Crusader Knight

My Speech To The NAACP

2008-07-17T15:15:00.002-05:00

It seems unlikely that I, unlike Sen. McCain, will be invited to speak before the NAACP! Were I to so appear, I would begin my speech as below and as Mr. McCain failed to do.

"It is obvious that I am NOT an Afro-American. I am also NOT a Latino-American OR a Irish-American OR an Asian-American OR (In spite of my name and ancestry) a Polish-American. I am by birth-and-choice an American with a strong commitment to our customs, laws, lessons of history, common language and in all other national and common strengths.

I am proud of this nation with a special pride in its progress towards correcting its faults by the combined and democratic acts of its many peoples. O yes! The faults have existed and some continue to exist---And are subject to ongoing correction.

Of those faults, the early, national and international acceptance of slavery may have been the greatest. Yet, many thousands of Americans, mostly White, gave up blood, limbs and lives to begin the destruction of that system and injustice. Yet, my ancestors were not part of that problem in 1789 nor of that bloodiest war ever fought by the USA as they were, themselves, downtrodden serfs in the conquered and divided nation of Poland until they fled to this freer land about 1905. Because of that fact and my birth in 1938AD AND my very strong opposition to collective guilt; I cannot accept any blame for slavery nor credit for overthrowing it because of the actions or in-actions of my fore-bearers.

The remaining problems of the USA are best solved by individual actions. For myself, I treat every adult I meet as a Lady or Gentleman, with all of the courtesies and respect implied by those terms, unless they prove they are not worthy of such. In that case, I demote them to mere human-beings; Further misconduct leads me to consider them as critters.

Just beyond this principle and example, I suggest that the atomic or extended family is the very best means to begin academic, good manners and other forms of civilized instruction AND to maintain such throughout all children's real education and development. After all, many of us come from cultures where "She or he is educated" means that child or adult practices good manners and shows respect to those persons and those things which are worthy of that courtesy.

To solve this nation's problems we would best NOT go beyond these essential bases or, at worst, beyond the neighborhood or "village" with its churches, locally controlled public or charter schools and other pillars of society are only next-best; But, generally, potentially, superior to marginally responsive, money wasting, bureaucrat burdened big-city, county, state and national governments.

ETC. ETC. ETC."

This is the style of speech Senator McCain should have given to the NAACP and should give to all groups who continue to divide the USA by insisting on being "hyphenated-Americans".

Islamophobia???

2008-07-11T14:07:00.002-05:00

The term or suffix "phobia" is used too widely and much too incorrectly in such terms as "homophobia" and, as to this note, "islamophobia".

As to the latter term, the following quote is applicable: "A phobia is defined in Webster's dictionary as an "inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of subjects or situation.". Fear of Islamic extremism and its potentially catastrophic consequences is not inexplicable or illogical. It is a rational reaction to dangerous, irrational people who would use weapons of mass destruction to bring about their apocalyptic vision." (From Joseph Klien's "Playing The Islamophobic Card", "Front Page Magazine"; March 5, 2007.)

I suggest that we all now substitute (In our daily use, in magazine/newspaper "Style Books", political speeches, sermons, etc.) the term "ISLAMOFORIA", where the term "foria" derives from the Greek and denotes a state of being-on-guard---Which is the proper response to Islam and all Muslims (Based on their "religious duty" to destroy our culture, government, nation and civilization).

Conditional Support For "Fairness Doctrine"

2008-07-08T17:11:00.001-05:00

I could (As a conservative and strict constitutionlist) bring myself to support a First Amendment violating "Fairness Doctrine" if, and only if the following conditions are first met:
1. That the broadcast media part of this process be first tried out, for a minimum of three years on NPR and all publicly owned broadcast operations which use the public airways; AND,
2. As newspapers use the public roads (Paid for by all tax payers) to distribute their editions, the editorials of all daily newspapers be subjected to the same three-year test---Before it is inflicted on magazines or "talk show radio"

Should I hold my breath for such conditions?

"If" & Senator Obama

2008-07-01T16:27:00.001-05:00

If you recall that no nation has given so much of its wealth and blood to help others, within and without its borders, as has the USA AND love your country because of that and for other reasons, you are a patriot and should not vote for Mr. Obama as he was a 20-year disciple of Pastor Wright who dammed our land to hell.

If you are proud of most of what the USA has done over the many years, you should not vote for Sen. Obama as his disciple, his wife, was only proud of that nation after her husband's successes in primaries and undemocratic caucuses.

If you believe that the State of Israel is the strongest ally the USA has in the Middle East and is the only real democracy in that part of the world, do not vote for Mr. Barrak Husein Obama as his church of 20-years membership has honored Minister Farrakhan of the Black Muslims who has so poisonously expressed his hatred of Israel and all Jews.(Senator Obama has also said, in effect, that if the "winds blow badly", he will side with Islam---And, at that time, said nothing about the USA.)

If you are a Jew, why (For the reasons above) would you vote for Senator Obama or, for that matter, for any member of the Democrat Party which nominated him?

If you believe that military service for our nation is honorable, do not vote for Sen. Obama as his invitation to youth to public service most pointedly ignored service in the Armed Forces. (My active duty was with the US Navy, 1956-1959, and I was issued an Honorable Discharge.)

If you, as I do, admit that not all heroes are in the military AND that there are cowards in all places. If you believe that Sen. Obama's refusal to debate Sen. McCain, in an unscripted and open way, not more than once and only on July 4th, is an act of cowardice, then do NOT vote for him as we certainly do not need a coward as President.

If you believe that Sen. Obama went back on his word to accept ONLY the funds allowed candidates under the applicable law and is a LIAR, do not vote for him as we have no need for such a person in our highest public office.

If you believe that a child born live after an attempted abortion deserves medical attention and care, do not vote for Senator Obama as he has a record of opposing a law which would require such care.

If you are among the millions who oppose any abortions, other than to save the live of a mother, you should not vote for Sen. Obama who supports abortion-upon-demand OR, for that matter, you should not vote for most members of his Party for the same reason.

If you are Black, you might wish to consider his lack of experience with real "Black life" in the USA and his support by a Party who has used, assumed and abused its Black voter support for many years. If you are Black and have ever lived in a "ghetto" or some "projects", you will understand how little that form of existence means to Sen. Obama in his Hyde Park residence with the double protection of the Chicago PD and the local university police department (The second largest in Illinois), and then wonder if he understands anything about "Black life" in the USA.

If you are White or Asian, do NOT vote against him because he is Black! Vote against him because he is the perfect example of a well spoken, slick, smooth and convincing---Used car salesman.

If you have done productive physical or mental labor, you might be doubtful about such as Senator Obama who appears to have only been a politician-in-training or politician or attorney. (My first job was at Age 13 in my school cafeteria, being hot and sweaty work; I earned my way through college as a Hospital Attendant.) I doubt me much if that Senator has ever done such labor or was ever a member of a labor union AND real workers should vote against him for his lack of productive labor.

If you are among those who believe that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the USA gives each sane, adult and law-abiding citizen the right to keep and bear arms (Including all handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns), you will not wish to vote for this candidate as his track record is very much opposed to that right.

If you are among those who have concluded that the First Amendment ONLY forbids an establishment of a (Federal) official and state Church and that all are eligible for the "free exercise" of their religion (Except as it directly would physically harm minors or violate the criminal law) in all places (Including court houses, public schools, etc.) and under the free speech guarantees of the same amendment, do not vote for any Democrat as they generally oppose such a view and rule.

Needed: Full Teaching Of "Faithful Citizenship"

2008-06-28T14:45:00.002-05:00

My parish bulletin recently contained a copy of the June, 2008 "Catholic Update" focused on "Faithful Citizenship" and as to those key themes regarding Catholic social teaching in the public square.

I was disappointed to note that the editors of that publication failed to address the Natural Law right of all to self-defense against criminal attacks (By individuals, gangs, Jihadi, et.al.) and the probable duty to protect the innocent against such attacks---Along with the right to ready access to the means (Modern weapons) when the appointed law enforcers are unable or unwilling to provide such protection.

Even our nation's very secular Supreme Court has recently recognized that right, noting (I believe) a Pre-Constitution right, perhaps natural in nature, to self-defense and the weapons to enforce that right.

If I remember correctly, the 1913 edition of the "Encyclopedia Of The Catholic Church" (The precursor of the present "Catechism Of The Catholic Church") contained sections noting and approving of the use of force, even deadly force, in both resisting criminal attacks and even recovering property taken by criminals.

You should also note that the great "Doctor Of The Church", St. Bernard of Clairvaux, approved (In his "De Laude Militae Novae") of striking deadly blows "for Christ", by Crusaders (ie The "Good Guys").

I look forward to a future edition of Catholic Update as will address the right of self-defense, the duty to protect the innocent against criminal attacks and to the ready means to do both.

A Journalistic Lie About Gun Rights

2008-06-27T16:43:00.001-05:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's June 27th editorial ("A right, but limited"; Please see below) as to the Supreme Court's confirming the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms continues that paper's campaign to unreasonably limit (If not destroy) that right.

Although editors have the right to hold that position, I do wonder if they have a like right to publish outright lies in such editorials, TO WIT: The Wisconsin Legislature did NOT have objections to lifting our State Supreme Court's ban on carrying concealed weapons, having twice sent enabling legislation to the Governor who, by his singular vetoes, overturned the will of the People in enacting Article-I, Section-25 of Wisconsin's Constitution and the Legislative Acts which would have enforced-and-enabled that Section by a rational system of licensing adult, sane and law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

Editorial: A right, but limited
The Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment ruling Thursday doesn’t mean that everyone should own a gun.
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: June 26, 2008

If Milwaukee’s gun violence demonstrates anything, it is that an individual right to bear arms does not mean that everyone can be trusted with a gun.

Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court's gun ruling Thursday - in the case of an overly broad ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. - agrees. While spelling out that the Second Amendment provides for an individual right to own a gun for self-defense, the court, in a 5-4 ruling, also acknowledges leeway to enact reasonable restrictions.

Congress and the Wisconsin Legislature must continue crafting legislation that balances gun rights with the public's right to be safe from guns. For instance, by our reading, this ruling does not prevent legislatures from requiring all sales to go through licensed dealers, who are, in turn, required to do background checks to stop felons and others from owning guns. And law enforcement continues to need access to data that will allow it to trace gun ownership.

Moreover, there appears to be nothing in the ruling that would force the state Legislature to reverse its objections to lifting the ban on concealed weapons.

A majority of gun owners - Wisconsin's many hunters, for instance - use their weapons responsibly. Sadly, far too many people use guns in violent crimes. Last year, Milwaukee reported 84 firearm-related homicides, not to mention the hundreds of people who were shot but survived.

This ruling could well prompt challenges to existing gun laws, but we are confident that most reasonable laws will pass constitutional muster. And any future law requiring sales go through licensed dealers will as well.

Yes, the court also held unconstitutional any requirement that shotguns and rifles be kept disassembled, unloaded or fitted with a trigger lock. OK, it follows that if firearms can be kept for self-defense, making them inoperable for that purpose makes no sense. Still, gun owners must be held liable if they negligently allow their guns to be used carelessly.

In the context of safe guns, more efforts should be placed in "smart gun" technology. Such guns, which will not fire unless used by an authorized individual, can reduce the number of accidental shootings.
This ruling makes efforts to curtail gun violence with reasonable restrictions even more important

Liberal Fascism---A Book To Read

2008-06-27T16:39:00.001-05:00

I bring to your special attention and consideration the following book:.
Goldberg, Jonah;
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the AMERICAN LEFT from Mussolini to the POLITICS OF MEANING;
Doubleday, New York, Toronto, Auckland, Sydney; 2007;
ISNB 978-0-385-51184-1.

You will, no doubt, form your own opinions and judgments as to the author's positions. However, he (On the basis of a considered overview of Mussolini and Hitler) does make a good case for the fascist approval or orientation of such persons as: US Presidents W. Wilson, T. Roosevelt, FD Roosevelt, JF Kennedy; AND, such other individuals and collectives as Sen. Hillary Clinton, the ACLU, the "Black Power Movement" and many others. (Persons outside of the USA may select their own fellow-citizens for probable inclusion!)

I found the liberals' and fascists' tendency (If not outright commitment) to the position of "Everything with the State and nothing outside of it!" as a very strong "hint" of the anti-religious position of so many on the left and their willingness (As in Canada) to suppress civil liberties to the intentions of the Left.

Respectfully submitted,
James Pawlak

Annotation
Liberal Fascism : The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton
by Goldberg, Jonah

Produced by Blackwell's Book Services

"Liberal fascism offers a new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg reminds us that the original fascists were really on the left, and that liberals from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler's National Socialism and Mussolini's Fascism." "These assertions may sound strange to modern ears, but that is simply because we have forgotten what fascism is. In this angry, funny, smart, contentious book, Jonah Goldberg turns our preconceptions inside out and shows us the true meaning of liberal fascism."--BOOK JACKET.

Publishers Weekly
Terms of Use

In this provocative and well-researched book, Goldberg probes modern liberalism's spooky origins in early 20th-century fascist politics. With chapter titles such as Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left and Brave New Village: Hillary Clinton and the Meaning of Liberal Fascism—Goldberg argues that fascism has always been a phenomenon of the left. This is Goldberg's first book, and he wisely curbs his wry National Review style. Goldberg's study of the conceptual overlap between fascism and ideas emanating from the environmental movement, Hollywood, the Democratic Party and what he calls other left-wing organs is shocking and hilarious. He lays low such lights of liberal history as Margaret Sanger, apparently a radical eugenicist, and JFK, whose cult of personality, according to Goldberg, reeks of fascist political theater. Much of this will be music to conservatives' ears, but other readers may be stopped cold by the parallels Goldberg draws between Nazi Germany and the New Deal. The book's tone suffers as it oscillates between revisionist historical analyses and the application of fascist themes to American popular culture; nonetheless, the controversial arc Goldberg draws from Mussolini to The Matrix is well-researched, seriously argued—and funny. (Jan. 8)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Don't Argue With A Drunk, Sen. Obama!

2008-05-28T20:45:00.001-05:00

One of the prime precepts taught police officers, social workers and others is: "Don't argue with a drunk!!!".

This includes those intoxicated with alcohol, other drugs, power and, as in the case of Iran's President Ahmadinejad, both power and the "Dark Side" of the Koran and other Islamic teachings and traditions.

Dealing with such intoxicated persons, when they become dangerous to themselves or others, requires firm AND overpowering use of controlling force AND NOT TALK!

Senator Barak H. Obama should learn and remember that lesson.

Abortion & Guns As LIFE Issues

2008-05-20T11:34:00.003-05:00

Yesterday I received, in the mail, copies of the "National Catholic Register" (An essentially orthodox publication) and one of the magazines published by the American Rifle Association. Both of these periodicals criticized Senator Obama (And, to a only slightly lesser extent, Senator Clinton) for positions: One as to his (Their) opposition to the rights of sane, adult and law-abiding citizens to keep and bear modern firearms; The other as to killing unborn children or even (As in the case of Sen. Obama) protecting the lives of babies who somehow survive abortion attempts.

Yet, these two publications appear unable to make the connection and note that these are both "LIFE ISSUES". One as to the right of free people to have the means to enforce their statutory and Natural Law rights to protect their lives from criminal assaults; The other of the most innocent in our world, unborn children, to live without being cut to pieces or chemically burnt to death in the womb.

I think it well past the time for the editors of both journals (AND EVERYONE ELSE) to set aside their respective prejudices and reexamine the rights of all as should be supported by those who oppose abortion and abortive and ineffective gun control measures.

No Police Or Armed Citizens To Protect

2008-05-16T19:48:00.001-05:00

By this time you have read or seen (It made the national TV news) the horrid attack upon a Milwaukee County bus driver, with passengers in his vehicle, by a "gang banger" thug. There were no police or deputies to protect that driver and his endangered riders.

Of course, Governor Jim (Protect The Criminals) Doyle twice vetoing of passed legislation which would have allowed adult, sane and law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons made it impossible/illegal for some such patriot to pull out a pistol and, as is usual in the millions of such cases each year in the USA, frighten off the criminal. (Of course, if that critter continued to attack, two rounds to the head would yield a considerable savings to our County and State budgets by saving courts and prisons the costs of dealing with such a dangerous animal.)

A Human Life Concern Ignored

2008-05-12T12:39:00.003-05:00

The religious, academic, political and media debates the political and moral aspects of various human life issues (eg Abortion, Euthanasia) are more-and-more discussed in spite of some candidates' reluctance to do so. However, the human life issue never (Well, hardly ever) discussed is the Natural Law right of every human to self-defense against criminal attacks.

That is a right for each human and the protecting of innocents against such attacks is a duty for able and right-thinking persons. That right applies to the female student walking home from school, the Christian or Pagan under Islamic attack in the Sudan, the store keeper or other worker terrorized by gang-bangers and all like threats.

The "sticky" part of defending that Natural Law right is the question of innocents' access to the immediate and effective means (Modern weapons) when the police or inter-national peace keepers are unable (Or unwilling because of the political pressures of such as the Islamic Block in the UN) to provide instant and effective protection of the innocent.

Alternatives To Guns

2008-05-07T21:16:00.002-05:00

Since police are often unable (Or is it unwilling?) to protect shop keepers and other citizens from bandits, those citizens should take measures to protect themselves. As too many officials (Especially very "political" Police Chiefs) appears to frown on citizens having readily accessible firearms (Hand guns) to do so, I suggest that shop keepers keep ready and use one or more of the following: Gas or elastic powered fish spears; Ordinary harpoons; Nail studded baseball bats; Home made (Liquid Petroleum Gas) flame throwers; Sling shots" (Called "catapults" in the UK) with steel ball bearings as projectiles; Chain saws; Lead shot filled garden hose sections; Chinese style repeating cross bows; Batons plugged into wall current with sharp prong electrodes to jab into thugs; Old style "zip guns" using sharpened flooring materials as projectiles; Packets of red pepper dust to be followed with boots and clubs (The Maori have some nice designs); And, any number of other improvised weapons.

Property represents the portion of the lives of those who honestly labored to acquire it and is therefore subject to protection by use of force---Even deadly force as every theft and robbery represents a "little murder".

"Disguised As Muslims"? Ya, Sure!

2008-05-06T21:31:00.001-05:00

The three persons suspected of gunning down a Philadelphia police officer, in traditional terrorist style, had shaved heads and full beards in Islamic style, wore Islamic style clothes and used an AK-47 style weapon, the favorite weapon of Jihadi.

Do not forget the maxim: "If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is likely to be a duck"? Unless Philadelphia is more like Londonistan than I expect it to be, wearing Islamic style garb to rob a bank is more likely to be a "statement" than a disguise.

I suggest that that city's overly politically correct police officials are too intent on avoiding "offending" Muslims---And afraid to face up to inconvenient truths. All (Including the FBI, those PC-Police & the equally PC newspapers) should look more closely into the background and affiliations of those three terrorists. It should be remembered that bank robberies have been a means of raising money for terrorist organizations.

"Homoaidia" Not "Homophobia"

2008-05-06T14:04:00.003-05:00

The term "homophobia" should not be used as that word is based on the word for "fear", which emotion is not the usual reaction to (Male) homosexuals. I suggest the term "Homoaidia" based on the word for the usual and natural reaction to such creatures, disgust or revulsion.

The only time a "fear" based word should be used is when discussing male homosexuals as disease vectors (HIV/AIDS) or when considering those who sexually abuse boys.

Negative VS Positive Religious Liberty

2008-04-25T12:38:00.001-05:00

In my recent rereading of The Virtue Of War (1) [A book I highly recommend to all], certain concepts were noted by me that I had missed during earlier readings: That of "Negative Religious Liberty" and "Positive Religious Liberty". I suggest that the recent political, academic and media debates, as to the question of the place of religion in the USA, would be better understood if all understand those concepts.

"Negative Religious Liberty" means, in today's world, that no one should be harmed for what they believe (Including "moral" imperatives") or rituals practiced and statements made as to Faith---As long as such are kept out of public forums and NOT considered in voting for candidates or making public policies. This is the "liberal" or "secular humanist" position or standard which, of course, excludes religion-based "moral" choices (eg As to politics, abortion, war and other like and "hot" topics) as are likely to be in opposition to those held by "liberals" or "humanists" from even being considered by the general pubic, law makers, judges, ETC.. (This is, of course, the current and perverted interpretation of the first part of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the so-called "separation clause"!)

"Positive Religious Liberty" supports the full "free exercise of religion" (The second clause of the First Amendment) by allowing, if not encouraging, "Believers" to proclaim the tenets and practices of their religions in ALL forums; But, also and more importantly for this discussion, to have the ethical, moral and faith-based aspects of religions be accounted as valid issues and frameworks for voting and other public decision making.

I hope I have neither twisted nor misinterpreted the Dr. Cole's and Fr. Webster's much better, but longer, presentation of this issue.

1. Webster, (Fr.) Alexander F. C. & Cole, (Professor) Darrell;
The Virtue Of War; Reclaiming the Classic Christian
Traditions East and West;
Regina Orthodox Press; 2004;
ISBN 1-928653-17-0

More Lies About St. George

2008-04-24T15:43:00.004-05:00

THE VERY LEFT-WING "THINK TANK" EKKESIA (UK) PRESENTED THE VIEWS OF THE GREEN PARTY, BUT FLAMING RAINBOW PERSON (I WILL NOT USE "MAN" OR "GENTLEMAN" TO DESCRIBE HIM) PETER TATCHELL AS TO ST. GEORGE. BELOW IS MY LETTER TO THAT UK ORGANIZATION.

Mr. Peter Tatchell is of the worst sub-class of liars, those who use half-truths to corrupt history and subtract from the sub-total of human knowledge. His declaration that the father of St. George was "Turkish" seems to ignore the fact that there were no Turks in Anatolia in his time. To declare that St. George's mother was a "Palestinian" appears to be some perverted effort to link that warrior with the Arab occupiers of parts of today's Holy Land whose commitment to following Mohammed's instructions to use murder, genocide, perpetual war and the other horrors contained within the Koran and Hadith is too apparent in today's events and has been in that area since Muslim bandits occupied that land.

To the whores-of-history as tell such lies as Mr. Tatchell, I note that St. George is the multi-national (In the true Churches of East and West) symbol of the perpetual war against evil and the Evil One and of such of his all too eager helpers as the Mr. Tatchell. His statements are proof that the Evil One is "The Father Of Lies".

My key question for today is: Why do you assist in the lying work of the Evil One? My secondary question is: Why does the RC Church in the UK do the same?

News Brief
St George hailed as a human rights campaigner
By staff writers
24 Apr 2008
The Patron Saint of England (and a number of other countries) has been hailed a human rights campaigner by fellow activist Peter Tatchell - who backs ideas that his national day should be a public holiday celebrating dissent.
"It is time we ditched the myths surrounding St George and celebrated the reality of his courageous life", said Tatchell - who is a prospective Green candidate in Oxford, and has gained widespread media attention for his direct action campaigns for Tibet, against Robert Mugabe, and for the LGBT group OutRage!
"St George's Day should be a national holiday in England. We should celebrate St George as a symbol of freedom, dissent and multiculturalism," says the human rights activist.
"He doesn't belong to the far right. He represents multiculturalism and rebellion against tyranny.St George wasn't white or English. He was a rebel from the Middle East. His father was Turkish and his mother probably Palestinian. He rebelled against the Roman Emperor Diocletian and was executed for opposing the persecution of Christians by the Romans."
"An early defender human rights, he is a heroic symbol of protest and the right to freedom of belief and expression."
"St George's parentage embodies [many nations] and his life expresses the values of English liberalism and dissent," said Mr Tatchell.
Catalonia, Portugal, Beirut, Moscow, Istanbul, Germany and Greece are among the numerous other principalities claiming a historical or mythological link with St George.
The idea of St George as dissident was proposed last year by the religion and society think-tank Ekklesia, whose report entitled When the Saints Go Marching Out: Redefining St George for a new era points out that the original story which dates from the 4th century CE told of St George offering hospitality to a refugee, defending the marginalised, and challenging the persecution policy of the Emperor.
This image has been distorted, and replaced by one of a dragon slayer who backs the crusades (religious wars), the report says.
A new painting of St George by highly regarded artist Scott Norwood Witts, which depicts the saint as a man of compassion rather than a crusader, has been unveiled at the Roman Catholic Cathedral of St George, Southwark, this week.

Testing Canada's Human Rights Commissions

2008-04-23T18:51:00.002-05:00

As a citizen of the USA I have been following the "progress" of Canada's "Human Rights Commissions" and do have the following questions:
1. Must complaints to that commission be filed by Canadian Citizens or legal residents;
2. Could a "mere" visitor to Canada file such complaints; And,
3. Should someone file such a complaint against all publishers, importers, sellers, public holders (eg Public Libraries), teachers (Including University professors, Imams, Mullahs) who sell or transfer or use the Koran in business transactions or public discourse?

It appears that the Koran has sufficient "hate content" (Please see the references below) to warrant a prima facie case which would warrant a full and public hearing.

I do wonder what would occur if, on the same day, such complaints were concurrently filed in every Canadian city. [In truth, I would hope that your Courts or Parliament would declare the free speech and free press rights of Canadian citizens to be of greater force and value than the actions of those commissions in all areas.]

HANDY REFERENCES TO THE KORAN

* verses which preach cruelty, incite violence and disturb public tranquility (i.e., 2:193; 8:39; 2:216; 9:41; 9:123; 66:9; 9:73; 8:65; 8:66; 47:4—15; 8:12; 69:30—33; 8:15—18; 25:52; 9:39; 9:111; 3: 169—171; 4:100; 48:29; 49:15; 2:154; 3:157—158; 8:59—60; 9:2—3; 9:29; 8:67; 4:84; 29:6; 29:69; 61:9—13; 9:36; 9:5; 9:14; 9:20—22; 4:95—96; 8:72—74; 3:142)
* verses which promote, on grounds of religion, feelings of enmity, hatred and ill-will between different religious communities (i.e., 4:101; 60:4; 58:23; 9:7; 8:13—14; 8:55; 25:55; 5:72; 9:23; 9:28; 3:28; 3:118; 4:144; 5:14; 5:64; 5:18; 5:51)
* verses which insult other religions as well as the religious beliefs of other communities (i.e., 5:17; 4:157; 5:116—118; 98:6; 68:8—13; 38:55—57; 22:19—21; 22:56—57; 5:36; 15:2; 72:14—15;41:33; 4:125; 25:27—29; 26:96—99; 3:85; 8:38; 31:13; 29:41—42; 37:22—25; 37:26—32; 25:17—19; 7:173; 21:66—67; 21:98—100; 16:20—21; 6:22—23; 6:40—41; 6:148; 2;221; 24:3)

Rx For "Just Peace" In Israel & Palestine

2008-04-19T14:22:00.001-05:00

There is a prescription for a just peace in Palestine and Israel! It might be "bitter medicine" for some; But, it will cure the disease of hate and violence there!

Rx: Take one dose of a perpetual promise by Muslims to stop attacking the State of Israel and Jews everywhere, even behind rocks as noted in the Koran; This is applied with the removal (Surgical if needed) of all offensive weapons and Saudi sponsored hate propaganda from Palestine and the lotion of 10% of the military moneys spent by Arab States to be used for the economic and social rehabilitation of the People of Palestine.

In fact, this Rx should be applied to the entire Islamic world---Even at a cost of pandemic apoplexy to the Mullahs of the entire world.

Hear O' Israel---And Learn From History

2008-04-19T12:27:00.001-05:00

I specially address this note to the Jews of the UK and ask them to reflect on the words of George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" as the lessons so terribly taught in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s must specially be brought to the forefront of all, especially Jews, in the United Kingdom of today. The same "signs and portents" as published by the Nazis in those earlier days are now growing in power and effect put forth by the Nazi like ideology of Islam in the UK of today.

Those Jews who could read the future in those earlier years fled Europe for other lands and saved themselves. Millions of those who did not are now as smoke after a wind storm, remembered but no longer in existence---Just as are all the words and non-actions of the pathological-pacifists of that day (And this) are as to stopping such genocides.

The UK's Jews of today must remember the past so as to not be condemned to a new Shoah. The choices are stark and more immediate that most think or believe. The Government of the UK is very apparently surrendering to the forces of the Jihadi who have seized control of Islam and will not protect Jews now or in the days-of-dread which are so close upon them.

Those stark choices are these: Flee the UK; Or, find some new Judas Maccabeus to lead them in a campaign to crush and destroy their enemies before such creatures of hate escalate to beyond the level of massacre the already initiated war against the Jews.

Since the British Government has proceeded so far in disarming all law abiding citizens of the UK, leaving them at the questionable mercy of those closely following the horrid teachings of Mohammed and of other criminals who might join them in pogroms, I see little choice but the illegal importation of such arms as needed for self-defense OR Irgun like raids on Mosques and other places where Muslims are likely to have stockpiled such arms.

Senator Obama & Columnist Kane VS Reality

2008-04-15T17:46:00.002-05:00

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Eugene Kane, in his April 15th column ("Campaign promises more 'gotcha' games"; Please see below) provides clear evidence that he, like Senator and professional elitist Obama, is very much out of contact with small town Wisconsin (Or Iowa or Pennsylvania). Mr. Kane seems to have forgotten the numbers of small town citizens who voted for Senator
Obama before he revealed his big city, big money and big-nose (For looking down at us) positions.

Mr. Kane's (And Senator Obama's) Information, rational small town and big city citizens:
1. Do not love guns as much as the liberty and freedoms they represent, along with free speech and a free press, AND as the means to enforce all such freedoms (Including the "free exercise of religion") upon would be tyrants and elitists;
2. Do not hate gay marriage as much as they realize that, in spite of the failures of so many traditional marriages, that the time-immemorial one-man with one-women marriage and family unit is the best and soundest base for any civilization;
3. Do not "scapegoat illegal immigration" but more realize that beginning a life in the USA upon the shaky basis of disobeying our democratically based laws is not good AND that such illegal immigrants cost much more to the economic and social well being of our land than they give to it; And,
4. Have little concern about promoting a segregated way of life beyond a desire to have their families raised in safety away from gang-bangers, pimps, street-corner drug dealers and such like thugs.

Campaign promises more 'gotcha' games
Posted: April 14, 2008

Eugene Kane

Lucky for him, it's been months since Barack Obama won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin.
Considering his recent comments about small-town voters being "bitter" folks who turn to guns, religion and bashing illegal immigration out of frustration, he might not be as popular today.
Frankly, if it weren't for the kind of people in small towns in Wisconsin who love guns, hate gay marriage, scapegoat illegal immigrants and promote a segregated way of life, there are plenty of politicians who would never get elected around these parts.
Since Obama won in February, it's been one public relations fiasco after another, including his incendiary black Baptist preacher and a clumsy attempt to lump his grandmother into a group with "typical" white people because of her racial attitudes.
This week, Obama must address yet another gaffe that could resonate for people still deciding between him and Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.
During an appearance at a fund-raiser in San Francisco, Obama was overheard telling supporters that middle-class Americans in small cities and towns in the Midwest and other places were bitter about the current state of the country and often expressed that bitterness in specific ways.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years . . . And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," Obama said.
Obama's words became instant fodder for both his Democratic and Republican opponents.
Clinton accused him of expressing an "elitist" mentality that looked down on the kind of working-class folks who go hunting and resist gay marriage. John McCain also chimed in that Obama's words were "condescending" and "out of touch."
Later, Obama clarified (he's getting good at clarifying his remarks) without totally backing away from the substance of his statements.
In Wisconsin, state politicians have gotten good at using issues like gun control, gay marriage and illegal immigrants as scare tactics for voters looking to lay blame for society's ills. (I would add talking about the threat of "activist judges" ruining our way of life to that list.)
Wisconsin is known as a progressive state, but there's a move afoot to change things, including reinstituting the death penalty and allowing the carrying of concealed weapons.
With Pennsylvania - another state filled with small towns - next in line for a major primary, it's almost certain the discussion will focus on Obama's true feelings about small-town voters instead of an out-of-control murder rate in a major city such as Philadelphia. It's also clear that the rest of the 2008 Democratic campaign will include more games of "Gotcha!" between Obama and Clinton as each waits for the other to trip over their tongue.
There are bitter voters in small towns and villages across America, including Wisconsin, but it's likely nobody will get their votes by talking down to them. That's just common sense, which is something Wisconsinites are known more for than their bitterness.
Contact Eugene Kane at (414) 223-5521 or ekane@journalsentinel.com

Guns On University Campuses

2008-04-12T17:12:00.001-05:00

It appears (Please see Badger Herald article below) that the UW Police Department and the "International Association Of Campus Law Enforcement" are in need of some history instruction after the (Paraphrased) precept left to us: "Those who do not study history will be condemned to repeat it"---As to shootings on various school campuses (Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois U. and Columbine HS) where the police were, as usual, too late and too indecisive to stop massacres VS the lesson provided by two armed students at Appalachian Law School whose possession of handguns and decisive actions stopped a murderer from increasing his kill count to the massacre-level.

Applying the KISS principle often taught in engineering schools, the following formulas are offered:
1. "Gun Free Zones" = "Free Fire Zones For Crazed Criminals"; And,
2. "When Murder Is Seconds Away, the police are only Minutes from the scene and, thereafter, standing around waiting for some command decisions".

If you prefer the "deeper" thoughts offered in Philosophy Departments and good Law Schools: Individuals have a Natural Law Right to an instantaneous defense against criminal attacks and, lacking immediate and decisive police protection, to the ready means (Effective weapons at hand) of enforcing that right.

Of course, the entire State of Wisconsin is now a "free fire zone for crazed criminals". The first step is to pass a "Must Issue CCW Permits" law to cover all adult (Voting Age), sane and law-abiding citizens at such a low cost as does not discriminate against the Poor AND does NOT allow the UW to again put itself above the Law. (Michigan's experience with a state wide CCW practice and the University of Utah's forced allowing of CCW has demonstrated the safety of that practice AND the errors of the self-serving, "politically correct" Chiefs-of-Police in those jurisdictions.)

NEWS--The Badger Herald (April 11, 2008)
Students advocate for concealed guns at UW

by Amelia Vorpahl
Friday, April 11, 2008
In the wake of the recent killings in the Madison area, a student group advocating for the concealed carrying of weapons on campus has been gaining more attention.
Bret Bostwick, campus leader of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, said he first thought of starting a University of Wisconsin chapter of the group after the Virginia Tech shooting last year. After the shooting, he said he wondered whether the tragedy “could have played out any differently.”
“We can’t say for sure that a concealed handgun license holder in one of those classrooms would have prevented the shooting, but we can say for certain it would even the odds,” he said.
Bostwick said one of the group’s main goals is to open up a dialogue about campus safety, an issue of increasing relevance after the recent death of a UW student. The group believes only students who have gone through adequate training, education and background checks should be allowed to carry concealed weapons.
“We don’t want to just hand guns to students,” he said. “We are talking about licensed, trained individuals that have completed a background check.”
According to Bostwick, concealed carry laws are actually the norm in the country, and Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states that don’t have some form of a concealed carry law.
Bostwick said it is easy to assume that gun-free zones are a good idea, until you look at it from a criminal’s perspective. He said criminals look upon gun-free zones as areas where they know people will be unarmed and vulnerable.
“Laws against concealed carry don’t stop criminals from carrying guns,” he said. “Criminals don’t obey the law. The law instead prevents good, trained people from being able to protect themselves and other innocent people.”
Bostwick said Students for Concealed Carry on Campus faces a double hurdle because they must advocate both for concealed carry statewide, as well as on the UW campus. Many states that have concealed carry laws still prohibit concealed weapons in public areas like college campuses.
The UW chapter of the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is not the only advocate for changing Wisconsin gun laws.
In 2006, Rep. Frank Lasee, R-Bellevue, in response to the fatal shooting of a high school principal in Cazenovia, proposed legislation that would allow trained school staff and teachers to carry weapons in Wisconsin schools.
The legislation ultimately failed but did spark a debate about public safety and gun laws in Wisconsin.
According to UW Police Department Lt. Eric Holen, university police would still oppose concealed carrying on campus, even if it became legal statewide.
“The person carrying the weapon may feel more safe and more in control,” he said. “But the person next to them may or may not feel more safe if they know people around them are carrying guns.”
Holen said people cannot solely rely on a weapon to protect themselves. He said personal safety has to be multifaceted and that while students should be aware of their surroundings, they should also work to control their environment as best they can. He also said using SAFE services and self-defense classes are options.
According to Holen, the No. 1 way to stay safe is to avoid isolation.
“People can learn some really cool self-defense moves,” he said. “But wouldn’t it be better to be aware and perceive the threat and avoid the big fight altogether?”
The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus will be having an empty-holster protest on campus from April 21-25, when members will be walking around campus with empty holsters. The group will be holding a meeting regarding the protest Wednesday at 8:30 p.m. in the Memorial Union.

Ads & Judicial Elections

2008-04-06T20:06:00.001-05:00

There is little doubt that Americans are assaulted by aggressive advertising at just about every waking moment. With the exception of some few who are totally deficient in mental process, I think it fair to write that most of us have developed a certain immunity to such attacks and the ability to sort out from them the essentials we need to make the best decisions among the offered products.

Those who bemoan the recent advertisements in the election for a seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court grossly underestimate the intelligence of our citizens. This is the stock reaction to the usually left-wing elitists (Among editors, politicians, columnists and other pundits) towards any of their fellow citizens who might dare to disagree with them---Even to the position of State Representative Fred Kessler who now wishes that we lumpen not be allowed to select judges by democratic voting and related process.

However, it is fair to note that judicial candidates are essentially forbidden to directly address those matters of public law and policy as are important to the people-at-large, legislators and the courts.
Rather that rely on such ads as we have seen in the last two State Supreme Court elections OR on such poorly defined terms as "character", "liberal", "conservative" and the like, those candidates should be allowed to publish-and-proclaim their general positions and policies as to the essential and important questions of the day Their responses (Especially if published on a side-by-side basis) to such questions would give the voters a much clearer understanding of the candidates and what they stand for than what we have experienced in the past! [Below you will find a list of some such questions as might be asked of candidates for election to Wisconsin's Supreme and other courts-of-appeal.]

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FOR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES

1. Do you support or oppose the use of "affirmative action" quotas, goals and set-asides for members of such sub-classes of citizens who have or might-have suffered the effects of discrimination in the past, even if they as individuals did not suffer any such direct impact?
2. Do you support or oppose the contention that Article-1, Section-25 of Wisconsin's Constitution as provides for the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes requires the government to allow sane, adult and law-abiding citizens to carry weapons either openly or concealed with or without any permit to carry concealed weapons?
3. Do you oppose or support the positions that any seizure of private property under the use of "eminent domain" must be for the direct use of government agencies or purposes as for building of roads, strictly public buildings, etc.?
4. Do you oppose or support the concept that any government agency which has the power to impose taxes must be governed by a body or board directly elected by the People?

False Prophets

2008-04-06T16:11:00.001-05:00

There are and have been many false prophets. We were warned of such by Jesus the Christ as to future religious mis-leaders and by others as to those who would misdirect us in other areas. Such religious false prophets and "messiahs" did appear throughout history in the Middle East, USA and other places.

Karl Marx, V. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao all misled (And murdered) millions by and to enforce their unsustainable economic theories. Lesser economic disasters were proposed by such as William Jennings Bryan and Charles Ponzi (Look them up if the names mean nothing to you). All of them wrote or spoke in "prophetic voices"---And were false to the core of meaning and existence.

In the USA of today the false prophets of race preach the past and not the future, thus insuring the future remains as the past. By doing so they insure their own considerable incomes. They support: Conflict and not peace; Hate and not compassion and love; Blaming others for the social problems of our day and their communities rather than self-examination; AND, resentment rather than self-driven solutions to such conditions as need correction.

Among those new and very false prophets are such as Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and even Milwaukee's own Eugene Kane and the father-son Michael McGees.We should beware of those persons and all who follow them and their teachings.

The Church & The Civil Law

2008-04-05T18:07:00.001-05:00

The Church, in its Bishops in the USA, has seriously weakened its position as to the Law in its pathological obsession with protecting clergy from just punishment for the sexual and psychological abuse of minors. It has attempted to inflict upon the People the very outdated and discredited "right of clergy" (Look it up if you do not know the term).

Those bishops have also weakened their moral positions and the place of the Church vis-a-vis the law (Especially in a democracy) by claiming that our just laws regarding citizenship, border controls and immigrations are subject to Church law when, in fact, such laws (From the time of civil Rome) are something which "belongs to Caesar".

I hesitate to present these concepts to the USA's bishops as I wonder if we still have enough qualified priests to fill the vacancies caused by the heart-attacks and strokes such would bring.

Not All US Marines Remain Heros

2008-04-04T21:25:00.001-05:00

Human beings are fallible! Without regard to heredity, wealth, education, upbringing and training, some fail to meet minimum standards of decency. We have ministers-of-religion who sexually or psychologically abuse others, the Harvard educated sons of rich men who will leave a woman to drown or otherwise physically or financially abuse others, lawyers and police officers who break the law they know so well---And sometimes members of the United States Marine Corps who, in spite of the best available training in manliness, turn out to be pustules on or cancers within the body politic.

Among such failed marines are Lee Harvey Oswald, the U-Texas Tower shooter, "Jack" Murtha (That most corrupt congress-critter) and, in recent news, Rev./Mr. Jeremiah Wright, the preceptor, councilor, pastor, ETC. of Presidential Candidate Obama.

It appears that some once-upon-a-time marines have NOT "Always Faithful" to the spirit of the Corps and such service does NOT mitigate their later betrayal of the American Way OR of any other standard of decency, honor and courage.