Monday, March 29, 2010

“Whoever kills a person . . . it is as though he has killed all mankind.”


"Whoever kills a person . . . it is as though he has killed all mankind." (Quran 5: 32)

At the anti-war demonstration in Washington, D. C. this past March 20, 2010, a Muslim Imam, speaking from the stage, quoted the above verse from the Quran; adding that "life is sacred". Considering the setting—an anti-war demonstration—I thought it very appropriate.

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. And I believe there is no more unjust, horrific, and genocidal scourge in America than abortion on demand: the violent, intentional destruction—killing—of innocent human lives simply because they are—they exist—being both unwanted and unloved.

Can one imagine a more unjust society—a more unjust mindset or worldview—than a people who would kill living, growing, and healthy—yet unborn—children simply because they arethey exist, because their existence is unwanted?

It doesn't matter what race they are, where they are from, or what religion they are—their very being, at the ontological level, is abhorrent to our society. It is completely legal and protected to operate an unborn-yet-unwanted-child killing facility anywhere in America.

And we wonder why people don't seem to care about Palestinian children, or Iraqi children, or Afghani children?

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a more genocidal—no, specicidal—situation. For genocide, you see, is the murder of a race of people, whereas abortion on demand is the murder of humanity itself.

Wake up my radical friends. Be pro-Palestinian, because you hate to see Palestinian children butchered; be anti-war, because you hate to see innocent Iraqi and Afghani children butchered; and be pro-life, because you hate to see any child—even an unloved and unwanted child—butchered in her mother's womb.

"Whoever kills a person . . . it is as though he has killed all humankind" Life is sacred, especially human life—all human life, without exception.

Days of Deceit: 12/07 and 9/11


The number one issue facing America and the world today, which must be faced down by the People (i.e., the citizens) of the United States of America, is the so-called "War of Terror". This includes, especially, the on-going wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a belligerent U. S. attitude toward Iran, continuing U. S. support of Israel, eavesdropping on U. S. citizens, assassination of U. S. citizens overseas, and the suspension of due process of law for U. S. citizens who are suspected of being terrorists amongst (many) other things. In short, the current U. S. government in Washington is conducting what amounts to a never-ending belligerent and war-making attitude toward those nations that it perceives to be its enemies and the establishment of a police state here at home.

Many Americans have bought into the Washington government's concept that the "War on Terror" is keeping us safer. Although Americans run virtually no risk whatsoever of ever being killed in a terrorist attack, they continue to believe that they (or someone they love) are truly in danger of being killed in such an attack.

Most Americans were not endangered by the 9/11 attacks, nor did most Americans lose someone whom they loved on that fateful day. These many Americans also, seemingly, accept the Washington government's official account of what happened that day. However, those who were endangered on 9/11 and those did lose someone whom they loved on that fateful day do not as easily accept the Washington government's account of what happened on the day of 9/11.

Question: "If you had lost someone whom you loved on 9/11, would you still as easily accept the Washington government's official account of what happened on that day?"

I bring up 9/11 for a reason: our government is still, to this day, telling us that the reason for our troops being in Afghanistan is to hunt down Osama bin Laden (and al Qaeda), whom our government says is solely responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The fact of the matter is that U. S. Special Forces had Osama bin Laden, trapped at his cave complex at Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001 and they were instructed by our government in Washington to allow him to flee into Pakistan at that time. As you might imagine, once bin Laden was surrounded by U. S. Special Forces in Afghanistan, it was impossible that U. S. forces could not have apprehended him as he was fleeing to Pakistan and toward freedom.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Considering all that’s going on these days . . .


. . . all I have to say is: "WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU?!"

Did you know there was a huge anti-war demonstration in Washington, D. C. last Saturday? If you live close to Washington D. C., and if you realize just how desperate the current situation in the Middle East is, I have to ask: "WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU GUYS?!"

Do you realize there's a WAR going on? Do you care? Do you realize that people—innocent people—are being killed IN OUR NAME? That there's no end in sight to this murderous war unless we—THE PEOPLE—put a stop to it? That we—THE PEOPLE—are, ultimately, RESPONSIBLE for what's going on; for the taking of EVERY innocent life by our troops?

Have you read the latest news from Afghanistan, about how our troops are killing innocent civilians there?

I'm VERY thankful for ALL of you who DID come out for the demonstration, but I have to ask: "WHY DIDN'T ALL YOU GUYS COME OVER THE POLICE BARRIERS AND SIT WITH US?!"

What the heck?! There's a war—an unjust, indiscriminate-civilian-killing, colonialist war—going on!

Come on guys, there's only one way we're ever going to stop these wars, and there's only one way we're ever going to put a stop to the unconstitutional, eavesdropping, torturous, police-state that our rogue nation has now become: By massive demonstrations in Washington, which are, occasionally, going to require BREAKING A FEW RULES!

Jesus, there weren't even any riot cops there . . . just the U. S. Park Police! All we did was to conduct a simple, non-violent sit-in. I guess the police were expecting us to be so well behaved? I guess they were right.

What are you guys going do when things get more difficult? Run away? Christ, PEOPLE ARE DYING!

Come on people, we can't stop this war—and the World War III that our government is heading us toward—by sitting on the sidelines or by sitting this out.

IT'S TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO RISE UP AND TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR BROKEN GOVERNMENT . . . NOW!!!

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Health Care Violence Scare


In light of the recent political violence, which has been occasioned by passage of the Democrat's heath care reform bill, I would like to repeat here something that I said back in October 2009:

"Have things gotten so bad in the U. S. that our collective political frustrations could actually lead some people to commit acts of political violence? Could some people's words actually incite some people to commit acts of political violence? These are questions many Americans seem to be asking themselves these days. The U.S. has a very long history of civil unrest and political violence, so it should come as no surprise to us, especially during politically frustrating times, that politically violent acts (of various types) will likely be committed by some people. Well chosen words can incite powerful emotions, and well chosen words concerning genuine political issues and the frustrations which accompany them, can certainly incite some people to act violently. To think that words can have no effect upon people whatsoever—either toward their pursuing good actions or for ill—is simply ridiculous. Words are very powerful; 'more powerful', it is said, 'than the sword'." (See my Political Musings, of October 2009.)

I hope that you followed the link, which I provided above, concerning America's long history of political violence. It's a very long list of political violence. Over the past few days, I've heard people (e.g., politicians, talking heads) saying that political violence is "not the American way" of doing things. On the contrary, until recently, political violence WAS the American way of doing things.

These same people are also complaining, again, about the conservative radio, television, and internet talk show hosts whose inflammatory rhetoric (i.e., words) can/does/will incite their listeners to commit acts of political violence. What they want, of course, is for these conservative talk show hosts to shut their mouths and for people to behave, and start acting like the good little children that we're supposed to be.

I've long said the next book I write will be about politics: American Politics. And the most important thing anyone really needs to know about American politics, which allows us to see through to the bottom of virtually every political issue, is that governments only have two schools of thought concerning how a government should govern its peoples: treat them as children who are dependent upon you, or treat them as adults who not dependent upon you.

America has always been a very conservative nation politically. It's that sense of liberty, independence, and freedom America has always held forth as its ideal which has drawn so many people to it. America, by nature is very individualistic, libertarian, and conservative. People basically want the right to be left alone by their government. This is why liberal politics has never been able to gain much ground here in the U. S. (as it has in Europe).

As I said, my next book is going to be about politics, so, while doing research for this book, I'm reading an old textbook on political theory: A History of Political Theory, Third Edition, by George H. Sabine (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 1937, 1950, 1961), and the author, in discussing the different philosophical schools of thought concerning rulers and their subjects found in Plato's Statesman and in Aristotle's Politics, says that:

"The question, of course, is whether subjects shall be assumed to be dependent upon rulers, as children must be dependent upon their parents, or whether they shall be assumed to be responsible and self-governing" (pp. 72-73).

In America, it should be obvious to us which of our political parties assumes we are children and which does not. The liberal Democrats assume the people are like dependent children, and the conservative Republicans assume the people are responsible and self-governing. Not much has changed in the past 2,000 years.

That having been said, neither political party today is working for the people. Both parties are criminal, both parties are corrupt, and this government is broken beyond all normal means of repair: the next—or any future—election will solve nothing; more elections-as-usual will simply perpetuate the broken and corrupt status quo.

It's time to get serious folks. Let's stop acting like the good little children that the politicians in Washington want us to be. We've put up with their bullshit for long enough now, let's take our nation back: NOW!

America, Symbolism, and Revolution


All well established political/governmental orders, including— especially—the United States of America, understand power, as well as the power of symbolism—their own political/governmental power having been established, long ago, and enshrined in enduring, symbolic forms (e.g., flags, seals, monuments, songs, myths). These orders will always cover their own acts of political violence with this cloak of political symbolism.

Any revolutionary movement within a well established political/governmental order should be built upon the established order's own political power and political symbolism whenever possible. If, for example, the established order has overstepped its bounds of authority—as the government of the United States has today— and become broken beyond all normal means of repair, but still retains a good, solid philosophical/political basis, what is needed is a revolution which can restore that order to its former historical and philosophical principles. For example, the U. S. was not an interventionist and colonizing nation, as it is today, until the time of the Spanish American War, during 1898. From the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until 1898, America minded its own business and did not intervene in the affairs of foreign nations nor did it attempt to colonize or set up puppet regimes in other nations as it does today, especially in the Middle East.

Here in the U. S., any revolutionary movement that hopes for success would be wise to cloak both their speech and their actions with the political symbolism which represents that which grounds the established order both historically and philosophically because it is the established order's traditional and historical political philosophy which the revolutionary movement desires to see restored.

The Left has never had success with its revolutionary political speech and acts here in the U. S. because its political philosophy has no ties to traditional, historical U. S. political philosophy. The right to private property, for example, is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence; but revolutionary Leftists believe the notion of private property should be abolished; a belief which is, in fact, central to the Left's communist/socialist political philosophy.

Any successful restorative revolution or reformation of American government must be based upon a return to America's politically violent beginnings, its early political symbolism, and the political philosophy upon which it was based.

I wrote a paper a while back (Political Musings; October, 2009) in which I outlined how a social/political revolutionary movement must make proper use of its nation's symbolic political imagery, which represents the nation's social/political ideology, in order for it to be successful. This is a truth so obvious that it should not have to be outlined at all, yet many people are unaware of the importance of this fundamental truth.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

More Perks for Federal Workers


So I was riding the Metro, which is the name of the subway system in Washington, D. C., yesterday and I came across a front page article in the Washington Examiner that read: "Thousands of Federal Workers Ride Metro for Free" I wasn't the least bit surprised, but I was angry; especially since I had just placed a $5 bill into the Metro farecard machine not five minutes before reading this article. Once again, while the average hard-working and taxpaying American struggles simply to make ends meet, the federal bureaucrats in Washington are having everything handed to them on a silver taxpayer-funded plater.

It seems that some 120,000 federal "workers" receive as much as $230 a month for transit on Washington's Metro system. This news follows on the heels of other disturbing news regarding the many perks that federal "workers" receive, which the ordinary, taxpaying American does not. For example, a December 10, 2009 article in USA Today, which was titled: "For Feds, More Get 6-Figure Salaries", tells us that "The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession . . . "

Yeah, that's "during the recession" folks.

A March 10, 2010 article in USA Today, which was titled: "Federal Pay Ahead of Private Industry", tells us that "federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations . . . "

My question is: "When are average, hard-working and taxpaying Americans who are NOT federal government employees ever going to get it?"

Are we content to allowing these federal freeloaders to continue to steal our tax dollars so that they might line their own pockets with OUR money?

Are we EVER going to do ANYTHING about our BROKEN government?

I assure you, the federalcrats are laughing at us . . . all the way to their banks.

But I'm NOT laughing, I'm angry!

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Re: Protest


Well, I'm off to the anti-war protest in Washington, so I won't be posting for a few days. Maybe longer, if things get interesting.

Hopefully the protest will go well, meaning that it will remain non-violent. One never knows . . . it would be understandable if some of the protesters and some of the police got into it, because there are many, powerful emotions involved here.

I mean, after all: people ARE being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . innocent people, as well as U. S. soldiers.

And it's not beyond the realm of possibility for the pro-war government of BOTH political parties to have its agents infiltrate the ranks of the protesters in order to create trouble (i.e., violence) so as to give this non-violent protest a tinge of violence and the protesters bad name.

Let's end this war NOW.

It's up to us, you know; not our politicians. They do, after all, answer to us; because we are the People--if and when we finally decide to take on the responsibility of being the People.

But whether we ever decide to act like the People or not is actually irrelevant. . . because we ARE responsible nevertheless.

If this war is wrong, which it is, then we--the People--are to blame for it; not our politicians.

And that's why I am going to Washington.

Peace!

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Compassion and Imagination


It's difficult for me to imagine, considering how fucked-up the world is, that most people simply don't seem to give a shit about the world or the people in it. I understand that I'm more aware of what's going on, and that I'm more sensitive to it than most people are, but still—what the hell does it take for people to be able to see, or to be able to care about, their fellows?

I've had my own journey, when it comes to having my eyes opened to the plights of those in the world who are suffering; it's taken me a while to begin seeing, caring, and trying to do whatever I can to help alleviate some of that suffering. But still . . . trying to help people to see what's happening in the world, and trying to help people care about the sufferings of others, shouldn't be like trying to pull impacted wisdom teeth should it? Don't people—normal, average, everyday people—have a heart? I mean, they're not completely selfish and self-centered are they? I mean, completely?! Isn't there some part of them that can be reached, somehow?

I've had my own intellectual and emotional journey in developing a more compassionate attitude toward my fellows. It wasn't something that just happened overnight. And I realize that other people, too, are (hopefully) on a similar journey. I hope they are anyway; because sometimes I'm really not sure about most people. It seems to me like most of them will never care; no matter how bad things get and no matter how much suffering there is in the world.

I guess it's because they have a very small-minded view of the world; sort of a "me, myself, and I" or an "us four and no more" type attitude.

Lately, considering how bad things have gotten, I'm wondering if people haven't lost their minds—their powers of reason and rationality. "Can't you simply see and figure out what's going on?" I ask. Since most of them can't, I wonder, "Have they lost their minds?" But then I realize they haven't lost their ability to reason—they've lost their hearts. They have little-to-no compassion. They're too wrapped up in themselves and their own little worlds to care about anyone beyond the scope of their own narrow field of vision. And, whenever I do get their attention, they are filled with self doubt and pessimism; not able to believe that it's possible for anyone to ever be able to do anything that will ever bring about the kinds of change we need in this nation and in the world. And, in a sense, they're right: We never will—not with that attitude.

I can remember when I became a Christian, because it was an eye-opening and paradigm-shifting experience for me: it was early one weekday morning, around ten o'clock or so, during either May or June of 1985. And that experience didn't occur in a vacuum either. I had been raised Catholic, so it's wasn't like I had never heard or thought about Christ until that time—it was a journey—but there was that one specific moment in time when my old paradigm collapsed and was replaced by a new—and better—paradigm.

So this is what I try to do, when I'm talking to people: help to bring about the shattering of their faulty paradigms; the faulty way in which they view of the world. And I'm not just talking about religious paradigm or worldviews either; I'm talking about social and political worldviews too—especially lately.

I think the most important ability one needs to develop, when it comes to being compassionate, it to be able to put oneself in someone else's place. Jesus said that we should, "do unto others as we would have them to do unto us" and that, I think, is the best possible way that he could have ever communicated to us how we should live our lives: with consideration for others.

Do you ever consider other people? I'm sure that you do, at least those who are close to you. But do you ever consider the thoughts, feelings, and life-situations of people you really don't know, people that you hear about or see in the newspapers, the weekly news magazines, and on television? Do you ever try to put yourselves in their places? Try to feel what they must be feeling? Try to imagine what it must be like to live their life-experience? This, I think, is the key to having compassion: getting outside of ourselves and into the hearts and minds of other people—people who have it a lot worse in life than we do.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Outlines of Revolution - America


Outlines of Revolution – America


This is a very simple outline of revolution. America, as a nation, is in trouble; and, as American citizens, it is our responsibility—our duty—to serve our country in whatever ways that we can in its time of need. The question now is: "Has the political situation in America actually gotten so bad—so desperate—that it can only be remedied by revolutionary action?"

I've already expressed, in detail, elsewhere, the answer to this question: "Yes, our government is broken; and all normal means of repairing it are broken as well."

This, to me—as well as to many, many Americans—is the sad, but sobering, truth about our country.

This is not something that I enjoy having to talk about, but I'm not going to close my eyes to this truth; nor will I simply sit back and do nothing while the nation I love becomes—for all practical purposes—a haunt of jackals.

I've known, for many, many years now, that our nation was in serious trouble; but, until now, there has never been cause to call for revolution. For those of us today who have eyes to see and ears to hear: Now is the time—today is the day—for revolution in America.

There are, of course, many serious political issues which must be addressed, but there are only two, top priority issues that demand our most urgent and immediate attention: 1) the on-going war in Iraq and Afghanistan and 2) U. S. support of Israel.

Everything else is secondary to these issues. The U. S. oppression and killing of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and the U. S.- backed oppression and killing of innocent Palestinian civilians by Israel are unjust crimes against humanity, which must be stopped; immediately.

Although I want Americans to do the right thing—end the war and end U. S. support of Israel—because this is the right thing to do, I also appeal to their sense of survival: the War on Terror is not keeping Americans safe, on the contrary, the War on Terror is leading us into a World War III, scenario, which we will not—and cannot—win

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Leading Indicators of Broken Government . . . from the Past Week


Leading Indicators of Broken Government from the Past Week


I never watch television news—I catch the news on the radio and I read through a weekly news magazine: The Week.


I have to say, I can't even stomach the weekly news magazine lately, because it's filled with articles that simply document what I've been saying: our federal government is broken beyond all normal means of repair (i.e., the next—or any—election).


Listen to this pathetic list of supposed news from Washington:


The Election in Iraq . . .


"At a cost of 4,200 American lives, 30,000 wounded, and perhaps 100,000 or more Iraqi dead . . . [it's hoped that] if Allawi becomes prime minister [it will be good] news, because he's more secular [than Iraq's current leader is], with a history of good relationships with Sunnis. Better yet, he's very wary of Iran." (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 5)


Uh, yeah . . . this Allawi guys sounds . . . oh, I don't know . . . JUST LIKE SADDAM FUCKING HUSSEIN?!


The Economy and Deficit Spending . . .


"Look at it this way: The government and the banks are the only two entities with the power to create something out of nothing . . . " (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 38)


Oh, okay . . . this is brilliant . . . simply brilliant. So you mean to tell me that EVEN MORE WORTHLESS FIAT CURRENCY IS THE WAY TO FIX AMERICA'S ECONOMIC COLLAPSE?!


The Trial of 9/11 Mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed et al . . .


"The Justice Department has decided to try confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other defendants in a military court—a sharp reversal from the administration's earlier insistence on trying Mohammed in a civilian court in New York City." (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 7)


No shit. Do you mean to tell me that someone in Washington actually figured out that CONFESSIONS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF TORTURE ARE INADMISSIBLE IN U. S. FEDERAL COURT?!


U. S. – Israel Relations . . .


"Vice President Joe Biden this week . . . assured Israel that the U. S. would stand with them against Iran." (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 9)


No kidding . . . THE U. S. WILL CONTINUE TO STAND WITH ISRAEL AGAINST THE PALESTINIANS AND WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE US RIGHT ON INTO WORLD WAR FUCKING THREE TOO—AGAINST IRAN, RUSSIA, AND CHINA—IF WE LET THEM!!!


Federal Government Employee's Salaries . . .


"Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than 80% of occupations that exist in both sectors . . . federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 . . . compared with $60, 046 in the private sector . . . [meanwhile, in Iraq . . . ] Iraqis elected to parliament are paid $112,000 a year—about 30 times the salary of a mid-level Iraqi civil servant." (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 18)


So . . . what, exactly, are we doing here . . . TAKING THIS BULLSHIT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SALARY/TAXPAYER FUNDED RIP-OFF SCHEME ON THE FUCKING ROAD NOW?!


Our Corrupt Federal Government in Washington . . .


"Corruption scandals turn off independent voters, who are already in a sour mood because of the economy and thus may be open to the argument that 'the folks running the government are malevolent and corrupt.'" (The Week, March 19, 2010; p. 18)


Please . . . say it ain't so. DO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ACTUALLY RUN BY A WORTHLESS BROOD OF CORRUPT, CRIMINAL VIPERS WHO NEED TO BE TARRED, FEATHERED, AND RUN OUT OF WASHINGTON D. C. ON A FUCKING RAIL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE?! NO SHIT!!


This is why I can't even read the news weekly magazines anymore: what I read just makes me even more furious and disgusted than I already am. And I'm already ready to throw those crooks out of there now as it is.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Terrorism, Internet Radicalization, and Freedom


We're beginning to hear more and more about internet radicalization these days. We're told by the mainstream media that terrorists are using the internet in order to spread their message of hate and that this is giving rise to a new phenomenon: the radicalized individual, with terrorist sympathies, who could commit a lone wolf act of terrorism.

The question the government is asking now is: "How can we stop this?"

After the indictment of Jihad Jane in Philly the other day, the pentagon shooter last week, the idiot who crashed his plane into an IRS building a few weeks back, and the Ft. Hood massacre late last year, the authorities and the media have good reason to be concerned.

And I have news for them, and for you: "This situation is far worse than you think."

I'll tell you, and them, something else too: "The government in Washington is broken far worse than you think it is, and things are far worse than the mainstream media is letting on."

The mainstream media covered the Tea Party Movement as though it were a serious threat to the established order/regime (meaning: BOTH political parties); but it never was such a threat. Not even close. The Tea Party was a tempest in a teapot. It's true that it was, perhaps, the tip of a much larger iceberg of discontent; but the Tea Party itself never came anywhere close to representing the true level of anger, discontent, and revolutionary spirit that has been rising in this nation for many years now, which is now coming to a head. This revolutionary spirit has given rise to a very large (and growing much larger by the minute) movement of true revolutionaries, which is made up of good-hearted, intelligent, hard-working, taxpaying citizens on BOTH sides of the political spectrum who are ready for radical, revolutionary change: NOW!

Because they know the next election will change nothing.

When both a hard-working, taxpaying law professor and a hard-working, taxpaying truck driver are explaining constitutional law to the People, and when both are calling upon the People to take responsibility, rise up, and take control of their broken government, you can know that you have a very serious problem on your hands.

This is no Tea Party Movement; this is a call to revolutionary action.

When the People rise up, take to the streets, and march against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in Washington D. C. on March 20th, demanding an end to this unjust war, people across the country and around the world will see Americans who are Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Socialists, Pro-choice and Pro-life, Muslims and Christians, marching to the beat of a single drum: that our government derives its authority from the consent of the governed--the People--and that the People DO NOT consent to this war . . . we've been lied to, and we DEMAND an END to this war: NOW!

We will do whatever it takes to end this war and we will take charge of our broken government by ousting the current, corrupt, and criminal regime and replace it with a new regime, which understands the meaning of freedom, justice, and truth, in order to build a better society and to further the common good.

So don't be surprized to hear, in the mainstream media, more and more about internet radicalization and angry anti-government talk of revolution, attempting to marginalize true revolutionaries by painting them as kooky internet radicals, or worse: terrorists. Because the truth our government doesn't want you to know--and the truth it is afraid of--is this: that these revolutionaries are simply average, everday, hard-working, taxpaying citizens--who can read, write, and think--who are fed up with this corrupt regime and have decided that they're not going to take it anymore: they're networking, sharing ideas, becoming radicalized, and we're mobilizing.

This is what the current regime is truly afraid of: that we're coming for them, that we will succeed, and that they will be getting their day in (civilian) court for the many crimes that they've committed against the American people.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The War on Terror: Lies and Truths



The War on Terror: Lies and Truths


Lie: "The 'War on Terror' is keeping Americans safe by protecting us from al Qaeda terrorist attacks."


Truth: The odds that we might be killed in a terrorist attack in America are truly astronomical; something like winning the power ball twice in a row. Even "if terrorists were to destroy entirely one of America's 40,000 shopping malls per week, your chances of being there at the wrong time would be about one in one million or more . . . [and even] if terrorists hijacked and crashed one of America's 18,000 commercial flights per week . . . your chance of being on the crashed plane would be one in 135,000." Reason Magazine August 11, 2006 (See the full article here).


The fact is that we are in virtually no danger of being killed in an al Qaeda terrorist attack. And this is not because the so-called "War on Terror" is keeping us safe, it's simply because the odds of our being killed in a terrorist attack (of any kind) are just so astronomically high. And the price that we pay—sacrificing our individual freedoms and liberties—for this supposed "safety" is far too high.


Because of the current "Hot War" that America has begun in the Middle East and Afghanistan, it is in fact far more likely that the American homeland is now at greater risk of nuclear attack by our enemies: China and Russia, who are allied with Iran, than it ever was during the "Cold War".


Lie: "We can succeed in Afghanistan."


Truth: History tells us that Afghanistan has always repelled outside invaders; and we are simply fools to believe that we can succeed where all others have failed. A fundamental rule of warfare is: don't stretch your supply lines too thin, yet this is exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq: "'I would like to push closer to the border, but I can only go as far as I can support,' said Lt. Col. Michael Martin, commanding officer of 4th Marine Division, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion . . . 'Like Napoleon, you don't want to overextend your capabilities, or you will get your butt handed to you,' said Martin, whose troops are spread out among a handful of patrol bases along the Helmand River, marking the coalition's most southern presence in the province." (See full article here).


A fiscally bankrupt nation/empire (like America), which has its military spread out across the globe in a futile attempt to control the resources of foreign nations (like Iraq and Afghanistan), is a nation/empire that is destined to collapse.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

My Review of the Film: The Hurt Locker



My Review of the Film: The Hurt Locker


The Hurt Locker is a very powerful film—in many ways—and I believe it is worthy of the Best Picture Award, which it just received from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences; for one reason: It's the most relevant film of our (particular) time.


At the outset of our war with Iraq, which is the film's context, I predicted that Americans would have little—if any—concern for our soldiers that would be serving in Iraq. Not that the soldiers' loved ones wouldn't be concerned—this, I think, goes without saying—but that most Americans, who have no vested, personal interest in the war, would not give the war in Iraq a second thought. Iraq is a long, long way from America; and our military is, currently, an all volunteer force.


I was actually surprised when, at first, there was a lot of interest in the war; but, as time has gone by, I think my prediction has been proven correct: most Americans, I think, care very little about our war with Iraq, which is still on-going, and they care very little about the fact that our soldiers are currently serving there. After all, our soldiers are volunteers who are simply doing their jobs, which they have chosen to do. What Americans with this particular (and pathetic) attitude toward the war and our soldiers in Iraq fail to realize is that our soldiers are doing what they are ordered to do and that THAT is their job: to follow orders. And I think it's high time that all Americans realize that the orders our soldiers were given—to invade and occupy Iraq—were wrong. It's our job and it's our responsibility—as U. S. citizens—to insure that our soldiers are not misused and put at risk for no good reason and to call our elected officials to account for their wrong-headed decision to invade and occupy Iraq.


The Hurt Locker is a film about a U. S. Army Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit that has been deployed to Iraq, for a one year term service, and whose job it is to defuse Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's), car bombs, and, in one case, a very unwilling human bomb. Not the kind of job for the faint-hearted; nor for me.

Explosive devices (or bombs) are notoriously unpredictable. They often go off when they are not supposed to go off and they sometimes fail to go off when they are supposed to go off. I once witnessed an EOD guy get killed by an explosive device, when I was in the Army, just shortly after his EOD partner had taught me the most important EOD maxim: "There's no such thing as an explosives expert".

Monday, March 8, 2010

Natural Law and the Right to Life



Natural Law and the Right to Life

(Photo of an angry Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) pointing at Clarence Thomas during Thomas' U. S. Supreme Court judicial nomination proceedings in 1991)

In my last post, I brought up (current Vice President of the United States) Joe Biden's criticisms of (current U. S. Supreme Court Justice) Clarence Thomas' belief in natural law during Thomas' confirmation hearings during the early 1990's. There is one reason—and one reason only—for Biden's being so critical of Thomas' belief in natural law: the fear that Thomas, as a U. S. Supreme Court Justice, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, thus recriminalizing abortion on demand.

I'm going to tell you, now, about a personal encounter that I once had with an abortionist. And, as much as I hate to say it, this is the rather disturbing truth about abortionists.

In 2003 a friend of mine, Leon Holmes, was nominated, by then president George W. Bush, to the judiciary of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. I attended a meeting of angry liberals who were opposed to (then president) Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary, which was held in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas at the University of Arkansas' William Bowen School of Law.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Polarized Nation: Why We Must Unite and How We Can Accomplish It

Polarized Nation: Why We Must Unite and How We Can Accomplish It

We hear so much about a divided and polarized America these days, and it's true—we are divided and we are polarized—but we never hear about our need to come together—to unite—and how this can be accomplished. And we never hear about this because very few—if any—of our social/political leaders have the slightest idea concerning how we should go about uniting a society as factious as ours has now become.

I wrote a paper a while back (Political Musings; October, 2009) in which I outlined how a social/political revolutionary movement must make proper use of its nation's symbolic political imagery, which represents the nation's social/political ideology, in order for it to be successful. This is a truth so obvious that it should not have to be outlined at all, yet many people are unaware of the importance of this fundamental truth.

I also mentioned, in the same paper, the climate of fear—a fear that some people, out of frustration, will resort to acts of political violence—that existed at that time and which continues to exist today. Since that time we have seen the shooting at Fort Hood, the man who crashed a small airplane into an IRS building, and, most recently, the Pentagon shooter. The second incident—the guy who crashed a small plane into an IRS building—was, I think, an example of exactly the type of violent acts that people were growing concerned about: violent acts that are committed by people because they have become frustrated with the current political system.

I read, online, the diatribe written by this fifty-something year old plane-crasher-murderer guy and, I have to say, this guy was an idiot. His diatribe, in a nutshell, says "the government is screwing me out of my money!" My response to this is: "Yeah, no shit. You're fifty-something years old and you're just now waking up to this fact?! And your solution is to kill innocent people by crashing an airplane into a building?!" This guy was not just an idiot, he was a murderous idiot.

I was on facebook the day this happened, and I received a link to this guy's diatribe, which was sent to me (on facebook) by the Chicago Tribune (via Scribd), and one of my more radical facebook friends made a post saying that what this guy had done was good: a symbolic act of political violence committed against a broken and oppressive government. My response to her was to quote from this guy's diatribe, wherein he had said "Not only is violence the answer, violence is the only answer" and I pointed out to her that not only is what this guy did wrong but his statement was also wrong: violence is not the only answer, and violent acts which take the lives of innocent peoples are always wrong.

It is obvious that people are frustrated, that people have become factionalized, and that this nation, politically, has become extremely polarized. The question is: What can we do in order to remedy this situation? Under what traditional American principles can we unite?

Well, what would you prefer to hear first; the good news or the bad news? If you're like me, I always prefer to hear the bad news first; because, this way, I still have the good news to cheer me up afterward, right?

The bad news is that some people's sacred cows will have to be sacrificed in order to gain the unity our society so desperately needs, politically speaking. The good news is that in order to unify our society, politically speaking, we simply need to return to our nation's traditional and most fundamental principles, which all Americans (should) hold in common.

Blog Archive