Sarah Ferguson Criminally Charged by Turkey - Britain Will Not Extradite

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-turkey-ferguson-orphanage-idUSTRE80C0PY20120113

Sarah Ferguson, who somehow carries the title of Duchess of York, will not be extradited to Turkey to face criminal charges that could lead to up to 22 years in a Turkish prison.

The charges stem from a 2008 visit to both Turkey and Romania in which conditions at orphanages were recorded. Children were reportedly documented them being tied to beds and in other conditions of neglect. Many of the children were apparently disabled.

Turkey is bristling at the fact that the process for their candidacy entry into the EU, which began in 2006, has been slowed. They likely blame, at least in part, the work of Ms. Ferguson for this situation.

Turkey, like other Islam (Yes, we can now refer to Turkey as Islamic) countries, do not take kindly to criticism or pulling down of the curtains that reveals any unsavory conditions in their nation. They opted to go with charging Ms. Ferguson with violating patient/child privacy laws. These privacy laws of course may very well exist for valid purposes but I do not believe that anyone expects them to apply when the "violation of privacy" is a part of a broader effort to expose abusive or neglectful conditions. It looks to me that Turkey got stung by this expose' and want someone to pay for their embarrassment.

Thankfully, Turkey is not a part of the EU at the moment. If they were, then they could simply swear out a European arrest warrant, and Britain would be powerless to avoid extraditing her.

As an aside, while I respect the work that Ms. Ferguson did, since I have no reason to doubt that she had the right intentions, she is an example of the decline in ethics and morals in the West.

Most are aware of Ms. Ferguson's goings-on. How could one who chooses to remain in a privileged, titled position carry on in a manner that not only brings terrible embarrassment to the Royal family, but shame to her own children? Didn't she want to avoid putting her kids in a position where they would feel horribly embarrassed when among their peers?

With the royals being a side-topic, let's not exclude Prince Edward and his unique situation - A long-time tradition for male members of Britain's royal family is to perform some sort of military service in the officer ranks. It makes sense, being that they will not generally be engaged in business, that the King/Queen has a position of honor and authority in the military, and that the traditional job of European nobility was to be among "those who fight".

Well, Prince Edward found British Royal Marine Training to be a little too hard and quit back in 1987. How could a 28 year-old man in his position show his face to his family? - And his children? How many young people in the US only persevere through US military training because they don't want to go home as failures? I knew recruits when I went through US Marine Corps recruit training in 1985 that had a terrible time dealing with the stressors, yet they pushed themselves to be successful. These are regular, non-nobility title bearing people, yet Prince Edward, who one would think would remain just to avoid the embarrassment of failure/quitting, had no problem with walking out. He could at least have relinquished his title, but of course he had no problem keeping that. I can't imagine what some 18 year-old English kid from the rural parts of East Anglia, who was at the same time dealing with the rigors, stressors, and the exposure to the elements on a daily basis in his British military training, would think that he will be sent to the front line to defend a country in which one of its own princes quit his own training. 

How could Prince Edward live with himself? I would have been so afraid of messing up and getting thrown out (And dealing with that embarrassment) that quitting would have been the last thing on my mind.

While I approve of Ms. Ferguson's work in exposing the abuse/neglect of children, I think that we need to be reminded that she exemplifies much of what has gone wrong with Western culture and ethics. The House of Windsor (Actually Hanover), aside from a few good examples, seems to make the Plantagenets look really good in comparison,

Obama "Obligated" to Ignore the Law

The American president committed yet another Obamian move and appointed Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by utilizing the method of recess appointments. The appointment for the top position in the new bureau was followed by three other appointments.

The only problem was that the Senate was not in recess.

Senate Republicans, arguing that the Bureau should be accountable to Congress, had been filibustering to hold off a vote on the appointment. This of course is not only an acceptable tool for the Senate but one that was extensively employed by Democrats when G.W. Bush was in the White House. Obama and his Democrats, though, have no tolerance for any annoying things such as laws or senatorial procedures when it stops them from doing what they want.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-recess-appointment-is-his-obligation/1

Due to being in a big hurry to complete his appointment for an agency that never existed before, Obama defended his scofflaw move with the following:

"When Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them," Obama said "I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people."

.....So acting out of bounds of the law is no problem if Obama is acting in the best interests of the American people. OK, that makes a lot of sense. Not only can he do this but he is obligated to do so.

Note also the following quote from the same article about Obama's record on such things:

"Republicans have also noted that as a senator Obama was outspoken in his criticism of President Bush to circumvent Congress by using a recess appointment to install John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations in 2007. Obama argued that the recess appointment lessened Bolton's stature.
But White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters today that Bolton was a controversial appointee whom Obama opposed on his merits."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK now I think I get it - If the candidate's abilities or stature are not in question, then it is OK to just circumvent the law. In other words, when the Democrats and their Juan Peron-like leader have an guy that they want to appoint, they can just pretty much do what they want and say "Well, you see,  filibustering is fine when we think that the candidate should not be in the position for which he is nominated, but its not OK to do so it when we want him in and don't have time to wait."

That has been the Modus Operandi for the bulk of the Obama administration's time in the White House. Everything is "We need it now" "The American people cannot wait". Law and procedures that have provided effective government and helped to prevent bulldozing of the opposition and railroading of laws, appointments, etc. are just guidelines that be ignored when it is convenient to do so.

The Senate had not gone through he procedures for an adjournment resolution and had been meeting pro forma every three days. There have of course been many who claimed that this did not really count and effectively created the conditions of a recess. However, a law professor from the Liberal bastion of Yale had serious questions and reservations about the Obamian move:

http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/jan/12/yls-professor-weighs-recess-appointments/
"Such a decision normally requires constitutional backing from the Justice Department, Ackerman argued, but Obama made the decision based on an unpublished constitutional defense written by White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmier. Ackerman said he did not necessarily think Obama's decision to go ahead with the appointments was unconstitutional — he just wants to understand exactly what logic was governing Obama's thinking, and accordingly is demanding that Ruemmier publish her opinion.
“It is hardly enough for him to inform the Senate that Ms. Ruemmler has given the go-ahead," Ackerman wrote. “At the very least, he should provide his counsel's legal opinion explaining why he has the constitutional authority to second-guess the Senate on whether it is in recess.' "

This administration seems to have no limits when it comes to pushing its authority further and further out.

Stupid Professors or Professors with an Agenda? - and Those Who Buy Into Their Drivel

What can't even be described as an open secret are the anti-Western attacks, both overt and covert, that are a part of the work of American Academia. In nowhere is this phenomenon more prominent than in colleges. There, except for specialized scientific or other courses such as those related to business, one is subjected to an incredibly broad range of attacks that are designed to undermine the realities of the factors that provide the foundation of Western societies. Blatantly anti-white courses such as Whiteness/White privilege studies are only a tiny part of that equation. The greater amount of anti-Western propaganda and the more effective portion of that are in the more insidious means of attacks. Here, Leftist/Atheistic professors try to twist and turn the realities of events in Western history in an effort to peel away all things that one would cite as a credit to Western achievements or would allow a Western person to feel a degree of pride, however small it may be.

Included in this campaign of course are pathetic attempts to discredit any and all attributes of Judeo-Christian teachings, thought, and accomplishments. Much of what the Left attacks is difficult to be seen as anything but blatant anti-Semitism. The topic in this post is about an attempt to discredit one major achievement of the Hebrew/Jewish people- the rejection of human sacrifice. This is an especially honorable feature of this religion as human sacrifice was an integral part of the religions/peoples of the region referred to as Canaan, Phoenicia, etc.

It is was fairly well-known historical fact that who practiced the fertility religions of that portion of the world considered human sacrifice to be a perfectly normal, albeit unpleasant, part of their religion. These cultures had a long-established economy based on intense irrigation of crops. These societies were able to achieve population densities far greater than that which would be seen in most of the rest of the world. The storm-god Baal and his sister-wife Asherah, and with some peoples, Moloch or Chemosh, were the primary deities. To please them and to ensure plentiful, but no too plentiful, rains, the Syro-Phoenecian,  Ammonites, and Moabites, who were very closely ethnically and linguistically related to the Hebrews, and others who also lived in that general area, often made sacrifices of their infant children. Common methods were to throw the infants into a fire or to slit the victim's throats.

The example of Abraham being ordered to and then stopped from sacrificing his son Isaac (Who was to become the father of Jacob, the direct patriarch of the Hebrew peoples) has been taken by untold numbers of generations-worth of Jewish and Christian scholars, historians, and others to have been a factor by which the Hebrews were to come to believe that human sacrifice was not to be a part of their religion/culture. No Patriarch or Hebrew would have seen human sacrifice as something completely foreign - it was literally all around them. The difference is and was the understanding that their God did not desire such acts of worship. Christians later took this and expanded upon it to apply to the idea was that the one sacrifice of an individual desired by God was to be one in which both God the Son and man existed in one person.

Those who desire to speak well of Judaism will often cite this fact when the attributes of the Jewish religion/society/culture are the topic.

Now, and predictably, I will start the main story with an anecdote:

During a break from the routine at a National Guard training weekend a few years back. This exact subject came up in discussion (Yes, we talked about lots of things and not just guns, war, women, etc.).
After his point was brought up, a junior ranking Guardsman/soldier, who was every bit of the professional student and who was likely to remain in that protected-from-the-world status for some time, elected to interrupt with a truncated version of an event followed by a false conclusion brought up by a professor of his. He couldn’t recall the name of the individual involved in the story, just the book, so he needed help with that part. It turned out to be the account of Jephthah and the sacrifice of his daughter. He did though; seem quite gleeful at believing that this enabled him to discredit the entire point of our conversation.

His version went something like this:

Well that’s not true. We went over the book of Judges in class, and there was a point where one guy sacrificed his daughter and nothing happened to him as far as punishment goes; so that shows that human sacrifice was not considered a problem for the Hebrews.

That was very close to the exact wording of his statement and was pretty much the farthest that he could take it.

I still am not certain if the professor was truly looking to discredit a significant part of Judeo-Christian belief or if he simply had trouble as a grammar school student on the reading comprehension portion of his school's standardized testing (I tend to be cynical and lean towards the former). Nevertheless, either way a tremendous amount of information that would provide an accurate picture of the story was entirely lacking.

I will try my best to summarize the historical time period and the accounts of and in the Book of Judges:

Judges begins at the point where the Hebrews, still lead by Joshua, are in their new homeland after the exodus and years in the desert. Joshua dies and the Hebrews, without any appreciable leadership, fail to follow their orders (From God) to completely drive out all of the native peoples and start to repeatedly engage in religious practices of those dwelling around them. Chapters 1 through 10 are replete with references to them worshiping the "Baals and Asherahs". God punishes them for these transgressions and the punishments are followed by pleas for mercy from the Hebrews. God then raises up from among them one who is to lead them against their enemies. These are the Judges. Not that three times in this book, it is noted that Israel did not have a King and that consequently every man did what was right in his own eyes.
 Judges 17:6, 21:25, and slightly different wording in 19:1.

Shortly before the event brought up by our professional, educated student is an event just prior to the account of Jephthah that was neglected by his professor. God has had it up to here with the Hebrews worshipping the other gods, so he says in Chapter 10:13-14... "Yet you have forsaken me and served other gods; therefore I will deliver you no more. Go and cry to the gods whom you have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of distress. So they put away the foreign gods from among them and served the Lord; and he became indignant about the misery of Israel"

Well, this is just when the Ammonites show up itching for a fight and Jephthah comes into the picture. (Chapter 11) He is the son of Gilead and a prostitute. He is a mighty warrior, but was driven out by Gilead's sons born of Gilead’s wife in an echo of the account of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. While away from the Israelites, Jephthah is joined by ten "worthless fellows' and engages in raiding.  The Israelites, being hard pressed by their enemies, seek out Jephthah to lead them, with Gilead being the group’s speaker. He agrees and seeks to parley with the the king of the Ammonites to no avail. In verse 29-31, an interesting act occurs; "Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah.........And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, 'If thou wilt give the Ammonites into my hand, then whosoever comes from the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's.' "

Nothing here can be taken to mean that the Lord in fact approved of this as no comment to that effect follows. It must, though, be understood in light of the verses in 10:13-14, where God clearly indicates that he will turn away from them and became indignant. It is as if the Lord was going to let the Israelites screw things up and make themselves miserable if that is what they wanted. Note also that the entire context of the book of Judges is about the Israelites doing whatever they pleased. It notes three times that there was no King is Israel. This is to be understood that, without a King to unite the people and ensure some degree of promotion of proper worship, people would do as they thought was best. In that case, the people often chose to "Do as the Romans do".

Our learned professor no doubt  took as much glee as did his student in "finding" an account in which the subject does an horribly awful thing and being able to note that Jephthah apparently walks away from this event unpunished. When he comes home victorious, his only child, a daughter, comes out to meet him.
Jephthah, being unable or unwilling to go back on his word, sacrifices her.We of course cannot rule out the possibility that the Lord could certainly have released Jephthah from his vow if only he tried. The account is also abundantly and painfully clear that Jephthah was filled with anxiety and wracked with guilt over this. So he was effectively punished for his rash vow.

The professor also must have missed the ending of the account. Just a few verses later, (39b-40) "And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went year by year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in the year"

The people of Israel clearly saw this event as an aberration and made a point of marking its anniversary; hardly an activity if human sacrifice was still no big deal at the time for those people.

Our professor leaves out yet another account where individuals clearly did wrong and no punishment occurred. In Chapter 17, we read that not only did one on their own create a graven image, but that image was taken by a group of Da'nites (A Hebrew Tribe) and kept for themselves. Among those who served the idol was the grandson of Moses, Jonathan. He and his sons functioned as priests for this image "until the day of their captivity", which means that this continued until the Babylonian exile. None of those mentioned in this account were punished either, but it does not prove that the Hebrews did not still hold to the concept and belief in one God who was not to be represented in a tangible form.

 Like those who served as priest for the idol, Jephthah's action can in no way be construed as to indicate that either a refusal to engage in human sacrifice or a general avoidance of idolatry (For obviously not every single Israelite worshiped Baal and Asherah) were not critical features of Israeli society. Similarity, the fact that many in our society commit abominable crimes cannot be taken to mean that we cannot claim to have a society based on respect for life, property, and other examples of moral and civic virtue.

The greatest travesty in the anecdote that I cited was not that the professor did what he did - colleges are chock full of these boneheads. The sad part is that a student was perfectly ready to buy into this line of garbage hook, line, and sinker. Any individual aspiring to be a student must be willing to do his or her best to see right through the efforts of dishonest or idiotic professors.

More Efforts to Suppress Criticism of Islam

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2734/criminalize-free-speech

The EU has offered to be the next host for the ongoing Istanbul Process conferences. These are intended to create an environment where criticism of, for example, "recognized religions" is effectively prohibited, Those who are behind these efforts plan to use the UN resolution described below as their vehicle to have cristicsim of Islam legally defined to fall under 'hate speech' laws in Western Europe (already accomplished) and hopefully the US and remainder of the West.

Note that somehow the Koran, which in and of itself is a tremendous source of hate speech against Jews, Christians, and others, is apparently never on the table for discussion when this subject is brought up.

The following is a quote from the Stonegate article for which a link is provided on top:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the OIC has now redoubled its efforts and is engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat "intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of … religion and belief." (Analysis of the OIC's war on free speech can be found here and here.)
Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011, is widely viewed as a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I noted in an earlier post (October 21, 2011), Obama's Department of Justice hosted a number of Muslim groups that petitioned the US to consider enacting legislation to essentially whittle away at our First Amendment rights. Speaking factually of Islam, let alone exaggerating or lying about it, is more than enough to make that institution look very bad. Muslims who want to go about pretending to belong to a group based on peace-loving and tolerant principles have little choice but to try to get everyone else to shut up if they don't want their houses of cards to be knocked down by the rigorous scholarship of, say, reading of or bringing attention to lines in the Koran.

A number of people in Western Europe have been prosecuted for criminal charges for violations of hate speech laws simply because they had the gall to make factual statements about Islam. In fact, the courts took pains to note that, for example, Elisabeth Sabaditsch - Wolff's statements about Mohammed's performance of sexual intercourse on his nine year-old wife were determined to be factual, but her conclusion that he was a pedophile had gone too far. A video of an interview with Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff may be seen on the link below:
 http://english.savefreespeech.org/?p=452

Americans have but little choice to ensure that we do not lose our right to free expression. If a shameless, sheep-like, dope from New Hampshire is not only not embarrassed to freely admit that he does not agree with the motto "Live Free or Die" and is consequently allowed to cover up that motto on his license plate, then those who actually do believe that freedom is worth defending have to stand up for our right to live in a free manner.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews Continue to Bully Israeli Society

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10074892-ultra-orthodox-and-secular-jews-battle-over-israels-future


Ultra-Orthodox Jews have been pushing for, insisting, and for the most part forcing their ways on much of Israeli society. For a number of years, their demands have grown more frequent and restrictive. From getting busing supervisors to acquiesce to their childish demands that women be required to sit in the back of public buses to tearing down advertisements depicting women, (including acts of vandalism in the process), The Ultra-Orthodox or Hasidim (Not to be confused with Orthodox Jews) have bullied Israeli governing officials and the society as a whole to get them to create the environment that they want for Israel.

There are two issues here:

One is the fact that what the Ultra-Orthodox are trying to do is very close to what Muslims who demand Sharia Law are doing. They are trying to turn a secular state that provides a climate for them to worship and live as they please into a society where everyone has to abide by their way of doing things in public.

The second is that the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community did not sacrifice their lives and fortunes when the Jewish state and then the State of Israel were proclaimed and fought for. By that fact, then, they do not posses the moral position to throw their collective weight around by forcing their restrictions on others.

Modern Israel was designed to be a nation that was primarily secular. Citizens were expected to be normal contributing members of the community, including serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. It was never intended to be a state that required all sorts of strict religious restrictions and practices. It is a frightening specter to see a significant body of people in Israel trying to do much of what we in the West would protest if Muslims were doing the same thing in their own countries, let alone our own.

Modern Israel, while being a homeland for Jewish people, was not founded on strict religious principles. Actually many of the most prominent Zionists were irreligious and many adhered to political positions that were certainly Left of center. I can recall publications of interviews with Sephardic Jews who were children at the time and were aghast that they would be required to do school-assigned homework on the Sabbath.

Note that one prominent Ultra Orthodox group, the Shatmars, refused outright to recognize the State of Israel as a nation, holding that only the Messiah can reestablish Israel.- Fine then, don’t recognize it and don't even live there. The Shatmars even had representatives attend Mahout Ahmadinejad's Pretending to Believe That the Holocaust Never Happened Summit a few years ago. It was quite sickening to see these attendees shaking hands with the Iranian President. Their intentions were to get on board with the lies about the Holocaust to delegitimize the State of Israel as the Holocaust was the last straw and the catalyst for the final push to create the nation.

Researching the Israeli wars of Liberation and those that followed reveals a history of struggle, deprivation, and ultimate sacrifice utterly devoid of Ultra-Orthodox members of the Haganah, Palmach, Irgun, etc.

Israeli society has made all sorts of concessions to these people including provisions that allow their young men to essentially study the Torah full time while receiving financial aid. Elevators have been adjusted so that they will stop at each floor and therefore eliminate the need to break the Sabbath by the strenuous act of pushing buttons. There have been more of such benefits allowed to placate these groups.

Ultra-Orthodox do not celebrate the anniversary of Israeli independence and treat that day as an ordinary day of business.

Note that Israel, like the US and Western European nations and their other daughter states, admittedly has a problem with the decline of morals in society. Many are and will continue to at least put the brakes on the worst of these. It is not, however, acceptable to arbitrarily eliminate each and very little difference that offends one or somehow creates so much temptation that a religious person becomes afraid that he will consequently not be able to control himself unless it is removed.

Western Nations, particularity the US, have similar problem, albeit on as much less severe scale, with Christian Fundamentalists. While Evangelicals/Fundamentalists generally and with gusto serve in and support the US military*, they have taken steps in recent years to exercise influence on activities far beyond the realm of federal, state, and local governments. One example is a few years ago in Hackettstown NJ, where local church leaders successfully petitioned the Town Council to prohibit Halloween Trick-or-Treating on Sunday as it offended their sensibilities. The day was moved, I believe, to November 1st. That of course was a reason for those who desire to have Halloween on Halloween to strongly consider engaging in acts of civil disobedience by leaving their porch lights, on, giving out treats to callers, and parading on public streets/sidewalks in costumes. When looking at traditions, practices, and ways of life intimately connected with the founding and early days of a nation, it is a terrible thing to see when those who choose to live an ultra-strictly religious lifestyle convince themselves that they are helping others and themselves by bossing people around.

If one disapproves of actions that his group prohibits, Ultra-Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Christian Evangelical/Fundamentalists need to be reminded that the most effective manner, indeed the only real one, to deal with such things is to avoid them and to teach others by their example of righteous and clean living.


* As I noted in an earlier post, The Evangelicals have been largely alone in supporting the US in its quest to defeat the threats of Muslim and other terrorists. The Catholic (My Church), Mainline Protestants, and Orthodox Christian Churches+, while not actively condemning this work, tend to play the diplomatic card and hope that the Muslims will be nice to us if we are nice to them.

+ To be fair, the Orthodox Christians have a difficult position as anything that they say will likely result in negative consequences for their coreligionists in areas under Muslim rule. There are far fewer Catholics under Muslim rule but that still may be one reason that their Church tends to stay mum.

Philippinos March in Processions Despite Threat of Terror - But From Whom?

The annual procession of the Black Nazarene was held today. A blackened statue of Christ carrying a cross that survived a ship fire many years ago was again carried through the streets by the faithful. There had reportedly been threats by terror groups to attack or otherwise disrupt the celebration. MSNBC, however, never tells us who exactly made these threats. Were they hunter-gatherers from that nation's remote provinces? Or perhaps they were Jewish or Buddhist groups who were determined to stop the event. I find it highly unlikely that atheists would be so bothered by the traffic backups caused by an event that they would in turn threaten to attack the Christians. Did a group of Christan Fundamentalists in the US get so worked up at what they would perceive as the idolatry of these Catholics?

Let's see.... Shintoists, no,- Zoroastrians, no, - Animists, Rastafarian's, Baha'i devotees, no, no, and no.

I am running out of possible suspects as the process of elimination strikes one group after another from the list.

Maybe the Western media would do well to being naming those who are doing these things.

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10066355-three-million-catholics-defy-terror-threat-to-annual-parade-in-philippines

The Left Cries Bloody Murder About the New Hungarian Constitution

The provisions of the new Hungarian Constitution, which took effect on January 1, have elicited so many howls of protest from across the Leftist board that it has been difficult to actually find out what it says and means for the nation and people of Hungary.

The Constitution has received the tacit yet effective approval of the New York Times, Time Magazine, and the EU by being strongly opposed all of those organizations. Leftists in Poland are also asking their government what they plan to do about the Hungarians who dare to defy the EU and its efforts to destroy the sovereignty to the nations of Europe and to at least try to make repairs to their economy, culture, and society.

In their preamble, they specifically state that they intend to return to their roots as a nation, recognize that they are proud to have a Christian Culture and be a Western nation, nullify laws that are contrary to the people’s natural liberties, and recognize that the nation has been on the wrong course from the time that it was occupied by the Nazis and through the woeful period of soviet dominance. Of tremendous importance is the mention in the preamble of the "restoration of self-determination" that seems to be a sabot round aimed directly at the Socialist superstructure of the EU. Hungary's effort to have control of its own bank has the EU very, very worried. My personal take is that with Hungary and her people asserting themselves, the Left in the US is no less concerned than the EU for their prospects for ultimate success. The label of "fascist" has already been thrown at those who created this document.

The EU and IMF are already looking to exercise the power of the purse in order to coerce Hungary to drop this whole silly thing of a constitution that actually does its job of creating a law of the land. They are considering/threatening to pull back on plans to negotiate for a way to deal with Hungary’s bond debt. The bizarre but telling part here is that Hungary is being coerced by these two bodies with threats to refrain from helping with national debt when the new constitution specifically has notable provisions to prevent the debt from getting any worse. How dare they avoid having to default entirely on their debt and have to take on an EU banker as their Chief Executive as did Italy and Ireland!?

Although I have not read the constitution or even a detailed analysis, and can therefore not state with absolute certainty that this looks like the best thing since sliced bread, the good indicator flags are going up. Hopefully we can get more details in the next week or so. This is a very exiting event and has caused me to decide to write a short piece on Hungarian History in which I will try to give their people some credit where credit is due. They have always seemed to be treated but briefly, causally, and with little consideration in the span of European history and I have been one of the typical offenders.

Links to articles are below the preamble:
______________________________________________________________________________
Credit to Gates of Vienna and The Brussels Journal for posting a translation of the preamble by a Mr. George Handerly:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We, the members of the Hungarian nation, bearing responsibility for all Hungarians, declare:
We are proud that our King St. Stephen has, a thousand years ago, placed our country on a firm fundament and that he has made our nation (through his conversion) a part of (Western) Christian Europe.
We are proud of the survival of our country, of its freedom and our ancestors that struggled for her independence. (For long, the Hungarians were called “the rebel nation”.)
We are proud of the outstanding intellectual achievements of Hungarian individuals (such as 14 Nobel prizes).
We are proud that our people have fought to defend Europe (from the Mongols and the Turks) and that it has, through its talent and diligence, contributed to our shared (European) values.
We acknowledge the nation-preserving role of Christianity. We also appreciate the various religious traditions represented in our country. We promise to preserve the spiritual and intellectual unity of our nation that has been torn apart by the storms of the past century. The ethnic groups that live with us are part of the Hungarian political community and are therefore nation-forming factors here.
We accept the obligation to protect and enhance our inheritance, our unique language (Magyar is not an Indo-European language) Hungarian culture, the language and culture of Hungary’s national minorities as well as the nature-given and man-made treasures of the Carpathian Basin. We have a responsibility to our descendants. For that reason, we maintain the conditions of existence of the generations that will be following us through the careful use of our spiritual and natural resources.
We hold that our national culture amounts to a rich contribution to a multi-faceted European unity.
We affirm our respect for the liberty and culture of other peoples and wish therefore to cooperate with all other nations.
We affirm that the foundation of human existence is respect for the dignity of man.
We affirm that personal freedom can only be secured in cooperation with others.
We affirm that the decisive framework of community is the family, and the nation, and that the fundamental values of our sense of community are loyalty, faith, and love.
We affirm that the foundation of the community’s strength and of the honor of every individual is labor and the achievements of the human mind.
We affirm the obligation to extend help to those in need.
We affirm that the common goal of the state and the citizenry is the good life, security, order, justice and the unfolding of liberty.
We affirm that people’s sovereignty is present only where the state serves its citizens and when it handles their affairs without prejudice, abuse and with fairness.
We pledge to honor the achievements of our historic constitution (1222) and the Holy Crown that articulates the continuity of Hungary’s state system and the nation’s unity.
We do not recognize the conditions created by the suspension of our historical constitutional order by foreign occupations.
We deny the applicability of a statute of limitations in the case of the inhuman crimes committed against the Hungarian nation and its citizens during the National Socialist and Communist dictatorships. (This provision is likely to be the Left’s main reason to resent the document.)
We do not recognize the Communist constitution of 1949 because it has served as a foundation of tyrannical rule. For this reason that legislation is hereby invalid.
We agree with the first free national assembly (after the formal abandonment of Socialism in 1989) that has proclaimed that the new freedom issues from our 1956 revolution.
We choose to regard the restoration of the self-determination our homeland that had been lost on March 19, 1944 to have been restored on May 2, 1990 with the first freely elected popular assembly. (The date in 1944 refers to the occupation by Germany.)
We consider this date to mark the beginning of our country’s new democratic order and of its constitutional democracy.
We avow that a spiritual renewal has become indispensable since the last century’s developments had undermined moral values.
We have faith in a mutually determined future. We believe that our children and grandchildren, through their perseverance and spiritual strength, shall make Hungary great again.
Our Fundamental Law is the foundation of our legal order. As such, it is a contract among the Hungarians of the past, the present, and the future. It constitutes a living framework that expresses the nation’s will and it determines the shape of the system within which it wishes to live.
We, the citizens of Hungary, are prepared to base the public order of our country upon the cooperation and consent of our nation.

http://www.americanhungarianfederation.org/news_HungarianConstitution_History.htm
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/01/hungarys-refounding-document-preamble.html#more
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4897
http://www.thenews.pl/1/10/Artykul/81641,Leftists-slam-Hungarys-new-constitution

The Failure to Address the Refusal to Shake Hands

The gesture of shaking hands has been apart of Western culture for ages. I offer one link in particular as the post not only cites the existence of a 5th century Greek stele portraying two soldiers clasping hands, but also has a picture of the stele.

http://blog.myheritage.com/2010/08/history-of-the-handshake/

There are a number of origins attributed to handshake. The most common one, and in my opinion one that is very likely accurate, is that two individuals could offer the normal arms-bearings hands to indicate that neither was armed. Today we also ensure that our tableware is place down so that points/tines or sharp edges do not face others.

There have also been several versions or methods for the actual performance of the handshake. One commonly attributed to the Romans was the actual clasping of the wrists. Some societies would utilize two hands to indicate a greater sense of closeness, hospitality, or camaraderie.

The handshake today has many nuances. Too light is perceived as being wishy-washy or disinterested, too strong as possibly being overly gregarious or bullying. Men will try to make sure that neither one does it with too much or too little force and will generally ensure that the hand of the other and not the fingers get clasped. A woman's hand should be held lightly, briefly, and sort of with the pads of the fingers and thumbs rather than with a full hand-clasp. Close-knit groups such as sports teams or military groups will tend to develop their own variations of the handshake. All of these are meant to convey sense of greeting, manners, camaraderie, sincerity, appreciation, and acceptance. Perhaps the most important meaning that can be communicated by the handshake is an agreement.  The shaking of hands to indicate the agreeing to terms or forgiving/forgetting of slights/insults has been an inherent part of our culture for a very long time. Few things can make the community feel more reassured than to observe to people shaking hands after an apology.

A terribly bad portent for the direction in which our society/culture is heading is not only the trend towards refusing to shake hands but the utter failure to address this issue with anything but weak excuses. Many will shamelessly speak in support of the person who has decided that his concern with getting slightly dirty hands is enough to override a timeless and almost hallowed part of our culture. Even the Japanese have had no problem adopting the handshake when meeting Westerners. In fact, when I was in Japan and Korea, it was not uncommon when greeting a person for both of us to engage in a modified bow/handshake act that was surprisingly easy to perform. The arrival of the "me" subculture allows some to decide that one is not part of a general culture, but an individual that is free to pick and choose what he or she will accept  in the spectrum of manners and politeness.

An Internet search on hand-shaking will bring up one website after another dedicated to defending, promoting, or advising people to either stop shaking hands or how to "politely" [sic] “decline” shaking hands. It is almost as if they truly believe that it is possible to do this without being rude. The problem is that the very act of refusing this gesture is inherently rude in Western culture. When I was in Japan, I NEVER counted my change in front of the cashier because doing so conveys a sense of distrust or suspicion of having been cheated. Counting change in front of a cashier may result in the firing of the employee if it is witnessed by a supervisor. One counts his change outside and reenters the store if he believes that a mistake had occurred.

Of course those who promote this awful type of behavior are probably not the types who hold that there is much good in Western culture in the first place. I don’t think that a scientific survey has been or will be done on this topic, but if there were to be one I would be willing to place a friendly wager that a disproportionate amount of those who hold that it is OK to refuse have Leftist political leanings, would avoid military service like the plague, and support the idea of a government that has extremely broad authority to control every aspect of society.

The very act of refusing to shake hands creates an awkward, hurtful, embarrassed response for the greeter. It is unbelievable that one can pretend to be under the impression that saying "I'm sorry, I don’t shake hands." is going to reduce any way the rudeness of his actions. What is supposed to come next - "I’m sorry that you feel offended"? That is sort of like walking away without a response from a verbal greeting and saying that you are sorry that the other feels like he is being ignored.

What to do? Well, ignoring it is exactly what they want you to do. The more people get away with such rudeness without correction, the more others will feel that it is OK to get on this boat. A refused handshake must be met with some form of admonishment just as for a loud cell phone conversation in a public yet quiet area. I prefer the "That was an extraordinarily rude act" approach. A person who chooses a more tactful approach may state that refusing handshaking creates an environment of awkwardness, confusion, etc. Can you imagine a room where even ten percent of the people refused to shake hands? It would be utter confusion and likely result in everyone ceasing the shaking of hands. - Wait a minute! That’s what they want! A society where everyone not only hides from real problems in the world but one where we all just offer weak nods at each other open meetings. It sounds like society out of George Orwell's 1984 where social contact between others is almost nonexistent.

I will not allow that this is simply an issue of hygiene and microbes. I find avoiding eating, rubbing my eyes, and touching my lips or nose until I have washed my hands to be a very easy thing to do. I follow this practice after I touch the floor to pick something up, pat a dog, touch the bottoms of shoes, touch raw food, and for every other act that can transfer dirt and microbes to my hands. If the Flu is going around then of course we all can refrain from shaking hands for a couple of weeks. For the rest of the year, let's not pretend to think that microbes have changed so much over time that touching another's hands is some sort of equivalent to having unprotected sex with a needle-using heroin addict.

Those who refuse to shake hands are only throwing out the claim of fear/concern of microbes to cover up their faults. Our bizarre fear of judging others or being accused of intolerance just feeds into what they what for all of us. Please consider making a stand here. We lose so much when we drop gestures, acts, or beliefs that are a part of what made us the way we are.

Nigerian Mourners Murdered

Nigerian Christians attending a church service for those murdered on Thursday were themselves attacked. Up to twenty mourners were killed. An individual who identified himself as a spokesman for Boko Haram has claimed responsibility. The same group had given Christians a three-day ultimatum on Sunday that required Christians to leave the region. With the expiry of the reprieve arriving, open season has begun.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/01/06/12/over-20-churchgoers-mourners-gunned-down-nigeria

A witness stated that the attackers chanted "God is great" during one of the multiple attacks.

Although this is clearly not a time for jokes, I can't help but think of the opening credits of Monty Python and the Holy Grail again. Here is an inappropriate paraphrase:

'Those responsible for the sacking of those who have been sacked have also sacked those who were mourning victims who had previously been sacked"

What is the likelihood that this is going to end anytime soon?

Folllow Up: 18 Year-old Mom Who Shot Intruder had a 58 year-old Husband.

http://newsok.com/teen-mother-kills-intruder-in-blanchard/article/3637495

Note this post is a follow up to the one from yesterday.

The article on the young Mom who killed and intruder in her home with a shotgun on New Year's Eve had a completely and totally unexpected twist. The woman's deceased husband  had been 58 years-old.

According to the article, she had come to live at the man's house three years earlier. This in itself could very well have occurred for innocent reasons such as a young girl having found herself homeless. I don't know the details - I can't even leave out the possibility that a crime occurred. That would be the case if he had committed sexual acts on her prior to reaching a legal age.

What I can say is this: If a young girl is in a situation where she would benefit from being given a home, an older adult has no business whatsoever allowing the relationship to come to a point where intimacy, consensual or otherwise, occurs. It is not uncommon for a teenage girl to develop a sort of crush on an older man, especially if he has been helpful to her in a time of need.

If a man in his situation senses that a person who is clearly a child, a soon-to-be adult, or even older has began to exhibit romantic feelings for him, he needs to gently inform her that, although this type of feeling is common, it would not be appropriate and would never turn out well for her. He took the place of a father figure when he offered help, and he has no choice but to keep it that way.

A man who comes to  such a  realization is obligated to help redirect her to young men of similar age. He could be as old-fashioned as he wants in vetting prospective suitors, continue to protect her as much as possible, and be happy for her as she starts to put her life together. Let's not forget helping her obtain some type of education so that she is not dependant on finding a man for economic security.

I find it hard to believe that a man could be comfortable showing his face among his peers after taking advantage of a girl who clearly needed his help, not his romantic feelings.

This too appears to be an example of the decline of ethics and morals in the West.

On top of the above, how did he think she would feel when, ten years later, she looks across the table and sees that her husband is pushing 70?

US Threatens and Pressures Spain Into Adopting SOPA Law

The US government, through our ambassador to Spain, threatened that nation with being put on a trade blocklist if it did not adopt SOPA-like legislation. It appears that Spain succumbed to the pressure and passed the "Sinde" law which provides SOPA-style powers on domestic sites.

SOPA stands for the Stop Online Policy Act and sounds like a reasonable thing since we don't approve of pirating copyrighted material. The problem with the wording of the legislation is that it seems to allow companies to, upon finding a site that they either believe has been using copyrighted material, is capable of using the same, or encourages others to do so, shut that site down by blocking it.

Once blocked, the internet users will only be able to access that site if they know the internet IP address. They will no longer be able to click on that ".com" link as this will pull up a message/page that notifies the user that the site is blocked.

Below are links to three articles on this topic:
http://lifehacker.com/5860205/all-about-sopa-the-bill-thats-going-to-cripple-your-internet

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2829424/posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/spain-passes-piracy-law-some-draw-parallels-to-sopa/2012/01/05/gIQA2a2PdP_story.html

The US has been edging closer and closer to becoming a nation where the state and federal government assume a tremendous amount of control over the activities of its citizens. Now an oligarchic-type of corporate power power can reach out and shut down private individuals from what may very well be simply an issue of free speech. Stopping/suing/seeking damages for infringing on copyright laws is the domain of the civil courts. It is not a a Las Vegas hotel room where a company can walk in OJ Simpson-style and hold the suspected wrongdoer at bay until the company is satisfied. OJ Simpson rightly went to jail for doing what he did and it wasn't just because he was armed at the time.*

*At least he was actually convicted that time. One of the first times that I noticed the tragic decline in honest thinking and opinion-making was during the OJ Simpson murder trial in the early 90s. I encountered shocking amounts of apparently lucid and capable people who could actually look you squarely in the eye and say that "He didn't do it". This was not an issue of claiming that the cops messed up - they forcefully willed themselves to be incapable of drawing the conclusion that the did not want to have. OJ was just so likable that they could not bring themselves admit that he was a murderer. The High school-age youth at the time had been indoctrinated for so long by the Leftist influence in schools, and all the anti-police rhetoric included there, that they too willingly allowed themselves to hold to the position that OJ was innocent. Listening to this was sort of like the Monty Python Holy Grail scene (I hope that I am not infringing on copyrighted material) where King Arthur tells the Black Knight that he, after having his arms cut off by Arthur, can no longer fight since "You've got no arms left". While standing there with both arms cleary missing and experiencing arterial bleeding from his shoulders, the Black Knight answers "Yes I have".

18 Year-Old Mom Kills Armed Intruder - The Left Prefers That She Had Become a Victim

http://newsok.com/teen-mother-kills-intruder-in-blanchard/article/3637495

Link to article is above.
An 18 -year old widow and mother of a three-month old baby, who lives in a rural area of Oklahoma, shot and killed an armed intruder with a 12 Gauge shotgun on New Year’s Eve. Unlike many home invasions/robberies, the criminal had knocked loudly for some time and thus provided the victim with time to barricade her door with a couch. These enabled her to, after firstly securing a shotgun and a handgun, call 911 and report the crime. Some may brace at this and state that she should have called 911 first - bad, bad move unless another adult is able to call while the other prepares to defend. Even in an urban or densely populated suburban area, the cops will (unless one just happens to be on your street at the time) take more than five minutes to get a patrol car to the scene of the crime. In rural areas the wait can easily be more than a half an hour.

Anyway, the saddest part of this good news of bad guy gets killed/young mom and baby are OK was that, probably as a result of so much pressure, lies and finger-pointing about firearms ownership from the Left, the mom felt the need to ask the dispatcher if it was OK to shoot the criminal. The dispatcher, being unable to legally tell her to shoot, indicated that the victim needed to do what she had to do to protect herself and the baby. The mom thankfully knew that their safety was paramount, so she ended the threat with a home version of a "whiff of grapeshot".*

Since the bad guy was armed and he was killed during the crime, the accomplice will be charged with first degree murder. For those who are not familiar with the concept of the charge as it applies here or the general legal understanding of defending one’s home, I offer following:

If a person commits a crime, such as burglary while being armed, most states will consider that a crime of the first degree. If anyone, good guy or bad guy, dies during the commission of the crime, that will also result in a first degree murder charge in most states charge for all actors involved (Not including victims if it is determined that they acted within the law)

Deadly Force is not prohibited is to defend oneself in his home. In fact, most states do not have a legal requirement that a resident make an attempt to retreat within the house prior to using deadly force. Also, deadly force can be used to prevent the burglary of a dwelling. This means that deadly force can be applied to stop a person from illegally entering a residence in which people are living and staying.

The Left typically howls at such an event like this. Within days of this news, anti-gun commentators will be given mic time on the networks. There they will throw out the tired, worn out, and completely dishonest mantras that are made to make people think that they are not safer having a firearms in their house and indeed that they are less so. The infamous 43:1 study will no doubt be brought up in support of their desire to get everyone US and other Western nations as defenseless, sheep-like, and in need of totalitarian state control as possible.

The 43:1 study, also called the Kellerman study, which was published in 1986 in the New England Journal of Medicine, was an atrocious example of false use and application of statistics. It was based on cherry-picked statistics in the Seattle area. It suffered from a complete lack of scientific responsibility. It was an attempt to get people to think that they, or someone else who was innocent, are 43 times more likely to be injured or killed by their own firearms than to wind up using it on an intruder. When later pressed about the manner in which he came up with his ratio, he then switched gears and threw out the 2.7:1 ratio - an equally false yet less outrageous number. To provide one example of how poorly the study was done, the only events that were counted as times when a person used a gun in defense of a home was when the bad guy got shot. This was the most pathetic portion of the finding since the vast majority of people who own firearms have, rightly so, no desire to kill people and show/produce/declare their weapon in order to cause the bad guy to leave in the overwhelming amount of circumstances. This fact alone completely threw off the entire average, even if the rest of the statistics had been honestly complied, which they were not. The awful and dishonest techniques used by Kellerman can be seen in part on the link below:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-tainted-public-health-model-of-gun-control/

It is safe to say that even rabidly anti-gun people have often refused to use the findings of the Kellerman study in their own arguments due to the fact that the whole thing suffers from a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

The Left is all-too-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 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."

Interesting Email From a Doctor on the Current Problems in US Culture

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/starner.asp

I often write about the decline of cultural values (or the attacks, both overt and covert on it) in the West. I got back late from my son's HS wrestling meet and did not have time to put together a regular post. I did however receive an email with an explanation purportedly sent by a doctor to the White House. While I cannot confirm that the letter was actually sent to the president, I checked on Snopes and found that the a letter to the editor of a local newspaper was received. I thought that, in addition to the sad list of non-essential spending observed and to which this patient admitted, plus the fact that Medicaid was paying for the treatment, the doctor notes that we are facing a crisis of culture. (Italics added)

The email text is coped below:

View of a young doctor
> Diagnosis, prognosis and cure in just three (3) short paragraphs!!!
> If you doubt any part of what Dr. Jones says, go visit your
> local hospital emergency room as an observer for an hour or so
> some Friday or Saturday night.
> See how many responsible people you can send this to!!!
> Pictured below is a young physician by the name of Dr. Starner
> Jones. His short two-paragraph letter to the White House
> accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a
> "Health Care Crisis". It's worth a quick read:
>
> []
> Dear Mr. President:
> During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the
> pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an
> expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide
> assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very
> expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new
> cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ring tone. While
> glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her
> payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of
> her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one
> costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money
> to buy pretzels and beer.
>
> And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's
> health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is
> not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or
> nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a
> culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on
> luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or,
> heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based
> on the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to
> because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix
> this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and
> dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health
> care difficulties will disappear.
> Respectfully,
> STARNER JONES, MD
>
> If you agree...pass it on. YES YES YES
>
>
>

Archbishop of Canterbury Faults British Society for 2011 Rioters

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080972/Archbishop-Canterbury-Rowan-Williams-defends-summer-rioters-New-Years-message.html

Link to article is above.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said in a New Year message that the violence that occurred during the summer of 2011 was due to the people and country being "suspicious and hostile" towards the youth and failing to provide good role models. He also called on all to give these people love and support so they can "flourish". Yeah, that's what we all want - Islam flourishing in Britain and elsewhere.
Since he made sure to place the blame squarely at the feet of  the victims, he apparently felt the need to at least express his disapproval of the violence. He used words such as angry, lawless, and horrific" for the acts themselves.

The summer riots were close to fully the work of immigrants, particularly Muslim ones. These people are the beneficiaries of an extraordinarily generous welfare system and make full advantage of it. Fraud and other abuses of the British Social Services system are rampant. Britain has allowed the unimaginable - Sharia courts hearing cases and passing judgments in an echo of the European Dark Ages where people were governed by the code of laws of their particular ethnic group. The nation has spent incredible amounts of money on public recreational facilities in areas of high Islamic immigrant populations. The immigration policy itself is very generous; with high quotas and provisions to easily bring family members to join earlier immigrants in Britain.

The manner in which many among this community show their appreciation is to engage in a plague of gang rapes of ethnic British girls, threatening to take over Britain and impose Sharia law, abusing returning-home British troops, effectively making many of their areas no-go zones for ethnic British, looting, robberies, mass-arsons, and other sorts of riotous activity.

The man who sits in the seat of many great British/English men, including Thomas a' Becket*, has now typified the assumption of Dhimmitude common among many in positions of authority and taken on the status of a sheep. What is even worse is that he shows no concern for the victims of the riots. This man reminds me of an abused spouse who makes excuses for the batterer's actions for years until the abused is either permanently injured or killed. An even more accurate comparison would be that of a parent who does nothing but make excuses for his/her spouse as the other abuses and terrorizes their children.

Western Church leaders have historically called for public order. Although there certainly were times when Church officials spoke in support of the downtrodden, they never called for destruction of property or society. If the Church can be at fault in the past it would be due to failing to stand up often enough for the poor v. the nobility. In this case, we do not even have the downtrodden but spoiled, coddled, thugs with a sense of entitlement. Suspicious? British people get blamed for that? It is easy for Williams to say that as his family members are not in danger in the street. Hostile? Who, the British police? - They are kid-glove wielding gentleman compared to what they face. Then who, the ethnic British? That is sort of like a high school student who withdraws from other students due to incessant bullying and gets blamed for being a loner.
This is yet another Neville Chamberlain-type act that is threatening to further weaken the West.

The historical church bodies such as Catholic, Orthodox, and the Mainline Protestants, are simply not doing their job. The only Christian bodies making any effort to address the threat of militant or otherwise violent Islam are those of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist branches.

This is a double-edged sword as the latter are also engaged in a constant campaign to either enlist members of the former into their bodies or to convince the Churches themselves to abandon core doctrines such as baptismal regeneration. The Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are doctrinally in direct descent from the Anabaptists (rebaptizers) who sprung up in Europe after the reformation had already been in full swing.

They, adhering to the newly-developed doctrine that fixed Christian regeneration (The process of becoming one who is born again in Christ) to an event in a person's life where he accepts Jesus as Savior and God.(Lord) The Anabaptists felt that the reformers (Lutheran, Calvinist - Dutch Reformed, etc.) had not done enough of casting off established doctrinal beliefs or practices. Different sub-bodies have had slightly modified versions of this such as "Accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior" but all hold that baptism is nothing but an outward act or ceremony for a newly-reborn person. At the time this interpretation of Christian scriptures was brand-new on the Christian spectrum. Evangelicals of the modern era have gone to great lengths to present their practice/belief on this subject as having been practiced by the Apostles and other first-century Christians. They have, however, been unable to provide any historical evidence to indicate that early Christians did not believe in Baptismal regeneration; indeed, no evidence of the denial of baptismal regeneration exists for any point prior to the 16th century (with one possible exception for a radical proponent of communal societies in 15th century Bohemia).

Extant writings of the Church fathers of the first three centuries of the Christian era contain scores of references to the belief in Baptismal regeneration. Christ’s words to Nicodemus referring to being "Born again" were universally and essentially solely held to refer to baptism. These also are clear that cases of a direct act of God on an individual where he is regenerated prior to baptism are exceptions to normal practice.

None of this discourages Evangelicals from assertively proselytizing other Christians to persuade them to embrace this modern form of belief. Like Moslems, who hold that Mohammed’s revelations and teachings were not new but were exactly the same as the original belief system of the God of Abraham, Evangelicals have no qualms with advertizing their position as the original Christian idea of regeneration.

This is why Mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox often are confused when discussing their faith with evangelicals. The latter will inevitably resort to asking if and when one of the former was born again. Those of the older faiths have not been schooled on the differences in beliefs and will wonder why the Evangelical is asking such a question. They are thinking and/or saying ‘Well, I was baptized as an infant and brought up in the faith’. This does not satisfy the Evangelical mind, and more questions will follow. They will be asked when they gave their hearts to God, if they belief that Jesus is their personal Lord and Savior, or if they know that only faith in Jesus saves. More confusion ensues. They will answer that they have believed as long as they can remember, that of course they believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world, that he is God and therefore Lord, and that, contrary to what an Evangelical was told by his Pastor, none of the traditional churches have ever taught that good deeds/works earn salvation.

The Evangelicals may walk away thinking that the person with whom he is speaking is in fact a saved Christian. More likely he will conclude that the poor soul is actually not a Christian and needs to be “saved".

More will follow in other posts on the differences between traditional Christian Churches and those of Evangelicals/Fundamentalist. Save to say for now that, regardless of the critical differences of belief and their unwillingness to allow the title of Christian to those of the old faiths, Evangelicals are almost the only Christians making any appreciable effort to expose the threats posed by Islam today and give moral and political support to the State of Israel. The traditional Churches, either out of fear or reprisals, guilt over past injustices, or out of some bizarre idea of placating the Left or Islamic societies, continue to hold their tongues and do little to help themselves or others directly threatened by either one.

*English martyr who was killed by those who supported Plantagenet King Henry II of England. My personal take on the circumstances of the dispute itself (not the murder) between the Archbishop and the King is that Henry was probably more in the right. The example of Becket's stand for what he believed in is nevertheless one which a leader of the Church should seek to emulate.

Sundry Thoughts on New Years Day

The New Year has arrived. The Christmas attacks on Christians are still in full swing. Houses have been torched in Egypt. Coptic leaders in that country have pleaded with the Egyptian army to take some measures to protect their coreligionists and have again taken steps to avoid Christmas services in churches.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that a Muslim student's house was attacked by a mob because a picture of Mohammed was posted on his facebook page. We are not told if the picture was one of an insulting nature and the student claims that others posted the photo on his page. None of this matters of course to the crowds chanting "God is great" as they dutifully caused extensive damage to the residence, or to the authorities, who detained he student. We are not told if the detention was done in order to protect the student or if he is likely to be charged for any offense.

I can hear the choruses of the Left from their platforms of moral relativism as they seek to minimize our sense of outrage. They will no doubt hearken back to mob attacks on Jews, especially those of the Middles ages - yeah, those attacks that occurred hundreds of years ago and for which we too feel terrible. Muslim mobs are doing this right now and people are being hurt in ways that we can barely imagine, yet those who will cite pogroms as proof of the inherent wrongfulness of Western culture say nothing about what we are seeing today.

Our society seems to have abandoned, among other things, our willingness or ability to think. Feminists cry murder at any attempt by a Western male to exercise any degree of moral leadership in his family yet remain mute when a Muslim father commits atrocities against his daughters for such wild behavior as wearing nail polish. These men get free passes for this and for ruling their families with a maliciously applied iron hand, but woe to a Western man (who would feel repulsed by such behavior) who distances himself in any way from a family member who blatantly and repeatedly engages in actions that would cause deep embarrassment to him or other members of his family. That man is supposed to ignore any and all bad behavior no matter how much it may hurt his feeling and his sense of dignity. People, upon being made aware of the fact that, say John has not spoken to his son since his second arrest for Disorderly Conduct, express feigned shock and say "But that's his son" (hypothetical example) Moms too are expected to hold their tongues if their sons and daughters shamelessly advertise their dissolute comings and goings no matter how much it may eat away at them.

We pretend to be unaware of the aspects of our culture that provided firm bedrock for society to grow, prosper, and improve. Boys were expected to act like young men by the time they were in their teens. They were not supposed to spend their time trying to figure out how to persuade young girls to engage in intimate acts. Girls were expected to protect their emotional health and sense of dignity by avoiding social contact with boys who were clearly not looking out for their best interests. Parents regularly did more than just dropping off their kids at Sunday school. They took them to church or at least worked to impart a sense of ethics in their children. People viewed getting into legal trouble as something to be avoided; most did not want to hurt their standing in the community.

Education was recognized for is importance. Many families sacrificed to ensure that their children could be better educated and therefore have better opportunities than their parents. An education was a means to an end, not the end itself. Nothing that could be learned in school was considered to be capable of displacing the importance of a strong work ethic. Few believed that college itself could make someone wise or allow one to understand the world better than those who were actually working as a part of it. Older people who may have had a third grade education were nonetheless still regarded as having wisdom, common sense, and life experience from which the youth could learn much. Education was known to be a valuable asset, not something that was the primary means to develop a society.

I once had a discussion with a relative through marriage that I think illustrates the topsy-turvy way in which we view education today. He had spent quite a bit of time in college and was clearly strongly influenced by the Leftist slant provided in most colleges of our time.

It was absolutely precious how he assumed the airs of one who knows and understands how things are and began to explain how the key, main part, foundation of progress of society is education. The manner in which he spoke of this was indicative of someone who clearly viewed what can be gleaned in college to be the be-all-end-all of what a person needs to help society progress. Absent was any mention of the cultural factors that provide the base for a society's strengths. Noticeably missing also was any understanding that, aside from specialty courses such as mathematics, sciences, engineering, chemistry, etc., what passes for "education" in the current state of American colleges is hardly that. A better and more accurate label would be “re-education" along a Marxist mode.

In American academia the history of Western culture twisted, its faults are grossly exaggerated, and its attributes are either glossed over or denied outright. The outrageous activity of the Confederacy after Lincoln’s election is ignored. Here the Left, ever desperate to make Western societies look bad, is forced to take the side of the slave-owning south. Like they do with violent Islamists today, the North gets the blame for the Confederacy's violent actions that were committed prior to Lincoln taking any steps towards offensive action. "The War of Northern Aggression", the old label that Great-Grandmothers in the south would use to shift blame away from the southern states, is applied word-for-word in colleges today. Completely ignored is the tremendous emphasis that Confederate leaders would apply to slavery. Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederate states, who was hardly alone in his sentiments, referred to slavery as the “Cornerstone of the Confederacy” yet the war is still is still pictured as an issue of ‘states rights” and the North gets the blame. Lincoln, having had to refuse to interfere with slavery in current slave states to even have the slightest chance to prevent that institution in new states, is assailed and his credibility as a person who knew slavery to be an evil is attacked.

To have any validity, an opinion must not only be based on knowledge of an event but must also clearly consist of a reasonably honest appraisal of the facts. If these conditions are not present, then the best label one could apply to such an assertion is that of a position. All too often, what we face today are not opinions but positions.

As one last thought on a position masquerading as an opinion, I reprinted a quote from a Leftist professor from Sweden as she commented on the shocking amount of rapes committed on ethnic Swedish females by Muslim immigrants. The following portion is taken from a post of mine from December 17, 2011:

The response is from Unni Wikan, a Social Anthropology professor at the University of Oslo.

"Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

Credit to Michael Winter of USA Today Feb. 15, 2011
I can only say that this has to be the most filthy remark that I have ever heard in my life, and it came from Leftist feminist (Yes, Unni Wikan is a woman)

I have noted in previous posts that the close of the 20th century saw the end of much of the stigma attached to being dishonest about one's opinion. A similar remark made in the period prior to this would have resulted in a response such as "Sir or Ma'am, that is clearly not true." The speaker would then be known from that point on as a person utterly lacking in credibility.Today we somehow are supposed to feel obligated to give one the benefit of the doubt and accept that a person believes what he/she says no matter how patently false, impossible. or purely filthy it is. An apologist with such a mindset would state. "Well, it's her opinion."

Well, no it's not - Unni Wikan is spewing garbage and she knows it.