Wednesday, March 21, 2012

McNaughton's response to liberal criticisms of "One Nation Under God."

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture.
Each figure including Christ represents a symbol. Everything about the painting is symbolic. I don't pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would instantly be recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way. The figures in the background have been the source of great debate. Let me make myself clear from my writing that just because they stand behind Christ, does not mean they are devout Christians evoking all to come unto Jesus and be baptized?! What I am saying is that they represent those who have influenced our country and our Constitution in a positive way. Many of these men and women gave their lives so we could have the liberties we enjoy. We are now at a time when these liberties are in peril. Our government has grown so big and powerful that the rights of the individual are at risk. This is what the Constitution was about—to limit the size of government. The patriotic heroes who stand behind Christ and the Constitution are pleading with us to defend the cause of liberty. Except for the pregnant woman in the lower right corner, these people symbolize those who have pushed our country towards Socialism. (The pregnant woman's place in the painting is explained on the website.) In connection to my last statement, I knew when I painted this picture that Thomas Payne (so sorry I offended some of you for spelling his name wrong), and Thomas Jefferson were Deists. That was irrelevant to me. I believe God brings about His purposes through different people. Even those who aren't baptized or following the accepted Christian religion. Not only have I received flack for this painting from Liberals, but also from the Right as well. Why did you include JFK? Why Lincoln? Why Teddy Roosevelt? I painted this picture to reflect my personal feelings about America. This is not a Republican painting. This is not anything other than one artist's personal feelings about his love for Christ, this country and a desire to make a point about where we are headed. I hoped that this painting would encourage dialogue and debate. It is important that you understand my position before you make assumptions. One of the most ridiculous criticisms I have read is that I don't have enough minorities in the painting. The way people throw around the word "racist" these days is overkill. From the beginning of the painting I chose to include a variety for ethnicities under the "Strong Americans" category. I also used different races in the background where I could. One of the most important positions in the painting is where the black U. S. soldier is standing. Some of the chatter going around on these liberal blog sites I feel is unfounded. One of the things I said to myself from the beginning was the knee jerk reaction some people would have to the painting would be very revealing as to which side they personally stood in the picture. If you don't believe the Constitution was inspired of God, fine. We will agree to disagree. Some so called "art experts" feel that a true painting should not be explained, but left to the viewer to interpret. I may not reveal all my thoughts, but I want the world to know what I think and feel—that's why I painted it! Great art causes one to feel. To feel deeply. I knew this painting would evoke emotion on both sides. I knew it was a unique concept, having never been painted before. I don't care if the composition is outdated or whether some other artist may have painted their composition better than me. The message stands alone. Why Satan? I don't for a second believe he looks like that, but I do believe he is real. Again, the image is symbolic. Having Satan near these people doesn't mean that they are Satanic. If you believe in God, surely you would believe in a Satan. OK, how could McNaughton be so ignorant about Charles Darwin and "Origin of the Species?" Yes, I have read the book and yes I do believe in many of the theories it espouses. What?! No, I don't' think the book should be burned and kicked out of the school curriculum. Some of the rebuttals I have heard in regard to this subject in my painting are unfounded. I believe that this book is a standard that the left uses to push Christianity out of the Educational Forum. I believe that we need faith in our schools. I believe that I did not evolve from an ape. You may disagree, but that is how I feel. Do I believe Evolution should be taught? Yes. Should Christian thought or any other religion be allowed to be discussed without reservation? Yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. This is my personal witness and testimony as to the state of this nation. If you would like to ask more questions about my painting, I invite you to do so. I would be pleased to answer any honest questions regarding, "One Nation Under God."

Saturday, March 17, 2012

American flag with President Obama's image sparks outrage at Florida Democrats

By Joshua Rhett Miller An American flag with President Obama's image in place of the stars flew over a Florida county's Democrat headquarters long enough to enrage local veterans who called the altered banner "a disgrace."
Lake County Democratic Party officials took down the flag, which flew just below a standard Old Glory on the flagpole outside headquarters in Tavares following complaints by local veterans. But merely taking it down wasn't enough for several local veterans, who said they fought for the flag Betsy Ross made famous, not one with a politician on it. "It's absolutely disrespectful," Jim Bradford, a 71-year-old veteran who participated in the Bay of Pigs Invasion told "It's totally ridiculous. To put somebody's picture there, to me, it's a disgrace to do that." Bradford, an organizer with the Veterans Memorial at Fountain Park in Leesburg, Fla., snapped photos of the flag and distributed them to fellow veterans and friends. By late afternoon, he and several other veterans delivered a copy of the federal flag code to Nancy Hurlbert, chairwoman of the Lake County Democratic Party. "We read that to her, but she would not accept that," Bradford said. "The discussion finally got a little bit heated." The flag, which had been flying for several months without complaint and is available online for $12.95, was later removed by Hurlbert. Bradford said Hurlbert apologized for the incident, but did not offer any promises that it wouldn't fly again. "What really upsets me is that the flag had apparently been flying for months and no one had done anything about it," Bradford said. "I've got no hard feelings toward [Hurlbert], but people will be driving by there to make sure it doesn't go up again."

Senators terrified with abuse of Patriot Act’s secret laws

Horrified with the way the US government uses the Patriot Act against its own people, two senators have been trying to make these practices public for years. Tired of being ignored, they’re now taking their fight against secret programs to public. Two US senators wrote the attorney general of the United States this week, urging the federal government to give the American public evidence explaining how the Patriot Act has been interpreted since signed into law in 2001. In a joint letter to Attorney General Eric Holder sent Thursday, Senators Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Mark Udall (D-Colorado) plead with the government to provide the American people with the facts behind what the Patriot Act can let America’s top investigators do. The lawmakers, who have rallied for disclosure of these details for more than two years, say citizens would be “stunned” to learn what the government believes it can get away with under the law. The controversial USA Patriot Act was hastily signed into legislation after the September 11 al-Qaeda attacks under the guise of a being a necessity for preventing future terrorist efforts, but for over a decade since the law has become notorious for its ability to stick federal eyes into seemingly every aspect of the American public in the name of counterterrorism. Although the government has gone on the record to downplay the constitutionally-damning powers they are granted under the law, Senators Wyden and Udall say it is time that the feds fulfill the demands of millions of concerned Americans and discuss in detail what they can do under the act — and what they’ve already done. Wydell and Udall are specifically calling on Holder to provide information about how the government has interpreted Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which grants government officials with certain clearance to obtain “tangible things” deemed “relevant” to issues of terrorism. While that much is clear, write the senators, how the government goes about abiding by it “has been the subject of secret legal interpretations,” which they add “are contained in classified opinions” that are not made available to much of Congress, let alone members of the general public. “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted Section 215,” add the senators. “As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. This is a problem, because it is impossible to have an informed public debate about what the law should say when they public doesn’t know what its government thinks the law says.” More at -

Friday, March 16, 2012

Stop the Apologies Barak Hussein Obama

Other than looking like the world's biggest fool, this is what your latest apology to Muslims brings from our enemies.
From the Taliban's latest statement, at Voice of Jihad: The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan issued an official statement in the initial phases of this atrocity but deems it necessary to elucidate its position after the unjustifiable explanations and interpretations conjured by the Americans: The American invaders are claiming that a single mentally-ill soldier was the perpetrator of this unambiguous crime and consider it as an individual transgression and unintentional action in order to protect themselves from legal action. But according to witnesses and the scale of the crime scene, it becomes clear that this was not act of a deranged individual but rather the actions of a group which was intentional and pre-planned. All the cautionary military steps were also taken including the use of air-power. Therefore all the international right groups and judicial organs should treat them as war criminals and they should be handed over to the heirs of the martyrs for Qisas Bil-misl (death for killing/life for life) in accordance with criminal law. The occupying Americans claim that there were only 16 people killed in this massacre but according to witnesses and the number of observed funerals, that number is far exceeded, the heirs of whom demand justice for their dead from the murderers. The American invaders once again extended empty apologies to relieve themselves of this crime and for it to be forgotten. Instead of seeking forgiveness from the families of the victims, it sent apologies to its puppet Karzai which in itself is a crime and which will not be accepted by the Afghan people in any circumstance. Karzai, his stooge regime's insensate members and the puppet provincial officials, as the defenders of the American invaders, are shedding crocodile tears as sign of sympathy with the victims and on the other hand, are brushing off this crime as an ordinary incident with a few empty words. They have even banned the courageous people of Kandahar and the country from taking to the streets which clearly demonstrates their utter hypocrisy besides it being considered as rubbing salt on the victim's wounds. The Islamic Emirate, as the defenders of the legitimate rights of the oppressed Afghan people, once again warns the American savages that its Mujahideen will not be content except by avenging its oppressed countrymen. With the divine help of Allah Almighty, we shall cut off the heads of your murderous sadistic troops in every corner of the country in revenge for the martyrdom of every single Afghan and we shall not desist from utilizing any means for this purpose. Similarly, the Islamic Emirate would like to remind the people of America and its allies including NATO that this unforgiving crime of your soldiers depicts a very clear picture of your human rights and human sympathy to the Afghans and the entire world!!! It clearly shows your anti-human conduct against defenseless Afghans from afar. You must understand that with such crimes, you have played the role of the true inheritors of the Nazi's and not that of peace-keepers but pay strict attention, if you do not control your stubborn governments then such actions will cost you a very hefty price. Read more:

The Blood Price of Afghanistan

The alleged attack on Afghans by an American soldier in Kandahar, where 91 soldiers have been murdered last year alone, is already receiving the full outrage treatment. Any outrage over the deaths of those 91 soldiers in the province will be completely absent. There will be no mention of how many of them died because the Obama Administration decided that the lives of Afghan civilians counted for more than the lives of soldiers. No talk of what it is like to walk past houses with gunmen dressed in civilian clothing inside and if you are fired at from those houses, your orders are to retreat. Air strikes are for days gone by. The American soldier in the ISAF is expected to patrol and retreat, to smile and reach out to Afghans while they shoot him in the back. After risking his life to hold back the Taliban, he is expected to take it calmly when his government announces that it is trying to cut a deal with the Taliban. As he waits out the final months until withdrawal, seeing his friends lose their limbs and their lives, knowing that the enemy has won, that he has been betrayed and is being kept senselessly on the front line for no objective except the diplomatic position of a government that hates him, that is taking away his health care, his equipment and his job; how does he feel? The Panjwai district, where the shootings happened, is the cradle of the Taliban. Smiling civilians plant IED's and children serve as lookouts. Obama's Surge pushed hard into Panjwai and the Taliban pushed back. American soldiers were caught in the middle, dying for a handful of dusty towns where the inhabitants took their presents and shook hands with them, and then shot at them from cover. The Montreal Gazette tells us that Belanday, one of the villages where the shootings took place, was a model village. What it omits is that Belanday was a key Taliban base, the houses were used for IED factories and it served as a transit route on the way to Kandahar City. The model village concept was supposed to change all that, but it didn't change the sympathies of the local population. All of that doesn't matter though. The feelings of the men and women sent into the heart of the beast don't matter. Only the eternally tender sensibilities of Muslims do. When Muslims kill us because we disposed of Korans that they marked up, we are at fault. When we kill them we are also at fault. This is the modern Catch 22 of the military which requires officers who have only one skill, sensitivity to Muslim feelings, and soldiers who die to keep the peace among their killers. The life of an American soldier is worth less than a Muslim's feelings. Under Islamic Sharia law, the blood price for a non-Muslim was only a third that of a Muslim. At Islam's homicidal Wal-Mart, you could kill three Christians for the price of a Muslim. And we have cut prices even further by placing the feelings of a Muslim above the life of a non-Muslim. When American soldiers die to protect Muslim feelings, denied air support and the right to defend themselves so as not to outrage the IED planting populace, there is no outrage from the mass media organs of outrage who take the liberal bumper sticker about always being outraged by their attention deficit disorder to heart. But when Muslims die, then the outrage machine grinds to life and begins making blood sausage out of any members of the military unfortunately enough to caught in the crossfire between CNN, CBS and FOX. This is yet another opportunity for the Apologizer-in-Chief to apologize. By the time American soldiers leave hellholes like Kandahar behind, he may have racked up nearly as many apologies as the bodies of American sons and daughters, not to their parents naturally, but to the parents of their killers.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Still wondering how millions of Jews ended up in death camps?

----From BareNakedIslam----- University of North Carolina’s Hillel (Jewish Student Organization) sides with Muslims in rejecting renowned Jewish speaker and author David Horowitz for what they call his “vilification of Muslims” – even though they are unable to present a shred of evidence that contradicts what Horowitz says about Muslims. (As a politically conservative Jew, I am often asked why so many Jews are leftsts, who regularly side with their sworn enemies, including commies, Israel-hating leftists, and worst of all, Muslims, the historical and present-day avowed enemy of the Jews. Well, here is an example of liberal Jews, demonstrating why they are their own worst enemies:)
UNC STUDENTS AGAINST ISRAEL From DAILY TARHEEL As co-president of UNC Hillel, I was surprised to receive an invitation from the Committee for a Better Carolina to publicize David Horowitz’s upcoming speech. I would have hoped that our opinions were already publicly known: UNC Hillel does not support Horowitz’s repeated vilification of Muslims. Over the past few years, Horowitz has periodically published ads in The Daily Tar Heel promoting his view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which are, to say the least, inflammatory. Though I personally disagree with the views furnished in these ads, UNC Hillel has not publicly challenged Horowitz’s political views in the past. Rather, we have and will continue to publicly denounce the ads’ anti-Muslim rhetoric. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA at Chapel Hill (UNC) Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at UNC delivered a letter to the Chancellor on February 25 demanding that UNC divest from Israel. The letter reportedly stated that “Divestment and boycott will be a powerful message to those who continue to oppress and occupy the Palestinian people,” and outlined several demands, including disclosure of university investments, and divesting from and refusing to sell products made by companies profiting from Israel’s “occupation of Palestine.” 'BOYCOTT ISRAEL' FLYER from an anti-Israel University of North Carolina website called Stop Raping Palestine Following each ad published in the DTH, UNC Hillel leaders have made it a priority to speak out in support of our Muslim peers. As a pluralistic organization, UNC Hillel sees inherent value in diverse opinions and therefore does not object to Horowitz being invited to speak on this campus.
However, after meeting with Horowitz personally and hearing his speech last night, I feel obligated to, once again, stand up against him. To make the broad claim that Arabs want to kill Jews — and that Islam is a militant religion bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States — is to destroy the principle of pluralism that the freedom of speech is meant to uphold. Horowitz’s remarks marginalize Muslims and their faith, undermining the respect for minorities that makes possible UNC’s diverse but unified student body. We will not stand for discriminatory generalizations directed toward any group of students on this campus, especially ones with whom we have such a good relationship. UNC Hillel students stand in public solidarity with the UNC Muslim Student Association and all those whom Horowitz has offended. Hate speech has no place in our community.

Can you say "Comrade" America?

--the 1985 warning delivered by Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov -- "Ideological subversion is the process, which is legitimate, overt, and open; you can see it with your own eyes. All you have to do, all American mass media has to do, is to unplug their bananas from their ears, open up their eyes, and they can see it. There is no mystery. [It has] nothing to do with espionage. I know that espionage intelligence-gathering looks more romantic. It sells more deodorants through the advertising, probably. That’s why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond-type of thrillers.
But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion and [the] opinion of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower [are] spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ‘ideological subversion,’ or ‘active measures’—‘[?]’ in the language of the KGB—or ‘psychological warfare.’ What it basically means is, to change the perception of reality, of every American, to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow[ly] and is divided [into] four basic stages. The first one [is] demoralization; it takes from 15-20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years which [is required] to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy. In other words, Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged, or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism (American patriotism). The result? The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties (drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals) are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, [and the] educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated; they are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind[s], even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. In other words, these people... the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To [rid] society of these people, you need another twenty or fifteen years to educate a new generation of patriotically-minded and common sense people, who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society."

The Death-Dealing "Divinity" in the White House

"Lenin would recognize in value of Holder’s sophistical distinction between “due process” and “judicial process” an effort to abolish any remaining legal limits on the lethal power of the State, as incarnated in the Dear Leader. He would admire the audacity displayed by the Obama administration (as well as its predecessor) in asserting the unlimited power of the executive to kill, torture, and imprison people at whim. He would covet the instruments of mass annihilation wielded by the executive branch, and its equally destructive apparatus of mass indoctrination. And he might even spare a moment of incredulous pity for a population that is ruled by such a system while clinging to the illusion of freedom."

Monday, March 12, 2012

LR Interview with North Carolina Congressional candidate Scott Keadle

LR: As a dentist, what led you to decide to run for Congress? KEADLE: I have seen over 20,000 patients in the last 22 years as a dentist in Rowan County, and I see people from every walk of life. I have yet to meet one person who doesn’t think our country is on the verge of going over a cliff, with the clowns inWashington leading the way. I want my two daughters to have the same chance at the American Dream that I had, and to have the same opportunity to be financially secure and to live in a free society. LR: Talk to us a bit about socialized medicine. How bad is Obamacare, particularly from the perspective of a medical professional? KEADLE: I have a unique perspective on Obamacare, in that I see it as a healthcare professional who sees what it does to patients, as a small business owner who sees what it does to the economy, and as a consumer who purchases healthcare for a family of four. On every level, it represents a direct challenge to free markets, and to freedom. In addition, it is also a very bad idea from an economic perspective. Government healthcare has never worked anywhere it has been tried. I often joke that, “If the United States turns to socialized medicine, where will sick Canadians go to get cured?” The Nanny-State LR: We're not very fond of the nanny-state at LR. For example, we favor immediate repeal of seat belt laws. Big government advocates always like to saythat "other people have to pay for it, when someone gets injured to not wearing a seat belt or a motor-cyclist not wearing a helmet. How do you feel about that? Would you favor a libertarian approach whereby drivers sign a waiver from taxpayers funding one's medical bills? KEADLE: I’m not fond of the nanny-state either. I don’t think driving without a seatbelt is generally a good idea, but I also don’t think it is any of the government’s business. It is, of course, the legitimate business of insurance company customers and stockholders, and unfortunately the government has gotten their claws so deeply imbedded in that industry (and every other one) that many voters, taxpayers, and politicians now think that one bad foray into the private sector deserves another. This is what happens when legitimate government becomes “helpful” government (translated: “big, un-Constitutional, illegal government”). Opposing Radical Islam LR: We pro-defense libertarians feel that Ron Paulists don't take the threat of Radical Islam seriously enough. What is your view? Even though your running for federal office, in general are favorably inclined towards efforts to ban Sharia law in state legislatures, such as Florida, and Pennsylvania? KEADLE: The political threat posed by jihadists is certainly serious, particularly to the stability of the important oil producing regions in the Middle East. Many governments that were formerly cooperative with the United States and our allies now have substantial jihadist and/or Iranian influence, and this has created, among other things, higher gasoline prices here at home along with the continued threat of regional armed conflict in the Middle East. A more robust “any and all” domestic energy policy would greatly mitigate the military and political pressure that these groups are able to impose on our nation. From a domestic perspective, I certainly agree that “Sharia law” is not consistent with the law of any of the several United States, or with the United StatesConstitution. LR: What are views in general on military preparedness, defense and national security? Are you concerned about the Iranian nuclear situation? KEADLE: In general I believe that our military should maintain a constant state of superiority and the ability to defend the United States from any external threat in any theater where we have vital interests. This includes our domestic territory and our ability to maintain trade routes and a supply of raw materials and energy for our economy. A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, and I would support any steps the President found necessary to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring a nuclear capability. Taxes and Budget Cuts LR: We're not big fans of PBS, NPR and the Ad Council at LR. Would you commit to supporting legislation that would zero out the budgets of these three entities? KEADLE: I would take great pleasure in zeroing out the budgets of those three entities, just for starters. I could add quite a bit to that list. LR: What do you see as your first priority if you were to be elected, on the budget and taxes front? Would you be supportive of a low flat tax? Corporate tax cuts? KEADLE: My first priority would be to bring our fiscal house in order. We need a Balanced Budget Amendment and a Taxpayer Protection Amendment to the Constitution. I would further work to reform the obstructive regulatory regime, bring about fundamental reform to the tax system, and encourage domestic energy production. I would work to bring about Constitutional term limits for members of Congress to help bring the politicians’ interests more in line with Americans’ interests. I would support any tax regime that was fairer, flatter, simpler, more inclusive, and that rewarded hard work, savings, and investment. In the absence of wholesale reform, I would support any measures designed to do any of the above things on the list, including cutting the corporate tax rate. LR: Finally, have you had any dealings with libertarians there in North Carolina? Would you describe yourself as "libertarian-leaning"? KEADLE: I am an independent thinker who believes that the Constitution (which limits government and secures freedom) should be followed precisely by the government. I try to avoid simple labels, so I will let other people become familiar with my policy statements and judge for themselves. Scott Keadle for Congress

Truth Is Not True

by TL in Exile..... The truth is never true. There are too many perspectives, too many definitions and too many diviners of truth for it to matter. A leftist truth is too harsh and unyielding to their enemies and so it is with the right. There is something between capitalist greed and socialist utopia. Tom Baugh recently issued a quiz, which most Constitutionalists, as I claim to be, would find initially erroneous on a couple of points, but the overall truth of it is valid. Our republic was founded upon certain documents that no president has followed, not even the revered George Washington, but their initial instincts were not wrong because they, when in power, proved their own thesis. Government itself, every one of them, is the evil to be quelled. That doesn't make me anti-government, it makes me a realist about government. Governments attract people willing to dictate rules to others. Those vile usurpers and despots are no different from the average person given too much power. They are in fact magnets to people who are otherwise defective, but with the power of the office they are cured and even righteous in their own minds. It is the nature of government itself to destroy the individual humanity. Every bureaucracy proves this. It is a shield for petty people to hind behind policy, it is what causes that daily dose of incomprehensible actions of social workers, principals and police officers. It's out of their hands, you see, it's policy. ................

Had Enough Yet? Then Fight Back Smarter

Productive people everywhere understand that their lives are being wrung of every drop of value, but it is hard to put your finger on why and how. Or more importantly, what to do about it. Yet, even though there are so few of us, we still hold all the cards. You just have to know how to play them.
You can order Tom Baugh's book here; We've seen elections come and go, and yet things seem to always get worse and worse no matter who gets elected. And no matter how much you talk yourself blue in the face, or wear your fingers to the bone online, too few people seem to "get it". A lot of what you hear in the media, even from your favorite pundits, still seems to miss the mark somehow. How can this be? You may be one of the unlucky ones who have had everything you've ever work for destroyed. And yet there are many people around you who don't seem to notice anything is wrong at all. We keep hoping those people will eventually wake up, but they never do. Not even the intrusive policies of the TSA seem to make much of an impact on most people. As horrifying and unpleasant as this may be to you, most people seem to just simply accept the accelerating encroachment of their liberties. While you get madder and madder, and more and more exhausted. There is a simple reason why so few people seem to care, and yet this simple reason eludes people like us, who thrive on creating value in the world. We're so busy working to improve things, we just can't see the world through their eyes. The reason is that to all those people, you are the enemy. It doesn't matter whether you've ever threatened anyone, the simple fact that you think for yourself, and are bold enough to believe that you have rights and value as an individual, is downright terrifying to most people. And those people will take any amount of government abuse necessary, as long as bad people like you are rounded up in the process.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

The Price of a Koran

Sultan Knish: What does a Koran cost? You can get a full color one for the Kindle for only 99 cents, just don’t expect it to feature any pictures of old Mo. If you want to go deluxe, you can get a hardcover edition that runs three different translations side by side for around 40 bucks. But if you want to be more practical about it, the price of a Koran is the lives of six American soldiers.
That butcher’s bill doesn’t count the soldiers who burned the Korans, who despite following procedure will be penalized on orders of the White House which thinks that punishing American soldiers will somehow satisfy the Koran fueled bloodlust of men who aren’t satisfied with their corpses. The nature of the marketplace of human affairs is that a thing is worth what we will pay for it. Once upon a time Americans decided to pay any price for freedom. The price was high, but they got what they paid for… at least for a season or two. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were works of freedom written in blood. They made a free nation possible because that nation was willing to pay the price for them. Muslims are equally willing to pay the price in blood for slavery, their own slavery and ours, for a book of slavery, written by an owner and abuser of slaves, who created a religion of slaves, where the optimal position was to stand on as many people as possible while reaching for heaven.

Manure for the Tree of Liberty

I am registered to vote as an Independent. That means I am free to choose a elected official based on the content of their character and their support of the Constitution of this country. If I choose to vote for someone who lacks moral character and does not care about the Constitution that would make me a co-conspirator in the undermining of the United States of America. Most people of normal mental firmness would call that treason. Today the overwhelming evidence shows that many of our elected officials do indeed lack moral character and detest the Constitution as merely an obstacle in advancing their personal agendas. That means they and all the people who vote for them are implicated in treason. Likewise the ones who sit on the sidelines and never voice their opinion publicly for fear of recrimination from family, friends, media or even the government itself, are tacitly treasonous. Even though he helped usher in the age of the so-called Progressive Movement I still give Theodore Roosevelt credit for recognizing that, in a real life, you do have to take a side and for saying it best; "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." Maybe because, I have been raised to believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the the US Constitution I have always felt our way of life would somehow survive any internal or external assault, whether it be hostile nations, mother nature or treason by our own citizens. Maybe because, my entire adult life,I have trained and worked as a lifesaver and a lifetaker, thats correct my government had a hand in training me to kill as well as save lives, I have always known that we all die eventually. Definitely because, of these two things, I cannot be anyone else but who I am. So this is my personal Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance to, my religion, my family, my community, my state and my country, in that order. If am to die during these tumultuous times, it is God's will and I intend to deserve it. "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson

Holder says secret executive branch reviews of evidence for ‘targeted killings’ count as due process

Attorney General Eric Holder has become such a farcical character with the Fast and Furious scandal (which he has been busted lying to Congress about), his attempt at debating the definition of lying with Representative James Sensenbrenner, and now his claim that the executive branch’s secret review process of the evidence against alleged terrorists counts as due process.
In his speech Monday at Northwestern University Law School in Chicago, Illinois, Holder actually argued that the process surrounding the approval of so-called “targeted killings” (which are, in fact, assassinations) meets the constitutional requirement for “due process” and that American citizenship does not protect anyone from being murdered by the government of the United States. Meanwhile, the federal government says that the program is so secret that they cannot even confirm or deny its existence. “Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder argued. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” I seriously doubt that the founding fathers thought that a future government would actually exploit the language so as to have a wholly unaccountable, unlegislated entity giving the green light on the murder of American citizens and call such a ludicrous practice “due process.” Holder’s speech attempted to broadly outline the Obama administration’s supposed guidelines for their assassination program, even though the government has avoided all real legal challenges since they know such a laughable argument is unlikely to hold up in a court of law. He stated that the American government could legally murder an alleged senior operational al Qaeda leader who is taking an active role in planning to kill Americans if they meet three basic requirements; they pose an imminent threat of violence, they could not feasibly be captured and the operation is conducted in line with war principles. Of course, the Department of Justice hasn’t used such a supposed legal justification in court, instead opting to claim it is so secret they cannot even address it, thus avoiding the issue entirely. Holder just continued to get more absurd; claiming that such operations do not violate the executive order which supposed bans assassinations or any other criminal statutes because the murder is committed in self defense. He even went on to dispute the label of “assassinations,” claiming that the “use of that loaded term is misplaced” since an assassination is illegal while these targeted killings are supposedly legal in the eyes of the increasingly demented American federal government. The fact that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Council (OLC) continues to block the release of a legal memorandum supposedly justifying the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S. born individual who dined at the Pentagon and has allegedly inspired attacks and attempted attacks, including the nonsensical “Underwear Bomber” case (which was even torn apart live on CSPAN by callers). This is why it is insane for Holder to make these kinds of arguments in public during a speech while still saying he “cannot discuss or confirm any particular program or operation.” However, he clearly was referencing the Awlaki killing by using the example of a U.S. born alleged al Qaeda leader in his speech. Holder claimed that the Constitution’s guarantee of due process does not mean that judges have to review executive branch decisions to kill anyone they accuse of being a terrorist. This, of course, means that they never have to present evidence to anyone or justify their actions, which is quite similar to how the indefinite detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) work. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process Clause does not impose one-size-fits-all requirements, but instead mandates procedural safeguards that depend on specific circumstances,” Holder said. What procedural safeguards are there when there is absolutely no oversight and zero accountability? More at -