Thursday, November 29, 2012

Doctor-Approved Infanticide in UK

The news from our mother nation gets bleaker every day.

Like mother, like daughter. I have no doubt that we are not far behind.

The above-linked post contains gut-wrenching testimony of how unwanted (Read - just too disabled for the trouble) babies are put on "death pathways" in which they are refused food and water for up to ten days in order for them to die. The cowards likely justify their actions by asserting that it is not actually they who are physically killing the innocents.

The article from The Blaze should be read by anyone who has wondered if it is time that we take steps to take our countries back from the Left and their inhuman policies.

This subject brought to mind a post I did a while back in which I compared the neo-barbarism of the Left. For all  its talk of evolution of societies, the Left has done little other than bringing back the worst of the societies of our ancient ancestors - this without any of the good of the same. The attributes of our ancestors are ridiculed, and their practices that we are happy to have excised (Slavery, Infanticide) are back in style

-From the above The Hot Gates 480BC link:

"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."

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Walter Williams on Secession

Conservative writer and Academic Walter Williams (Bio link at bottom) recently penned a fair treatment on Secession. While I disagree with his views* on the legality of the secession of the slave states following Lincoln's election (I hold that they were wrong), he does bring up telling questions.

The following are excepts from his article:
Bolding is added.

"For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let's look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty............."

I hold that it is time for a political party with a secessionist and reform platform to be created. I can think of no other way to reestablish or save what is left of the American Republic.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Maronites - No Option But to Support Hezbollah

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

My title is obviously not 100% true, but my point is that the West has done nothing to support the Christians of the Middle and Near East. As a consequence of this lack of support or help in the face of escalating post-strongman regime persecution, Christians feel as if they have no option but to support terror groups such as Hezbollah.

"As head of Lebanon’s Catholic Church, Rai recently sent his envoy, Father Abdo Abou Kassem, to Teheran to attend a conference in support of the Palestinian Arab Intifada and of a “Zionist-free middle east”. The conference was attended also by Hizbullah ideologue, Mohammad Raad, and by the Hamas’ leader Khaled Meshaal.

Cardinal Rai recently said in Paris that he supports Hizbullah's war against Israel: "Only when the international community exerts pressure on Israel to vacate the occupied Lebanese territory and Israel allows Palestinians in Lebanon to return to their homes, can Hizbullah be asked to hand over its arms because they will no longer be needed". It is not clear from the Cardinal's remarks to which Lebanese territory he was referring, since Israel, in compliance with the UN, had withdrawn from its Lebanon buffer zone years earlier. Rai said his statements reflected the policy of the Vatican."

Their situation is a pathetic one. A couple of months ago, I called for Russia to step in to  protect Christians of this region*. These people have suffered for 1,400 years, and things are getting worse as the autocrats that at least provided some protection and order are going or gone. 

The US will not even allow one's religion to be considered when applying for a visa. Not that they want to leave their ancestral homes, but bombings, kidnappings, shootings, and gang-rapes tend to change one's mind.

Christians of this region clearly have no problem with Israel, nor do they think that Hamas or Hezbollah will start to like them if they voice their support of terror groups. The sad fact is that, if they do not speak in favor of these groups, attacks on Christians will increase in quantity and severity. 

This is very close to a parent who is trapped with an abusive spouse that abuses everyone in the house. Walking on eggshells will not appease the abuser, but woe to the individual that does anything to annoy the abuser or even fails to do what the abuser demands. The abuser will also attack others for allowing the act to happen in the first place. Christians in Muslim-majority countries cannot stand up for themselves, no one will help them, and the ever-watchful abuser stands ready to find a reason to lash out.

The article also notes that, in addition to the Hezbollah envoys, the Vatican seems to have a substantial group of Iranian  envoys for diplomatic purposes. 

I am a staunch Catholic, but what is going on with the Vatican and Islamic nations/groups annoys me to no end*. The Church's political positions have no authority over Catholics.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Pravda Lives Up to Its Name

Pravda, which is Russian for "truth", was the mouthpiece of the old USSR. It was formerly known for its anti-western (especially anti-US) pieces.

With the Soviet Union out of the way for about twenty years, though, the periodical can afford to beat up on the US (or at least one person n the US) for altogether different reasons:

"The famed Russian news site “Pravda,” which ironically was formed as the official Communist publication of the former Soviet Union, recently released a scathing opinion column entitled, “Obama’s Soviet Mistake,” in which the author unabashedly labelsthe U.S. president a “Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so.”

The author, Xavier Lerma, goes on to note how Obama’s “cult of personality” has mesmerized the ignorant in America, who will follow the hope and change icon in much the same way as ”fools” still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia....."

The article goes on to rip the anti-business political climate that has been cultivated by the Obama administration. 

The ongoing attack (By our own people) on our culture was not ignored either:

"The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its’ flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free.

“Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law,” Lerma notes astutely.

In terms of all of the U.S. States that have filed petitions to secede from the union, Lerma coins these Americans” hostages to the Communists in power” who will eventually need to rise up in the face of “tyranny.” Lerma concludes with a powerful comparison of the suffering endured for nearly a century under the oppression and brutality of the USSR and quotes Don Mclean’s famed song, “American Pie”:"

It's good to know that at least people outside the US can see where we are going.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Children Removed From Conservative UK Foster Parents

The totalitarian state of the UK has struck again-

Excerpts from The Telegraph. Bolding is added.

"A couple had their three foster children taken away by a council on the grounds that their membership of the UK Independence Party* meant that they supported “racist” policies.


The husband and wife, who have been fostering for nearly seven years, said they were made to feel like criminals when a social worker told them that their views on immigration made them unsuitable carers.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, described the actions of Rotherham borough council as “a bloody outrage” and “political prejudice of the very worst kind”.

The husband was a Royal Navy reservist for more than 30 years and works with disabled people, while his wife is a qualified nursery nurse.

Former Labour voters, they have been approved foster parents for nearly seven years and have looked after about a dozen different children, one of them in a placement lasting four years.

They took on the three children — a baby girl, a boy and an older girl, who were all from an ethnic minority and a troubled family background — in September in an emergency placement.
They believe that the youngsters thrived in their care. The couple were described as “exemplary” foster parents: the baby put on weight and the older girl even began calling them “mum and dad”.

However, just under eight weeks into the placement, they received a visit out of the blue from the children’s social worker at the Labour-run council and an official from their fostering agency.

They were told that the local safeguarding children team had received an anonymous tip-off that they were members of Ukip.
The wife recalled: “I was dumbfounded. Then my question to both of them was, 'What has Ukip got to do with having the children removed?’

“Then one of them said, 'Well, Ukip have got racist policies’. The implication was that we were racist. [The social worker] said Ukip does not like European people and wants them all out of the country to be returned to their own countries.

“I’m sat there and I’m thinking, 'What the hell is going off here?’ because I wouldn’t have joined Ukip if they thought that. I’ve got mixed race in my family. I said, 'I am absolutely offended that you could come in my house and accuse me of being a member of a racist party’.”

The wife said the social worker told her: “We would not have placed these children with you had we known you were members of Ukip because it wouldn’t have been the right cultural match.” The wife said she was left “bereft”, adding: “We felt like we were criminals. From having a little baby in my arms, suddenly there was an empty cot. I knew she wouldn’t have been here for ever, but usually there is a build-up of several weeks. I was in tears.........”

The UK, one of the main sources of our political thought, is patently unrecognizable. Sure, it looks mostly the same, and its inhabitants still have difficulty speaking English and have a baseball-like game that can go on for days (Sorry UK friends- I couldn't resist), but the State is now all-powerful in the nation of John Locke. Not only that, but the intentions of that State is to erase any sense of British identity.

In the above case, a hard working and patriotic British couple have been blacklisted from having foster children solely due to their association with a political party that seeks to protect Britain from losing her sovereignty to the EU. As far as immigration goes, the only "crime" of which UKIP can be guilty is that they oppose the Labor party's purposeful flooding of the British electorate with massive amounts of people who, almost to a one, support the further slide of Britain into Marxist stagnation. 

The Left runs every political aspect of British society. Family Services, a group that does nothing to stop ethnic British girls from being gang-raped by Muslim men, is one of the worst offenders. They prefer to concentrate on persecuting people who would like Britain to remain sovereign.

The British people no longer have a say in how their nation is run. 

The US is not far behind. Our Progressives would surely do the same thing with Conservatives in our country if they could. That day may not be far away.

The people must organize and stop defending their beliefs; this just lends credibility to the false arguments of the Leftist enemy. Instead, the positions of the Left must be exposed for what they are.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Thanksgiving Trashed By Brainwashed Adults

“What do you think we should teach our kindergarteners about Thanksgiving,” Revealing Politics’ Caleb Bonham asks in the video.

“The truth,” one man replies. “They need to know about the racism and the violence that went on.”

In response to the same exact question, another woman said we should teach kindergarteners that Thanksgiving is “totally meaningless” and “we massacred millions and millions of Native Americans.” Ouch. That’s quite a heavy kindergarten lesson.

“Well, our nation was founded on slavery, genocide, murder, theft and mass injustice and it continues to this day,” yet another female respondent said.

Some were asked to respond what “students” in general should be learning about Thanksgiving, while others were a little more indifferent to the holiday.

“Personally, I don’t really give a sh*t about Thanksgiving,” another man said. Another gentleman echoed his feelings, saying America should just do away with Thanksgiving all together."

Hat to to The Blaze.

I am probably being too generous when I describe these individuals as brainwashed. I believe that a person who is faced with a incessant barrage of anti-West/US propaganda in school need not be convinced solely due to what garbage is being dealt out by one's teachers/professors. The student may become discouraged and frustrated at his inability to refute the Goebbels at the podium, but to swallow such drivel hook, line, and sinker takes a determined mind.

The anti-Western/US agenda is a main tool of the Left. Mocking  and deriding traditions and celebrations of historical events, and painting the Western peoples in as bad a light as possible, have become standard fare. Even if this only works with a third of all students, Academia has done its job.

This is not only a phenomena of colleges. High school students are being steeped in the lurid tales of the horrors of Western societies. It is not uncommon for a high school graduate to proclaim that he would do away with the celebration of Thanksgiving if he could.

Once the student begins college, Whiteness Studies or Colonialism courses seal the deal. The individual has been thoroughly indoctrinated to detest the history of his country and his ancestors.

Parents are apt to write these off as silly phases of youth, but the implications are dangerous. These people will soon become parents themselves and will impart these ideas on the minds of their own children. Soon, the schools will no longer have to brainwash the students as that will have already been taken care of at home. Note that the quotes are all from adults.

We assume that our kids will always be making pilgrim or Indian hats/headdresses and marking Thanksgiving in Kindergarten and First Grade. In many schools, however, these events have already been done away with.

The move to destroy the identity of a people or nation requires that all traditional beliefs and historical events be negated. This is what has been going on with a vengeance for over twenty years. The trend is catching on. In a few more years pathetically few schools will still mark Thanksgiving. The evil Anglo-Saxon settlers will, unless it is presented only to demonize them, be consigned to the dustbins of history.

This is another reason why I hold that states must consider seceding. It is the only way I see that the schools can be wrested from the Dept of Education and the rest of the Western-hating Left.

Imagine a large bloc of states in which students learn the good things about Western Societies as well as the bad. If we don't act soon, even if it turns out to be a temporary just to repair school curricula and stop the attacks on property,  we may find that the clock is running out.

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

Vatican Official Likens Deaths in Gaza to Slaughter of the Innocents

"Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, President of the Vatican Council for Culture, commenting on the war between Israel and Hamas, delivered a severe attack on the Jewish people: “I think of the ‘massacre of the innocents’. Children are dying in Gaza, their mothers’ shouts is a perennial cry, a universal cry”.

The Catholic Church high official equated Israel’s operation in Gaza against terror groups with the New Testament story of Herod’s slaughter of Jewish babies in his effort to kill Jesus."

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

As I have gone after leadership (More appropriately the lack thereof) on numerous occasions, I have to note firstly that I am a practicing Catholic and have remained so as an adult. If I had not committed myself to extensive research of Christian doctrine and history,  I may have bought into the arguments of Evangelicals many years ago.

One thing must be made clear - no rule of doctrine of the Catholic Church requires me to accept the Church's positions on issues such as politics.

The Vatican has routinely sided with the Arabs of Palestine for a long time. Even during the days of the otherwise brilliant John Paul II, the Vatican's position on Jerusalem was that it is illegally occupied. Now, a Vatican official has likened the deaths in Gaza to the Slaughter of the Innocents, a gruesome event that occurred after Herod was unable to find out where the location of the newborn King.

The Vatican either is under the impression that the Islamic world will respect it if it is extra nice to them or is too full of Leftists sympathizers to take the correct and courageous position. Maybe it's both.

I can not recall one time in which the Vatican spoke out against specifically against bombings, rockets attacks, kidnappings, etc. The only time that we hear of any comments is when the victims are not Israelis.

Since Christendom was subject to well over a thousands years of Islamic warfare, slave-taking, etc., and the Church had a far less than stellar record of its treatment* of European Jews, one would think that the Vatican would tend to support the latter.

*The tremendous but necessarily clandestine efforts of Pius XII's Vatican during the Holocaust were the only real moments in which the Church accomplished anything of substance in helping European Jewry.

I don't know if the jerks that form Vatican foreign policy would ever be willing to reconsider their positions. They are so set in their ways.

Even one of their guys who should know the real story affects to be ignorant:

"The vicar-general of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem [Emphasis added], William Shomali, said on Vatican Radio that “what is happening in Gaza now is a vicious circle of violence”. The auxiliary bishop then declared that “it’s difficult to know who started it' "

One thing is for certain - If one wants to have a solid idea of who is primarily responsible for causing violence in Israel/Palestine, read what the Vatican says about it and take the contrary position.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Hamas Routinely Using Civilians as Human Shields

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

For years, I have groaned over the deliberately misleading (Plain dishonesty) use of words by the Western Media when reporting on events with either the old PLO, Hezbollah, or Hamas.

The worst of all statements that these groups have "lobbed" rockets into Israel. I mean, how is it possible to lob a rocket? Do they build gigantic slingshots and used these to propel the rockets?

That's why one should, unless the other person is truly unaware, avoid explaining these events as if the discussion is a fair one. I rarely encounter anyone who truly believes this muck, yet many affect to do so. Instead, one should consider calling them out - let them know that they are not fooling anyone and that it is pure cowardly hypocrisy to proclaim that Israelis should allow these attacks to occur.

When Ariel Sharon literally physically forced Israelis out of their homes in Gaza, I truly felt that he had scored a political triumph. No one had any doubt about what would happen. Rocket attacks, tunnels, kidnappings ensued almost as the last Israeli crossed the border. This should have been a walkover.

"See, what did we tell you? We give Gaza back, and they attack us."

I was wrong. The media was even more dishonest that I thought. No effort was made to show the public what happens when you compromise in any way.

The Left cannot allow a sovereign nation-state, especially one which is comprised of people who have a real sense of ethnic/religious/cultural identity, survive.

Israel, though, does not care what the Left thinks.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Hillsdale College Lecture - Founders v. Progressives

I split too much firewood today to be of any use for writing (Not that my ability is anything special in the first place).

Hat tip to Free Republic.

Hillsdale College is one of the last Bastions of freedom and American values in Academia.

It gained notoriety around twenty years ago when, to maintain its freedom from governmental regulation, it ultimately had to stop accepting students who receive Federal aid. Their policy of not directly accepting government aid had not been enough to the Bureaucrats. They maintained that, since some students receive aid, the college would also be considered as a recipient.

So, the college had to take a big step to remain free.

The college has also offered FREE online lectures in the Constitution.

The link at top concerns the outlook of Progressives versus that of the Founding Fathers. It is well worth the time. When you pull up the video, several other lectures by Hillsdale professors are available on the right-hand side.

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Secession - Why the Panic?

I am quite befuddled with the counter-secession arguments being thrown around during the past week-plus.

We have substantial subsets of the American nation that are perfectly fine with our steady move towards Western European Socialism, legislation that is prejudiced towards business, the continuing attacks on any public identification whatsoever with our Judeo-Christian roots, the enslavement of the hitherto compliant (Rightfully so) taxpayer, Courts that smugly ignore the law and seek to subvert society, and politicians who feel as is they have to pander to all sorts of bizarre interest groups, and more. What's worse, these trends appear to have done nothing but picked up speed.

Yet, instead of thinking about what we can do, Conservatives are putting tremendous amounts of energy into denigrating the arguments and intentions of those who call for exploring the possibility of saving a protected and restored American Republic. 

There seems to be what Huntington (Clash of Civilizations) refers to as "the illusion of permanency". We are surrounded by a society that has the outward appearance of a Representative Republic, our lives are (seemingly) unchanged, and we still have some political power. As a result, we are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to any movement that threatens to change things as we know them.

My take is that we are at a crossroads. While we still have the ability to secure a Republic based on American principles, one that has all the advantages of our Constitutional government, and take steps to protect it from being undermined, that ability is fast becoming threatened.

Our courts are no longer a forum to which we can appeal to seek protection but rather are tools to smooth the transition to a Progressive society utterly lacking in any vitality or virtue.

Our primary schools are breeding grounds for anti-Western and American thought.

Most colleges make the Primary schools look good by comparison.

A massive swath of our electorate seems to be locked into "self-destruct at the polls" mode.

Voter fraud by the Left is endemic.

We now have a Chief Executive that not only can choose to ignore any law, but a system of legislators and courts who will timidly refuse to raise a hand in objection.

The Media is in the business of electing Leftists/Progressives; consequently, they will ignore all of the bad and magnify the good (or not-so-bad) of their guys and do the converse for the opposition.

News outlets that try to get the story halfway straight such as Fox are painted as radicals.

The takers (Increasing in number) are willing to vote for increasing the amount of wealth that is taken from others and doled out by the Bureaucrats.

In response to calls for a reformation of the Republic, Conservatives are inexplicably employing the tired old (And plainly false) line about Secession being "settled" by the Civil War, which is kind of like saying that the question of murdering Jewish people was settled solely due to the defeat of the Nazis.

They are trotting out descriptions such as ridiculous, nonsensical, etc.

Here comes the worst of it:

They are citing Constitutional advocates such as James Madison, who in the Federalist correctly described ratification as "unconditional and forever" without thinking for just one moment that those who rightly worked for the adoption of the Constitution would never suggest that, in the event that the government had ceased to be a protector and instead became the oppressor, the States and people would be bound to a document that is not being respected in any way by those in control.

Here is the basic issue that is not being addressed. We are applying correct logic incorrectly.

Of course the Constitution is a permanent obligation for the States. The latter cannot arbitrarily walk away.
No one is saying anything to the contrary. What we are saying is that, to use the words of John Locke (Just as Jefferson did in our Declaration of Independence) we have been the victims of "a long train of abuses".

We are exactly in the same position, albeit worse in our case, that the Founders were in regards to the Crown. Nothing that Parliament dished out without our Representation could compare to the intrusions on our lives, property, and wealth with which we are faced.

None of our laws prohibit us from applying the very same principles as did they when we are faced with a government that summarily and despotically rules over the people rather than governs according to the Law.

The intention of the framers was not to create a system that would bind all generations to a government that had been undermined and turned into a despotism, even a soft one. Every one of them knew that, in the event that the Constitution was no longer being protected, it would be the right and obligation of the people to "alter or abolish it".

Like the Founders, we have tried all means possible (And without any of the barbarism of tarring and feathering) to put an end to this. We have participated in the electoral process, appealed to the Courts, written and read protests to these abuses, and we have been dismissed outright.

If an appreciable amount of the people are insistent about going in the Progressive direction, then we must not begrudge them. Let them have a fair portion of the country to administer as they please.

The need now is for the independence-minded, secessionists, and those who desire to save American principles to find a way to coalesce and form a party with a platform of a legal and safe division of the Republic.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Questions Before Secession

The thought of a split of the American Republic is not an easy pill to swallow. We have come to assume that the United States in which most of us were born, raised, learned about in school and from books, movies, patriotic holidays, etc., was began in 1776 and that it would still be around long after we are gone.

I have been torn over this since the mid-90's. Like many people, I had taken it for granted that, as a result of the collapse of the USSR and its client-states, Marxist-inspired college professors would either see the light or be so utterly discredited as to become laughing stocks of the young people who sat in the lecture halls.

What I found during the 90's was that the Western variant of Marxism had the ability to, like a bacterium that had squeaked by courses of a particular antibiotic enough times, develop resistance against what would easily kill it off in the past.

Gone (For the most part) were the calls for the people to seize the means of production. The Cultural Marxism promulgated by Georg Lukaks and Antonio Gramsci then gained ascendancy . The latter was nothing new, it was similarly a more stealthy means by which the people of the West could be softened up for the supposed inevitable onset of Marxism and the corresponding end of sovereign states.

The welfare state of LBJ's Great Society was a great leap forward in this direction. Generations of people would know nothing other than lives of subsistence earned by nothing more than the act of signing a few legal forms. As we go into fourth generations of this soft but still insidious servitude, the voting bloc that seems nothing strange about this grows ever larger.

Our schools have ceased to be places of learning. they are now reeducation camps where the youth are trained to dispense with any romantic notions about patriotism, Western Culture, respect for religious traditions (Unless that of the Muslims), heroic people of the West who stood for freedom and virtue, and above all familial loyalties.

Nations such as India and China produce engineers - we produce Sociology majors steeped in the concepts of anti-Western propaganda.

We are told that somehow States have to ability and authority to define marriage, an institution that existed long, long before any organized government existed.

People are fast losing control over their bodies, property, wealth, and freedom of speech is also in the crosshairs.

I ask that the reader consider the following:

Is the American voting public going to change its outlook anytime in the next thirty years?

Are colleges (Yes some are conservative) going to stop indoctrinating 18-26 year-old students with leftist thought?

Is the Federal government going to stop intruding on our Liberties?

Will the Federal Government stop at the $200.000+ amount of debt that every American newborn is currently allotted by having been  born? Note that that number assumes that each one of those babies will be a taxpayer. so the amount is undoubtedly larger.

Will our primary schools return to teaching (The literacy rate is appalling) and also give students  reasons to be proud to be Americans?

Will the initiative to have individual States pledge all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner* (Thus completely eliminating any protections for non-urban states - making rural states non-issues) be ignored?
*The left is infuriated by the fact that they need to do more than simply win all urban enclaves)

Will initiatives to allow convicted felons the right to vote be dropped?

Will the brakes be put on the increasing amount of surveillance (Drones, etc.) being undertaken without warrants?

Will NYC laws controlling such trivial issues such as soft drink sizes and salt intake be restricted to similar places or will they be applied to Anytown USA?

Will the Supreme Court, even without the inevitable new Obama appointees, go back to protecting our rights?

Will the courts start throwing our frivolous lawsuits by every angry and rabid atheist for a benediction or monument that recognizes our Creator?

Will the Left break from its alliance with radical environmentalists and the Islamic world?

As much as I respect the enormous contributions and sacrifices of the Tea Party and others who strive to restore the Republic, I still must ask the following:

Will the above group(s) be able to persuade the 50+ million who voted for a man who has wrecked the economy,  put us in crushing debt, engaged in blatant demagoguery, insulted his political opponents as a daily requirement, etc., to vote for  candidate who seeks to adhere to the Constitution and put the US on the right track?

Would the Founding Fathers, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson, or Abraham Lincoln accept, or even recognize, the United States as it exists today?

These are just some questions that one should consider before he dismisses the idea of reforming the nation along traditional lines.

Our society and its freedoms were bequeathed to us. To dispense with them ourselves or to allow others to dismantle them is not acceptable.

They most assuredly will not stop. Like Mariano Rivera, who for years threw only one pitch (His cut-fastball), simply because he was able to get batters out, with it, the Left will keep firing away at us. Opposing batters at least had eight innings to hit against other pitchers. We have no such luxury; the enemy is relentless and does not tire easily.

We can do this. We will need to unite. We can get our schools back, put a stop to insane spending,  protect taxpayers from becoming serfs of the system who labor for others*, and take back our legacy.

*I will not be taken to mean that we will let people starve, etc.

Half of a country saved is better than an entire country lost.

Glenn Beck Also Against Secession

I expected the petitions to have this sort of result-

As I noted yesterday, a letter was produced that purportedly was sent by Justice Antonin Scalia in which he claims that the issue of secession was settled by the Civil war.

Now Glenn Beck is taking the same position.

I am not sure if these people can possibly believe what they are saying. I can't think that bright and learned people would accept such a pathetically weak argument.

My personal belief is that Beck, Scalia, and others are probably just protecting themselves. High-visibility personalities fear the political and financial backlash and possible investigations that may follow as a result of advocating this type of political move.

I have no time to post tonight as I had to attend a function at my kid's high school. Tomorrow I plan on having a set of questions one should ask of himself. The idea will be to allow the individual to come to his own conclusion.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

In Consideration of Secession - Part III

I found an interesting subject for part three.

The link at top concerns secession petitions filed by a number of states and a possible comment on the subject by Justice Antonin Scalia As of today the count of petitions was 47. These petitions seem to only be online types that anyone can start, send via email, and sign with a few clicks. Therefore, they obviously cannot be taken seriously and most of them are likely done in jest or as a mild form or protest.

The text of Scalia's alleged response is interesting According to the article, a producer who wanted to make a movie on the subject wrote to the Supreme Court Justices and the only one that responded was Scalia.

Of course we have no idea whether or not the letter (copy is on the link) is real or a forgery, but the content is provided below and is perfect for this topic:

"I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay."

For the sake of argument, let's say that the letter from Scalia is genuine.

One of the most common misconceptions from American history, and one that is unfortunately accepted without question, as that the question of Secession was settled by the outcome of the American Civil War. For the record (I fear that I will need to do this often) I am a staunch unionist, a Lincoln man to the core, and I also love the manner in which Daniel Webster treated the topic. Surprisingly to some, I also strongly approve of Andrew Jackson's actions in regards to South Carolina. In short, secession cannot occur unless the situation merits such action.

The cold hard fact is that the question of secession was not disproved nor settled by the Civil War. The Civil War proved that the overwhelmingly superior resources of industry, population, railroads, and the moral high ground of opposing the extension of slavery gave the North the advantage that it needed. Once the war became one of will and attrition verses a contest of tactics, √©lan, and strategy, it was only a matter of time before Lincoln would find generals who would employ the forces at his disposal rather than moving cautiously and ineptly like so many other former Union army leaders.

Wars, by their very nature, do not prove anything. One side wins, the other loses.

Scalia's statement is either a classic example of one of the most brilliant legal minds in American history either being unable to apply basic common sense, attempting to play the game of political diplomacy (He is not known for that), or gently kidding the individual to whom the letter was written.

Think about it - if we apply the logic of Scalia's statements, the following must also be true:

The Athenian Democracy would have been wrong had it been beaten by the Persians at Marathon or at the later and more crucial naval battle of Salamis.

The inhuman and criminal acts and ideology of Nazi Germany would have been right had Hitler's regime won WWII.

It would also mean that Rome was right in each and very one of her conquests of other nations and peoples, be they from the days of the Republic or the Empire (Principate).

The list could go on and on; Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and all losing peoples are wrong, and every winning nation or dynasty being right.

In fact, if this is true, the Left must immediately cease to petition for Israel to concede to every demand of the Arabs of Palestine because Israel won every conflict since her founding.

I think that I beat that point to death, so we can put the idea that secession was decided by the Civil War safely to rest.

The question, then, is what makes a revolution, rebellion, or secession justified or not.

The answer lies in the basic concept of government. The Founders of the United States were heavily influenced by writers such as John Locke, Charles-Louis de Secondat, (Refereed to by his Baronial title as Montesquieu), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and other writers.

The first two are in my opinion the most influential to the Founders. They were of course also tremendously influenced by the history or ancient Greece, Rome, and the Glorious Revolution of England. Eran Shalev, in his work Rome Reborn on Western Shores, provides and in-depth analysis of the manner in which the founders were animated by the personalities and mindsets of those of the ancient Roman Republic. His next work, which is to be released in 2013, will present evidence of the strong influence that the Old Testament also had with these individuals.

The starting point for the American Founding Fathers was this - that governments were created by people in order to secure liberty, property, safety, etc. Governments do not predate people or the earliest societies, therefore they cannot be held to be inherently sovereign, but are only sovereign when supported by the people they govern.

Locke, in his Treatises on Government, was far and away the most clear on this issue; if a government ceases to protect the people and instead becomes the oppressor, it is the right and obligation of the people (Who are born free by the very nature of mankind) to detach from or depose the oppressive body and create a new government.

We must also recall that, technically, all revolutionary movements, including the American War of Independence, are considered to be illegal by the government from which they are breaking. It is only when a people or a nascent nation can cite what Locke refers to as a 'Long train of abuses" (Words used specifically in the Declaration of Independence), the steps taken to reconcile, and the results of those failed attempts that a people can declare themselves to be free and independent and take steps to govern themselves.

As I noted in Part 1 two days ago, the States of the Confederacy did not have these arguments. That is why they were wrong, not because they lost the war.

Also noted in Part 1 is one of the realities of what has happened to our freedoms. Three Supreme Court cases were cited as evidence that our final bulwark against oppression has been negated and is now effectively a rubber stamp for the Left.

In the US, the State now has the authority to control anything and everything, from your property to your body and what you purchase. Our electorate has definitely changed significantly; almost half of the voters will vote for strongly Progressive candidates. That number will soon reach the 51% point. Once that occurs, those who want no part of the new program will be backed into a corner.

I personally have no problem with people who want to live in a Leftist-driven society. My problem is that these same people most certainly have a problem with me being able to live in a society that is not Leftist-driven.

I will try to put Part 4 together tomorrow.

Monday, November 12, 2012

In Consideration of Secession Part II

The refrain from the Left can be heard at work, among friends, or from the Media.- "The problem is that people are too radical" (Or any synonym of that).

The idea of this statement is not to admit that both sides have gone too far, it is solely employed to make conservatives the radical ones. As I wrote on a previous post, the Left has grabbed the reigns of the word "center" and artificially shifted it sharply towards the Left. By doing so, the uber-Liberal can now present himself as "Left of Center". What the Liberal/Progressive intends to convey is that his outlook is really pretty close to the Center and that Conservatives are radicals. If you hear the statements come up in conversation, the next thing that will come up is a reference to "people Like Sean Hannity or Fox News" (Both of which are barely right of the actual Center themselves) who are held up as examples as radicals.

I tried a number of Internet searches on secession using key words such as Blue State and Red State*. The funny part was that I found more results from Liberals advocating either their own (Blue State) secession or encouraging in a tongue-in-check manner Red Staters to secede than I did for Red Staters who desired any secession.

* I never really liked the color-coding. States that voted Republican used to be shaded Blue and Democratic-voting States Red. The Media, in an apparent effort to remove the Communist stigma of "red" from Liberals, changed the assignments of colors. The first time that I am aware of this occurring was in the 1980 election,when one network did the switch to Red Republican-voting states. By the 2000 election  the change was a done deal.

Even simply going State-by State is not easy. The following photo is from the link below:

As the reader can plainly see, the counties that voted Progressive/Liberal/Democrat in 2004 were very much restricted to densely populated areas such as major cities and their immediate suburbs.

My point in bring this up is that Liberal/Progressives simply cannot stand Conservatives. Voice mails left of Sean Hannity's radio show line are replete with the most hateful language and intentions imaginable. The way I see it, we would be doing them a favor by removing ourselves outright from their political processes. The American expression that conveys a "Hey, you guys do whatever you want" attitude would work perfectly in this case - "Knock yourself out".

In my secession scenario, fighting to separate counties from States should be avoided at all costs. Despite the goading from Liberals noted above, reforming the Republic into two distinct system of government would
provide enough work. People of my outlook who live in States that always go Liberal in national elections, such as my born-and-raised State of New Jersey**, will have the option of seeking a home and employment in the nation created from (Generally) most of the South, the Midwest, and Western States (Barring those on the Pacific coast). The logistical problem of having a nation with a Liberal/Progressive Constitution existing in separated regions will of course have to be considered and dealt with, but states with non-contiguous domains have existed in the past and there is no reason why they cannot exists today. The advantages of modern technology  air, rail, and road travel and above all electronic communications would negate the vast amount of perceived difficulties.

 In short, if the late Medieval states of Burgundy and the early modern Palatinate in Germany could manage their affairs before even the telegraph, there is no reason to assume that it can't be done today.

** Taking a look at New Jersey, one would see very large regions/ blocs of counties that do not vote for Liberal in national elections (Like mine), but slicing and dicing individual States could turn ugly.

One subsection of the people desires to take their schools back from the Departmental of Education and bring back teaching as opposed to indoctrination, handle their own environmental affairs, create a working energy program, take a reasonable stand on cultural/morality issues, put a stop to viciously anti-religious court actions***, create a business-friendly atmosphere (Especially for small and middle-scale employers), make working for a living a better bet than living for free, and generally return to a traditional American society.

The other subsection desires the contrary to all of the above.

***I personally prefer a secular government but hold that the excising of all Christian and Jewish symbolism and public professions has gone entirely too far.

If we develop an energy program that takes advantage of our resources while strongly promoting by generous tax incentives the building or alternative energy sources, we would take a huge step in walking away from the Middle East. Given that the Islamic governments that are now emerging don't want any Christians hanging around, the first pro-immigration move by the traditional American Nation+ could be to grant permanent visas to those who suffer from persecution and violent crime in their current home countries. 

+ I have no ideas for a name of the proposed nation at this time. I will accept suggestions.

Europe is long past needing our military presence, so that can be ended or whittled down substantially.

We could put an end to antagonizing Russia and form business partnerships with her.

The pro-business climate would make us competitive with China and India, both of which are well on the way to passing us to become larger economies.

What I think that people should ask themselves in this - Do you see the current sharp divisions in political and cultural outlooks changing anytime in the next 20 or 30 years?

If the answer is no, the second question must be how divided we will then be, and how marginalized and shut out Conservative and Traditional Americans will have become once that 20-30 years have elapsed.

These are the groups that will have to come to the table, all being willing to yield on some of their positions:

Basic, non-religious Conservative Americans

Those engaged in business, especially of the small and middle-sized types

Evangelical Christians 

Catholic, Orthodox, and Mainline Protestants

Those of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) Church

Family-oriented people

Educators who loathe the current educational system and desire that train wrecks such as sight-words be dropped and phonics be reinstated. (Our illiteracy rates have skyrocketed since phonics was dropped)

Farmers who want to get out from under oppressive EPA and Dept of Labor regulations

Anyone who desires to protect the right of people to own weapons for protection, sporting purposes, or hunting

People who are weary of being enslaved by generations worth of welfare 

People involved in energy development, such as oil, gas and coal industries

Those who desire to live in a free and sovereign nation that does not take orders from the UN

Those who have a nagging feeling that the Federal Reserve may not be serving the best interests of the nation or the people

The person that simply wants to to be left alone 

I am sure that I can come up with more, but I have to turn in for the night. I hope to do Part III tomorrow.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

In Consideration of Secession Part I

Revision 11/18/12 - I know that my stated position on the Confederacy is as brief as can be and that there are a ton of factors involved, but I needed to describe my position in a tiny nutshell in order to contrast the position of the Southern States with what we face today. The beginning of this post threatens to create a firestorm, but I ask that the reader sit tight for a few very short paragraphs to see that I only include these in order to lead up to the main point - what lies before us right now.
I have long held, and continue to do so, that the States that seceded and formed the Confederacy had no real arguments to support their position. If we apply the same concepts of self-determination that the American Founders did, it is clear that the South jumped the gun. Those who signed their names to the Declaration of Independence were able to list a "long train of abuses" that had been committed by the Crown against the erstwhile Colonies. Whether these abuses were real or perceived is not the issue - the Colonies simply were able to cite several examples of what the Crown had done, or failed to do. They were also able to list their own attempts to reconcile the differences with the Crown and the results of those actions.

The South had no such argument. Lincoln was elected President, but he still had to wait quite some time before her could assume the Office. The election was November 6th and the inauguration was not until the following March at the time. Just over a month had passed before South Carolina started the ball rolling.

Lincoln was an astute and prudent man. He knew fully well that he could not target slavery in current slave states and therefore he gave his word that he would not interfere with the horrific institution. Nothing was going to change the way that the South did things.

Despite these facts, the Confederacy was illegally created, US government property was seized, and a vicious war ensued.

This is the shortest explanation that I can give in order to assert why I am a Lincoln man and vociferously opposed to those who defend the actions of those who formed the Confederacy.

This is also why I can say that things are immeasurably different today, and that secession must be considered.

Our nation was designed as a representative republic. Governments of this type tend to work quite well for smaller nations, and the fact that ours (In a very large country)  functioned for so long is a credit to the minds of those who crafted our Constitution.

For Part 1, I will deal only with the Supreme Court. I think that this is an appropriate starting point as the Court is not supposed to make or execute, laws, but (When it comes to laws specifically) be the final barrier to laws that infringe upon our rights. In the Federalist Papers, pro-Constitution essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in the days when the Constitution was being debated, the Supreme Court is presented as a final check and a proof that the new Government would not be free to legislate away the freedoms of the people.

Although the  Constitution did not specify the concept of judicial review, Marbury v. Madison, a landmark decision by the court, was the principle means by which the Court defined its own authority. From that point on, the Supreme Court would have the final say on cases brought before it and have the power to declare a law Constitutional or not.

This worked well most of the time, but in the 20th century, the system began to fall apart.

The first was Wickard v. Fillburn, in which the Court upheld a draconian FDR-era law that resulted in a man being fined for growing more than the allowed amount of grain on his own farm. Threatened with Justice-packing by the Mussolini and Stalin-admiring FDR (The President threatened to change the number from nine Justices and add more who would follow his lead), the Court ruled that, because the farmer may be able to grow enough grain to enable him to feed his own livestock without buying grain, the farmer's actions could be regulated under the Commerce Clause.

The next nail in the coffin was Kelo V. New London. Here the concept of eminent domain morphed from the state forcing the sale of private property in order to serve a public need (Roads, Schools, etc.) to a governing body being able to condemn a person's home in order to sell it to a private developer. There would not even be a need to prove that the municipality was in dire need of funds - all it had to say was that it could make more money from selling the property and maybe receive more tax revenue from the newly-developed seized properties.

The most recent and egregious case was on Obamacare. Here the Federal government could not only compel a person to purchase something (Insurance is merely the foot in the door for far more), the Court is now effectively able to assign new meanings to the law. The compulsion to purchase can, with no legislation or tax code to cite, be considered to be a tax.

I find no reason to believe that things will improve in time to arrest the collapse of what is left of our freedoms. The Court will see at least one more (Possibly three) new appointments in Obama's second term.

With this in mind, I assert that it is time to consider putting my beloved Republic to rest. The nation is divided into two diametrically opposed camps.

One is a coalition of takers, people-controllers, haters of our history, rabid atheists, and those who promulgate not all sorts of sexual license but the codifying of these into law (No governing body ever had the authority to define what marriage is - the institution existed long before governments). Regulating abuse of marriage is the only power that the State can have.

The other are those who work and pay taxes, are weary of a system that berates all the accomplishments of Western Civilization, either attend Church/Synagogue or at least have no problem with some public recognition of our spiritual foundations, are concerned with the piling-up of governmental regulations and surveillance, and are generally guilty of the high crime of desiring that the US hold to its traditional outlook and method of government.

If States that traditionally vote for Conservative candidates take steps towards secession, the outcome in no way has to be bad. Those who live in "Red States" but prefer the Progressive )Read -Leftist) outlook can move to "Blue States" if they so desire . Blue-Staters would similarly have the right to relocate to a Red State.

This is not an impossible feat - The USSR, which was a far larger nation, did the same things a mere twenty years ago. It took a while for things to get back on track but it worked. The back and forth migration of people to also has an historical background. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, Catholics left the United Provinces) Modern Netherlands) and moved to what today is Belgium. Protestants left the latter to live in the Netherlands. The exact same thing happened in Germany; Protestants often moved from Catholic German States to Lutheran ones and vice-versa.

The hateful and thuggish behavior can also go away. Elections signs and bumper stickers would no longer be cause for vandalism or assaults. Both sides get the manage their governments in the manner that they please.

The National debt could be evenly divided, and both sides can service their debt shares.All revenues, including income taxes, will remain within their respective nations.

We must allow that their can be, like the European Union (Not that I am a fan of that group), a measure of cooperation between the two bodies. This would include the possibility of jointly-administered armed forces.

This would entail the stepping down of the US as a world leader, but we cannot keep that role going anyway. We don't have the money, and the world will survive without us.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Here Come the Post-reelection Layoffs

Some did not believe it, and others did not care.

The link at top details a number of businesses that have made it plain that their will be layoffs, and the list is not only sizable, it is probably growing.

The oppressive burdens of Obamacare cannot be simply absorbed by employers. They are employers because they want to make money. If they had no desire to do so the could live their lives in the Peace Corps. Those who are successful at making money can employ others, and those people in turn earn wages.

This is going to be sad but very interesting. Some, against what they know in their hearts, insist that everything will be fine. Others have every intention of making the whole place collapse. When it does, they will blame capitalism, but capitalism will not even have been at the scene of the crime. This is the work of the Left - control the private sector until it falls apart, and then blame the private sector so that one can justify full-blown Marxism.

A system envisioned by a man who failed at even supporting his family somehow still has a hold on people's minds. The admittedly appalling conditions of the early industrial revolution, that are the equivalent of a blink of an eye in the history of mankind, were enough for Marx to call for the abolition of all private property, including the right to bequeath what you did own to others. The prosperity and incredibly rapid rise in living standards that followed industrialization are ignored. These people are clinging to an evil system that was wrong even when things were in fact bad for the worker.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

UK, US Ready to Gang Up on Syria -Bring on the Caliphate

I wish that I had read this yesterday. If I had, I could have included it in that post.

UK Prime Minister Cameron has stated that the UK will now deal directly with leaders of the Syrian opposition. A Turkish official also has stated that they have discussed the possibility of creating a safe zone in Syria with patriot missiles.

Although the latter may just be propaganda by the Turks, can we be that far away from a no-fly zone?

What we are witnessing is the sowing of the seed for the restoration of the Caliphate - a unified pan-national Islamic government under one leader who functions in a dual Pope/Emperor capacity, just with even more power than either of the other two offices in their respective capacities. And to top it all off, it is we who are doing the sowing.

"They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind" Hosea 8:7

I will freely admit that the Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, and other Islamic sects are far from uniting on their own due to strong doctrinal and practical differences, but what good can possibly come from giving the boot to yet another least somewhat secular strongman who has until now kept Islamists at bay?

We have watched Iraq (Our own doing), Egypt (Intense US Pressure), Libya (Key US involvement) and Tunisia fall prey to those who want sharia law, the destruction of Israel, and the reduction of Christians to a worse status than they had prior to the demise of the regimes. Christians there already had it badly enough with rapes, kidnappings, murder, and routine discrimination, and all of these have multiplied exponentially once the autocratic rulers were pushed out.

I find it hard to believe that the leaders of the US and the UK think that they can get it right this time by working with the rebels.

I wonder how long Russia will stand clear of this destructive involvement by the Western powers.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Romney Missed the Mark on Syria

When Romney had his third debate with Obama, he dropped one line that proved how unwilling American politicians are to admit what is happening in the Islamic world.

At one point, while describing the situation in the Near and Middle East, Romney noted that the Assad regime was still in power. He clearly meant to use this against Obama to note that the president had not done enough to rid Syria of a dictator.

I should not have been surprised as American politicians from both parties are still pretending that the Arab spring is a good thing - this despite the fact that every fall of an authoritarian regime in that region has been marked by horrific attacks on Christians and institutionalized calls for attacks on Israel.

Romney had a great chance to strike a blow against Obama. He could have noted that these regimes were far more stable than what followed in their wake. He could have stressed that, in the power vacuums, the most radical and organized of groups will exert the most influenced. If he did not know this before the Arab Spring he certainly knew it after Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, (Don't forget Iraq).

Obama could have been made to look like the blunderer that he is.

Instead, Romney fell right in line with the position that it is in the interests of the US and the rest of the world that the old regimes fall and be replaced by Islamists, who have every intention of eliminating all nations and resorting a united Caliphate.

We have no real leadership in the US.

-From Jihad Watch:
The link has a summary and a video of the demonstration.

"Following are excerpts from footage of a demonstration that took place in Damascus, which was posted on the Internet on September 14, 2012.

Demonstrator: Oh Bashar, you traitor...

Crowds: Oh Bashar, you traitor...

Demonstrator: We want to instate the Koran.

Crowds: We want to instate the Koran.

Demonstrator: To hell with freedom...

Crowds: To hell with freedom...

Demonstrator: We want an Islamic caliphate.

Crowds: We want an Islamic caliphate.

Demonstrator: To hell with being peaceful...

Crowds: To hell with being peaceful...

Demonstrator: We want weapons and AK-47s.

Crowds: We want weapons and AK-47s"

Recovery From Storm

After almost week and a half of the generator, fires in the woodstove for when fuel was being conserved, power and cable/internet is back on.

My yard was a big mess, but we did not suffer any real damage. My downed trees all fell without hitting anything.

Our neighborhood has a a lot of people who come together to help cut downed trees, move branches, etc. We are not survivalists, but we keep enough food and fuel to keep us going for at least a week.

I will try to post this evening.