Saturday, February 27, 2010

The Peril of Perverted Political Perceptions



The Peril of Perverted Political Perceptions




I don't watch the news. Do you know why I don't watch the new? Because I would be like most of the people who do watch the news: I would miss the big picture. You've heard the old saying: "You can't see the forest for the trees" right? Well, that's the problem with everyone who is caught-up in the news and everyone who is caught-up with the goings-on in Washington: They are so focused on petty, bullshit issues they don't realize that the very destruction of this nation itself is at stake. I catch enough news from the radio, a newspaper, or a magazine so that I can get the big picture; and the big picture is all I need to know.


Most Americans have a perilously perverted political perception, which is (potentially) fatal. I say "potentially" because I believe it's still possible for the American people to regain control of their government, but I also believe we have very little time left in order to do so. We don't have until the next election. I liken the current situation in the Middle East to our playing with matches in a barn full of hay: it could go up in flames any minute.


In an earlier post (Washington Politicians: The Brood of Vipers, February 10, 2010) I referred to Washington politicians as snakes, and I need to apologize for doing so . . . to the snakes; not the politicians.


Snakes aren't liars, nor are they evil; and it's not their fault that they slither in order to get around. But those politicians up there in Washington are liars, and they are evil. How else would you describe them? The worst lie they tell is that America is at war with terrorism. But are we? Terrorism, by its very nature, is a phenomenon that is impossible to make war against. Terrorism is a violent and symbolic tactic, which is used by individuals and small cell-groups of individuals, in order to cause chaos and disorder within a powerful governmental order that cannot be defeated by means of conventional warfare. So how the hell does a nation wage a war against individuals? It can't, and we aren't: we are waging war against nations (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan, and (perhaps even) Iran).

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Broken Government: A Call to Action


The government of the United States of America is broken—our next election will solve nothing. This paper is a follow-up to an earlier paper I wrote (Political Musings, October 2009) in which I outlined the structure of revolution regarding large, powerful governmental orders (e.g., the U. S., Russia, China, Iran). In that paper I pointed out the fact that, due to the powers of these governmental orders and their police state tactics, it is impossible for the people to attempt a violent, revolutionary overthrow of these orders. This paper is a call to non-violent action which, regardless of what I've just said about violent revolutions, is the proper, first step in any revolutionary movement. That having been said, I believe that non-violent action is the only hope the people have to restore, reform, and fix the broken governments which now rule over them.

I also pointed out, in the same paper, the importance of using traditional symbolic imagery in order for any revolutionary movement to be successful. This imagery, alone, is meaningless; it must symbolize the philosophical concepts upon which the governmental order was founded, which must also be the same philosophical concepts upon which the (successful) revolutionary movement is based and desires to see restored.

In the United States of America the fundamental philosophical concept upon which our liberties and freedoms rest is natural law. This natural law foundation along with the natural law-base right of the people to resist their broken governments is the traditional basis upon which all of western civilization rests:

"[A]ccording to Thomas [Aquinas], he [the ruler] may not take private property beyond what public need requires, though strictly speaking property is an institution of Human rather than Natural law. Above all, the rulership of one man over another must not take away the free moral agency of the subject. No man is bound to obedience in all respects and even the soul of the slave is free (a doctrine Aristotle would hardly have understood). It is for this reason that the resistance of tyranny is not only a right but a duty." (George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1937, 1950, 1961; 1965) pp. 255-256)

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Corruption, Cocaine, and Murder



George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton: Corruption, Cocaine, and Murder


One Example of the Criminal-Level Corruption That Exists in Washington, D. C.


By A. J. MacDonald, Jr.



"If I didn't have personal, first-hand experience with this . . . I'd probably think this was just another one of those hare-brained conspiracy theories." (A. J. MacDonald, Jr.)

Former presidents George W. Bush—the son of former president (and vice president) George H. W. Bush—and Bill Clinton have been chosen by current president Barack Obama to head up fundraising efforts to help relieve the sufferings of Haitians caused by the January 12, 2010 earthquake in Haiti.


The White House hopes that this teaming-up of the two former presidents will be as effective as was Bill Clinton's teaming-up with George H. W. Bush (George W.'s father) in raising funds for the relief of the Indonesians who were devastated by the tsunami, which occurred there on December 26, 2004.


I lived in Arkansas from 1988-2005, and I am all too aware of what actually went on there during the 1980's and 1990's: political corruption, cocaine trafficking, and murder.


If you think that I'm just another one of those conspiracy cranks, then I suggest that you re-read the paragraph above: I lived in Arkansas for seventeen years.


If you doubt what I am about to tell you, I would suggest that you read the definitive book on this subject: The Boys on the Tracks, by Mara Leveritt; a highly respected investigative journalist who has been with the Arkansas Times for many years. Another excellent book on this subject is: The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, by Andrew Evans-Pritchard, who actually devotes an entire chapter of his book to the murder of Jerry Parks, once the head of Bill Clinton's security in Little Rock, which I will relate to you now.


To give you just one simple example of my personal experiences in Arkansas during this time, I was home on the evening of September 26, 1993 watching the KATV (Little Rock Channel 7, 10 o'clock) News, and the lead story that night was that someone had, that evening, been murdered in a drive-by shooting on Highway 10 in west Little Rock. Having lived, by this time, in Little Rock for five years, I was quite well aware of the fact that drive-by shootings occurred rather frequently. Someone once actually shot-up my house (on 16th Street) one night—barely missing my (now ex) wife.

Friday, February 19, 2010

U. S.-Backed Israeli Terrorism



What's the difference between children who are going hungry and without the medicines they need because they live in some impoverished land somewhere and children who are going hungry and without the medicines they need because their land is being blockaded by a powerful nation—with the backing and support of the United States of America?


You may have guessed the answer to this: the first scenario is a tragedy whereas the second scenario is a crime.


Israel, with the support of the U. S., has imposed a blockade upon Gaza, Palestine for the past three years now, which is not a tragedy—it is a moral evil.

As an American citizen, especially if you are a Christian American citizen, my question is: Are you even aware of this fact? And if you are: Do you care about the fact that children are suffering as a result of this blockade?

The United Nations, in the link provided above, says that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is a crime against humanity and I agree. Do you?

I understand that most people in American, especially most Christians in America, think of the Palestinians as terrorists who kill Israelis, but the truth is that the Palestinians weren't bothering anyone until Jewish settlers, who were a part of the Zionist Movement, began taking over the land of Palestine; beginning in 1700 and continuing to this very day.

What many American citizens, especially Christians, don't realize is that the modern nation we think of as Israel was born out of terrorism: Jewish, Zionist terrorism which was directed against . . . the British.

1946 saw the birth of the modern nation of Israel, and Israel has one man, in particular, to thank for the important role which he played in creating the modern nation of Israel: the Zionist terrorist leader Menachem Begin, who went on to become Israel's sixth Prime Minister.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Our Politicians in Washington Are Leading Us to (Literal) Destruction



"Or what king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends an embassy and asks terms of peace." (Jesus Christ, in Luke 14:31-32)


I am not exaggerating when I say that our political "leaders" in Washington are leading us to destruction; I mean this quite literally.


Our support of Israel and our enmity with Iran, which is Israel's enemy and therefore our enemy as well, will, ultimately, lead to the virtual destruction of our nation by Israel's (and our) most powerful enemies: China, Russia, and Iran (in case you doubt Russia's friendship with China, I suggest that you do your homework; starting here).


And if you think that I'm exaggerating, I'm not. I only wish that I were.


It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out either; to anyone who is truly aware of the dire situation in which we currently find ourselves, it's simply a matter of awareness and common sense (both of which our politicians in Washington lack).


China is Iran's ally; and has been for many, many years. China currently has thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM's), which are quite capable of reaching all regions of the continental United States, and each of these ICBM's has multiple nuclear warheads.


Our political "leaders" in Washington continue to lead our nation down the wrong path in the Middle East. We have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan and we have built permanent military bases throughout the Middle East, many of which now surround China's ally: Iran. And our politicians continue to treat Iran belligerently, because Iran is a threat—the enemy—of Israel; as are all of the other Muslim nations throughout the Middle East.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Israel Did NOT Keep God’s Covenant

Israel Did NOT Keep God's Covenant; This is Why the Land is NOT Theirs.

"For I know that after my [Moses'] death you [Israel] will surely act corruptly, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands." Deuteronomy 31:29

". . . [A]nd you shall be plucked off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.  And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other. . ." Deuteronomy 28:63-64

"In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25

The people of Israel did not fulfill their covenantal agreement with the LORD; therefore they have never been entitled to inherit the land that the LORD promised to them.

It's as simple as that.

When God gave Israel the Law, he knew they would not keep it; he knew they would fail to uphold their end of the covenant (see: Deuteronomy 28:63-64). Why, then, did God give the people of Israel the law to begin with? Why did he bind them to obey that which they could not keep?

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Triple Cross: How Much Did the FBI Know Before 9/11?


This is my review of Peter Lance’s latest book Triple Cross: How bin Laden’s Master Spy Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets, and the FBI—and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him. Peter Lance—a five-time Emmy award-winning investigative journalist—has, in Triple Cross, provided us with yet another eye-opening expose of the U. S. government’s multiple “failures” to prevent the terrorist attacks of 9/11. (This is Lance’s third book on this subject; his first two being: 1,000 Years for Revenge and Cover-Up.)



In Triple Cross, Lance chronicles the saga of a man whom you may, once or twice, have heard snippets about, in the media, but who, for all practical purposes, has never been mentioned in connection with 9/11 or with any of the other al Qaeda-related terror attacks (e.g., the U.S.S. Cole bombing and the U. S. embassy bombings in Africa).


I picked-up snippets about this guy on the news, once or twice, and, I must say, after hearing what little I did manage to hear about him, he certainly peaked my interest. This man was a former Egyptian military officer and a highly trained Egyptian military commando who would take leave from his active duty service with the U. S. Army, while assigned to the JFK Special Warfare Center in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, in order to travel to Afghanistan to help his Muslim brothers fight the Soviets, during the late 1980’s.


Have you ever heard of this guy? His name is Ali Mohamed, and Peter Lance has done one hell of a job digging up the truth about him, his terrorist activities, and his long-standing relationship with the FBI, which dates back to 1992, when Ali Mohamed began working for the FBI as a Foreign Counter Intelligence agent.


The question Lance asks (and answers) in Triple Cross is: "What did the FBI know before 9/11 and when did they know it?"


Here’s just a brief list of what the FBI knew and when they knew it:


They knew that Ali Mohamed was training al-Qaeda terrorists in New York in 1992.

They knew about, were monitoring, and had infiltrated the al Qaeda cell that planned and executed the first attack on the World Trade Center (i.e., the bombing of the WTC in 1993) before it happened.

They knew that Ali Mohamed traveled to Nairobi, Kenya, in 1993, in order to do surveillance on the U. S. embassy located there in preparation for a future al Qaeda terrorist attack (the bombing of which actually occurred in 1998, killing 213 people).

They knew Ali Mohamed traveled to Khartoum, Sudan, in 1993, in order to arrange a terror summit between (Sunni) al Qaeda (including Osama bin Laden) and (Shiite) Hezbollah leaders, which led to the Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Arabia) in 1996, and facilitated the future Sunni-Shiite insurgency alliance in Iraq (2003).

They knew, in 1993, that Ali Mohamed was training al-Qaeda terrorists how to hijack commercial airliners.

They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, were planning to use airliners as missiles; plotting to hijack and then crash commercial airliners into buildings (e.g., the Transamerica building, the Sears Tower, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center towers) in the U. S.

They knew, in 1995, that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, were planning to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific by using small, easily concealed, liquid-based, time-activated bombs, which were to be placed near the center fuel tanks of Boeing 747’s, causing the airliners’ fuel (and the airliner itself) to explode.

They knew, in 1995, that Ali Mohamed had gotten Ayman al-Zawahiri (al Qaeda’s number-two man) into the U. S. for an al Qaeda fundraising tour; the purpose of which was to raise funds for the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan.

They knew that Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols had been in contact with al Qaeda members in the Philippines before the bombing of the Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995.

They knew al Qaeda was planning to blow up a U. S. airliner, via a small, liquid-based, time-activated bomb, which was to be placed near the center fuel tank of a Boeing 747 (in order to cause a mistrial) during terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef’s federal trial in New York City, during July 1996. (This event actually did occur, when TWA flight 800 blew up in mid-air just after taking off (bound for Paris, France) from JFK International airport (Long Island, New York) on July 17, 1996, killing all 230 people on-board; including an entire high school French Club, from Pennsylvania, who were on their way to Paris; killing sixteen students and five adults).

They knew of, and were monitoring, the al Qaeda cell (in Africa) that was plotting to bomb, simultaneously, the U. S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 1998 (killing 224 people and injuring thousands) before it happened.

They knew, during late 1999-early 2000, that al Qaeda held a meeting (in the Philippines) to plan the execution of terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef’s (9/11 style) airliners-as-missiles plot.

They knew, in 2000, that two of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U. S. and that they were living in a room they had rented from an FBI informant in San Diego, California.

They knew of, and were monitoring, in 2000, at least four of the 9/11 hijackers who were then living in the U. S., including lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, whose picture was also included in a link chart, which was produced by Defense Intelligence Agency analysts (the results of a vast data-mining project which they had developed).

Suffice it to say that Peter Lance has done one hell of a job uncovering the truth concerning what the FBI knew about the 9/11 terror plot and exactly when they knew it.

Many people are simply unaware of the fact that government law-enforcement agencies, like the FBI, aren’t caught off-guard very often, especially when it comes to large-scale terrorist attacks. They are well aware of those groups who are plotting acts of terror—they monitor and infiltrate these groups in order to control them and to control the situation. Sadly, what many people fail to realize is that governments often have plans (or laws) that they wish to implement in order for them to be better able to control the general population, and that often they require an event—a crisis—to occur before these plans (laws) can be implemented.

The FBI and its handling of intelligence before 9/11 indicates, to me, that the U. S. government was seeking a crisis of epic proportion in order to implement its plans to invade the Middle East and to pass new, draconian laws (i.e., the USA Patriot Act) so that they might better control the general population.

I highly recommend this book, which is now Lance’s third book on this subject.

As Lance says, at the end of Triple Cross:

“For the sake of Ronnie Bucca, Louie Garcia’s good friend, and for the sake of every man, woman, and child who died that day, the cold case of 9/11 needs to be reopened, and investigated with tenacity and courage. There has never been a crime in the history of this nation that deserves clearance more than the mass murders of September 11, 2001 . . . I sincerely hope this is my last 9/11 book. I don’t want to have to write another one” (Peter Lance, Triple Cross, p 483).

You shouldn’t have to write another book Peter; you’ve already written three excellent books on the subject.

The American people simply need to care enough to read them.

(For an excellent overview of everything Lance describes, see the helpful timeline he includes in his book.)

Friday, February 12, 2010

American Christians and Israel’s Brutal, Murderous Oppression of the Palestinian Peoples




"Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard." (Isaiah 58:6-8; emphasis added)


"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:16-21; emphasis added)


People need physical, as well as spiritual, salvation. Do you realize that, as Christians, we are required to help those who are being oppressed to be set free? Remember slavery here in the U. S.? Lots of Christians, in those days, believed that slavery was okay; they even believed that slavery had biblical support. But the oppression of people is always wrong. The brutal oppression of people, like Israel's murderous and brutal oppression of the Palestinian peoples, is morally wrong. How, then, can so many Christians support Israel? Because they believe they have biblical support for the existence of the modern nation of Israel; that's how.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Ideas and Solutions for America’s Problems



Where are all of the ideas concerning how to fix our nation's problems? We have all of those politicians up there in Washington and yet we never hear about any ideas that are coming from them concerning how to fix what's wrong with America. Why? God knows it's not for a lack of problems; we've got a boatload of them. I guess maybe it's a lack of creative thinking on their part? Maybe it's the lack of will, which is necessary in order to implement these ideas? Perhaps the major changes, which our county so desperately needs, are just too drastic? Our gummed-up, broken system would not be able to implement them or adapt to them?


All I know is that we need ideas, we need change, and we need it soon; before it's too late.


I mentioned an important idea for real change in my last post: term limits. As of now, a U. S. senator serves a six-year term of office. With term limits, a senator would be allowed to serve two, and only two, terms. Twelve years is enough. I think we should also allow a U. S. representative to serve a four year term, rather than the current two year term; and they should be allowed, again, to serve only two terms. Eight years is enough for them. Their current two-year terms are, today, I think, too short. As it is now, by the time they get to Washington it's time for them to plan their re-election campaigns, and that's just ridiculous. They need to have time to work their office, not to begin planning another run for their office. The president, of course, is already bound, by the U. S. Constitution, to serving a limit of two four-year terms (i.e., eight years).


One of the biggest political/financial levers that the federal government in Washington now uses in order to manipulate the states into doing their will is the federal highway monies that it gives to the states. If a particular state doesn't like a new federal program and if they refuse to support this federal program, then the feds simply threaten to cut-off the state's federal highway monies. This always works, and the feds always get what they want. Bush used this tactic to push through his pathetic "No Child Left Behind" education agenda, which many states, at first, rejected; but they needed that highway money and eventually caved-in. (A side note here: I just recently talked with a friend of mine who has been teaching a high school student how to read, because the school this student attends hadn't done so. Thanks feds.) We can remove this federal highway money lever by simply nationalizing all U. S. and interstate highways, because these are interstate, as opposed to intrastate, highways. Let the state's take care for their own highways (i.e., intrastate) and let the feds take care of their own highways (i.e., interstate). It doesn't take an Einstein to figure this one out, does it?

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Washington Politicians: The Brood of Vipers




"[A]ccording to Thomas [Aquinas], he [the ruler] may not take private property beyond what public need requires, though strictly speaking property is an institution of Human rather than Natural law. Above all, the rulership of one man over another must not take away the free moral agency of the subject. No man is bound to obedience in all respects and even the soul of the slave is free (a doctrine Aristotle would hardly have understood). It is for this reason that the resistance of tyranny is not only a right but a duty."

George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1937; 1965) pp. 255-256

(Human law, which is guided by Natural law, is the philosophical anchor of American political theory, and it is enshrined in The Declaration of Independence.)

“. . . [T]he resistance of tyranny is not only a right but a duty.” I like that. The Founders of the United States of America were resisters of tyranny. They were also elitists and aristocrats, but they were true aristocrats: they were good, intelligent, brave, and honorable men. Not so with our leaders in Washington today. It’s no surprise that elitists and aristocrats would rule over us today, just as they always have, but the pseudo-aristocratic, politicians/criminals we have in Washington today are a much different breed of men: they’re not a breed, actually, they’re more like a brood: a brood of vipers.

From their hallowed, marble (taxpayer-funded) snake-hole sanctuaries in Washington, D. C. they continue to fleece the flock that they are supposed to care for and, with the help of both the media and their corporate special interests, they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people.

They are not ruling us well, and the current situation needs to be remedied.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

The 2011 Federal Budget and Deficit Spending



I was very disappointed when I read a news article, yesterday, about the new federal budget. For one thing, it was hardly news. Just listen to the very first line of the article: "President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget blueprint met immediate resistance from congressional Republicans this week, with each party seeking to avoid blame for deep, structural deficits extending into the next decade" (The Week February 12, 2010).

Excuse me? And this is news . . . WHY? This nation, along with every other nation in the modern world, adopted the economic philosophy/policy of deficit spending a long, long time ago. ("Hey, The Week magazine: this is NOT news!")


Ever since the late 1930's this nation has adopted the harebrained economic theories of the late British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose economic philosophy of deficit spending and fiat currency has now ruined our economy. To those who understand basic, traditional economics this comes as no surprise. And the fact that our nation has "deep, structural deficits" is NOT news. This has been the economic plan all along. Having long ago adopted Keynes' theories, we are, now, exactly where we should be, economically speaking: bankrupt.


Do you know why? Do you know what Keynes' brilliant economic theory was and why it doesn't work in the long run?


Think of it like this, if you want something that you can't afford, because you don't have the money that you need in order to buy it, then what should you do? According to traditional economic theory, you would work, save your money, and buy what you want to buy when you had saved up enough money to do so. Sounds simple, right? And Keynes' bright idea was . . . what?


J.M. Keynes: "Hey, let's just buy what we want to buy on credit! And we'll just worry about paying for it . . . later!"


Does this sound familiar to you? It should; this is exactly what the mortgage crisis was all about: people buying houses they COULD NOT afford, because they were envious of those who COULD afford to buy them. Then there are the bankers who were lending these people the money they needed in order to buy those houses, even though these people were not really qualified for the loans, because the bankers hoped to somehow, foist these bad loan off onto other banks or lenders, because they were greedy.

Blood For Oil?


*** This post is dedicated to the memory of Lance Corporal Michael L. Freeman, Jr. U.S.M.C. of Fayetteville, Pennsylvania who was killed last week in Afghanistan. He did HIS duty, but his nation's leaders have failed to do THEIRS. ***

I don’t believe many Americans are truly aware of why U. S. troops were sent to the Middle East, and to Iraq, especially, in the first place.

You may remember the “Iraq has WMD’s!” fiasco, and the “Iraq has ties to al Qaeda!” nonsense, and (my personal favorite) the:
“Iraqi Drones May Target U. S. Cities!” (Yeah, THAT one really kept me awake nights, back then.)

Would you like to know the truth about why U. S. troops are in Iraq, as well as throughout the Middle East, today? The truth you have never heard and will never hear in the mainstream media?

We are in Iraq, especially, and we have the entire region surrounded by permanent U. S. military bases because, for years now, OPEC (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members have been threatening to peg the price of a barrel of oil to the Euro
instead of the U. S. Dollar.

That’s right; when you hear, on the news, that the price of a barrel of oil is, say, $70 a barrel, they mean exactly that: it is 70 U. S. Dollars per barrel. This means that every nation (e.g., China, Russia, Brazil) that wishes to buy oil must do so with U. S. Dollars. They must exchange their currency for ours whenever they buy oil. And OPEC members, being the good business people that they are, would much rather use Euros than U. S. Dollars, because the Euro is worth more and the U. S. Dollar worth less. (Sounds like good, old fashioned, capitalist business-sense to me!)

Ever since not long after World War I, when vehicles powered by internal combustion engines, which ran on petroleum-based fuels, became part of everyday life (and a military necessity), both the U. S. and the (old) U. S. S. R. were locked in a geostrategic chess match; the game being: Which nation would grab the Middle East oil fields first?

Well, WE grabbed those Middle East oil fields when we invaded Iraq and we now have the entire region
surrounded by U. S. military forces.

Can you imagine WHY we did this? Because our leaders were afraid of what would happen to our economy if (or when) the OPEC member nations decided to peg the price of a barrel of oil to the Euro in place of the U. S. Dollar. Our leaders knew that—overnight—the price of a gallon of gasoline in the U. S. would rise from, say, $2.85 per gallon to something much closer to $8.85 per gallon. And they weren’t about to let this happen. Why? Because it would cripple our economy. (Especially now; right?)

So NOW, here’s our message to the OPEC member nations, most of whom are the Arab nations of the Middle East: “We dare you, NOW, to threaten us with all this trash-talk about switching the price of a barrel of oil from the U. S. Dollar to the Euro. Go ahead and switch it! We dare you to! WE’LL KILL YOU! We’ll kill you, your families, your flocks, your herds, EVERYTHING!

And THAT, my friends, is the sad truth about why our troops are in the Middle East today; and that’s why our leaders will never allow them to leave either: they need all those guns pointed at the heads of those Arab OPEC nations; just in case they ever need to make good on their threats.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Imagery, Symbolism, and Propaganda


Have you ever noticed, in news photographs, that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), in public, only use American-made M-16 rifles? Do you know why? Because Israel wants the world to know that they are backed by the U. S.

This is a rather shrewd propaganda move on the part of the Israeli government: every time we see IDF soldiers, we see them as, what appears (to us) to be, “the good guys”: ourselves (i.e., the U. S.).

This imagery suggests to our minds a symbolism of good versus evil: the Israeli’s appear, to our subconscious, as “the good guys”, because we see those M-16’s, and the Palestinians appear, to our subconscious, as “the bad guys”, because we see those AK-47’s; which “the bad guys” always have.

During the Cold War, we had the NATO Alliance, including, especially, the U. S., with our M-16’s, versus (what was then known as) the Warsaw Pact nations, including, especially, the U. S. S. R., with their AK-47’s. In short: “the good guys” versus “the bad guys”.

This symbolic, propagandistic imagery has been used, for years now, by the Israeli government to subconsciously implant within our minds the image of themselves as “the good guys” and the image of the Palestinians as “the bad guys”. And it works, doesn’t it?

The IDF has much better assault weapons to use than the M-16 rifle. The Israelis are expert weapons designers and manufacturers; the IDF only uses the M-16 rifle, in public, for the purpose of propagandistic imagery. In secret, like on secret missions, away from the cameras, they use their own, superior Israeli-made weapon: the Galil
.

The M-16 IS NOT a great assault weapon. I know, because I’ve used one. The AK-47 is—BY FAR—the superior assault weapon. I know, because I’ve used one. The Israeli-made weapons are even better, so I’ve heard, but I’ve never used one myself.

So wake up America! And see this imagery for what it really is: propagandistic symbolism, which operates on the subconscious level.

Sunday, February 7, 2010

"Same-Sex Marriage" and "What Does the Acronym 'LGBTTTIQ' Represent?"



The same-sex marriage debate continues to broil. As with many other broiling debates (like abortion on demand or my earlier post: What Does the Word “Fornication” Mean?) the same-sex marriage debate also centers upon the definition of words. Remember, ours is a society that has recently decided to define a corporation to mean that it's a person (in order to allow them to contribute, financially, to political campaigns) but has also decided to define a little baby in its mother’s womb to mean that it IS NOT a person. (Question: What does the word person mean?)

I was very familiar with the acronym LGBT over the years, because I’m just about the most tolerant and likeable guy you’d ever want to meet, but the whole LGBTTTIQ thing really took me by surprise. The incredible lengthening of this once familiar acronym seems to stem from the fact that some people think that gender is a social construct. Some things (e.g., marriage) ARE, in fact, social constructs; but, in my opinion, gender is certainly not one of those things.

So what, exactly, does the acronym LGBTTTIQ stand for? LGBTTTIQ stands for: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Transgender, Two-Spirited, Inter-Sexed, Queer (and “Questioning” one’s sexual orientation). The definitions of these words, which follow, have been taken from the OK2BME website:

"Lesbian": "A lesbian is a woman whose primary sexual and romantic attraction is to other women."

"Gay": "A gay man is a man whose primary sexual and romantic attraction is to other men. ‘Gay’ is also used as an inclusive term encompassing gay men, lesbians, and bisexual people. In the last 20 years, this has become less and less common and ‘gay’ is usually used currently to refer only to gay men. The term is still often used in the broader sense in spoken shorthand, as in ‘The Gay Pride Parade is at the end of June’."

"Bisexual": "Bisexual men and women have sexual and romantic attractions to both men and women. Depending upon the person, his or her attraction may be stronger to women or to men, or they may be approximately equal. Bisexuals are also referred to as ‘bi’."

"Transgender": 1) "Transgender (sometimes shortened to TRANS or TG) people are those whose psychological self (‘gender identity’) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. To understand this, one must understand the difference between biological sex, which is one’s body (genitals, chromosomes, etc.), and social gender, which refers to levels of masculinity and femininity. Often, society conflates sex and gender, viewing them as the same thing. But, gender and sex are not the same thing. Transgender people are those whose psychological self (‘gender identity’) differs from the social expectations for the physical sex they were born with. For example, a female with a masculine gender identity or who identifies as a man. 2) An umbrella term for transsexuals, cross-dressers (transvestites), transgenderists, gender queers, and people who identify as neither female nor male and/or as neither a man or as a woman. Transgender is not a sexual orientation; transgender people may have any sexual orientation. It is important to acknowledge that while some people may fit under this definition of transgender, they may not identify as such."

"Two-spirited": "Two-spirited is a term adopted by some contemporary North American Aboriginal peoples to refer those who embody both the male and female spirit. The term is inclusive and can refer to both sexual orientation and/or gender identity or expression. Therefore, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and heterosexual trans-people may all refer to themselves as two-spirited. Terms such as ‘berdache’ have a colonial origin; and ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ are, to many people, Eurocentric and culturally irrelevant to Aboriginal two-spirited people.”

"Inter-sexed": "A medical diagnosis that describes a person who is born with physical and/or chromosomal features in which sex characteristics usually considered to belong to distinctly male or female bodies are combined in a single body. Intersexed persons are often subjected to surgical intervention at birth (with or without parental knowledge or consent). The term intersexed is often encompassed under ‘transgendered’. However, while there are some areas of overlap with intersexed and transgendered issues, there are also many areas of distinction."

"Queer":

1. "A political statement, as well as a sexual orientation, which advocates breaking binary thinking and seeing both sexual orientation and gender identity as potentially fluid. Many of those who use the term feel it is more inclusive, allowing for the diversity of race, class, ability and gender that is represented by the LGBTTIQ communities."

2. "A simple label to explain a complex set of sexual behaviors and desires. For example, a person who is attracted to multiple genders may identify as queer."

3. "Used by some to refer to themselves, the LGBTTTIQ community, a person who is LGBTTTIQ, or even someone who is supportive of the LGBTTTIQ communities."

4. "Often viewed as a political statement as well as an identity or label."
Many older LGBTTTIQ people feel the word has been hatefully used against them for too long and are reluctant to embrace it. In addition, because it was used to demean LGFBTTTIQ people, those who do not identify as queer are urged to use the term with caution, or not at all."

What does the LGBTTTIQ community think that gender is? Here are a couple of definitions of gender which, again, have been taken from the OK2BME website:

"Gender": 1) "A socially constructed system of classification that ascribes qualities of masculinity and femininity to people. Gender characteristics can change over time and are different between cultures. Words that refer to gender include: man, woman, transgender, masculine, feminine, and gender queer. 2) One’s sense of self as masculine or feminine regardless of external genitalia. Gender is often confused with sex. This is inaccurate because sex refers to bodies and gender refers to personality characteristics."

"Gender Identity": "One’s initial and psychological sense of oneself as female, male, both or neither. At birth, we are assigned one of two genders, usually based on our visible genitals. For many people this gender assignment fits and feels comfortable. Others do not feel as comfortable in the assigned gender, either because they find the two-gender system too limiting or because they feel more identification with the gender opposite that to which they were assigned at birth. Gender identity does not cause sexual orientation. For example, a masculine woman is not necessarily a lesbian; a feminine man is not necessarily gay."

And, after reading all of that . . . it’s really hard for me to know exactly what to say . . .

Is gender neutrality even possible? No, because neutrality itself is impossible. We always have presuppositions, which influence our thinking about the world; therefore no one can approach the world from a completely neutral perspective. The fact that, biologically, the higher living organisms are of two, distinct kinds (i.e., female and male) renders impossible any attempts on our part to attain neutrality regarding gender.

Certainly all rules have exceptions, even “the rule” of life. But just because some (very few) people are born with a confusion of primary and secondary physical sexual characteristics does not mean that gender is a social construct. The overwhelming majority of people are NOT born with a confusion of primary and secondary physical sexual characteristics; therefore gender—as determined (objectively) by the observation of primary and secondary physical sexual characteristics as belonging to either the one or the other grouping of a certain and distinct kind (i.e., male or female)—is, very simply, an empirical fact (i.e., the rule) of life.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition), the word gender means: “Sexual category; males or females as a group [> Lat. genus, gener-, kind.]” (See also the FreeDictionary entry for the word.)

This is what I said above. Gender is a grouping of kinds, which are either female or male. And these grouping are determined by observable, physical characteristics. There are only two kinds of people in the world: men and women, boys and girls. And everyone knows that.

The definition of gender given above, which was taken from the OK2BME website, states that gender is “[o]ne’s sense of self as masculine or feminine regardless of external genitalia…[g]ender is often confused with sex. This is inaccurate because sex refers to bodies and gender refers to personality characteristics.” But again, according to the American Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition), the word sex means: “The property or quality by which organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs.” I’m sorry, but the only confusion here, regarding the word gender and the word sex, is in the minds of the gender neutralists.

Since, according to a standard dictionary, the word gender refers to the grouping of living organisms into the sexual categories of female and male, and since these sexual categories are based upon the empirically observable physical reproductive organs of these living organisms, the word gender and the word sex mean the same thing: living organisms can be classified as either male or female. The word gender does not and cannot mean “[o]ne’s sense of self as masculine or feminine regardless of external genitalia” nor can it refer “personality characteristics.”

Once we start changing the meanings and the definitions of the words we are using to attempt to communicate our thoughts and ideas to one another we should be prepared for the inevitable confusion that will inevitably arise.

So, I'm sorry, but I just can’t jump on the whole LGBTTTIQ bandwagon, because I’m not even sure what, exactly, is being said here, or what, exactly, the idea the LGBTTTIQ community is trying to communicate here, with this sort of language (the words which are not being used according to the standard dictionary definitions).

Do I want people to be tolerant of one another, regardless of their sexual preferences or orientations? Of course I do, but I cannot accept the misuse of words and language in order to promote an agenda (i.e., gender neutrality), which has no basis whatsoever in reality and is in fact flatly contradicted by an over-abundance of physical evidence that is plain for all to see (i.e., that the overwhelming majority of people are (objectively) either male or female).

And we wonder why the whole same-sex marriage issue has become so controversial? The LGBTTTIQ community has been changing the meanings and definitions of words, which denote ideas and concepts, for a very long time now. What does the word marriage mean? And why does it mean either one thing or another? The word marriage presupposes the fact that people are of either the female or the male gender or sex, and the word marriage means that two people—one of each sex—are joining together in a social contract, the purpose of which is relational, sexual, and based upon the innate drive to reproduce (marriage IS, in fact, a social construct, which is based upon the objective fact that there are only two kinds (male and female) of people in the world (again, the question: what does the word person mean, right?) As a society, we may decide that the word marriage means "the joining together of two people—regardless of their sex—in a social contract, the purpose of which is both relational and sexual, and the basis of which (even if homosexual) is the innate human sexual drive to reproduce". But we haven’t done so yet; not according to the dictionary anyway.

Marriage, unlike gender, IS a social construct, so we can define it in whatever way we may wish to define it. Currently, the word marriage means: “The legal union of man and woman as husband and wife” according to the America Heritage Dictionary (4th Edition). This is what the word marriage means, and when we communicate our ideas to one another using words we had better be prepared for trouble whenever we change the meanings of those words. The term “same-sex marriage” is, in fact, a contradiction of terms, because the word marriage means: “The legal union of a man and a woman [not a man and a man or a woman and a woman] as husband and wife [not husband and husband or as wife and wife].”

It may be that the word marriage will take on this additional (i.e., same-sex) meaning, but it hasn’t yet. And it may never take on this meaning, because social constructs (like marriage) are determined by society and our society may not accept this change in the meaning of the word. The current battle over same-sex marriage has more to do with whose definition of the word marriage—society’s (in general) or a sub-culture’s (in particular)—is more appropriate. It’s a battle of words, which is why I’m so nit-picky about words and their meanings. Whoever controls the terms (i.e., the words and the definitions thereof) controls the debate. And I, for one, don’t care for playing fast and loose with words and their definitions. When the meanings of words differ between individual peoples who are using the same language to communicate their thoughts and ideas to one another, they become unable to accurately express their thoughts and their ideas to one another (i.e., they talk past each other). Our common language and our ability to communicate our ideas to one another is one of the most important things we have as a society. In fact, without a common language, we could not have a society at all.

On religious grounds, as a Catholic, I would oppose same-sex marriage; but politically—as a libertarian and as an American—I believe that as long as people are consenting adults and they are not harming innocents by their actions people should basically be allowed to do whatever they want to do. I mean, who really cares what they do, as long as they’re not harming anyone? It’s nobody’s business! I would certainly support civil unions (and the legal protections thereof), but I cannot support changing the definition of the word marriage to mean "two people—regardless of their sex—joining together in a social contract called marriage, the purpose of which is both relational and sexual, and the basis of which (even if homosexual) is the innate human sexual drive to reproduce".

This is not what the word marriage means in our society; at least not according to the dictionary anyway. And I certainly don’t know where else (besides a dictionary) we might look for the definitions of the words we are using. Do you?

Blog Archive