Saturday, January 31, 2009

No Catholic Invocations---Well And Good

It is just as well that there were no Catholic (Or Orthodox) clergy giving invocations at the installation of B. H. Obama. That would have required them to "reach out" to the hands of someone who is in the process of staining his claws with the blood of innocent, unborn, children.

It appears that he is also extending those talons to those (eg The Mullah dominated rulers of Iran) in the Islamic world who also worship death and exactly support the teachings of the false prophet Mohammed: Teachings which allow or encourage, if not command, the use of murder, rape, enslavement, genocide, robbery and perpetual war with "unbelievers" to further the universal conquest goals of Islam and the power and sexual manias of adult, male, Muslims.

(Now, if the Holy See will stop "reaching out" to the blood soaked hands of Islam and Mr. Obama!!!)

Monday, January 26, 2009

Children As "Collateral Damage"

Today my local daily paper published a "Washington Post" article ("War leaves deep scars on Gaza's Children") in which the psychological damage to those small people as inflicted by the air and other response-attacks by Israel---Without noting the like damage caused by the steady and grinding rocket attacks by Hamas thugs against the Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Druze children of Israel.

Yes, the deaths of and damage to Gaza's children are war-time "collateral damage" which resulted from their parents' election of Hamaa to govern their non-state and Gazian sheltering of rocket, mortar and gun firing Jihadi in their homes, schools and other places where children are.

Of course, I should note that the number of those Gazian deaths are statistically meaningless compared to the number of killings caused by the "collateral damage" of Mr. Obama's and the DNC's policies in supporting and expanding the murder of children in the womb. (No doubt editors will wish to note the children of Israel and aborted babies in newspaper editorials and TV commentary.)

Friday, January 23, 2009

'1984", FOCA & Resisting State Terrorism

In George Orwell's most important novel, "1984", the tyranny of "Big Brother" maintains, with the full force of the State, a system of "doublepeak" in which "war is peace", "starvation is plenty" and, most of all, "lies are truth". This "newspeak" is at the core of the brain-washing basic to the maintenance of power in Orwell's "Oceania" and in such acts of our government as the proposed "FOCA".

"FOCA" is the "Freedom Of Choice Act" which, in the tradition of Orwell and the Democratic National Committee. takes away the freedom of individuals and organizations to NOT participate in the killing of unborn children, calling it "choice". (The "Democratic" is another "newspeak" term for an organization which allows quotas for delegates to its national convention from, at the least, California, by race, color, gender, but not creed as that would require some 75% plus of delegates to be believing Christians.)

If the FOCA is passed into law, any efforts to enforce it (By judges, police and others), using the power of the State (To fine, imprison, seize property) will be as much acts of State Terrorism as any in 1984 or the mis-rule of Hitler, Stalin and others of that ilk.

Such state terrorism may, should and must be resisted by whatever level of effort and force as is required to stop it. I put no limits on the degree of force which may be needed to do so and warn all persons attempting to enforce any FOCA that they will be considered without the protection of Natural Law. Or, to paraphrase the militia captain at Lexington in 1775: "If they want a war, let it begin here and now!".

As for myself, I will hold any Member of the Congress who votes for FOCA as equally responsible for any resulting acts of state terrorism.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

What Is A Terrorist? What To Do With Them!

In denoting the terrorist-prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay (And other places) as "enemy combatants" is misleading and contrary to the general thrust of the laws of war.

However, we do appear to lack a common and useful definition of "terrorists" to differentiate such from legitimate "enemy combatants". Combing the two would include, with actual terrorists, those uniformed military of recognized governments who wage war against us and our allies on the basis of the authority of their political superiors and generally in accordance with the laws-of-war. Real "enemy combatants", when captured, are protected by the Geneva Conventions, treated as POWs and are generally protected from prosecution as criminals (Except for such "war crimes" as many high-ranking Nazis and Japanese military leaders were held accountable).

This definition of "terrorists" might include some persons in "resistance movements" which the USA and its allies have favored in the past.

Therefore, I offer the following and "operational" definition of "terrorist": "An individual who, with or without the assistance of others, wages war against the USA, its allies and civilians under their protection, while not a uniformed member of a military unit belonging to a recognized government OR who is/are under arms with the obvious intent of doing so. This definition does NOT include those civilians who are forced to suddenly defend themselves against foreign or domestic terrorist or other criminal attacks in the absence of immediate and effective protection by the police or military of their recognized governments.".

I strongly recommend gemeral editorial acceptance and support of the above definition of "terrorist".

I also recommend that the Congress execute its Constitutional authority; to exclude the jurisdiction of the civilian Federal Courts over "terrorists" as defined above and leave them to the jurisdiction of such military commissions as were very properly used by President Abraham Lincoln (Claimed as a role model by Mr. Obama)..

Those terrorists now held by us in military prisons should be glad they are held in military custody as their transfer into the general populations of our maximum security prisons would place them in a living hell populated with men much tougher than they are and very much more evil.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Is Obama A Citizen Of The USA?

Barack Husein Obama is certainly the most questionably “American” person to be "elected" to the post of President of the USA. There are those who still doubt his Constitutional qualification to assume that post as those persons doubt he is a natural born citizen of the USA and, perhaps, accepted citizenship in another nations since his birth. OR holding dual citizenship and never making the timely selection for US-only citizenship.

It is not an excessive use of discretion to: Require a forensic (Type of paper used as compared with others, by sub-atomic analysis, on file for the same month and year; Evaluate it as compared with any serial numbers in the same hospital and state records office, compare required signatures with those on other and contemporary like documents, etc.) evaluation of his Birth Certificate; And, determine if he were ever listed as a citizen of Kenya (His father's nation) or Indonesia (Where, it appears, he was listed as a citizen on school records), what is the earliest entry of that listing/claim (If any), what is the age in Indonesia at which a male may make such a commitment to citizenship there.

If, due to his father's nationality or acts withing Indonesia, Mr. Obama had dual citizenship, I believe our laws require him to make a written selection of US citizenship within a certain time-frame, which is long since past.

Failure to resolve the unknowns here may. later, result in severe Constitutional questions as to the authority of any acts of Mr. Obama. For example, any person accused of violating any Executive Order or Law signed by Mr. Obama may make an “offer of proof” (See above on forensic examination) that such are invalid as Mr. Obama is not a US citizen and is constitutionally incapable of executing the office he now claims to be his.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

The Church, Guns & Self-Defense

As a Latin-Rite (Roman) Catholic I have found a number of serious problems with the teachings of my church as to self-defense, the duty to defend innocent others and the private possession of the means to enforce that right and to execute that duty.

The first problem is the English language translation of the Fifth Commandment as "Thou shall not kill". I have it on expert advise (Two learned Rabbis) that the correct translation is "Thou shall not murder". The Church's (English) translation provides a subtle, but real, bias against the use of deadly force as needed where the authorities of the State (Or, in some cases as the Sudan, international bodies) are unable and even unwilling to protect the innocent in a timely manner (That is to say, before harm is done to the innocent).

Secondly, the writers of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church appear to never have been in close personal combat as they presume an ability to instantly determine, in such settings, how much force to use to repeal attacks on the innocent, limiting it to only that which is necessary to repeal such assaults. (As a matter of reality, the only way to insure self-defense or defense of innocents is to kill the attacker as a wounded attacker or one only threatened with harm is still capable of attacks and evidence is such that such criminal assaults will occur in those cases.)

Thirdly, that Catechism should have clearly denoted such attacks as rape or taking away the means of livelihood (To prevent starvation or other serious harm) as attacks which justify the use of deadly force. (Those mostly-or-totally male-and-clerical authors of that work have been too shaped by their general immunity from hunger and isolation from women to be reliable in this matter.) [Those authors also forget the mental or physical sweat which goes into the lawful earning of property and that the criminal taking of that property is also the taking away of that part of persons' lives which was expended to earn it---Making every robbery a little murder.]

Fourthly, that Catechism extends its authors' ignorance of combat to the military world of war when-and-where it is impossible to control the side-effects and "collateral damage" (Even with the extreme care exercised by the Armed Forces of the USA and State Of Israel) through the use of modern weapons. For a proper instruction for the waging of war, those authors should have referred to St. Bernard of Clairvaux's De Laude Militae Novae. Those authors also are unaware that terrorist-prisoners, not protected by the Geneva Conventions, continue to wage war against the innocent by withholding information needed to protect such, wherein "forceful, non-deadly" questioning is justified. (After all, terrorists caught in their illegal acts could, by international law, be otherwise subject to very-summary, field courts-martial and immediately executed.)

Lastly, that Catechism forcefully comes out in favor of the State or international bodies "regulating" the manufacture and sale of arms. Those ivory-tower theorists have apparently not studied history and noted that such control is the first step of any tyranny (eg By such as Hitler and Stalin against their subjects and the rulers of Islamic nations against non-Muslims) before going on to murder, rape, enslavement, robbery, genocide and the other horrors of such lords-of-misrule.

A supplementary thought: Can you think of any persons more innocent than unborn babies as are being murdered by the agents of the state-terrorism supported abortion industry?

REFERENCE: Kopel, Dave; "The Sword & The Tome"; America's 1st Freedom; February, 2009; Pages 28-31.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Word For The Wise---Panegyrist RE: Obama

In the days of the Roman Empires the maximum-leaders' courts often maintained, at public expense, a professional praise-giver called a "Panegyrist". These persons were expected to proclaim the virtues, service for the common good and other accomplishments of the Emperors---Even if they did not exist.

It appears that most of the publishers, editors, reporters and TV-types (Outside of the Fox network) in this nation are saving the USA much money by voluntarily executing the duties of that office as to Mr. Obama during his campaign and, I expect, over the next four years.Thanks boys and girls! What would we do without you?

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Works----Don't Change It

At the present time our volunteer military may be the best and most ethical ever to engage in warfare. The number of persons committing war crimes (As defined by violations of the Geneva Conventions---Which extend NO protections to terrorists) is so small, compared to the number of military persons, as to be statistically meaningless.

Even with the casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan (And the frequent and forgotten like rates due to normal training "events") the reenlistment rate for "the troops" is very high, especially among those actually involved in combat.

For the largest part, military personnel are supported by a culture of machismo and strict attention to proper conduct---Both in living in a closeness which most civilian Americans have not experienced and cannot understand. This is maintained by the "Don't ask, don't tell" rule which excludes and rejects openly homosexual activities and life-styles.

Therefore, why change what works? The proposals to do so are "politically correct" from a leftist point-of-view; But, is not in the "common good"---Especially as to the defense of this nation by its best young men and women.

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Regarding Children (A Poem)

Regarding children (a poem)
Mimi Evans Winship

Some children are cherished,
Some used as shields.
These are the realities
Fanaticism yields.

Do we blame the defenders
Who fight for their young
And champion the militants
Who safeguard no one?

Let reason prevail
Put emotions aside.
In whom do the hopes
Of the children reside

Sunday, January 04, 2009

What Is Islam? A Medical Model!

What is Islam? This question has been in my mind for many of my 70-years, especially since "9/11".

In my childhood Islam and Muslims were something far away and represented by unusual or strange clothing, language and customs. In my youth, Islam appeared to be another monotheistic religion which joined with Judaism and Christianity in worshiping One God; But, with many beliefs strange and outside many Christian concepts.(Later those differences were well explained to me by G. K Chesterton who declared that Islam was a Christian heresy, the only one grown outside of the Roman Empire, and based on Mohammed's misinterpretation of Jewish and Christian teachings AND his self-serving selection of those which served his personal needs.)

Since "9/11" my intense readings as to the history and teachings of Islam led me to the temporary conclusion that Islam is (In its essential and unchangeable nature, principles, teachings and practices) a 1400-year old criminal-terrorist movement which allows or encourages, if not commands, the use of murder, enslavement, rape, genocide, revenge and perpetual war with "unbelievers" to further its goals and the apparently sex and power cravings of its adult male members. (The overlay of religion being no more of importance than the same for the Mafia or Chinese Triads.)

In these latter days I tend to view Islam as a pathology or disease or cancer which has (Literally) plagued humanity since it erupted (Like a septic boil) out of Arabia. The medical model fits as Islam will grow at a cancerous rate and is relevant only to its own feeding and other needs and not that of humanity (The body it contaminates)--Unless it is slowed down or locally destroyed by the political equals of such cancer treatments as radiation, surgery and chemotherapy (Think bullets, bayonets/swords and napalm).

The metastasis of Islam, like cancer, spreads that disease by planting its cells in otherwise healthy organisms; BUT, is more likely to grow (And bring pain and terror) in those bodies-politic as are weakened by secular-humanism and the emasculation of properly militant Christianity. Sweden, France, Denmark and other nations have discovered the deadly threat of such corrupt and corrupting growths. The Labour government and too many Anglican bishops of the UK are "falling over their own feet" towards self-subjugation to Islam. Spain and the Holy See are very far down the paths to such self-destruction. I fear that the "political correctness" disease endemic to the USA will allow the further spread of this ant-civilization disorder in that, my homeland.

This medical model is superior to the philosophical or social models as "talk" or "talk therapy" does not, never has and will never have any effect in reducing the damages caused by Islam or its infection-like growth. This is a fact that those in the Holy See, too many other Christian leaders and most government officials do not or will not recognize.

The only hope for a health and Islamic-cancer free humanity is the installment of some oil-free and massive power system (eg Nuclear fission) as will allow the crushing of any Muslims who follow, by deeds, the above noted and hate-filled teachings of Mohammed.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Dancing Aroung The Gaza-Israel Conflict

Editors, publishers, politicians, diplomats, religious leaders and others are all "dancing around" the real base for the Arab-Israel conflicts----Including the rocket attacks from Gaza and the efforts of Israel to stop them. That avoided issue is the combined teachings oi the Koran and the Hadith (The collected sayings of Mohammed) which preach killing Jews and declare that any land (eg What is now Israel) ever ruled by Muslims must always be so ruled. In the long run, there are only two possible and final solutions to the noted problem.
That all rulers of Muslim majority nations and all Muslim religious leaders declare that the State of Israel has an absolute right to exist within its present boundaries and with its own system-of-laws AND that those teachings of the Hadith and Koran noted above are evil and against the will and law of Allah.
That Israel level all buildings and remove all people from that strip, in the Gaza, plant creeping grass to allow clear fields of fire and declare that Gaza is a "free fire zone" AND indicate that it is willing to do the same to Palestine or the "West Bank".


Thursday, January 01, 2009

No "Truce" Within Islam Or With Muslims

In discussing recent Israel-Hammas conflict it is proper to discuss the western concept of “truce” VS. the Arabic concept of “Hudna”; Both referring to the temporary stopping of overt, physical conflict.

Within the West “truce” the has always had the implication that such will lead to a long term peace, often based on negotiations and an expectation that the spirit of “truce” will be more important than the letter of a truce agreement. In Western tradition any truce violations are likely to be considered in proportion to their seriousness, with a reluctance to totally cancel the “truce” for minor reasons.

Within (At least, Arab) “Islam”, the term “hudna” implies only a period for regeneration of powers so that the stalled conflict may be again pursued with renewed vigor. Any, no matter how slight, violation of “hudna” is considered sufficient to allow resumption of hostilities at the convenience of the aggressor.. Mohamed himself, in his feud with the Quraysh clan, set the pattern of this use of “hudna” as a tactical ploy.

For believing Muslims, the example of Mohammed is generally binding on them. A principle of their ideology is all persons and Peoples are either within Islam or at war with it and, following the example of the "Prophet", any stopping of hostilities can be considered only temporary.

In the present case, calls upon Israel to begin and honor a "truce" is only a measure in support of Hammas and all Muslims whose original leader called upon them to: Kill all Jews; Restore and maintain Islamic law and rule over any lands ever ruled by Muslims; And, to continue to battle and defeat the West and Western Civilization as "not Islamic"..

Most Western criticisms of Israel for not accepting another "Hudna" (I will not use the term "truce") with Hammas is based on either a misunderstanding of the terms-and-conditions of doing so (Only to the advantage of Islam) or dislike-or-hatred of Jews or have been bought-or-leased by Arab money---OR, suffer from some sort of pathological self-hate.