in 2007 i ran this post - given the stupidness of what's happening now, i felt it appropriate to run it again today. a few things in my post should be changed - our current student is mongolian and i'm living in cali and not kc and it's been eight years now instead of six; but that's about it. i still work from home and i still cry at the thought of those planes. hitting the towers. hitting our pentagon. going down at the hands of those aboard to spare further horror in that pennsylvania field.
for those whom this attack was personal in 2001, it still is, it always will be. and because it was personal to some very close to me, it's personal for me too. i believe it should be personal for all of us. i hope my readers agree...
i do. so do our braves sons and daughters standing in harm's way around the world. and so do the terrorists.
sitting here, working from home, watching the memorial services and
it's all so fresh. from the first moment of silence at 08:46 (EDT) to
the last one at 10:20 (EDT) the tears just flowed and i couldn't have
done anything to stop them had i tried.
right now we have an exchange student from the czech republic. he's
getting a unique perspective that he could never have received in
europe. it's [probably] highly unlikely he'd get this same experience
with any other host family here. from his surprise that we fly the
u.s. and federalist flags everyday, the flying of the flag at half-mast
today, he's been just one question after another.
we have exchange students every year and it never ceases to amaze me
how skewed is their concept of free. i can't help but think that our
founding fathers would find what passes for freedom in our current
reality, here in the u.s., to be unacceptable. and yet, we are still
the most free country on the face of the earth.
six years ago today, i stepped out of the shower to the image of the
first tower burning. moments later i watched, live, as the second
plane crashed into the second tower. it was then that i realized the
first tower hit wasn't an accident. we were truly under attack.
at the time, we were living in houston about six miles from nasa.
when the plane hit the second tower, i left to get my children from
school. no matter how irrational, i just wanted my children with me.
my oldest daughter, katerina,
was waiting for me. seems she "knew" i'd be coming as soon as they
made the announcement at her high school. no idea how she knew, but i
guess i've always been neurotic about the safety of my kids. my other
two children, jesse and tatiana, were younger; they really didn't understand why mom and dad were so upset. i'm not sure they yet have any idea. kat gets it. she remembers.
but honestly, i don't think that most people remember. certainly
the msm doesn't remember. sure they remember that it happened, but not
the significance of it all. they don't remember the pain of realizing
our innocence, as a nation, was gone forever. they don't remember the
horror of not knowing who it was or why or if more was imminent. do
you?
we don't see those video images on the t.v. any more - seems the
experts are worried that viewing the destruction will breed anger and
hatred. apparently they are correct as islamist terrorists are
seemingly using the videos for recruiting more jihad. they remember. they don't want you to remember.
they want you to believe the conspiracists. they want you to belive
the msm and george soros and his moveon organization. they want you to
believe the talking heads in the democrat party. they want you to
believe that the war in iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
they know that if you believe the lies being passed off by these
groups that you will be more likely to think we're safe here no matter
what the "warmongerers" are telling you. they know that if you believe
you're safe that you'll be more likely to pressure washington to
abandon iraq. and maybe even afghanistan. and maybe even ignore any
dangers from iran, if it comes to that.
nearly 3000 people dead on our soil. six years ago today. nearly
5000 american service men and women dead in this war on terror since
oif started more than 5 years ago. many related terrorist plots foiled
(worldwide) by our allies and our own country in the past six years.
in the new tape released, today, obl says that the only way the u.s.
will escape further wrath from the islamists is if we all convert to
islam. but don't look for this statement to change the dribble spewing
forth from the defeatists. don't look for them to admit that the
terrorist hate us not because of our capitalism or any other reason
than the fact that we are not an islamic state. it doesn't fit their
policy of cut and run, so look to even this statement being ignored.
already, today, i am hearing claims that obl isn't the man in charge
any more. where before these same people were calling on the president
to abandon iraq because the "real war" is wherever obl is, my guess is
that these people will now start trying to make the case that there is
no "real leader" and therefore we need to go back to treating the
terrorists as criminals, not combatants. this will be the new
justification for abandoning iraq and not fighting any more.
i, for one, will never forget. i will remember until the day i die
that morning when my view of the world changed forever. i will always
remember the innocence of the world i grew up in, snatched from my
childrens' hands before they even knew it. i will remember, with
pride, for as long as i live the brave souls on flight 93 who said
"let's roll" and then did. i will remember fear i felt wondering if my
friend was safely out of the pentagon when flight 77 hit (thankfully
she was late that day and parking as the plane came in).
i will remember the horrors, the fear, the pain, the disbelief and
the pride always and i will try to communicate that frequently to
everyone i meet who does not remember. will you?
back in january - in fact barely two days after his inaugration as president of the united states of america - bho signed an executive order requiring that the guantanamo bay facility be closed within 12 months. at the time of his signing the order, the president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."
and all the world rejoiced.
um, yeah, not so much.
you see, obama and the other leftists around the world did not take into consideration that no one wants the detainees from gitmo. not here in the united states and certainly not in europe.
initially, obamah's decision to close the gitmo facility received a speedy backing from obama's presidential election opponent, john mccain (clueless arizona) when he made a joint statement with senator lindsey graham (rino, sc) saying they supported obama's move to "reaffirm America's adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees."
then "larry king live," john-boy said he thought that perhaps the new president may have been a tad bit hasty in his decision to close gitmo. that maybe he should have taken a little more time to consider everything associated with closing the camp before laying out a timetable for adherence.
specifically, mclame said he thought bho needed to consider what would need to be done with enemy combatants held at G=guantanamo before ordering the facility to be closed. saying, "So, the easy part, in all due respect, is to say we're going to close Guantanamo," McCain said. "Then I think I would have said where they were going to be taken. Because you're going to run into a NIMBY [not in my backyard] problem here in the United States of America."
ya think? so johnny supported obama's closing of the gitmo facility before he warned him against the closing of the facility. all seems a little too much like the dems after the start of the iraq war, doesn't it?
so, now, fast forward five months and today - this evening, really - obama's white house has drafted an order that would "reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations."
according to dafna linzer and peter finn of the washington post, the order was drafted because of fears of a battle-royal with congress that would stall plans to close gitmo.
so let me get this straight. it was so important to close the guantanamo bay facility that it couldn't even wait two full days after the one's coronation, but it's not important enough that he's willing to fight congress on it? hmmm, i smell a rat (well actually more than one, but we'll reserve the others for another day).
his advisors appear to be worried that embracing another legacy of gwb's will put him on weaker footing with the courts and key supporters. uh-huh. of the two groups, whom do you think the advisors are more concerned about. yep, me too.
from the wapo article:
White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said that there is no executive order and that the administration has not decided whether to issue one. But one administration official suggested that the White House is already trying to build support for an order.
"Civil liberties groups have encouraged the administration, that if a prolonged detention system were to be sought, to do it through executive order," the official said. Such an order could be rescinded and would not block later efforts to write legislation, but civil liberties groups generally oppose long-term detention, arguing that detainees should be prosecuted or released.
why does anyone care what civil liberties groups think about long-term detention? if they feel so strongly about this, why don't they invite them to live in their homes?
in reality, the people who have been to gitmo all seem agree that life at guantanamo is pretty good. in fact, the patriot post digest from today had this to say about the whole thing:
The Guantanamo detainee merry-go-round continues to turn and churn. On the detainee transfer front, the European Union, a harsh critic of detainee treatment, allegedly made its most explicit promise to date on accepting some Gitmo detainees... well, kind of, maybe. In a rather foggy, diplo-speak statement, the EU pledged to cooperate with the U.S. on legal strategies that will "help the U.S. turn the page" on past detention policies. Naturally, the statement did not specify how many detainees would be sent to Europe or which countries would accept them, although apparently Italy has agreed to accept three detainees. So much for the "explicit" promise.
Speaking of transferred detainees, the four Chinese Muslim Uighurs released from Gitmo and sent to Bermuda last week were found by the swimming pool outside of their pink bungalow. Questioned by a Fox News reporter, the well-tanned detainees said that living in China is worse than life at Guantanamo, saying there is no guarantee of human rights in China. We're shocked -- shocked -- to find that this is the case.
yeah, me too.
in short, obama is back tracking once again. and just like with the whole iranian election thing (we can't meddle in their affairs. oh by the way stop doing what you're doing), obama's reversal doesn't make him look strong or presidential or even manly. it simply shows him as the spineless jelly fish that he is. and our enemies have taken notice.
over the weekend i attended a send off program for the daughter of my most liberal friend. her daughter, we'll call her holly (20-year old soon to be college senior), is every bit as liberal as her mother - possibly more - and she is heading to sierra leone to work with the school sisters of notre dame on their long-standing education mission to that country. i think this is a wonderful move for her and should be very humbling in terms of what we have vs. what "they" have.
holly and i had a long conversation on monday when she came over to get a long silk/linen scarf to take for her head covering (to help keep her hair out of her face and keep her cool) and a travel pillow. i love this girl for so many reasons, but one of the things i love most about her is her ability to debate logically. one of the things that so infuriates me is her ability to take a rational point in a debate and fail to see or understand how it can and should be applied. it's the liberal thing.
in our conversation we were talking about the places i've been and her previous two trips to italy and the places we'd both like to go. somehow (i'm not sure how) the talk turned to the "plight" of immigrants here, there and everywhere. because, let's face it folks, it is NOT just the united states that is having a tough time with illegal immigrants.
anyhow, holly said something fairly profound that really got me thinking. in talking about the instability all over africa, she said "do you know anything about tanzania and how it got things mostly stabilized?" to wit i had to answer "um, no, not really." so she told me to look it up because they had done something "so amazing" to help engender a feeling of nationalism that was working on a grand scale.
for those of you who don't know a whole lot about politics and stateism in africa, suffice to say that a great deal of the strife and fighting on that continent is caused by age-old tribal rivalries. the fact is that imaginery borders were put into place and countries named and tribes were told to "you now belong to this country or that country" with told disregard of the status of relations between the various tribes being sent to this country or that country.
many of these countries were "founded" in the 1960's or even later. a majority of people in those countries don't think of themselves as somalians or sierra leonians or even tanzanians but as members of the various tribes. for instance, tanzania is made up of more than 125 tribes and each has its own language and identity. not only that, it is actually two separate countries (tanganyika and zanzibar) combined into one with a unified republican government formed by the governments of the two countries.
there is quite a bit of interesting information here if you're interested. it talks of the differences between the tribes, between women and men, the economy and just about everything else you never wanted to know about tanzania. it also mentions a few times that the national language is kiswahili (go here to learn about it); english is the language of the government and higher level jobs. apparently the "amazing" thing they did in tanzania was to establish the national language to elevate a sense of country.
what a concept, eh? so i said to holly "this is the exact reason intelligent, logical people in our country are pushing for english to recognized as the official national language of the united states." and she said? "well our situation is a bit different and we need to honor the different cultures of those who immigrate here by not forcing them to speak the language of the majority."
huh? if there is anyone out there who can make sense of that convoluted statement, please comment and explain it to me. i surely don't get it.
but the whole conversation and my subsequent reading on tanzania got me to thinking about how similiar the united states is to those african countries. we're every bit as much of potpouri in terms of our cultural make up as any of those countries - the primary differences being that our states (and country on the whole) were self formed and the majority of the people here are here because they choose to be so.
think about it. we're a melting pot. we have people here from all over the world. each comes with his or her own language and cultural identity. each is looking to do more than merely survive - seriously folks, why would someone move to a new country if they don't have any hope to do better there than in his or her country of birth?
when this country was in its formative period as colonies, it was primarily a subject of england. thus the majority of people here spoke english as their first language. as new people moved here from germany, italy, china, japan, mexico, france, spain, greece, russia and so on and so forth they arrived speaking languages that were not english. but because the majority of people spoke english and business and government were conducted in english people learned english. this was true even BEFORE we became an actual independent country.
this doesn't mean that some of them didn't continue to speak spanish or german or italian or mandarin at home, but it wasn't a language they could use in the outside world of the united states (previously american colonies). they may have kept some of the traditions from "home" but they didn't expect the rest of the population to adopt their traditions or eradicate traditions that had come into existence (or accepted) here.
today, in the united states, the majority of people still speak english as their first language. business and government is primarily conducted in english. and yet english is not our official or national language. but why not?
in our schools we teach (or attempt to teach) those whose first language isn't english in their language. officially we call it "english as a second language" (or esl), privately i call it sheer stupidity. people can't learn a language by getting a new word each day ala sesame street. people learn a language by using that language.
but here in our country the pc crowd has determined that immigrants will do better if we help them to hang on to the national identity of their former country. huh? this is just illogical and devoid of all common sense.
nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, theodore roosevelt penned these words:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
these are sage words even today. but too many think they are passe or ancient thinking or maybe it's simply that they are unapologetic in their sentiment that is good to be an american. one other thing that teddy said that sticks with me is this
"We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off... This is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of everything."
and this statement emodies everything that is emotionally tied to being an american. we are better in that we welcome more people of more cultures and nationalities than ANY other country in the world. we recognize that there are things we need to work on and we do. we work at our weaknesses at the personal, local, national and international level. and we are, for the world's elite, the most reviled nation in the history of the world.
even the elite of the world want to come here. even they recognize the opportunity and freedom available here. so why do they want to change that?
i don't know anyone who is against all immigration into our country - i'm not saying those people don't exist, i just don't know any of them. i do believe that the media, some immigrant support groups and some of our friends on the left, are trying to portray those of us against illegal immigration as being against all immigration. but this is simply isn't the case.
i realize that it may be scary to come to a new country and leave behind all that you know and all that is familiar. but how much worse it must be to come to a new country and still try hold on to everything you knew at "home". i guess that is the primary motivation behind those who refuse to assimilate, but they are truly missing the point of coming to the united states.
people coming to this country - from anywhere else - and not becoming fluent in the language and the history of the country is a bad thing. it lessens the immigrant's chances for an excellent, successful life and it weakens the fabric of our country.
when i was halfway through this post, i found a post on this subject over at my good friend donald's place (american power) and asked if i could crosspost a portion of it here - thankfully he acquiessed. you can read his whole post here, and it's well worth the time to do so, but here are the important parts:
"The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.
"Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty....
"The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time. With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language. There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well."
donald also quotes from a u.s. news article, "mexican immigrants prove slow to fit in" which shows that the question maybe a bit more complicated than huntington purports:
In the heart of California's iconic Orange County—home to Disneyland and the bourgeois teens of MTV's Laguna Beach—is troubled Santa Ana. The county seat of 353,000, where nearly 6out of every 10 adults over age 25 lack a high school diploma, suffers from crippling poverty and an explosion in crime. In 2004, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government placed Santa Ana at the very top of its Urban Hardship Index—officially dubbing it worse off than Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J. With 76 percent of its population Hispanic, mostly Mexican immigrants, Santa Ana is the poster child for the troubles of the country's immigration policies and of Mexican immigrants in particular.
Now, a new study lays bare what sociologists and others have long argued: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants. Sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" by Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke University, introduces a novel assimilation index that uses census and other survey data to measure how similar select immigrant groups are to native-born Americans. Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, Vigdor assembled a 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group. Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.
Why Mexicans are faring so poorly in the United States is complicated, experts say. But the root of the problem is no surprise: Many Mexicans are here illegally, depriving them of rungs on the economic ladder and the opportunity to gain citizenship. "There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."
this may explain why the actual immigrant is failing at assimilation into americanization, but what of their children - even the "anchor babies" who are american citizens? what of the children of the anchor babies? thanks to the vagaries of esl, we have second and third generation americans who do not speak english fluently - in some parts of the country even naturally born americans of hispanic (primarily mexican) origin speak poor english with a spanish accent!
how do you explain this with anything other than they value their association with mexico more than with the united states? how do you see theese results and still cling to the notion that esl is the best way to educate these people?
"Mexican immigrants tend to be segregated somewhat from the rest of US society; some 42% of Hispanics lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in 1990 (Chiswick and Miller, 1999). This is probably because of choice; immigrants feel most comfortable living with those who speak their language and share their culture. However, in choosing to live with other Mexican immigrants, they are choosing to live with people who have, on average, relatively little education, low English language skills, and scant earning power. Thus, employers will be less likely to open businesses and stores in Mexican neighborhoods, and simply by choosing to live among other Mexican immigrants they are choosing to live in economically depressed neighborhoods. Even the best and the brightest of the Mexican immigrants may be “pulled back” towards the 'average' Mexican and may earn less than they might have had they not been Mexican."
however, further in the u.s. news article the author posits:
Indeed, in a unique multigenerational study spanning four decades, Generations of Exclusion, sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that many immigrants and their children had made slow progress assimilating for cultural and economic reasons. A large community means a large dating pool: Only 17 percent of third-generation Mexicans studied had married non-Hispanics. The authors found adult Mexican-Americans in the third and fourth generations lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths, largely because of the many new immigrant arrivals. Educational levels, meanwhile, lagged behind the national average. However, English ability was nearly universal, even among first-generation immigrants, which should ease the concerns of some lawmakers who want to make English the natural language. Significantly, though, 36 percent of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans studied could still speak Spanish.
i have been unable to ascertain what standard is used by the sociologists, edward telles and vilma ortiz, to determine "...english ability was nearly universal even among first- generation immigrants..." i have been unable to find any other study or author who puts forth this notion.
still further in the u.s. news article:
Perhaps most telling: Of the approximately 1,500 surveyed in two distinct immigrant communities—Los Angeles and San Antonio—most identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" even into the fourth generation. It's that kind of cultural signifier that has so many white Americans concerned that this is a group not interested in becoming American.
wow - ya think?!?
donald continues in his post that as santa ana's "city's population is 76 percent Hispanic with 53 percent foreign born - the city's literally a classic microcosm of the phenomenal sub-national trends in demographic diversity giving way to ethnic homegeneous-hegemonic dominance."
but, as donald observes, should just talking about this stuff get you branded as racist?
is not my favorite. He's a political opportunist and grandstander on immigration, and his "war on the middle class" segments are unhinged on issues of economic mobility and trade. But some of his reports on immigration are indeniably accurate in detailing the problems of local commuities around the country in tackling out of control immigration .
And because of reports like these, the nihilist left-wing of the open borders operation is up in arms about the media's "
This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become a part of our society, learn the language!
The Velazquezes speak fluent English and cherish their middle-class foothold in America. Maria and Carlos each earn about $20,000 a year as a school administrator and a graveyard foreman, respectively, and they own a simple three-bedroom home. But they remain wedded to their native language and culture. Spanish is the language at home, even for their five boys, ages 6 to 18. The kids speak to each other and their friends in English flecked with "dude" and "man," but in Cicero, where 77% of the 86,000 residents are Hispanic, Spanish dominates.
The older boys snack at local taquerías when they don't eat at home, where Maria's cooking runs to dishes like chicken mole and enchiladas. The family reads and watches TV in Spanish and English. The eldest, Jesse, is a freshman at nearby Morton College and dreams of becoming a state trooper; his girlfriend is also Mexican-American. "It's important that they know where they're from, that they're connected to their roots," says Maria, who bounced between Spanish and English while speaking to BusinessWeek. She tries to take the kids to visit her parents in the tiny Mexican town of Valle de Guadalupe at least once a year. "It gives them a good base to start from."
based on the information further down in the article this is fairly typical of the mexican immigrants. it's a great article and one i highly recommend anyone concerned with the effects of unbridled/illegal immigration read.
essentially as mexican immigrants are coming into the states at an estimated 400,000 persons per year. i say estimated because we really don't know what the actual number is because of the illegals. additionally, they are reproducing at a rate of 3% per annum vs .8% by all other groups except muslims who are reproducing at a rate 5% - but that's a whole other discussion.
assimilation for mexicans and other hispanics is not really aided by the american society in general. from mandated esl classes in the public schools, to street signs to government forms (including voting ballots) to private industry "selling in spanish", we are enabling an entire segment of our society to "opt out" of being/becoming american.
america was not founded as a "nation of immigrants" but rather as a nation of freedom and independence and self-sufficiency. she (and we) have always welcomed those who yearn for freedom and want to be americans. but freedom isn't free - along with the rights afforded by our constitution, there is the duty of being a active and productive member of society.
how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you have broken the law to get here? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if primarily honor only the traditions of the country you left to come here to better yourself - from flying the mexican flag to eating primarily mexican foods to surrounding yourself with spanish speakers from your home country? how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you don't actively seek out relationships with people outside of the hispanic community?
unless we act decisively and soon we will fulfill the words of one other thing that teddy roosevelt said:
"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."
yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick. patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking. and searching.
for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections. however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.
prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus. however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.
i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content. quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral. the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:
Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.
We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.
Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.
Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!
December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.
What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.
Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!
God Bless you.
Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.
Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.
Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.
Celeste and Loren Davis
celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you canread about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.
yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.
recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you. is this a legitimate letter?
please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…
thanks so much! and god bless you both in your endeavors.
This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web. Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.
ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga. Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya. This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11.
It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America. We see the same thing happening here.
See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama
July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.
The article is headlined: “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”
Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES. “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE. Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE. It’s the art of the impossible. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”
Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”
the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information. the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't). a link to it in its entirety is here. the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.
Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.
Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.
"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.
Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.
and then:
Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.
and finally:
Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.
"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.
listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth. too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.
from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:
It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.
not very funny to me. how about you?
writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:
"--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
"--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
"--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?
"--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/
there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing. but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?" stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.
a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds. hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there.
items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website. in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:
CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.
i also liked this article and all its links. this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:
As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.
The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.
further
Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?
What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?. Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.
judi mcleod finishes her article with:
Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.
debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims. the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her. here. here. and here. but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus. this picture really does say it all.
folks, the evidence is overwhelming. this is NOT a smear campaign. this is fact. and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn. please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain. but if he does, i'm voting for mccain. i hope all of you will join me.
i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post. it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.
btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist. check out her post and let her know you were there.
the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms. there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america. you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.
so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap". really? so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad? where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims? where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community? where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?
islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632. it is here that muhammad received his "revelation". after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an). in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths. the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad. the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.
according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude. apparently, the way it works is like this: if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:
"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."
yeah, yeah, we all know this. so what already. be patient! this stuff is important if we are to understand what we're up against.
all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels. striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country. lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile.
also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander! this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation. and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter. this is madness!
cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial. and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.
now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate. of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim. while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him. i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.
we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life. the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)
of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates? this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know. it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where we should be heading.
but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday. a few of the reasons: He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists. not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.
maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists. maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms. who knows. right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.
i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer. i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.
however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around. maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...
UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain. check out these links:
we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000. this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.
mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so. so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing. as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again. we must.
one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one. i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!
it's official. hubby and i will be heading north on the 2nd to work the final hours for fred's campaign. we believe strongly that of the cast of options out there, fred is the ONLY one fit to be potus.
fred is a consistent conservative - the only one in the field for the 2008 election and the only one any of us should be talking about. unfortunately the msm know it.
the msm has been working diligently to give a pass on fred since he entered the race - actually even before that. ever since gary hart was running mcgovern's campaign back in 1972, iowa is sort of the bellwether for who goes the distance in the presidential race. and despite the best efforts of some other states, this year is no different.
in an effort to lessen the impact of the iowa caucuses on the presidential race some states have moved their primaries closer to what used to be iowa's caucus day - only it's backfired. all that has happened is that iowa moved its caucus day to 3 january 2007 making it nearly impossible for a candidate who does poorly there to recover before the next primary/caucus.
as you may, or may not, know no candidate who has finished worse than third in the iowa caucuses has gone on to garner the party's nomination. that is a true statement regardless of the affiliation of the candidate - republican or democrat. and that makes it all the more important that we give fred the extra push that he so desperately needs RIGHT NOW!
some have said that fred is already an also ran, but with an estimated 40% of iowa voters not making their decision for whom they would vote until the last week before the caucus in 1996, i say GAME ON. today a new strategic vision poll gives fuel to that sentiment:
Below are the results of a three-day poll in the state of Iowa. Results are based on telephone interviews with 600 likely Republican caucus goers and 600 likely Democratic caucus goers, aged 18+, and conducted December 26-27, 2007. The margin of sampling error is ±4.5 percentage points for each party.
1. If the 2008 Republican presidential caucus were held today between Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson, for whom would you vote? (Republicans Only; Names Rotated) Mike Huckabee 29% Mitt Romney 27% Fred Thompson 15% John McCain 14% Rudy Giuliani 4% Ron Paul 4% Duncan Hunter 1% Undecided 6%
2. Do you see President George W. Bush as a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan? (Republicans Only) Yes 7% No 72% Undecided 21%
3. How important is it for the Republican presidential candidate to be a conservative Republican in the mode of Ronald Reagan, very important, somewhat important, not very important, not important, or undecided? (Republicans Only) Very Important 56% Somewhat Important 12% Not Very Important 7% Not Important 10% Undecided 15%
4. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only) Yes 48% No 40% Undecided 12%
so far the lame stream media (to borrow a phrase from courtney) has done a pretty thorough job of ignoring and/or dissing mr. thompson and his campaign. and in some cases, where they've lacked in that effort, they've made up for it in flat-out denigrating him.
some are even saying that fox news, that fair and balanced bastion of the news, is blackballing fred because of his announcement being on jay leno rather than at the new hampshire "debate". smoothstone indicates that it may be bigger than that - he reminds us that a little more than two years ago prince alwaleed of saudi arabia purchased a 5.46% share of fox news.
right now the media is going all out to promote huckabee because - in my opinion - they want him to win in iowa and win the nomination. they KNOW that he will not win the election no matter who they put up and so he is the safest bet.
regardless, once fred finishes in the top three in iowa, the media will have to stop panning and poo-pooing him and give him his due. but don't look to them to be truthful or forthcoming until they are forced to.
getting back to our caucus trip north, i'm not sure what we'll be doing for the cause, but what ever we can do we will. i know the campaign still needs more bodies - heck, maybe even people to work the phones from wherever to call into iowa to spread the word.
i realize that my little blog doesn't reach very many people, but i believe that every person reached is a person who can cast a vote for fred. this is why we are doing what we are.
if any out there can help, please contact kristen fuzer (kfuzer@fred08.com) or chris burger (cburger@fred08.com) and see what they have for you to do. if you can't give any money for his campaign can you spare an hour or two to help out?
UPDATE 12/28/2007: final fred thompson blogburst and video from john hawkins here - well worth the looksee.
sending back love to my favorite angel at her friday article here.
in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:
rac·ism(rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.
that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward. as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism". notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth. presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.
but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we. we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.
after all, slavery was our invention, right? well no. but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right? well, no again. ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right? well, not quite. ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right? um, no. but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it? nope. well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that. wrong again bozo.
let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?
slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations. people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves. and in some parts of the world, it still exists today. according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):
The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.
Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.
Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.
that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks. that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process. nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.
while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved. according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders. from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:
"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.
The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.
The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.
And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."
isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites? muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery. did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting. but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself. muslims take slaves now and they did then.
black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves. i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other. personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.
in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today. i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument. but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we?
a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america. i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.
back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves. mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber. in the article he sites several references to support his writings. an excerpt from the article is here:
The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.
In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.
in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson". anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave. check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)
and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis. the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support:
In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”
i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it. perhaps i need to hire an editor or something. this is information that everyone in this country should know. i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it. i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too. lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.
in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home. when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?
debbie over at right truth brought this whole thing to my attention. truth be told, tantor let me know about the mosque in his post from 10 sept 2007 titled "the london markaz" but i had no idea that people were speaking out against in london. sorry for not grasping the whole situation, tantor - great work for bringing this to light, deb.
worried about the security impact of the mega-mosque, councillor alan craig spoke out against it's being built. the good folks over at god tube posted this:
the death threat video mentioned in deb's post is no longer available at you tube - i think this is the same one, but i'm not certain. i wonder why. perhaps they are worried that it will present the followers of islam, the religion of peace, in a bad light....
"A senior security source said that he was concerned about the proposed mosque, and expected ministers to use their powers to call in, and turn down, the planning application.
The move was confirmed by a senior Government source, who said there were fears that the giant mosque could damage community relations in the area, and added: "We are going to stop it."
There are clear planning grounds on which the development could be turned down. It is so close to the main Olympic venues that it may interfere with preparations for the Games."
and further:
"Tablighi Jamaat has hired a lobbying firm with a track record of supporting controversial planning applications, in an attempt to build political support for the project.
Indigo Public Affairs says that a formal planning application for the mosque will be submitted in the autumn, possibly with the size scaled back to meet some of the objections. A spokesman said: "Our client utterly refutes any links to terrorism. It is a predominantly apolitical organisation seeking to go about its faith in a peaceful way."
Tablighi Jamaat is a conservative and ultra-orthodox group with close links with the Wahhabi form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of British Muslims are sent by Tablighi Jamaat to madrassas in Pakistan every year, raising fears that some may be brainwashed. A leaked FBI memo alleged that al-Qaeda was using the organisation "as cover... to network with other extremists".
Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 suicide bombers, are believed to have visited the organisation's European headquarters, a mosque in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Supporters of Tablighi Jamaat point out that even if this were the case, the mosque would not necessarily be the place where the pair were brainwashed.
Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam."
wow. so at that point even muslims were trying to stop the building of the mosque - if for, albeit, different reasons than mr. craig.
fast forward about six months. alan craig becomes more vocal in his opposition to the building of this mega-mosque. two months ago the telegraph ran a new article about the situation just after the death threat video aired. at that time, mr. craig did respond. from the article:
"Mr Craig, a councillor for Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, has upset some Muslim residents in the area with his resistance to plans for a 12,000 capacity "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station.
It is being proposed by the ultra-orthodox group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.
Until yesterday there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. Yesterday Mr Craig said he refused to be intimidated by the clip, which he described as "an open invitation to take me out".
He said: "It's either a sick joke or it's worse. Even if I don't worry about myself, to put my wife and two young children on there is particularly sick."
Mr Craig said he had no problem with Muslims, but did object to Tablighi Jamaat's plan on the grounds of its alleged terror links."
although never officially sanctioned or censured, this group is 'on the list', so to speak. also from the article:
"In 2003 Michael Heimbach, the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We found that al-Qa'eda used them for recruiting, now and in the past."
A French counter-terrorism official has also called it the "antechamber of fundamentalism", claiming it acted as a stepping stone to more extremist action."
of course the group denies any link to terrorism claiming they are a "peaceful, apolitical movement..." whatever.
this great video, if you can understand his cockney accent, is a great support for councillor craig. unfortunately, some others in the newham council can't scramble to appease the muslims fast enough. clearly they have no idea that they are going straight to dhimmi-hood on the fast train. to hell in a handbasket as it were.
i wonder, what sort of muslim participates in the olympics. surely no women - they can't possibly be able to participate in sports in a burka. sort of like other jobs they can't reasonably handle - ht to angel over at 'woman honor thyself' and be observant. i can see it now: iran represented in gymnastics by wht's no-ah in a stylish, black, burka. sheesh.
it saddens me that the uk is becoming completely and totally dhimmified. i will someday, possibly sooner rather than later, miss my trips across the pond to london town. i know it will come to that because i will NEVER wear a headscarf and i will never submit.
we need more people like councillor craig who are willing to speak out against the dark energy that is engulfing our planet. as i said over at right truth's post: "my prayers and heart go out to these people. we need to do whatever we can to promote their courage."
this is my contribution to spreading the word. won't you join me?
everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination. why? because "he can beat hillary?" i disagree. he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites! let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?
some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue. that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.
no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani. i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.
in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..." he further says:
A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.
i believe this to be dead on accurate. this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:
so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative? sorry, i'm not buying it.
"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.
As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."
And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.
Rudy Giuliani in drag
Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.
Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?
Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?
Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?
Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?
and look where we are with rudy.
for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose. and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges. forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?
it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose." but that's not what he has said. at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.
the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster. much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh... in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:
Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.
But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.
Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).
Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.
Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.
Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)
Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader
Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.
Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.
When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.
How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?
back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness. in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications. if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level? any way, in the burnett piece he says:
On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...
One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.
this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me. does it to you?
possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events. he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries. mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration. in fact mr. hawkins says:
If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.
there is more, but it goes on and on and on. none of it good. call him charismatic. call him personable. call him a great salesman. just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.
personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11. however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically. does this make him a good fit to be potus? i don't think so. but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency. i just don't want it to come down to that....
i watched the debate last night. and then i watched it again this morning. and then again at lunch time.
i really like watching these things on the computer, after the fact, so that i can pause and reflect and pause and replay, etc.. in addition i read the live blogging from fred's campaign page to get his people's viewpoint and it's a must read in my opinion.
i also, purposely, didn't watch the "post debate action" until after i was satisfied that i had gleaned all that i could from the debate. i also didn't watch the "post debate action" until i had visited the blogs of a few of my favorite bloggers including conservatism with heart, blogs for fred thompson, hot air, goat's barnyard and michelle malkin. i have great respect for each of these blogs and like that they always challenge me (and themselves) with great questions.
having said that, i'd like to give my point of view and hope to spark some good conversations here, and elsewhere.
dee's view, over at conservatism with heart is that rudy won the debate and that fred was down the list with a "b" rating. she says:
Fred Thompson--B I hate to admit it but Thompson was some what of a disappointment last night. He had some good answers on things but he didn't do anything to inspire passion. I liked his answer on Education and vouchers, his line referring to the Haditha marines and he had a great response to the lazy question but otherwise not a big night for him.
it's really rare, but i have to respectfully disagree with dee (sorry, but i still love you). he's a slow speaker, but that shouldn't be mistaken for lack of interest. i listened to his words, i watched his face, i think he was brilliant.
fred addressed the questions put to him honestly and forthrightly (is that a word) regardless of the "fall out". i thought fred had great passion - when he spoke about beating hillary and reminding us what the party stands for: "...let's don't get diverted onto some single individual, whoever their nominee is, they're going to lead us down the road to a comfortable mediocrity and that's not the united states of america that i grew up in." when he spoke of integrity in saying what he said that needs to happen with social security - he stood by what others have quoted him as saying, saying: "...it's based on the notion that there's no reason to run for the presidency of the united states if you can't tell the truth..."
i'd love to see a thompson/hunter ticket for 2008. i believe the two of them to be the most consistent, conservative and electable on the stage last night.
i heard some other things that i liked from some others.
i used to like mccain. then he started veering left in the 2000 cycle to appeal to the libs. then he pulled his "gang of 14" gig. then the immigration issues. and the list goes on and on. but aside from the woodstock comment that garnered him a standing 'o', he also said "...he's going to force us to setup a league of democracies..." in regards to putin and russia. however, we can't setup a league of anything if we sign onto the law of the sea treaty which mccain isn't speaking out against at this point.
i've never been a big fan of mike huckabee. i know that many like him, but he just seems like a lib in rino clothing to me. not at the debate, but still one of my favorite stories ever:
congratulations are in order for Keith Richards, lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones. The man has been promised a pardon for a traffic offense — from 1975 — courtesy of a fan, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Richards was fined $162.20 for reckless driving more than three decades ago after being stopped in a tiny town 70 miles south of Little Rock, between shows in Memphis and Dallas, reports Reuters. Richards paid the fine by mail.
Huckabee said he talked to the possible future father of Capt. Jack Sparrow backstage at a Stones concert in March, and, after Richards joked about his past, the governor (and bass player in an amateur band) suggested the rocker apply for a pardon.
i like that story because my husband plays bass in an amateur band too. :) but seriously folks. i have to give kudos to mr. huckabee for having the best line of the debate when he said "there's nothing funny about hillary being president." how right he is, how right he is. but still not enough for to want him on the ticket....
i'm not going to comment too much on mitt or rudy. i would vote for either of them if they made it on the ticket, but i won't be voting to put them there. i just don't like them very much. i think mitt likes to make too many deals with the libs in order to say he did something, anything. and i think rudy likes big government and likes being a part of big government.
any how, all in all i think fred was the most impressive. i think fred was the only one on the stage who deserved to invoke ronny. i think i like fred more and more as time passes...
can someone please explain to me why the united states of america is even consideringratification of the "law of the sea treaty" (lost)? this just makes no sense to me. none.
gabrielle reilly does a great job of presenting both sides of the article and it's a great place to start. but there is (as always) so much more to know.
in his 2004 state of the union address president bush said "america will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country." but that is precisely the position the united states will be in if we ratify lost.
i honestly wonder if the president, or any proponent of the treaty in congress, has even read all 202 pages of this thing. my guess is not - if they had, surely they would no longer be a "for" this thing.
currently, the dems are in nearly unanimous agreement with the president that they should vote in favor of ratification. in fact, there are only a handful of republicans opposing it. we need to make certain that they stand determinedly against this or it will get the 2/3 vote it needs in the upper house to pass. and based on the behavior of some senators this just isn't a priority for them.
according to cliff kincaid in an article for the national ledger there were two republicans, john sununu (r-n.h.) and norm coleman (r-mn) who were just too busy to attend the senate foreign relations meeting on this treaty. however, both of them did find time to attend a photo op with bono (of u2 fame) the next day. now how's that for priorities?!?
in speaking of richard lugar (rino-in) - who managed to make the photo op and both meetings of the committee, mr. kincaid had this to say: "Lugar is a globalist who has been pushing UNCLOS [lost] for many years. He not only believes in more foreign aid; he favors getting the U.S. entangled in more international treaties."
back in 2004 the senate, led by senate foreign relations chairman richard lugar, attempted to ram the treaty approval through before opposition could be garnered against it. however, americans rose up in protest against this treaty and (much like with the illegal alien amnesty) its proponents in the senate were shocked.
once again, this is happening. the president is pushing for acceptance within the next three weeks. the hope is that it will be a done deal before anyone (read "the american public") knows that something is going down. we simply must stop it. check out this post from libertypost.org there's a ton of information on this and we need to get everyone educated.
writing for the patriot post in last week's digest edition, oliver north says " before casting a vote to ratify lost, all 100 senators should read article 314 of this onerous treaty and article ii, section 2 of the u.s. constitution. the un-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted - and therefore enforced - without the consent of any signatory. yet our constitution requires that two-thirds of our senate concur in any treaty. do 67 members of this senate now want to surrender that authority?"
don from over at american power suggests that we all take a look at this article from the wall street journal. it ties in quite nicely to this post and i encourage all of you to read it as well.
to go along with this lost debacle, dems in the house seem to be working hard to make the american apparatus targeting terrorism both deaf and blind. this is according to senator kit bond (r-mo) in an interview with bill kessler of newsmax. and he's not the only one saying this.
in opposition to the "restore act" (responsible electronic surveillance that is overseen, reviewed and respected) deputy whip eric cantor (r-va) stated on his website that he planned on introducing an amendment to the bill "to clarify that nothing in the bill shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person.” i believe it was an attempt to force the dems into casting a vote for or against the defense of america and americans.
thankfully, for the time being at least, this bastardization of fisa has been pulled. are they that opposed to our intelligence agencies being able to fight the terrorists that they decided to pull the plug on the vote?
i posited over at right truth earlier this week that "the entire dnc is in cahoots with al qaeda to hinder the intelligence gathering" effort. and, although some think that this is all hyperbole, i stand by my statement.
in 1776 samuel adams said "it does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." these are sage words and the converse is also true. enemies of freedom can also prevail by setting brushfires of fear, or political correctness or dhimmitude, or what have in the minds of the masses.
at least that's my way of thinking - what do you think?
did you know that we've painted the empire state building green!?!? well not paint, really, but it appears to be green to honor the end of ramadhan. angel has a great post and great imagery here and both defiant infidel and debbie over at right truth add to angel's information.
i have placed a call to their pr department - specifically a ms. melanie marsh - and left a message that i am appalled at the idiocy of honoring a group especially in new york where we should all still have such a violent recollection of what the muslim terrorists did to our nation. i am not going to hold my breath waiting for a return call.
the empire sate building's official internet site has an entire page devoted to the history of the lighting of the building and another for the upcoming schedule. it's important to note that several people are saying that this is the first time the building will be completely green, but clearly this isn't the case:
October 09, 2007
Green/Green/Green*
New York Restoration Project and NYC Parks Department - Million Trees NYC
wow, i wonder if they did it that way because they wanted to be able to say it wasn't the only thing that warranted an all green e.s.b.?!?!
please join us in calling and registering your dissatisfaction over this horrendous act of political correctness. i wonder what color they light the building to commemorate easter or jewish passover? perhaps the other jewish holidays?
the past nine days have been a journey for me, both physically and figuratively. i have started to write a new post at least three times, prior to this, since monday and each time i have stopped because it didn't feel as if what i was typing was sufficient. i'm not sure that this attempt will be any more sufficient, but it is what it is.
the last lines of this ad from the 1984 reagan/mondale election cycle says quite a bit to me. not just about our country, but about life in general. perhaps this other quote from mr. reagan, goes one step further: "you and i have the courage To say to our enemies, "there is a price we will not pay. there is a point beyond which they must not advance"
on monday, i had to do what is perhaps the hardest thing i have ever had to do. after driving nearly 2400 miles (round trip) to find my (wayward) sister and bring her home with me to help her pick herself up, i had to then kick her out of my house. i had to concede that which others had told me for many years: there is no way to help her because she believes nothing is her fault and everyone owes her.
my sister is a very intelligent woman although all proof of that seems to be sorely lacking in most of what she does and who she is. my sister is also a crack addict and an alcoholic. she is also on parole (or is it probation, i can never remember) for drug and alcohol related issues as well as fighting and hitting a police officer. she is also a democrat who believes that the republicans are trying to keep her down via her addictions.
as i was driving her to the bus station on monday (she asked me to take her there) it dawned on me that my relationship with her is some sort of an analogy for my view of the anti-american crowd in general. i see them, i hear them, i comprehend the words they are saying but i have absolutely no understanding of their view point or how they justify what they espouse.
with my sister i can put it down to perhaps the drugs and/or alcohol have addled her brain, but i doubt that i can say that about the majority of people in the anti-american crowd. however, the psychosis seems to be quite similar.
i say "if you want to stay with me, i will give/get you whatever help you need so long as you adhere to the rules of your probation (yes, it is probation, i now recall) - the choice is yours - if you don't want to adhere to these rules you will need to leave." she hears "you're going to be my slave and i will own you and you will do whatever i say or i'll kick you out." i say "you can't stop drinking and doing drugs if you don't stop hanging out in bars and hanging out with people who are doing drugs." she hears "you're a loser who isn't capable of change."
i have no more success in talking to her than i have talking about matters of the constitution of national history and the like with those of a liberal persuasion.
i have a good friend who is a very staunch liberal. to say the least, we have some very colorful conversations. the conversations (that aren't about our children or our last trip to europe together) go something like this:
i say "there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees anything other than no state religion and no interference with a person's right to worship." she says "so you think that we should include a religious litmus test when selecting judges?" i say "when did i say that?" she says "so i have to believe in the same god as you, the constitution guarantees me a wall between church and state." with this friend the conversations never get too nasty because we know each other and like each other and simply agree to disagree.
but the end result is the same. i say something that she responds to with something that isn't a response to something i said. generally these conversations (with other liberals i've spoken to) devolve into a personal attack against me or bush or my lineage, etc. generally, when i try to remain calm and bring the discussion back to the point i made, the subject is then changed.
can anyone offer an explanation for me?
on the trip back to kansas city with my sister we stopped for lunch at a subway. we were the only customers in the place and i was wearing my wonderful resistance t-shirt. the gentleman behind the counter was arabic. as he read my shirt, he smiled and said "that is an accurate translation. where did you get this shirt?" i began to tell him about cafepress.com and michele malkin all the while sort of bracing myself for him to become annoyed about the shirt.
in the middle of our exchange a couple of (what appeared to be college kids) walked in and one of them immediately began to berate me about my shirt. the other one turned to the man behind the counter and said "i'm sorry that she is so insensitive and that you had to be belittled by her and her shirt."
the man behind the counter very calmly told both of them that they "should never speak from a position of ignorance" and that they "should never assume they know what a situation is by their own beliefs." i wasn't sure what he meant until he continued saying he "is a christian who left iran because of the persecution of the muslims"and that "only here in america is he able to be free from the hatred of the muslims" and further he stated that he "will be ordering this shirt for him and his wife and his children so that they can be reminded why it is important to fight the muslims everywhere." needless to say, we were all dumbfounded.
it seems that i completely forgot that not everyone in the middle east is muslim. that the christians in the middle east are being forced to submit to conversion or become dhimmi or worse. i immediately applauded him on his statements and apologized for assuming him to be muslim. he graciously accepted my apology.
and what about the two "kids" that walked in on us? one of them was suitably stunned to the point of speechlessness, unfortunately the other was not. his immediate and vitriolic response started with "i can't believe you've betrayed your people and bought into the bullsh*t that the neo-cons are dumping" and went downhill from there. she didn't say so, but i think my sister agreed with him.
clearly they were listening to something other than this man speak. or maybe, i'm wrong. maybe nothing is as it seems and we need to look for the twisted, hidden meaning in everything. got tin hat?
people are all abuzz with the latest video release from obl. it's important to note that this is a potentially important video. for one, there is no change in the stance of islamists. and i don't say "radical islamists" because that is a misnomer. all practicing muslims are potentially "radical islamists" simply because islamic law compels them to be.
islamic law requires the muslim to invite you to recognize the supremacy of islam by converting. if you refuse, you may be invited to become a dhimmi (sort of a second class citizen paying duty to the muslims for allowing you to be there) and if you refuse that then the muslim is to go to war with you (Sahih Muslim 4294).
they are biding their time, but they are not doing so with out endeavoring to further their cause. the employment suits listed on tantor's site are just a small piece of it.
consider the prosecution, in new york of the pace university student who flushed a koran. while i am not defending this young man as having done a worthy thing, this young man thought he was exercising his first amendment rights - albeit with someone else's property. i imagine he was surprised to find that it is free speech if you desecrate a christian icon or jewish icon, but if you desecrate a like islamic icon it is a hate crime.
with each finding of sensitivity towards the islamic demands, we are giving away a greater piece of who we are as a country, as a people. when the washington post declines to print "comics" deemed offensive to muslims, but harbors no such reserve towards christians or jews, the press is agreeing to forfeit some of its freedoms.
we non-muslims must stand up and say "enough!" until we stop worrying about the sensitivities of islamists as more important than our own culture, beliefs, indeed our very country, we will continue to cede our freedoms to "them".
our society is secular, true. our law is based on the belief that the government cannot tell us where to go to church or how to worship. this is in direct opposition to the laws of islam which is a political and social system all rolled into one with a religious faith. we cannot even marginally embrace this without completely altering the nature of our society and indeed that of all western society as well.
with each compassionate nod to islam here in the united states our "ness" is eroding away. compare the freedoms of woman under our laws versus that under sharia law. can you imagine your mothers, your sisters, your wives, your daughters being subjugated in this manner? because make no mistake, they will not change their views to be more open in that regard. the religion of muhammed has changed very little since the dawn of time and that is a point on which islamists are very proud.
robert spence examines a great deal of this in his book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity is and Islam Isn't but it's getting precious little notice anywhere as so many are afraid to remark on islam in a non-pc manner. this reticence is promoting the fallacy that "they" don't like us because we're capitalists. or we're arrogant. or we're "intolerant". or whatever other name is placed on "us" by the msm - both here at home and in much of the world. they don't like us because we don't follow sharia law. they don't like us because we are not an islamic nation.
i know this all sounds like the lunatic ramblings of some ditsy blond, but consider these things. obl predicted on a number of occasions that the u.s. would start a fight with al qaeda, but that we were nothing more than a paper tiger and we'd be unlikely to finish it. meaning that all the islamists need to do is bide their time and we'd eventually quit and they would win. consider also that in europe the only group producing at a growth rate is muslims - if they wait long enough they'll "win" europe by default: they'll be the only ones left standing.
but seriously folks. we are in a war for our very survival - here and in the west as a whole. but most of the democrat caucus, indeed much of the socialist world, doesn't have a clue. this is one we must win.
and make no mistake. if we in any way indicate that we are not there to finish the task in iraq, or afghanistan (or iran if it comes to it) the monsters that are beyond will be here. the edge of the map will be redrawn to the united states. and we will be hard pressed to recover.
understand why mom and dad were so upset. i'm not sure they yet have any idea. kat gets it. she remembers.
they don't want you to remember. 
in the new tape released, today, obl says that the only way the u.s.
will escape further wrath from the islamists is if we all convert to
islam. but don't look for this statement to change the dribble spewing
forth from the defeatists. don't look for them to admit that the
terrorist hate us not because of our capitalism or any other reason
than the fact that we are not an islamic state. it doesn't fit their
policy of cut and run, so look to even this statement being ignored. 
rino clothing to me. not at the debate, but still one of my 
