Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Copts Said to Make False Accusations of Abductions

While reading a post in today's JihadWatch on the continuing abductions of Coptic Christians women and young girls, I dutifully clicked on the link provided in the post to view their source.

I was brought to the article on the bikya masr website. In that article, I found some disturbing quotes in which some in Egypt are stating that an appreciable amount of claims of abductions are actually false accusations.  These are said to be made by victim's families, who are supposedly ashamed that their daughters fled their homes to escape the strict rules of their households.

"But some women’s rights advocates here argue that these are not kidnappings. More often, they see these cases as cries for help by young women in the socially conservative Coptic community, which traces its church to the first century when, by traditional belief, the apostle Mark founded it in Egypt as the first Christian church in history.
In particular, rights activists say the missing young women draw attention to customs among traditional Copts, particularly the lack of access to divorce and the practice of arranged marriages.
“A key reason for the so-called ‘kidnappings’ is that Coptic women have no right to divorce,” Nehad Abul Komsan, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights and now leading member of the newly re-established National Council of women, told in a previous interview on the subject.
“This means that if their parents tell them they are going to marry their cousin, they have to submit to this and have no choice . . . So they turn to Islam, not because of a spiritual belief in the religion but because it gives them more of an opportunity to choose their life’s path,” she said."

As one will see when reading the link, these quotes were taken from today's article - February 29, 2012. It does not take a genius to second-guess the such claims as few know better than the Copts that life, as strict as it may be in a very traditional Orthodox family, is far less restrictive than that of women in Muslim families, especially those of a nation like Egypt. I have attended Coptic Orthodox Christmas services here in New Jersey on two occasions and am quite familiar with several Coptic individuals. What I have witnessed are women and young girls who seem to be far more free in their manner of dress, contact with males, and living in general, than are their Muslim counterparts.

Since my red flags went up, I did some searching and came up with this article from the same website but dated September 29, 2009:

And some quotes from the article:

"In particular, rights activists say the missing young women draw attention to customs among traditional Copts, particularly the lack of access to divorce and the practice of arranged marriages.
“A key reason for the so-called ‘kidnappings’ is that Coptic women have no right to divorce,” said Nahed Abul Komsan, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights, which is the leading women’s rights group in the country.
“This means that if their parents tell them they are going to marry their cousin, they have to submit to this and have no choice . . . So they turn to Islam, not because of a spiritual belief in the religion but because it gives them more of an opportunity to choose their life’s path,” she said."

Wow, that is pretty darn close to the same thing.

Now, one could easily get sidetracked while arguing the details of such claims. While marriages among first cousins is dreadfully widespread in Muslim cultures, as is the prohibition of refusing to accept an arranged marriage, I will avoid getting mired in arguing their points as doing so will allow more dignity than their claims deserve.

Now, a mysterious "Copt" who gives her name only as "Laura' is also quoted in both above articles:

February 2012,

"Laura, a Coptic woman in her mid-20s living in Alexandria who asked that her surname not be used, agreed. She said that while a few of the kidnappings may be authentic, most of the media reports are based on fabrications made by the families to disguise their daughters’ dissatisfaction.
“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says."

September, 2009

"Laura, a Coptic woman in her mid-20s living in Alexandria who asked that her surname not be used, agreed. She said that while a few of the kidnappings may be authentic, most of the media reports are based on fabrications made by the families to disguise their daughters’ dissatisfactions. [sic]
“We, as Coptic women, have to deal with what our priests tell us and force upon us on a daily basis and often many women just can’t take it any longer so they just leave their families and run off with a Muslim man,” she says."

Again, the same thing a year and a half apart with no indications of this fact in the article from 2012.

I have to think that these statements are purposely designed to not only place the blame squarely at the feet of Coptic families and their clergy, but to perform a massive cover-up of the plague of abductions, rapes, forced conversions,and ensuing forced marriages (Usually to their rapists) of Coptic women, often as young as 15. Pressure by Muslim authorities and bullying Muslim individuals or groups on anyone reporting anything that occurs between Muslims and non-Muslims often results in sugar-coated versions of the story or outright acts of finding fault with the victims.

Although it tends to fall on deaf ears, many have stepped up to state the plight of the Copts. The accounts are stomach-turning. Rapes, forced recitations of the Shahadah, (The statement of belief that makes one a Muslim) forced marriages (From which escape is not nearly as easy as it is from the supposedly horrid Coptic families), and terrible abuse. To top it all off, Egyptian authorities refuse to recognize the right of a new convert (Especially if she is a minor) to change religions (Back to Christianity), so, if a Coptic girl can be said to have recited the Shahadah, the state will not take her wishes into consideration. Once a victim has given in and made the profession of faith, she is whisked off to a government facility where she is promptly issued an ID that identifies her as a Muslim. (Egyptian IDs state the religion of the person) Even in the case of a future divorce, she is not granted the recognition of a change of religion and any children remain with the rapist's family. In one case, the victim felt that she had nowhere to go and wound up in a relationship with her lawyer, who forced her to be a prostitute.
The following quote is from the link below:

"The following relationship patterns are consistently observed in cases of forced
conversion and/or forced marriage of Coptic women to Muslim men.
• Girls are befriended by Muslim girls who are classmates or neighbors, and who
introduce the Coptic girl to their families where they meet a Muslim man.
• Women and girls are befriended by an older Muslim woman who becomes a
mother figure and trusted confidante. This woman later provides material and
emotional assistance during difficult times and introduces the Coptic girl to a
Muslim man.
• Women and girls are approached by a Muslim benefactor, sometimes a man or
woman, who offers necessary services and assistance.
• Once trust has been established, the women and girls are lured into an isolated
place [Or Drugged or held down by family members, including females] and raped. Following a rape, Coptic women experience shame and fear of
how their families will respond. They become more willing to consider staying
with the Muslim family and marrying their abductors. These marriages are
usually accompanied by conversion to Islam at the insistence of the man’s family.
A new Muslim identity card is usually issued immediately by the state.
• Once married, girls experience various forms of psychological and physical abuse
from rapes and beatings to verbal abuse, confinement to their apartments and
isolation from their families.
• Women report that, once the marriage has taken place, the new couple receives a
material benefits. These can include a new apartment and furniture as well as a
job for the unemployed husband.
• It is almost impossible for the woman to get her Christian identity card back, a
fundamental freedom and requirement for all Egyptian citizens.
Islam forbids a Muslim woman from marrying a non-Muslim man. However, a
Muslim man may marry a non-Muslim woman without her conversion to Islam. In
the cases examined for this report, conversions and marriages usually occur Christian Solidarity International Coptic Foundation for Human Rights
November 2009
- 13 -
simultaneously or within days of each other. Conversions are not initiated by the
Coptic girls themselves. In many cases, the young women protest their conversion;
in order to secure compliance, the women are often raped, beaten, threatened and
occasionally drugged by the man who eventually becomes her husband and/or
members of his family. It is therefore necessary to inquire further as to why forced
marriages of a Coptic woman to a Muslim man are accompanied by a conversion."

I tend to be of the opinion that the vast majority of young Muslim girls who "befriend" these soon-to-be abducted girls are not malicious. They are in all probability forced to do this by their male and older female relatives. In the few cases in which girls do indeed ran away from home and are taken in by a seemingly kind Muslim woman, the results are the same - rapes, drugging followed by rapes, forced conversions and marriages.

Here are two more links on this ongoing tragedy:

I can only come to one conclusion - The Copts are being treated as a source of breeding-stock for Muslim men in Egypt. They are descended from the indigenous Egyptians of antiquity. They are not Arabs, but a long-subdued class of people who have somehow maintained their religious faith and ethnic identity for well over thirteen hundred years. The families, whose grief we cannot imagine, are not helped by the police and are blamed for being so strict as to force their daughters into becoming  Muslim wives. Perpetrators are also not punished. Their situation is a travesty. Those of the West must raise their voices and demand support for the Copts and other Christians in Muslim nations.

While the West tells itself that it cannot happen here, rapes and gang-rapes are already occurring in Europe on a plague-like scale. Islam is a barbaric system that recreates the pagan Arab world wherever it goes. While its adherents (Some sincerely so) paint the picture of a religion that is founded on faith in the same God as that of Jews and Christians, it is actually a fusion of the label of that God with the personality and mindset of a deity of the pre-Islamic Arab world where slave-taking, murderous raids, and looting were the norm. 

The Copts, who are treated as hostages of pirates in their own country, are being blamed for the crimes committed against their own people. It seems that Islam, without an underclass to hold in brutal subjugation, has no option but to slide into stagnation. Like the Aztecs of Mexico, who held other tribes in reserve to serve as sources for human sacrifice and cannibalism, Muslims can only see themselves as something special if they have another non-Muslim group that they can keep under their thumbs to abuse at will. There are many instances in the early days of Islam where conquered peoples were not even allowed to convert to Islam as this would result in a loss of revenue (One less person or family to pay the non-Muslim "jizya" tax). Those who pushed for permission were forced to undergo the humiliating process of becoming a Mawali, where the convert was placed under the patronage of a ranking Muslim and not the allowed full financial benefits granted to a Muslim. These second-class Muslims were involved in numerous uprisings against Muslim rulers in later years as they supported yet another would-be Muslim ruler who they believed would treat them better.

Spread the word - Christians and other non-Muslim are the victims of Islamic "tolerance" and they must be protected or granted immediate permanent visas to live in the West.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

"Ethicists" and Neo-Barbararism : After Birth Abortion

The purpose of this site is to provide a forum on the threats to and decline of Western Culture. This subject, beyond a shadow of a doubt, meets that criteria.

In the article, the two (Very young) "Ethicists" are pictured. Is it me, or do all people who advocate abortion, euthanasia, or infanticide always make sure that they have a huge, leering smile on their faces when photographed for their work? These are two very bad people.

I would strongly recommend reading the post in the above link as I intend to avoid the details contained in it. I prefer to concentrate on how this serves as a prime example of the continual and seemingly celebrated undermining of the culture of the West.

Infanticide, now darkly and grossly referred to euphemistically as "After Birth Abortion", is back in the news. For most, the inhuman and purely barbaric concept of killing newborns whose apparent health or probable abilities do not meet the expectations of either the parents or, even more frighteningly, the state, is just a sick idea promulgated by the Left. We tend to briefly  express our disgust of people such as Peter Singer* and put such awful ideas conveniently out of reach of our thoughts, much as people such as he recommend we do with those who, at birth, have no refuge but in our sense of humanity.

Statists such as Nazis, Marxists, or Fascists, who put tremendous emphasis on the elimination of the individual and a full reliance on the wisdom of the state, have historically been the force behind such ideas. One of these types, who many are not aware advocated such ideas, was the early champion of "women's rights" Margaret Sanger.**

People who advance such practices believe that life must be of sufficient value to society, or at least be as little of a burden as possible, to be allowed to live or supported by the government. They hold that mentally retarded or severely disabled babies should be culled, thereby reducing the surplus population, saving money, and ensuring that the imperfect do not pass on their genes to succeeding generations.

I will avoid preaching a sermon except to say that this is more than an abandonment of our obligations as humans, but an attempt to overturn everything that we have done to improve our culture by insisting on protecting our weakest and most vulnerable.

Western Culture, though ironically under constant attack by the Left for its core values of family, parental authority, liberty of the individual, private property, national sovereignty, personal valor, religion, and more, is, on this subject, under attack for something that was not a part of its core values but was a tremendous improvement of it - the protection of the newly-born. Here the Left again parts ways with Western Culture but, in doing so, seeks to bring us back to our days of barbarism.

Those who are proud of or admire Western Culture look back at the accomplishments of our ancestors, the Romans, Greeks, and Northern Europeans, along with the other two pillars of Jewish and Christian thought, and know that we were indeed fortunate to have all of these. What we naturally tend to avoid contemplating is the parts of our history of which we are not proud, in this case a common practice of the former two of the pillars. (The ancient Germans, although partially descended from Indo-Europeans, do not appear to have practiced infanticide. I hold that they likely adopted the mores of those among whom they settled and with whom they merged upon reaching their new homeland).

Infanticide, like many other crimes against humanity, was and in some cases still is practiced by societies all over the world. In the case of Western Culture,  it seems to have been fairly widespread (Some hold it was not common) among Indo-Eropean cultures. The Greeks, Romans, early Hindus, Persians, and other groups ethnically/culturally descended from the Indo-Europeans, who moved out from the Steppes north of the Black sea in the late Chalcolithic, Bronze, and Iron ages, accepted the practice of exposing unwanted or disabled babies. This barbaric practice survived the advent of civilized cultures in the West and was not abandoned until Christianity was firmly established.

One version, the translation of which I prefer to use will be a slight variation of the one I cite in support, is from the Twelve Tables, an early codification of Roman Law that was made by the Decemvirs (In itself a story of how a people, Roman citizens, rebelled against tyrannical oppressors):

"Quickly kill, any dreadfully deformed child"

The other translation can be read here:

Infanticide was practiced in Greece not only by the Spartans (Many are aware that the decision in Sparta was not in the hands of the parents, but the state), but also in Athens and other Greek cities:
(It was banned in Thebes)

-and a source for India:

Lastly, one brief source attributing the practice to Indo-Europeans in general:

Western Societies were born of a period that possessed many fine attributes, but that early age was also a brutal culture. The exposing of unwanted newborns was among the most inhumane of their worst practices. Through the centuries, and thanks in great part to Jewish and Christian thought, the West was slowly able to purge this practice from its culture. Today, we complain about many things on which our taxes are spent, but providing for the disabled is not one of them. We hold fast to the best of our inheritance but are happy to have been long rid of our days of barbarism with its infanticide, making of eunuchs, gladiatorial murders, and slavery in general.

The Left, in its quest for "progress", seeks to reduce those in the West to the status of serfs who are totally dependent on the good nature of the state. They would do away with private property, the family (Forget any idea of paternal authority), the concepts of  bravery, self-defense, our religions, sacrifice, work ethic, patriotism, and more to create a body of fully-managed insect-like primates.

The striking part is that, out of all the parts of Western Civilization that the Left would decide to implement or reintroduce as opposed to tear down, they choose infanticide. While they denigrate all that makes us what we are, they want to bring back something from our past, a horrid practice of which we can be proud to have excised.

I will note that this is admittedly a logical extension of the idea of abortion. Like it or not, these Leftists are taking abortion to its logical conclusion. When abortion became legal and accepted, many bravely stood up in the face of ridicule by their peers and asserted that infanticide and euthanasia were the next steps. Few believed it. They, like many in the West today, refused to see abortion as the foot in the door that it was and convinced themselves that the murder of our infants would be confined to the unseen recesses of the womb .

We could therefore pretend that it never happened.
Now, we have unbelievable amounts women on anti-depressants and in and out of therapy.

Right now, an emphasis must be placed on the terms that are employed. Leftists are regressives, not progressives. Everything about the Left is either a regression to either a utopian communal*** past that never existed or to a dark, inhuman practice from a barbaric age.

We need to defend the good of our history while also defending modern improvements of our culture. Stand against both the denigration of the best of our culture and the call for renewing practices of which we rightfully disposed long ago.




***No one could have gotten away with letting others do the work or standing back while everyone else defended the group in prehistoric communal societies. Anyone who entertained such a con job would have been thrown out of the clan.

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Occupy Albuquerque Becomes un-Occupy; Occupy Sounds Too Much Like What Europeans Do

I just came across an interesting development in the "occupy" movement while reading a post on TheBlaze on a a group of "useful idiots" who crashed a pro-Israel event at the University of New Mexico. This resulted in a physical altercation as the participants in the event tried to regain some control of the microphone. A common practice of the Left is to engage in loud, aggressive, and confrontational suppression of free speech whenever the content of the expression is contrary to their position. In Europe, groups such as the anti-Fascist Action (AFA) regularly physically assault and destroy property (Such as homes) of anyone who dares to speak out in support of freedom, Western values, property rights, and rights of  indigenous peoples.

The link has several videos:

As I have noted on previous posts, Israel is a common target of the Left as its very existence as a nation stands in contrast to the drive by Leftists to destroy any and all national borders. As Islam also is inherently against thought of any nation maintaining its freedom and sovereignty (In their case because these form a bulwark against the establishment of worldwide Islamic rule -Dar al-Islam), the Left has found a convenient group to support to support their cause,the Palestinians.

Anyway, back to the interesting point - The group that started in with the mic-crashing referred to itself as un-Occupy Albuquerque. The reason for this the following:

"The word “occupy” in general is offensive to most Native Americans and indigenous people and people of color in general – again in general. Occupations have displaced us for generations by Europeans."

There we have it. Again, the Europeans are the bad guys. Although this group states that they stand in solidarity with the Occupy movement, they just can't bring themselves to use a term that has such imperialist connotations.

:“Albuquerque is in solidarity with the rest of the world. We are the 99%. That being said, Albuquerque wants to make it clear that we are uncomfortable with the word “occupation” – not uncomfortable with the acts coming out of the movements across lands. The word “occupation” for Native Americans, indigenous people and people of color in general is problematic because this land that we now live on has been occupied since 1492.We simply want to bring awareness to this fact and have more conversations in this regard.”

We are at the point where we cannot simply ignore statements such as these as the rantings of brainwashed and deluded individuals. The Western world, the people descended from those who created it, and those who have moved here (Or remained here) to be a part of it, are the main targets of the Left, the Occupy movement (Including its little brother, "un"), environmentalists, and Islam.

All of the invasions, occupations, raiding, conquering, and pillaging that have been committed by all the peoples and nations of the world do not matter - except for those that were done by Europeans. The Europeans and those descended from them are the only groups of people on which guilt should be laid.

For starters, the Aztecs were a terribly vicious conquering people who engaged in warfare almost solely to gain captives for human sacrifice, or worse, cannibalism:

"With an understanding of the importance of cannibalism in Aztec culture, and of the ecological reasons for its existence, some of the Aztecs' more distinctive institutions begin to make anthropological sense. For example, the old question of whether the Aztecs' political structure was or was not an "empire" can be reexamined. One part of this problem is that the Aztecs frequently withdrew from conquered territory without establishing administrative centers or garrisons. This "failure" to consolidate conquest in the Old World fashion puzzled Cort├ęs, who asked Moctezuma to explain why he allowed the surrounded Tlaxcalans to maintain their independence. Moctezuma reportedly replied that his people could thus obtain captives for sacrifice. Since the Aztecs did not normally eat people of their own policy, which would have been socially and politically disruptive, they needed nearby "enemy" populations on whom they could prey for captives. This behavior makes sense in terms of Aztec cannibalism: from the Aztec point of view, the Tlaxcalan state was preserved as a stockyard. The Aztecs were unique among the world's states in having a cannibal empire. Understandably, they did not conform to Old World concepts of empire, based on economies with domesticated herbivores providing meat or milk."

The people of Tlaxcalan were kept in a state similar to that which the Eloi were for the Morlochs in the story The Time Machine by H.G. Wells. The Aztecs have long been portrayed as a peaceful and noble people who were the victims of European aggression. Well, Cortez was certainly aggressive, but rest assured, he and his successors, like them or not, put an end to human sacrifice and cannibalism.

But the European Spaniards were the only bad guys here.

Aside from countless smaller-scale campaigns that resulted in widespread pillaging, slave-taking,  and seizures of land, Europe was invaded, with full conquest being the intent, by  non-Europeans four times in the Middle Ages; the Turco-Mongol Avars in the 6th century, the Arabs and Berbers of the 8th, the Mongol invasion of the 13th, and the Ottoman Turks of the 14th and 15th. (The last one is still with us today - ancient Thrace in Europe is a part of modern-day Turkey). I have not included the Huns as they arrived before the beginning of the Middle Ages. I have also not included the Magyars (Hungarians) as their geographic origin is not clear. Europe was, nevertheless, ravaged by them for many years. They, like Finns and Estonians, do not speak an Indo-European language but belong to the Finno-Ugric group. The Basques speak a language not attributed to either the former or the latter, but one that is believed by some to be related to Georgian.

Slavery, while essentially disappearing in the West, was revived and maintained as a system by the Muslims. In Spain, the Christian communities under Islamic rule and the Christian Kingdoms that held on to a precarious existence, had no choice but to provide members of their own population as tribute. 

This also happened in the Balkans when the Ottomans destroyed piece-by-piece what was left of the Byzantine Empire.

Contrary to what is claimed by some modern revisionists, there is every reason to believe that, had Charles Martel been defeated at the batter of Tours (Poitiers), the Muslim advance would have been continued into the heart of Western Europe.

There is, however, no doubt that the defeat of the Ottomans at their final siege of Vienna in 1683, a scant 100 years prior to the official recognition of the American Republic, repulsed what would have eventually turned much of Western Europe in a battle ground.

The Avars were driven out of Europe largely due to the efforts of Charlemagne and his German allies by the end of the 8th century, but the Mongol devastation of eastern Europe lasted much longer:

This of course is not intended to be an exhaustive or even detailed description of the history of invasions of Europe. The intent was to demonstrate that the Europeans too have felt the heavy hand of invasions and oppression -even at the hands of the Northmen or Vikings, themselves Germanic peoples, who terrorized and enslaved many Europeans prior to their conversion to Christianity.

None of this matters to the Left. Every invasion by any non-European people or nation is OK. Whether it is the Chinese of the Viet peoples, the Mongols of China, Russia, Poland and Hungary, the Aztec of everyone in Mexico, or of course the armies of Islam, who have been the most indiscriminate in their choice of peoples to attack, none of these can be brought into the discussion. The atrocious treatment of Native Americans captives by other Native Americans cannot be taken into consideration either.

All that matters are the Europeans. It is they who are responsible for all of the world's ills. Had they never existed or had been nipped in the bud as a people early on, the world would be a utopia in which everyone would be nice to each other.

We cannot remain silent any longer. Europeans and their descendants cannot be held to be different from other ethnic/cultural groups in regards to military aggression. They can, though, be held to be different in their accomplishments such as the concepts of the free individual, basic rights, property, and limited yet effective government.  We can also include science, engineering, the arts, literature and more. There is nothing wrong with standing up for one's heritage.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Farming Families Targeted by Dept. of Labor - Agenda 21 is Likely Cause

New rules that have been proposed by the Obama administration's Department of Labor will have appreciable effects on families who engage in operating one of our last bastions of true freedom in Western societies - the small to middle-scale farm.

Under the proposed rules, young people,who traditionally form a key component of the labor force on family-owned farms, will be prohibited in performing a number of tasks. This includes operating a tractor.

Other regulations will require that farmers will be prohibited from employing young people in terribly dangerous tasks such as working in grain storage bins (silos), harvesting tobacco, working with timber or animals, or Heaven forbid, manure.


"Children employed in agriculture are some of the most vulnerable workers in America," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Ensuring their welfare is a priority of the department, and this proposal is another element of our comprehensive approach."

The proposal would strengthen current child labor regulations prohibiting agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins. It would prohibit farmworkers under age 16 from participating in the cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco. And it would prohibit youth in both agricultural and nonagricultural employment from using electronic, including communication, devices while operating power-driven equipment.

The department also is proposing to create a new nonagricultural hazardous occupations order that would prevent children under 18 from being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials. Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.

Additionally, the proposal would prohibit farmworkers under 16 from operating almost all power-driven equipment. A similar prohibition has existed as part of the nonagricultural child labor provisions for more than 50 years. A limited exemption would permit some student learners to operate certain farm implements and tractors, when equipped with proper rollover protection structures and seat belts, under specified conditions.

The Wage and Hour Division employs a combination of enforcement, compliance assistance and collaboration strategies in partnership with states and community-based organizations to protect children working in the United States. When violations of law are found, the division uses all enforcement tools necessary to ensure accountability and deter future violations.

Note the last paragraph that mentions wage compliance. This smells of an effort not only to force farmers to hire outside help to make sure that the multitude of farm tasks get done, but that the employers pay  state-imposed wages, probably along with the health benefits that are required under Obamacare. (If the amount of employees meet the thresholds).

I cannot but see this as part of a campaign to make the farming business too costly for families. We already have witnessed the rise of large corporate-owned farms that clearly are able to produce their products much more cheaply than can small and middle-scale farms. New regulations that keep young people out of the picture will in all probability require farmers to hire more of the immigrants that are being forced down our throats. This will stretch the financial resources of the already-strapped farms past the breaking point. The corporate farms, with their legions of non-property-owning employees, look eerily like the Latifundia of the Roman Republic and later Empire. Note the following paragraph (With an addition) that is taken from a previous post. It describes the options left to the small farmers when they are finally no longer able to work their farms as businesses and have no choice but to sell or to face foreclosure.

Those that leave the rural zones will do as they did in the Roman Empire when faced with competition from large farms owned by the wealthy that employed massive amounts of slaves (Read unchecked immigration). The independent farmer had been, without a doubt, the backbone of Roman and early Italic society, as it was, with the exception of the Middle-Ages, with Western Societies in general. The spread of slave-worked farms resulted in cutting the prices of food to the point where the smallholders, no longer able to earn a living, had to pack up and leave to the cities, where they promptly joined in with the demands for more cheap and free bread.(Read welfare, food stamps, housing etc.) Those that remain behind will likely no longer own the land but will work as employees on their former property. They will then commute to the farm from their new homes.

Note what occurring in Wisconsin right now:

Large factory-type farms are taking over the dairy industry in that state. 
"The bad news and it is very bad is what this fairly standard Ag industry bullying effort 'Amnesty Hispanics or no food' discloses about employment in Wisconsin's Dairy Industry:

Immigrants now make up about 40 percent of the state's dairy labor force, up from 5 percent a decade ago, according to a 2009 study by the UW-Madison Program on Agricultural Technology Studies. Many of the workers are in the United States illegally"


But Obama's Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, assured all of us that this is OK. In 1996, she stated that anyone that currently resides in the US, legally or illegally, is an American.

Along with what appears to me to be the obvious purpose of turning our yeomen-farmer heartland into vast swaths of farmland owned by corporate land barons, I see another, more insidious, purpose to these rules. 
Most kids do not become adult farmers because they thought of it as one thinks of being a cop or a firefighter. They become farmers from the having a connection to that world. Performing the day-to-day tasks of the farm is the principle means by which a person winds up deciding that he or she will farm for a living.  For most people, being a part of the farm is what results in having a connection to the land and the desire to carry on the family tradition. 

Removing young people from feeding chicken, hogs or other animals, preventing them from the operation of the tractor - a rite of passage for many, or any of the other proposed restrictions, are sure-fire ways to ensure that fewer children of farmers will choose to be farmers. As the state takes over the role of the parent in deciding (In yet another area) what tasks are too dangerous for children on a farm, these kids, who were active, strong, and used to being outside, will retire to their rooms to play X Box and PS3. Gone also will be the tremendous bonding between father/uncle/grandfather and son/nephew/grandchild  that regularly occurs during periods of work and carries on into family meals as what was done, and what more must be done, is discussed. As the state smugly gloats over another victory over the institution of the nuclear family, the now 18-year old, having been prohibtited from taking part in many traditional farm tasks, will probably be pretty used to having very little to do and very well may want to keep it that way. So the summer babies, who don't reach 18 until after their senior year of High School, will go to college, the military,or technical school with no real work experience on the farm. After four more years, are they going to want to jump in with the rigors of working on the farm? Some will, but there is a very good chance that many will not. Thus the state will have a means to slowly bleed the free farms out of existence for want of  young, experienced, and motivated labor.

The state also seems to think that farming parents do not ensure that their children have enough time for studies. (That is in one of the links) That outlook can only be described as sickening as these people have had the reputation for, if anything, overly demanding that their kids do well in school. The state, as usual, picked the wrong place to look for parents who don't take an interest in their kid's education.

Shoveling horse manure is not some sort of health hazard. Even though I grew up in a more suburban town, my family had a horse and I cleaned the stable very day. I also moved the manure to the garden. The vast majority of people who live on farms in the US are descended from Europeans who have lived with horses, cattle, hogs, goats, and fowl, for thousands of years and have inherited resistance to a wide range of microbes commonly found in farm animals. American Blacks too have developed such resistance. Stock-breeding and the keeping of horses go back to the earliest of the Indo-Europeans, easily as far back as four thousand years ago.

Another ridiculous position is that the state has the authority to legislate or regulate anything that could possibly cause someone to be injured. Except for cases in which parents are clearly endangering or seriously neglecting their children, the state has no authority to decide what activities one's children may or may not do.

While pre-pubescent children in the third-world work on cacao farms, gold mines, and more under terrible conditions, the US starts in on the American farmer. We are being moved into the culture of a third-world nation, but one in which even the children of our farmers will be made to be enervated by a lack of labor, focus, and work ethic.

Note that the Labor Department, probably seeing an uproar coming, was generous enough to allow some exemptions (Not many) for children on their parent's farms. This leaves out the neighbors, Aunts and Uncles, and grandparents for whom young people traditionally also provided assistance. 

I have to think that this is in line with the plans of Obama's White House Rural Council and the implementation of UN Agenda 21.

A friend of mine mentioned yesterday another likely reason for the Left to create a system that forces out small and middle-scale farmers and turns farmland over to large-scale corporate farms. Corporate and other factory-type farms are much more likely to be significant contributors of money to political campaigns.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Koran Burnings Were Due to Extremist Messages

The hysterical uproar and ensuing murders of US servicemen over the destruction (By burning) of Korans in Afghanistan has not abated despite the American president's repeated apologies.

What Mr. Obama and much of the press have failed to mention is that the Korans were destroyed along with other materials, all of which had extremist messages written on them. Many reportedly were being used for communications that would likely result in more attacks on our troops. Yes, the Korans that our  military so dutifully provides for the detainees/prisoners, because the words contained  therein mean so much, do not seem to hold the place of importance that we had thought. The same Koran for which our troops must use gloves when handling are perfectly fine mediums for inscribing whatever notes the pious detainees would like. In this case the messages were determined to be a security issue and the material was consequently destroyed.

The US has been instructed by our Muslim overlords to "kill" "beat" and " take them as prisoners" those responsible for destroying the material on which the extremist messages were written. No indication was provided as to the order in which they were to be killed, beaten and taken prisoner. Perhaps the quote was supposed to have been read right-to-left as opposed to our method.

The photo (Above link) of what is euphemistically referred to as a protest is interesting. The base looks like it is under siege.

My understanding of Islamic law is that old, worn-out Korans must not be destroyed but laid to rest in repositories where the books will slowly decompose over time. Defaced (Presumably this includes scribbling notes on them) Korans are not to be used. **

The problem is that our military did not feel that this was a good idea since the messages needed to be disposed of right away - many were clearly communications that were likely to result in more attacks on our troops. This of course did not sit well with our democracy-embracing friends.
Note that President Hamid Karzai has called for public trials of those responsible for the burnings.

This video of yet another "apology" is a must-see. I am tempted to tell the reader what it really is but I will refrain from being a spoiler:

Many of us hoped that our presence in Afghanistan would have better results than simply wiping out the existing terrorist training camps. Few today have a shred of that hope left.

The following three paragraphs are from a previous post with a few additions:

As I had written earlier, most of the people of Afghanistan are descended from proud peoples, mainly Indo-European Iranians ( Not Persian of modern Iran, which is a subgroup of Iranian) and Turkics (Not Ottomans and others of Modern Turkey, also subgroups of the widespread ethnic Turks). All of these peoples had a sense of their identity prior to the arrival of Islam into that region. Indeed, related tribes such as the Scythians refused to surrender to the Achaemenid Persian King Darius I during his campaign prior to the main Greco-Persian wars. Other Iranian tribes fiercely resisted Alexander the Great's invasion over 150 years later. Those who did make peace with the Macedonian King did so only under the most honorable of terms.

One point that is not addressed very often is the Arabization of regions once Islam is entrenched. No matter what the culture of a particular group, Islam turns each one into a more severe mirror-image of a pagan Arab society. The Koran, if it indeed going to be a Koran, must be written in Arabic*** or it can only be considered a commentary of that book of tolerance.This and other Arab-superiority factors tend to cause converted societies to try their best to prove that they are not second-class Muslims. Not only does the society become Arab-like, it generally has a tendency to become as severe as possible in its quest to become purely Islamic. Those of these cultures seem to seek to be "more Arab than the Arabs themselves".

What is left of those once-proud peoples are the tattered and stagnated remains. Where daughters were once held in esteem, they now are cast off to be horrifically abused by their new families.  Most are not aware that Alexander the Great's first wife, Roxanne (Or Roxana) was the daughter of a Iranian noble named Oxyartes. This man was a proud warrior and leader. Even though he had been defeated by Alexander's capture of the Sogdian fortress, Oxyartes would never have allowed the Macedonian King to get away with treating his daughter with anything less than the utmost of respect. 

** and ***
-Note that, far from being a purely Arabic book as the Koran is claimed to be, Islam's scriptures are a motley collection of citations from several sources. Many have a Christian Syro-Aramaic origin. In fact, several key words and phrases in the Koran are simply unintelligible to a person who only speaks Arabic. This has resulted in several translations in the official Arabic Koran that are very likely to be significant mistakes.+ Note also that there is no evidence that Arabic existed in a written form until after the era in which the Koran was supposed to have been completed. Contrary to further claims that the text of the Koran has been perfectly preserved from the beginning, there is a wealth of historical evidence that indicates that it underwent a number of major revisions long after Mohammed's death. 

I will do a full post on the history of the early Koran and its revisions when I can carve out some time. In the meantime, these sites will provide a good start for anyone who wishes to know more:

The last link is the same as the one that I cited when noting Islamic thought in regards to worn or defaced Korans. It is valuable as a source as it is about manuscripts that were found in a repository in Yemen several years ago. The Yemeni government has been reluctant to allow a full study of these as Muslims do not tend to be as tolerant as Jews and Christians are when it comes to researching documents that apply to their religions, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A Pakistani immigrant in Spain has called for the banning of the Koran in his new country. He lists ten reasons for this:

This was gleaned today from a news feed at the blogsite Gatesof Vienna.

"The Koran is not a sacred and religious book, but a violent book, full of hatred and discrimination.

The Koran is a horrible book which provokes a community which calls itself Muslims to undertake jihad, kill innocent people and destroy the peace of the world.

The Koran is responsible for all the terrorism we have seen in recent years in which thousands of people lost their lives.

The Koran is a book which contains evil teachings and forces its believers to capture the entire world and total power at any price.

The Koran is a book which legally permits and incites hatred and violence and for that reason it is not compatible with the modern world including Spain.

The Koran is a book which directly discriminates between human beings

The Koran is a book which does not permit freedom of expression or religious freedom

The Koran is a book which causes women to suffer and be tortured by means of its unjust and macho laws.

The Koran is a book which rather than teach unity, teaches disunity and in this way does not allow its believers to form friendships with those who are not Muslim, because in the eyes of the Koran they are infidels.

The Koran is a major threat to the free society of Spain. A book which clearly offers a message of jihad, killing, hating, discrimination and vengeance for that reason cannot be compatible with the Spanish system in any sense. It is a book totally contrary to what the law and constitution of Spain say. And it is inciting hatred and violence in our country.Source: Minuto Digital Via: La Tercera Yihad"


I do not support the idea of banning books or other literature as doing so does two things:

Opens the door to banning other material.

Gives a book such as the Koran a reverse sort of legitimacy. By being banned, it becomes a focal point around which those who are opposed the the current establishment or culture can rally. In the absence or any real reasons to rebel, many will turn to the banned book as their source of identification. Turning towards Islam as a means to rebel against one's own culture has already occurred in Western nations.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Egypt Will be at War With Germany, Israel, and the US in Three Months?

More Arab Spring fruits-

From Jihad Watch:
"Good thing the U.S. supported the end of the Mubarak regime and the wonderful "Arab Spring" in Egypt. It looks as if we're already reaping the dividends. "Egyptian Presidential Candidate Tawfiq Okasha Predicts that Egyptian Army Will Open Fire on 'Its Enemies' – the US, Germany, and Israel – Within Three Months; States That If Not for the Holocaust, the Jews Would Have Annihilated the Germans,"


What does one say about this?

Well, times have changed. What was the betting line in 1941 that Egypt would be at war with WWII enemies Germany and the US, along with a nation that had not even existed at the time?

Since Egypt has had a bit of a difficult time beating Israel in previous wars, often while allied and in concert with with other nations, maybe our candidate has hit on something. Egypt never won because they set the bar too low and therefore did not feel challenged. Instead of attacking only Israel with help, Egypt, by herself, will attack three nations, all of which have records, logistical capabilities, and traditions of professionalism that are superior to those of his nation.

Why do these people, who are prohibited from drinking alcohol, sound worse than drunk kids from opposing colleges or US military units on Saturday night?

On a lighter note, if that could be the case, an Egyptian Muslim cleric brought back the long-ago fabricated "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (More on this sometimes-believed set of lies another day) as a topic and stated that Israel is conspiring to distract Muslims through soccer.

Yes, Israel is using soccer to distract Muslims.It must have something to do with the Israeli soccer coach whose presence set off all sorts of alarms in the Muslim world.

Pa.-Muslim Judge Basically Applies Sharia in Assault Case

Added on 2/24/12 - Video with audio of the court proceedings. It clarifies a lot of what was first reported and it is just as bad:

Added on 2/28/12 - It turns out the the Judge is not Muslim, but functions as a Dhimmi instead.
Dhimmi is the Muslim Euphemistic term of "protected peoples" who live as less-than second-class citizens in their own nation once the place is taken over by Muslims.

I can think of no other way to describe this event. An application of Sharia Law recently occurred in a Pennsylvania court. I presume that it was a  Municipal court given the circumstances.

The full post with additional links will be below. I will state the facts as briefly as possible:

An atheist group had a march. In that event were two members of the group who were in zombie costumes, one of the Pope, and one of Mohammed. A Muslim in the crowd assaulted the guy in the Mohammed costume. Apparently the assault was not severe enough to warrant the actor being charged with a crime (felony), but the victim was told by a police Sgt. that he of course had a right to press charges.

In court, a judge, also apparently a Muslim (I am assuming he was a convert from the photos and the personal background of himself unnecessarily provided by the magistrate), dismissed the charges againt the defendant and engaged in a bizarre lesson in Islamic Law and sensibilites directed towards the victim. This included referring to the victim as a "dufus'.

The Judge, Mark Martin, also noted that the the victim would have been killed for doing the same thing in an Islamic country. What does the penalty for offending a Muslim in a Muslim nation have to do with the price of tea in China?

This cannot be treated as a "let sleeping dogs lie" moment. This has all the makings of a catastrophe. A government official who is charged with finding of fact and applying the law decided that none of this matters in the special case of a Muslim who was upset with the mocking of his religion, social system, and his religion's founder. Note that also the Judge did not note that the defendant's claim of not being aware that what he did was illegal is not a defense in US law - "Ignorance of the law is no defense" is something of which American teenagers are aware.

This is a gross malcarriage of justice (It does not meet the criteria of miscarriage as it appears to be purely intentional). The Judge added what appears to be a mistranslation of the Muslim greeting "wa-liakum al-salaam". He stated that it meant "God be with you". Similar to the Hebrew "Shalom a-lehem", the greeting means "Peace be upon  you" and can of course refer to God's peace being with the person. What kind of Muslim cannot even translate his own greeting?

How can this judge, who in all probability figured that he had found a way to 'prime the pump' for possible future hate speech laws in the US or at least bring the idea to the fore, think that he did anything other than embarrass himself, let alone his profession?

I hope that the victim appeals this to the county superior court. He really has no choice. This does not even approach the double-jeopardy standard. The judge never considered the law, the testimony, or even allowed the introduction into evidence of the video taken at the time.

Personally, I don't find true Atheists (Many who claim to be are actually agnostic) to be deep-thinking people. Their outlook reduces us to the level of animals who eat, mate, and die. It is an intellectually lazy way of avoiding any thought about one's purpose for existence. Even more slothful than that is their willingness to just accept the beginning of the universe and its results as a random series of billions of  accidents. Yes, I am aware of the books coming out now by Stephen Hawking's buddies in which all sorts of gyrations are employed to try to prove that something (matter, etc.) can come into existence from nothing but the preliminary arguments that I have read don't appear to hold any water. I will buy the books when I can get used ones.

Having stated that, I have never assaulted an Atheist nor do I plan on doing so. Conversely, I also cannot recall ever being assaulted by an Atheist for any reason. I would not dispense with my support of free speech and expression to stop anyone from exercising his or her rights. The victim did nothing that merited being assaulted. Even though I am a Catholic, I think that it was a good idea to have the Pope represented also in that it demonstrates that they were not going to get attacked by any Papists.

The first link has a good video. The second has audio of the Judge.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Britain Divided - Another British Official Calls for Integration

First David Cameron steps up and says that Britain is a Christian nation-

When many are thinking along the same lines but a pervasive climate of fear causes the people to remain silent to avoid being called a racist, fascist, or some other nasty thing, sometimes it only takes one person to speak his mind.

Now another Briton has made his point known. Portions of the article are below:
"The English language and Christian faith will be restored to the centre of public life, ministers pledged today.
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles heralded the end of state-sponsored multiculturalism by vowing to stand up for 'mainstream' values by strengthening national identity"
"He accused the previous Labour administration, and its equalities minister Harriet Harman, of taking the country down 'the wrong path' by encouraging different communities to live separate lives.
Migrants will be required to speak English, the number of official documents translated into other languages will be reduced and councils will be allowed to hold prayers at the start of meetings.
New education standards will bar schools from teaching which 'undermines fundamental British values', said today’s document from his Department for Communities and Local Government......

Today’s paper said that, despite Britain’s tradition of tolerance, the past decade has seen growing concern over race relations, as incoming migrants in some areas have shown themselves 'unable or unwilling to integrate'.
'It is only common sense to support integration,' it said.
'In the past, integration challenges have been met in part with legal rights and obligations around equalities, discrimination and hate crime.
'This has not solved the problem and, where it has encouraged a focus on single issues and specific groups, may in some cases have exacerbated it.
'There are too many people still left outside, or choosing to remain outside, mainstream society.'
And it added: 'Today, integration requires changes to society, not changes to the law.
'This means that building a more integrated society is not just a job for government. It requires collective action across a wide range of issues, at national and local levels, by public bodies, private companies, and above all, civic society at large.
Our first question must always be, “How can people contribute to building an integrated England?”.’.....
'But it’s sad to see how, in recent years, the idea of tolerance has become twisted,' Mr Pickles added.
'A few people, a handful of activists, have insisted that it isn’t enough simply to celebrate the beliefs of minority communities; they want to disown the traditions and heritage of the majority, including the Christian faith and the English language.....

'We’ve seen men and women disciplined for wearing modest symbols of Christian faith at work, and we’ve seen legal challenges to councils opening their proceedings with prayers, a tradition that goes back generations, brings comfort to many and hurts no one.[Italics added] This is the politics of division.'...

This response to Mr. Pickle's statements reminds us that there still are those who will resist any move towards integrating immigrants into the society of the UK. The following remarks could be applied to similar situations in any nation that has had multiculturalism forced upon it.
Rob Berkeley, director of the Runnymede Trust race equality think-tank, said Mr Pickles’ announcement marked 'a dangerous and ill-advised reversion to assimilationist policy where all differences of ethnicity and heritage are subsumed into a majoritarian "mainstream" '.
Dr Berkeley added: 'The Secretary of State appears to have completely misunderstood the problems we face in building a successful multi-ethnic society, and the solutions proposed as a result simply miss the point.'


The Left considers multiculturalism to be a major part of their program to permanently change the electorate of Western nations. Having failed to pull the wool over enough eyes of the indigenous or even of those descended from several generations-worth of assimilated immigrants, they resorted to bringing in waves of newcomers who no one, especially the Left, believed would ever acquiesce to integrating into the culture of their new home countries. That was in fact exactly what they wanted; note the label of "assimilationist" that Mr. Berkeley employs in an attempt to make that a bad word. 

He describes the new policy (Which is really the actual policy that is required in all sane societies) as dangerous. ill-advised, and a reversion. Well, it worked really nicely here in the US when we practiced it. The Leftist parties of Western Europe and of the US (Along with those of Australia and Canada) don't want new immigrants becoming Westerners, they want Westerners to become like the immigrants. Note how it is OK to allow generation after generation of immigrants to remain completely distinct from the indigenous British, but woe to the Brit who wants to live his life according to the culture and lifestyle of his ancestors. That culture has too many memories of freedom, the individual, and Christianity to suit the appetites of those like Mr. Berkeley.

When the Western Roman Empire finally collapsed/disintegrated, in its place sprung a world where each person was governed according to the laws of the group in which he was born. A person was judged by Frankish law (Salic specifically), Burgundian, Roman, Gothic law, etc. This situation was one of many parts of the Dark Ages that we are happy to have been able to put aside.

A society that allows such an arrangement, especially when its creators are able to continue pouring in more of those who will not only avoid integration, but will be shielded from being required to do so by their Quisling handlers, cannot survive.

A person from the US, who was also a product of Western Culture,  and one whom we were fortunate to have, said it succinctly:

"A house divided against itself cannot stand"

Lincoln spoke of a nation that had found itself it its own mess due to a variety of factors. None of those factors consisted of what the Left did to Britain and Western Europe (And is feverishly trying to do in the remainder of the West).
The US had a situation that developed over time and was never properly addressed until it was too late. The people of Western Europe had this forced on them. It was not something that sneaked up on its creators; it was a deliberate plan to change the demographics and thus the political fabric of these nations. Those of the Left never had any doubt as to their intentions. They desire to push this program along until the whole place collapses. Such a situation is optimal for the institution of a totalitarian society.

When Lincoln's words come to fruition in Western Europe, (And they will if the Left is allowed to continue on this course) there will be few options for those who wish to maintain their sense of identity and the freedoms that were bequeathed to them by their ancestors. The easiest thing to do will be to roll over and allow the Left to completely restructure these societies along Socialist lines. Some will leave and move to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or maybe Eastern Europe. I would love for many to again come to the US but the handwriting is on the wall for us too. The hard thing to do will be to for the indigenous of Western Europe to stand their ground and engage in a struggle to win back their nations and their identities.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

US Again Descends Into Third-World Mode With Obama Chant

Many will recall the extremely disturbing video of elementary school students who were practicing a song designed to do nothing other than praise Obama. I am not sure when the video was actually made, but it was posted on YouTube before the man had been in office for a year.

The video starts out with one kid who apparently is on some sort of remedial training and therefore has to demonstrate that he knows the song before he can join the rest of the class as they sing together. The song itself is yet another example how we in the US have descended into a third-world or totalitarian culture. Praising a sitting public official is not something that is practiced in Western Culture, especially in the US. Here we reserve the heaping of praises on an individual for his character, accomplishments, etc. for a time after his or her death. Note that also we don't praise someone for what we expect him to do, but what he in fact did accomplish.
Below is a sort of pseudo-militant youth group praising and pledging allegiance to the candidate prior to his election:

And the infamous video of the presumably qualified voter who thought that she would no longer have to pay for her mortgage and gas for her car once the messiah took office:

The most recent, though, of these personality cult events is out of Houston, there Kindergarteners were expected to sing what the school referred to in an internal memo as a "chant" for Obama:


I will of course admit that the Obama administration doesn't call for any of this garbage. The problem that I see is the decline in our culture. Where nothing of this sort would have been even brought up for discussion prior to our present age, today we barely even bat an eyelash when we encounter displays utterly lacking of any sense of dignity. What we are witnessing is a steady decline in expectation of behavior. Who can forget Howard Dean's meltdown?

One thing of which we could always be proud was that our leaders were not going to begin striking the podium with their hands or any object or otherwise engage in hysterical gyrations in order to stress their point. Our leaders, or those who aspired to be such, were required to demonstrate gravitas and dignitas. We also never made our current leaders or candidates into icons worthy of praise*, especially when it came to the hearts and minds of our children. In the absence of having any solid vision for the future of our nation, the Left has naturally resorted to treating our children in the same manner as those of the Soviet Union, Maoist China, or North Korea. In Eastern or semi-western** cultures, mass-indoctrination of the youth is standard practice.

We have moved from honoring those who won our freedom to honoring those who promise more for less.

My oldest, now 21, was probably of the last generation of public school students who learned to appreciate the legacy of George Washington. This man, in giving his support to our independence movement (Unlike the one we praise today, who is honored because he won an election), risked almost certain confiscation of his considerable property and his probable execution for treason to the Crown. He then secured his honored place in history by twice walking away from quite powerful positions of authority (Once when he resigned his commission after the Treaty of Paris*** and the second after the conclusion of his second term as President).

In doing so he truly became the American Cincinnatus, the man of the early Roman Republic who, after holding the Senate-ordered Office of Dictator and leading his people out of the crisis that necessitated his rule, resigned and returned to his small farm after a mere fifteen days of his allotted six-month tenure.

Washington certainly deserved the song that my oldest sang in school for his birthday. It was a treasure to watch the five and six year-olds sing this on the stage.
Unfortunately, I can't find the entire text.

George Washington, George Washington,
We honor you today
George Washington, George Washington,
Father of the USA

When my youngest, now fifteen, came home from school as a first-grader after Washington's birthday, I asked him what he learned about our first President. He replied "He owned slaves".

I did not make that up.

There it is - a man is remembered for a fault, the guilt for which can certainly be, at least in part, mitigated by the facts that he was born into a particular time period, that he is not known to have been cruel to those in bondage, and that he also freed his slaves after his death. We must also note that he did not have the legal authority to free the slaves who were the property of his wife, the amount of which were considerable.

The Left will not allow our children to look upon our history and those who were a part of it with any admiration.

* Except maybe for FDR, shocking,

** Russia and other Slavic and Baltic nations never really got a chance to develop along Western lines. The bulk of these nations suffered under the rule of the Mongols for centuries. The social, cultural and political developments following this era are indicative of a society that never formed a collective concept of the individual or of local rule. Only in the Ukraine did an appreciable freeholding farmer element emerge. The Baltic nations were largely ruled in a colonial manner by military orders such as the Teutonic and Livonian Knights. Though their subjugation was not as long-lasting as that of those under the Tartar yoke, it was always an uphill struggle for them since they regularly had to deal with stronger neighbors.

*** Washington retained command of the army and kept it in a state of readiness until word of the signing of the Treaty had reached our shores. He was not willing to risk disbanding the army and place his hopes in the sincerity of our former rulers.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Video of UK Muslim Protest

Anyone who has a shred of doubt about the hostility inherent in Islamic thought needs to see this video.

The UK has bent over backwards again and again to their demands for special considerations like Sharia courts, etc.

This is how Britain gets repaid.....

Note (Towards the end of the two-minute video) the Quisling walking to the rear of the British speaker who is trying in vain to engage the protesters in intelligent debate or conversation. One of the the saddest things to see is someone who completely abandons his heritage.

Bikini-in-Burkha/Hajib Photo Causes Fox Network to Vacillate

The daughter of a Vlaams Belang politician (VG is a political party in Belgium that stands against the continued Islamization of Europe) caused quite a stir when she posed in a bikini while also partially covered in a burkha/hijab. I use both terms as the articles used the term burkha but I consider a true burkha to hide even the outline of a woman's head.

The stated purpose of the photo was to communicate the extent to which women are restricted in Islam. It is hard for Americans to understand how many in Europe feel about the mass-immigration of Muslims (We are being hit with an entirely different sort of mass-immigration in the US). I will avoid going into detail on the plight of indigenous Europeans as doing so would bring us off-topic. There are more than enough posts and articles on that subject that are readily available and easy enough to find if one has a computer.

I have to agree with the writer of the post in the above link. Fox news did a short piece on the fallout over the photo (Islamic run-of-the-mill death threats and such). Here we have a group of purported Conservatives, people who are supposed to stand for the principles germane to Western culture (Like the radical concepts of free speech and expression), and all I can find is confusion, vacillation, and weak-kneed comments. In the brief piece of the video that can be watched until it is cut off, one witnesses statements and facial expressions (Almost like rolling-eye types) that are clearly meant to indicate that the speakers feel that the young woman went too far or put too much effort into provoking the anger of Muslims. You get the idea that the speakers feel like they have no choice in defending her right to express herself, but that they really want to say that she should not have done it.

The act of this young lady should not be taken to be remotely comparable to the other extreme of which we never speak - the brutal subjugation of women in Islamic cultures. Western feminists, who gleefully reduce the position of the Western male whenever they can, seem to be perfectly fine with the actions of the Islamic man. (It is interesting yet ironic that the actions, sacrifice, and bravery of the former through the centuries was a major factor in preventing the latter from being able to also subjugate the Western woman and thus kept her free enough to destroy her protector.) Her act also should not be compared to the terribly provocative act of the cowardly Koran-Burning Pastor Terry Jones*. His was an act that was expressly designed to hit right at the heart of Muslim sensibilities and he knew that it would be highly likely to have terrible repercussions on Christians in the Middle East. This young lady did nothing of the sort; she challenged both Muslim women and men to consider the reality that, if they choose to reside in Europe, they must reconsider to what extent they will apply the minutiae of Islamic restrictions.

While the Left repeatedly paints Fox as a far-right network, the fact is that they are barely right-of-center in their outlook. This is at least one way to understand how far gone our American Left really is.

Read the article and take a look at what is left of the video.

As an aside, she is easy on the eyes.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Ron Paul Drops the F-Word... Fascism

Ron Paul took a big step and used the word Fascism to describe the path on which the US is headed. This is not to suggest that he is the first person to see the similarities between that political system and current tends in the US but that he is the first major candidate to do so.

Fascism has been a hip-pocket term used by the Left since the end of WWII. It is kept at the ready to throw at any individual who dares to question or protest the steady move of Western societies to the Left. They have done all that they can to redefine the term to cause it to mean those who are strongly opposed to Marxism. It has been given a secondary but insidiously-related purpose meaning of, or equating to, racism. This is employed to keep non-Marxists on the defensive as racism is the crime of the modern era. Non-whites tend to comprise a disproportionate amount of those kept in bondage by the Left and are consequently used as political weapons against free people of all ethnic groups and free-market societies. When a non-Marxist speaks out about the decline in work ethic, senses of entitlement, welfare-type payments, etc., he can then be labeled as a Fascist.

The fabricated double-meanings have been long employed to demonize all who stand for freedom, private property and the right to stand for cultural values derived from Western Civilization. Those at whom this epithet is hurled tend to stand against Marxist-related trends, mass-immigration  that is employed to dilute the cultural identities of people and therefore pave the way for a faceless, socialist society, and the continued attacks on the concept of rights to property.

I say fabricated because Fascism has never been a political concept of the Right. Fascism is a Leftist system, one of many. Communism, Socialism, Maoism, and Fascism and the various blends of these and others are all derived from the Leftist end of the political spectrum. Below is just one source that treats his issue:

Fascism's main concepts are to create a very strong centralized government, maintain an alliance between that and industrialists, corporate interests, and other conglomerates and to rigidly organize the people. It is designed to reduce the freedom and political influence of the individual by continuous governmental control and propaganda and to remove the small to middle-level businessperson from the picture. Keeping everyone in large groups is more manageable and can pave the way for an eventual shift into a Marxist society. This was a stated purpose of many early Marxists. They saw that Western societies were not ready to engage in revolutionary activity. They needed a concept that could create a halfway point that would start the eventual move to Marxism without having to work to stir the masses into full-scale revolts.

I personnaly believe that Obama is more of a Fascist that a Socialist or full-scale Marxist. Obama seems perfectly content with partnering up with the biggest of businesses as long as they walk the chalk lines that he draws. He also has created a system of new laws and regulations that appear to be custom-designed to eliminate small to middling businesses.

Does anyone recall his comment about need of the nation for a Civilian Security Force? The Mainstream Media ignored that comment like a bad joke at a funeral, but man, did it smack of a Fascist outlook or what?

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security forcethat's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

The concept of having such a force that is even a tenth of the size of the military in scope looks very much to me like Mussolini's Blackshirts or Hitler's SA/Brownshirts. Note that Hitler headed the National Socialist Party. His radical and terrible racist ideology was brought in to the structure of a Socialist party. It engaged in strict governmental alliances with and regulation of industry in Germany. His was not a right-wing movement.

Ron Paul was brave to come out and say  what he said. We are on the road to Fascism.

As a last note, the Left has expended tremendous amounts of energy in attempts to solidify their redefining of fascism to indicate a system that is inherently racist or tribalist. I would strongly recommend that anyone who desires to research the origins of fascism do just that- look for sources that describe the origins of the movement. Fascism began as and still is an ideology of the Left. It is not what post WWII Leftists painted over it to make it look like.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Episcopal Priest Joins in on Lies About Vatican II

I came across this post purely by accident. I started to hit the "next blog" link at the top of the page a couple of weeks back and this post caught my eye.

The Second Vatican Council of the Catholic Church has got to be far and away the most misrepresented decision-making body that has ever existed. I have seen all manner of bizarre accounts of religious and secular meetings of the minds from all sorts of historical eras, but none have been twisted as to their founder's intention's, nor had their very purposes for being convened purposely misrepresented more than that which has been done to Vatican II.

The Left does of course have a relatively secure foothold in the US Catholic Church and most of the Mainline Protestant denominations, especially in the Episcopal Church. They have, however never accepted that they have yet been unable to cause these bodies to drop the Christian concepts of sin, redemption. justification, and salvation and thus turn them into kumbaya communities that do nothing but petition for more "social justice".

The Second Vatican Council was and still has been assailed from all sides, most of whom strategically retain the label of Catholic in order to maintain the illusion of actually being Catholics. This is somehow supposed to lend weight to their protests that the Council went too far or did not go far enough. The following is a very brief listing of the general categories involved:

- Radical traditionalists, who claim that the Church should never have allowed anything other than Latin to be used in Masses or that the Laity were now allowed too great a part in the Mass.

- Radical lay persons, who just generally dislike anyone having any authority to tell them what is right and what is wrong but can't bring themselves to abandon the idea of maintaining the image of attending Church. These people hold that the laity were allowed too little a part in the Mass.

- Feminists who claim that the Church failed in her fictional purpose to bring on women priestesses or dismantle all traces of male leadership. (A possible  return of the female Diaconate similar to that of the early Church? Absolutely not, we want the whole thing.)

- Leftists and others, who resent that the Church maintained their positions of morality, marriage, and the rest of the concepts embodied in the Ten Commandments, such as property.

I will not treat all  of these categories as doing so would take me off the subject. Safe to say that the radical traditionalists thankfully have very few followers.

The main problem for the Church has been the bold-faced lies that have been heaped upon her for supposed failures to implement changes that were falsely attributed to the "Spirit of  Vatican II" or other vague references to intentions of the Council founders or attendees that never existed.

Again. this council has been the subject of more outright lies than any governing body/convention/committee in the history of the world.

In today's society, where honesty means little, one can pretend to be of the opinion that a Council decided on positions and practices that were completely contrary to what the actual signatories wrote and signed to document as their decisions. If that course is not chosen, then one can just pretend that the council did in fact decide or desire whatever one in his delusional mind would have wanted and hope that no one checks by reading what the council wrote.

The event that spurred this post was this exact thing, but this time it came from an Episcopalian Priest. One's first question would naturally be why an Episcopalian got himself involved with the chorus of lies about Vatican II in the first place. His post gives that answer. Here is a portion:
"Episcopalians can now convert to the Roman Catholic Church while keeping some Anglican practices in a special new U.S. diocese that was established last week by the Pope.

The Houston-based diocese, called the "Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter," will allow a special Anglican celebration of the Mass that can include selections from the Book of Common Prayer. So, if you love Anglican liturgy (but dislike contemporary Roman Catholic practice), but dislike the stance the Episcopal Church has taken on female clergy (or the role of women in society in general) or homosexual clergy (or the role of homosexual persons in society in general) or any other of a host of possibilities (e.g., contraception, abortion), then you can now "have your cake and eat it to." No longer do you have to choose between bad music or bad theology. Now, you can have both liturgy and doctrine that is to your liking."
OK, now I get it. He is not happy that the Church is providing a means for Episcopalians and their Priests to escape the collapse that is being brought on by their own their Church leadership. The Episcopalian Church lied itself into all sorts of compromises that that has terribly undermined its credibility. Mind you, the same thing has happened in the US Catholic Church, but it has not reached near the level that it has with the Episcopalian. Those who desire some pastoral action and firmness by their pastors (Note that pastoral refers to acting as a Shepherd, which means being in charge as well as being kind) now have a refuge form the insanity that plagues their current Church body.

Reverend Hawkins goes further:
"I, do not, however, feel God's call to this new Ordinariate. And, I am sad to see it established. It is yet another sign that my delight in the Roman Catholic Church post-Vatican II, will not last. I experience this as a loss. And, therefore, it makes me sad.

I am sad because my pews are filled with former faithful Roman Catholics, who have found that for those who believed in Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church can be an inhospitable place. It saddens me, because it didn't have to be that way. But since Vatican II, the Roman Catholic Church has chosen to retreat from Vatican II, rather than advance into Vatican II."

From where I sit, it looks like the best place for Vatican II Catholics is, sadly, the Episcopal Church. Our liturgy can be a little stuffy for your liking, but we are now the closest thing to an emobodiment [sic]of Vatican II in America. For those who take birth control, or believe women can be priests, or that married persons can be priests, or are divorced and do not believe it would be wrong to remarry, and so on and so forth, perhaps your ordinary (i.e. bishop) really is already the local Episcopal bishop."
OK, we all know that many who have given up trying to completely wreck the Catholic Church from within found a home with you guys and that is great. Guys, knock yourselves out over there. We also know that those who have grown weary of Episcopalians successfully wrecking their Church from within have found refuge in the Catholic Church. If Catholics are OK with our guys leaving for your Church, then why can't you be OK with the conversions going the other way?

Just to provide Reverend Hawkins with a heads-up, those who felt that Vatican II went too far or not far enough either Left the Church or constantly agitate from within while remaining Catholics only in name. The Vatican II Catholics are right here, Reverend. I and many others who happily follow the changes or practice and attitudes brought about by the Council are the ones who refuse to either shun the Church for being too liberal or too rigid. We are the Vatican II Catholics, not those who fill your pews to the point of bursting at the seams.

I can't but suspect that there is an underlying motive of jealousy in the post that is treated here. The quality (education, holiness, moral values) of those who move from the Episcopalian Church to the Catholic Church tends to be far better than it is for those who do the reverse. In short, the Catholic Church, whether she deserves it or not, tends to get the cream of the crop when Episcopalians move to her side, while the Catholic Church tends to rid herself of disgruntled individuals who refuse to accept Church teachings on morality. 

Personally,  I cannot drive by a good old Episcopal Church on the East Coast with feeling some sense of envy. They are built to be and look like timeless, rock-solid houses of faith, while Catholic Churches have gone in the opposite direction. Modern Catholic Church buildings are  absolute disasters. The difference is that I don't blame the problems in my Church on other Church bodies.

Tell you what, Reverend, why don't you guys start a Roman or other Latin-rite Episcopalian liturgy for Catholics who come your way? I promise not to complain.

The only thing that I would have to ask of the good Reverend that he refrain from engaging in the worn out, patently false, claims about what Vatican II is, was, or was supposed to be. Please, pretending to be under the impression that the "Spirit of Vatican II" was not followed, realized, or brought to fruition is just ridiculous. It also insults the intelligence of all of us. The Second Vatican Council was never suppressed, cut short, failed to be put into operation, or anything else of that nature. The source of these sort of false claims originated with radical Leftists, feminists, and others who saw that the Church never had any intention to do to itself what the Episcopal would. When their dreams of deconstructing the Church were dashed with the realization that no one involved with the Council wanted any part of such action, they proceeded to Plan B- creating a whole web of lies about the intentions of those who brought about Vatican II. If they could not get Vatican II to be about things that they wanted, then they would pretend that it had been so, but that unseen forces would not let the desired changes occur. 

The claim that the Second Vatican Council was supposed to actually change the doctrines or organisation of the Church may very well be the Hoax of the Century. Practices changed, not doctrines or the priesthood. We have had enough of those who identify themselves as Catholics claiming that the latter were changed or was supposed to have changed also. We don't need people completely outside the Church joining in with them.

Below is just a tiny piece of a good summary on Vatican II:

"In his opening speech to the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II, Pope John said that the first need in calling the council was "to assert once again the Magisterium, which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time." The "magisterium" means the teaching authority of the Church. How unfortunate that, after this council, the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, was so often ignored even by some who said they spoke "in the spirit of Vatican II" or the "spirit of Pope John."

In calling the council, Pope John noted that he looked to the past, to listen to its voice. He declared that it was the principal duty of the council to defend and to advance the truth. The council was to be loyal to the sacred patrimony of truth, as received from the fathers, but to see ever new avenues by which to take the same, true faith of Christ to the world. He insisted that the Catholic Church would continue to oppose errors, but that its opposition must be treated with the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. He sought ever greater unity in sanctity, and great joy in the eventual union of all the Christian churches of the world.

Thus the reform and change that Pope John sought in calling the council was in no way to change the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. His idea was to develop no new doctrine but a new way to make the constant unchangeable faith in Christ — as given the apostles in the sacred deposit of faith — ever more effective in the lives of people and for the evangelization of the entire world."