You know, I'm beginning to think that the entire population of Berkeley, California has some sort of mental disorder.  They tried to shut down the Marine Corps recruiting office in town, equated Marines with terrorists at their town meeting, and when the council sided with them, they went back to the office to picket with violence based signs and banners.  It seems to me that they are the real hate-mongers.

I remember when I was a Marine stationed in California in '89.  I was in a bar having a beer, watching the news on television.  Two Berkeley students began verbally attacking me with names like "baby killer" and "government sponsored serial killer."  (I thought I was in a time-warp to '69!) When I pointed out that they were the real baby killers for justifying abortion, and said "go whine to someone else," I was shoved off of the barstool.  Well, it turned into a fight, obviously.  A broken arm and unconsciousness later (not mine, thank God!) I was hauled away by MPs, but thanks to the testimony of the bartender, I was released with only a verbal reprimand - no page 11!  I'm glad I wasn't in Berkeley when it happened...I'd be tried for attempted murder or something equally ridiculous.

It warms my heart to see the nationwide support for the Marines; and against the Berkeley council's decision.

One of my children once said, "Dad, you should run for President."  The statement got me thinking about how I would handle all of the nations problems.  From foreign relations, the war, the domestic economy, foreign trade, immigration, etc., I realized that I had a lot of strong ideas.  These ideas would prove to be very unpopular.  After going over my ideas, I kept coming back to the one reason I should not become President:  I would be assassinated before the completion of my first year in office.

I heard today that the Boy Scouts of America, at least one Troop in Texas, is awarding a new achievement patch, for learning about how to deal with bullies.  Apparently, it is stitched on somewhere between the knots patch and helping old ladies across the street.

To gain this patch, they have a class, where they learn how to deal with bullies.  Well, apparently dealing with bullies is much easier than I imagined.  All you have to do is tell the bully how much it hurts.  And to think that all my life, I thought you had to show them how it hurts.  When are these imbeciles going to realize that you absolutely CAN NOT reason with a bully.  Telling him, "you're hurting me" is idiotic.  Of course it hurts - that is his intention, stupid.  If anything, he'll only do it more due to his utter satisfaction.  Running away doesn't work either, it only earns the poor kid more ridicule.

I have an idea.  Instead of teaching these poor lads to be victims for the rest of their lives, teach them the ONLY time-tested method of dealing with bullies:  MAKE THEM HORIZONTAL!  Now, THAT's satisfaction!!!  It sure changed my life in the fourth grade;  I would have been the unpopular playground runt for eternity.  Instead, I knocked a tooth out and everyone liked me after that.  Why?  BECAUSE I stood up to the oversized punk!

I am sickened with this "touchy-feely" garbage.  It's a sin with the "Zero Tolerance Policies" which have run amock in the Schools, indeed throughout our entire society.  Most Americans just don't stand up anymore; they whimper, whine and cower like whipped puppies.  Give those boys some toy guns and bows and let 'em play cowboys and indians for cryin' out loud!  They are BOYS; future defenders of our Nation, society and culture.  Maybe that's the whole plan?

Anyway, I can only imagine what this new achievement patch looks like:  It's probably shaped like a flower with the image of a boy inside bearing a black eye and empty pockets.

The North American Socialist Republic.

One of my ideas, written in November 1984.

Foreword: It was a delight for me to find this among one of my old high school notebooks, scribbled on three sheets of lined paper. I wrote it in November 1984, when I was seventeen and in eleventh grade. The ideas came from George Orwell’s book, 1984, the movie Red Dawn, and my observations about the United States. It was intended as a mere hypothetical scenario, which amazingly seems somewhat similar to today. Obviously the dates are still future, but who would have known back then that things could happen so fast?  Originally, it was going to be used for a short story, a tale narrated by an old revolutionary to his grandson who had never seen the "United States," because of its demise.  The actual handwritten text is in italics.  There were several marginal doodles which I will not include here for obvious reasons.

 

History of how N.A.S.R. came to be:

2025: The UN is covertly hijacked by the Soviet Union and China. The international body begins to legislate new international laws for "the good of humanity."

2027: A new trade law which coerces wealthier nations to charge very reduced tariffs on imports from "poorer" ones.

2029: UN operatives (mostly Russian and Chinese) come to the US under the guise of business men who decide to become citizens, called "plants." Their objective is to lobby for socialist programs and financially back socialist-leaning candidates. Monies from the Motherlands are sent to finance these public officials’ campaigns.

2034: Now, with these candidates in office, and possessing a sense of debt to the "plants," they begin to push their agenda. The legislatures begin to vote on laws which will infringe freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. Most do not get passed, but they are patient. They decide to weaken the US more by coercing them into a war "for humanitarian purposes" against Iran who has launched a nuclear weapon at Iraq. Naval, Aerial, and Ground Troops are deployed; the war continues for ten years, leaving the US a weaker defense.

2037: The first great, socialist program is passed. The NATO Free Trade Aliance. This calls for all NATO nations to permit free trade between them. This will seem like a good idea, being that all of the nations involved are allies. This programs purpose is to make the US more dependent and lower the value of the US dollar.

2038: The plants next need to stir up the people in the United States. Understanding T. Roosevelt’s call to be American and not split allegiance, i.e. conflicting interest, the plan is to allow people to have citizenship in more than one country, "so long as they are allies." The idea here is to get the people to think less about sovereignty, and more about a world "community." This will give the Motherlands greater leverage when everything is "in place." Also, US imports from foreign nations make up seventy five percent of all products. Now the UN has them economically.

2039: Some civil unrest occurs, just as they expected, because of divided loyalties. The descendants of those who have long lived in the US become distrustful of newcomers due to their becoming more politically active, and their conflicting interests.

2040: With the more open borders, large influxes of people from around the world flood the US, increasing political leverage over the old majority. Many conflicts arise, causing the legislatures to pass a new law.

2041: This new law, called "Decency of Speech Law" makes it illegal to isolate a person on the basis of any distinction, i.e. gender, race or religion. For example, to call someone "Black" would be against the law. What this does is makes law-enforcement almost impossible, which conversely creates a crime wave. The crime wave, mostly perpetrated by newcomer minority groups due to poverty, wreaks havoc in many localities.

2042: After the arrest of several "old majority" politicians based on invented charges of "conspiracy", the old majority population begins a movement against the "Communist Conspiracy." The people who believe the Communist Conspiracy are portrayed as "subversives" and "nuts" by the Soviet controlled politicians. The UN calls for more US troops to Iran, as the war has also spread to India. When the US refuses due to lack of funds and troops, trade sanctions are placed against them. The US threatens to pull the troops out of Iran. Suddenly, however, they can not due to a surprise Chinese and Soviet blockade in the Indian Ocean.

2043: The fully controlled legislature now passes the "Public Safety Law" which requires any gun which can hold more than one round at a time to be turned in, and all other single shot guns to be registered. This instigates the people even more to revolt. Revolts in South Carolina, Texas, Arizona and New Hampshire are put down swiftly by the Federal Police (A Paramilitary Force founded in 2039). Again, the "subversives" are portrayed as unstable and "un-American." The rest submit to the law.

2044: With the people virtually unarmed, and the military decimated and almost non-existent through foreign war, the Soviet Navy attacks the port cities of New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and San Francisco. Soviet troops land and take the Capitol, as well as New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Los Angeles. Aerial attacks of nuclear plants and major power generators create blanket blackouts which cross state lines. Railways and Airports are targeted and shut down. Phone lines are destroyed so that communications are cut off.

2045: Most of the US has been overrun by Soviet troops, while Chinese begin to arrive on the Pacific Coast, taking the states west of the Rockies. The only sovereign areas left are portions of the Midwest, primarily Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Wyoming.

2046: Nuclear attacks on suspected "subversive" bases finish the takeover.

2047: The creation of the North American Socialist Republic is begun.

Being a gun owner and adamant defender of the Second Amendment, I obviously have to justify my self-defense ideology with my faith, namely Christianity.  I was recently involved in a debate with another regarding this seemingly contradictory perspective.  Of course, the most commonly heard quote from Jesus is the mention of turning the other cheek, so that your enemy can slap it as well.  In other words, this doesn't seem to square with the idea of self-defense. 

During Jesus' ministry, He seemed not to want his disciples armed.  Why?  Common interpretation falls back on the previous statement; turn the other cheek.  But was that the real reason for being unarmed?  You have to understand that there was a strong feeling that Jesus was going to take the throne as the Messiah and rule from Earth.  Jesus countered this interpretation many times with expressions such as "My kingdom is not of this world."  So why did He want the disciples unarmed?

Jesus understood that He must be crucified, and therefore die, before the kingdom could come.  All sin must be atoned first.  We also know that Jesus consistently warned His disciples that many would seek to destroy them.  However, so long as the disciples were unarmed, they would not be able to save Jesus' life based upon the false idea that He had to live on Earth to rule the kingdom.

 

However, once Jesus died and was resurrected, the disciples would not be hindered by this Earth-based kingdom, and therefore would not seek to save His life.  For this reason, Jesus, close to his crucifixion, told them something which most certainly represents their need to defend themselves:

And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end." So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough." (Luke xxii.35-38 - NKJV.)

So, it was not that Jesus did not want them to defend themselves, but rather He did not want them to defend Him.

We all know that the mainstream media has a distinctly liberal bias.  We see it in everything including the war in Iraq, Immigration, Education, Global Warming, and Firearms.  They try to release poll after poll which favors their left-wing agenda.  Whenever a poll proves unfavorable to their agenda, it quickly gets buried.  The mainstream media, for all intents and purposes, controls the polls. 

However, we know that these polls are often very inaccurate.  Case in point: the New Jersey Stem Cell Funding bill voted on last November.  Early polls indicated that the people were highly in favor of it.  However the November vote revealed that the People overwhelmingly were against State funding of stem-cell research.  This example revealed the exact opposite of reality.  Understanding this media poll inaccuracy is key in understanding how the caucuses are going.

I noticed early on that the polls revealed four top Republican candidates, namely Romney, Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani.  The first three are the weakest Republicans in my opinion; Romney is weak on foreign policy, Huckabee is weak on immigration, and McCain is weak in priorities overall.  Giuliani is a fairly strong candidate, but is unlikely to win because of much of the undeserved negative press.  The Conservative media latched onto these candidates as the best hope based upon these early polls, and therefore provided much more coverage to them than the other candidates, namely Hunter, Paul, and Thompson.  I think that the Conservative media has been played by the Liberal media.

We have to understand that Thompson entered the race late, but has the aura of celebrity, which has allowed him to move up and get more camera and debate time.  Paul is a strong Republican, but I am not one of his supporters primarily because of his extreme isolationist philosophy and his apparent support from (and perhaps for) white supremacist groups.  Hunter, on the other hand, is an extremely strong Republican, and is very likely the best hope for a Republican win in November.

Instead, the Conservative media is being misled by the Liberal media into pushing the weaker candidates, thus guaranteeing a Democratic White House.  Because of a lack of coverage, Hunter, Paul and Thompson fall further in the polls keeping them out of debates, etc.  You see, the more you promote one name over another, the more popular that one will become simply by familiarity.  Our conservative media needs to try harder to promote all Republican candidates equally so that the policies and ideologies of ALL of the candidates gets out to the public so that they can make a far more educated decision at the caucuses.

I am not generally content with voting for the "better of two evils."  Hunter is, by far, the absolute best candidate for the Republican party in both steadfastness and policy.

Even if you do not favor Hunter, please pray for his Marine son.

 

Well, folks, 2008 is here, and we have our first homicide in the Philadelphia area.  As the authorities begin to tally up the homicides for this year - as they do every year - we will be sure to get a slanted, yet running tally of murders as they escalate.

Here's the big problem: the very first homicide in Philadelphia was a stabbing of a fifty-five year old man.  Although the press for this will only last until about noon, the murder will be counted in all homicides - as it should.  When the politicians begin crying for gun control, they'll use this stabbing, as well as all other methods of homicide in their total tally of how dangerous firearms are to public safety.   The media will push these homicides (and the need for more gun control) droning the unthinking public into agreement.

We have checks and balances in government, why not in the media?  They are permitted to spoon feed the public whatever they please, which usually translates into liberal policies.  We all know that firearms are not the leading weapon in homicides.  If we research even deeper, we find that legally owned firearms account for only a minute number of gun-related homicides.  But the media doesn't tell anyone that.  Another example of media ignorance/will to destroy liberty:  We also know that there never was a debate for Anthropogenic Global Warming, yet we are told about a "consensus" and that "the debate is over."   Fortunately, more and more is being said against it.  Let's just hope that our representatives listen to the scientific logic before they start handing our money over to the UN so that this foreign dictatorship can support countries who promote genocide.  The media wants us to feel sorry for how terrorists are interrogated - but do not tell anyone that terrorists view the Geneva convention and the US Constitution in total disdain.

It's up to us to stand up and educate the public regarding the other side of the story.  The only problem here is that the media tends to paint dissenters as immoral or ignorant - in the same way the old church used to stifle opposing points of view by painting them as "heretics" or "demon possessed."

I'm a gun-owner, but I'm certainly not the "trigger happy" yokel which the media likes to portray.  I disbelieve in AGW because, not only do I remember the Global Cooling scare of the '70s, but also that I know history, and that the climate is supposed to go up and down - not to mention the fact that man is responsible for only 0.28% of ALL greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Regarding terrorist interrogations, well, I kind of prefer bolt cutters to knuckles myself - whatever it takes to get the information in order to save AMERICAN lives.  (Boy, I'll probably "get it" for that one.)

We've all heard about Fundamentalist Islam, more commonly called "Islamofascism," or "Extremist Islam."  Let's just say "terrorist Islam."  Please, do not confuse this with Moderate Islam; which does not seek to kill Americans.  Well, Christianity has a similar problem, but it is the polar opposite of such extremism.

You see, the Christian faith began in the First Century, under persecution by both Rome and the Pharisees, primarily.  These early Christians had no means through which to effect political change.  They pretty much stayed out of the political arena.  We all remember Jesus' famous quote regarding taxes, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."  Because they lived under the totalitarian rule of Caesar, they detached themselves from political activism.  

However, today, we Americans live in a completely different society, under very different political circumstances.  We the People of the United States have the power to make political change - as well as societal change - within our own nation, but we have to STAND UP and make our voices heard.  The People are the United States. 

We point out Fundamental Islam's anachronistic mentality, meaning that they have regressed to the religious attitudes of the Seventh Century, but we fail to notice the segment of Christianity which regresses back to the First Century in political perspective.  I call it Fundamentalist Christianity, and it is just as dangerous to the United States as is Fundamentalist Islam.  Does this sound crazy?  Read on.

I know many Christians who are eagerly awaiting the return of Christ.  Some of them feel an obligation to cast their vote, that is, voice their opinion in the U.S. political arena - as they should.  However, there are some, who following in the footsteps of the First Century disciples, detach themselves from the political system we have here in the United States, feeling that "the End is near" and that such things are supposed to happen according to prophecy.  By taking this stance, they permit and empower many horrific societal and political changes.

Now, I particularly blame a particular Biblical eschatology (that is, End-Times prophetic interpretation) for this growing problem.  You see, for millennia now, there has been a belief in an "immanent" return of Christ; every generation believes that it is "the generation" which Jesus said would experience "the End."  Many Christian sects have sprung from these ideas, and have generally been detrimental to society.  The "Flagellantes," for example, thought that somehow physically beating themselves would help them in the Judgement.   Sects of this sort still exist today.  But these types mostly only harm themselves more than society - and they tend to be rather small sects.   However, there are other sects which take the view of the previous, namely that it is no use to try and affect changes in society or politics because it is pre-ordained, and inevitable because the "End" is near - and Christ will return any day now to mop up the mess.  In the United States, however, this Fundamentalist Christian mindset is part of the cause of the mess - because they do not stand up for morality in the political arena.

When Christians make predictions which do not come true, it not only brings their eschatology into question, but also their "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit, Who was to "lead them into all truth."  In Deuteronomy, God told the Israelites that if someone (a prophet) made a prediction that did not come true, they were not of Him, and you should not listen to them.  But many have made such predictions.  I am not naming sects here, but I will give examples of this error.  One group has predicted the end 27 times in the last century alone - all of which have failed.  Widespread panic around the year AD 1000 was promulgated by the Church in an effort to prepare the "world" for the "End" which they were certain was very close (Millennialist Eschatology.)   If you didn't notice, the Millennialist Theory struck again in AD 2000, with a "certainty" that the "End" was near - among many groups.  All of these have obviously failed.  Should anyone listen to anything else they say?

But that is the danger folks.  I know a few people who are convinced that all of these events, the degradation of American society, as well as world events are "signs" of the coming "End."   For this reason, they make no effort to change the growing immorality in America, and are even gleeful at the destruction of non-believers and the immoral.  It just seems a bit counter to the teachings of Christ.  Are we not supposed to mourn the death of non-believers because they have not accepted Christ, and face the Judgment before the Lord?  Didn't Jesus ask forgiveness for those who were driving the nails into His hands?  These groups bemoan the immorality within society, and often mark the U.S. as "evil," apparently unaware that they are part of the reason why much of the immorality has gained strength within our borders.

The damage which this faulty eschatology causes within the United States is one of introversion - such believers, again, living as if in the First Century, view domestic and world events as if they are prophetically inevitable, and that any stand against them is futile.   This is one reason why I am not a Millennialist.  I am a Preterist; I believe that all these events happened when Jesus said they would "in this generation," namely His generation, the generation of the First Century.  The idea that ALL of those "signs" were to happen in that generation as predicted by Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John the Evangelist.  The sentiment is repeated over eighty times in the New Testament that the End was immanent then.  The persecution, surrounding and subsequent destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem were the signs of which Jesus spoke regarding the Judgment and His return (parousia.)

I'm not preaching to you, really.  You don't have to subscribe to the Preterist eschatology, I'm only trying to point out the other, equally damaging power of religion, namely detachment from the world.

This is just a quick note.  I've noticed that more and more often politicians do not do the obvious will of the People.  For example, in New Jersey, Fuhrer Corzine has not only abolished Capital Punishment (something never open to voters), but even worse, when the People are given such a subject to vote upon, the totalitarian governor does what he wishes against their will, namely the stem-cell amendment.  The People said no, the Fuhrer said he's going ahead with it anyway.  Um...the word "traitor" and "enemy of the State" come to mind.

Anyway, the root of this problem is that, once elected, the People do not have an effective check against such treasons.  Sure they could try impeachment, but that is a long, drawn-out process, which allows the official to continue on his agenda.  Not to mention the cost to taxpayers.  Ultimately, the People, when faced with such a tyrant, have to wait out his term.

Here's my work-in-progress suggestion.  Every election, the People vote on major issues as well as candidates (regardless of which offices are being voted.)  In this way, the People can hold ALL politicians accountable for not passing something which the people desire.

Hypothetical.  Let's say that in the upcoming election one of the issues is Free Trade: the repeal of NAFTA.  The People vote and they are 80% for the repeal.  Just for fun, let's say Clinton is elected ("it's the End I tell you!").  Now, "President Clinton" as well as ALL other elected officials to include Congress and the Senate must perform the will of the People, or face immediate dismissal.  They will be held accountable.

I know this is simplistic.  Obviously, if we have a 52 - 48 vote, there could be trouble.  As I mentioned, it is a work in progress, and Constitutional agreement must be researched.  However, I can think of no more effective way to empower the People against special interests.

Stay tuned.

Now that I've had a few days to think about the Bhutto assassination and the future of our activities in Pakistan, particularly, I have come to my conclusion.  Feel free to jump in with your analysis and solutions; I'm all ears.  All I know is that something must be done, and done fast.

First, it is, in all honesty, irrelevant to United States interests who killed her.  It is well known that she had many death threats against her, as well as a rather large portion of the population who did not trust her.  Likewise, Musharraf's life has also been threatened on many occasions.  It is likely, in an atmosphere of such emotionally-driven ideologies, that all politicians in Pakistan have received similar threats.  So let's drop the unknowable and irrelevant.  What we do know is that an unstable Pakistan is definitely a threat.  For example, an attack against India could begin a myriad of shockwaves emanating outward - a cataclysmic spawning of attacks, crossing over into other nations.  These nations would then seize the opportunity of turmoil and distraction to attack their enemies.  This is not a hyped up possibility.  It is quite probable.

Second, we need to consider how stability can be regained since Bhutto's assassination and the subsequent postponement of elections.  Well, duh, who's in power now?  Musharraf.  We deal through him, and deal quickly - while the coals are still hot.  Calls for "democracy" in a nation with such adamantly independent and segregated ideologies are downright foolish.  For America's safety and interest, we need to act now.  We have to force him to regain control over the nation.  We can not allow extremists to gain control of the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal - PERIOD. 

 

Finally, don't be silly, we simply do not have the troop assets to dedicate to any sort of military action in that area at this time.  But I do have some suggestions which could certainly be quite effective.  We already know that we actually pay Pakistan for their allegance (basically), and Musharraf has delivered terrorists to us in the past.  Warning, my solutions may be difficult to stomach for those who place greater value on the Geneva convention than on America's security.  If that's the case, don't read on.  Honestly, the "democratic fairness" of Pakistan is of little consequence to me.  My concern is American security.  Okay, disclaimers aside, here's my tentative plan.

1) Coerce Musharraf to declare absolute Martial Law in all of Pakistan.  We can not do this publicly for the main reason that it will cause Musharraf to lose the respect of his army, and also cause the Pakistanis to question their own sovereignty - increasing anti-Americanism.

2) Demand that he remove all elements of extremism from his military.

    2a) we could make this worth his while by giving $1000 per terrorist/sympathizer captured.

    2b) make sure that there is legitimate documentation of suspect terrorists' affiliation.

    2c) allow him to try and punish sympathizers according to their Martial Law, and send us the more diehard members of Al-Qaeda.

3) After his military is cleared of extremists, then he should clear the civilian population of extremists, requiring the same methodology as used in purging his military.

4) Utilizing intelligence, to include satellite imagery, isolate and keep track of Pakistan's nuclear arms.

5) Keep a U.S. nuclear submarine in range of said targets. (Make sure that Musharraf understands the immanent strike possibilities, namely, if Musharraf loses power or is killed these targets will be struck with lightning fast precision - ALL of them will be liquidated; we have that ability.)

6) Once Musharraf has stabilized the nation, then, and only then, can they even approach the idea of democracy.  And until Pakistan is so stabilized, we should pretend that we are uninvolved.  Once stabilized, however, we can begin "official" dealings with Musharraf (or the elected official if one so exists) from which meeting, we can then utilize Pakistan's cooperation in routing Al-Qaeda in the mountains of NW Pakistan and SW Afghanistan in a more thorough way.

Well, that's my idea.  I am not, by any means, a strategist.  I am an American who is concerned with American security and interests.  But this kind of discourse is what's needed in deciding our path of action.  If I hear another presidential candidate say something like "we hope that Pakistan strives toward democracy" as some kind of solution to this mountain of a problem, I'm going to throw up.  Let's talk about real plausible solutions which could actually accomplish something positive for America.

Maybe it took you a couple seconds to decipher the title of this post.  The point is that most recognized "Pig Latin", and interposed the letters correctly to arrive at "Speak Properly."  [Shh, don't reveal to your children the secret of Pig Latin.]  I remember, as a kid, my parents (as well as teachers) constantly correcting my pronunciation, or my use of the preposition - among other grammatical errors.  I have striven to teach my children to speak in a way which is not only comprehensible by any audience, but also conveys the subject in an intelligent way.  Even today, as teens, I make them speak clearly to me, without the use of slang, to ensure that they keep in mind the audience when speaking.

It doesn't matter to me how a person speaks at home, but the purpose of communication is that others can understand.   In a public setting, the common language should be used. 

When I was in the Service, I had to learn Spanish.  When I had to communicate with locals, although somewhat butchered, I spoke the language as best as I could.  Within a fairly short time, I became fluent enough that they understood me well.  Even when I met someone who spoke English, I spoke Spanish - after all, it is their common language (except in cases where they wanted to practice English on me).  What I'm saying here is that I was smart enough to learn to speak Spanish in the circumstances which required it.  Likewise, Ebonics speakers are smart enough to speak American English.   To pass laws, or make mandatory in public classrooms, the teaching of subjects in both American English and Ebonics implies that Ebonics speakers are somehow less intelligent and incapable of learning American English.  Of course, this is just not true.  You know it, and I know it.  

But what's been happening is that non-common languages/dialects are imposed upon the common.  In our case, American English is the common language, and in fact (despite Congress' inability to make an Amendment which declares it) actually is the language of the land - as attested by the myriad of official documents, including the Constitution, which have been written in this language over the past two centuries.  Empowering this minority language by promulgating it in public settings does not help the case for Blacks (who are the primary speakers of the Ebonics language.)   It slows down their societal advancement, and hinders their economic standing.  The same can be said of Spanish speakers in the United States.  If one can not see how this occurs, I'm shocked, honestly. 

I just don't understand how Black advocate groups can possibly think that this somehow helps the social condition of many Black people.  It is most certainly detrimental, and becomes a self-segregating obstacle.  If my German ancestors were catered to in the same way, they would have never assimilated into the American culture as they did; they would have remained segregated, and would not have prospered nearly as well. 

Personally, I feel as though the advocation of minority languages becomes an unecessary expense to society as a whole, and segregates minority segments in society.  If only we could all just be "Americans."  E Pluribus Unum - Out of Many, One.

Recently, I can't remember where, but I heard someone equating Iranians with the Persians.  I consider the story in the Gospel about the Magi.  They were very likely Persians, but Iranians they were not...at least not as we see them today.  Iranians are Muslims.  The Persians, however, followed a different religion, namely, Zoroastrianism. 

Zoroastrianism has an extremely small following today, primarily from Muslim persecution.  The vast majority of believers fled to India during the expansion of Islam in the Sixth Century.  This religion was founded by their great prophet Zarathushtra (Zoroaster is the Greek form) between 1000 and 800 BC.  It has very strict rules of decency.  They were to perform the "good thought", the "good word" and the "good deed."  In their belief, the thought of murdering someone was just as evil as to physically doing it.  In the days of the Persian Kings, they believed that they were the tools of the Creator in bringing perfection on Earth closer to fruition.  Goodness was of utmost importance.  Today, Zoroastrians, in India for example, are notorious for wisdom, decency and charity.   It was no different for the early Persian kings.

In the books of Ezra and Isaiah, the Persian king, Cyrus, is raised up on a pedestal, God "called him by name," and "took him by the right hand."   He is even called "annointed one."  Let's look at what Cyrus did, but first, we have to look at the world in which he lived. 

The Median Empire lay south of the Caspian Sea, primarily.  It was quite a large empire.  To the south of the Median Empire sat the Babylonian Empire - the two most powerful empires in the world at that time.  When these empires conquered a people, it was the custom to allow some of the native rulers to remain as subordinates to the Emperor, while the populations were removed to different regions in order to weaken them.  We have read about these things in several books of the Bible, specifically relating to the "Babylonian Captivity."  However, it wasn't just the Jews which the Babylonians and Medes picked on.  Almost every population was relocated to ensure the security of the thrones.  And many were enslaved.

Cyrus, the king of a petty kingdom, called Anshan, inherited his position from his father.  This kingdom, however, was basically a satellite kingdom to the Median Empire.  In some strange way, which even baffles many historians, Cyrus rose and was able to conquer both Empires in the span of about twenty years.  And this is where it gets interesting.  According to some sources, when he faced the Medes, the Median soldiers turned and fought with Cyrus.  Stranger still, when Cyrus turned his sights on Babylon, he walked in with little resistance (hence as quoted in Isaiah, "I will open doors for him.")

Now, to the meat of the matter: Persian culture is nothing like modern Iranian culture.  Cyrus' claim to fame was freeing the Jews from captivity.  Of course, he returned all of the populations to their homelands.  What's more, he also sent them back with monies (from his Treasury) to rebuild their holy sites.  He gave his own money to rebuild temples which the Babylonians had razed.  He abolished the slavery of the previous regimes, and paid workers to build for the empire.  Wow!  It's no wonder that Cyrus is known as a just king.  King Cyrus was tolerant of other religions, while the Empires of Babylon and Media, as well as modern Iran were/are far from tolerant - they're oppressive. 

Interesting also that the Persian kings never took any credit for their accomplishments.  Glory was given to "Ahura Mazda" ("The Creator").  Very interesting. 

Everyone, have a Merry Christmas...and consider that believers of another religion (Zoroastrianism) came to visit Jesus because He was KING!

I have a story to share regarding the programming of our children.  We all understand the security issues and the fears instilled in us by many - to a point where many give up their most basic freedoms.  Brainwashing is rampant in public schools - it goes way beyond "alternative lifestyles/families" and "global warming."  The psychological restructuring digs deep into everything which separates us Americans from the rest of the world.  This is a true story that happened in my daughter's school about a month ago.

It all started when a teacher could not find one of the school's laptop computers (one of which the children use, not an administrative one.)  Three quarters of the way through the school day it was discovered that it was missing.  Immediately, the school was in "lock-down" - a procedure designed against terrorist attack or other potentially harmful event.

The children were locked into their rooms, and the police arrived to search for the "stolen" laptop.  One hall in the school was specifically targeted by the police due to the frequency of "trouble-making" kids in that hall (my daughter was in that hall, but has never been in trouble.)  So, anyway, the police (and their dog) searched every child's locker in that hall.  The other three halls were not searched - even though the laptop wasn't found. 

The lockdown ended, then the school day was finished and the children went home.  All night, my daughter theorized "who could have stolen it?"  She began accusing particular kids, even one teacher.  I told her that her accusations were wrong because she had absolutely no evidence, whatsoever.  But she felt is was okay to jump to such conclusions because, let's face it, that's what the school's administration did.  Again, I adamantly told her - it was wrong for the school to assume the children's guilt, and it's wrong for you to assume someone else's guilt too. 

The next day, the laptop was found, get this, in the storage room, in its case.  They couldn't find it because the case was turned around so that the serial number was not visible.  But the school kissed it and made it better by saying over the loudspeaker, "The laptop was found.  We're sorry for any inconvenience."  Inconvenience?!!  Let's count the lessons learned by the students:

1) Every child's school day was disrupted and children were frightened by the presence of several police officers for something which was not, in the least bit, threatening.  LESSON LEARNED:  Panic over the smallest things.

2) If you can't find something, stop looking for it, and blame someone for stealing it.  LESSON LEARNED: Wrongdoing is more likely than simple error.

3) Blame the person who shot spitballs in class, and don't worry about any evidence.  LESSON LEARNED: Target individuals who have been in trouble before.  (Not that I don't think that such methods don't constitute good detective work, but spitballs and other classroom trespasses hardly qualify the child as a thief.)

4) Assume guilt until you have exhausted all evidence as unprovable.  LESSON LEARNED: Guilty until proven innocent.

This was a terrible thing at the school.  The lessons learned by the children cause them to sympathize with such un-Constitutional and downright un-American tactics.  My daughter says that she understands because a laptop was stolen [*gasp*].  How about this: The school values a laptop above not only the rights of a single student, but the rights of ALL the students.  My daughter's reaction to the whole event just goes to show how this academic programming is working in our youth today.  I feel like I have to constantly put such actions in perspective for my children - or they'll be totally lost to the totalitarian mentality.

The subject of school programming has become more and more troubling as my children have advanced.  It seems it is worse in upper levels of public education.  As I mentioned in my bio, I am a reenactor, and teach third graders in this township, every year, about the life of a militiaman in the American Revolution.  I give this presentation in character, dressed and accessorized with real equipment: a real Brown Bess musket, a real bayonet, a real hunting knife, a real hatchet, a real clay pipe with tobacco.  I do not use "politically correct" speech "Praise God in Heaven," and "He has quit this earth and gone to be with the Lord" are common to hear during my presentation.  Why do I insist on accuracy?  Because it's the truth: men FOUGHT and men DIED for our freedom; life was hard, and a good man was always straightforward - nearly all of whom were Christians.  Anyway, the one third grade teacher so admires my presentation (and is definitely a strong conservative) that she has invited me back every year for the past seven.  I just pray that I put a spark in their minds of how precious their Rights are, and how it is a worthwhile endeavor to fight to keep them for all generations.

Folks, always be on guard of these tactics - show your children, your collegues and friends that even if such things seem insignificant, they are all links in the chain binding personal liberty.

I am an American.  (When I say American, I mean a U.S. citizen - as much of the world refers to us.)
I am not an Ethnic-American.  No divided interest here.  I am American.  Sure, I am the product of many immigrants from many different times.  Some of these time periods go way back to the late 1600's (Dutch and Swede).  Others are as recent as the 1890's (German).  Many came in the interim(Scotch, Welsh and English).  However, some have been here for millennia (Munsee and Lenape Indians).  Notice, I did not say Native-Americans - what a silly name: I am a native American...I was born here.  That is the definition of "native" isn't it?   

Now, does the duration of my lineage in America make me somehow more American than the Greek immigrant who just became a citizen?  Absolutely not!  He has become a citizen, and should enjoy all of the rights and privileges as I.  But what about the illegal immigrant?  The illegal immigrant is a criminal - that is what "illegal" refers to, correct?  I don't soften words by calling an illegal immigrant "undocumented."  Let's think about this for a moment.

My ancestors came to this continent on ships which had manifests, that is, lists of passengers.  Upon arrival, they declared themselves to the municipality, where their names were recorded.  Much like the hypothetical Greek immigrant above, who came and declared himself to the authorities.  That is a legal immigrant.  A legal immigrant comes to this country, declares himself, saying, "I am here: I want to be an American," with a heart full of anticipation of becoming a citizen of the greatest nation on planet Earth, the United States of America (like I needed to tell you that.) 

Consider now, the term "undocumented," a term used in a vain attempt to stimulate sympathy for a criminal.  Think about the many Italians and Poles (among others) who poured into the United States at the beginning of the 20th Century.  Very many of them came "undocumented," (specifically, they had no birth certificates or other identifying documents) but then it was called "Without Papers" (hence the derogatory addage "WOP.")  But remember this, they all declared themselves to the authorities, and records were made.  This is not the case today in how the meaning of the word "undocumented" is brutally raped.

These illegal "undocumented" immigrants slip in either with nothing, not even a passport, but some come in with legitimate visas, only to let them expire and stay here covertly.  That is the key word, here, isn't it, "covertly."  Consider that.  They do not declare to the authorities any desire to become citizens - many do not declare themselves at all.  This is dangerous.

In New Jersey, there were five men who planned an attack on Ft. Dix some months ago.  FOUR of them were illegal immigrants.  They came here covertly.  Those four came here for the sole purpose of attacking American assets.  You can rest assured that they are not the only ones - this is not an isolated plan.  [SIDEBAR: the media called them "terrorists," but here we must be very careful.  "Enemy Insurgents" would be a more accurate term.  Here's why: we have declared war on terrorism.  Terrorism has no singular nation.  They come from many places.  Is not the attack of a military base a "military action?"  If they targeted a mall or church, where primarily civilians dwell, then yes, I concede that it would terroristic.  However, they targeted a military base - that is a typical combat-like action, and the United States does it often.  I am not sympathizing, believe me, I just worry about what it says about our actions.  It was a military action planned by enemy insurgents, period.] 

Back to the point that illegal immigrants, no matter which part of the world they come from they should be treated as non-citizen criminals.  Furthermore, they do not fall under the category of "The People of the United States," and therefore the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them.  Would an invading army suddenly be granted the Rights listed in the Constitution?  I sure hope not.  Citizens EARN those rights by being lawful.  One can not expect to break laws at the start, and receive the rights for which so many citizens have died. 

Here's my suggestion.  Detain illegal immigrants; they are criminals.  Do not afford attorneys to them at taxpayer expense (that is a right of citizens), instead, call the authorities of their native country and see if they will supply pro-bono counsel to the foreign criminal.  If not, make arrangements to deliver them to the appropriate border, or at the least put them on a boat headed AWAY from the United States.  Some say that I oversimplify the issue.  Wrong.  Those people overcomplicate the issue.  It's really very simple.  DON'T TRY TO SNEAK INTO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.