Defining A Good Liberal/Secular Humanist

Martin Selznick wrote:

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran , China and North Korea .
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
12. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
13. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or Abraham Lincoln.
14. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
15. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
16. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
17. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

GOD BLESS AMERICA
Oops, can't do that either

Tattoos & Smoke

About 55-years ago I visited my mother at her place-of-employment and noted a rough tattoo of numbers on the arm of one of her co-workers. I later found out that that lady was one of the too few survivors of Nazi death camps who lost all of her immediate and extended family in such places; THOSE LOST SOULS BECOMING SMOKE IN THE SKY—Out of the chimneys of crematoria.

She, as a few others, were rescued by the Allied Armed Forces of that earlier and superior generation who defeated Nazi, Imperial Japanese and foolish Italian forces and liberated a good part of the earth from the horrors and slavery imposed by the Axis nations.

For the last 1400-plus years Islam has imposed its own horrors and slavery on all non-Muslims (And, some Muslims who interpret Islam differently from others). The so-called “War” in Iraq and Afghanistan is only the most recent battle against those who use the ideology of Islam to enslave and terrify (In the fullest sense of that word) others.

Now that at least one Islamic nation (Pakistan; Which always teeters on the edge of an internal take over by those basic Muslims who favor Jihad over reason) has the A-Bomb and the Mullah driven government of Iran is on the verge of having such weapons (With the declared intent of destroying the State of Israel), we must consider what should be done to prevent our becoming SMOKE IN THE SKY—In mushroom clouds.

The days of waiting for a “Pearl Harbor” as moral cause for reaction as self-protection are over! It is necessary to consider and plan for a preventative military action to keep Iran from starting an atomic war. My suggestion is to send them, via ICBM some inert warheads to their uranium processing centers---With the message that the next warheads will be “live rounds”.

Other supporters of basic Islam, as is the Saudi government/family, can be then reminded that the cities of Mecca and Medina can become glass lined and radioactive craters.

Better that they should go up in smoke than us.

Economics 202--Tax Cuts Explained

Tax Cuts Explained

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine had to pay the bill. They discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Candidates, Gun "Controls" & Repeating History

Let us be very, very, honest with such "leading lights" as New York's Mayor Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, those who blindly support the corrupt UN (Unneeded Nations), Hilary Clinton and the Democrat Party leadership (As well as some RINOs) that our American Revolution began with THE GOVERNMENT attempting to seize arms held by citizens. It happened then and can happen again!

Those anti-Constitution banner carriers should recall that many of the individuals who supported such tyrannical acts were coated with tar and feathers and provided other encouragements to leave this nation. It happened then and can happen again.

Dispatches From Londonistan

Society
Undercover Mosque

Broadcast: Monday 15 January

A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.

Prime Minister Tony Blair recently described tolerance as 'what makes Britain Britain' but in this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.

Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.

He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. "An army of Muslims will arise," announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must "dismantle" British democracy - they must "live like a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take over."

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete", and girls: "By the age of 10 if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," and there's an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.

The investigation reveals that the influence of Saudi Arabian Islam, Wahabism, extends beyond the walls of some mosques to influential organisations that advise the British government on inter-community relations and prevention of terrorism.

The Dispatches reporter attends talks at mosques run by key organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and mainstream - and finds preachers condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.

Undercover Mosque features interviews with moderate British Muslim figures who are speaking out against the influence of Saudi Arabia's extreme brand of Islam, which is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence: "We are losing our children to extremists," says Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council. Dr Al Alawi of the Islamic Heritage Foundation also warns: "If this continues, you will have extremist mosques in every corner of the UK. You will not have moderate Muslims walking on our streets anymore."

MECCA DELANDA EST-----------------------DEUS VULT

New Telephone Tree Greeting

Subject: NEW TELEPHONE GREETING


New Telephone Greeting.

Wouldn't it be pretty amazing, if this caught on, all over the country...?

"GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES"

"Press "1" if you speak English." "Press '2' to disconnect until you can.

History-PoliSci-Economics 101

BY MAKING THE BELOW BETTER KNOWN YOU CAN SAVE MANY THE COSTS OF EXPENSIVE, UNIVERSITY, COURSES IN HISTORY, POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS.

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. *_That's how villages were formed._*

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is *_known as the Conservative movement_*.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. *_This was the beginning of the Liberal movement._*

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. *_The rest became known as girliemen_*.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

Poli-Sci/History Lesson RE: Weapons

Columnists / News Columnists / J.D. Mullane
Even blue states love guns

Bucks County Courier Times
It didn't take the gun guys long to spot me wandering among the tables at the Gun and Knife Show in Bristol Township.
Once confronted, I was certain I would be bounced from the place. To them, I am “the media.”
Gun-rights defenders feel toward media the same way a blue-stater feels toward George Bush.
Yet, they let me stay.
“Write whatever you want,” said Bob Sarb, a show organizer. “But we never feel we get a fair shake from you people.”
I spent a half-hour among 200 tables of guns and ammo, as well as knives and long blades that appeared capable of cleanly lopping off the head of your common infidel.
I made my way back to Sarb, who was selling raffle tickets for a Harley motorcycle and a .50-caliber gun signed by Ted Nugent.
We chatted about law, order and gun rights. I told him I had been to Washington, D.C., last week to see the swearing in of the Congress and was in the company of many happy Democrats. Two were engaged in a lively discussion of gun rights.
The pair concluded that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee any Joe Six-pack the right to keep or bear arms. They agreed the Second Amendment is really about arming militias, that is, the government armed forces.
Sarb chuckled.
“They should look at Pennsylvania's Constitution and what it says about guns, because it is clear what we are guaranteed,” he said.
He quoted from article 21 of the Commonwealth's Constitution, which was drafted in 1790 when most of the Founding Fathers were still living: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
“Shall ... not ... be ... questioned,” Sarb repeated to me.

I was unaware that the right to gun ownership in this state was so unambiguous. What, are we gun nuts? Or just plain-spoken on the matter?
It made me wonder what other state constitutions ring as clear. I checked. Here's the red state of Texas:
“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
Texas aims to “regulate” arms? I thought they were all shoot-em-up cowboys down there.
What of the constitutions of the blue New England states? Certainly they would be as regulatory as Texas.
Maine, Art. 1, sec. 16: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Vermont, Ch. I, Art. 16: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. ... ”
New Hampshire, Part I, Article 2a: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
Connecticut, Art. I, sec. 15: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Rhode Island, Art. I, sec. 22: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Massachusetts, Pt. I, article 17: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.”
What, are they all gun nuts up there? Or are they just —well, you get it.

Walking With Tyrants

In Truth---All it takes to correct the misbehaviors of tyrants is a short walk
with them---13-steps up and one step down.

Perhaps, we should apply the same corrective walk with those who are tyrants
in our inner-cities.

Worshiping Embryonic Stem Cell "Research"

It most strongly appears that the support of human embryonic stem cell research is a form of religious worship based on faith and not on science. All of the “main stream” journalistic and scientific writers push forward that such research will, most certainly, provide cures for MS, MD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease and, for all I can tell, dandruff and many persons' (Including myself) inability to dance.

Yet, such research (When applied) appears to have produced nothing but cancers and such other horrid neoplasms as masses of hair and teeth growing in inappropriate parts of the body.

Basing some projection of useful medical uses, from human embryonic stem cell research, in the face of such facts is truly a matter of religious conviction and not of a scientific statement of probability.

Yet, research based on adult and placental stem cell sources have produced positive, medical, results---Which are too often ignored by the same persons who continue to push their religion of embryonic stem cell research. Of course, it is common for priesthoods to ignore or suppress competing schools of thought---Which appears to be the mechanism at work here.

For those of a religious orientation, there appears to be little difference between the support of destroying human embryos for such irrational purposes and the self-declared “worship of death” claimed by some of the more radical Islamic teachers as basic to their religion.

For those who claim reason, logic and science as their guides in this world (And still push human embryonic stem cell “research”—If that is the correct term), I say shame-on-you for supporting a religion in the guise of science. That shame extends to too many journalists, politicians, general academics and, most specially, self-described “scientists”.

A Secular USA--NOT

America Was Meant to Be Free, Not Secular
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2007

Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, and was designed to be one.

As the greatest foreign observer of America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, noted in his Democracy in America, "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power." Or, as the great British historian Paul Johnson has just written: "In [George] Washington's eyes, at least, America was in no sense a secular state," and "the American Revolution was in essence the political and military expression of a religious movement."

In fact, the Founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe.

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible -- even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: "In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."

Once almost universally acknowledged to be founded by religious men whose values were grounded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the average college graduate is now ignorant of the religious bases of this society, and certain that it was founded to be, and has always been, a secular society that happens to have many individual Christians living in it.

That explains the attempts by activists to erase whatever public vestiges of religiosity remain -- any cross on a county or city seal, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," the Supreme Court's rulings against school prayer even of the most non-denominational type, etc.

This country was founded overwhelmingly by men and women steeped in the Bible. Their moral values emanated from the Bible, and they regarded liberty as possible only if understood as given by God. That is why the Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Old Testament, and why Thomas Jefferson, the allegedly non-religious deist, wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

NUMBERS---And Generations

Some have made a great deal out of the fact that our service dead in Iraq have now exceeded the losses inflicted by Islamic terrorists on that infamous 9/11. Some neither study history nor learn from it. (Blacks should also remember the huge number of White Union troops who suffered and died to insure that the South stayed in the Union and subject to its laws--Which resulted in the freeing of slaves held by Whites, Native Americans and other Blacks.)

They and you might wish to consider (And remember as you elect those who make and pass our laws) the losses on that other day-of-infamy, 12-7-1941, and the cost in American lives needed to defeat the then truly evil Japanese Empire, the worse Nazi killing machine and foolish Italy. It does appear that the Americans of 1941-1945 were our Greatest Generation as they knew any price was worth defeating such evil. The Me-Generation of today lacks historical knowledge, any sense of the Common Good and, most of all, moral courage.

The Constitution & Guns For Citizens

Mr. St. George Tucker was a law professor, federal judge and justice of the Virginia Supreme Court. In 1803 and based on his lectures he published the first scholarly work on the Constitution of the USA. Being both close in time to the founders of this nation and well versed in the law, his opinions should be respected today and, in fact, still are quoted in recent court decisions.

As to self-defense and the People's keeping and bearing of arms, he wrote:
"...The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

Before the Civil War the right to go anywhere in the nation while armed was considered, by the US Supreme Court, to be a basic right of citizenship. Since that time the tyranny of Legislative bodies and the Courts have diminished that right and, especially in Wisconsin and Illinois and certain cities in other States, has brought it to "the brink of destruction". In the other 48 States there has been some, sometimes very limited, positive responses to the People's demand for the return of that right.

I think it well past the time when Wisconsin should return to the principles which are the foundation of this nation and allow the People to do what the police so apparantly can not or will not do---Defend them against criminal assaults on their persons and property.

Kwanzaa & Islam

“Islam” was founded or invented by Mohammed, a bandit, murderer, liar (Beyond his claim to be a prophet) and sexual abuser of a nine year old girl-child. He changed, over time, his claimed teachings of Allah, to suit his changing level of power and personal needs. Among his other teachings is the lowering of respect for women by giving them only inferior legal and social status---And, encouraging beating of wives.

“Kwanzaa” was founded or invented by Ron McKinley Everett (aka Dr. Karenga), a torturer of women, convicted felon and racist---Who apparently made a good living from that creation (Itself, a collection of lies and misinformation).

The commonality of abuse of women/girls implies sick minds; The misuse of power, very criminal mentalities.

Dred Scott, Taney, Blacks & Guns

In the famous (Infamous?) Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote a decision which, in effect, declared that Blacks (Or, at least, Black slaves) had no rights under the Constitution to be considered as citizens of the USA. It took the bloodiest war this nation has ever fought and some amendments to that document to overturn that decision.

Mr. Taney was not a WASP (White Anglo Saxon Protestant) as he was a member of the Catholic Church by conversion.

Although that Chief Justice Of The United States has been described as a “staunch supporter of slavery”, his freeing of his own slaves well before the noted court decision and the Civil War makes that application of doubtful value. His ongoing support, from a limited income with other demands, of those of his ex-slaves too old to work is also a matter of some interest to evaluating him.

It may be that he was more of a supporter of “states rights” than of slavery as such. Considering how the Federal Government has intruded into every area of our lives, his concerns may have been based on a valid basis. (Those “liberals” who may, at first, conclude otherwise should consider the overturning of the Florida Supreme Court's decision as to the first election of George W. Bush as President by the US Supreme Court.)

In the noted court decision, one of Chief Justice Taney's chief concerns about granting Blacks citizenship rights was that they would, thereby, be able to go about the USA armed and without restrictions as could other (ie White) citizens (Who appear to have had that right diminished by legislative and judicial acts of tyranny). Considering the disproportional misuse of firearms by Blacks (Usually in Black-on-Black crimes), it seems his concerns in this area were also on a valid basis.

Too Many Black Bodies

There are too many Black bodies, of the wrong variety, strewn about Milwaukee's mean streets—Usually left there after other Blacks misuse firearms. If those bodies were ONLY those of rapists, drug dealers, gang-bangers, robbers and other like scum, I doubt if there would be much weeping and wailing over the results of such a civic improvement program.

If the honest, law-abiding and hard working majority of Blacks really wish to improve their community, they may wish to consider that the Police are NOT protecting them from those blots on their race and neighborhoods and take such actions as is necessary to self-improve their world. (Remember---Vigilantes come to power and effect only when the civil authorities are unable OR unwilling to control crime.)

True Freedom Of Speech And OF Religion

Our world has a very long history of ministers-of-religion, philosophers and others of like position and influence speaking for and against government leaders and officials on the basis of their morality-vs-immorality, logic, policies and other official or private behaviors. You might reflect on the teachings of Confucius, Protestant preachers, priests and popes, mullahs and imams and secular teachers/philosophers to understand that such comments are of long standing and basic to our understanding and development of government.

Within our own American traditions, we have a firm history of from-the-pulpit (And, in print) encouragement and criticism of specific and named political leaders----Especially in the periods just before elections. The making of such moral statements was expected of religious and other leaders, by the People, for their clarification of thoughts and election decisions.

However and in these degenerate times, too many political leaders (eg Senators Feingold and McCain) have elected to take great efforts in muzzling such person-specific comments---Especially in those 60 critical days before elections. To aggravate that insult to the People, there are laws which punish (By removal of tax exempt status) organizations which address the suitability of specific political figures to hold the public trust by election to office. (Unless the organization is so “politically correct” as to have practical exemption from such penalties---Such as certain “Black” churches who welcome to their platforms only one view of politics by specific speakers.)

By perverse “reasoning” the Supreme Court of the USA has, somehow, declared these laws in accordance with our Constitution and legal traditions. That is false! My position can be sustained on two grounds.

First, any political speech (Short of the equivalent of “falsely crying FIRE in a crowded theater” (ie Speech which provides a clear-and-present physical danger to others.(A KKK member attempting to force his speech on a meeting of the NAACP could be forbidden. A mob of student terrorists, as at Columbia University, who used noise and other force to stop political speech by supporters of a secure border with Mexico were, in fact, opposing free speech and should have been punished or resisted by such force as was required to maintain the rights of the scheduled speakers.) is a basic value and right in any democracy. However, other unilateral speech (Or, reasoned debate) as to any political question OR person should have the fullest protection of the Constitution and our laws. Among those political questions are the morality and public acts/positions of officials or those who wish to be elected to some public office---Most specially in that period just before elections.

Secondly, restrictions on the speech of ministers-of-religion (Or, their secular equivalents) is a violation of the “free exercise of religion” as guaranteed by our Constitution as such persons are expected to make such comments in both general, “issue”, matters AND as to individuals in or seeking public office. To rule otherwise is to make a restriction on religious practice no less objectionable than those imposed by the Church Of England before our Revolution or those inflicted by the Ayatollahs of Iran on those who wish more democracy in that ancient land. Other than in a few cases where there is a clear danger to the physical safety of others (Especially children), government has NO place in deciding what is a religious practice as that constitutes the “establishment of religion” prohibited by our Constitution.

Of course, most newspapers and “broadcast media” tend to favor those restrictions on free religious/philosophic speech noted above due to their general opposition to religion in the public forum (The place for debate) AND the fact that such restrictions do not apply to them and give them more power over the Public understanding of moral and political questions.

Too many politicians view such restrictions in the same positive light as they do the gerrymandering of election districts OR special exceptions as allow them to transfer money from one election account to another---A means to guarantee their reelection.

THE TRULY DARK SIDE OF THIS ISSUE IS THE REPORTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SENT ITS AGENTS (FROM THE IRS?) TO LISTEN TO (SPY UPON) SELECTED RELIGIOUS LEADERS/MINISTERS TO DETERMINE IF THEY SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF THEIR CHURCHES. [Some private, atheist/secularist, citizens have made demands for such punishments.]

WHAT TO DO? The Congress should repeal the McCain-Feingold and anti-free-speech act.
After that, the Congress should (As is provided in the Constitution) pass such a limit on the various Federal Courts' jurisdiction as would prevent them from such abuses of the “free exercise of religion” and freedom of speech as are described above---And, the Congress should/must take no actions towards such ends itself.

Of course, this most excellent goal would be enabled by editors and TV producers supporting it after abandoning their “stuck in the 1960s” attitudes towards both religious freedom and free speech for other than themselves.

Finally: A Rational War Plan For Iraq

The USA "lost" the battle of Viet Nam (But, not the Cold War) by attempting to politically limit our actions there in violation of the precept that "War Is Hell"--And, should be so for our enemies. We won the first Iraq war by utilizing such fighting, not political, generals as Norman Schwartzkopf who were not reluctant to destroy those who opposed us. We have returned to limited, politically correct, war in Iraq---And are NOT winning that conflict.

Except among the Kurds and Marsh Arabs of Iraq, who were the targets of Saddam Hussein's genocidal campaigns against them, we do not appear to be convincing other Iraqis that democracy, rather than terrorism, is what their address to the Will Of Allah should be. We are certainly not making any friends or allies among those insane contenders for power in Bagdad and the Sunni Triangle.

Therefore, let us find a new and fighting general to take over and crush our enemies. If those terrorists cannot respect each other, us and law, order and justice, teach them to fear us. (Perhaps, the crazies who run Iran will "take a hint").

PS---For Credit For The Above Ideas, Please See The Article Below.


SUNDAY SPECTATOR
December 17, 2006

Oderint dum metuant

My title today was a favourite saying of the Roman emperor, Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, better known to history by his nickname, Caligula. (He ascended quite young; the word means “baby boots”.) In truth, he is not among the Roman emperors most fondly remembered. Even I do not include him in my gallery of heroes. It did not help that (according at least to Philo) he went mad during an illness in 37 A.D. Upon his recovery, he started executing people by the cartload, for crimes not always entirely clear.
He was a strict monarchist from the northern wild, had no appreciation for Roman republican traditions -- he quarrelled bitterly with the Senate -- and ruled at Rome on the model of an Oriental despot, with gaudy and somewhat tasteless trappings, and rather unRoman domestic habits, such as sleeping with his sister in the manner of those Ptolemies in Egypt. This did not endear him to the East, however, for there were riots in response to his more casual edicts, in Alexandria, and elsewhere. He wanted to erect a statue to himself in the sanctuary of the Temple at Jerusalem. This did not go over well with the Jews. And Christians, like me, can recall no particular affection for him, from the earliest days of the Church.
I did not admire Josef Stalin, either, but I used to quote with approval, during the Cold War, a saying of Stalin’s that I thought rather wise. It was, “Nuclear weapons are only a problem for people with bad nerves.” This expressed the sort of attitude that freed one from panic, when standing up to the Communists.
We may translate, “Oderint dum metuant” as, “Let them hate, so long as they fear.” It is the precise opposite of, “Win their hearts and minds.” And it is, once again, an attitude blessedly free of that panic which, I think, all Western policy towards the “Islamist” terror threat is now tending, starting with flight from Iraq.
My column Wednesday contained a line intended to be memorable, and which I notice is now being quoted here and there. Regretting the caution and delicacy with which U.S. and allied forces pursued the enemy in Iraq’s Sunni Triangle, I wrote that the “strategy” in Fallujah should have been, “to make it into a parking lot, and build a Wal-Mart at one end”.
Very well, the Wal-Mart was a flourish. And so, for that matter, was making the parking lot -- unless there’s no choice left. But Iraq is a just and necessary war, and therefore it must be won, in an unsentimental way.
Several learned correspondents have since asked if I thought my prescription was fully compatible with e.g. Pope Benedict’s recent remarks to the effect that states had to set ethical limits in what they do to protect their citizens from terrorism. Or more generally, had I forgotten the long rich Catholic tradition of defining not only what is a just war, but what are just ways of fighting.
My reply will continue to be, “Hiroshima, my love.” I do not think dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was at all a nice thing. I freely acknowledge that many, many, innocent people were killed, in a horrible way. Many more were killed in the preceding “conventional” incendiary bombing of Tokyo. But I agree with the late President Truman, who saw it was the quickest way to end the war, and thus save the many millions of lives, both allied and enemy, that would be lost in a pointless “conventional” land invasion of island Japan. And it worked: the surrender was quickly forthcoming.
What the older “just-war theorists” knew, or learned (starting with St Augustine, if you read his successive prescriptions for dealing with violent schismatics), is that war is ruthless. The very humane Clausewitz taught, that the war leader unprepared to be as ruthless as his enemy does not bring peace. He creates a quagmire, and his hesitations lead finally to defeat. The chemo-therapist does not negotiate with a cancer, nor grant it the benefit of the doubt. He does not weep for all the hairs that will fall out.
As to the enemy we presently face -- the same in the Sunni Triangle as over Manhattan in September, 2001 -- we cannot win their hearts and minds in the foreseeable future. They do not love us. Therefore let them hate, so long as we can make them fear us more than we fear them.

David Warren

© Ottawa Citizen

Serious About Stem-Cells ?

IF YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH, YOU SHOULD (MUST?) CONSIDER THE ARTICLE BELOW!!!

What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells
Maureen L. Condic

Back at the beginning of 2002, there was considerable optimism regarding the promise that embryonic stem cells were said to hold for millions of people suffering from fatal or debilitating medical conditions. Stem cells derived from human embryos, it was claimed, provided the best hope for relief of human suffering. Despite the profound ethical concerns regarding the use of human embryos for medical and scientific research, many Americans embraced this promise and the seemingly miraculous hope it offered.

The challenges facing embryonic stem cells were formidable. First, there was the concern that the cells and their derived tissue would be rejected by the patient's immune system, requiring the patient to undergo lifelong immune suppression. The three proposed solutions to this incompatibility problem (generating large banks of stem cell lines, cloning human embryos to provide a source of cells that perfectly match the patient, or genetically engineering stem cells to reduce immune rejection) were either socially, scientifically, or morally problematic (or all three). Second, there was the serious problem that embryonic stem cells form tumors when transplanted to adult tissues, and the tumorogenic capability of these cells is difficult, if not impossible, to control. Finally, there was the disturbing fact that science had thus far provided essentially no convincing evidence that embryonic stem cells could be reliably differentiated into normal adult cell types, as well as the disturbing possibility that overcoming this barrier would prove a difficult scientific endeavor.

Despite these concerns, many continued to regard embryonic stem cells with hope, believing that further research would overcome these difficulties and harness the power of embryonic stem cells for the benefit of mankind. Such optimists asserted that it was simply a matter of investing sufficient time, money, and research.

Since 2002, considerable resources have been devoted to just such research. A recent query of the grant database maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) indicates that more than eighty research projects investigating human embryonic stem cells have been funded over the past five years. A research effort of this size represents millions of dollars in public money invested in the medical promise of embryonic stem cells. Indeed, the NIH reported to Congress in September of last year that anticipated spending on human embryonic stem cell research in 2006 was "just $24,300,000." Since 2002, approximately nine hundred research papers have been published on investigations of human embryonic stem cells, with more than a thousand additional papers investigating the properties of embryonic stem cells derived from animals. Clearly, research on embryonic stem cells has advanced considerably over the past five years, and it is therefore important to revisit the promise in light of current findings.

Stem cell--based therapies propose to treat human medical conditions by replacing cells that have been lost through disease or injury. Unlike an organ transplant, where a damaged or diseased tissue is removed and then replaced with a comparable organ from a donor, stem cell therapies would involve integration of replacement cells into the existing tissues of the patient. The dispersed integration of the transplanted cells throughout the targeted organ (indeed, throughout the entire body of the patient) would make it impossible to remove the stem cell derivatives surgically should any problems arise. Thus, the problem of immune rejection is of particular concern--if transplanted cells are attacked by the immune system, the entire tissue in which the foreign cells reside becomes the target of a potentially disastrous immune attack.

Over the past five years, the scientific community has focused almost exclusively on somatic-cell nuclear transfer, or cloning, as the best resolution to the problem of immune rejection. During somatic-cell nuclear transfer, the genetic information of an unfertilized human egg would be removed and replaced with the unique genetic information of a patient. This would produce a cloned, one-cell embryo that would mature for several days in the laboratory and then be destroyed to obtain stem cells genetically matched to the patient. Based on the success of animal cloning, human cloning was optimistically predicted to be a simple matter. Once we were able to clone human embryos, those embryos would provide patient-specific stem cell repair kits for anyone requiring cell-replacement therapies.

Human cloning has proved to be more challenging than anticipated. Human eggs, as it turns out, are considerably more fragile than eggs of other mammalian species, and they do not survive the procedures that were successfully used to clone animals. Multiple attempts by several research groups worldwide have been unsuccessful in generating human clones. The few reports of the successful cloning of human embryos were either unverifiable press releases or clear chicanery promoted by a quasi-religious group for its own publicity.

The elusive prize to generate the first human clone appeared to be won in March 2004, when a South Korean group led by Hwang Woo-Suk reported in the prestigious professional journal Science that they had generated a human stem cell line from a cloned human embryo. A year later, in June 2005, this same group sensationally reported that they had successfully generated eleven patient-specific stem cell lines from cloned human embryos and had dramatically improved their success rate to better than one in twenty attempts, bringing cloning into the realm of the possible for routine treatment of human medical conditions. Hwang was hailed as a hero and a pioneer, and his reported success evoked an almost immediate clamor to remove the funding restrictions imposed by the Bush administration on human embryonic stem cell research, lest America fall hopelessly behind South Korea in developing therapies.

By fall 2005, however, the cloning miracle had begun to unravel. Colleagues of Hwang raised serious concerns about his published studies, launching an investigation into possible scientific fraud. By December, it was conclusively shown that all the claimed cloned stem cell lines were fakes. To date, no one has successfully demonstrated that it is indeed possible to clone human embryos, and, based on the failed attempts of Hwang and others, human cloning is not likely to be a simple task, should it prove possible at all.

The scandal surrounding Hwang's audacious fraud raised multiple concerns about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research. Investigations revealed that Hwang had used thousands of human oocytes for his unsuccessful attempts, not the hundreds as he had originally claimed. The medical risks associated with egg donation (the potential complications include both sterility and death) raise serious questions about the morality of conducting basic research on human cloning. Given that Hwang pressured junior female colleagues into donating eggs for his research, how can the interests of female scientists be protected from such professional exploitation? Given that thousands of human eggs from more than a hundred women were used by Hwang and not even a single viable cloned human embryo resulted from this research, how can the medical risks to women entailed by this research possibly be justified?

The technical challenges encountered by Hwang are not particularly surprising. Experience from multiple laboratories over the past decade confirms that it is extremely difficult to clone any animal. Cloned embryos are generally quite abnormal, with those that are sufficiently normal to survive to live birth typically representing between 0.1 and 2 percent. The problems do not end with the technical difficulty of somatic-cell nuclear transfer itself. Extensive evidence indicates that even the cloned animals that make it to birth are not untarnished success stories. Following Ian Wilmut's production of Dolly the sheep, the world's first cloned mammal, it was almost immediately evident that Dolly was not normal; she experienced a number of medical problems that resulted in her being euthanized, due to poor health, at the age of six years, about half the lifespan of a healthy sheep. Dolly was the only clone to survive to live birth out of the 277 cloned embryos Wilmut's group generated, yet this success did not prove that cloning can produce a normal sheep. Dolly was merely normal enough to survive to birth.

In the past five years, a number of studies have carefully examined patterns of gene expression in mice and other cloned animals that survived to birth. Not one of these animals is genetically normal, and multiple genes are aberrantly expressed in multiple tissues. Both the severity and the extent of these genetic abnormalities came as a surprise to the cloning field, and yet, in retrospect, they are not surprising at all. The fact that most cloned embryos die at early stages of development is entirely consistent with the conclusion that somatic-cell nuclear transfer does not generate normal embryos, even in the rare cases where clones survive to birth. Thus, the optimistic contention that "therapeutic cloning" would fix the immune problem facing potential embryonic stem cell--based therapies for humans seems thus far entirely unsupported by the scientific evidence.

The dwindling numbers of therapeutic-cloning supporters defend this procedure by asserting that the genetic abnormalities are only a problem if you are attempting to produce a live birth. Thus, in a 2004 New York Times article, George Daley, a stem cell researcher at Children's Hospital in Boston, acknowledged that cloned animals show multiple genetic abnormalities, yet optimistically asserted, "Cloned tissues are not likely to have the same problems." In light of the mounting evidence that cloned animals experience severe genetic disregulation, such tentative reassurance is wearing thin, with even Daley admitting that his optimistic prediction that cloned tissues will prove normal enough for medical purposes has "yet to be proven."

The question of how normal cloned tissue needs to be is not merely a detail that needs to be worked out. It is, in practice, a fundamentally unanswerable question. If cloned human embryos are to be used as a source of stem cells, we will be faced with this simple question for every single patient: How normal is this particular cloned embryo, the one we are going to use to generate stem cells to treat this particular patient? Without allowing that embryo to develop and observing precisely how abnormal it proves to be, it is simply impossible to know whether it is normal enough for medical use. Every patient will be an experiment with no quality control. Perhaps the particular cells will be normal enough to cure this particular patient, but then again perhaps they will be so grotesquely abnormal that they will create a condition worse than the one they were intended to treat.

The limitation in our ability to determine which cloned embryos are of sufficient normalcy to generate medically useful replacement tissue is one that no research can address unless scientists develop some kind of test to determine in advance which cloned embryos are normal enough. Developing such a test would almost certainly require the horrific scenario of growing human embryos to a sufficient state of maturity that the normalcy of their developing tissues could be empirically determined. This would mean implanting cloned embryos into surrogate wombs and then aborting them at specific times to examine the embryo's development. Based on this information, it might be possible (although difficult) to identify features of very early embryos that predict whether they are capable of generating therapeutically useful tissue. Whether Americans are willing to accept the unknown (yet potentially large) risk of being treated with stem cells of undetermined (and essentially undeterminable) quality or whether we would prefer to accept the kind of experimentation on human embryos and fetuses that would be required to ensure embryonic stem cell safety are questions of profound social and moral importance.

It was unambiguously clear five years ago that embryonic stem cells robustly form tumors (teratomas) when transplanted into adult tissues, and this remains the case today. Teratomas are benign tumors that contain a variety of differentiated cell types (hair, teeth, muscle, etc.). These tumors can often prove fatal because of their rapid growth, but they are not malignant or cancerous tumors, which metastasize into multiple locations within the body. Embryonic stem cell advocates were well aware of the tumor-forming potential of these cells. (Indeed, teratoma formation following injection of embryonic stem cells into adult mice is still today the test of whether a researcher has successfully generated a bona fide embryonic stem cell line.) Embryonic stem cell advocates dismiss the threat of these tumors, however, claiming this would prove a problem only for undifferentiated embryonic stem cells.

These optimistic predictions have not held up to scientific experimentation. The tumor-forming potential of embryonic stem cells has proved a significant problem that does not show signs of being resolved any time soon. More than a dozen papers over the past five years (five papers within the past year alone) have shown tumor formation in animals treated with differentiated embryonic stem cell derivatives. In several of these studies, a shocking 70 to 100 percent of the experimental animals succumbed to fatal tumors. In all cases, tumors were believed to be derived from embryonic stem cells that either failed to differentiate or from cells that somehow de-differentiated once transplanted. Although experimental approaches designed to reduce tumor formation from differentiated embryonic stem cell derivatives are under investigation, it is not clear whether these approaches will ever prove successful, especially if the tumors are due to uncontrolled de-differentiation of the embryonic stem cell--derived tissues back to a more primitive state once they are transplanted to an adult environment.

Even more alarming than formation of benign (albeit, fatal) tumors, several studies over the past five years have raised concerns that the longer embryonic stem cells are maintained in the laboratory (or, presumably, in the tissues of adult human patients), the more likely they are to convert to malignant cancer cells. Embryonic stem cells spontaneously accumulate the genetic abnormalities associated with embryonal carcinoma (a form of testicular cancer). Embryonal carcinomas are believed to be the cancerous equivalent of embryonic stem cells and are a highly metastatic form of cancer. Although the finding that embryonic stem cells spontaneously convert to cancer cells over time remains contested, it is clear that some, if not all, embryonic stem cells undergo this conversion, and the factors controlling the transition are not well understood.

The assertion that embryonic stem cells in the laboratory can be induced to form all the cells comprising the mature human body has been repeated so often that it seems incontrovertibly true. What is missing from this assertion remains the simple fact that there is essentially no scientific evidence supporting it. Experiments have shown that embryonic stem cells are able to participate in normal embryonic development, an observation that is also true of cancerous embryonal carcinoma cells. When injected into early mouse embryos, both embryonic stem cells and embryonal carcinoma cells randomly contribute to every tissue of the developing body.

Even more dramatically, when embryonic stem cells are injected into mouse embryos under specific experimental circumstances (a procedure known as tetraploid complementation), they can be induced to form all the cells of the postnatal body. These experiments prove that embryonic stem cells (and embryonal carcinoma cells) remain capable of responding appropriately to the developmental signals that regulate tissue formation in the embryo, and from these results we can conclude that if embryonic stem cells were intended to provide cell replacement therapies for embryos, they would represent a very promising therapeutic approach. The problem, of course, is that embryos are not the intended targets of stem cell therapies, and there is little reason to believe that the capabilities of embryonic stem cells in an embryonic environment are relevant to their therapeutic potential for non-embryonic patients.

Five years ago, most scientists working in the field of embryonic stem cell research confidently predicted that we would soon determine the precise recipe of molecular factors required to replicate in the laboratory the mysterious inner life of the embryo. David Anderson, a stem cell researcher at Caltech, boldly asserted in a New York Times opinion piece that once science had figured out the factors required to replicate embryonic development, specific molecules could simply be "thrown into the bubbling cauldron of our petri dishes," where they would transform embryonic stem cells into an unlimited source of replacement cells for any tissue we chose to produce.

Skepticism regarding this claim was well warranted. While there have been hundreds of papers published over the past five years that stridently claim "cell type X produced from embryonic stem cells," under closer inspection these successes have all been less miraculous than they appeared. It is relatively easy to generate stem cell derivatives in the laboratory that have at least some of the properties of normal, mature cell types. But the test of whether an embryonic stem cell--derived brain cell, for example, is indeed a normal adult brain cell is to put it into the brain of an adult animal and determine whether it survives and contributes to normal brain function. In addition, if laboratory-generated cells are to be therapeutically useful for the treatment of human disease and injury, they must be shown to have therapeutic value in adult animals: It is not sufficient that embryonic stem cell--derived cells merely survive in adults; they must also be able to repair the underlying disease or injury. It is precisely this kind of test that embryonic stem cell--derived tissues have proved unable to pass.

When cells derived from embryonic stem cells are transplanted into adult animals, their most common fate is to die. Indeed, most such transplanted tissue does not survive beyond a few weeks in an adult environment (the only exception is blood cells, where small numbers of cells survive long term in mature animals). The rapid death of transplanted embryonic stem cell--derived cells stands in striking contrast to the robust survival of bona fide adult cells when transplanted to adult tissue. Typically, even the most promising experiments involving the transplant of embryonic stem cell derivatives have reported modest positive effects that persist for only a few weeks. In the few cases where tiny fractions of the transplanted cells survive for months (rather than weeks), this straggling band of survivors typically provides no therapeutic benefit.

The failure of embryonic stem cell--derived tissues to survive when transplanted to adult tissues strongly suggests that science has not yet determined how to generate normal adult tissue from embryonic stem cells. Why then do some studies show modest, short-term benefits from transplantation of such tissues? In many cases, the authors of these studies speculate that embryonic stem cell--derived transplants are not providing benefit because of replacement of lost or damaged cells but rather because the transplanted cells are supporting the survival or function of damaged adult tissues by secreting generic survival factors. Thus, the modest and transient benefits reported for embryonic stem cell--derived cell transplants over the past five years do not appear to require stem cells at all and are likely to be replicated by simply identifying the beneficial factors produced by the transplanted cells and supplying these factors directly.

In light of the serious problems associated with embryonic stem cells," I noted in 2002, "there is no compelling scientific argument for the public support of research on human embryos." Serious scientific challenges are, by definition, problems that have stubbornly resisted the best attempts of science to resolve them. Over the past thirty years, hundreds of billions of dollars and countless hours of research by dedicated professionals worldwide have been devoted to solving the problems of immune rejection and tumor formation, yet these issues remain serious scientific and medical challenges. The mysteries of embryonic development have been plumbed for more than a hundred years by some of the most brilliant biologists of history, and yet, despite the clear progress we have made, we are nowhere near the point of having a "recipe book" for cooking up cellular repair kits to treat human disease and injury. Immune rejection, tumor formation, and embryonic development have proved themselves to be profoundly serious scientific challenges, and they are likely to remain so for decades into the future.

The hubris of scientists in the field of embryonic stem cell research who confidently asserted "Give us a few years of unrestricted funding and we will solve these serious scientific problems and deliver miraculous stem cell cures" was evident in 2002, and it is even more evident today. For the past five years, researchers have had completely unrestricted funding to conduct research on animal embryonic stem cells, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. They have had every conceivable tool of modern molecular research available to them for use in animal models, and yet the serious scientific problems remain. Millions of dollars have been consumed, and hundreds of scientific papers published, and yet the problems still remain. The promised miraculous cures have not materialized even for mice, much less for men.

In June 2004, Ron McKay at the National Institutes of Health acknowledged in a Washington Post interview that scientists have not been quick to correct exaggerated claims of the medical potential of embryonic stem cells, yet McKay justified this dishonesty by stating: "To start with, people need a fairy tale. Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand." Isn't it time Americans recognize the promise of obtaining medical miracles from embryonic stem cells for the fairy tale it really is?

Maureen L. Condic is an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy at the University of Utah School of Medicine and conducts research on the development and regeneration of the nervous system.

P. I. G. Literature

Kantor, Elizabeth (PhD.)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature
Regnery Publishing, Inc. (An Eagle Publishing Company)
Washington, D.C.; 2005

THIS BOOK

This is a very serious book about literature and what has been inflicted to it and as to the empty and meaningless politics substituted for it by the “deconstructionalist” and other like new-wave professors in our degenerate universities. I am sorry (Ashamed?) to write that I do not have the fullness of a truly liberal education as would allow me to fully understand the language of literary analysis and discussion. However, there is enough of value in this book for even a science-based rationalist as myself to better appreciate what the study of literature should be, what it has fallen to and what its traditional values are to a civilized human and humane being.

If I were to find any fault with the author's presentation it is her lack of appreciation for what is generally called “Fantasy And Science Fiction”, from C. S. Lewis (The Chronicles Of Narnia, and the series beginning with Perlandia) and J. R.R. Tolkien (The Hobbit and the ring series) to such very serious American works as A Matter Of Conscience (A now out-of-print science fiction novel, the name of the author lost in my memory; But, involving very serious moral and philosophical questions and problems), Robert Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land, Frank Herbert's Dune (And, more specially, its prequels as written by others) and too many others to list here. If Dr. Kantor would be more aware of such works, she would have been less likely to complain about the lack of serious and lengthy American works. (Europeans may look to the past to explain the present and human nature; The best American writers look to possible futures to do the same.) The readers may not like the answers; But, such books do address the important questions of human and humane existence.

However, if you consider yourself to be a civilized and cultured person, you should read Dr. Kantor's work---Even if it causes you to weep over our Universities as the Christ wept over the doomed city of Jerusalem.

COMPANION BOOK

If you read the above, you should also read the complementary volume. Noted below, which provides many examples of the too many professors who are destroying true academic freedom and, in fact, thinking within our universities.

Horowitz, David
The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in American
Regnery Publishing, Inc.; Washington, DC; 2006

"Islamophobia"

"Islamophobia" is a word which appears to be creeping into periodicals, news broadcasts, lectures, blog-entries and other places.

Unlike "homophobia", which declares a fear of homosexuals when it would be better to state a condition-of-revulsion/disgust, "islamophobia" is real.

People do have a fear of Islam. That fear is realistic and is based on the teachings of that ideology and on 1400-year of its approved practices: From wife beating to genocide; From robbery to rape; From spewing hate (Often based on the supporting literature printed and distributed by the Saudi government) to the outright use of murder for revenge or to suppress criticism, even by Muslims, of the worst teachings and practices in Islam.

Primer On Islamic Imperialism & Aggression

The author of the otherwise excellent article below forgot to note that the troops of the Polish Commenwealth stopped a huge Islamic-Turkish invasion from the North BEFORE they went to Vienna and destroyed the Turkish army and invasion there.



Primer on Islamic Imperialism
November 20th, 2006

One of the alleged sins held against the West by Islamic radicalism – which has declared war on us through Osama bin Laden’s fatwa issued in 1998 in London – is imperialism: the imperialism of the Dutch, the British and the French from the 17th to the 20th centuries. (For some reason, Russian imperialism in Central Asia gets a pass – so far.) Israel is allegedly an outpost of European imperialism.

The original western imperial enterprise in the radical Islamic narrative was the Crusades. The First Crusade began in 1095. The Crusades were undertaken to reclaim the Holy Land for Christendom. Reclaim it from whom? From the Muslims.

But Mohammed died in Medina in 632 as ruler of the Hijaz, the northwest section of Arabia along the Red Sea which includes the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. But if they only controlled the Hijaz in 632, what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in 1100?

Of course, they were there by conquest! They were they by virtue of Islamic imperialism – the extension of the Land of Islam (Dar al-Islam) by holy war: jihad (notwithstanding the other meanings of this term).

Let’s review. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, was a warrior and ruler who conquered Mecca and the Hijaz from his base in Medina. Following The Prophet’s death in 632, Islam was spread by Arab and Muslim conquest. There are Muslims who are not Arabs, but the first phase of expansion was Arab expansion. The ruler of the Muslim world, the successor to Muhammad, was the Caliph – “the shadow of God on earth.”

The Caliph was both the religious and political head of the Muslim world which, unlike the Christian world, draws no distinction between the two. In North Africa and the Middle East, the lands that the Arab Muslim world expanded into were controlled by the Byzantine Empire, the successor to the Roman Empire, with its capital at Constantinople. These were Christian lands. To the East, between the Middle East and India, was the Persian Empire with a different religious tradition.

At the death of Muhammad in 632, the realm of Islam consisted of northwest Arabia. To the north and west is Christian Byzantium, to the east is Persia. Neither of these were Arab; neither of them were Muslim. But within 100 years, the territory from Persia to Spain was controlled by Muslim Arabs. How did this happen? Egypt, for instance, was not in 632 an Arab country. It was of a different ethnic stock and had been in existence for 3600 years.

What happened was conquest, one of the most impressive in history. Here is a very brief timeline:

1. 630 – Muhammad conquers Mecca from his base in Medina.

2. 632 – Muhammad dies in Medina. Islam controls the Hijaz.

3. 636 – conquest of Syria. Victory in battle over the Byzantines gives Syria and the surrounding lands, all Christian – including Palestine and Iraq – to the Caliph.

4. 636 – 642 Persia conquered by the Muslims.

5. 642 – conquest of Egypt. The Arab/Muslim conquest moves west along North Africa into hitherto non-Arab/non-Muslim lands.

First Muslim invasion of Europe: from the West

6. 711 – Tariq (after whom Gibraltar is named: the Rock of Tariq – Gib al-Tariq) invades Spain. The Muslim conquest moves into Europe.

7. 718 – conquest of Spain complete.

8. 732 – Muslim invasion of France is stopped at the Battle of Poitiers (also called the Battle of Tours). This is regarded as one of the turning points in world history. The Franks, under their leader Charles Martel (the grandfather of Charlemagne), defeat the Muslims and turn them back out of France.

Thus, in exactly 100 years, from the death of The Prophet in 632, to 732, the Arab/Muslim realm had extended from the Hijaz, a province in Arabia, to encompass Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the North African littoral, Spain and, temporarily, part of France.

The first European interaction with Islam is with Islam in the role of a conquering army, and, in the case of Spain, one that comes to stay. Spain became a Muslim colony. Over several hundred years, Spain was reconquered – the reconquista – for Christendom. The last Moors are expelled in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella.

In the 1300’s, the Turks took over leadership of the Muslim world from the Arabs. They established the Ottoman Empire with its capital at Christian Constantinople after conquering it in 1453. The Muslim world under Ottoman leadership began incursions into Europe from the East.

Second Muslim invasion of Europe: from the East

9. 1453 – Muslim Turks conquer Christian Constantinople and make it the seat of the Caliphate

10. 1456 – Muslims conquer Athens

11. 1478 – Serbia, Bosnia, Crimea come under Ottoman control

12. 1480 – Otranto in Italy taken by the Ottomans

13. 1529 – Vienna besieged by the Ottomans

14. 1683 – Battle of Vienna. The Turks are defeated by the Polish king Jan Sobieski leading a combined Polish-Lithuanian army. This is the high-water-mark of Turkish/Muslim conquest of Europe from the East.

1683 is an important year, because after that the Muslim Empire had no further military successes over the West. Thus, while this date seems lost in the mists of time to most Westerners, it remains a vivid memory in Islamic history. It marks the beginning of a downward slide in military fortunes that ended with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire by the British and French in World War I, the occupation of Muslim lands by the European states, and finally the abolition of the Caliphate itself by Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) in 1924.

But in the 1980’s, something important happened. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. decided that it would support the native Afghan resistance, the mujahedeen. This resulted in a massive arms support operation by the CIA, funneled through the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI.

Thus, the American hand was concealed from the mujahedeen. When, particularly with the help of the Stinger missile, the Russians were defeated by the mujahedeen, this represented in their own eyes a victory of Islamic forces over those of a modern state – indeed, a superpower – something not seen since the 17th century in the Muslim world. Here was a model to be built on.

15. 1979 – Soviet Union invades Afghanistan

16. 1988 – Soviet Union leaves Afghanistan, defeated by the Muslim mujahedeen. A victory for Islam over the “West.”

17. 1991 – Soviet Union disintegrates. Who can say that its defeat by the Muslims was not its mortal blow?

Third Muslim invasion of Europe: from the South

And now we find ourselves confronted by a third Muslim attack on the West – a third “invasion of Europe” (if “Europe” is expanded to mean culture as well as geography, and includes North America) by an expansionary Muslim philosophy – by Islamic radicalism. The first Muslim attack was from the West in the 700’s; the second was from the East in the 1400’s – 1600’s; the third began with the defeat of the Soviet Union in 1988 in Afghanistan and its subsequent collapse and is in the form of mass immigration.

The philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell instructs us to ask “as compared to what?” when evaluating and criticizing human enterprise. It is pointless to compare human enterprise to some abstract ideal that has never existed. As Sowell points out, if the standard is set high enough, anything will fail.

Was the British Empire – the archetype of Western imperialism – a bad thing?

As compared to what? As compared to the Muslim Empires? As compared to them, the British Empire was a model of enlightenment. The Muslims pride themselves on their tolerance of minorities. But that tolerance came at the cost of dhimmitude – second-class citizenship and payment of tributes. The British Empire was, yes, established by force, but it was not sustained only by force. It was also sustained by consent. And it left behind a number of the freest, richest, most liberal countries on earth. As compared to the Muslims, the British look pretty good.

But it is not the point of this article that Arab/Muslim imperialism was an evil, or at least was not a unique evil. It was a human enterprise with its strengths and weaknesses. Muslim culture at its highest was high indeed. The Muslims preserved and passed on the learning of the Greeks. The Arabs developed Arabic numerals, and invented the number zero (or the next best thing, recognized the significance of the Indians having done so), the basis of modern mathematics. Algebra is an Arabic word: al-gebera. Muslim letters, science, medicine and architecture were at the highest level of achievement.

But so are our own. Today. We can’t have a double standard here – being impressed by the achievements and conquests of Arab/Muslim civilization but at the same time embarrassed by the even more impressive achievements and conquests of the West. If conquest is something to be embarrassed by, if it is a moral disqualification, then the Arab/Muslims are at the head of the line; Europe is well back on the list! And whatever the achievements of medieval Muslim culture, and they were many, they are in the past. There are few achievements today, and none to compare with those of the West.

Yes, one can certainly ask about spiritual achievement. If the Muslims wish to live in the 8th century, nobody is stopping them. Just as nobody stops the Amish from living in the 18th century. But if the standard is living in the 21st century, then it is clear that the West is a superior culture in all respects – in comfort of living, in science, in medicine, in human rights, in the rights of women to name just a few.

We are in a fight for our lives against Islamic radicalism. We cannot unilaterally disarm ourselves morally because of some imagined slights offered to Muslim culture by the West. Yes, we are the stronger, but that was not always so. When Muslims were the stronger, they prided themselves on their conquests and their cultural and political dominance, which still shape the world in which we live.

Greg Richards is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

Mischievous Moslems ????

O' THOSE "MISCHIEVOUS MOSLEMS" - WHAT A BUNCH OF MERRY PRANKSTERS!

By Don Feder
Posted November 13, 2006

I should seriously write a book called, The Idiots Guide To Not Thinking Seriously About Islam.

It's hard to find a subject where mushy thinking is more in vogue - where political correctness conquers reality more thoroughly. People actually are afraid to think seriously on the subject, because the logical conclusions are too frightening for many to contemplate.

And so, there's no place where comfortable clichés are more readily deployed.

Probably the most glaring illustration of inanity here were recent comments by his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, the 14th earthly incarnation of Larry, Moe and Curly.

On leaving a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of Tibetan Buddhists told reporters that we can't hold all Muslims responsible for the misdeeds of a few.

The Lama: "Nowadays, I often express that due to a few mischievous Muslims' acts we should not consider all Muslims as something bad. That is very unfair."

Expanding on this dazzling analysis, the Dalai Lama continued: "A few mischievous people you can find from all religions - among Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists. To generalize is not correct."

O.K., now I know this will get me scratched from the invite list for Richard Gere's New Year's Eve party, but I just gotta ask: When was the last time a bald guy in a saffron robe threatened to kill someone they believed had insulted the Buddha?

While we're at it, when was the last time a gang of Talmudic scholars tried to blow up anything? Did the Vatican put out a fatwah on "DaVinci Code" author Dan Brown? The last holy war committed in the name of Christianity was over 800 years ago. If Hindus behead hostages, I've somehow managed to miss it.

"A few mischievous Muslims" makes kidnapping, torture, beheadings, bomb plots, mass murder and death threats sound like schoolboy pranks. It's September 11, 2001, and some high-spirited Muslim merrymakers just crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, slaughtering 3,000 innocents. What a lark!

Here are some recent examples of Muslim high-jinks:

* In Iraq, Father Paulis Iskander, a Syrian-Orthodox priest, was kidnapped by a few Muslim pranksters. After good-naturedly torturing him, they beheaded the priest. This was in retaliation for Pope Benedict XVI's quote of a 14th. century Byzantine emperor. Jihadists apparently missed the Catholic-Orthodox schism (1054 AD) - or maybe all Crusaders look the same to them.

* There are 1 million Assyrian Christians in Iraq - but not for long. They've been targeted by every side in the civil war. On September 24th, two bombs exploded in St. Mary's Cathedral in Baghdad. Earlier, a church was bombed in Basra.

* Muslims celebrated their holy month of Ramadan by racking up an impressive body count -- more than 1,600 dead in 280 separate terror attacks in 17 countries. As I recall, for my bar mitzvah, I didn't kill anyone. But I did hurt someone's feelings on Passover, once.

* In a recent column, former New York Mayor Ed Koch reports on a meeting he had with Pope John Paul II in the early 1990s. Forthright fellow that he is, Koch asked the pope why the Vatican didn't recognize Israel (it did a few years later), Koch says John Paul II replied: "It will happen someday, but it can't happen now. I have a responsibility to the Catholics who live in Koranic lands and who would be in danger if we recognized Israel." This wasn't paranoia. John Paul knew exactly what happens when Muslims get testy.

* In Germany, the government is starting to crack down on an estimated 5,000 Islamist websites that are "spreading hatred" and "hawking terror." I see, those few mischievous Muslims must all be web-site designers and computer geeks.

* Then again, perhaps they're all involved in mass communications. The American-Muslim TV network, broadcasting in six states to a potential audience of two million, says its mission is "to improve the image of Muslims in the United States." Recent programming included the broadcast of an anti-Semitic/anti-Christian sermon, with the supplication: "May God destroy them."

* In Atlanta, Ethiopian immigrant Khalid Adem is on trial for circumcising his then-two-year-old daughter. Female genital mutilation is all the rage among African Muslims.

* Islamic funsters tend to be particularly hard on the ladies. There are as many as 300,000 runaway girls in happenin' Iran, some as young as

9. It's estimated that 86% of the runaways were rejected by their families after they were raped. In Prophet-land, rape is shameful - for the victim.

* Islam's rhetorical war against the hated Zionist entity continues. In Karachi, Pakistan, a few mischievous Muslims - well, 6,000 to be exact - marched through the streets shouting "Death to Israel! Death America." That's how Muslim merrymakers celebrate Al-Qods Day (or Jerusalem Day).

* His Naziness Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (president of 68 million waggish Iranians) continues to assure us that Israel will be "wiped from the map," the Holocaust is a "myth," and any nation that sides with the Jewish state will face the "boiling wrath" of adherents to the religion of peace.

* On October 24, the Taliban announced it was planning attacks on civilian targets in Europe, in revenge for the invasion of Afghanistan that resulted in toppling its regime. A Taliban commander observed on Sky News television: "It's acceptable to kill ordinary people in Europe because these are the people who have voted in the government.... We will kill them and laugh over them." Like the Dalai Lama said, these guys have a sense of humor.

* As noted earlier, there is no freedom of conscience in Islam (or freedom of anything else, for that matter). In Ethiopia, in July, a mischievous Muslim mob attacked a group of Christians in the city of Henno. The victims included two prominent Christians who had converted from Islam. The Muslim scamps used knives, stones and metal bars to reinforce the point that - like the Syndicate - there's only one way out of this organization.

* The Afghans who kidnapped Italian journalist Gabriele Torsello have offered to exchange him for Abdul Rahman, a Christian convert forced to flee the country. His own family wants Rahman dead. Bring back Rahman so we may instruct him in the finer points of Sharia, the abductors of Torsello plead.

* In Britain, there are veiled threats over the suggestion by Tony Blair and others, that some Muslim chicks stop dressing like they just stepped off a camel caravan (full face veil).

* Perhaps the Brits are thinking that if their homegrown Sons and Daughters of Allah were more assimilated, they wouldn't be subjected to high-spirited pranks like the 2005 London transit bombings (52 commuters dead) or the foiled August plot to blow up 10 U.S.-bound jetliners (with a potential death toll exceeding 9/11)

* Across the Channel, Robert Redeker (a French high-school philosophy teacher) is a marked man, since the publication of his September 19 piece in Le Figaro, wherein he called the Koran "a book of extraordinary violence" (Hello, Dalai!) and observed that Mohammed was "a pitiless warlord, pillager , massacrer of Jews and polygamist" - in other words, a 7th. century Arabian rascal. E-mail death threats started pouring in the day the article ran. One naughty website published a map showing the exact location of his home, along with photos of Redeker and his workplace. (An e-mail amusingly informed the teacher: "You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred million Muslims are ready to kill you.")

* All it took was one guy named Mohammed to murder Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, for making a movie about the treatment of women in the wacky world of Islam. Van Gogh was shot, stabbed, had his throat slashed. A note by the killer pinned to his body read, "I did what I did purely out of my beliefs."

* A spokesman for a French police union says Muslim youths are waging a "civil war" against the gendarmes. The Gallic intifada that started last November never really stopped. At one point last year, disaffected "youth," as the French press discretely calls them, were torching 1,300 cars a night, to cries of "Allahu Akbar." Rioting spread to 300 French cities and spilled over into Belgium and Germany. Now, whenever French cops go to housing projects they are assaulted with everything from stones to guns and Molotov cocktails. Nearly 2,500 officers have been injured this year.

To return to the Dalai Lama's daft observation, while it is undoubtedly true that most Muslims don't want to jihad us - there are enough who do. In a 2005 survey by The Daily Telegraph, one quarter of British Muslims said they had at least some sympathy with their coreligionists who murdered 52 random Brits in the July commuter bombings. One-quarter of a million is more than "a few."

Add to this number the minions of al-Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Jihad-this, and Army of God-that, the mobs in Tehran, Karachi and Dar es Saalam etc., the ayatollahs, imams, sheiks, mullahs, their blind followers and rabid supporters - not to mention the Saudis funding radical mosques and madrassahs from the Queens to Calcutta and beyond. It all adds up to a whole lot of Muslim mischief-making.

And let's not forget the millions (tens of millions? hundreds of millions?) of Muslims who aren't actually killing anyone, or condoning the killing of anyone (except Jews, of course), who nevertheless think it would be swell if the whole world lived under Islamic law -- with honor-killings and genital-mutilation for all.

Now, here's the really scary part: As Mark Steyn points out in his book America Alone: The End of The World As We Know It, between 1970 and 2000, while the share of the world's population represented by industrialized nations fell from just under 30% to just over 20%, the mischievous nations (whose principal manufactured products are jihad and general theological nuttiness) went from 15% to around 20%.

What nations have the highest fertility rates? So sorry you asked. (and you will be too when you see the answer) -- Niger (7.46 children per woman), Mali (7.42), Somalia (6.76), Afghanistan (6.69) and Yemen (6.58). Says Steyn: "Notice what they have in common? Starts with an I, ends with a slam."

For comparison, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 2.11, about replacement level. That's high next to Canada (1.5), Germany (1.3), Russia and Italy (1.2) and Spain (1.1). Of the 10 nations with the lowest birthrates, 9 are in Europe.

It gets worse. Consider the percentage of population currently under 15 years of age - a harbinger of future demographic growth - Spain and Germany (14%), the U.K (18%), the U.S. (21%), Saudi Arabia (39%), Pakistan (40%) and Yemen (47%).

We're told that Muslims are 10% of the population of France. But of "Frenchmen" under 20, 30% are mischievous. In the U.K. there are more Moslems in mosque each week than Christians attending Church of England services.

Forget suicide bombs; they're detonating population bombs.

Should we "consider all Muslims as something bad"? Of course not. Should we consider Islam as something bad? That's an entirely different question - one which politicians, Lamas and the mainstream media studiously avoid - when they're not babbling about the "religion of peace."

And if Islam itself is "something bad" - if a faith embraced by 1.3 billion people contains within it the seeds of the evil we see all around us (requiring only the right conditions to germinate) -- what does that say for the future of a world where Islam is the fastest growing religion?

Some of us live on comfortable estates in India, writing books about inner-peace and harmony, while contemplating the sound of one hand clapping. Others of us live in the real world.

This commentary originally appeared at GrasstopsUS

Islam VS. Christianity: Some Contrasts

It most strongly appears that the Holy See and too many others have made a decision to cast a purposeful fog of ignorance over the differences between Christianity and Islam. That act is one which conceals truth and is, therefore, a sin and a crime.

Therefore, it is well past the time to point out the following differences between the teachings, practices, founders, and “fruits” of Christianity and Islam.

1.Jesus Christ (Whom Christians believe was the Son of God) taught love, peace and forgiveness as the basic virtues and foundations of His faith. Even though He reprimanded over-arrogant teachers, child abusers and those (The money changers) who commercialized religion, His responses were mostly controlled. Even if, as some “Christians” hold, he was “only” the best-of-men, his commitment to love, service and poverty would be a great example to all for all time and for all people.
2.Mohammed was a liar (Beyond his claim to be a prophet), an oath-breaker, robber, murderer, and sexual abuser of a nine-year old girl-child. His declarations of what was the will of Allah changed to suit his change in fortunes and perverted physical desires.
3.When Christians (Especially in the USA) give charity, they do so without regard to the
religion of those in need as the many millions of private and government aid given to the victims of the recent Tsunami, even to those (ie Muslims) who have so often declared their hate of Christians and their desire to destroy our Faith, Nation and Civilization.
4.When Muslims give “charity” it is very rare for them to do so except to others of their own ideology and much too often such “charity” is given to terrorist organizations or to such as the parents of suicide murderers to reward them for raising up and misdirecting such criminals.
5.When Christians go forth to “preach the Gospel” they do so with love, a willingness to suffer even death to do so and very often as part of a campaign to physically heal diseases and injuries. (Oh, yes---There were times when that conversion process was supported by armed force as sword-and-fire were used against such as the Aztecs, who ripped the hearts out of thousands on their temple mounts, or the Pagans of the North who hung their human sacrifices in their sacred oak groves.)
6.When Muslims go forth to spread Islam they do so with sword or assault rifle in hand, with a desire to subjugate others and with robbery and rape in mind (As is now occurring The Sudan.) This has not changed in the last 1400-years.
7.One of the best fruits of the tree of Christianity are the many Western universities, which began as religious schools, but quickly expanded to include medicine, civil (NOT religious) law, the liberal arts, “natural philosophy” (ie The basis of all sciences)
AND to every art and science which now so improves the state of human beings and has raised so many up above the beast-like existence so much in place before that very Catholic invention. Those universities became the centers of rational thought (Although too many have left that path, even in the West), logic as the partner of Faith and the well source of invention, artistic endeavor and creativity.
8.For a short time Islam hung on its tree the best of Indian, Egyptian, Persian and Jewish philosophy and science. But, they did NOT graft those gifts to Islam and they wilted or fell off, leaving only the basic teachings of Mohammed behind to trouble the world.
9.In the West (And, now India and the Far East) the human mind has developed many
inventions and new technologies, for better or worse, on the base of the above-noted
universities and the creative use of logic and thought. The millions of patents, the Nobel prizes for science, are all well known to all.
10.Within Islam there are no Nobel prize winners in such areas and few, if any, new inventions; The interest in technology appears to be centered on such weapons as will allow Islam to subjugate others.
11.In the West musical and artistic creativity produces fields of creative flowers (With some rank weeds mixed in); What is good-and-beautiful being greater than what is ugly-and-evil.
12.In strict/traditional Islam there is little but sterile geometric shapes for art and very limited approval of Jihadi marching songs (Along with some Pre-Islamic musical forms).
13.In our civilization, we worship LIFE.
14.Islam, by the admission of its teachers, worships DEATH.

WHY THEN IS SO MUCH EFFORT BEING EXPENDED TO HIDE THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM AND HOW IT DIFFERS FROM CHRISTIAN-BASED WESTERN CIVILIZATION? WHY WILL THE HOLY SEE NOT DECLARE AND PROCLAIM THE ABOVE-NOTED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE REST OF THE WORLD? WHY NOT ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THAT ISLAM IS THE WELL-SOURCE OF HATE, MURDER, GENOCIDE, WAR AND TERROR IN THIS AGE'S WORLD?

Forgiving My Enemies

As a Catholic-Christian I am required to forgive my enemies (70 X 7 Times).

HOWEVER, I see no reason to hold myself to a higher standard for such forgiveness than that held by my Church---Which requires confession-of-fault, contrition and an honest expression of intent to not sin again before forgiveness is allowed. (Penance, including restitution, may be needed to complete the process.)

THEREFORE, the person who continues to offend against me and will not confess that as a fault/sin and refuses to show contrition or intent to stop offending against me (And, mine ***)will NOT receive my forgiveness.

PERHAPS, the classic example of such, over the last 1400-years, is the position of orthodox Islam which will NOT acknowledge the faults of its members who use murder, rape, genocide, robbery, perpetual war against Non-Muslims, revenge and the other horrors taught by Mohammed to further the cause of that criminal ideology.


*** "Mine" = My family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens and all who support humane and civilized behaviors and cultures.

A Natural Law Self-Test

The following represents my efforts as defining the Natural Law base and necessary conclusions as to self-defense and the defense of innocent others. The above should be used, as a self-test, as to the reader's understanding of the ethics of force.

PREMISES

1.Every human being has a (Natural Law) right to life.
2.Every human has a right to protect self against unjust attacks on his/her life.
3.That right does NOT extend to aggressors who are attacking other persons.
4.The most innocent persons and in need of defense are: Unborn children; And, the aged and infirm who are incapable of defending themselves.
5.There are instances where, in defense of self or others (As either individuals or societies), the taking of human life is necessary and proper.
6.Property represents the time expended to honestly earn it by physical or mental effort. Property, in fact, represents life.
7.There are instances when rights-and-duties under Natural Law conflict with those civil (Even democratically enacted) law (eg The abortion issues).
8.“That Commandment” should be translated as: “Thou shall not murder!”.

CONCLUSIONS

1.Every human being has a Natural Law right to either the expectation that s/he will be
immediately protected from deadly attack by others (eg Government authorities) OR will have immediate access to effective means of self-defense (ie Modern firearms).
2.Every human has the right, if not the duty, to extend that protection to innocent persons when such are unjustly attacked.
3.Every human being has a Natural Law right to protect that part of their property as represented by the honest labor for which they spent a part of their life, even if the State will not do so, by any means (Including deadly force) needed to do so.

EXAMPLES FOR DISCUSSION

1.The abortion of an unborn child may be an outcome of saving its mother's life in
cases as such cancers as would require the removal of the uterus during pregnancy. Is this in accordance with Natural or Moral Law?
2.Abandoning the aged or infirm to deadly danger so that others may be saved from death (eg “Women and children first!” in abandoning a ship in peril). Is this subject to moral strictures or firm guidelines as opposed to “situational ethics”?
3.If the State will not do so, is it permitted to use such force as is necessary (Including deadly force) to stop an abortionist-at-work or someone attempting to commit an act of euthanasia?
4.As honestly earned property represents human life, is it permitted to use deadly force to stop a robber?

QUESTIONS

1.Do you have any objections to the premises given above? If so, what are they and what
is the basis for those objections?
2.If “yes”, then discuss those objections in terms of the conclusions given above and as to the examples-for-discussion provided above.