Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Reducing Some Sources Of Excess CO2

It appears that some of the chief sources of unneeded (Except by plants) Carbon Dioxide come from Mr. Obama's aircraft and private jets going to or coming back from "climate conferences" and, of course, from the mouth of Al Bore and the other worshipers of the "Religion Of Human Caused Global Warming". If you add the like production from the Congress and various parliaments, we may, in fact, be endangered by those forms of CO2.

If you think about it, there are immediately effective solutions to the above sources with only small emissions of nitrate wastes.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Advise To Senators RE: Health Care Bill

If Senators Herb Kohl and R. Feingold vote for any health care "reform" bill which allows ANY use of tax dollars to fund abortions OR fails to provide enforceable provisions to keep tax dollars from being spent for illegal aliens, it would be better for them if they did NOT physically return to Wisconsin.

I suspect the same advise could be provided to all like US Senators as to their home states.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

B. H. Obama VS. The USA & The People

It too often appears that too many assume that Mr. B. H. Obama has some real interest in the welfare of the USA and its citizens and legal immigrants, If so, they are dreadfully wrong.

Mr. Obama's each and every act (As to economic policy, educational affairs, military strategy, bowing to foreign officials, moves towards "in-sourcing", acts against free-speech and press & "free exercise of religion", appointments, etc.) are directed at weakening our nation.

This is based on, at least, two factors:
1. Mr. Obama's self-worship of his very shallow self; And,
2. An overriding desire to make the People as dependent as possible on the Government, and that Government being ruled by the most left-wing persons available and corrupt officials known since the pre-1900 rule by monopolists.

Sometimes, I wonder if he is getting his "marching orders" from Riyadh.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Letter To A Pathological Pacifist

Dear Friends In Christ:

It may surprise you that I get the Casa Maria newsletter in which you were recently cited. I do applaud the good works of that agency, even to their "protests" outside of a local gun shop as such reminds the People of the their Natural Law right to protect themselves from criminal attacks and their duty to protect others---And to the effective means to do both.

However, I consider their pacifism as essentially pathological for reasons stated below, but summarized here.
1. It is wrong and sinful to compromise with Evil or evil persons or organizations; And,
2. It is wrong, arrogant and sinful to NOT use the gifts God gave use to use prayer, thoughts, words AND deeds to combat Evil and evil persons and organizations, even to the calm, considered, use of deadly force without pride, unjust anger, lust (In killing) or false shame.

If you are intellectually honest, you will read this document to the end.

Hopefully, in Christ, yours.
James Pawlak


When the Katrina Hurricane hit, there was a man (Let us call him "John") of great faith in a Gulf Coast town who loudly proclaimed to all that: "God will keep me safe!".

As the waters began to rise, a deputy sheriff drove through the hub-cap-high water to that soul's home and offered him a ride to high ground and safety. John, being polite, said "Thank you; But, God will keep me safe!".

As the waters rose, John retreated to the second floor of his home. A Coast Guard boat came by and its crew offered to take John to safety. But John responded", with his usual Christian courtesy and faith: "Thank you, no; But God will keep me safe!".

Then the real flood arrived and John was forced to the roof of his engulfed home. A Coast Guard helicopter and touched down on John's flat roof. The crew of that aircraft got out and offered to take John to safety. As usual and calmly, John sail: "God will keep me safe!".

The floods bore away John's earthly body and he found himself before the Throne Of God.
John then made a mild complaint by a question: "Why did you not save me from the flood?"




We are assured that the Church (Which is the People of God, his followers) founded by the Christ will exist until the end of the earth or the end-of-time.

Why do so many insult those who take up the sword and (At risk to blood, limbs, lives and, even, souls) take active measures to protect the Church (And its daughter, Civilization) from the enemies who would destroy them? Why are there so many "Johns" (And, "Janes") about who lack the moral courage to take the risks noted above? Why do so many presume, to a sinful level, to know the Will of God?



Luke 22: 35-38

A Different View

Luke 22:35-38

[35] Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"

"Nothing," they answered.

[36] He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. [37] It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

[38] The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."

"That is enough," he replied.”

INTRODUCTION: The above is a more-or-less standard translation of the noted verse. From reading the many different interpretations of these three verses I can only conclude that the various commentators are so divergent as to lead me to doubt that they have a handle on this tidbit of the Gospels. The following comments provide a base for a very different view of these words.

Could it be that something happened after the Christ's earlier sending-out of disciples on the lawless roads of that land? Could it be that his concern for His People (As we are) as moved Him to have them take such measures as were needed to protect their bands?

ON SWORDS IN JESUS' TIME: The swords of c.33AD in the Roman world were the ultimate personal weapon. There were the AK-47s/AR-15s of that time. As all weapons of that era and most of today's they could be used for offense or defense.

Swords required much more metal than axes, daggers, spear points and other weapons. They also required very much more skill, effort and time in their manufacture which made them more uncommon in private hands than not and more costly than otherwise.

The writers of that era (Including those of the Gospels) were very aware of Roman and other weapons and, unlike some of the historically uninformed commentators on the verses noted above, not prone to confuse “swords” with “daggers”.

JESUS' NATIVE LANGUAGE: There is little doubt that the native language of Jesus was a form of Aramaic. He appears to have known enough Hebrew for the purposes of the Synagogue and may have known some Greek, the lingua-franca of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire as demonstrated by his interactions with Pontus Pilot who, as most members of the Roman upper class, spoke Greek.

JESUS' LAST “GEMERAL ORDERS” ABOVE IN ARAMAIC: The interlinear translations of the above verse, in the Christ's own mother tongue, yields the results: “They are sufficient”. This variation from “they are enough” is more-than-sufficient to cast serious doubts on the comments of some that Jesus was being sarcastic about his disciples' reaction to his declaration that they should have swords about them in the future. The first translation implies a dismissal of a wrongful reaction to His earlier statements; The latter a clear statement that two swords are “sufficient” to meet the needs of travelers. [This mistranslation is as wrong as giving “Thou shall not murder!” as “Thou shall not kill!”.]

After all, the roads of that time were not secure from bandits and other ill-doers as Roman and local “law enforcement” provided little security even within cities, let alone on the roads.

THE BIAS OF TRANSLATORS & COMMENTATORS: After reading the many and very varied translations of the noted text and the even more varied comments on it, I can only conclude that some of those persons put into those words what they wished them to mean, too often by convoluted arguments without sound premises or tempered logic. There is certainly no consistency on the interpretation of these verses. Some of these individuals could well be described as “Pathological Pacifists”! They might have done better by applying Occam's Razor and accepted that the words meant what they said (In Aramaic).

IRONY AND SARCASM: I am neither a biblical scholar nor an expert on language usages. However, it appears to me that even the most emphatic and pointed of Jesus' corrective teaching and chiding, often in parables, is ironic and without the harshness of sarcasm.

Therefore, there is great doubt as to the validity of the statements of commentators who declare that the Christ was being sarcastic in his (Mistranslated as “That is enough”.) “That is sufficient”.

MOSAIC & NATURAL LAW & DEADLY FORCE: Here I will diverge from the actual verses noted above and travel to the related question of the use of force as appears to bother too many who fail to understand the history of this subject.

From the Talmud (Moses killing the Egyptian attacking the Hebrew slave; And other verses as to slaying evil-doers) to the Torah (It is permitted to kill a night time burglar or trespasser The foundation of some jurisdiction's “Castle Laws”?) to such luminaries of our Anglo-American Law as Hobbs, Locke & Blackstone to even the very recent US Supreme Court's majority decision in District Of Columbia VS Heller the Natural Law right of self-defense (And defense of innocent others) has been supported. The means (Modern handguns) to enforce that right was the real cause-in-action for the Heller case, where the majority decision relied on Natural Law to support its decision.

For the Orthodox and Catholics explaining the meaning of the scriptures gives greatest authority to the Ecumenical Councils of the Church and, to some extent, the lesser councils and synods. [If anyone can inform me of any decisions of such as to the use of force to defend self and innocent others against criminal attacks, I would be happy to receive such information.]

Catholics, of course, accept the rare ex cathedra decisions of the Pope as to (Only) matters of Faith and morals [Same request!].

Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches also give great weight to the early Church Fathers. Catholics, at the least, grant those persons designated as “Doctors Of The Church” great authority in matters of Faith and morals AND in interpretation of the meaning of the Gospels.

The only “Doctor Of The Church” who, as far as I know, directly addressed the use of deadly force was St. Bernard of Clairvaux who (In his De Laude Novae Militae) mentioned the “two swords”, closely outlined when Christians may use deadly force AND noted that “the edge of the sword” could be used to defend Christ and His Church.

He also noted that St. John the Baptist did not demand that soldiers give up their profession; But, only that they not abuse their authority.

The Christ, of course, gave great honor to the Centurion (A professional soldier and, if you will, a professional killer) and to his Faith.

'PUT UP YOUR SWORD”: To my mind, Christ's command to St. Peter was a “special case” as Jesus's capture, death and resurrection was necessary for the salvation-of-mankind; Such a special case not being a model for other situations or for such lesser persons as ourselves.

LEGIONS OF ANGELS: Yes, the Christ could have called upon “Legions Of Angels” to protect his followers as well as himself. Yet, as to His followers, that would have eliminated the virtue of their becoming witnesses (Martyrs) to Him and his teachings before the world's authorities of that time, rather than having the protection of two swords against common bandits. As to Himself, the same applies as in the paragraph above. It would also have prevented them from action, out of "free will", to protect themselves.

SWORDS AND THE STATE: Of course, those (eg Mr. Mark Shea) who place special weight on the words of St. Paul should recall his approval of the State's use of the sword to punish evil doers.

Some others had thought that the “two swords” referred to the division of authority between Kings (Civil governments) and the Church. This is not scriptural as it derives from the Reformation and is, at best, a strained argument.

AN EXCELLENT PRINTED DICUSSION: The following book is worth reading on general principle and especially as to the use of force and justified war:

Webster. Alexander F.C. (Fr.) & Cole, Darrell (Professor);

The Virtue Of War: Reclaiming the Classic Christian Traditions East and West;

Regina Orthodox Press (Salisbury, MA);

ISBN 1-928653-17-1.

This volume's positions and arguments can be extended, in part, to personal self-defense when the State or international-organizations are unable or, sad to write, unwilling to aid the innocent from criminal attack (eg By the Jihadi in the Sudan against the Pagan, Christian and some Muslim peoples of that nation/criminal-organization).

INSULTS & TURNED CHEEKS: Yes, the Christ told us to respond to insults, even to a slap to the face, by “turning/offering the other cheek”. That is, even the most gross insults are not an excuse for such evils as revenge.

To better understand this, it must be remembered that for time immemorial any blow to the head or face was the worst of insults in most cultures. Even in the “civilized” Western world, it has not been so many years since such a blow would result in two “gentlemen” standing ten-paces from each other with pistols in hand and murder in their hearts.

Yet, I do not find in the Scriptures any instructions to accept murder, rape, genocide, mutilation or even robbery/theft (The taking of that part of a honest person's life expended in earning property) without taking effective and immediate actions to forestall the execution of such crimes. Such are beyond insults and are dealt with, above, in the “Natural Law” section of this essay.

CONCLUSION—AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: It appears that Jesus had sent his disciples out before the time of the noted verses without anything and with some very restrictive commands. Perhaps, some of them were confronted by evil men on the unsafe roads of that time. Perhaps, Jesus then wished them to have the “sufficient” protection of “two swords”, being enough to ward off bandits without giving the appearance of an armed party. This appears to be the simplest explanation of those verses and, therefore, the best one.



Being only a human and a sinner I am not so certain of the Will Of God as some. Reason, the scriptures, history, at least on Church Father and NATURAL LAW do provide some clues as to that Will as to the use of force.

1. Natural Law provides the right to use such force as is necessary to protect and even prevent the self from criminal attacks.

2. Natural Law appears to place a like duty on us as to the innocent, our families, neighbors ("Who is thy neighbor?") and the means (Including deadly force) to do so.

3. Like His earlier disciples, we are expected to act for ourselves and, when needed, take up our two swords and, as St, Bernard of Clairvaux put it, "strike blows for Christ"; But, NOT for reasons of pride or revenge, without sinful motives AND without arrogant and false guilt.

Before too much longer I will know the Will Of God (At least as to myself); But, will be unable to inform you of that Will as I will have left this World for another place.

Monday, November 30, 2009

The Swiss, Minarets, Muslims & Civilization

The Swiss have democratically (Who is more democratic than them?) banned minarets in their land. Various Muslims and their slave-like hangers-on have condemned this act as a "lack of diversity" or religious prejudice.

I would be more impressed by the later criticism if the basic laws of Islam, as enforced by the authorities or mobs in Muslim dominated nations, forbids the building or repair of churches (Without almost impossible to obtain permissions) and other like restrictions on Christians.

Those persons should be asked: "Where are the Churches in Saudi Arabia?".

The Muslims in Europe and other non-Islamic nations should recall the sane and nation protecting actions of the Spanish in 1492AD---They expelled all Muslims from Iberia.
We might consider the same action to preserve the heartlands of true civilization---Europe and the New World's (Including Australia & New Zealand) democracies.


Friday, November 27, 2009

Dropping A-Bombs On Japan

Well, December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day) approaches and it is again time to bring reality and true history to the fore as to the reasons we dropped the A-bombs on Japan. Most editors, publishers, commentators, clergy, teachers and pathological pacifists among and without them have put history and truth out of their minds.

A hundred years from now any history of World War-II would still be faced with the fact that the Japanese People (Woman, Man and child) supported the "Imperial System" and were all (Man, woman and child) prepared to kill as many allied troops as they could, even after the A-Bombs were dropped and until the Imperial Decree ordering surrender came down to them.

This ended a military regime noted for genocide (Think Nan King), rape (Think "comfort women"), violations of the laws-of-war (Think of the "Bataan Death March") and other crimes against humanity.

The weapons to be used were thousands of kamikaze aircraft and like high-speed motor boats. a still very large body of soldiers in Japan and the training of men, women and children to use such in-close weapons as bamboo spears.

An invasion would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of allied casualties AND the probable extermination of the Japanese People. (For myself, I would rather that every city and town in Japan had been destroyed than to have a single allied soldier die with a bamboo spear in his guts.)

note bene: For those interested in facts, I suggest that the honest person look into the
statements of the survivors of the Nan King massacre, those abused women noted above and, most specially, those who lived through the Bataan Death March and all Japanese prison camps. For a printed resource, any honest person should read and consider the following book.
Allen, Thomas B. & Polmar, Norman
Code Name Downfall: The Secret Plan To Invade Japan and Why Truman Dropped The Bomb;
Simon & Schuster; New York

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Mahattan Declaration

Among the signers of the Manhattan Declaration Archbishop Caput and Archbishop Dolan are the ones best known to and most respected by me. I am, therefore, asked them to review my comments as to the noted and excellent document. However, I do note the absence of some essential facts and some avoidance of "politically incorrect" concepts, as included in the comments below.

A. In the declaration's preamble the authors skipped over one of the most critical events in US history as to slavery, which was the War Between The States (Misnamed "Civil War"). Most Southerners were NOT slave-holders OR fighting to preserve slavery; But, rather to preserve States Rights and the idea of "These United States" VS. today's "The United States". Many soldiers and politicians in the North did support the conflict "to preserve the union"; But, the gut-level passion was to eliminate slavery---Even if most (Including A. Lincoln) would never accept the possible equality of Blacks.
B. That conflict was, of course, the bloodiest ever fought by our nation. Without the use of such horrible force, slavery would have continued.
The earlier British campaign noted in the declaration, was enforced by the use-of-force, largely by the Royal Navy and did involve killing by military force and hanging of slavers---And was not limited to the UK, more generally off the coast of Africa. The preamble contained a falsehood or, worse yet, a half-truth about that campaign against slavery!)
C. This declaration should have mentioned (Perhaps in a foot note) that much of the general slavery and sexual slavery-and-trafficking is going on in East Africa AND is supported by the teachings of Islam as never abrogated.
D. The noted document notes a "...true God, the triune God of holiness and love,...".I put to you that the work "justice" should have been put into that descriptive sequence to balance the drift of the Churches away from the concept of "justice". Just as authority-and-duty should be in balance, justice and love-mercy-holiness should be in a proper equilibrium.
E. The term "...and act in defense..." was used. How "act"? Of course, such statements as this declaration is an "act in defense"; But, there are so very many ("Secularists" and most Muslims" for whom words contrary to their ideas, words and works are not effective and may (Especially for Muslims) be construed as an attack requiring a physical and violent response! (Please see Reference #4 below.)
I note that the wordy "defense of the unborn" has had little effect on the number of abortions (Especially the horror of late-term abortions) in the USA and beyond. I suggest that the "defense" of the unborn by the execution of George (The baby killer) Tiller may have done more to discourage the most horrid of abortions than all the words published by Bishops and others.
F. Some (eg The Sikhs; Please see note #7 below) are pacifists; But, hold it a sacred duty to protect the innocent with such force as is required and, where the law allows, wear swords or knives to remind them of that duty. We should do the same AND declare that not allowing the People ready access to the means to enforce their Natural Law right to defend themselves and the duty to defend others when the State refuses to do so.
G. Although I agree that all humans are, at conception, given equal dignity and worth. However, justice demands that we acknowledge that some (eg Genocidal tyrants and their underlings, abortionists and those who aid them, those who preach hate and take hateful acts) voluntary (By an exercise of "free will") give up the God-given dignity-and-worth of their creation and subject themselves to removal from any just society.
H. The quote "Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God" represents an inadequete presentation of this concept without: Remembering the acts of the Christ in whipping the money-changers from the Temple and his words about child abusers; Declaring that the basic teachings of Islam allow or encourage, and sometimes command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, perpetual war with "unbelievers" and the other horrors taught by the false prophet Mohammed; AND, the teachings of St. Bernard of Clairvaux (A "Doctor of the Church"), in his De Laude Novae Militae, as to the proper and Christian use of deadly force (ie Striking blows for Christ) and the need to do so against Muslims.
I. One way to stand up to secularism is to legally fight each-and-every "Thomas Jefferson Case", which attempt to cancel out the "free speech" and "free exercise of religion" in all public places (On the basis of a private letter and in opposition to the intent of the Founders) on the basis of the Federal court case noted in #8 below.
J. In the "Religious Liberty" section, the authors last (A very important placement!) statement was: "But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's". Unfortunately, there are too many in the Churches who continue to attempt to take from Caesar (The People) what is due to him (Them)---To include the right to use capitol punishment AND to legislate who may enter a nation, live there and work there.
If the Churches wish for Jesus' level of "separation of church and state", they must be willing to actively support civil duty as well as mercy, rights and justice. They must also be willing to, in select cases where civil authorities do not protect the innocent, go beyond the law


1. The declaration itself.

2. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Islamophobia???

3. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Four Monotheistic Religions VS Islam

4. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Justifiable And Proper Killing

5. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: When Talk Fails

6. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: USCCB Errors On Faithful Citizenship

7. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Sikhs, Swords & Christians

8. Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Atheism As Religon--PER Federal Courts


Saturday, November 14, 2009

Reforming Our Military Justice Non-System

On 9 November 2009 a very qualified (ex-JAG attorney) TV commentator described the pathological complexities of today's "military justice" non-system as to its far-too-many levels of investigation and review, both before and after any trials. This is far too valid a complaint about a military which should act in decisive and effective manner against the enemies of the American People, law and justice without and within the Armed Forces.

This is also an example of the cancer of "making jobs for lawyers" which has been rotting out the ethics, morals and economy of the USA---Especially since too many judges have begun "making law from the bench".

As I am reluctant to make a complaint without offering suggestions to correct errors, I offer the following recommendations as the the military law in the USA and its execution.
1.Require that only one person (With such staff as is required) be assigned to investigate any serious (Allowing death or a prison term of more than one-year as punishment) offense be assigned the responsibility to complete an investigation and given the sole authority as to any decision to charge or dismiss charges within 30-days of the accused be arrested or, if a fugitive, absconding from military authority.
2. Upon a decision to charge, an attorney to be appointed and all evidence presented to be delivered to him (Except as such as might endanger the national security; the Courts Martial judges to solely determine the disposition of such evidence.)
3. At that time a date for a court martial must be set for within 30-days, extend-able
45-days except in time-of-war or like state.
4. No "preliminary hearings" to be had as such, even in civilian courts are either waived or serve as "discovery sessions", the latter not needed as all relevant evidence would have been turned over to to the defense attorney.
5. The judges of courts-martial to have sole authority to determine the facts and, if the defendant is found guilty, the punishment to be imposed, reviewable only on matters of law by the "Military Court Of Appeals" and on questions of "mercy" by the Commander-in-Chief (The President of the USA).
6. In time-of-war or like conditions, any sentence of death is to be forwarded directly (Without review by the Military Court of Appeals) to the C-in-C for asap confirmation, and execution within 30-days, or commutation.
7. Execution of the death penalty should be by firing squad in a military-public setting and no longer by lethal injections, a more chancy method and, when possible, should be done within the unit in which the crime occured.
8. For military law only, the definition of "waging war against the USA" should be modified to include "any deadly attack, by a member of the armed forces, on other like members or vehicles or buildings, on the basis of ideology or non-personal animosity; The penalty for this offense "Shall be death", without the usual alternative of "lesser punishment as the court may elect".
9. The same should apply to "Mutiny" and "Treason".
10. The crime of "terrorism" should be included in military law in such a manner as described in the blog cited below AND specially excluding the non-existent protections of the Geneva Conventions and allow for as quick dispositions as in # 6 & # 7 above.
11. The review of investigations or of the results of courts-martial by superior officers should cease as a means of establishing and protecting the independence of military judicial and semi-judicial officers.
12. No appeal of decisions from the military-court-of-appeals shall be made except to the Supreme Court of the USA and, as to sentences only, to the President

It is probable that such a change will encourage the balance of our Armed Forces to act with dispatch in making decisions, a feature which should be a prime characteristic of any military organization as in #5 above.

There have been times and are historical presidents for a more effective, timely and efficient use of courts-martial and military-commissions:
A. President Lincoln's administration discovered a number Lakotas who were, in time of war,, waging war against the USA or conspiring to do so. They were tried by Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
B. Those who conspired to murder Mr. Lincoln were tried by a Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
C. During World War-II some German saboteurs were landed, by submarine, in the USA dressed in civilian clothes. They were tried by either courts-martial or Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
D. During that same war some Germans were found under-arms and in civilian clothing attacking the uniformed troops of the USA. They were tried by courts-martial, found guilty and executed.


Friday, November 13, 2009

Trying Terrorists In USA The Worst Decision

A decision has been made by the Obama Mis-Administration to try terrorists in the Civilian Courts of the USA. This is a most irrational decision and contrary to the well established precedents of Law in this nation.
1. President Lincoln's administration discovered a number Lakotas who were, in time of war,, waging war against the USA or conspiring to do so. They were tried by Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
2. Those who conspired to murder Mr. Lincoln were tried by a Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
3. During World War-II some German saboteurs were landed, by submarine, in the USA dressed in civilian clothes. They were tried by either courts-martial or Military Commission, found guilty and executed.
4. During that same war some Germans were found under-arms and in civilian clothing attacking the uniformed troops of the USA. They were tried by courts-martial, found guilty and executed.

All of the above cases were completed in a timely manner, after real trials and according to the laws-of-war. They were also acted upon without generating the present day's corrupting and time-wasting make-work for attorneys, most of whom would faint at the thought of being front-line combat soldiers.

The Obama's administration (Most specially the Attorney General) continue its campaign against the real law as to terrorism and treason cases as it (He) has against the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution as to free speech, freedom of the press, the "free exercise of religion" and the "right to keep and bear arms". AND for the People to reasonably expect effective and timely protection against and punishment of terrorists and traitors.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

"Sudden Jihad Syndrome" & DMS

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DMS) is the most commonly used such handbook in the USA and in other parts of the world. It is generally, although not universally, considered the authoritative reference work for psychiatrists and other mental health workers.

A new version of this basic book is set for publication in 2012.

It is timely to suggest a new classification for that upcoming work: That of "Sudden Jihad Syndrome". Certainly we have observed many manifestations of this disorder from the doctors in Scotland who attempted to blow up an airport building, through the sudden attack of a Muslim on two soldiers at a recruiting station (Killing one and wounding another) and, of course, the Muslim Psychiatrist's rampage at Fort Hood.

Any definition of that disorder would do well in include the following:
1. It would usually apply to only one person; But, might apply to two-or-three persons if "psychologically linked";
2. It would involve deadly or potentially deadly attacks on non-Muslims beyond any reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury expected from the attacked persons;
3. The attacks would be prepared over only a few days and (Usually) without any direct assistance from other persons in planning behaviors, obtaining weapons, etc..
4. The attacks might be preceded by an extended and aggressive public and private support for the harsher teachings of Islam; And,
5. Such other characteristics are are common to such attacks.

This is NOT to state that any such diagnostic evaluation should provide a "mental health defense" as to any charges brought against any such persons with "SJS"!

My Three Rules Of Human Interaction

For myself I find that the following rules for interaction with other people is fitting-and-proper.
1. I deal with adults I encounter by treating them as Ladies or Gentlemen (Note the capitol letters) with such mutual courtesies as they are presumed to deserve.
2. If the behavior of such is not up to the level of Ladies or Gentlemen, I demote them to "mere" men and women.
3. If behavior continues to degenerate or begins with violent-or-threatening attacks on me or mine ("Mine" including family, friends, fellow citizens, my nation, my Faith or my civilization), they are demoted to "critters" and "targets".

Small children are to be treated with courteous-and-loving firmness; Teens (Physically smaller than full adults) according to the behaviors they exhibit.

I have, over the last few years, that adult Blacks and Whites are dealing with each other, more-and-more, in accordance with Rule # 1 above---To the great improvement of our society and my personal satisfaction.

I have recently concluded that adult Muslims who will not deny the horrid and violent teachings of the false prophet Mohammed begin at Level-2.

Friday, November 06, 2009

The Tenth Amendment VS. Big Government

As an avocational historian I have been predicting that the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution will be the most debated, contested and litigated legal subject of the next ten years.

Considering a Congress-critter's recent statement that he did not care about "States' Rights" and Judge Napolitano (Fox News) statement that much (Most?) of what the Congress "produces" is NOT provided for in the Constitution and, by some, considered unconstitutional as such matters should revert to the States or the People.

As a theoretical matter, are there those who will pick up this matter and fight it through the courts---After finding the "right case"? As a practical matter, what likelihood is there that such a "right case" would allow the Tenth Amendment to be brought-up-to-speed as a control on big government?

Such a victory would again make this "These United States" as opposed to the over-controlling "The United States".

Thursday, November 05, 2009

No Adult Male Muslim Can Be Trusted!

Make the connections! Every week brings some report of some Muslim male (Or groups of such) attacking US citizens within our nation's borders. This ties in with like attacks in the UK where two physicians tried to blow up an air port AND: To the Chicago, Muslim, physician who allowed a Jewish patient to die without medical care on the apparent basis of Mohammed's teachings about killing Jews;. To the Muslim soldier in a combat zone who "fragged" his comrades-in-arms; To the July 4th decision of a Muslim male to shoot up the El Al counter area at a LA airport (Whose sign "Read The Koran", on his apartment's door, appeared to "confuse" authorities); To the highly educated Muslim who tried to run over a group of college students with his "4X4"; To the recent, Islamic, attack on two soldiers at a recruiting station; AND, to the November 5, 2009 massacre of US troops at Ft. Hood, Texas by a Muslim Physician (A Psychiatrist!).

As loyal Muslims maintain that the Koran and Islamic Law (Sharia) override all other laws, government, oaths and loyalties AND that Muslims must either go on military Jihad OR actively support those who are, it is very clear that there is no way to predict any Muslim male's loyalty and obedience to our laws, military oaths, duties as physicians and in every other way as effects our national security, safety of our citizens and the common good.

For myself, I consider most of the above described attacks as acts-of-treason as are within the definition provided in our Constitution and which should be punished as such. For myself, I will NOT allow a Muslim physician to treat me or mine and will be suspicious of any clinic or group practice or health care facility which has Muslims on-staff.

The establishment of Jihad training camps, within the USA, has been ignored by the "general media" who have, in large part, sunk into a state of dhimitude like slavery and will not make the connections outlined above.

At the least, all military units, police authorities and medical organizations should terminate the employment of all Muslims who will not very openly condemn those teachings of Islam as encourage or allow, and some-times command, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, perpetual war with "unbelievers", the duty to perform military Jihad or actively support it and the other anti-civilization teachings of Mohammed. This condemnation must be confirmed by such persons publicly tearing out those pages of a Koran which contain such evil teachings.

In 1492AD Spain made a very rational decision as to the presence of Muslims within Iberia who represented a clear-and-present danger to the State and its People: They expelled all of them. Hmmmmm!?!

+ MECCA DELENDA EST------------------DEUS VULT +

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, Middle Ages

I, very seldom,reproduce copyrighted material. But, this deserves wide attention.

Five Myths About Christianity, Islam, and the Middle Ages
by H.W. Crocker III
Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend

Does Islam need a Reformation? Not unless you think it would benefit from additional dollops of Puritanism; further encouragement to smash altars, stained glass, and other forms of "idolatry"; prodding to ban riotous celebrations like Christmas and Easter; and support for fundamentalist Islamic schools that insist on sola Korana and sola Sunnah. Indeed, it would seem that Islam has already had its reformers. Railing against the corruption of the West (let's call it "Rome" for short) have been such modern Islamic Luthers as the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the cave-dwelling Osama bin Laden, the voice of young Islam -- the Taliban (literally, the Islamic students) -- and the puritanical Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, which is most assuredly modern as it was not even founded until the 18th century, the age of the Enlightenment.

What would a Reformation bring to Islam that it does not already have? The Calvinists imposed stiff penalties for infringements of dress codes and behavior, but these rules don't go beyond the sharia law of Saudi Arabia. Luther denied the divine right of the pope and affirmed the divine right of princes (uniting church and state, which were previously separate), but that doctrine is already well-established in Islam, where mosque and state are meant to be united. The Protestant reformers repudiated the Catholic Church for dallying too much with classical thinkers and decadent artists (like Raphael); many of them condemned the Catholic doctrine of free will (believing, as do the Muslims, in a kind of fatalism); and they damned Catholics for putting too much emphasis on Thomistic logic and reason, and not enough on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures.

No one accuses Islam of such sins. When it comes to taking Islam back to its pure, uncorrupted form, as embodied by the Prophet himself -- an assassination-approving, polygamous leader of jihads -- it would be hard to outdo bin Laden and his fellow reformers.

Granted, the West is not what it once was. Rather than Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel, we have Andres Serrano and his infamous Piss Christ. Instead of the optimism of the Renaissance, we have the modern (pagan) pessimism that sees Nature's gods plotting their revenge on over-populating, polluting humanity. Instead of a confident West seizing its imperial mission to spread peace, commerce, and Christian charity and morality, the modern West is ambivalent about asserting its own values. There are even some in the West -- including its Muslim converts -- who think the Mohammedans' stronger strictures against abortion, homosexuality, and secularism (if not Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, et al.) give them a certain moral superiority over such as the Dutch and liberals everywhere. Still, this remains, I trust, a minority view.

But let it suffice that clearly Islam does not need a Reformation. If the printing press, as it is often said, fanned the Protestant revolt against united Christendom, the Internet has just as surely fanned the Islamist revolt against the West. We've had quite enough jihadists posting their "I protest" theses on the Internet, thank you very much.

But if Islam doesn't need a Reformation, it would definitely benefit from a Counter-Reformation. Just think of it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if Kabul were to become a center of baroque art, if the street corners of Tehran were dotted with choral groups singing the hymns of Palestrina, if the vibrant artists' quarter of Islamabad were full of painters dabbling in the style of Rubens, Caravaggio, and Poussin? Ah, yes, if only. Alas, few expect this to happen within our lifetimes -- or ever.

Despite the alleged glories of Islam's past, we're told that militant Islam is now stuck in the Middle Ages. But Islam is no more stuck in the Middle Ages than it is stuck in the Renaissance or the Counter-Reformation. As Margaret Thatcher's official biographer (and Catholic convert) Charles Moore has written, "' Mediaeval' should not be a synonym for 'barbarous.' Ely Cathedral and trial by jury and Giotto are mediaeval." So, indeed, are the Magna Carta, Chaucer, and Dante. So are the great monastic orders, the invention of the university, and the development of science. So are chivalry, capitalism, and the idea of progress. We don't associate any of these things with modern (or for that matter, historical) Islam.

Granted, the Middle Ages represent a thousand years of history, and the early Middle Ages (roughly 500 to 1000 A.D.), sometimes known as the Dark Ages, certainly had their chiaroscuro moments. The rough playfulness of the Vikings was not universally admired. If you were a pope between the waning days of the ninth century and the opening of the eleventh, you had about a one in three chance of being murdered in office, and survivors could be exiled or deposed. And aside from a variety of barbarians, Magyars, and Mongols, there were the Muslims who in this period jihaded their way over half of Christendom, and were only kept from completely swamping the West by the valiant Charles Martel, who defeated them at the Battle of Tours (and at subsequent battles).

But chiaroscuro is both light and dark, and there was light in the early Middle Ages. It shone most brightly in the monasteries, which not only -- and famously -- preserved classical learning, but also led the West in innovation in agriculture, technology, and trade. The Church provided schools, charitable houses, and the theological rationale for abolishing slavery (as it was abolished in the medieval West, while flourishing in Islam, which was then enjoying its alleged "Golden Age"). Being still Roman, the Church took on many of Rome's administrative governmental duties as well.

The achievements of the "Dark Ages" were monumental. As the historian Christopher Dawson noted, "In reality that age witnessed changes as momentous as any in the history of European civilization; indeed, as I suggest in [The Making of Europe] it was the most creative age of all, since it created not this or that manifestation of culture, but the very culture itself -- the root and ground of all the subsequent culture achievements [of Europe]." Here, as Dawson adds, the Catholic historian has the advantage because he can better understand that these were "not dark ages so much as ages of dawn, for they witnessed the conversion of the West, the foundation of Christian civilization, and the creation of Christian art and Catholic liturgy."

The result was that Europe blossomed in the high and late Middle Ages (1000 to 1500). Wealth and learning spread, and in place of the ruins of Rome, medieval man created a society that was far more humane, far more respectful of women, far more elevating of the individual, far more bourgeois (that is, with a far larger middle class), and far more inventive than the glorious civilizations of the Classical world. The Middle Ages were a wonderful bloom of their own even before they flowered into the Renaissance.

Islam, it should be clear, is not stuck in any previous incarnation of the West, and it is certainly not stuck in the Middle Ages, the Catholic "Age of Faith," when monks, priests, farmers, merchants, kings, bishops, and knights created the dynamic civilization -- the admixture of Classical, Catholic, and Germanic culture -- that is the West. Even in his humblest estate, as a peasant, medieval man was not Taliban man. His assumptions were wildly different. He believed in a suffering Christ who came into the world as a helpless babe and died on the cross, rather than in a conquering prophet who thought it blasphemous to believe God would lower Himself to such indignities. Medieval man believed in honoring God and making merry and for this world gave not a cherry, to paraphrase the poet (and priest) William Dunbar, "the Chaucer of Scotland." While medieval man loved feasts, celebrations, gay colors, and merrymaking, he also believed that service, labor, and commerce were honorable; that self-improvement and progress were possible; and that God had created a world that every man could understand through reason, so that every common farmer -- no matter his vassalage to his feudal lord -- could find ways to improve his agricultural techniques, improvements that benefited himself as well as his lord, because every man was entitled to his own rightful share of his labors.

He was, as we are, Western man, with everything that assumes. As the popular medieval scholar Morris Bishop put it, even today (or in 1968, when he was writing), "A highland farmer in Macedonia, a shepherd in the Auvergne mountains, live a life more medieval than modern. An American pioneer of the last century, setting out with oxcart, axe, plow, and spade to clear a forest farm, was closer to the Middle Ages than to modern times. He was self-sufficient, doctoring himself and his family with herbs, raising his own food, pounding his own grain, bartering with rare peddlers, rejoicing in occasional barn dances for all the world like medieval karoles." The American pioneer and the medieval peasant were us, and we were them, and neither one of us is Muslim. And for some of us, the idea of conversing with a man from the Middle Ages (or from the American frontier) is a much more attractive prospect than the thought of trying to converse with an iPod-attached, text-messaging 20-something whose life is lived in the aptly named "blogosphere."

The myth of the barbarous Middle Ages is part of the ignorance of our age. Protestants originally propounded the myth, secularists have promoted it, and the facts deny it. So let us sally forth like medieval knights to lance five of the biggest myths about the Middle Ages.

Myth One: Medieval Christendom was barbarous, while Islam was refined.

Since we've been talking about the Mussulmen, let's start with the myth that in the Middle Ages, Christendom was barbarous, while Islam was refined. Here's a simple test: Have you ever heard and enjoyed Gregorian chant? If you're lucky, you've done more than that; you've actually heard the work of medieval composers performed on period instruments. Both the music and the instruments are recognizably our own. It bridges naturally to what most people generically call "classical music." (Our system of musical notation dates from the Middle Ages, coming from the monasteries, and most especially from the eleventh-century Benedictine monk Guido D'Arezzo.) Mohammed, on the other hand, like his Talibanic followers, prohibited music. Allah, he said, commanded him to abolish musical instruments, and warned that "Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress" -- or, needless to say, a medieval troubadour.

Thanks to Danish cartoonists, we're all pretty familiar with Islamic attitudes about drawing or painting a likeness of Allah or his Prophet. The Prophet himself, however, actually forbade to his people any visual art that represented any form of fauna, from men to cattle, which puts rather a crimp on artistic freedom -- freedom that was widely enjoyed in the Middle Ages, let alone the Renaissance. While Islamic architecture is rather attractive -- to my taste, anyway -- it is not often noted that it took its inspiration from Byzantium, and in some cases was even built by Byzantine workers. Islamic literature -- aside from The Thousand and One Nights and a handful of other poems or stories -- is paltry compared with the Western stuff; and unlike the Western stuff, it is largely the work of dissenters and heretics. It seems that Muslim literateurs have always tended to play the role of Salman Rushdie to the reigning imams.

As for science, mathematics, and technology, the Muslims were quite good at preserving and adopting the Classical heritage of the Christians (and the achievements of the Zoroastrian Persians and Hindus) whom they conquered. They were rather less good at going beyond it, which is one very large reason why the West made progress and Islam did not. The other big reason is that while Western medieval churchmen taught natural law and that God had created a rational and orderly universe, Islamic theologians countered that nothing -- certainly not reason -- could limit the power of Allah; he was beyond all such constraints; and Muslim leaders were contemptuous of the West. In the twelfth century, Muslim philosophers emphatically turned against the pagan Classics. Practical Western man, on the other hand, cared not for Muslim religion, but he was certainly willing to accept and advance on Islamic learning, just as he accepted and advanced on Classical learning. The West's adoption of Arabic numerals (and the zero, which the Mussulmen got from the Hindus) is one striking example. Another is that when the Islamic philosopher Averroes wrote his glosses on Aristotle, they were more influential in the West than they were in the Islamic world. And the much-maligned Crusaders were no bigots -- they happily adopted Eastern foods and dress and trade.

It was not medieval man whose civilization faced a millennium of marching into the darkness; it was the Mussulman. By the end of the Dark Ages, Islam's "Golden Age" was just about finished. As Norman Cantor, the celebrated scholar of the Middle Ages, has written, "The Islamic world had not yet entered its deep decline in 1050… but by and large the greatest days of Islam had ended…. In the year 1050, in every country in western Europe, there were groups of people engrossed in some kind of novel enterprise. Europe no longer lagged far behind Byzantium and Islam in any way, and in some respects it had surpassed the greatest achievements of the two civilizations with which the Latin-speaking peoples now competed for hegemony in the Mediterranean." The West was always inventive -- even in the Dark Ages. It is part of our spirit, just as the supremacy of the Koran before all else is part of the spirit of Islam.

Then as today, fundamentalist Islamic schools drilled their students in rote recitation of the Koran. Catholic schools, then as now, taught religion, philosophy, mathematics (from accounting to higher mathematics), and Latin, among other subjects. It is a common Protestant jab that Catholics don't know Holy Scripture. It's a jab one can't make at a madrassa-educated Muslim.

In the Middle Ages, it is true, most Catholics knew Scripture from what they heard in church or saw represented in stained-glass windows or what they read -- or heard recited -- from such books as The Heliand, the Saxon Gospel wherein Christ the Champion enters Fort Jerusalem for the last mead-hall feast with His warrior companions. But they accepted the teachings of their authoritative Church and kept themselves busy building breweries, creating intoxicating liquors, laying roads, building towns, and inventing and mass-producing the stirrup, the horse harness, and the water mill (technically, the water mill was invented by the Romans, who made but slight use of it; it came into its own in the Middle Ages). They also created an agricultural revolution with three-field crop rotation and improved agricultural tools and technology, product specialization, land and naval transportation, and the sanctification of commerce.

The sole cultural advance that one might grant Islam over the medieval West is the invention of the harem. Nevertheless, even the male chauvinist might think that the harem rather shortchanges women. The rationalist might add that it creates social pressures that can be rather unhealthy (leaving lots of unattached, untamed men about). The churchman might reasonably add that the celibate monks, nuns, and priests made rather better use of their sexual sacrifice than did the eunuchs who guarded the harems. The Western clothier would suspect that the burkha was invented to hide some of the shortcomings (by Western standards) of the odalisques. And finally, medieval monarchs, like modern Western man, could always get around Church teaching by practicing serial hypocrisy rather than by stockpiling women in special quarters. This monarchical practice has filtered down into business management where overstocked warehouses (harems) have given way to "just-in-time inventory" (serial monogamy), another tribute to Western efficiency.

Myth Two: Medieval women were oppressed.

While we're on the subject of the fairer sex, let's dispense with the feminist idea that the Catholic Middle Ages were an era of oppression against women. That's rather hard to square, on the face of it, with medieval devotion to the Virgin Mary; the medieval invention of courtly, romantic love; the practice of chivalry; and the existence of queens and princesses. In every case, we have men making pledges of loyalty, fidelity, honor, and protection to women -- women, it might be noted, with power and favor, whether it be royal, romantic, or divine.

The New Testament has a rather higher estimation of women than does the Koran. Jesus consistently treats women with respect. Christians, from the beginning, did as well. The idea of woman as a "sex object" is profoundly un-Christian in a way that it is not unpagan or un-Islamic. Christianity has no temple prostitutes or harems, no slave girls or houris. The New Testament never recommends scourging women, nor does it compare women to a field to be plowed (as the Koran does). In Islamic law, divorce is a matter of three words ("I divorce you"); women are property, and women have essentially two purposes (you can guess what these are).

In the medieval West, both polygamy and divorce were illegal. Women could govern from thrones or pontificate from the libraries of nunneries, and they could rule the roost of a middle-class home just as any other Western hausfrau has done over the last 2,000 years. Women were free to dress as they liked and could go to the tavern -- even brew the beer -- if they liked. They held jobs and learned crafts and trades. If peasants, they worked the land with their husbands. They could become saints and lead men into battle (like Joan of Arc). Especially if they were in religious orders, they were well-represented in elementary education, nursing, and the other "caring professions" (as we would call them today). If they were noblewomen, they inherited and wielded property (and received all due feudal obligations), joined their husbands on hunts (or on Crusades), and went to a court school where they were taught art, manners, and household management (everything from medicine to oenology, from sewing to accounting, from gardening to how to handle servants). They were also patrons of the arts. If women were barred from classical schools and universities, which they were, it was less on Christian grounds, strictly speaking, than on classical ones -- on the Aristotelian insight that women are the subordinate sex.

Just how "subordinate" women were might be seen in the bawdy -- and quite "liberated" -- Wife of Bath in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. She should put paid to any idea that medieval women were oppressed. The Wife of Bath, after all, selects her husbands -- five in total -- on the basis of money (she boasts of picking the first three clean of cash before they died) or manly chests, including the handsome pallbearer of the fourth. She finds happiness with her fifth (and favorite) husband after trading blows with him and convincing him of her rights. (The fight starts when she angrily rips a page from the book he has been reading aloud, The Book of Wicked Wives.) In all this, she cites Scripture, noting that "I have the power during al my lif / Upon his proper body, and nat he: / Right thus th'Apostle tolde it unto me, / And bad oure husbandes for to love us weel." Her tale -- and life -- is rather more hilarious and scandalous than today's "medieval" Islam would allow. In the Western Middle Ages, however, she was a recognized type, as she would be if she were plopped down in your living room today.

Myth Three: Medieval culture was crude and ignorant.

Chaucer brings us face to face with medieval culture, and far from being crude and ignorant, we regard it as being a still-bright feature of our literary heritage. If medieval castles and cathedrals, art, crafts, and music aren't enough; if Beowulf, the Song of Roland, the Poem of the Cid, and the Morte D'Arthur don't speak to you; if Boethius, Boccaccio, Dante, Petrarch, and Machiavelli are as nothing; if you have no respect for St. Anselm, St. Francis, and St. Thomas Aquinas, to select a mere handful of the literary riches of the period, there's really not much more to say.

Myth Four: Medieval politics were despotic.

Similarly, medieval politics were neither crude and ignorant, nor totalitarian and despotic. Far from it; the Middle Ages -- from the start -- practiced separation (and conflict) between church and state. It was the Reformation, the desire of the state to absorb the Church, that combined church and state with the creation of state churches. Medieval politics supported a wide dispersion of power, which is what feudalism was, and why England's nobles -- led by the Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton -- were able to hold King John accountable with the Magna Carta. Medieval man believed in the great hierarchy of society, where every man and woman had rights and responsibilities and was individually responsible before God.

Medieval man was never threatened by totalitarianism. A totalitarian state was not even possible until the Reformation abolished the Church as a check on state power. Before that, feudalism preserved an extreme form of federalism, where even city-states (like Italy's merchant republics) flourished. In the Middle Ages, not only could a merchant launch his own business, but twelve-year-old enthusiasts could launch their own Crusade (the Children's Crusade), and a failed crusader like St. Francis could launch his own religious movement. The Middle Ages might be torn by war, conquests, political rivalries, knightly jostlings, and wars against the Albigensian heretics or the Muslim infidels. But politically, the Middle Ages were, if anything, a time when the dispersal of secular power was closer to anarchy than despotism, and the Church was generally on the side of political -- if not religious -- libertarianism in order to protect itself from ambitious monarchs and princes.

Myth Five: The Middle Ages were uniquely violent.

The Middle Ages were certainly violent enough, but they had no Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. The Middle Ages did have its inquisitors, but the various myths surrounding the inquisitions are nowadays pretty well debunked, and anyone who wants to can know from the relevant historical scholarship that the inquisitional courts of the Middle Ages did not strike fear into the people of Western Europe. Their scope was limited, their trials and punishments more lenient than those of their secular counterparts. Inquisitional punishment was often no more than penance, and throughout much of Europe, the inquisition never appeared at all. It was not a major feature of the Middle Ages. From its 13th-century imposition against the Albigensians through the Spanish Inquisition -- the most "notorious" inquisition, which operated under a royal rather than a papal charter -- the history of inquisitional courts runs over the course of roughly 600 years, expiring in early 19th-century Spain. In the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, for which meticulously kept records have been preserved, the grand total of those sentenced to death is perhaps 4,000.

When it comes to body counts, the thousand years of the Middle Ages can't come close to the hecatombs of the enlightened 20th century. If the wars of the Age of Faith are to be regarded as a scandal that discredits Christianity, what are we to surmise from the state-authorized genocides, mass murders, and class eliminations of the pagan national socialists and the atheistic communists, who managed in the course of 70 years, less than one man's lifetime, to kill incomparably more people -- by a factor of untold tens upon tens upon tens of millions -- than were killed in the entirety of the Middle Ages?

There was fighting aplenty in the Middle Ages. There were outrages on the battlefield, murders in cathedrals, and massacres in cities. But modern man is in no position to sit in judgment on medieval man as his moral inferior. In the Middle Ages, the national socialists would have been denounced as heretical, a papal Crusade would have been called against them, and today we would be reading books about how the Catholic Church violently and unjustly suppressed -- through inquisition and Crusade -- a "heretical" German movement that only wanted to wear shorts, hike through the forests, sing pagan songs, free the people from Romish superstition, advance secular learning and science, and break the political and religious power of Rome. We've heard that story many times before, as with the romanticization of the Cathars.

But medieval man has had to suffer many such slurs, from the myth that he believed the world was flat (a myth foisted against him by anti-Catholic propagandists in the 19th century) to the myth that Islamist homicide bombers are "stuck in the Middle Ages" rather than part and parcel of 21st-century Islam. The Middle Ages were more glorious and commendable than many seem to know. Medieval man deserves our toasting tankards; better medieval man than MTV or al-Jazeera man. Cheers.

H. W. Crocker III is the author of Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History. His prize-winning comic novel The Old Limey and his book Robert E. Lee on Leadership are available in paperback; his latest book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. This article originally appeared in the July/August 2006 issue of Crisis Magazine.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

The Zen Of Sarcasm

> 1. Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of
me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much
leave me the hell alone.
> 2. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a broken fan belt and
leaky tire.
> 3. Its always darkest before dawn. So if you're going to steal your
neighbor's newspaper, that's the time to do it.
> 4. Don't be irreplaceable. If you can't be replaced, you can't be
> 5. Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.
> 6. Never test the depth of the water with both feet.
> 7. If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of
car payments.
> 8. Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their
shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have
their shoes.
> 9. If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is probably not for you.
> 10. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish,
and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day.
> 11. If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was
probably a wise investment.
> 12. If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.
> 13. Some days you're the bug; some days you're the windshield.
> 14. Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
> 15. The quickest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put
it back in your pocket.
> 16. A closed mouth gathers no foot.
> 17. Duct tape is like 'The Force.' It has a light side and a dark side,
and it holds the universe together.
> 18. There are two theories to arguing with women. Neither one works.
> 19. Generally speaking, you aren't learning much when your lips are
> 20. Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
> 21. Never miss a good chance to shut up.
> 22. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative
on the same night.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

"Hate Crimes" = "Unequal Protection Of The Law"

It appears that crimes against "gays, lesbians & transsexual persons" will shortly become "hate crimes". Such persons are likely to be added to non-Whites, women, persons of various religious beliefs (Does this include "Atheists" who have been declared members of a religion by the US Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals?) and other alleged "minorities".

As a supporter of Western civilization, the only force for human and humane progress, I object to Mr. B. H. Obama's efforts to include the USA in some UN ("Useless Nations")
effort to outlaw criticism of some religions. This, if it is allowed to override the "free speech" provisions of our Bill Of Rights, it would punish me for making such true statements as: "Islam allows or encourages, if not commands, the use of murder, rape and enslavement, genocide, lying to and stealing from "unbelievers"; perpetual war against such "unbelievers" and the other horrors taught by Mohammed of Mecca and Medina to further the causes of Islam and its adult, male, members; And to this day, practices those teachings throughout the world."

As a citizen and White male I wonder at the fact that Blacks chose Whites as crime victims at a rate about 100 times the reverse; And, wonder why Blacks receive hate crime protection when many claim that Whites cannot be victims of hate crimes.

As a married man with two daughters and a granddaughter, I note the many rapes of Whites by Blacks, when the reverse offenses are so few as to be "statistically meaningless".

Since male homosexuals are still the primary source of HIV/AIDS in the USA, why should this disease vector receive the special protection under the law?

As a battery is a battery, a rape a rape, murder is murder, etc., all with equal penalties under the Law, why should some groups receive more protection? It is because the USA is becoming a culture of "victimogy" rather than one of "responsibility?

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Jews VS Muslims RE: Nobel Prizes


Also, note that on the long lists for Jews - who have steadily won Nobel prizes in nearly every decade in the 20th century - there are none awarded since the late 1990s. I believe it was about then that the Nobel committee took a drastic turn to the left and began to award prizes for outrageous things.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JEWS AND MUSLIMS..I thought you would be interested in reading this..(What a HUGE contrast!)

How could the picture be 'painted' any more vividly?

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000

ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION or 20% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:


1988 - Najib Mahfooz


1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat

1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai






1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad


>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >><<<<<<< <<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<< <<<<<

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000
Only FOURTEEN MILLION or about 0.02% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:


1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World


1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin


1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald A. Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - P eter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert A. Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger


1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert A. Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel


1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herb ert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward B... Lewis


Thursday, October 08, 2009

The World's Shortest Books

The Worlds Shortest Books


by Jane Fonda & Cindy Sheehan.
Illustrated by Michael Moore



by Rev Jesse Jackson & Rev Al Sharpton



by Hillary Clinton


By Bill Clinton



by Osama Bin Laden



by Bill Gates



by Dennis Rodman


by Al Gore & John Kerry





by Dr. J.. Kevorkian



by Ellen de Generes & Rosie O'Donnel



by Mike Tyson




by O. J. Simpson


by Ted Kennedy


by Bill Clinton with introduction

by the Rev. Jesse Jackson


Complete Knowledge of Military Strategy!

By Nancy Pelosi

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Canadian Humor

Now that Vancouver will be hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, these are some questions people from all over the world are asking.

Believe it or not these questions about Canada were posted on an International Tourism Website.

Obviously the answers are a joke; but the questions were really asked!

Q: I have never seen it warm on Canadian TV, so how do the plants grow? ( England )
A. We import all plants fully grown and then just sit around and watch them die.

Q: Will I be able to see Polar Bears in the street? ( USA )
A: Depends on how much you've been drinking.

Q: I want to walk from Vancouver to Toronto - can I follow the Railroad tracks? ( Sweden )
A: Sure, it's only Four thousand miles, take lots of water.

Q: Is it safe to run around in the bushes in Canada ? ( Sweden )
A: So it's true what they say about Swedes.

Q: Are there any ATM's (cash machines) in Canada ? Can you send me a list of them in Toronto , Vancouver , Edmonton and Halifax ? ( England )
A: No, but you'd better bring a few extra furs for trading purposes.

Q: Can you give me some information about hippo racing in Canada ? ( USA )
A: A-Fri-ca is the big triangle shaped continent south of Europe Ca-na-DA is that big country to your North...oh forget it. Sure, the hippo racing is every Tuesday night in Calgary Come naked.

Q: Which direction is North in Canada ? ( USA )
A: Face south and then turn 180 degrees Contact us when you get here and we'll send the rest of the directions.

Q: Can I bring cutlery into Canada ? ( England )
A: Why? Just use your fingers like we do.

Q: Can you send me the Vienna Boys' Choir schedule? ( USA )
A: Aus-t RI-a is that quaint little country bordering Ger-man-y, which is...oh forget it. Sure, the Vienna Boys Choir plays every Tuesday night in Vancouver and in Calgary , straight after the hippo races. Come naked.

Q: Do you have perfume in Canada ? ( Germany )
A: No, WE don't stink.

Q: I have developed a new product that is the fountain of youth. Where can I sell it in Canada ? ( USA )
A: Anywhere significant numbers of Americans gather.

Q: Can you tell me the regions in British Columbia where the female population is smaller than the male population? ( Italy )
A: Yes, gay nightclubs.

Q: Do you celebrate Thanksgiving in Canada ? ( USA )
A: Only at Thanksgiving.

Q: Are there supermarkets in Toronto and is milk available all year round? ( Germany )
A: No, we are a peaceful civilization of Vegan hunter/gathers. Milk is illegal.

Q: I have a question about a famous animal in Canada , but I forget its name. It's a kind of big horse with horns. ( USA )
A: It's called a Moose. They are tall and very violent, eating the brains of anyone walking close to them. You can scare them off by spraying yourself with human urine before you go out walking.

Q: Will I be able to speak English most places I go? ( USA )
A: Yes, but you will have to learn it first.

Please send this on to any Canadian (or others) who you think will enjoy it.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Questtions Regarding Natural Law

As to "Natural Law", I have read a little on this subject; But, do not get clear answers from the Church or others as to most of those listed below.
1. Does Natural Law (NL) provide a full right for the innocent to defend themselves against criminal attacks, including the use of deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm?
2. Does NL require or encourage the protection of other innocents against such attacks?
3. Does NL require such defending persons to have ready access to the means (In this time modern and effective firearms) when the civil authorities are unable (Or, unwilling) to immediately (ie "When criminal attacks are in progress or only seconds away, the police are minutes, or hours, away") protect the innocent against criminal attackers?
4. Does NL allow the use of deadly force to protect the means of life (eg Crops, or any product of honest labor) when no authority will do so in a timely manner?

On a larger scale the Church and others provide food, medications and other like aid to the Christian and Pagan peoples of the Darfur region of the Sudan. Yet, those people cannot use these gifts in peace as the Islamic irregulars, very strongly supported by the Islamic government of the Sudan, kills, maims, rapes and steals from these non-Muslim victims.
Neither the Sudanese government nor inter-national bodies will protect these peoples.

Does NL suggest that these charities should make their gifts meaningful by supplying them with the means (AK-47s; light anti-armor and anti-aircraft rockets) and military cadres to train them to defend themselves as no one else seems to be willing and able to do so?

I doubt that the Christ meant his People to have the "Peace Of Desolation".


Book Of Note: Webster, Alexander PhD. & Cole, Darell, PhD.; The Virtue Of War.

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: The Church, Guns & Self-Defense

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: When Talk Fails

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: A Human Life Concern Ignored

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Property = Life & May Be Defended

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Is B. H. Obama Really "Black"???

Is Mr. B. H. Obama really "Black"? I doubt that on a variety of grounds.

First, from the point-of-view of genetics he appears to be as sure of being 50% White as any person-of-color in the USA can be. Unless his White mother had a "touch of the tar-brush" somewhere in her background, her producing Mr. Obama with a real Black African make it so. Unless we wish to regress to the old, Southern, "one drop of Black blood makes you Black" rule, Mr. Obama could be considered White as much as Black. (By that old and fortunately defunct rule, I could be considered "Asian" as it appears that I have a few drops of Tartar blood.)

Mr. Obama's education was certainly very different from most American Blacks. His early years were, in part, marked-or-marred by enrollment in an Indonesian school with a very Islamic theme. He then went to one of Hawaii's most elite private high schools. Thereafter, he attended Occidental College and the Yale Law School. I do not know who paid for this elite education; But, it was certainly far distant from that of most (Even collage graduates) Blacks in the USA.

Mr. Obama and his publicists have certainly NOT made public any "sweat of his brow" work performed by him to "earn his way" through college or to support himself. Certainly Mr. Obama has no small business experience or being part of a larger and free-enterprise company or, even, in the truly private practice of the Law.

I have no doubts that Mr. Obama was the target of some "racism"; But HE moved in circles which protected him from much of such and where "racist" is the worst term which can be applied to others. (As I have been the target of "hate speach" I know of hurt.)

What, then, does Mr. B. H. Obama have in common with this nation's Blacks???

For myself, I do not care if Mr. B. H. Obama is Black or Pink or Saffron or Brown or "Green With Big Purple & Orange Stripes". What I do know is that I would NOT buy a used car from him or lend him money or support most of his "destruction for USA" policies.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Three Strikes & Out For Obama's Health Plans

There are three issues which can and should kill any Administration supported health care plan(s).

1. Any plan which does NOT provide verification of US citizenship (Or, legal residency here)
before granting health-care benefits AND severe punishments and instant deportation for illegal aliens who attempt to get any tax-based health care will NOT meet the approval of the voters (And of legal immigrants, many/most of whom have applied for citizenship as will allow them to vote in the very near future).

2. Any health care plan which approved funds for tax supported abortions will meet the most severe disapproval of most Catholics and Orthodox Christians, many other Christians and others who hold to high ethical standards. (Do NOT measure this reaction against the Pseudo-Christians found in many places, especially in the Congress!)

3. Any health care plan which is biased against the old-and-infirm (As to limiting or withholding health care) by means of bureaucratic rules (As in Oregon) or other means will be a political death sentence to any Member of the Congress who votes for it.

Could Obama Do More Harm To USA?

I cannot but wonder at the harm that Mr. B. H. Obama has done to the USA! He has attacked and severely damages the free-enterprise core of our economy (Especially as to small businesses) and his various "health" and other proposals will do more of the same.

He has "dumbed-down" the level of political debate and discourse by flooding the media, airways and minds of our citizens with lies, half-truths (Which are worse than lies) and the double-talk more usually expected of a low-class used care salesman OR the Chicago machine politician (Of the most radical variety) he is.

As to national defense he has injured it by his coldness and,perhaps destructive hostility, to Israel (The only democracy and educated society in the Middle East) and to our most staunch allies in Europe, especially the UK, Poland and other like still democratic societies.

His "warmness" towards Islamic dictatorships and towards that hate-filled ideology, Islam, is a matter of great concern to those who study history and learn from it!

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

Learn From ACLU & "The Adams Project"

The "Adams Project" of the ACLU has been showing photos of CIA operatives to terrorists at Guantanamo (And other places?). Rather that rant-and-rave about this we should learn from them and follow their example by posting on the internet the following data.

1. The (Public record available) names, photos, home addresses and auto license plate numbers of the leaders of the the ACLU and the noted project; And,
2. Advertisements for those companies which provide the following goods and services to the public: Auto alarms; Remote auto starting devices; Life insurance companies specializing in high-risk persons; Private security companies (Especially those who specialize in terrorism cases); And, other like companies.

After all, this is personal and commercial free speech as so loved by the ACLU.

Saturday, September 05, 2009

First Amendment, Churches & The IRS

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". That is the first part of the USA's Bill Of Rights and should be clear enough even for congress-critters and law-making judges.

Yet, the Congress has made such laws as allow-and-command the IRS to limit the content and timing of "political statements and publications" by pastors, rabbis, immans, "elders" and, I suspect, even avowed atheists (As Atheism is a religion per the US Seventh Circuit Court Of Appeals; Please see citation below).. The same restrictions apply to the publications of "religious" organizations.

Now, I am not an attorney and am unskilled in the 1984-like "Hate is love; War is peace" reasoning of our courts; But, it certainly appears to me that the noted IRS power (To punish such persons and churches) is well beyond the limits set in the First Amendment.

It should be clearly remembered that the Churches of New England and New York were (By sermons, publications and provision of the most modern firearms) basic to the Abolitionist movement before the Civil War (OK---War Between The States) Is there any doubt that the election periods sermons and publications of the USA's Black Churches (And others who supported them) were basic to energizing the "Civil Rights Movement"?

If Elder Jones of the local Church wishes to sermonize and publish in the Church Bulletin that elected Dog Catcher Smith should not be reelected due to his corruption or bad moral character or opposition to the teachings of Mr. Jones' church, I see no reason that he should be penalized for doing so. I also see no reason why the same should limit him as to any House Representative, Senator or other partisan candidate or Party. All those statements are "free speech" and the "free exercise of religion"!

The government has NO overriding interest in limiting statements and publications by churches---Especially just before elections. In fact, the public interest should require that as many voices and points-of-view be widely known before such basic acts of democracy.

Most certainly, there is no "clear and present danger" (As in falsely crying FIRE! in a crowded theater) in allowing such wider freedom.

Of course, a cynic might claim that such restrictions are all part of the hidden "Congressional Full-Employment Act For Members Of Congress".

Blog: Crusader Knight
Post: Atheism As Religon--PER Federal Courts

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Ted Kennedy---For His Tombstone

Edward Moore Kennedy
(Alias "Ted")
Born 1932--Gone To Judgment 2009

Murderer, Liar, Adulterer, Supporter of Partial Birth Abortion And
Other Forms Of Genocide, Abuser Of His Wealth And Power,
Tax Cheat And Otherwise
Enemy Of Our Constitutional Republic.

May GOD Have Mercy On His Soul!

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Who Is B. H. Obama?

I cannot but note the following about Mr. B. H. Obama.
1. He as taken a very hard stance against the State of Israel, consistent with the popular feelings of most Muslims;
2. His State Department sometimes refuses to admit that Jerusalem is the capitol of that outpost of democracy and progress in the Middle East.
3. That same DOS has made special (And probably unconstitutional) moves towards specially forwarding the teachings of Islam in its programs.
4. Mr. B. H. Obama was, in part, educated in a Islamic-dominated school in Indonesian where he was listed as a Muslim.
5. He strongly supports abortion-on-demand knowing (Or should know) that Muslims do not abort---Which may account for their population growth in Europe VS that of "real Europeans". (ie Those committed to individual and collective freedom, creativity, democracy).
6. His Cairo speech was full half-truths and outright lies about the history of the USA as to Islam (eg The first foreign recognition of the USA was by a Dutch salute to an American warship and NOT by a North African Sultan; Our first foreign war was with the very Islamic Barbary States; Islam is very intolerant of dissent from its views, very war like and the source of most of the terrorism in the world today by those majority of Muslims who support Mohammed's teachings on Jihad); And, Islam tolerated Jews and Christians if, and only if, they had a very inferior social and legal position and were clearly made to understand their "inferiority").
7. His long time association with a sort-of Christian Church and its pastor was marred by that church's and pastor's expression of hate towards Jews and, more worrying, their support of the very hate filled "Black Muslim" movement.

At this point, please note that "paranoia" is only the unreasonable fear of others and things.

Who or what them IS Mr. B. H. Obama?

A. Is he a brilliant politician who knows: Which statements to make, which not to make and which to fill with semantically empty content; Which heavy contributors and other politicians or organizations to "stroke" with favors, policy-positions and recognition; And, how to avoid being pinned down so as to avoid blame for failed policies and programs?

Until recently that could have well described him. However, he has been pinned down and has alienated his left-wing supports and many (If not most) moderates, as well as hardening the expected opposition of the right.

B. Is he just another used-car-salesman-like Chicago and Illinois ward-healer and, in a subtle way, pay-for-play politician with the worst-possible political background and associates (Many "thrown under the bus wheels")? You decide!

C. Is he someone who has used a Black Church and Christianity as a door way into elected office knowing that association with main-line Christian groups. Buddhism, Islam or too-obvious self-worship would not get him the same advantage? You decide!

D. Or, is he some sort of "sleeper agent" for Islam, a crypto-Muslim, a sort-of Manchurian Candidate? Only history will be able to evaluate this!

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Four Objections To Obama's Health Plan

After listening to many, without shouting, pro-and-con arguments as to the various "health plan" proposals made by Mr. B. K. Obama and members of his Party I wish you to note the following objections and comments.


1. I most strongly object to any such plan(s) or collateral legislation which uses my tax dollars to provide on-demand abortions (Except for cases of a clear-and-present danger to the life of the mother) in the USA or, through foreign aid, other nations through the UN (Useless Nations) or "Planned Barrenhood"or other agencies.
2. I am equally opposed to any direct or indirect furthering of plans which would withhold palliative or corrective or pain-control therapies for the old or infirm on any "life expectancy" or "usefulness-to-society" basis as such is much too like that practiced by the Nazis and very much against my most deep moral judgment.
3. To only a slightly lesser extent I am opposed to the coverage of illegal aliens as they have, by their illegal entry, avoided the (Full) jurisdiction of the USA as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to to the Constitution for coverage of "rights" under that document and our laws.
4. But, I am even more opposed to any such plan as does not require the President, Vice-President, Member of the Cabinet, Members of the Congress AND their dependents to receive "health care" through any private plans or private pay, with a $10.000/day penalty for doing so AND a provision that any judicial or legislative nullification of that provision will nullify the entire plan.


A. It will not be enough to merely exclude the objectionable items noted above from any "health care plan"; But, it will be necessary to both contain enforcement clauses to prohibit them and to make impossible any collateral legislation which would "sneak them in

Shouting, Revolutions, Obama & His Supporters

With all of the controversy about the "shouting" and and about the various "Town Hall Meetings", regarding "health care reform", there is something forgotten or avoided by editors, reporters, TV's "talking heads" and, most specially, Mr. B. K. Obama and his arrogant congress-critters and other like supporters.

That is that many revolutions have begun or continued with shouting. The series of bloody Mexican revolutions began with the "Grito de Delores"; The very bloody French Revolution began with shouted arguments in the 1789 National Assembly and continued with the mob shouts at the storming of the Bastille and at the beheading of those seen as tyrants; Our own first Revolution was prefaced by a shouts of of Hurray at the taring-and-feathering of the officials of a tyrannical central government, of the "mob" in Boston, "Give me liberty or death!" AND began with a shout at Lexington to a group of armed citizens: ",,,but if they want war, let it start now!".

The above-noted persons (AND, all of our citizens) should and must remember that the American Revolution began with a reaction to an effort of a tyrannical central government to seize a supply of (Then) modern weapons and munitions from citizens.

To paraphrase: "If you do not learn from history, you will be condemned to repeat it". Mr. Obama et. al. should consider that statement and our US History.