrants in our midst. [The immigrants don't have the plight; the illegal aliens do. The Bishop fails to recognize this essential difference. A thief has a "plight", the honest person does not. The Bishop needs to get histerminologyy correct before he can realize that he is proposing to reward bad behavior.]

Today in our country and our state [Florida], we are facing the reality of some 11-12 million people living in our country without proper legal status. ["without proper legal status" is a softball phrase for "illegal aliens disrespecting and ignoring the laws of this nation."] Many people of good will analyze this situation merely from a legalistic ethic [meaning "we are too law abiding for our own good"] if people do not have legal status they should not be here. [This is true, isn't it? Why is he having difficulty understanding this simple concept?]

The Church has always taught respect for the law [the Catholic Church in California obviously does not hold this basic Christian and American tenet - see this site: ] , and honors the sovereign right of countries to protect their borders, but the Church has also taught that we have a moral obligation to work to change unjust laws [I've asked him to explain what is unjust about our immigration laws, aside from the fact that they are not being enforced] and to have the faith to protect ourselves without closing our doors to the needy in our world. [There is a big difference between opening our doors to a limited number of "huddled masses yearning to be free" and a "thronging hoard of protesters demanding rights they have not earned and to which they are not entitled!"] In keeping with the teaching of the last judgment (Matthew 25:1-46), we judge the morality of a nationĂ‚’s laws by how they treat the least among us, including by whether or not we welcome the strangers among us. [True - but don't we have a right to distinguish between those who disregard our laws athosehos who respect them? Where is the "justice?"]

The current immigration system is profoundly broken, separates families and facilitates exploitation. [What's broken about our immigration system is the lack of enforcement! The "separation familiesies and exploitation" is caused by those who choose to enter this country illegally. Don't blame enforcement, Bishop. You seem to have things a bit backwards.]

The Church knows this from our daily pastoral experience. We minister to people defrauded or cheated by people who know the workers cannot complain to authorities. [Wow. Isn't it a rather universal fear of lawbreakers to complain to authorities?] We work with families where spouses are separated for as much as ten years, while they await the legal process to get a green card. We work with honors students who have lived here most of their lives but who have no future after high school, because they do not have proper documents. [This is what I appreciate about the clearly teaches the need for personal responsibility, obedience to laws, and the concept of consequences for our actions. Doesn't it seem right and just that those who tap dance around, flaunt, and ourright ignore the laws of a nation they have no right to be in that there may be some unpleasant consequences?] In the worst cases, we see the human trafficking that occurs when smugglers can make great profit doing what the law does not allow poor people to do easily: to migrate in order to help feed their families. [Would it be more just and fair if only wealthy illegals were smuggled in?] We know the fear, violence, and victimization that occur in a system in which legal avenues are not available for matching willing workers to willing employers for many of Florida's key industries. [Sounds like drug trafficking - if there is a willing seller and willing buyer, who cares what the law allows or prohibits! Hello - it's illegal! And yes, there is a reason for limits: It is destructive to our nation to have unassimilatable numbers of people from any nation.]

I ask all Catholics in our diocese to become informed about the moral imperative for just and
comprehensive immigration reform. [I would suggest the Bishop is uninformed. He needs American history and government lessons.] I urge all people of good will to put aside the myths and misinformation that keep us from hearing our brother and sister immigrants cries for justice. [Here is that misused "justice" word again. "Cries for justice" would mean deportation with a fine."] Please refer to the diocesan website at and click on the reference to immigration reform which examines economic, social and political and references the texts of Scripture and Catholic social teaching that call each of us to action.

I pray that you and your families will enjoy the blessings of Easter and I am grateful to you for
the opportunity to bring this to your kind attention.

Sincerely in Christ,
Most Reverend John H. Ricard, SSJ
Bishop of Pensacola-Tallahassee

My reply to the Bishop is provided below:

Bishop Picard:

I am writing in response to your letter concerning immigration reform. You asked us to become informed about "the moral imperative for just and comprehensive immigration reform." You referred to the "11-12 million people living in our country without proper legal status..." and urged "all people of goodwill to put aside the myths and misinformation that keeps us from hearing our brother and sister immigrants' cries for justice."

There are some crucial aspects of the illegal alien issue that are being confused or misrepresented in your letter and on your web site.

First, your reference to the word "justice" is confusing. "Justice." Isn't that a term of law? I haven't heard cries for justice" from illegal aliens. Justice means paying the consequences for breaking a law. If the illegal aliens were crying for justice they would be asking for the penalty of the laws they are breaking to be imposed on them and that would be deportation. I trust that is not what you meant. Consequently, what you are suggesting by the term justice in this context is misleading and confusing.

The major theme of your letter and the website is "Justice for Immigrants." This infers that our current immigration laws are unjust. On what basis do you make that claim? How are they unjust? Are you advocating ignoring or violating the law because you feel it is unjust? There are millions of other American citizens who believe these laws are just and necessary. And we have a two-hundred year old process in place for amending our laws if they need to be changed. We don't simply ignore and violate them! I was appalled to hear the Cardinal in California urge his Priests and Bishops to rebel against (disobey) any law that sought to bring order to our "out of control" immigration policies. That should make any Christian cringe!

This nation did not impose an improper legal status on the illegal aliens. They imposed it on themselves as a result of the own actions. They chose to do what they did, and expended a great deal of energy doing it. It was no accident on their part. How does that make the citizens of this nation "unjust.?"

Second, as a grandson of four immigrants who came to this country legally and with an enthusiastic desire to obey the laws of the land and to assimilate into the culture of this nation, I take offense at lumping "illegal aliens" in the same category as "immigrants." The term "immigrant", by definition, presumes that they are legal and abide by all laws that establish their immigrant status. I sincerely caution you to not discount these distinctions. They are essential. Your web site and your letter disingenuously ignore the crucially important distinction between "illegal alien" (which the 11 to 12 million people are) and "immigrants", which the 11 to 12 million ARE NOT.

This distinction is no small matter. It is dangerous to trivialize the law, fostering disrespect for the law which ultimately brings anarchy and chaos. I take exception to being labeled "legalistic" just because I believe in respecting and obeying the law. And yes, I do expect others to obey the law. We are a nation of laws. Your article sounds as though you take the "rule of law", which is the basis of our successful self-governance in this nation, lightly. Please do not dismiss the importance of this aspect of our culture.

I reviewed your web site and could not find the scriptural references your letter mentioned. However, what I do remember from my own studies is that Jesus taught us to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and gave his life to fulfill the law. His disciples and Paul urged others to be obedient to their government and all its laws. I don't mean to emphasize one aspect of scripture over another - immigration policy is not a simple matter of law versus grace. But the law should not be dismissed as offhandedly as you appear to do.

And finally, there appears to be a world of difference between the attitudes of most of the illegal aliens and the immigrants of the previous 200 years. The facts appear to point out these differences, overall, and I know there are exceptions:

  • Illegal aliens are lawbreakers; the immigrants were law abiders
  • Illegal aliens are resisting assimilation; the immigrants desired assimilation
  • Illegal aliens are demanding the rights of citizenship; the immigrants earned the rights of citizenship
  • Illegal aliens are demanding that this nation adapt to their language; the immigrants learned English
  • Illegal aliens are overwhelming our social services infrastructure; immigrants contributed toward it
  • Illegal aliens are doing all the things that gain the disrespect of citizens (ignoring laws, demanding rights that they have not earned); immigrants worked hard to gain respect

Neither the church nor this nation should become the enabler and encourager of civil disobedience and presumptious demands that are widely being demonstrated by the illegal aliens and their sympathizers. Rewarding bad behavior is a bad idea. Our borders need to be respected through effective enforcement measures, both at the border and through appropriate disincentives for those employers who hire illegals. Only then will effective immigration reform have any impact. Perhaps the church could do more to provide resources and ethics training to the citizens of Mexico (the ethics part they sorely based on my understanding of the rampant corruption in Mexico), and English training in this country to facilitate assimilation.

We need immigration reform. But we cannot confuse "reform" with lack of enforcement, with "open borders" and with destabilizingly high immigration limits that make meaningful assimilation nearly impossible. As liberal as our nation has become with regard to tolerating just about anything, there remains a passion for equity and justice. If we are expected to abide by the laws of the land, we expect others to do the same. If our grandparents were expected to abide by the immigration laws of the land, we expect the illegal aliens to do the same. There is a visceral, righteous, and justified indignation when this does not happen.



The State of Georgia has taken the initiative - see this link:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

A Great "Immigration Facts and Action" Web Site

I've reviewed the content and sources of the "NumbersUSA" website. It appears well-reasoned, sound, and very pointedly concludes this nation is headed in a very wrong direction.

Please take a few moments to scan the site and learn of the coming changes in this nation's culture, economy, and quality of life. I don't have much to worry about. But my daughters and grandchildren certainly do!

A good summary analysis from this website follows:

"In Congress, there now is a serious debate about whether the nation should even try to enforce its immigration laws. The debate is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination."

This is a radical and depressing option - one that is 180 degrees opposed to what made this a great nation.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

TO: President & Congress; RE: Illegal immigration

As a citizen of the United States, and as the grandson of LEGAL immigrants, I appeal to you to respect our nation’s borders, heritage, culture, and laws by doing the following with all due haste:

  • Deport all illegal aliens (proactively enforce existing legislation or pass additional legislation, if necessary)
  • Prosecute any individual, institution, or business that harbors illegal aliens
  • Pass legislation that makes English the official language of this nation
  • Secure our borders by whatever means that will be effective whether via fences, walls, technology, or personnel, military or otherwise
  • Ignore the corporate greed that drives this nations lust for cheap labor over the rule of law and security of our borders.
  • Devote the fiscal resources necessary to accomplish these things.
I consider the current, abhorant immigration policies of this nation a personal affront to the integrity, diligence, and patriotism of my ancestors. It makes a mockery of our laws and threatens our nation's survival.

I voted republican in the past two elections. I will not hesitate to vote for whichever individuals will aggressively pursue this agenda and I will join forces and expend resources to encourage others to do the same.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Wakeup Call - Cheap Labor Part III

Will images like this make you more or less likely to support the President’s proposed “Guest Worker” (amnesty) program?
Will images like this make Congress more or less likely to pass the President’s proposed “Guest Worker” (cheap labor at any price) program.

What if you also understood that a great number of these people, if not the majority, are in this country illegally? Further, what if you knew that a great number of them, if not the majority, have their allegience more with our "neighbor" (as corrupt as it may be) to the south more than to the country that allows them the privledge to demonstrate?
See also Scroll down to the heading there titled “WELCOME TO RECONQUISTA” The message is clear that many thousands of these people believe the southwestern United States still belongs to Mexico and they intend to make it so.

Call me “old fashion”, but I would consider this to be quite distastefully similar to a group of whatever nationality coming into my living room without invitation, in fact, after breaking in, and making demands of me and my family.

Why should this be tolerated? Why shouldn't every one of these lawbreakers be deported to where they came from?

We know the answer, don't we. There are a things held in higher esteem by our nation than our laws. Corporate greed for cheap labor, our collective aversion to performing our own labor, and our lust for cheap consumer goods all are held in higher esteem than our laws.

For the past two years I ranted and warned about the dangers of the growing influence of Islam and its facist tendencies. These demonstrations by these illegals and their sympathizers deserve as much attention because they pose an equal threat to our nation's stability.

What poses an even greater threat to the nation is the very idea that we are no longer a nation of laws and we no longer pride ourselves as a nation worthy of preserving and defending. Even the Catholic Church is in the act - they are a proponent of ignoring our laws. Cardinal Roger Mahoney is directing his Bishops and Priests to shelter all immigrants, both legal and illegal. He is urging that our immigration laws be ignored in the name of Christianity. The last I read the Bible, Jesus would do no such thing. In fact, Christians are urged to abide by the laws of the land. See this site for an excellent discussion of the ideocy of the Catholic leaders in promoting this insurrection.

Lou Dobbs of CNN has an enlightened understanding of the issue in the following article titled "U.S. policy on immigration is a tragic joke" at this site

He concludes by affirming that "Reform begins with the truth. And our elected officials must begin to recognize the reality that a war on terror and war on drugs can be won only by securing our borders and that any reform of our immigration policies must begin first at the front line of the crisis: our border with Mexico."

I'll end this with an admonition spoken by a former president:

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

--Theodore Roosevelt, 1919

A nation that loses respect for its laws... a nation that loses respect for its culture and has no control over its borders, and allows its' infiltrators to run rampant in protest against their host nation is in fact a nation in deep trouble. We have lost control of ourselves. We are more and more a nation divided. How long will it stand?

Thursday, February 23, 2006

The Real National Policy - "Greed"

A guest on the Laura Ingraham show this morning defended the Administration's UAE ports management deal on the basis of an overarching federal policy that is at the heart of the matter.

Why would the President suggest this morning, in response to the warranted uproar of concern about national security, that "people don't need to worry about security?" Is it because another federal policy takes precedence over national security?

What is that "other" policy? As this guest explained, it is the economic vitality of this nation. It is the material wealth of this nation we are concerned with. And he was sincerely matter of fact when he was saying this. He explained that we are part of a global, multi-national economy. We are a trading partner - a trade zone. We have to reach out and be a part of all of it to remain competitive and successful. And the ports deal is a part of it. While the above is not a direct quote, that is the essence of his message.

That "policy" statement explains our lax immigration policy as well.

While I enjoy prosperity and a successful economy as much as the next guy, these policies verge on greed at the expense of security. I think of Pooh Bear getting his hand stuck in the hollow of the tree, not wanting to let go of the honey, while the bees have a field day with the rest of his hairy bear body. Trouble is, our hairy bodies may get blown up, not just stung.

The business interests in this nation are huge and greedy. The President is not immune - he's bought into it. There are billions hinging on this deal. There will be a lot of excuse making by those special interests with the most to gain from "the deal."

"The deal" does not meet the straight-face test with regard to national security. But if we understand that our primary national policy is greed, then what this administration does will make more sense. I hope this helps those who were heretofore as befuddled as I.

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Spending tax dollars to rebuild Islamic Mosques

Something is very strange here. We can't spend federal dollars on places of worship unless it is to rebuild an Islamic Mosque? An Islamic mosque in Iraq is bombed by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our Ambassador and President promise? "We will help you rebuild it."

Numerous Baptist churches in the United States are torched by a bunch of satanic psycho radicals and what do our leaders promise? "No federal dollars can be spent on church-related matters."

Isn't there something a bit odd about this? Why is it OK to spend our money on the religions of others but not our own? Especially a religion as full of hate and murder as that one. Am I being Islamo-phobic? Am I fearful of rattlesnakes? Well, yeah.

Quote from tonight's news:

"U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings [of the Islamic Temple] a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction."

Why do they call it a "shrine?" To cover the fact that it is an Islamic Temple?

Before (if ever) there is one cent spent to rebuild the facilities of a religion who's proponents wish to dominate us, shouldn't we help our own? Oh, yes, we have "separation of church and state." But apparently that is only intended to limit us in our own country. When our taxes are used in a foreign country to buy someone off, anything goes.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Respecting Muslim Violence...

I hear calls from various corners of civilization, such as the Pope, to "respect" the Muslim religion - to refrain from publishing cartoons of Muhammad which, by the way, happen to be true and to the point.

Well, I certainly cannot respect a religion that teaches or encourages their adherants to act like psychotic lunatics with or without minimal provocation.

So, in celebration of my own views, I offer those of one who writes better than I:

I couldn't resist posting this entire commentary by dear "don't hold back" Ann Coulter...


February 15, 2006

The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.

After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.

The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem. So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."

What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint.

Where's the justice here? Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb? If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up! Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.

McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support." We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria. Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved?

Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!


Sunday, February 05, 2006

A sensitivity training quiz...

Which upsets Muslims most:

a) 9/11 in New York
b) 3/11 in Madrid
c) 7/7 in London
d) cartoons

Friday, January 27, 2006

Democracy Does Not Insure Sanity

One of the things I learned in school, I think it was 6th grade "civics", was that a democracy could be one and the same as "a tyranny of the majority." Palestines' recent democratic election points out that we need to be careful what we wish for. If we ignorantly wish for nations to become democracies so that they will miraculously become our allies, we are sorely mistaken.

Deomcratic Palestine is now run by Hamas, one of the most notorious Islamofacist terrorist organizations in the world. We are congratulating ourselves for achieving the beginnings of democracy in Iraq. What form of terrorist-loving government will that democracy create?

Don't you think we're missing something when we narrow mindedly promote democracy as the cure all to our problem of international relations? What are we missing?

Here are some thoughts:

  • Belief in a higher power and authority (beyond government) that defines and rewards universally accepted "good behavior" (yes, religion matters)
  • Love of personal freedom balanced by a strong sense of personal responsibility
  • Freedom of expression/press
  • Respect for law
  • Respect for the freedom of choice of others
  • Common vision and purpose among the people
There are infinite combinations and varieties of these "basics" of a civil nation. A "democracy" ain't one of them. I was reminded recently that Hitler rose and thrived in a democracy. That democracy certainly did not ensure sanity, either.

Tuesday, January 24, 2006

If We're At War Why Isn't It Treason?

Here is a little used provision of US law that needs to be dusted off and put to work:

"Whoever, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, levies war against them or ADHERES TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, is guilty of TREASON and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Many anti-American radical dissenters, in Congress and in the media, are costing our soldiers their lives and emboldening our enemies. The following article by Jack Kinsella from the Hal Lindsey website, linked above, explains why we cannot afford to continue to tolerate treason by our America-hating leaders and media:

In his first message in more than a year, Osama bin Laden made a return appearance on al-Jazeera to dictate what were, in effect, terms of surrender to the United States. Not Osama's surrender. AMERICA's surrender.

The CIA has since authenticated the voice on the tape as Osama bin Laden's and time references contained within the body of the message confirm that Osama was alive in mid-December when the tape was made and is probably still alive today. Intelligence authorities were examining why bin Laden would be speaking out after more than a year of letting his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, serve as al-Qaeda's public face in statements and other communications.

But it might not be a coincidence that the tape's release came days after a U.S. air strike in Pakistan that was targeting al-Zawahri, and reportedly killed four leading al-Qaeda figures, including al-Zawahri's son-in-law, and possibly, al-Zawahiri himself. There was no mention of the attack on the segments that were broadcast.

Osama refers to a comment by President Bush about bombing the Qatar headquarters of Al-Jazeera, which was first reported in the British press Nov. 22. He also refers indirectly to the July 7 bombings in London that killed 56 people and to poll numbers that showed a fall in Bush's popularity, as occurred in late 2005.

Last week, before the tape was released, experts were already pointing to warning signs of a coming attack, signs that terrorism expert Christopher Brown said fit a pattern that indicated an impending attack within the next thirty days. After bin-Laden's latest release hit the charts, former White House counter terrorism chief Richard Clarke noted; "The only new element in his statement is that they are planning an attack soon on the United States. Would he say that and risk being proved wrong, if he can't pull it off in a month or so?"

Osama opened his latest tirade by saying, "This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars." He went on, saying, "It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way."

Let's stop there for a second. Osama lives in a cave somewhere. His top deputies were just annihilated by Hellfire missiles while they sat at dinner in the home of a Pakistani supporter.
It takes him a month to smuggle an audiotape from his cave to al-Jazeera.

If he were foolish enough to use a cellphone to communicate, he would be dead before he hung up. He is the subject of the world's largest manhunt. Both Afghanistan and Iraq are now secular representative democracies and Osama thinks "those wars are definitely going [his] way?" Has he been hiding in a poppy field?

According to Osama, however, "what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq."

Hmmm. Sounds like the New York Times has picked up a new home subscriber. "We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land."

I wonder who told him that? Nancy Pelosi recently endorsed Rep. John Murtha's call for an immediate redeployment of US forces out of Iraq. Murtha, invariably identified in every report as a 'decorated war hero' was introduced by Pelosi as "one of the most recognized experts on defense in the country," just before he gave his speech declaring the war 'unwinnable'.

To read the New York Times, the LA Times, or any of the mainstream news media, for that matter, bin-Laden is right. America has lost the war, indeed, it was 'unwinnable' from the start. Moreover, says the leftist political/media machine, it was based on the lies of the American government.

In case we'd forgotten, (not that there is any danger of the mainstream media ALLOWING us to forget) bin-Laden crowed; "We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war."

It was nice of Osama to reassure his allies in the media and the political left that, while America might be run by back-stabbing liars, they can trust Osama -- he's above such tactics.
Seemingly quoting directly from the Democrats' 'talking points' memos, Osama told his audience, "I would like to tell you that everything is going to our advantage and the number of your dead is increasing, according to Pentagon figures."

Nothing like having the enemy quoting the Pentagon, American political leaders, and the American media as evidence that America is losing. And, unlike the White House, Osama has the real goods -- he has irrefutable evidence that he obtained from inside his cave; "Your president is misinterpreting public opinion polls which show that the vast majority of you support the withdrawal of your forces from Iraq." So clearly, America's only alternative is to surrender.

Noted the terrorist leader, from his cave somewhere in the mountains, "If your desire for peace, stability and reconciliation was true, here we have given you the answer to your call." The answer, of course, is for the US to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and turn them both over to al-Qaeda. If America surrenders, then we can enjoy peace and safety.

Osama's speech didn't sound like it was crafted by a ragged, dirty terrorist living in a cave while searching the sky for CIA drones carrying Hellfire missiles with his name on them. He sounded more like he was giving a speech to the US antiwar movement from the well of the US Senate.
We've heard identical sentiments expressed by Dick "Americans are Nazis" Durbin, Ted "Bush is a Liar" Kennedy, Nancy "Its all about Halliburton Profits" Pelosi, not to mention every editorial page in the mainstream media since 2003.

No wonder bin-Laden thinks the time has come to dictate terms of surrender to America.
One final note on bin-Laden's screed. We've been pointing out for several years just how effectively the antiwar movement has been aiding al-Qaeda recruiting efforts. The liberals deny it, saying THEY are the real American patriots working FOR America's best interests. "Reality shows that the war against the US and its allies is not just restricted to Iraq as he claims, but Iraq has become a gravitational point and a recruiting ground for qualified (Mujahadeed)."

Osama bin Laden is sick, in hiding, unable to show his face anywhere on earth, his forces decimated, his organization in tatters, but he is confident enough of his allies on the American political left to dictate surrender terms to the United States of America. How can this be?
This is an excellent time to revisit Title 18, USC, Part 1, Chapter 115, para 2381, and to look at it in the light of Osama's latest ultimatum.

"Whoever, OWING ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES, levies war against them or ADHERES TO THEIR ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ELSEWHERE, is guilty of TREASON and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Read Comments on this Article (on the Hal Lindsey web site)
The words and actions of Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, NancyPelosi, Ramsey Clark, and other radical anti-American dissenters who are giving aid and comfort to the enemy: I would most certainly dare call it treason! Their irresponsible comments are killing our soldiers. What are we waiting for to enforce this law? If invoking this law requires us to declare war on an "organization" (al Qaeda or other radical terrorist organizations) because there is no nation to declare it on, then let's do it!