Civil Liberties

I recently listened to a radio interview with Naomi Wolf. She has many books, the lastet being "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot". She discussed how the United States is being set up for take over by a dictatorship, step by step, without us realizing what is going on. But in the end it was the suggestion that we have a populist uprising, with impeachment and prosecution of leading government figures, along with an investigation "wherever it leads", that soured me, considering the impeachment and prosecution process would target those who are trying to counter a threat to the United States (wherever that might end).

We have an external threat, and saying we are losing our civil liberties while a small subset of our society does something about it makes no sense. The individual is very important in our society, but to say that the individual takes precedence OVER the society is not right. It is a weird logic, that ascribes civil liberties to those not entitled to them, and then uses the argument that this protects my own.

Please remember, it is not you or me that they are looking for. And they are not going to come for you or me afterwards, either.

Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, compared to President Bush? There we go again. Old Germany, Austria, Italy, and Russia cannot be compared to present day United States. People in the past never had the type of government we have, they were never based on millions of individual decisions made in the course of daily life in a capitalist society. The United States is the antithesis of central government.

The Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, the House Un-American Activities Committee, blacklists of Hollywood entertainers all were reactions to the threats of that era. Considering the violence involved in the establishment of communist governments, and the millions of people who died as a result, the threat of nuclear weapons being used, the potential for infiltration into the government, these things were reasonable in the light of protecting the country.

People are going to get upset, discuss and debate the issue of wiretapping, email data mining, Guantanamo, monitoring the mosques, shutting down organizations which funnel money to groups that threaten us, but these things are done using the modern technologies available to counter threats. We don't have to be pleased that this is happening, any more than we have to be pleased that a state trooper points a radar gun at us while going down the road. Like I said, it isn't you or me he is looking for.

Saying we are one step away from suspending the constitution after another major internal attack on the United States is NOT an indication of how close to dictatorship the "government" has taken us. It is a warning that we do have a big problem on our hands, our own system of freedom is being used against us, and we had better well do something about it. Dealing with major threats from outside the United States is not the responsibility of the individual patriot, it is the job of the President, with the options he has available.

Attempting to relate to 10 steps that have been used to shut down previous democracies is like reading Nostradamas. Hell, my MOTHER used to listen to my phone calls, looked at my mail, sent me to my room summarily without a trial, sent me to bed without dinner and monitored my behavior, sometimes by using spies in my own neighborhood (other parents).

We don't have internal and external threats being invoked as if they are some fantasy, they are real. The free press is not being shut down, it is still free to promote whatever agenda it wants. We don't have a military big enough to subdue the country, and local law enforcement people live in our own neighborhoods. And when small groups of patriots even TRY to do something about problems the government can't or won't do anything about, it is routine to castigate them. Even the suggestion that we keep an eye out in our neigborhoods for unusual happenings is interpreted as profiling. Geez.

My humble opinion is that the "civil liberties" argument is a fake. In the United States, life has changed quite a lot since the beginning of the Republic. When our Constitution was ratified, and the Bill of Rights added, civil liberties actually meant something to people who were more self sufficient than we are today. It meant "you will be able to go about your business, and the government will not interfere with you as you live your life". And life was a lot tougher too.

Nowadays, nearly everyone is dependent. It is the rarest of people who can honestly claim to be even partially self sufficient. The modern American is one who has a job earning enough money to purchase goods and services they don't provide for themselves. Even more, the modern American has no incentive to learn any skill or trade to make them less dependent, even if it is growing vegetables in the garden. The creation of well paying jobs has meant economic freedom for whoever wants it. But the price we pay for the easier life is dependency.

So, as a dependent person, what are you worth to everyone else or society in general? Considering this, should we really be whining about civil liberties when we can't take care of ourselves or even help those near us?

Fact is, after the next major attack, you won't be worried about having your emails data-mined or your phone conversations listened to. You will be wondering how come there is much less food at the grocery store.

Who Can You Trust?

There is almost nothing you can believe on face value anymore. Aside from personal relationships and direct conversations with people you know, it must be taken that anything your hear or read is filtered, indirect, deliberately misleading, or manipulative.

One would think that with the vastness of the United States, that each of the 435 folks elected to Congress would provide a lively discussion of all sorts of issues affecting 300 million folks who they represent. But oddly, at least as depicted on the news, they have neatly divided themselves into two groups pitted against each other, as if life itself depended on it. One single vote falling out of place is a disaster, a sudden toppling of the precarious balance of power which must be maintained at all cost.

When I was young, the national political conventions convened to settle upon the party's presidential candidate. Votes were taken, loyalty pledged, and thru a process of give and take, determination or acceptance, the dynamic of the convention settled upon one person to whom support would be given. It was interesting. And when it was over, one could understand why that person was selected, what their position was on issues, and the underlying platform of party postions the candidate would support.

Not so anymore. The primary elections are now being held more than a year before the conventions. And more states are moving the primaries forward. It is said that the states are doing this in order to be equally influential in determining who the presidential candidate will be. I don't think so.

He who has the most money wins, and the most money will be gathered by the early front runner. The early front runner with the most money will dominate the political advertising. A voter will not have much chance before the primaries to decide who is most best. And once all those early primaries are over, there is not much chance for any other candidate to expose themselves thru the remaining primary process. Its over. The national conventions mean nothing. Not only do the conventions means nothing, but nothing will have been said truthfully about what the candidate stands for.

Using the Muslim Brain

In World Net Daily, September 27, 2006, appeared an article titled "Pope in 'Crusader conspiracy' with Bush". A small excerpt reads as follows:

--------------------
Sheik Abu Saqer, leader of Gaza's Jihadia Salafiya Islamic outreach movement, which seeks to make secular Muslims more religious, called the pope a "puppet" for "that Crusader George Bush."

"Through this dialogue he hopes to break the lines of unity between Muslims and polarize the Muslim world, which has some partisans who will accept this new dialogue. But true believers know Islam must rule all relations. The only dialogue we will accept is when all other religions agree to convert to Islam."
--------------------

Various references crop up, over and over, about how "all true believers" feel about some issue or other. When these true believers are cited, it is not those true believers themselves who are quoted, but rather some influential cleric who uses the words "true believers" to bolster his own position, as if he had an army of true believers standing right behind and alongside him, ready to back him up at the wave of a hand or other secret signal that we Westerners won't recognize, thence to burst into an organized chaos of screaming, frenzied demonstration of true belief, further dramatized by placards directed to the camera that declare "behead the pope".

The first sentence of the excerpt says much, "seeks to make secular Muslims more religious". So, now we have "true believers" on the one hand, and "secular Muslims" who need to be whipped into religiousness, presumably by those true believers. Not only that, but who in hell is Sheik Abu Saqer to use words like "the only dialogue we will accept"? Is this guy giving an ultimatum?

If Muslims want to be more secular, thats fine with me. If its not fine with Sheik Abu Saqer, its because he knows that clerical control over the Muslims masses is dependent on those masses of Muslims, all of whom have brains, not using those brains. Allowing the words of a Muslim cleric as a substitute for the use of common sense and reason is a poor replacement for using ones brain. I can be really unfair and state that "true believers" have no brains, since they allow Sheik Abu Saqer to speak on their behalf.

Sheik Abu Saqer, instead of imposing greater religiousness on secular Muslims, should use his own brain to get around the fact that the unfortunate Arabs living in Gaza benefit NOTHING by becoming more religious, and in fact, becoming more religious benefits only those martyrdom recruitment centers who promise death for Allah and pleasures in paradise. Secular Muslims may be on to something, like trying to live a normal life, raising kids to use their brains, working within a system not demonized by death wish, but rather, having a job, maybe growing food in a garden, going to school to learn about the rest of the world and its advantages, of which the primary advantage is being able to see your children grown up and be successful, and to live longer than you do, rather than to die at the urgings of Sheik Abu Saqer who presumably desires nothing more for those children than to see them die young, and for no purpose.

All religions are not going to convert to Islam, so Sheik Abu Saqer needs to get over his self-idolatry, and get down to studying simple economics, brush up on some political basics, maybe help those unfortunate Arabs living in Gaza, instead of speaking for them and using them as a weapon against themselves. Until then, Sheik Abu Saqer is an unhelpful good for nothing who shoots his mouth off in non-productive ways in order to get quoted in a news story. He is typical of this classless group of clerics, who do NOTHING to benefit the folks under their influence. Those folks under their influence would do best to stop going to the mosque on Fridays, abandon the clerics who do nothing for them, and start using their own brains to figure out "just what part of Islam is killing me?"

Using brains is how Muslim are going to punch their way out of the paper bag and see the light. Following orders, failing to think, blindly getting into line, mindlessly repeating the same old tired stuff about submitting to Allah and living as a death wish robot just isn't going to cut it anymore.

----------------------------------------
"Islam is nothing but a secretion of the Arab brain"
Andre Servier, 1922
'Islam and the Psychology of the Musulman'

Foreign Policy

Been hearing this a lot over the last few months, that Islamic radical reaction is the result of young, easily influenced, Muslim males becoming hurt and furious over the foreign policy of the United States.

Amazing that this murderous inclination of Muslims towards Hindus in India, of Muslims towards Christians in Indonesia, of Muslims towards Christians in the Philippines, of Muslims towards Christians and black Muslims in Africa, of Arab Muslims towards Arab Christians in Egypt, of Muslims towards foreign tourists in Bali, of Muslims towards tourists in Jordan, of Shia Muslims against Sunni Muslims in Iraq, of Muslims *everywhere* against Jews *everywhere* is attributed to the foreign policy of the United States.

Especially interesting is that the Muslim clerics who warn of these uncontrollably angry and ferocious young Muslim males who are upset over the foreign policy of the United States are the same Muslim clerics who incite these easily influenced Muslim males into a firestorm of rage on Friday at the local mosque.

This is opportunistic bullshit, just say or do whatever works at the latest split second in order to reinforce that we, the Free, are the cause of Muslim failure. Its OUR fault. WE are the ones to blame. What is this worldwide phenomena of Muslims clerics and spokesmen for Muslims organizations who all of a sudden, blame all problems and conflict upon the foreign policy of the United States?

Maybe its the same sort of thing that makes the Lebanese hold up a dead baby for the press, so we can all see the dead baby, displayed in various positions, to maximize the impact (propaganda). Maybe its the same sort of thing as a Danish Muslim cleric going on a tour of the Middle East in order to influence Muslim opinion by showing fake Mohammed cartoons not published in Denmark (manipulation). Or the latest talking mouth from CAIR telling Americans that Islam, Christianity and Judism are all Abrahamic religions, and therefore, Islam is peaceful towards Christians and Jews (deception). Maybe the same as staging a totally fake story about Israel rocketing a Red Cross ambulance in southern Lebanon (lying). Or how about the old "every religion has its terrorists" (moral equivalence).

It really is the same sort of thing, the latest fake picture, the latest lying soundbite, the latest misleading interview, the latest Muslim grievance, the latest implied threat, the latest and weakest collection of individual alphabet bits that fall into a sentence and, as if by Allahs will, the lightbulb goes on and the Muslims say "Lets blame it on the foreign policy of the United States".

But they don't stop there. Now the British Muslim clerics are telling us the young, pissed off Muslim males that hate Jews and everyone else are doing it because they are enraged by the foreign policy of England. The Madrid bombings? Caused by the foreign policy of Spain. Islamic radicals arrested in Canada? Caused by the foreign policy of Canada. France? Well, well, they just better watch out that they don't do anything insulted or hurtful with their foreign policy or all those young Muslims males will riot...again.

Lets talk about Muslim foreign policy. Muslims don't get along with anybody, they don't even get along with each other, and of course, if you are an Arab Muslim, you are better than everyone else, including other Muslims who are not Arab. And if you are a Saudi Arab Muslim of the royal family, then you are superior to everyone else in the world, which of course, absolves the Saudi Arab Muslims from helping other, less fortunate Arab Muslims, such as the Arab Muslims in Gaza, by giving them the tiniest little bit of the billion dollars per day they get from the rest of us for their oil. Don't even MENTION the idea that those unfortunate Arab Muslims in Gaza could be resettled into better, Arab countries where they could at least not be penned up like pigs, maybe even have a chance at a normal Muslim life. No. Those Arab Muslims in Gaza are going to STAY there, until their overcrowding is bad enough, until generations of their children have been schooled into martyrdom, until worldwide attention can be focused on them every single day for decades on end, and there is an explosion of violence towards Israel that ends with thousands of dead and total destruction.

Muslim foreign policy. Muslims hate Jews so much they cannot think of anything else. Their entire existence is based around the prospect of every Jew on the planet being dead. A world map with Israel not on it. A takeover of The Zionist Entity by the influx of Arab Muslims from Gaza, who, after returning to their homeland, thru demographic superiority, take apart the only truly functioning country in the region. What kind of goal is that, to make people suffer so badly, to cripple and derange their minds, to use hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims as a common tool, a living vise, a human battering ram, to be used against Israel.

Yeah, Muslim foreign policy. The Saudis can freely fund the building of mosques in the United States, and force the United States to let foreign born, not easily influenced Muslim clerics run these mosques. Americans may not go to Saudi Arabia to finance and build a Catholic Church. Muslims in the United States clamor for accomodation to pray five times a day, whether at school or work. Saudi Arabia bans bibles, its a crime to even have one.

Muslim foreign policy. If you have evidence in your passport that you have been to Israel, many Muslim countries will not allow you into their country. Including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Afghanistan, Oman, Libya, Algeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq and Iran, Sudan, Yemen, the UA Emerates, the ever victimized Lebanon, and the Maldives. The Maldives...hmm, they are the little atolls that Allah is going to submerge, global warming, you know. And who in their right mind wants to visit Somalia or Syria?

Its been said, and is true, Muslims invent nothing, no cars, trains, factories, literature, home appliances, their own weapons, not their cell phones or satellite TV, or the rockets to place those satellites in orbit, and they don't invent any intelligent thoughts either. The only tool they have is money, which the Arabs, Iranians, and some other Muslims have quite a lot of. But they can't use it right. In the United States, we earn and spend money and it is the fuel that keeps our economy moving along. Muslims take the money for oil and use it to create misery and death, to compound suffering, to educate future generations into a culture of hate, or to build artificial islands for tourism. Is this a mark of high civilization? No, its Muslim foreign policy.

If Muslims weren't upset about the foreign policy of the United States, it would be something else. It will always be something else. Scroom.

Muslims and Dialogue

To Muslims, generating dialogue in the United States is to convince the Infidel that we have it all wrong, Islam is peaceful but misunderstood, Muslims are decent but fearful, devout but distrustful, cooperative yet victimized. And if we are not careful, the implied threat is that Muslims will withdraw all their attempts for outreach and become outraged and angry, with a fury that will blot the sun, stir up the seas and result in a firestorm of (enter unspecified reaction here) that we Infidels will regret to the end of time.

Not sure if I want to have neighbors that touchy.

In the last 5 years, since September 11, 2001, a lot of Infidels, slowly at first, and now more, have begun to read up on our Muslim friends, and it ain't good. This despite efforts to mislead the Infidel, efforts to rewrite history, denials, accusations, hurt feelings, legal proceedings, riots in the streets, and open outright threats of death. Hugh Fitzgerald stated it would behoove the Infidel to do some study, get a Koran, listen to the clerics, read a few books, learn about taqiyya, kitman, tu-quoque, learn what a Muslim really means by the word "peace". He said 6 months of this would be adequate for a basic understanding of how Muslims function, how the Koran rules, how the ahadith form the rules for living, and why Muslims so fervently believe Muhammed was the perfect human, the ultimate example.

Well, I took Hugh up on it. No longer uneducated enough to be mislead, I can hop on the internet and bypass the Islamic apologizers in the United States and jump straight into news stories from across the world where Muslims are involved in confrontational relationships. Bloody borders indeed.

I believe it when a Muslim cleric, in Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Indonesia, or the United Kingdom, or Canada, says Islam is to dominate the entire world, that we Muslims get our orders direct from Allah. No need for further explanation or input from the Islamic side is required, as no other viewpoint is allowed in Islam.

An honest and open public discussion of Islam, in Western terminology and among Westerners without interference by Islamic groups, is difficult. Look at CAIR, an organization that heads off public discussion as being insulting to Muslims, bigoted, or in defiance of Muslim rights. I don't want to have a dialogue with Muslims. I prefer to have a discussion with my Infidel brothers and sisters regarding what we are gonna do about the Muslims who want us to submit, or die. Muslims are not welcome to participate. They can observe if they like. But the fact is, the United States is my country, not a Muslim country, and Allah does not own the earth, Muhammed is not sacrosanct, and if I want to draw a picture of him with a black eye and a bloody nose, I will.

Who the hell is Sadie, the Underdog?

First, the former occupier of this fertile territory abandoned it, free for anyone else to occupy. This does not imply the territory has to be put to the same use.

Its a wee bit ironic that Sadie, a dog, is the first new inhabitant. Sadie fled her former yard, where she was intentionally oppressed and mistreated. Finding a welcome in our home, this refugee happily assimilated into a new culture of an older couple and the Wonderdog (Prissy, an eleven year old Boxer). Sadie is a perfect example of successful immigration with few problems. She did not attempt to influence family relationships against our will, she imposed no conditions, she does not sullenly retreat into insulted, aggrieved resentment when Prissy is fed first. She doesn't bite.




Still, dog packs have one normal characteristic which communities of human beings do not automatically share. A hierarchy. Sadie, being younger than Prissy, is Number Four in the pack. My wife and I are Number One and Number Two. This arangement comes about thru logical, fair treatment, trust, positive reinforcement, and rarely, a firm "No" or restraint by the scruff of the neck.

Ideally, humans work out hierachies thru wisdom, influence, wealth, elections, hard work, mutual support or other creations which don't include physical violence, hate, victimization, deceit, or other humiliations. Sure would be nice to live in a perfect world.

Sadie

Sadie is a Rottie-witha-weebitta-Dobie. Originally intended as a Christmas present for an 11 year old boy across our back fence, she quickly tired of being kept in the backyard with no food, no water and no attention. As a very small dog, she quickly got out under the fence and began roaming the street and backyards. My wife would treat her well. After a couple weeks of street roaming and sleeping on our front porch, we decided to take her in.

It wasn't like the little kid was just going to let us do this. He would come over and curse us and threaten us, to which I would say "Just go get your parents". When he threatened us with his BB gun, I called the cops. The cops told the kid he had abandoned his dog, and that these nice people over here now own the dog, which meant he had lost his dog, so go home.

Sadie was pretty much nuts the first few days we had her. Any food presented was devoured in moments. Any and all toys belonging to our Wonderdog, Prissy, were gathered in a pile and jealously guarded. But Sadie and Prissy got along and destroyed the grass in the yard while playing through the remainder of that wet winter.

Now, two years later, Sadie is mellowed out some, quite obedient, very attentive, and a fully qualified, trusted member of our pack.