Monday, December 31, 2012

Russian Writer Warns US People to Protect Second Amendment

Hat tip to The Blaze.

While many in the US enthusiastically call for the reducing of everyone in the nation to defenseless sheep, we find someone in a nation who, being aware of what happened to his people, knows far better.

This Russian makes it clear that disarmament of the people is the first step towards totalitarianism. He cites one example of which I was not even aware. After the seizure of Moscow by the Bolsheviks following the defeat of a last-stand action of  military cadets and their leaders (This appears to me to be the event portrayed in Doctor Zhivago), the officers of the Russian military were persuaded to refrain from opposing the Reds.

Probably hoping to save what was left of their careers (That dream would end in Stalin's later purges) and their property, they decided to protect their own interests as opposed to taking stand with the young patriots. They tragically believed it when the Bolsheviks told them that, if they remain neutral and register their issued and personal  firearms (Private ownership of firearms in Russia was common), they would be left alone.

-From the second-linked post:
The part that I described will be bolded.

"These days, there are few few things to admire about the socialist, bankrupt and culturally degenerating USA, but at least so far, one thing remains: the right to bare arms and use deadly force to defend one's self and possessions.

This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth. This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well those are bullet holders for rifles.

Various armies, such as the Poles, during the Смута (Times of Troubles)
[Following the death of Ivan the Terrible], or Napoleon*, or the Germans even as the Tsarist state collapsed under the weight of WW1 and Wall Street monies, found that holding Russian lands was much much harder than taking them and taking was no easy walk in the park but a blood bath all its own. In holding, one faced an extremely well armed and aggressive population Hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor."

*[I would add Charles XXII of Sweden]

"This well armed population was what allowed the various White factions to rise up, no matter how disorganized politically and militarily they were in 1918 and wage a savage civil war against the Reds. It should be noted that many of these armies were armed peasants, villagers, farmers and merchants, protecting their own. If it had not been for Washington's clandestine support of and for the Reds, history would have gone quite differently.

Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lieing guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.

Of course being savages, murderers and liars does not mean being stupid and the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle. Not much for soldiers......................


For those of us fighting for our traditional rights, the US 2nd Amendment is a rare light in an ever darkening room. Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but are in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position. In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill NC), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or "talking to them", it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.

The excuse that people will start shooting each other is also plain and silly. So it is our politicians saying that our society is full of incapable adolescents who can never be trusted? Then, please explain how we can trust them or the police, who themselves grew up and came from the same culture?

No it is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect."

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Obamacare to be Defied by Hobby Lobby

-This is a very bog step but a very necessary one.

The owners of the store chain have decided to, despite the penalties, stand their ground and refuse to engage in behavior that is contrary to their beliefs.

"The owners of Hobby Lobby face $1.3 million in daily fines after they decided to obey God rather than the federal government – refusing to comply with Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

The act of defiance came one day after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor denied Hobby Lobby’s emergency request to block enforcement of the mandate, but said the company may continue its appeal in lower courts.

Hobby Lobby is a national arts and crafts chain. They own more than 500 stores in 41 states............"

This is exactly what needed to happen. I cannot commend them in a manner that will do justice to their faith and courage. The next necessary move is for at least one elected or appointed official to refuse to execute the penalty or to take steps to insulate them from being fined for refusing to do something that is against their beliefs.

The decision to engage in private business ventures is not a signal that one gives up his or her right to act according to conscience. An business owner can refuse to do business with a person or other private entity if the practices of the other are contrary to a person's beliefs. The very notion that an individual loses this right simply because he employs people is beyond belief.

When the shameless Justice Roberts threw in his lot with the statists, I saw this coming. Although the question at the time was the mandate to purchase insurance, there was no way that he was unaware of the other court cases challenging the requirement that employers pay for procedures or drugs that are prohibited in certain faiths. 

Roberts, in hammering the third nail* in the coffin into which our Supreme Court, the final bulwark in protecting our freedom, is being placed, happily set the stage for this showdown. He could have easily sided with the four who voted to protect our freedom and by extension avoided this mess, but instead he greased the rail for the financial penalties of soft totalitarianism.

Along with the calls for disarming the people, this case is one in which the Progressives are going to have to. to use a Poker expression, show their hands. The people must then recognize what is happening or ignore it and allow their grandchildren to be enslaved.

* I have noted in previous posts that our Supreme Court no longer exists as a body that protects our freedoms. The first two blows to the Constitutional freedoms of Americans were described in this post:

"Wickard v. Filburn - People can be penalized for growing what they want on their property despite the fact that nobody was harmed and that FDR sickeningly wanted to keep grain prices high when the unemployed were starving.

Kelo v. New London - Forget a right-of way for a road or school, Eminent Domain is allowed for any reason at all. A developer can target your property for seizure in order to build on it and cause the municipality to obtain more tax revenue from the new ratable. The town need not even prove that it is in dire financial straights. They just need to say that they can make more money from the property if it is more built-up."

Obama will in all probability be able to make one to three more appointments in the next four years. We are staring at the effective end of our Republic. I hope that the people begin to open their eyes to this fact before it is too late.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Call to End Toy Guns

Toy guns have been a favorite target of the Left and the sheep of our society.

We are told that children should be protected from anything that looks like a gun and that doing so will make our society safer.

The man behind the program in the link at top is named Jerry Rubin. Interestingly  it appears that this may be the very same Jerry Rubin who was one of the founding Yippies of the 60's. That man was reported to have been killed while jaywalking in 1994, but I came across a claim that the report of the death may have been faked.

The real reason behind barring toy guns has, for the vast majority of its proponents, very little to do with safety. The Left needs to create a classless and genderless society in order to get their system off the ground. While girls often do play with toy guns, as did my oldest, it is the boys who are mostly drawn to cars/trucks, mechanical or building -type objects, and weapons. From the dawn of human history, it was the boys who acted out with sticks, stones, pretend bows and arrows, and later, pretend firearms. It is in the male nature to think in terms of protection, hunting, and fighting bad guys. My son, enamored with the bad-guy crushing Power Rangers, lived a childhood filled with imagination of striking out against those who would harm others. He was rarely without a toy sword or gun, but even he occasionally played with his sister's doll that had accessories for play-feeding. Today, I can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is telling me what a nice and well-mannered young man he is (Of course they do not have to deal with him when he wakes up in the morning).

The Left cannot have men acting and thinking like men, so they need to excise male-type play at an early age. They would and do want a person entering military service to see a firearm up close for the first time. Jerry Rubin, and others of his type, have shorn themselves of their manliness. Like true Leftists, though, they are not content with this and want to force the same onto you and your children..

A people that is rendered sheep-like by the prohibition of toy weapons (And possibly real ones) is helpless in the face of violent criminal activity. They have been so conditioned to detest any and all violence that a phone call to the cops is almost the only defense available. A nation can just barely get by with this system until either invaded by another or if the financial situation deteriorates to a point in which the military is not longer effective. With either scenario, the people can do nothing but remain in their homes and hope that their respective houses are not entered. If your society has been taught to act in the manner of sheep, you can be assured that the people who comprise the opposing force have not; indeed, in many cases, these people have grown up slaughtering their own animals.

In short, neither boys nor society as a whole is harmed by children pretending to use weapons*. Children are taught to stay out of the driver's seat of a car, refrain from touching Dad's tools (Especially power tools), keep clear of ranges/ovens and woodstoves/fire places, leave electrical outlets for parents to use, avoid medicine and under-sink cabinets, and not to touch guns.

One case proves nothing, but my kids never played with or touched my guns. I was a law enforcement officer, and my sidearm was always coming in and out of the house. This was especially true when I was a K9 officer and was on call for periods that amounted to a third to half of the year. My kids were told that my firearm(s) were like the other objects in and around the house that were not to be touched without adult supervision.

Of course we do see tragedies in which children do pick up and use real guns, but children also are severely injured or killed with all the above and more. I cannot imagine that a parent, after discovering that his child was electrocuted, would be relieved that the kid had not been shot.

I personally liked the requirement that toy guns needed to have an orange tip at its "muzzle". Of course, criminals can and have colored their real guns orange, but cops cannot be forced to assume that an orange tip means that the gun is definitely a toy. Kids can cover the orange with tape or permanent marker, but parents always have the right to smash the guns into pieces and thrown it away if their children pull such a stunt.



Sunday, December 23, 2012

Islam and Physical Law

Muslims deny that God is bound by truth. God, being master, has every right to deceive, even if this applies to his followers. The Fatherhood of God is also denied; Muslims claim that his position of master places him above that of a father figure. I recall the former Protestant and Catholic convert Scott Hahn explain that the insistence of Muslims that God is the master actually makes God's majesty or authority dependent on his creation. To Muslims, even believers are not children of God, but slaves. I have long felt that this attitude is a major factor in how Muslims treat others, including common people and family members but especially non-Muslims. If every believer is simply a slave, then it follows that each slave would in turn be able to rule those under him as slaves.

To believe that God governs the world by laws, be they spiritual or physical, is blasphemy to Muslims. They accuse Christians and Jews of saying that God is fettered by believing that natural physical laws exist.

This must be understood before engaging a Muslim in conversation if you want to avoid running around in circles:

"..........Allah is also absolute will, with hand absolutely unfettered: Allah’s unfettered hand is a vivid image of divine freedom. Such a God can be bound by no laws. Muslim theologians argued during the long controversy with the heretical Islamic Mu‘tazilite sect, which exalted human reason beyond the point that the eventual victors were willing to tolerate, that Allah was free to act as he pleased, even to the extent that he was not bound to govern the universe according to consistent and observable laws. “He cannot be questioned concerning what He does” (Qur’an 21:23).

Accordingly, there was no point to observing the workings of the physical world; there was no reason to expect that any pattern to its workings would be consistent, or even discernible. If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow. Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest and physicist, explains that it was the renowned Sufi thinker al-Ghazali who “denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah.”

The great twelfth-century Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides explained orthodox Islamic cosmology in similar terms, noting that Islamic thinkers of his day assumed “the possibility that an existing being should be larger or smaller than it really is, or that it should be different in form and position from what it really is; e.g., a man might have the height of a mountain, might have several heads, and fly in the air; or an elephant might be as small as an insect, or an insect as huge as an elephant. This method of admitting possibilities is applied to the whole Universe.”

Relatively early in its history, therefore, science was deprived in the Islamic world of the philosophical foundation it needed in order to flourish. It found that philosophical foundation only in Christian Europe, where it was assumed that God was good and had constructed the universe according to consistent and observable laws. Such an idea would have been for pious Muslims tantamount to saying, “Allah’s hand is fettered.”.........."

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Spain to Deport Ex-Muslim to Pakistan

One of the nations that has a history of Islamic subjugation is to send an ex-Muslim out of the frying pan and into the fire.

The Spanish government, a body responsible for a nation that traditionally defined itself very much by the Reconquista, has officially returned to Dhimmi status.

"Imran Firasat, the Pakistani ex-Muslim who collaborated with Terry Jones on the recently-released movie The Innocent Prophet (watch it here), has now been served with official documents revoking his status as a political refugee in Spain. As an apostate from Islam, if Mr. Firasat is deported to his native Pakistan, he will likely face the death penalty for his “blasphemy” against Mohammed.

Below is the press release that was just sent out by Stand Up America Now:

Imran Firasat has been served the official documents by the Spanish government confirming that his residency status has been revoked.

The authorities quickly hand-delivered the official revocation documents to Imran on Friday evening, December 22nd, giving him no chance to consult his lawyer or plead his case. Through these actions, Spain has proven to the world that it holds Islamic law in high regard, even above its own laws.

Firasat is an ex-Muslim from Pakistan who has taken a radical stand against Islam since his conversion to Christianity. He has received many death threats from Muslim individuals and groups in various Islamic countries for seven years because of his criticism of Islam.

Spain, a free western nation, had given Imran welcome asylum to protect him from these violent and radical Islamic groups........"

The people of Spain shamefully caved in to the Islamic world withing mere days of the Madrid train bombings. To appease those descended from their former oppressors, they elected Zapatero, who went right to work doing all that he could to demonstrate that Spain would not stand up for herself.

Now, the simple act of publicly exposing Islam for what it is is enough to face the wrath of the Spanish government. Firasat, if he is not quickly and mercifully snapped up by another nation at granted asylum (Assuming that Spain honors this hypothetical offer), will be sent to Pakistan, where he will be subject to Islamic Law that provides the penalty of death for leaving Islam. Now, Pakistan will probably enforce its own criminal law codes and only imprison him, the fact that he also was involved in speaking truthfully about Mohammed will only add fuel to his fire. 

Firasat has committed two acts that will seal his fate in a Muslim nation. He has left Islam, and he has insulted Mohammed. Spain could very well have protected his right to speak freely, but the Western European nations bowed to Islamic pressure long ago and most have made such acts unlawful. In this particular case, Firasat has not even violated any Spanish law. Since he is not a citizen of Spain though, Firasat will be treated as a sacrificial lamb.

The Spanish Left prides itself on its resistance to Franco; this while they ignore their atrocities that presaged the Spanish Civil War and were the major cause of the flocking to the Nationalist side. The Left has no attraction to freedom. The have every intention of eventually destroying the sovereignty of Spain as a nation and a pan-national Islam provides a nice example of how a people can be made to forget their identity.

The people of Spain had better rise up in protest to  put a stop to this deportation

Thursday, December 20, 2012

1970's Video Interview of Soviet Defector

The video is long but well worth the time.

Yuri Bezmenov was a KGB defector who risked everything to live in freedom and to dispel the lies that were fed to us about life in the Soviet Union.

As I mentioned in previous posts, Reader's Digest (During the same time period of this interview) was almost the only periodical aimed at the regular guy in which the reality of living conditions in the Soviet Union was reported. Long lines were due to shortages. not a surplus of cash or the desire to get great deals on Black Friday (The Friday after Thanksgiving in the US). One could not travel freely withing the USSR, not could he say, write or do a fraction of what the average Joe could in the West.

Mr. Bezmenov describes how the USSR was engaged in work with Western journalists in order to paint a picture of the Soviet Union that was plainly false. Although acknowledging that many of them knew that what they were reporting was bunk, he does allow that some of these people may have been fooled. Unfortunately  for us, far too many who make decisions and teach in the US today are products of this program.

One periodical in particular that he mentions is Look magazine. That the entire thing was staged is no surprise, but it is interesting to hear him describe how the journalists were cherry-picked for their willingness to report what the apparatchiks wanted.

At the time of the interview, he notes that three generations of Westerners have been conditioned by Soviet influence in the media, academia, etc.

We are now looking at six generations of the same.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun Ban Fears Cause Firearms Purchase Deluge

As the media assures us that 18% more Americans favor stronger firearms laws, we find statistics that would point to the contrary:

"The prospect of a renewed assault weapons ban in the wake of the Connecticut school massacre has set of a round of buying, as thousands of Americans head to their local gun store to secure the popular AR-15 -- the model used by the school gunman -- before potential government prohibitions on their purchase.

They are also buying the .223 ammunition used by the AR-15 and the type of high-capacity magazines covered under the last federal assault weapons ban, which Congress let expire without renewing.
The Colorado Bureau of Investigation says it set a new record for single-day background check submittals this past weekend.
In San Diego, Northwest Armory gun store owner Karl Durkheimer said Saturday "was the biggest day we've seen in 20 years. Sunday will probably eclipse that."
In southwest Ohio, from dawn to dusk a Cincinnati gun show had a line of 400 waiting to get in, said Joe Eaton of the Buckeye Firearms Association.

"Sales were through the roof on Saturday," said Eaton. "People were buying everything they could out of fear the president would try to ban certain guns and high-capacity magazines."

The deluge of buyers had officials working overtime. Background checks that normally took 15 minutes in California took more than four hours, Durkheimer said. In Colorado, background checks that normally take minutes turned into wait times of more than 12 hours, CBI spokeswoman Susan Medina told the Denver Post.

"We had to call in extra staff," Medina was quoted in the Post story. "The wait times were high."

The CBI says it processed more than 4,200 background checks on Saturday, the day after the Newtown, Conn., shooting. That surpassed the previous high of 4,028. Nationwide, FBI data shows 16.4 million background checks were run in 2011. An agency spokesman said Monday it did not keep daily numbers and would not have figures for December until early January......"

We of course do have an extraordinarily high amount of people in this nation who have convinced themselves, or allowed themselves to be convinced, that firearms should only be owned/possessed by the police and the military. There are even extreme radicals who call for the disarming of the police. 

The Left spent decades telling us that the second amendment, contrary to what is says, provides only for the possession of firearms for State Militias, a term which has come in Newspeak to be restricted to the National Guard.

I still can't believe how easy it is to find old articles with the internet. I recalled an article in Parade magazine* from the 80's in which Chief Justice Warren Burger, knowing fully well what the second amendment meant, instead pimped his influence to tell us that the "people" indicated the militia. Now, this would be partially true as the militia, by the meaning of the word at the time that the amendment was written (The concept is simple yet ignored today- Legislative Intent), meant all able-bodied males. Burger insidiously decided to make a play on words and apply the modern meaning militia to change the meaning of the amendment.
Burger was featured on the front cover of the magazine holding a lever-action rifle that, if my memory serves me correctly, was a Winchester Model 94. (Sorry the above link does not have the photo)

This was a dirty deed. The US Supreme Court and its individual justices have, until fairly recently, refrained from providing their opinion on laws unless a specific case is brought before them. (Sorry, I forget the name of this practice). Burger's snake-like move had the effect that he wanted. As a result of this, many people in the US would, erroneously, claim that the second amendment has been interpreted to mean the Militia (The modern meaning and contrary to the law) and that the Court had effectively ruled that the people had no such right. 

In reality, the Court had never ruled on this issue until District of Columbia v.Heller in 2008. There, faced with a literal mountainof evidence proving that those who wrote the amendment had the people in mind, the Court had no option but to rule in favor of the right to own firearms. 

Even so, the stage had been set for the collapse of the Court even at that time. Four Justices chose to ignore the evidence. The 5-4 ruling was narrow enough to make one shudder. 

*Here are just two of the Amicus Curiae briefs that provided a Noahesque flood of evidence that the Legislative Intent of the amendment included the people:

With Obama being able to make 1-3 possible appointments in his second term, a reversal of Heller, though. is not out of the question.

Our nation has in it a substantial amount of sheep. These want to pretend that they can legislate the wolf away or render him incapable of harming others. These people have no problem with the crime that they are committing against themselves and others; the deliberate rendering of people  into subjects unable to help themselves.

They insist that the cops will always be able to protect us. In many major US cities, calls for police response get backed up for hours. It has been routine in cities such East Orange and Camden, NJ, and New Orleans, just to name a tiny few, for officers arriving on duty to be given their assignments for calls that have been left unanswered. It is not the fault of the cops. There are too many calls and too few cops. Major calls will always get a priority for dispatch, but we have to allow that there may very well be occasions that see too many major calls for a timely response.

Those who dwell in suburbia want to assume that this type of problem will never happen in their towns. 

As we cannot know that our cops will never be tied up with major emergencies, there is clearly no guarantee that it will not, and I want to know that I have the support of  my neighbors, especially in the event that I am not home. A neighbor who has proudly decided that he will not own a firearm will be of no help. He will only be able to call the cops and hope that they can arrive quickly. That is not good enough.

-From a previous post:

"The Left is all-to-aware that individual ownership of arms one of the hallmarks and universal characteristics of Western societies. Unlike the types of societies admired by Leftists, such as medieval China, where the individual was to do as he was told (Even a code of ethics like Confucianism rams this home) and was required to leave the defense of their family, property, and village to the local warlord or emperor, the individual in the West has always been an owner of arms.

Where Eastern societies prohibited one from taking part in defense and thus left his safety to the whim or ability of the ruling despot, Western societies required the free individual to own arms. Where the Eastern potentates could pretty much do as they pleased with the people who lived in their domains, their counterparts in the West had to tread cautiously.

For a person who desires to find out more about the crucial place of arms ownership in the Western world and its consequences on the societies that evolved from it, the easiest and quickest way would be to research the Roman, Greek, and early Germanic societies.

The Greeks required the individual, especially if he owned any property, to equip himself at this own expense with a minimum of arms and armor and to take an active part in the defense of his city-state. This was quite an expense as both the materials and work/craftsmanship that went in to making these items were costly. For anyone who has not seen what a Greek Hoplite wore, it consisted of a helmet, shield, armor for the torso and legs, a sword and spear. This was a right and an obligation that was not optional. Later they allowed for more lightly-armored Peltasts. The individual was also required to train exhaustively, to learn how to fight in a hoplite formation and also needed to drill/practice on a regular basis with those of his community. In times of threats to the city-state, the Hoplite, like the others noted below, did not have the option of remaining home with his family.

The Romans also required those who possessed property to equip themselves at their own expense and to train and appear with their equipment in times of crisis. Unlike the Greeks, they created early on several classes where the amount of equipment one as required to purchase was based on the amount of property they owned with the exact specifications enumerated. Those with the most property had to be the most heavily equipped, those with less assessed property would have to purchase less.

The Germanic society was the most egalitarian as far as armed individuals go. All free men could be called up at anytime. There of course were differences as to what arms certain individuals could afford to posses, but the system, which went by the label of Fyrd among the Saxons, existed throughout Germanic societies by different names and technically continued as an obligation throughout the middle ages. Interestingly, the emergence of professional troops of the nobility and the resultant lack of reliance on the Fyrd-type bodies has a direct correlation with the subjugation and suppression of the common people. The concept was employed in the defense preparations of Elizabethan England when threatened by the Spanish Armada. The decline of the nobility and relative absence of one in daughter nations such as the US brought the practice back into common use. Colonial men were required to periodically report for drill and inspections of their equipment. These militias formed the basis of the first contingents to oppose what they believed to be British tyranny.

All of these and others types not mentioned here are an integral part of Western societies. These responsibilities have continued in various forms and frequency of use into the present day. In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court had for evidence incredible amounts of citations of those who actually made the constitution or were contemporaries of those who did. All state clearly that the Militia (Modern Fyrd) consist of all able-bodied men (I would include women if they have been familiarized with weapons). The National Guard bodies of individual states, while constituting a sort of professional core of militia, is also a part of the US Army Reserve structure and has not taken the place of the militia.

To apply the protest against such an idea to early human societies, we could use the example of cave people. In a free society, like those who banded together and lived in natural shelters like caves, what would have happened to an individual who wanted the protection of the cave and the clan but did not want to take part in the clan's defense? Well, it is guaranteed that he would be cast out to fend for himself. His lack of willingness to expose himself to the danger common to all who stood in defense of the clan or his aversion to any violence for any purpose would result in his expulsion from that society. In the caves, one would forfeit his chance to survive if he refused to take part in defense. In Greek, Roman, Germanic and other Western societies, one who refused to take part would forfeit his right to have any say in how the society is run. He could not vote, speak at assemblies, or sit in or attend a Germanic council. (Saxon – Witan) In short, he had no right to have his opinion counted if he would not fight.

Today the Left wants several things:

1. To make themselves as defenseless as possible and to need state control of every aspect of their lives.

2. To make everyone else as defenseless and as needful as they.

3. To create a society where those who are intellectually [sic] against any violence can not only be free from any obligation to take part in defense (while fully enjoying its benefits) but also, contrary to the basic setup of free societies, get to have their opinion forced on those who do defend. (As in the recent homosexual agenda 'Obamian' move to force the military to have no restrictions whatsoever against overt homosexuality).
(The claims that gays have always been there has no weight as so have others who engage in prohibited activities. The idea as stated in an earlier post is that the military simply has the obligation to decide what types of behavior may be detrimental to military operations or discipline on any scale. Note too that the military -even in the 80s had a significant open secret of a problem with sexual activity in squadbay (open floor type) female barracks - long before Don't Ask Don't tell kicked off)

4. To create a lawless environment that necessitates ever-broadening powers of both state and federal government.

5. To end once and for all any right, responsibility, or obligation of citizens to take protective action consistent with what the individual in Western cultures has done since its inception. (This of course is also aimed at one of the last responsibilities left for Western male, who has seen himself more and more marginalized from his place in the secure and orderly society that was created by his predecessors. This of course is not meant to exclude women from taking an active part in defense; indeed, feminists seem to pursue with zeal the goal of making all women completely defenseless and dependant on the police)

6. To cause the populace of the US to be unable to maintain its sovereignty in the face of the establishment of either a one-world government or regional pan-national governing bodies such as the EU or a hypothetical North American union.

Some will argue that the right to defend oneself is archaic and an unnecessary vestige of an earlier time. They will add that the establishment of professional police bodies, the active-duty military and National Guard Reserve, the lack of need to hunt for daily food, and the absence of threats from neighboring communities has negated the necessity for individuals to own arms.

Nothing could be further from the truth for any of these cases. Numerous court decisions have ruled that police cannot be held responsible for failing to protect an individual from violent criminal activity. The military is designed to deal with threats directly against the nation or states. Arms cannot be considered as only for hunting as this activity is only for a very limited application and is not the main purpose which is ensuring that a person can take protective measures. Lastly, the rise of exceptionally violent activity and the possibility things getting worse in the future makes the responsibility of one to own and become proficient with a firearm more important than it has been in a long time.

In short, no one event or chain of events has occurred that has removed the right and obligation of the individual to protect himself, his family, and his community.

The young Mom in the article performed a brave act that is keeping with the highest tradition of the Western concept of self-defense and preparedness. She is to be praised for her actions.

Note that the article gave the Mom's age as 18 and that of her recently-deceased husband as 58. That will be the topic of my next post. I did not feel that it should be treated here.

*A brief reference to Napoleon Bonaparte, who used that phrase in describing how he suppressed riots of the Sections in the tumultuous years of the early French republic. He used artillery. Grapeshot is made of bags filled with multiple projectiles. A shotgun is the closest thing to such an effective weapon that an individual may posses."

"God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."

Sunday, December 16, 2012

'Tis the Season to Persecute Eastern Christians

Hat tip to Jihad Watch.

As I noted last year, Advent brings a slew of Islamic persecution of Christians  These normally comprise of Church bombings, shootings, kidnappings, and other sundry displays of disapproval.

This year, the threat level appears to have been ratcheted up a bit:

"In an interview last December 13 on Egyptian television Al Baghdadia, the Shiite ayatollah Ahmad Al Hassani Al Baghdadi issued a fatwa against Christians in Iraq. Labeling them as "polytheists" and "friends of the Zionists", the extremist leader stressed that they must choose "or Islam or death," while "their women and girls may legitimately be regarded wives of Muslims." Al Baghdadi is known for his "jihad" positions and for attacking Americans in the past during their presence in the country, and today he lives in Syria, supporting the armed opposition."

While we in the West have to deal with the assembly line-like efficiency of court rulings that placate envious and cruel atheists and the soft totalitarianism of the Progressives, who use the law to order Christians to pay for birth control and abortions, Christians in the East live in fear of utter eradication.

Muslims refer to Christians as polytheists due to the belief in the Trinity. They insist that, despite the definition of this as three persons in one God, Christians worship three gods. I have never come across any of their opinions on ecclesial bodies that deny the Trinity such as Jehovah's Witnesses, oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, etc.

The Islamic fixation on sex is painfully apparent in the statement that the adult women and daughters of recalcitrant Christians who refuse to abandon their faith. Acquiring the females of conquered peoples is a key  element of Islamic thought.

Many, including myself, have called for some type of action to put a stop to this ongoing pogrom. Unfortunately, the Western world, including the Vatican and the mainline Protestant churches, are willing to restrict themselves to calls for tolerance and amity that will go answered only by more acts of violence.

It is ironic that Evangelicals, who regularly act to redefine Christianity to include beliefs and practices foreign to Christians beliefs and, like Muslims do in their societies, seek to erase all pre-Christian aspects of our (Western) civilization, are almost the only ones who stand up in defense of Eastern Christians, The fact that Evangelicals do not even acknowledge Orthodox and Catholics as actual Christians only adds to the irony.

As the Holy days of the Nativity and all that follow approach, remember those who live under the constant threat of bodily seizure and murder.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Connecticut Massacre

I don't have any desire to do a real post tonight.

The thought of the carnage, the trusting little ones who were murdered, and the families who have had their loved ones torn from them is too much.

Now, with the tiny bodies still lying on the floors of an elementary school, the Left is already applying the "don't let a crisis go to waste" maxim by calling for seizure of legally-owned firearms. Obama jumped in also, stating that he will seek to make the ownership of firearms 'designed or intended for the military" illegal.

They pimp the innocent's dead bodies to exert more control and to render us incapable of any serious defense.

We won our nation by the use of firearms that were the same and often better than those of the opposing military forces.

Mass murderers will never ply their evil trade in places in which firearms are allowed. The base cowards only go to places such as schools or movie theaters in which the lie that to be unarmed is to be safer is practiced. One armed teacher may have been able to stop this pig.

I will have to note that the teachers in that school demonstrated tremendous courage and calm in protecting the kids in the best manner that they could.

A criminal in China slashes 20 students with a knife, but that is no problem. Another could drive his car into a group of people, but apparently that is not so bad either.

Let's ask our acquaintances who demand that we all be unarmed that they step up and post signs on their front laws stating that there are no firearms in their houses. When we get some data on how that works out, then we will talk.

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Israeli Army Heroine Labeled as Murderer

Those who have read previous posts on women in combat roles know my position on that issue.

For the record, though, I have never held that women cannot fight when needed, especially if they are armed and well-trained.* In this case, we have someone that I would definitely want on my side in a fight.

*Previous posts on this are at bottom.

A female IDF officer (The squad commander title leads me to believe that she is a Sergeant) shot and killed a 17-year old Palestinian whom the media will eternally refer to as a "youth". The "youth" had been pressing what later turned out to be a metal replica handgun to the head of another soldier. Her use of deadly force can not even be called into question once the quotes below are read.

Now she is the target of death threats and calls for prosecution from a shameful enemy.

"A female squad commander serving in the Israel Border Police in Hebron shot dead a 17-year-old Palestinian who had aimed a gun at one of the men under her command Wednesday evening. Only later, it was learned the gun the youth was brandishing – though made out of metal – was fake.

Palestinians started circulating her photo on social media, some demanding she be brought to trial while others threatened her life.

One of the messages said: “There’s no escaping death.” Another said: “You’re going down.”

One Arabic Facebook page posted her photo with the caption: “Wanted for international justice — we demand that this murderer be tried at The Hague Court.' "

-Quote from the brave and decisive defender of her nation and her subordinate soldiers:

“I didn’t have time to think…adrenaline was burning in my body. You have less than a second to understand the situation: either you do something or your fighter is hurt.”

“With one hand … he grabbed the soldier’s neck and pressed against him, and with the other he put the pistol to the soldier’s temple. In that situation, the soldier couldn’t break free or react.” […]

“I was looking for an angle from which to fire without hurting the soldier,” she said, and it was only after she ascertained that his life was in danger that she pulled the trigger.

“After the first shot, he continued to hold the pistol to the soldier’s temple, so I fired two more bullets,” she said, at which point the Palestinian fell to the ground, and she quickly kicked the gun away.

“It was my first time in a combat situation,” she said, explaining that she had reacted “exactly like I was taught.”

With a gun being held to the soldier’s head, there was no way she could fire a warning shot, the officer said. “My subordinate’s life was in immediate danger,” and it was important to fire without hitting him, she said.

The incident occurred near Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, a location holy to both Jews – who believe Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their wives are buried there – and to Palestinians.

The Palestinians routinely employ every method available to make the Israelis look bad. Leftist groups, such as the one that sponsored this past year's "bicycle tour" that in which an IDF Sergeant was assaulted and blamed for defending himself (The footage displayed by the media showed only the defense) also utilize this technique.

Both groups rely on the lie and the instigation of violence in order to later portray themselves as victims. Islam's teaching of taquiyya , which is the allowance to lie with the goal of supporting or spreading Islam, is mirrored by the traditional practices of Leftists in which violent conflict is initiated so that their opponents can be blamed for taking appropriate and necessary action.

Note must be taken on the location of the attack on the IDF soldier. Islam, like Evangelical Christianity, seeks to present itself not as a new religion but as the restoration of the original beliefs. Evangelicals would have us believe that the early Church viewed the Eucharist purely in a symbolic sense, doctrinally separated baptism from regeneration, held to a pre-millennial/pre-tribulation rapture, had no office of Elder that had priestly functions, took as its sole source of authority a bible that did not even have a finally decided-upon New Testament until generations later, etc. Many have even tried to argue that Augustine of Hippo was of their persuasion  Muslims claim that Abraham, Issac, Jacob, and Ishmael (the father of many Arabian tribes) were Muslims and practiced Islam. That is why there are so many protests at places sacred to Judaism. Their goal is to redefine Hebrew patriarchs as Muslims whose beliefs were corrupted by the Jews.


Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Conservative Punched by Union Supporter

Things have come full circle in far too many ways in today's society.

Once, if you were a union member or supporter, you could expect to be attacked by anti-union thugs employed by the big bosses. Today, if you dare question the governmental/union partnerships that were never supposed to happen, it will be union supporters who do the attacking.

"TheBlaze reported earlier that union activists had attacked a tent owned by the pro-right-to-work group Americans for Prosperity.

Now we have more footage of not only the attack on the tent, but also of union activists physically attacking conservative writer and comedian Steven Crowder:"

The link at top has a video that contains the assault and the comme
nts on the attack on the tent of the group Americans for Prosperity which had occurred just before.

“They were tearing down the tent,” Crowder explained when TheBlaze asked him about the moments leading up to the violent exchange. “Now that sort of becomes a melee. They were trying to tear down the [AFP] tent and people were trying to pull them off … there were people in there. It’s their property.”

“And as they [the union activists] did that, a few people tripped,” he continued, “this guy tripped over a tent peg and then got up and hit me.”

The bad guy appears to have an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) patch on the back of his jacket.
This is the mentality of the Left and the workers who have been taken in by their promises. Conservatives who dare question the labor laws, fake gay marriages, or any other issue embraced by the Left can expect to be verbally abused, hit with thrown objects or hammers, or just plain sucker-punched. The people and the workers have been turned into violent mobs.
The victim, Steven Crowder, did make a public offer to drop charges against the attacker (Once he is identified) if the bad guy agrees to fight him for five minutes The proceeds will be donated to a charity.
“I’m going to give this guy an ultimatum,” Crowder said, “he can either fess up and go to prison for a felony or we can meet at a racquetball court for five minutes and we can work out our differences ourselves. Jail or one-on-one. If he wants to play tough guy, I’m giving him the choice.”

In case you didn’t know, Crowder is schooled in both mixed martial arts and wrestling.

“Just to be clear,” TheBlaze said, “what do you mean by ‘one-on-one’?”

“I’m talking about lock us in a racquetball court for a whole sanctioned mixed martial arts bout, or boxing bout, or wrestling bout – whatever he wants,” said Crowder. “He can name the terms and I will face him one-on-one if he wants to avoid prison.”

“I am serious,” he added. “He can go to jail, or compete with me in a sanctioned bout for charity.”

The current political climate seems to demand that the cops refrain from maintaining a presence close to a potential scene of violence if the actors are angry union people, radical gays, or angry Muslims. I don't know if it is a a guilt trip from the long-gone days when cops were too sympathetic to the employers, if the establishment wants the radicals to have their way, or a combination of the two. All I know is that, if you are a violent radical, the cops will let you do pretty much what you want and maybe charge you later. If you are exercising your right to free speech while supporting conservative positions, you will get little or no police protection.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

RFK Jr. - Media Biased Towards the RIGHT

A classic tactic of wrongdoers is to project their faults and agenda onto the opposing side.

It serves several purposes:

-It persuades the ones that you and your kind are hurting that the oppressors are in fact the protectors.

-It puts the opposition off-balance as it struggles to defend itself.

-In the case of the media in particular, it covers for the ethical crimes in which they regularly engage, while the few who do try to get things straight are painted as the bad guys.

-It throws up a smokescreen so that their supporters can go about their work unobstructed.

In the current state of affairs, this crime is all the more heinous as they are more vicious after winning than they have been in my memory.

"During a discussion on HuffPost Live Friday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave a strong condemnation of what he calls the “right wing media” and particularly Fox News.

“It’s divided our country in a way that we haven’t been divided probably since the Civil War,” Kennedy said of Fox News during the discussion focused on fracking. “Its empowered large corporations to get certain kinds of politicians and ideologues who are in the United State Congress elected — the Tea Party ideologues who control the Republican Party.”

The nephew of President John F. Kennedy and son of former senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy made these claims against Fox while describing what he sees as the two biggest problems in American politics: the influence of big money and “the right-wing control of the American media.”

In addition to Fox News, Kennedy criticized right-wing talk radio that he describes as having a negative and large influence on whole sections of the country.

“Ninety-five percent of talk radio in our country is right-wing, and you need, according to Pew survey, and you–so a whole section of our country that that’s what they’re hearing. They wake up in the morning, when they go to bed at night,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy also claimed that Republicans “are the only ones that have their own (TV) network.' "

Although I allow that there are a tiny amount of people who, being raised in ignorance, actually believe that the media is biased towards the right.

RFK Jr. and his types are not those people.

As far as I am concerned, Conservatives are to blame. They have allowed the argument to be turned against them. While the media dwells in the shade provide for them by RFK Jr. and his pals, those who are being attacked do nothing but offer weak arguments in their defense. This is not an occasion for defending oneself; situations such as this call for offensive moves. The mainstream media media must be exposed.

The nation has in fact been terribly divided, but the work is beyond a doubt the work of the Left. This is an HAMAS-type move; send rockets after rocket, kidnap Israeli soldiers, acquire missiles, conduct operations in civilian areas, and blame the Israelis for doing something about it.

Those who have taken the US to extremes cannot be allowed to blame their milquetoast opponents.

As I noted in previous posts, the Left, like they have with the term Democracy, redefined the middle to be just barely to the right of themselves. Whenever you hear someone claim that he is "left-of-center" you can, rest assured, know that he is squarely in the camp of the Progressives. By falsely placing the center close to them, those who are barely right-of-center, such as Fox or Sean Hannity, can be demonized as radical rightists.

The idea is a simple but effective one. By falsely labeling the opposition as the radical bad guys, the actual radicals can present themselves as moderates.

When faced with these arguments, don't give in to the urge to defend the protectors of liberty. Make it clear that you are fully aware of the hitherto successful attempts to project their wrongdoing onto your side.

In my opinion, this is another reason why we must consider dividing the nation into separate Republic and Progressive states. Let the descendants of dysfunctional families such as the Kennedys run their Progressive state into the ground. 


Saturday, December 8, 2012

Auto Zone Employee Fired for Thwarting Robber

The sheep culture is being forced on us - in the very place in which the British were decisively beaten to end the war, no less:

"When former AutoZone employee Devin McClean grabbed his gun from his car and chased an armed robber out of his store, he didn’t think his quick thinking would get him fired.

But it did:

“I was in fear of my life as soon as he walked through the door and I see the gun. Your heart just starts pounding,” McClean told NewsChannel 3.

As it turns out, McClean’s Yorktown, Va., store was being robbed by the so-called “fake-beard bandit” (probably the worst nickname in the history of crime), a criminal who had already knocked over about 30 businesses in the Virginia Peninsula area.

As the gunman forced the manager to unlock the store’s safe, McClean, a 23-year-old Air Force veteran, slipped out the back to retrieve his Glock 40 from his truck.

“I waited for him to go up toward the front, I ran out of the restroom, ran out to my truck where I keep my own personal weapon, grabbed my weapon, came back into the store and confronted the guy,” McClean recalls.

“When I yelled ‘freeze’ and I said ‘Stop! Drop the weapon,’ he threw his hands up with his gun still in his hand he started running,” the former AutoZone employee adds. “I felt like it was my responsibility to step in.”

The gunman wisely chose to flee......

But although the store’s manager was grateful for his employee’s bravery, McClean was fired two days later — right before Thanksgiving.

“It’s pretty much getting slapped in the face doing something that you feel was right everybody else around you feels you were right,” says McClean.

Other than to reiterate the company’s zero tolerance policy on weapons inside stores, AutoZone representatives refuse to comment on McClean’s firing.

And being laid off couldn’t have come at a worse time for McClean: He’s about to be a father.

“We’re having a little boy,” he said. “I remember when the guy came in with that gun. My initial thought was I want to make it home to my family. I want to have the opportunity to meet my son and for my son to meet his dad. And for someone to come in and shove a gun in your face?”......"

Companies routinely hide behind policies that are designed to prevent any and all civil litigation. These policies can have no result other than the enforced helplessness of the public. We are told that we have to remain defenseless unless by stroke of fortune the cops happen by at the time that the criminal is going about his business.

A friend of mine thought to email Auto Zone and inform them that, unless they reverse their decision to fire Mr. McClean, he would no longer shop in their stores. I will do the same thing, and I suggest that the reader consider doing the same:

Friday, December 7, 2012

Jesuit Celebrates Liturgy With Fake Woman Priest

Fake marriages codified by state statutes, and fake Priests ordained by fake ordinations.
-Things are indeed ugly.

A note to the reader - The National Catholic Reporter, despite its name and concentration of topics related to the Catholic Church, is by no means a friend or supporter of the Catholic Church. It regularly takes positions that are contrary to Church doctrine, practice, and positions. I am not talking about things like the Vatican's bizarre take on Israel and the Arabs of that region, but on real Church-related issues.

The worse part is that the periodical makes a practice of purposely misstating what the Church says and then argues against the straw man that it created. One brief example will suffice to illustrate what I mean.
 - About ten years ago, a parent of a child with Celiac disease (Note that I cannot eat anything with Gluten either), not content with her daughter receiving only the blood of Christ (In the form/accidents of wine) and foregoing the reception of the body (In the form/accidents of bread) insisted that the Church (In Boston I believe), consecrate a rice wafer for her child. As the Church cannot concentrate anything but bread and wine, they were unable to comply with the demand of the mother. (This very subject had been settled many years ago, specifically with the question of consecrating rice, a staple for many Asians, for those communicants) The paper turned the position of the Church completely around and pretended that the Church was stuck on an issue of prohibited foods such as those of the Old Testament. It then assailed that position, which had nothing at all to do with what the Church was saying.

The anti-Church outlook is fairly clear when one reads either the excerpt or the entire article.

"A Catholic priest who participated in a eucharistic liturgy with a woman priest last month has been ordered to no longer celebrate the Mass or perform any other priestly duties.

Jesuit Fr. Bill Brennan, a 92-year-old Milwaukee-area priest, said the superior of his religious community told him of the restrictions Nov. 29, saying they came at the request of Archbishop Jerome Listecki.

Brennan, a retired parish priest and former missionary to Belize, participated in a liturgy Nov. 17 with Janice Sevre-Duszynska, a woman ordained in the Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests movement.

Brennan said he was hesitant to confirm the news regarding his loss of faculties because he was also ordered not to talk to the press.

"I'm risking my existence in the Jesuit order by talking to you," Brennan told NCR. "But if I've committed a serious sin, [the archbishop] is supposed to be responsible for condemning me ... he's supposed to stand up and be responsible for that.' "
I had to look up the association mentioned in the article as there is no such thing as an ordained woman priest in the Catholic Church. As I noted the NCR utilizes verbiage with the intent of undermining the Church:

This organisation reminds me of a group that I am thinking about making up- The Organization of Coronated Emperors of Europe.

Another glaring example of how the NCR purposely misrepresents the Church follows:

"The Vatican labels the ordination of women in the Catholic church as a grave offense and says participants are excommunicated latae sententiae, or automatically. Pope John Paul II's 1994 letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis effectively forbade discussion of the issue, saying the church's teaching on the matter was to be "definitively held by all the Church's faithful.' "

The terms "Vatican labels" and  "forbade discussion of the issue" are classic NCR Newspeak. By reducing the position of the Church to labeling, the Church's teaching is being made to look like a reactionary and arbitrary declaration. The false claim that the Church forbade anyone from talking about ordaining women has been around since Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* was issued in 1994. The purpose of OS was to present the fact that the Church had no authority to ordain women, not to tell people that they could not talk about it. Those who sought to defy the Church instead of simply leaving it, however, thought that their argument would look stronger if they ran around telling themselves and others that they were put under a gag order.

Apart from the article  this event had its own problems. The Priest is a Jesuit, (The Jesuits are an organization that has long been very anti-Church, see below) and he is from the Milwaukee Archdiocese (This Archdiocese has been in the clutches of rabid anti-Church Archbishops such as Rembert Weakland, who is infamous for spending vast amounts of money to gut the Cathedral to remove anything that looked Catholic).  

As the world moves towards societal, cultural and spiritual collapse, the Catholic Church does have one thing going in its favor (I mean this only in temporal terms). The Popes are elected by Cardinals, and Cardinals are appointed by Popes. As long as Popes invest only qualified candidates as Princes of the Church, the chance of a Pope that supports the play-acting of ordaining women priests is quite remote.

There has been real discussion for the possibility of bring back woman deacons as these existed in the early Church for ministering to women (Modesty purposes), but the man-haters would have none of that. Like play-acted gay marriages they want it all so that the very office of priest (Or marriage itself) can be done away with.

The anti-male hatred of feminists who affect to associate with the Catholic Church was treated thoroughly in the book linked below:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

Teacher Robs Kindergarteners of Santa - Innocence Destroyed

This has been happening more often in the last few years.

Bolding is added.

"An Austin, Texas afterschool teacher has one kindergartener’s parents furious after she told students Santa Claus was fake, the Houston Press reported.

Susan Tietz Gammage said her 5-year-old daughter, Aven, came home from Pease Elementary School last week and asked if what Mrs. Fuller said was true.

“She said ‘None of you believe in Santa do you*?’ and said that you and mommy buy all our presents and put them under the tree. She said that you should tell us the truth*,” Gammage said her daughter told them."

*Think about it - The teacher pretends to be under the impression that none of the poor kids really believe in Santa. She is lying with her question. This is like the serpent in Genesis who asked "“Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” The serpent knew perfectible well that there was no such prohibition. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Creation and Fall noted, the serpent, in order to set the table, started out with a question that he knew would require a clarification in response. Only after that did he attack.

** Not only does she dash their innocence and happiness to the ground, she then undermines the parents even further.

I recall the exact same thing happening here in New Jersey a few years ago. The kids were blindsided by a shamefully self-righteous teacher who, in response to a student's question, knew fully well that she was harming the children instead of helping them.

While the report was being discussed on the radio. A caller replied in defense of the teacher and stated emphatically, "What is da problem? She told da troot". 

For those who are unfamiliar with regional accents, the caller, (This was a New York radio station) was indicating that the teacher had done nothing wrong as she had provided what she felt was not a lie.

We have two elements of the collapse of empathy in our culture. The teacher was clearly happy with herself for hurting the feelings of the children and robbing them of one of the best memories of childhood. The caller was operating under the patently false assumption that the "troot"is always OK and that no one can expect the teacher to re-direct the conversation in order to let the kids have their cherished beliefs.

In actuality, even re-directing is not necessary. I have been asked the very same question by little ones and my answer is "Of course I do. I saw him once.". My parents were born and raised in Brooklyn and the Bronx and I obviously learned how to speak from them, so my accent also should be read in to my reply. (Picture me throwing my hands out in front of me like my Neapolitan/Sicilian father when I say "I saw him".)

The belief in Santa Clause, St. Nicholas, Father Christmas, what have you, is a longstanding tradition in many western societies. It has done immeasurably more good than bad. In no way does this intrude upon the celebration of Christ's birth; indeed, the fact that he visits us on the eve of Christ's birth to give gifts, just as did the Magi to the infant Jesus, provides children with an emotional connection with the holiday that they would not have otherwise.

The evil approach of the teacher is becoming more common. No parents can assume that their children will not come home in tears anymore. We have put a huge dent in student-on-student bullying and the void has been filled by adults. Our children are being sacrificed in the name of self-righteous behavior. They go from having Santa torn from them to being told to dress in revealing clothes in a matter of months.

I am not aware of the teachers' backgrounds in either case. In all probability, they were either rabid atheists who take glee in hurting others or hardcore Christian Evangelicals/Fundamentalists who rival atheists in their lack of empathy for the feelings of others. Both operate with the airs of superiority. Both could not care less about the intentions of parents in letting children have such beliefs. Both pretend to think that they are helping people by their cruel acts.

Atheists want to destroy any faith. Evangelicals, in their puritanical minds, tell themselves that St. Nicholas of Myra has no place in the celebration of the birth of Christ. Note that there is also a very large subset of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity that is against the celebration of Christmas altogether (In this case I am not referring to Jehovah's Witnesses).

In the event that the Republic is ever split into two along American and Progressive lines, one of the requirements in the restored American state should be that all adults who work with children sign, as a condition of employment, an agreement to avoid any conversations that are likely to affect a student's personal beliefs in any way.

The real tragedy is that, with the way things are today, nothing will happen to the teacher as a consequence of her shameful act.

For the record. I believe in Santa Claus.

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Army Drill Sergeant's Daughter Trafficked by Adoption Agency

This is unbelievable-

"A 4th District Court judge says he is "astonished and deeply troubled" by a Utah adoption agency’s deliberate move to circumvent the rights of a married man whose daughter was adopted at birth without his knowledge.

The Provo judge, while noting the birth mother had deceived her husband, the adoption agency and the prospective parents, has given the adoptive couple 60 days to give the child back.

In a 48-page ruling, Judge Darold McDade said the Adoption Center of Choice’s policy of refusing to disclose any information to Terry Achane once he learned what had happened to his baby is "utterly indefensible."

US Army Drill Sergeant (Article mistakenly uses USMC title"Drill Instructor") has been through a Twilight Zone episode of of confusion and horror.

He and his wide had been going through marital troubles, but everything Terry Achane did seems to point to a man who cared for his family. He thought that they would have a period of separation with his pregnant wife and that they would be able to get back together.

While he was making house payments and settling in with a Drill Sergeant assignment in Fort Jackson, South Carolina (The military requires mobility), his wife gave birth to the baby, gave up parental rights, and the baby was then made available for adoption. Sgt Achane had no idea of where his wife had gone and had had trouble locating her.

"In June 2011, Bland [Achane's wife] for the first time informed her husband she had given birth in Utah and placed the child through the Adoption Center of Choice.

"I was like, ‘Utah? Where is Utah?’ I’d never been to Utah, she’s never been to Utah," he said. "Adoption? Who does that? ... I believe she felt guilty at that point because she just made a call out of the blue," said Achane.

That same day, Achane contacted the adoption agency and requested information about his child, which the agency refused to give him.

Instead, the Freis proceeded with the adoption. In their adoption petition, filed in July 2011, the couple acknowledged Achane was married to Bland when the child was conceived and born and that he had never consented to the adoption. They asked that his parental rights be terminated because he "abandoned the natural mother during her pregnancy" and "had not developed a substantial relationship" or otherwise taken responsibility for his daughter.
Achane intervened in the case and in October, more than a year later, a two-day hearing finally took place.

During that hearing, a representative for the Adoption Center of Choice testified that it was "standard practice" to not provide any information when a father — married or not — of a prospective adoptive child called the agency. Kristi Freis told the court that although they knew Achane wanted his child, she and her husband felt they had no obligation to return the baby......................"

I feel so bad for this man. Going to a demanding job every day while fighting the unimaginable battle of getting his child back from people to whom the child should not have been given in the first place. The adoption agency and the couple who adopted the child while knowing that the father was never even given a chance to declare his desire to have custody should be sued. 

I hope that someone does time in jail over this.

I pray that the child is returned soon.