FREEDOMSITE.US

Miscellaneous Ramblings

 
 This is a section for our own editorials,  and for materials gathered from other sources, that really don't fit into our main theme of anti-socialism, but which should be of interest anyway.
    

(1)  We try not to dwell on bashing Obama in the Freedomsite, as we think that it detracts from our main argument and may unnecessarily put-off some people that might otherwise agree with at least some of our points.  But he is so obviously the enemy of our country right now that it is difficult not to, at least occasionally.  I found this list posted by an anonymous blogger.  I did edit it just a bit, but I did not write it, nor did I write the summary at the end - although it sure reads as though I might have.  The Fundamental Transformation of America (list)

 

______________________________

(2) We know that, despite our best efforts, we are sometimes unkind to President Obama.  So, that it why it was particularly magnanimous of Michelle to take the time to thank the American people through our humble medium.  An open letter from Michelle Obama

________________________________________

(3) Among the many oft-repeated lies (if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth) that we are being assailed with today is that it is an excuse to spend us into our collective graves because, "Obama inherited the deficit from the Bush administration."  This informational summary, that was forwarded to us by Stephen Wells, pretty much puts that lie in its place. Facts from the CBO

_________________________________________________

(4)  Thanks to Raul Garibay for forwarding this to Freedomsite.US.  It is, at the same time, really funny and deadly serious.  Please enjoy:
An Obama Tale






_________________________________________________


(5)  These pictures and captions were circulated on the web.  Thanks to Larry Henneman for forwarding them to me.  Anyway, these pictures make a great point.  But what is that point?  One friend of mine jumped immediately to the conclusion that these were about failings in the government.  Well, that is not an unreasonable conclusion.  But it's not what I took away from these pictures at all.  We all know that all of that hype about Bush being slow to respond to the crisis in Katrina was absolute BS.  For instance, there was more help on the ground faster there than in the prior two hurricanes in Florida.  It was the Democrat Mayor and Governor that really failed the people - that and the failure of the people to help themselves.  When I was young I lived on the Mississippi, and we were flooded out of our home three different times.  But did we wait for the Government to save us?  Hell no!  It didn't even occur to us that the Government should.  So, I view these pictures more as speaking to a difference in attitude than to anything having to do with the Government, itself.  The attitude of the "victims" is different but, more importantly, the attitude of the public and the press is totally different.  The question is, in which disaster was the attitude correct?  I think it was in the Iowa flood.  Sure, we feel sorry for those people.  Our hearts go out to them.  And surely they deserve and should get help.  But both the Government and charity organizations responded, and did help.  Although, of course, no help can completely compensate for the loss of your home.  But in Katrina, no amount of help would have been sufficient to shut up the whiners.  Compare
The Two Floods.


___________________________________________________

AS PUBLISHED IN FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS

(6)  I don't know if we deserve all the loss of respect we are getting around the world.  But this is just some of the evidence of what a joke at least some people around the world think our government has become. 
AS PUBLISHED_

________________________________________________

 The Real Threat of Radical Islam


(7)  Maybe this article should be under the "Tying the Issues Together" section.  But I decided to give it it's own heading because this issue has one important feature.  Like the main issue here - that of the fight against socialism - this fight cannot be put aside.  Just as our domestic enemies will destroy this country from within if we sleep but for a moment, these jerks would harm us from without if we are not continually vigilant.  But neither do we want to let the foreign enemies aid the domestic enemies by diverting too much attention from our most important cause.  That is what this short article is about.  Also, this is where I call Al-Qaeda “a pimple on the ass of the world”. Don't miss it.

                                        

(8)  While we are on the subject of Islam, it's time we put political correctness aside and take a hard look at the real issues.  With all due respect to our Islamic brother and sisters, there are some real ussues that we ALL have to look at, discuss, and try to resolve together; The Trouble With Islam

_______________________________________________________

A Father/Daughter Conversation

(9) This is clever little (short) record of a conversation between a father and his daughter, wherein the daughter ends up explaining to herself one of the reasons why conservatives are conservatives.  (Sent in by old friend and regular contributor Stephen Wells.)

________________________________________________________ 
Historical Perspective

(10)  This article was published in 2003.  In light of the wisdom of an additional 7 years, while I stand by the general thesis here, I think this is just a bit overly simplistic.  But  I am providing it exactly as it was written, in order to show how little things have changed. The essay Socialists, Communists and the Democrat Party provides just some of the relevant historical perspective. 

                           _______________________________________________________


(11) This first article is about the avalanche of ad hominem attacks that have blossomed in the past 10 years or so.  It is somewhat personal in nature, as it relates a confrontation that actually occurred: Illegitimi I  The second article here is a continuation of the saga - discussing the media complicity in this sort of thing and how terribly effective it can be unless we act to counter it: Illegitimi II 
_______________________________________________________

(12)  A recursive theme of this web site is the tricks and tactics of the Fabian Socialists, and how these can be recognized and stopped.  But, fortunately for us and the World, not all "progressive" tactics are effective.  For instance, Fabian Socialism depends entirely upon the old "frog in the boiling water" parable - after all, their self-chosen symbol is a wolf in sheep's clothing - but, perhaps, President Obama is overstepping these days.  He is dousing us in scalding oil, and we (the American people) are beginning to take notice.  This is an article by Chris Wilborn about another of Obama's tactics that seems to be rubbing people the wrong way.  
Obama is a Punk


BACK to home page

































































 The Fundamental Transformation of America
by an anonymous blogger


When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist,
People said it didn't matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents, who were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school and introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter.

When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school, and that his father and step father were both Muslims,
People said it didn't matter.

Even when it was disclosed that he HAD to renounce his US citizenship (or, in this case, his legal guardian did it for him) to attend that school in Indonesia,
People said it didn't matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored, “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”,
People said it didn't matter.

When he admittedly, in his book, said he purposely sought out and chose Marxist friends and professors in college,
People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on a mysterious pseudonymous passport,
People said it didn't matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate,
People said it didn't matter.

When he sat in a Chicago Church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew a constant tirade of hatred for America, and when he dedicated a book to that preacher and praised him,
People said it didn't matter.

Even when he had that hateful “preacher” marry him and baptize his children,
People said it didn't matter.

When an independent Washington organization that tracks senate voting records gave him the distinctive title of the "most liberal senator",
People said it didn't matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign,
People said it didn't matter.

When his voting record clearly supported harsh gun control, even while he was talking out the other side of his mouth to say he favored the right to own firearms,
People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign as the other candidates had done (even after having previously publicly promised to do so),
People said it didn't matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muammar al-Gaddafi. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.

When he chose close friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who were convicted violent criminal revolutionary radicals,
People said it didn't matter.

When he later denied having been that close to Bill Ayers, even after proof that Ayers had been a guest in his home, had had several business dealings with him, and had helped him edit (or even write) his book came out,
People said it didn't matter.

When he directed his Attorney General, Eric Holder, NOT to prosecute the militant Black Panthers who purposefully intimidated poll workers with threats and actual violence in order to keep those workers from interfering with TENS OF THOUSANDS of illegal ACORN voters,
People said it didn't matter.

When he directed his Attorney General, Eric Holder, to sue Arizona over its law that only allowed police to ENFORCE existing Federal law,
People said it didn't matter.

Even when the contrast between suing Arizona over a law that enforces Federal law, while at the same time refusing to do anything about "Sanctuary Cities" that defy and refuse to obey Federal Law, was pointed out,
People said it didn't matter.

When the Director of NASA, an agency that is supposed to be advancing US interests in the fields of space exploration and science, revealed that Obama had instructed him that his "MOST IMPORTANT JOB" is to "reach out" to the Muslim community to make sure they feel good about their past contributions to math and science,
People said it didn't matter. 

When his voting record in the Illinois senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question,
People said it didn't matter.

When he refused to wear a flag lapel pin, and did so only after a public outcry,
People said it didn't matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises,
People said it didn't matter.

When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance,
People said it didn't matter.

When he, several times, waved his middle finger in public – a gesture that normal people carefully avoid making,
People said it didn't matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, anti-capitalism, anti-free markets, pro government control over everything, and who want to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition,
People said it didn't matter.

When he said he favors sex education in kindergarten and, when asked, agreed that it should specifically include informing the kids about homosexuality, even in kindergarten,
People said it didn't matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him,
People said it didn't matter.

When as his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records,
People said it didn’t matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, and continues to spend millions in court to keep the material sealed,
People said it didn't matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character who is now in prison, and who had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his multi million dollar home while Obama had only a teacher's salary,
People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected,
People said it didn't matter.

When he, at the specific request of George Soros, shut down drilling in the Gulf so that the oil rigs would have to go to Brazil, where Soros owns the majority interest in the oil company,
People said it didn't matter.

When he approved a two billion dollar aid package to pay for the drilling for oil in Brazil by George Soros,
People said it didn't matter.

When he started appointing czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communists,
People said it didn't matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else,
People said it didn't matter.

When he didn't admit, he bragged, that he intended to redistribute wealth in America,
People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN,
People said it didn't matter.

When the extent of the corruption that he had participated in with Acorn came to light,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed cabinet members (including even the Secretary of the Treasury) and several advisors who were tax cheats and/or socialists,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a science czar, John Holdren, who has stated that he believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory czar, who believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs without family consent, and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Kevin Jennings, an overt homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, education network, as safe school czar, and it became known that he had a history of giving biased advice to teenagers,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar, and it became known that Lloyd believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, and that he admires Hugo Chavez,
People said it didn't matter.

When Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor,
People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had tried to force the Governor of Illinois to appoint that same socialist, Valerie Jarrett, to fill his seat in the Senate,
People said it didn't matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist who is pushing for Cap and Trade (the largest tax hike, greatest government intrusion, and biggest blow to our economy ever proposed) as global warming czar,
People said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he sat on the board that granted seed money to the Chicago Climate Exchange, the owners of which (including Al Gore and George Soros and some even more nefarious characters) will be instant Billionaires (if they aren't already) the moment Cap and Trade is signed into law,
People said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist and vocal “9-11 denier” as green energy czar, who has since had to resign when this was made known,
People said it didn't matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for health and human services secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat,
People said it didn't matter.

When, as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,
People said it didn't matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness (the American Apology tour),
People said it didn't matter.

When he was asked directly if he didn't believe in “American Exceptionalism” he replied, “Well, I'm sure that people in other countries think they are exceptional, too”, but,
People said it didn't matter.

When his wife, not once but several times, said that she had never before been proud of this country,
People said it didn't matter.

When his actions concerning the middle-east supported the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend,
People said it didn't matter.

When he shunned the Prime Minister of Israel on his visit to the United States,
People said it didn't matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States,
People said it didn't matter.

When he upset our European allies by canceling plans for a missile defense system against the Russians,
People said it didn't matter.

When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending the troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win,
People said it didn't matter.

When, in compliance with the requests from the relevant Unions, he refused the aid of the 13 countries that were ready, willing, able, and sorely needed because of the specialized equipment they offered, to come to our aid after the Gulf Oil Spill (which aid Bush gladly accepted after Katrina),
People said it didn't matter.

When he completely botched the handling of the Gulf Oil Spill by, among other things, waiting 40 days to get involved, and allowing “musical government entities” to block the efforts of those people who were trying to do something about it,
People said it didn't matter.

When it came to light that he had gone to prestigious schools with no visible means of support, and that he came out without the student loans that “normal” people are saddled with,
People said it didn't matter.

When he became a multimillionaire while never having held a more lucrative job than that of  entry level teacher,
People said it didn't matter.

When his wife was placed on the board of directors of a health services company at a 7 figure salary, with nothing more to recommend her for that position than that she was married to a Senator,
People said it didn't matter.

When he has been spending us into a debt that is so big our children and our children's children will be suffer under it,
People said it didn't matter.

When his own financial statement revealed that he had a net worth of over $9,500,500, despite never having come from humble beginnings, never having held a well paying job, and never having provided any explanation as to where he got that kind of wealth,
People said it didn't matter.

When he took a huge spending bill, under the guise of stimulus, and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected,
People said it didn't matter.

When he forced the Government takeover of insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc.,
People said it didn't matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put them in the hands of the Government,
People said it didn't matter.

When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control,
People said it didn't matter.

When he and his partners in crime forced their socialist health care bill through, EVEN THOUGH the great majority of the public was opposed to it,
People said it didn't matter.

When he put into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy resources in the United States through Cap and Trade,
People said it didn't matter.

Even after everyone knew that Cap and Trade would cause HUGE increases in the cost of energy, which would hurt poor and middle class families the most, and yet he still pressed on,
People said it didn't matter.

When he announced he was returning the masterminds of 9-11 to New York City to stand trial as ordinary criminals -- not war criminals -- thus allowing them the full benefits of our system of jurisprudence,
The mainstream media loved it and the people said it didn't matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up ... but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of itself, may not really have mattered. But.... when you add them up you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our Obama is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have occurred. (Get on the Internet and verify them for yourself!) When he said he intended to “fundamentally change America”, by God, he meant it!

If you were an Obama Supporter, please recognize that you have elected a president who is a socialist. There is simply no debate about these facts. But you need to seek the truth; you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation. Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the Internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there as well, but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies. Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox who he is currently waging an open war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, and he has failed to refute any facts presented – because it is all true. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't. Please, find the truth, it will set you free.

Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia or Iran.  No, our biggest enemy is the current contingent of politicians in Washington DC. 






BACK to misc. ramblings index


BACK to home page


To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 







 An open letter from Michelle Obama

 

 

Dear Americans,

For only the second time in my adult life, I am not ashamed of my country. I want to thank the hard working American people for paying $242 thousand dollars for my vacation in Spain. My daughter Sasha, several long-time family friends, my personal staff and various guests had a wonderful time. Honestly, you just haven't lived until you have stayed in a $2,500.00 per night suite at a 5-Star luxury hotel. Thank you also for the use of Air Force 2 and the 70 Secret Service personnel who tagged along to be sure we were safe and cared for at all times.      


Air Force 2 only used 47,500 gallons of jet fuel for this trip, and carbon emissions were a mere 1,031 tons of CO2. These are only rough estimates, but they are close. That's quite a carbon footprint, as my good friend Al Gore would say, so we must ask the American citizens to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars, and to drive less too, so we can lessen our combined carbon footprint. 

I know times are hard and millions of you are struggling to put food on the table, and trying to make ends meet. I do appreciate your sacrifice and do hope you find work soon. I was really exhausted after Barack took our family on a luxury vacation in Maine a few weeks ago. I just had to get away for a few days.  I would have stayed longer, but I had to get back in time for our luxury vacation on Martha’s Vineyard.

I hope that this letter puts to rest rumors that my family is acting like that of any other petty dictator.  I know it’s true that, historically, socialists prefer to have an elite class of political leaders instead of the crass bunch that actually works for their way up in a Capitalist system.  And I also know that it’s true that socialism inevitably leads to petty dictators that live like royalty while the people suffer.  But this is the United States of America.  There is nothing petty about the way we do things here.  So, thank you. 


Cordially,

Michelle Obama

BACK to misc. ramblings index


BACK to home page


To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 








































 CBO Deficit Chart


The Washington Post, like the good little lapdog media puppet that it is, frequently repeats Obama's “talking points” mantra about his having “inherited” a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson:

Requests for money and budgets can come from the White House, but it is the Congress that actually sets the budget. And the party that has controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. (Note that we also are critical of Bush for not taking a harder line on non-military spending earlier in his administration. But, even if the Obama accusations about the Bush profligacy were true, it is difficult to understand how Obama thinks that Bush's failings are an excuse for him to go completely berserk spending money borrowed from the Chinese.)


For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of the very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, voting for all of those spending bills himself, and he signed the omnibus bill later, as President, to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period, (See the attached chart from the Congressional Budget Office.)


So, in fact, if the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit - the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, the Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

 

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, "I inherited a deficit that I voted for, and then, with the help of Pelosi and Reid,  I expanded that deficit four-fold since January 20th."

 
BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page
 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 











  An Obama Tale

And it came to pass, in the Age of Insanity, that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader A person known as "The One."

 

 

He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He beguiled the people telling them, "I am sent to save you." My lack of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you with HOPE and CHANGE.

 

 

Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, and that all he has built must be destroyed.

 

 

And the people rejoiced, for even though they knew not what "The One" would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And "The One" said " We live in the greatest country in the world. So help me 'fundamentally change' everything about it!"

 

 

And the people said, "Hallelujah! Change is good!" Then He said, "We are going to tax the rich fat-cats." And the people said "yea verily, for those who provide jobs are evil, and they who have worked hard and prospered are sinners" "And also redistribute their wealth."

 
























And then he said,"redistribution of wealth is good." And Joe the plumber asked, " Are you kidding me? You're going to steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??" And "The One" ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe's personal records were hacked and publicized. And one lone reporter asked, "Isn't that Marxist policy?" And she was banished from the kingdom. 
 

And then a citizen asked, "With no foreign relations experience and no military experience or relevant knowledge or experience of any kind, how will you deal with radical terrorists?" And "The One" said, "Simple. I shall sit with them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; and they will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!" And the people said, "Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!"


Then The One said "I shall give 95% of you lower taxes." And one lone voice said, "But 40% of us don't pay ANY taxes." So "The One" said, "Then I shall give you some of the taxes paid by those that do, and we will just "call" it a tax reduction so that you don't feel bad!" And the people said, "Hallelujah! Show us the money!"


 Then "The One" said, "I shall tax your Capital Gains!" And the people rejoiced, because they hated the evil Capitalists who have those Capital Gains. But lo, when the people who owned houses tried to sell them they were alarmed, and the slumping housing market totally collapsed.


And He said, "I shall give every person unlimited health care and medicine and transportation to the clinics." And the people said, "Give us some of that!" and He said, “I shall decree that others shall give you this health care.” And the people said, “This is a brave new world, where certain types of slavery are good!


Then he said, "I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas." And the people said, "Where's my rebate check?"

 

Then "The One" said, "I shall create a thing called 'cap and trade' to bankrupt the coal industry, and electricity rates will skyrocket!" And the people said, "Coal is dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don't care for that part about higher electric rates." So "The One" said, Not to worry. Unless you are one of the evil rich that makes over $50,000 per year, if your rebate isn't enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and your troubles will be over!"


Then He said, "Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let's grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, free medical care, bi-lingual signs and guaranteed housing..." And the people said, "Hallelujah!" and they all voted to make him king!


And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs and ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support. So powerful was his message that these things began to occur even when the people first saw that he soon would soon be anointed.

  

Then "The One" said, "I am the "the One"- The Messiah - and I am here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!" But our foreign creditors and the foreign merchants said unto Him. "Wait a minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more... And "The One" said, "Wait a minute. That is unfair!!" And the world said, "Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a Socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!"


And the people who had worked and saved for their old age saw their savings become worthless, and they grieved.


And the people cried out, "Alas, alas!! What have we done?" But yea verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change "The One" had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.


And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, "give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!" But it was too late.
 

 

 

BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page
 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 












 
Hurican Katrina:  Obviously a plot by the rich white Americans (led by the evil George Bush) to perpetrate genocide against the citizens of New Orleans.  Correct?  Well, maybe not.  However fast some people thought the response SHOULD have been, in fact there were many more recourses on site much quicker than there had been in the previous big hurricane in Florida, or than were deployed in the following big storm and floods in the Midwest.  But some folks just won't let the facts get in the way.  The following essay in pictures was circulated on the Internet.  It makes the point much better than I could have using just words.


Where  are the Hollywood celebrities holding telethons asking for help in restoring Iowa and North Dakota and Nashville ; helping the folks affected by the floods? Where is good old Michael Moore?




Why is the media NOT asking the tough questions about why the federal government hasn't solved this problem?
  .....Asking where the FEMA trucks and trailers and food services are?



Why isn't the Federal government moving Iowa people into free hotels in Chicago and Minneapolis ?



When will Spike Lee say that the Federal government blew up the levees that failed in Des Moines ?



Where  are Sean Penn, Bono, and the Dixie Chicks?



Where are all the looters stealing high-end tennis shoes, cases  of beer and television sets?    



When will we hear Governor Chet Culver say that he wants to rebuild a  "vanilla" Iowa ... because that's what God wants?   

Where  is the hysterical 24/7 media coverage complete with reports of shootings at rescuers, of rapes and murder?



Where are all the people screaming that Barack Obama hates white, rural people?

My God, where are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, Oprah, and Ray Coniff Jr? 


How come you will never hear about the  Iowa flooding ever again?   

Where are the government bail out vouchers?

The government debit cards?













There must be one hell of a big difference between the value of the people of  Iowa and value of the people of Louisiana .
______________________________

Semi-humorous addendum:  The picture below may explain why there was no looting in the more recent flood.  Of course, this picture is posed for the sake of comedy.  But it does sort of make a point.  These fellows are obviously more in control of their own situation than were the "victims" of Katrina, morosely awaiting the arrival of the Government to save them. 

 

 

BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

























XXXXXX 
AS PUBLISHED IN FOREIGN NEWSPAPERS




















































































BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 

 



























 The REAL Threat of Radical Islam

 by F. Eric Saunders


I had a somewhat different reaction to the events of 9/11 than did most people I have talked to. Of course, like them, I was shocked and saddened by the deaths of so many people. But, unlike them, I was NO MORE shocked and saddened than if the deaths had come by way of an accidental mid-air collision, or an earthquake, or such. An unnecessary death is an unnecessary death, and all are sad and terrible. But perhaps the main reason for my attitude was that I had long seen this coming, and I presumed that anyone else with any sense at all had also. I was even a little happy that the death toll was no higher, as I had feared that it would be, and it certainly could have been. Now, I thought, at least we finally could get other people and the government to recognize the problems! But I was overly optimistic. The absolute closing of our borders to improperly documented non-citizens, that I assumed would be rapidly put in place, has still yet to occur. In many respects, we are in the same situation we were before 9/11, and the fact that there will be another event of equal or greater magnitude is still almost a certainty.

True, the government is continuing with efforts to increase our security, and I commend the efforts of both the Bush and Obama administrations. It is not an easy job, PARTICULARLY given the lapse in the right kind of concern by the public. Seems like folks are more concerned about being inconvenienced at the airport than they are about safety.

Which brings me to my main point here. The main thing that Radical Islam can do to us is to “inconvenience” us. While it is true that, at the worst, they could potentially take hundreds or even thousands of lives in one fell swoop, on the grand scale of things that is, while terrible, not a fatal blow to our society or our country. More people than that die every day of other unfortunate causes. Every day your chances of getting killed on the highway are much greater than of being killed by Al-Qaeda, And yet you get in your car every day and take to the road. It is also true that Radical Islamic leaders have, of late, stated that their main goal is to cause economic chaos. They have bragged about how their efforts have cost us billions of dollars. But, again, a couple of billion dollars, while significant, will not break this country. We spend more than that every year on ridiculous wasteful projects that SHOULD be eliminated not so much because we can't afford them as because they are ridiculous. In short, pardon the language, but Al-Qaeda and their ilk are just a pimple on the ass of the world – inconvenient and irritating they are, but far from fatal.

What is the REAL danger then? Remember, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”? Well, this is about the same. If we let our own irrational fear dictate our policies, then they have won. Certain actions are necessary. We have to improve security at transportation hubs and other public places. But in today's world such measures, within reason, are a good idea anyway. And although it is certainly not a cure-all, we have to absolutely CLOSE our borders to illegal traffic. But that is long overdue, anyway. But other than that, we need to go about our business and NOT let those bastards win by dictating what and when we go about our lives. The REAL danger posed by radical Islam is in letting them play us like a bunch of puppets.

I should acknowledge that I am fully aware that I have considered here only the domestic cost, in lives and money, involved. The costs of conducting the battles against radical Islam in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are another issue. It is true that the cost of our military is about 20% of our budget, and so is not trivial. And it is also true that, while many of those costs are fixed regardless of decisions about the war, much of the cost (again, in both lives and money) is a function of the those decisions. Whether it is wise to conduct these preemptive battles in terms of cost vs. benefit is, quite properly, a subject of debate – which should, and undoubtedly will, be addressed elsewhere eventually on the freedomsite. But, for now, I just want to comment that the points made here are independent of those issues.

I would write more about how insane it is to let radical Islam dictate our policies and mindset, but it has already been done. Please read this excellent and entertaining article by Daniel Greenfield in the Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21320

 

 
BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page
 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 


 






































 
      A Father and Daughter Discussion 

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs - in other words, redistribution of wealth. She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed.  Based on the Lectures that she had sat through, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.  The policies proclaimed by her professors surely were the truth, and she told her father so. He responded by just asking how she was doing in school. Taken aback, she answered  rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let  him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go  out and party like other people she knew.  She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus, college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”

Her wise father then asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA?”  The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair!? I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work!  Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to The Republican party! I’ve never heard a better explanation of the difference between Republicans and Democrats.”




If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)



BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page
 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

 








 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Socialism, Communism and the American Democrat Party

                                                                          by F. Eric Saunders

Note:   I wrote this article over 30 years ago, early in my exploration of this subject matter.  I would not necessarily have written it all exactly this way, were I to do it today.  But I am including it here, unaltered, as I think it makes a point about how little things have really changed in the intervening years.


                                                                           SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM
1

 Apparently, there are still some people who don't seem to understand the differences (or similarities) between socialist and communist philosophies.2 In a way, that is not too difficult to understand, given that many so called "socialists" have deliberately tried to obfuscate the relationship. In fact there seem to be only two real distinctions and one supposed distinction.

 Early communists often used the terms interchangeably. Although Marx entitled his work the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, he referred to the economic system espoused therein as socialism. Although Lenin led a socialist revolution, the party which came into power was named the Communist party, and the form of political/social/economic government which resulted became known as "little C" communism. It should also be noted that one additional source of confusion might be that other movements, such as fascism, have claimed to be socialist movements. Hitler, for instance, styled his takeover as a "socialist" revolution.

 Because of the baggage imposed on the word by Communism in much of the western world, socialist leaders in many countries chose to use the word "socialism" rather than "communism" to describe their philosophies. However, since both of these terms were intended to describe the condition of community ownership of the means of production, this was really a distinction without a difference

 The real historical distinctions between socialism and communism lie in the modifications to the philosophy initiated by Lenin. Marx had predicted that socialism would have to occur in a developed industrial nation. He believed that to be the case, in part, because the communist revolution was to have been an entirely democratic revolution. Indeed, this philosophy is reflected in the often used terms "social democrats" or "democratic socialist party", and the like, the latter of which was actually the term adopted by the early Russian revolutionaries – who were later supplanted by Lenin's more violent Bolsheviks. Marx specifically discounted Russia as a potential location for the revolution. Therefore, it became necessary for Lenin to "modify" the Marxist philosophy. He did so by explaining that the lack of an educated and informed public could be compensated for by the presence of a "revolutionary elite", who would lead the revolution for the uneducated and uniformed peasants. Therefore, it would not be entirely incorrect to make a distinction to the effect that a Communist espouses a leadership elite that knows what is best for the masses, while a socialist still holds to the (now demonstrably naive) belief that a socialist economy can flourish in a democratic political environment.

 The other distinction lies in the retreat from the original Marxist ideals by the communists of the world. Lenin himself instituted an essentially capitalist farm trade system when he saw that the purely socialist system was, for obvious reasons 3 , not working. He called that a "strategic retreat". Such diversions from the original economic philosophy have further distinguished communists (both big and little C). In short, communism can no longer be said to be a pure economic philosophy. Indeed, the economic philosophy of communism today appears to be largely a "finger to the wind", whatever works, kind of approach. The real distinguishing characteristic of communism today revolves around the centralization of political power, rather than the centralization of means of production. While this is a real philosophical distinction, it also seems to be a distinction without a difference in the actual practice of the philosophies. It appears that most so called "socialists" today are engaged in a struggle for power, to benefit one class over another, or the like (or to remove supposed existing "unfair" benefits), rather than in a pursuit of the original economic egalitarian goals.

SOCIALISTS AND THE DEMOCRAT PARTY 4

First of all, it should be mentioned that the following facts are not meant to indict all persons who now or ever did identify themselves as Democrats. One does not have to go too far back in history to find good and noble Democrats. Whether those good and well intentioned people espoused ideas that were correct for their time, or whether those honestly held ideas were, even then, incorrect, but not yet demonstrably so, could be debated at length without profit. However, it is now readily apparent to all (with the possible exception of Fidel Castro) that many of the early socialist ideas and ideologies are bereft of an ability to achieve their stated goals.5

At the extreme, it might be said that all Democrats today are divided roughly into three groups. The first group comprises those who are so naïve (either because of their youth, their innate inability to deal with reality, or left over effects of ‘60s chemical experimentation) that they really believe the human condition to be amenable to the manipulations of socialism, and the second is comprised of those who know better but choose to profit by pandering to the first group (read “politicians”). The third, but largest (and rapidly growing), group of Democrats consist of those who have no political ideology or world view at all. Rather, they choose to be Democrats simply because they believe that the Democrat party can benefit them personally. Those who perceive that they benefit from big government, those who perceive that they will benefit from a government mandated “effortless” redistribution of wealth (as opposed to the continual redistribution of a vital economy), and the like, tend to vote for Democrat candidates. (Note that the word “perceive” is used advisedly here, since the facts have tended not to support such beliefs, but that is another story.)

Whatever the motivation of the membership of the American Democrat Party, there would seem to be little disagreement about the current general philosophy of the Party, either among supporters or detractors (although there is, undoubtedly, some disagreement about how that philosophy should be characterized). 6 In recent history we have seen an attempt to socialize major portions of the economy, including but not limited to the health care industry. We have seen continued reluctance to support even the most modest and important privatization efforts of current government monopolies, including but not limited to the Social Security system and educational institutions. We have seen continued and increasing support for the mandatory redistribution of wealth, despite increasing evidence that most such efforts harm, rather than help, the intended beneficiaries. In short, the American Democrat Party has gone over entirely to a socialist philosophy. There remains no conclusion but that the only distinction between a Democrat and a Socialist lies in their respective degrees of success at achieving the goals common to both. 7

____________________________

1 A good place to start with understanding just about anything is with a "dictionary" type definition. This page does a great job of providing some definitions of various political/economic systems: http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure4.htm It is interesting how this author chose to divide the definitions - kind of from a different perspective than that of this present essay. But the very fact that a different perspective is provided is, itself, instructive.
For a still different perspective see
http://www.aristarchus.org/Glossary.html Talk about thorough! The author starts out by discussing the definition of definitions, and then goes on to provide one definition of many political terms.

2 If you think that this writer is nuts, you might want to check out some alternative points of view. At http://www.folkandfaith.com/natbolsh.shtml you will find a web page which discusses certain Jewish/communist ties. At http://www.latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm you will find a page that details the roots of communism in the Bible. What is most interesting about both of these is that the respective writers have focused on issues that are, at most, of only very tangential importance in the overall scope of the struggle between competing socio/economic systems. Both authors support their arguments with some "facts", at least some of which (in at least one of the articles) are downright misinformation. However, the fact that I don't endorse either of these points of view doesn't mean you shouldn't read about them. You might learn something, if only how far one can go in stretching a minor point into an entire philosophy.
One final note: Even if some of these perspectives may be somewhat off base, that doesn't mean that these articles are necessarily devoid of truth, either. As just one example, I found the discussion about the present factional split among Jews to make some interesting points. I, myself, have noticed how some (liberal) Jews tend to favor policies that would seem to be against "their own best interests". However, perhaps I was in error in assuming that ALL Jews have those same interests in common.

3 I wouldn't think that it should be necessary to further debate the point that socialism/communism has proven to be a failure. However, if you do want to read more about this, please see the excellent references documenting some of the many failures (both economic and humanitarian) at http://www.anticommunism.org/

4 The reader might be alarmed to find no mention of historical ties, or lack thereof, in even a brief treatise comparing Democrats, Socialists, et al.  It should be noted that this present exercise is a comparison of ideologies.  The circumstance of whether, at one extreme, the Democrat party has been actively infiltrated by Socialist agents or, at the other extreme, similarities of philosophy occur only because of the most unlikely coincidence, is irrelevant to a comparison of the philosophies. At http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a369ce54973ab.htm  you will find MANY links to pages that do delve into this issue.

5 Well, perhaps I am overstating this a bit. Please see the EXCELLENT brief treatise on communism at: http://www.namyth.com/index.php?archive=5 If you don't follow any of the other links on this page, you should, at least, look at this one. It is clear, concise and accurate. To paraphrase the conclusion - communism might be dead per se, but much of the evil lives on in the hearts and minds of many modern Democrats AND Republicans. And that is NOT a good thing!!!

6 Wow! This author really does a thorough job of comparing many modern Democrat priorities to dangerous and outdated socialist policies: http://www.afreecountry.com/pty/demos.html It is interesting to note that the author is no kinder to Republicans, Greens, and the like, than he is to Democrats.

7 Here is a post from
FreeRepublic.com that goes into a lot more detail comparing the published policies of the American Socialist party to present Democrat platform planks. It could use a little polishing, but the author is definitely on the right track, and more work along these lines is warranted. Since the author gave permission to distribute this post, I have copied it here: [link is no longer valid]

© 2003 F. Eric Saunders



BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to an index after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

__________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Illegitimi Non Carborundum 

(Yes, I know that's not a real Latin phrase, but it has a noble history, nonetheless.)

by F Eric Saunders

 

I was at a dinner party the other night when the subject turned to the recently passed health care bill. This was a subject of particular interest to the hosts, since several members of the family are unable to obtain health insurance because of preexisting conditions.


When asked, I stated that I thought that it was an abomination, and I was about to explain why I thought that this bill would not be effective to help in their particular situation, when another guest interrupted and the discussion turned sour. Instead of offering his opinion on the merits of that law, he went into the “talking points” diatribe about how the Republicans had refused to cooperate and how they care only about political gain and not about the welfare of the people and the country.


Well, I almost got suckered into that false debate, but I had made my my mind a long time ago that I was not going to quietly sit by and listen to such crap. It is people who resort to mindless ad hominem attacks and such, instead of sticking to the legitimate issues, that are tearing this country apart.  I was, probably visibly, angered that he or anyone would stoop to that sort of irrelevant and hateful tactic, particularly in an amiable social setting. Feeling that my choices had been instantly limited – I either had to stoop to that sort of dead end debate or leave, I quickly thanked and made apologies to my hosts and headed for the door. But would this individual just let me leave peaceably? No, before I could get to the door he called out something about “teabaggers who listen to too much Glen Beck.”


That did it! I went back and got in his face, and gave as good as I got. I “made a scene”. If name calling is what we were doing, then let's do it!!! I was, at once, both sorry about disrupting the home of my hosts and yet never before so proud of myself for taking a stand against that sort of personal attack. We all need to do more of this, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. We can't just let the enemy get away with that tactic any more . The real battles in this war are being fought around dining room tables, and every one of us is a soldier with the responsibility to hold his ground.


The hateful and abusive term “teabaggers” was, apparently, coined (actually, just applied, as  we all know the disgusting slang derivation of the term) by someone in the present administration to denigrate and minimize those of us who are on the front lines, trying with every ounce of strength we have to hold this last line against the takeover of our beloved country. Words can't describe how despicable it is to resort to such invective, but it is ubiquitous in the “progressive” dialog. Just yesterday I heard the President of the United States poking fun at us because we understand how disastrous and largely irreversible this setback has been. He said something like – [we] are calling it Armageddon (although I haven't heard anyone actually use that term, he says we did), and that he had to look over his shoulder when he was signing it to make sure there was not a comet coming – all in the smirking manner of a low budget Borscht Belt comedian. He has also frequently invoked the intentional insult “teabaggers” to refer to us. That kind of snide contempt for an opposing viewpoint that is not only perfectly legitimate, but also rapidly becoming a majority view, just demonstrates the contempt in which he holds the traditional values of this country.


What if a Republican president made up an intentionally derogatory and insulting term and used it in speeches to deride liberal groups? There would be such a howl among the press as you have never heard before!


You don't have to go as far as I did, but you do have to stand up for our country by not ALLOWING the enemy to revert to ad hominem attacks. In the particular instance related above, given the chance I'm sure I could have outlined my objections to these people. But by co-opting the conversation with his vindictive, that man prevented it. This is exactly what is going on every day around dining tables and in living rooms, AND IN WASHINGTON, and in the media. And is it almost exclusively a liberal “progressive” tactic.


You don't have to make a scene like I did. But you do have to put a stop to this despicable tactic when it occurs on your watch. “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And…moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”


P.S. Extra points if you tied the heading of this article to the ending.

Back

 


 

 

 

 Illegitimi II

by F Eric Saunders

We “teabaggas” (with an “a”), and those who may sympathize with our concerns but do not actively participate, and those groups who may differ in other areas but do share our concerns about the growing size and grasp of government, are holding the last line against the final takeover of our beloved country. Those who oppose us, the “progressives” who want to see irreversible government intrusion, have a perfect right to their political views, no matter how wrong I may think they are. But, as discussed elsewhere on this website, the problem is they they are resorting to a whole arsenal of “dirty tricks” - up with which we should not and cannot put. (Why these tricks work for the one side and not the other is also discussed elsewhere herein.) Among those despicable tactics are vicious direct personal attacks on any person or group that dares to oppose. And the media is a willing conspirator.


A current example of the media bias toward liberals is found in the reportage of (what appears to be) a rash of threats against legislators following the health care bill passage. To listen to the main stream media, this is primarily a problem for Democrats. But the most famous instance – that of Congressman Cleaver charging that he was spat upon by someone as he was entering the Capitol to vote – has been shown in the higher resolution views to be either an accidental spray or non-existent. http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/a-closer-look-at-the-capitol-steps-conspiracy/ Also, there have been several self reported instances by Congressmen that racial epithets and such have been hurled at them, and some of those may even be true. But the two most serious such instances both CAME FROM the left. Republican Congresswoman Jean Schmidt did actually receive a threatening phone call from a man saying that she “should have broken her back” in a recent traffic accident that she was in and other even more threatening language, and she has produced the tape to prove it. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's office actually was shot up, and he received threatening phone calls in the same week. Among these calls was one that directly threatened to shoot “teabaggers”, threats against the Congressman and his family, and calls taking credit for the shooting – despite the fact that the Huffington Post reported that the shooting was just “random gunfire” and that the Congressman's office was just hit accidentally. (BS). I found one website that is actually advocating that “teabaggers” be shot. But, again, there are instances of crazies on both sides – it's just that I can't see how the media can report on these individual stories and then, in their summaries and editorials, opine about why the poor Democrat legislators are being threatened. Seems to me to be a clear example of media bias.


But the one best example here I am saving for last. Congressman Bart Stupak, who famously “held out” on voting for Obamacare until he was bought off with 13 billion in earmarks, received several threatening phone calls, apparently from radical pro-life people (with whom, by the way, this author disagrees both in principle and in practice), and such incidents were very properly reported in the media. BUT, the interesting thing is that BEFORE he switched his vote, Congressman Stupak had received EVEN MORE threats from the left – but those were almost entirely unreported in the left wing media. Now, isn't that a good example of the bias?


Anyway, back to the present issue of the use of “teabagger”as an ad hominem attack to deflect attention away from the issues we are trying to discuss. The reason it is dangerous is because it works!!! Some people in the media, and elsewhere, have obviously formed some sort of tie in their mind between tea party people and either violence / racism / homophobia / the so-called “patriot” movements / or (as discussed below) even LaRouchism – or some combination of the above. Of course, we are all about, and ONLY all about stopping big government takeover and creeping socialism, and returning the country to it's people. On these other issues we vary greatly, but the strength of our movement DEPENDS UPON the fact that we leave these other issues at the door step. Moderate pro-lifers and moderate pro-choice people join each other on the battle lines. And there is no color to the anti-socialist agenda. Educated and intelligent people of all colors realize that socialism will hurt everyone, ESPECIALLY the poor and disadvantaged, even though it may promise just the opposite.


Personally, I would no more sit through a discussion of the healthcare bill where someone started to argue that Republicans are only concerned about political gain to the detriment of the country than I would sit through a discussion on the relative merits of Affirmative Action wherein someone was arguing that Affirmative Action is wrong because blacks are inherently inferior. And if someone is expecting to challenge me with the epithet “teabagger”, then they had better be prepared to defend it. Let me be perfectly clear that this is NOT a threat of violence. Quite the opposite. I want to do everything within my power to prevent bad publicity for our movement. But it is a promise that this is one “teabagger” that will not skulk away like a puppy dog as you hurl hateful epithets – which is apparently what was expected in this case!

And while we are on the subject, there is one more example of a liberal fact contortion that came up during that same discussion. This same person made the accusation that the “teabaggers” are running around with pictures of Obama with a Swastika. I immediately recognized that he was probably referring to the posters that are being distributed by the LaRouchians, but I was completely at a loss to explain the connection. Now, after some time to think about it, and having researched it on the Internet, I do recall that there have been a few instances where those posters have shown up at at least one tea party rally and at least two Town Hall meetings. But, of course, just because some LaRouche supporters may have shown up at tea parties does not mean that we tea party supporters are in the LaRouche camp. Indeed, I would think that anyone with half a brain would know how far we are from that.


And at least one of the few times that such a poster has shown up at a tea party has been proven to be a “plant” by a group of Democrats to undermine the credibility of the tea party: http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2009/08/busted-obama-as-hitler-poster-was.html I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they were ALL plants, either by LaRouchians or by Acorn (since we know for a fact that Acorn does send subversives to the tea parties to try to make them look bad), as they certainly were not tea party supporters - except maybe the one at the Barney Frank Town Hall, which appeared to be legitimate, but was also clearly the action of one individual. Anyone with even the slightest amount of intelligence would instinctively know that (a) tea party supporters have absolutely NOTHING in common either with LaRouche supporters or with anyone who would make that kind of comparison, (b) tea party organizers certainly do not want, and do everything they can to prevent, that sort of negative publicity and (c) Lyndon LaRouche's Marxist cum pseudo-conservative/fascist philosophies are the very antithesis of the anti-socialism stance of the tea party movement. So, I am forced to conclude, that anyone who even entertained the thought of associating tea party supporters with the Obama as Hitler posters is so brainwashed that there is just no possibility of reasoning with him or her.


Finally on this point, how could anyone compare the very few instances of there having been Obama/Hitler comparisons with the nearly constant tirade of that sort of thing during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration?  (To see these and several dozen more such images go to
 http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612 .)  Where was the outcry then? What kind of prejudice is it that that abhors the one president being compared to Hitler while, apparently, not being nearly so upset about the other?



 Oh, and by the way, while there few, if any, actual instances of real Tea Party folks depicting Obama as Hitler, there ARE a LOT of instances of him being depicted with the hammer and sickle, or other Communist trappings.  Where is the outrage about that?  Maybe those images are just too close to the truth to argue against!  Or, perhaps, our progressive/socialist friends don't even recognize that as an insult?

 A few of the many, many disrespectufl images of the former President.


To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.


BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page



















 

 THE PROBLEM WITH ISLAM 

by F Eric Saunders

 3/29/2011

I must point out that the following discussion about a "problem with Islam" is as much, or more, a problem FOR the muslim population than it is for the rest of us.  It is they who are faced with having to resolve the good and peaceful intentions that they actually hold with certain seemingly irreconcilable facts.  

Did I really say that?  Did I dare to even suggest that there might be a “problem”?  No one seems to hesitate to point out problems with Christianity. But to even suggest that there MIGHT be a problem with Islam brings on choruses of lamentations about Freedom of Religion.  Well, I'm not even beginning to suggest that people don't have a right to practice their religion.  More power to them.  But there are certain issues that we HAVE to face; issues that make aspects of what SOME PEOPLE believe to be the proper practice of their Muslim faith completely incompatible with our ideals, our way of life, and with the very Constitution that guarantees that “freedom of religion”1.  But it is politically incorrect to even discuss such things.  Witness the uproar over the recent Congressional hearings on “RADICAL Islam” (or, as is apparently preferred among Muslims, “Islamism”). But to try to impose such ostrich like behavior, as is demanded by the PC Nazis, itself runs counter to our beliefs and also to our Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech.  A large part of the mess we are in here has to do with the fact that no one will discuss or even mention these issues.  Until we do, there will be no resolution.

 This is really not all that complicated, folks.  We simply have to look at the intention of the signers – following the same tried and true rules that we have applied to interpret essentially every other aspect of the Constitution.

 As just an aside that is not really relevant to our conclusions here, it probably did not occur to the signers that ANY “civilized” person would be anything but Christian - the only conceivable variance being the TYPE of Christian you were2.  But even assuming (as we should) that they did conceive of and intend that religions other than Christianity be equally protected, it should be patently obvious that they did NOT intend that such “freedom of religion” be intended to allow CONDUCT (as opposed to beliefs) that are in contravention of the Constitution and duly enacted laws. 

 Simply put, our founders never intended “freedom of religion” to include a right to establish laws that run counter to our Constitution, our laws, and our accepted beliefs and practices, in the NAME of religion.    If I were to start a religion, get enough followers to make it “legitimate” and then decree that one of our religions beliefs was that we could have multiple wives, would that be accepted under our Constitution? Oh wait, that has been tried, and it wasn't!  What if it were a foundational principle of that religion that smoking marijuana was a religious sacrament?  That didn't work out so well for the Rastafarians, did it?  Well then (I'll try one more time), what If the practice of my religious freedoms dictate that in order for a woman to press charges of rape she must have four witnesses, and if she accuses someone of rape without such witnesses she will be judged a whore and stoned to death?  Oh, well, if that's what your religion says, and the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, then that must be OK!!!

 Wait a minute!  NO IT'S NOT OK!!!!!

 How can it be a Capital offense to slander the Prophet under a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech?  How can we reconcile that with a Constitution that protects the right of an “artist” to exhibit Christ on the Cross submerged in a jar of piss?  Is it because the later is not prohibited in the Bible, while the former IS set forth in the Quran, and/or in Sharia law?  Or, is it more reasonable to make the distinction that the later, while despicable, is not prohibited by the Constitution and our laws, while the former (killing someone for what they SAY) is?

 Conclusion:  Recognizing Sharia law (and even imposing it, as some few US Courts have already done) violates the principles, if not the letter of the Constitution, as it IMPOSES religious law on individuals – the very same individuals who are supposed to be being protected from having a religion forced upon them.  (While these individuals may voluntarily be Muslims, they may or may not be voluntarily following the “law” in question.) Indeed, the imposition of such religious laws by our government is a clear violation of the anti-establishment clause.

 Some aspects of the teachings of the Quran, and many aspects of Sharia law are completely and irreconcilably contradictory to our Constitution.  And in this country the Constitution is the supreme secular law.  Those who support a right to Sharia law, and who support that position by a claim of “freedom of religion”, are missing the point, confusing the issues, and putting us all in grave danger.

 There are passages in both the Bible and the Quran which, if taken too literally and followed too zealously, would be contrary to our laws.  (There are, in fact, a lot more such passages in the Quran, the Hadith and in Sharia law, but this is not a quantitative inquiry.) Christians, for the most part, have for two centuries now practiced their religion while steering clear of any (perceived) aspects of their religion which would violate our laws. Most Muslims have been, and are, doing the exact same thing.  Only the radicals, of either religion, have seen fit to place their religion above the law that governs us all and which is the foundation of our freedoms.  But, no matter how few they may be, we cannot afford to ignore them, or to be so sensitive that we cannot even discuss them.

 Support your Muslim friends and neighbors.  Embrace them.  They are good and valuable citizens, just like you.  Stand up for their rights to practice their religion, just as we (and, hopefully, they) would stand up for yours.  Do not tolerate any sort of persecution or mistreatment of them on account of their religion.  But do, as I do, implore them to join us in condemning those aspects of traditional Muslim laws and practices that are anathema to our Constitution and our way of life, and which threaten us all.

1. Yes, I know that “freedom of religion” and the infamous “separation of Church and State” are not specifically delineated in the Constitution – which mentions religion at all only in the (anti) “establishment clause” and the “free exercise” clause. But it is not necessary to address that detail to discuss the subject of this treatise.  Here, I will assume, arguendo, that the Constitution, and applicable laws, do guarantee a general “freedom of religion”. 

2. We are aware of Jefferson's letters asserting that our country was not hostile toward “Musslemen”, but that does not mean that the founders considered them to be “civilized”.

 
To get the most from freedomsite.US, please return to the home page after reading each article to browse the introductions to other articles. Thanks.

BACK to misc. ramblings index

BACK to home page


 




    
  
   
    



 

 

 

 

Website Builder