Barbarians Inside the Gates

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:41:13 +0000

Useful idiots for Islam and other clueless types are scratching their heads in bewilderment at Chechen jihadis detonating bombs to kill American civilians. They ignorantly or willfully focus on their nationality and their youth instead of their ideology. Chechens have no more reason for hostility toward the United States than they do against Switzerland. Americans played no role in the Chechen war against Russia. In truth, the Tsarnaev Brothers plotted and carried out their murderous plot due to Islam.

In the past, apologists for Islam deflected the focus on the Islamic basis of terrorist acts such as the bombing of the World Trade Center during the 1990s and the destruction of it in 2001. Those unwilling to admit the Islamic motivation for such acts of war portrayed them as actions of foreigners against the United States. However, during the years since 2001, Mohamadans, those who naturalized as American citizen, those born in the United States and those who merely entered the country, have launched deadly attacks. No longer are jihadis a problem from outside of the borders. Instead, jihadis spring up from the hostile horde, which has already infiltrated the country.

The following are some examples of Mohamadans who had been allowed to reside in the United States or been granted American citizenship before engaging in acts of jihad within the United States:

-25 January 1993, Mir Aimal Kasi, a Pakistani who entered the country with forged documents and bought a fake green card during his mid-twenties, fatally shot two employees of the CIA and injured three others.

-26 February, 1993, Ramzi Yousef who had claimed political asylum in order to be admitted into the United States, detonated a bomb inside the World Trade Center in New York, killing six people and injuring more than one thousand others.

-23 February, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal, a Philistine immigrant, ascended the Empire State Building then shot one visitor and wounded six others.

-4 July 2002, Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a green-card-holder from Egypt, shot to death two employees at Los Angeles International Airport.

- 6 March, 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who emigrated from Iran at the age of two, deliberately plowed his vehicle into a crowd at the University of North Carolina. He injured nine students.

- 12 February, 2007, Sulejman Talović, a Bosnian who arrived in the United States in 1998 and received permanent resident status seven years later, fatally shot five shoppers in a mall and injured four others.

- 1 May, 2010, Faisal Shahzad, who gained citizenship by marrying an American woman, attempted to use a car bomb to murder civilians in Times Square.

In all of these crimes, the jihadis justified their violence based on Islam. Some of them mentioned their sympathy for Philistines in mimicking Hezbollah’s, Hamas’ and other terrorist attacks on civilians. Many of these jihadis spouted Koranic exhortations toward hatred for Jews and Christians as their motivation. More recent jihadist attacks blamed American responses to previous terrorist attacks as the reason for further killing of American civilians.

These references do not include the jihadis spawned by Mohamdan infiltrators who later committed acts of jihad such as Nidal Malik Hasan or attempted to do so such as Naser Abdo. Neither do these include American born converts to Islam such as Michael Julius Ford, Hasan Karim Akbar and John Allen Muhammad who murdered fellow Americans to avenge perceived hostility to Islam. Nor do these include the numerous citizens of the United States, by birth or by naturalization, who have provided financing and other support for jihadist operations. Those include the Holy Land Foundation, the Global Relief Fund and the Benevolence International Foundation. Also not included are jihadis who entered into the United States on temporary visas in order to wage jihad such as the nineteen hijackers on 11 September 2001.

The solution to the influx of savages spouting an ideology hostile to the freedom and safety of all Americans is simple: ban any entry by Mohamadans into the United States. The basis for this move already exists in the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Those advocating any totalitarian ideology are ineligible for American citizenship as stated under Title III, Chapter 1, Act 313. Act 316 requires a favorable disposition by aliens toward the United States; obviously, those sympathizing with jihadis following the violent examples of the creator of Islam do not qualify. The act also bars those ineligible for citizenship from receiving resident status. Finally, since Islamists claim that the United States is at war with Islam, it is suicidally foolish to allow those adhering to Islam to enter into the country. Did the American authorities allow Nazis to immigrate or just visit the country while at war with their country?

This overdue defensive measure would end the invasion of savages who are too arrogant to work for “infidels” and too lazy to find any legal employment to support themselves. It is no coincidence that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leeching off working Americans by means of welfare checks. Large numbers of other Mohamadans expect the people whom they despise to support them financially. Such expectation differs little from the jizya, protection money, which Jews and Christians had to pay their Mohamadan conquers for centuries to avoid being murdered or enslaved. Islamic scriptures give its adherents a sense of entitlement to the earnings of those not members of their totalitarian cult. The longer the gates remain open to infiltration by Islamic barbarians, the more will enter, resulting in more murder and mayhem directed against Americans.

Benghazi Does Make a Difference, Hillary

Sat, 02 Feb 2013 05:15:50 +0000

During Hillary Clinton’s much delayed appearance before a Congressional committee to answer questions about the jihadist attacks on the eleventh of September last year, she snapped, “Four Americans are dead. What difference does it make?”

Such a callous disregard for the search for the truth reveals Hillary Clinton’s desire to hide any incriminating evidence, which might sink her presidential aspirations in the coming years. Despite the fact that a suspect had no role in killing anyone, it is still a crime for him/her to hide evidence or otherwise obstruct the pursuit of justice. People involved with covering up homicides can and should face punishment for their complicity in concealing those crimes. Did Hillary Clinton not learn this at Yale Law School? Perhaps she believes that she holds an exception to laws concerning obstruction of justice just as her husband claimed the privilege to commit perjury.

Hillary, how about the need to root out nincompoops in the Department of State who deny the Islamic basis for terrorist attacks Americans? The appointment of a “Special Representative to Muslim Communities” indicates the pre-occupation with “outreach” to those who loathe American freedoms. The coddling of Mohamadans with the “2012 hours Against Hate” campaign blinds them to the blatantly hateful and violent basis of Islam. Evidently, they cannot bother to read or listen to the invective, all of which is rooted in the Koran and other Islamic scriptures, spewed by Islamists at American society. Slavish adherence to multiculturalism will never overcome the reality of Islamic malignancy.

When the usefully idiotic bureaucrats rarely do acknowledge any connection between violence by Mohamadans committed against Americans, the blame falls on the Americans. An example of this “blame the victim” mentality occurred when the Egyptian-born Christian man who created a video critical of Mohamad, the inventor of Islam, faced condemnation for the coordinated assaults on American diplomatic personnel and installations on the anniversary of the jihadist attacks of the eleventh of September. After those acts of jihad, the dhimmis in the State Department spent 70,000 dollars on television commercials apologizing to Mohamadans whose turbans or burkas were in a bunch over someone criticizing the criminal who fabricated their totalitarian ideology. The State Department did disavow such linkage a month later yet the slander had already smeared this man for simply expressing his opinions. The incident also painted Americans as sniveling cowards who kowtow to savages’ demands to never have their beliefs questioned.

For Hillary to question the need for an inquiry demonstrates her incompetency. The impotent response to the attacks on an American consulate and an American embassy serves as glaring examples of Obama’s administration. Those murders of an ambassador and three others in the consulate and ransacking of diplomatic facilities qualify as acts of war by jihadis, both under international law and in common sense. In response, not one of those jihadis has been killed or captured by American forces. No one should expect anything else from members of an administration spouting Orwellian euphemisms such as “man-made disasters” instead of calling acts of jihad what they are: terrorism.

Underscoring the appalling ineptitude is the sale of F-16s to a regime run by Islamists. The Mooslum Brotherhood seized power in Egypt last year. Its members have dedicated their lives to imposing their totalitarian ideology on the entire world. Their leader, Mohamad Morsi, has already issued emergency decrees, which have granted him extraordinary levels of control, a favorite tactic of dictators in the past and in the present. Supplying those barbarians with such weaponry reeks of foolishness on par with the owner of a firearms store handing a loaded high-powered rifle to a known criminal with a long history of armed robberies.

Fortunately for American interests, Hillary Clinton will resign from her post this week. Sadly for cause of justice, she will not face any punishment for her negligence. That duty will fall to the voters in the United States should she dare to seek the presidency again. She clearly lacks the competence and courage for that solemn responsibility.

Call for Vengeance

Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:27:08 +0000

The most recent acts of jihad against the United States should obliterate any lingering reluctance to admit the Islamic war against the United States of America. Double-talking Mohamadans and traitorous apologists for Islam inside American borders have spent the past eleven years since the jihadist attacks on the eleventh of September of 2001 obfuscating and lying about the inherent malignancy of Islam and its enmity toward the Free World, especially its most powerful member. Outrageously, far too many Americans have fallen for the barrage of Islamic propaganda. Sadly, more have forgotten about the day when jihadis murdered thousands of their countrymen and women plus all the jihadist atrocities committed since that day.

The useful idiots in the American media have been attempting to blame the outburst of jihad due to a film critical of Islam. The Mohamadan-coddling talking heads have elevated this totalitarian ideology and the criminal who created above any criticism or skepticism. Even if the savages who attacked the American diplomatic outposts did so due to their hypersensitivity to any exposure of the ugly truth of Islam and its fabricator, that holds zero relevancy. If feeling insulted by a work of art, no matter the medium or level of artistry, gives license to murder, rape and destroy, then Americans have more than sufficient cause for storming embassies of Islamic countries, killing their staffs, ripping down their flags and replacing them with banners displaying slogans of freedom.

The American people must demand immediate reactions by their government. All aid to Islamic regimes must end now. Money sent to the countries that harbor and support jihadis only provides succor to those who seek our capitulation and destruction. All embassies and consulates must be rendered as secure as fortresses. Sizeable detachments of Marines or others armed and trained in security have to be assigned to every facility. These detachments must be armed to the teeth with standing orders to kill any barbarians attempting to enter the compounds. Failing those security measures, then the outposts must be closed. For the American government to maintain diplomatic installations in hostile countries without the utmost of security reeks of suicidal naïveté at a minimum. Actually, refusal to harden embassies and consulates hints at complicity with Islamists’ wishes for easy targets representing the United States at which they can vent their never-ending rage.

For the long term, the United States must gird itself for a new Cold War. Islamists repeatedly reveal their malevolent intentions toward us, both in hostile speeches and criminal actions. The American people must recognize both those inside the Islamic bloc and those who have infiltrated our country from that entity as our enemies. All American businesses must be withdrawn from these cesspools. A ban on American-based airlines flying into those hostile states and any flights arriving from the same must be implemented. Any imports from the Islamic bloc must be forbidden, as should be any American exports to that group of oppressive regimes. In short, any economic interaction with Mohamadans will benefit the enemies of the United States to the detriment of Americans and their allies.

Individuals in the United States and the rest of the Free World can also take proactive economic measures against those who wish to destroy their societies. As the criminal conviction of the Holy Land Foundation demonstrated, Mohamadans within our borders send funds to support terrorists through mosks and other fronts for Islamic domination. Considering the common practice of Mohamadans in the Free World to donate their money in support of jihadis, a boycott of all Mohamadan-owned businesses must begin. The purchase of goods or services from Mohamadans underwrites future acts of violence directed at civilized people. Additionally, employers must not hire Mohamadans, thus providing them with income, which they can funnel to jihadis. Only a total cessation of financial transactions with Mohamadans can stanch the lifeblood, which nourishes the cancer known as Islam and its malignant tumors known as jihadis.

The term “Sharia-creep” describes the various means by which Islamists stealthily infect unwitting minds in the Free World. Therefore, we must confront the useful idiots who try to legitimize Islamization. These include agricultural companies placating Mohamadans by conforming to halal standards of brutally torturing animals. Additionally, civilized people must withdraw all funds and investments in financial institutions that offer interest-free loans to Mohamadans. Also, any businesses that cave into demands of Mohamadan employees should also be boycotted. Some examples of such cowardice include the wearing of Islamic misogynistic items such as head-rags or shrouds as well as time away from work for bowing down to the rock in Mecca. Any enterprises that kowtow to Mohamadans must face retaliation for their abetting of the scourge of our society.

Civilized people can help wage the war of ideas against Islam. Parents must stand up to schools’ white-washing of Islam’s legacy of oppression and violence in classes and in textbooks. All Americans must challenge the Mohamadan-coddlers in the media when their reports obfuscate or deny the Islamic basis for acts of terrorism and criminality. Any attempt to construct or convert an existing building into a mosk, madrassa or any other structure for the propagation of Islam must be prevented. Such buildings act as indoctrination centers of impressionable youth and gullible converts to groom future Islamists and raise support for the imposition of Islam.

Finally, we in the Free World must change our collective mindset. Far too many have hesitated to acknowledge openly that Islamists have declared war on us. Refusal to identify with complete honesty the ideology of the enemy has hampered our effort. The knee-jerk additions of the term “radical” to Islamists who are clearly adhering to Islamic scriptures give credence to Islamic disinformation that Islam is peaceful, righteous and misunderstood. Those who follow the dictates and examples of Mohamad (May he burn in Hell forever), the inventor of Islam, are not “radical”, at least not in their practice of Islam. Those savages emulate the words and deeds of the criminal who started their cult. Did anyone refer to those killing Americans during the Second World War as “radical Nazis” as though some “moderate Nazis” existed and meant no harm to Americans? Devotees to totalitarian ideologies such as Nazism and Islam pattern themselves on the evil examples set forth by the malevolent originators. Regardless of naïve outsiders unwilling to believe that anyone would imitate the crimes and psychoses of either Hitler or Mohamad (MHBHF), the reality is that an alarming number of sheeple have done so and continue to do so. The sooner that residents in the Free World admit those facts, the quicker effective counter-offensives can begin in earnest.

Equally, civilized people are generally too impatient to commit to vanquishing the latest manifestation of totalitarianism to threaten our society. This struggle will endure far longer than did the Second World War and likely longer than the Cold War. Islamists have infiltrated our borders by the millions in addition to co-opting the minds of hundreds of millions of brainwashed members of their cult, if not more. Victory of civilization over this barbarism requires more than simply killing jihadis or destroying their infrastructure. The ultimate defeat of Islam will occur when its poisonous ideals have been rejected around the world then this totalitarian plague ends up on the trash heap of history.

Arab Spring Will Trigger Ramabomb Explosions

Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:53:25 +0000

With the start of Ramabomb, the Free World should increase its security measures in light of Mohamadans’ habit of escalating their usual level of violence to higher frequencies with more deadly consequences. The jihadist bombing of a bus of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria last week foreshadows the renewed tradition of savagery during the month considered sacred on the Islamic calendar. While bracing themselves for the inevitable jihadist attacks, civilized people should also take stock of events since Ramabomb ended last year. Outbreaks of jihadist insurgencies have led to the fall of a handful of oppressive though not explicitly theocratic regimes within the Islamic bloc. In Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt & Libya, autocratic governments have collapsed in the face of an Islamic tsunami. Future waves of this storm threaten to devastate Syria, Irak, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Algeria.

The authoritarian yet not overtly Islamic regimes have given way to power grabs by Islamists. The most populous nation in the Middle East, Egypt, has succumbed to the Moslem Brotherhood. The appearance of a fully enshrouded wife of the newly elected president serves as a harbinger of further oppression of the perennial targets of Islamists: women and non-Mohamadans. Jihadis have ramped up attacks on churches and the Christians inside them since the collapse of Mubarak’s government.

The Free World has no reason to favor blindly the widespread discontent leading to toppling of governments throughout the Middle East. The unrest in Iran appeared on its face as opposition to the Islamic oligarchy. However, the demonstrators were not demanding freedom from the foreign ideology imposed on their ancestors by Arab armies centuries ago. The crowds did not storm and destroy mosks, madrassas or other edifices of Islam as Islamists did to symbols of Persian civilization and modernity in general erected during the Shah’s reign. They merely demanded the ouster of the current occupants in the seats of power. Calls for a less brutal dictator in Iran do not equate to desire for liberty.

If someone needs a concrete example of how a country can devolve to a full- fledged totalitarian state with Islam as its sole basis for power, a look at Iran over the course of the past 35 yrs is required. Iran, like Egypt, is a highly populated and predominantly Islamic nation. However, a significant presence of other ideologies has existed in these two places. Both were headed by an autocratic who was outwardly friendly toward the Free World. Sadly, in the cases of these two significant members of the Islamic bloc, the United States’ governmental policy turned against its erstwhile allies against Islamists in favor of rebels who soon displayed their Islamist loyalties.

Some glimmers of hope have occurred despite rising tide of Islamization. The secession of South Sudan struck a blow for freedom against the cesspool of merciless jihadis ruling the northern portion of Sudan. The National Forces Alliance, a political party seemingly non-Islamist, won a plurality of parliamentary seats. The NFA grabbed more than twice as many seats in elections this month than did the Moslem Brotherhood’s party and another Islamist group in the forefront of toppling Kadaffy’s regime. Moncef Marzouki, the newly elected president of Tunisia, has openly pushed for a secular republic without a constitution not based on Sharia. In Algeria, the National Liberation Front, a mostly non-Islamist party comprised of supporters of the military-run regime, secured nearly a majority of seats in parliamentary elections in May.

Unfortunately, even apparent victories against the further encroachment of Islam seem tenuous or fleeting. The fragile South Sudanese government will not be able to hold off continued attacks by jihadis without significant aid, military and humanitarian, from the Free World. Also, the National Forces Alliance in Libya, despite the reputation as an alternative to Islamic parties, has stated its desire for Sharia to serve as the basis of the country’s laws. Marzouki’s hopes for a secular republic depend on the sizeable group of Tunisian Islamists’ refraining from seizing power then imposing a theocracy when future elections go against their wishes. Algerian elections have had weak turnouts so the results provide little legitimacy for the non-theocratic government among the populace. Throughout history, Islamists have not graciously accepted others’ refusal to submit to their totalitarian ideology and cede power to those rejecting Islamic supremacy. No one should remain under any delusions that any country within the Islamic bloc will transition smoothly or rapidly into a republic dedicated to economic and social freedoms.

The Curse of the Super Bowl

Wed, 11 Jul 2012 06:55:02 +0000

In the wake of the scandal involving players and coaches of the New Orleans Saints being suspended for all or a portion of the upcoming season, superstitious fans of the National Football League find the timing of these events to be destined. Based on the disastrous seasons of the two most recent teams whose metropolitan areas hosted the Super Bowl, one might conclude that a curse befalls the team with the possibility of playing in the league championship game on its home field. This supposed hex included the starting quarterback missing most of the season in the case of one and every game in the other. If this pattern continues, Drew Brees would be wise to continue his unsigned status through January.

Bolstering the belief in this fated misfortune, none of the teams in the host cities of the eleven most recent Super Bowls qualified for the playoffs. Only twice in that span did the local team in the metro area of the site even finish with a winning record. In fact, in nine of those seasons, the team whose stadium served as the venue for the Super Bowl finished in third or last place in its four-team division.

Going back to 1990, this perceived misfortune has befallen the city hosting the Super Bowl with frightening regularity. During twelve seasons, the host city’s team lost ten or more games. During these twenty-two seasons, the local team managed a winning season a mere five times. In only three seasons did the team from the Super Bowl site advance to the post-season; none of those played in their conference championship games. The most successful result for the supposedly accursed team occurred in Miami when the Dolphins won their division and a first round playoff game before bowing out in the divisional round. Given this litany of results, one could understand why fans would prefer that their team’s stadium not be used to stage this unofficial national holiday.

However, this seemingly pre-determined failure for the team in media market of the Super Bowl has not existed since the inception of this championship game. Despite the mostly appalling finishes of home-town teams in the twenty-two most recent seasons, in sixteen of those forty-five seasons, they did finish with a winning record. Those teams even qualified for the playoffs in 22.2 percent of the first forty-five seasons ending in a Super Bowl. Hosting teams have averaged winning their divisions in one out of every nine seasons. During last four seasons of the 1970s, three teams whose home area hosted the “Big Game” qualified for the playoffs, including one advancing to its conference championship game and another going to the Super Bowl.

Additionally, some fans and media have trumped up this alleged jinx by erroneously stating that no team has ever played as a “home team” in the Super Bowl. Actually, no team has ever played in the stadium in which it plays its home games. In fact, on two occasions teams did participate in the championship game within easy commuting distance of their home stadium. During the 1979 season, the Rams, based in Los Angeles for that season, commuted to the Super Bowl in Pasadena. Five seasons later, the Forty-Niners took the short trek southward to Palo Alto. Also, the Raiders have not had to leave their state for the Super Bowl on two occasions; in 1976 season, they headed south from Oakland to Los Angeles then to San Diego during the 2002 campaign.

What explains this perceived misfortune for the teams whose metropolitan areas have served as the venue for the premier sporting event in the United States? One must regard the correlation between the sites of the Super Bowl and the track record of the teams who call them home. New Orleans, has hosted this event on nine previous occasions, the second most frequent host. New Orleans also endured a wretched franchise, which has managed only eleven winning records in its forty-five seasons. The Super Bowl has been played in Tampa Bay four times; the local team has managed winning seasons in less than a third of its thirty-five seasons. Finally, this ultimate football game has taken place twice in both Houston and Detroit, neither of whose teams have experienced more than modest levels of success; neither has ever managed to play in the Super Bowl. The frequency of the Super Bowl occurring in locales with underachieving franchises helps explain why the hosting cities’ teams fares so poorly in years when they had a chance to play for the championship in their backyard. Therefore, fans around the country need not fret if your city bids to host the Super Bowl or is so fortunate as to land the highest profile sporting event in the United States.

Hypocrites Regarding Marriage

Mon, 14 May 2012 18:47:54 +0000

The denizens hailing President Obama’s change of opinion regarding homosexual marriage claim their mission is “the right to marry for everyone”, “marriage equality”, “the end of discrimination” and other such idealistic statements. However, their claims of fighting for fairness noticeably omit others currently not allowed to marry whomever they wish.

Homosexual advocates and their allies frequently lump together all deviant sexual lifestyles as “LGBT”. One could reasonably conclude that members of all four of those classifications are united in pursuit of the same goals and mutual support of each other reaching those. If all four of those classifications are considered equally deserving of marrying whomever they wish, why are homosexual advocates excluding bisexuals from the quest marrying whomever they want? They condone the discrimination against bisexuals by touting a monogamous relationship as the basis for marriage. That limitation prevents those attracted to both sexes from marrying those whom they prefer. Why do these hypocrites want to deny bisexuals the right to both a man and a woman as their sexuality dictates? Why are homosexual advocates trying to force their morality on those others?

Why are supporters of the redefinition of marriage not demanding the right for intra-familial marriages? After all, those were legally recognized in different societies throughout history whereas homosexual marriages were never sanctioned. Incestuous marriages existed in ancient Egypt and in other societies millennia ago as brothers married sisters. Throughout the Middle Ages and Industrial Ages, European aristocracy arranged marriages between cousins. Also, Mohamadans have arranged marriages between cousins since Mohamad proclaimed the limitations on sexual relations, which do not include a ban on marriages between first cousins. The creator of Islam even arranged the marriage of one of his nephews to one of his daughters. So why do homosexual advocates and their apologists hate people of the intra-familial sexual orientation?

The proponents of homosexual marriage state that two people should be allowed to be legally married, whether that is a heterosexual or homosexual couple. Glaringly, that limitation excludes Mohamadan men who want more than one wife. How do they justify their tacit support of the ban on polygyny, thus denying a Mohamadan man a second, third, or fourth wife as the Koran states he has a right to do? Why are homosexual advocates and their lackeys blatantly engaging in Islamophobia?

Facile minds claim that everyone should be granted legal recognition of whatever type of intimate relationships that a person has. Have they never considered the consequences of that change? Do they prefer change for the sake of change? Do they actually prefer to water down this definition so it no longer has any importance? How do they justify demanding legally recognized marriages yet excluding other alternative sexual relationships? Undermining a cornerstone of civilization carries serious consequences, which its detractors refuse to recognize.

Marriage has served as the foundation of the family for millennia. The mockery of the practice by empty-headed celebrities and shortsighted serial brides and grooms cannot diminish the value of the tradition. By extending the term “marriage” to a non-heterosexual and non-monogamous relationships, it undercuts the meaning of the term. The stability of this institution rests upon its more than mere sexual activity. Marriage binds together a couple with the assumption that the man and woman from different families will create and raise children. That bears much more importance than simply pacifying tiny minorities demanding governmental endorsement of their divergent lifestyles.

Looters on the Rise

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:50:00 +0000

On the fifth of July, USA Today reported on its front page “Jobless Claims Abuses on Rise”. One dollar out of nine is misdirected to those who do not deserve it according to the criteria. United States Department of Labor figures show that approximately nine million, three hundred thousand people receive checks for not working. However, a glaring portion of those do have jobs or are otherwise not adhering the rules related to eligibility.

No one should be surprised by these cases of fraud. The entire system is founded on an immoral precept: demanding money from others without working for it or repaying the sum received. The fact that recipients expect that government will seize money from others on their behalf instead of the jobless forcibly allocating it to themselves does not lessen the receivers’ complicity in this outrage. Reliance on bureaucrats to fleece productive citizens in order to subsidize idle individuals only underscores the sloth of those benefiting from the payments. The continual siphoning of the proceeds of the labor of working Americans dissuades those out of work from seeking jobs or respecting the value of employment.

This income redistribution, along with forcibly transfers of money to give vouchers for housing and grants of food stamps and other nutritional handouts, approximate theft. The mere difference lies in that Uncle Sam is immune to prosecution. Politicians perpetuating addiction to governmental give-aways take from producers and give to looters. These elected officials benefit from the allegiance of the dependent class. These shameless nanny-statists base their actions on the axiom of their fellow socialist, George Bernard Shaw: “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.”

Those expecting to be paid for simply existing differ little from animals. Pigeons swarm picnickers or anyone else with food in hand in urban areas; seagulls act in the same manner in coastal locations. The birds congregate around people who actually provide their own sustenance. These creatures aggressively and persistently congregate around, even snatching items from the rightful owners as though it is the birthright of the thieves. Do these beasts sing or otherwise perform to merit the food? No, they simply beg or harass those who fend for themselves into parting with their possessions to placate pests refusing to exert any serious effort into feeding themselves. Anyone who has witnessed professional leeches such as ACORN and other Marxist outfits organizing and leading protests by persistently nonproductive Americans can identify the similarities to their parasitic avian counterparts.

Unemployed members of society who expect to live off the toil of productive persons will find themselves helpless if their governmental benefactors cease the transfusions of earnings. Likewise, if the victims of involuntary donations halt their economic prowess or perish due to the excessive blood-letting, then the babied wards of the government will suffer as well. Those who lack even the drive to seize the provisions themselves, preferring to let strangers in government commit the de facto robbery will possess even fewer means to act proactively for self-sustenance when the goodies without strings attached no longer arrive.

Advocates of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens frequently claim that those non-citizens perform jobs which Americans will not do. Of course, if legal residents need only fill out some forms to receive checks and other benefits, those with no scruples or self-respect will think nothing of taking money collected from working people to support those who do not. However, those Americans leeching off the industrious will likely drop their objection to menial jobs if those are the only way to avoid starvation and homelessness. Americans would be wise to heed Marcus Tullius Cicero’s advice from over two thousand years ago, “If the nation doesn’t want to go bankrupt, people must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.”

Doctor Thomas Sowell eloquently explained in his book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the origin of the contempt for honest employment and for those who work for their living. He referred to the freeloading Britons who imported this attitude into the American colonies as “rednecks”. He admitted that this mentality proliferated among black slaves and persists to our current era among various ethnicities and races. He must have had such leeches in mind when he announced in 1992, “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.”

Questions for Christophobic Media

Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:48:41 +0000

The joy of several prominent media outlets in response to the mass murder in Oslo more than two weeks later remains unmistakable. The New York Times proclaimed Anders Behring Breivik as a “Christian extremist”. CNN referred to him as a “Christian fundamentalist”. The Washington Post insinuated that he is a “Christian terrorist”. Even Islamists such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have gleefully spouted such inanities in the promotion of their totalitarian agenda.
In response, I submit these questions to all the Christophobes among the media and those in the blogosphere.
1. What evidence do any of you possess that Breivik practiced Christianity such as membership in a church? How can you willfully ignore his reference to his oxymoronic term “Christian atheism” to describe himself? Why do you instinctively assign his motivations to his supposed Christianity but not to his atheism?
2. Can you cite any Christian scriptures, Biblical or otherwise, which explain his murderous spree? On what basis do you ascribe his crimes as fundamentally Christian considering that no words attributed to Christ condone murder?
3. Why are you so reluctant to label blatantly and fervently violent jihadis as adherents to and practitioners of Islam? Since Breivik’s rampage, two reminders of the peril of Islamic terrorism to the Free World have occurred. A jihadi, Abdulhakim Muhammad, who murdered Private William Andrew Long, a recruiter for the U.S. Army, in Memphis received a life sentence for his crime committed in June of 2009. Also, a Mohamadan soldier, Naser Abdo, abandoned his assignment in Kentucky and gather weapons for another jihadist slaughter at Fort Hood before being arrested this week. These stand out among numerous other episodes of attempted or actual episodes of Islamic terrorism in the United States.
4. Why do you erroneously deny that Islamic texts repeatedly sanction violence in furtherance of imposition and maintenance of Mohamadan hegemony? Why do you ignore blatant verses that do permit, even celebrate, violence against non-Mohamadans?
5. If Breivik was motivated by hatred of Islam, why were his targets decidedly non-Islamic? Why did he plant a bomb near the Prime Minister’s office and then go on a shooting spree at a Labor Party children’s day camp? Mosks and other obvious Islamic targets dominate the ghettos in eastern Oslo.
6. Why are none of you blaming his homicidal streak on anabolic steroids when you are willing to consider other criminals’ usage of alcohol, stimulants, Twinkies or other substances as the true motivating force behind their horrific deeds?

Photographs, Fear-mongering and Flubs

Wed, 08 Jun 2011 20:55:09 +0000

Representative Anthony Weiner engaged in acts of an unseemly nature. Although I have not seen all of the images, I have heard that in one of them, he demonstrated his impression of the Washington Monument although it was much smaller than scale. It appeared that he was flirting provocatively with women approximately half his age. Perhaps his racy photographs and sexually provocative conversations are rooted in a mid-life crisis or merely part of a pattern of narcissism common among career politicians. His practices seem creepy, if not, bordering on adulterous and pornographic. He compounded his foolish behavior by lying about what he had done. He may have to face legal consequences for using government-owned equipment.He will also face questions about his franking privilege with no connection to sending mail to his district.

For a Congressman who craves time in front of cameras doing interviews and press conferences as much as a rutting rabbit desires receptive mates, one would think that he would have had his fill of appearing in the public eye. Perhaps, he assumed that his dalliances on Twitter would never become public. Maybe he is just obsessed with photographic devices. Does the Betty Ford Clinic offer treatment for that addiction?

Weiner is rebuffing calls for his resignation. Obviously, he enjoys the prestige of serving in Congress. In his mind, holding a seat in Congress aids in his pursuit of young women on the Internet. How many women would care to chat with a shrimpy, forty-something blowhard otherwise? Also, he certainly realizes that he could not engage in such shenanigans in the private sector. His behavior would have cost him his job if he had used an employer’s computer, sent those images on company time or violated a morals clause in an employment contract. Therefore, he may cling tenaciously to his position until voted out by his constituents because he knows that he will not find another source of income elsewhere.

Elsewhere, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz threw down the race card in an attempt to rally opposition to legislation intended to prevent fraudulent voting. She compared efforts to confirm voters’ identities to legal and unofficial obstacles to voting under racial segregation. Banks, stores and post offices demand photographic identification during transactions yet for a voter to show the same evidence is a racist outrage? When a logical and legal argument against a policy does not exist, one can rely on nanny-statists to resort to race-baiting.

In Schultz’s defense, mandatory verification will impede some people’s ability to vote. Those intending to cast ballots in the names of others will need to be more creative in their deceptions. Certainly, such requirements will reduce the number of dead people who manage to drag themselves to the polls and cast ballots. Hmm, this legislation does seem anti-zombie now that I am pondering it further. Non-citizens may find voting to be more difficult under such regulations. Felons in jurisdictions barring them from casting ballots will face an obstacle under this type of law. What kind of country has this become when people do not feel comfortable to vote illegally anymore? Unless Schultz believes that Blacks and Hispanics regularly engage in voter fraud, then how can she explain that such laws would discriminate against those two groups?

In contrast, Sarah Palin muddled a response to a question about her visit to a national landmark during her “yet to be formally announced” presidential campaign. For a star of a popular television series to speak incorrectly or ridiculously about a topic outside of her profession is nothing new. Does anyone remember Ted Danson’s dire predictions of impending environmental doom in the 1980s? The Oscars have served as a venue for pontificating on socio-political issues at least since Marlon Brando’s boycott of the ceremony in 1973 over his objection to the portrayal of the indigenous peoples of the Americas in films despite the absurd lack of connection to winning an award. The Dixie Chicks, Sinead O’Connor and other musicians have injected their political beliefs during performances in recent decades. Numerous other stars in different arts and in various venues have spouted off inanely or incoherently so Palin is just fitting into the same mold, at worst.

Palin did not recount the tale of Paul Revere’s late night ride to the satisfaction of some amateur historians. Many of these critics would have vilified her even had she delivered a one hundred percent accurate description with Churchillian eloquence. Yes, she did misstate the purpose of his ride: to warn militiamen of the impending arrival of Redcoats intending to seize their stash of weapons and ammunition and arrest two of their leaders. No, he was not sent as a messenger to the Redcoats; he did reveal his role in raising the alarm after they captured him.

Palin did hint at the famous line attributed to Revere, “The British are coming!” No historical evidence exists to confirm that he yelled this line. In fact, it seems highly improbable. His ride occurred more than a year before the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, even the most ardent opponents of the authorities still considered themselves as “British” at that time. Despite that, every pupil in elementary school undoubtedly learned this falsehood in American history class. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow deserves the blame for that bit inaccuracy in his epic poem “Paul Revere’s Ride”, not Sarah Palin. Nevertheless, the “lame-stream media” prefers to continue their obsession with the woman who has labeled them thusly. The media’s lust-hate relationship with Palin does not appear to be approaching its end for at least eighteen more months.

Post-mortem on Osama Bin Laden

Wed, 04 May 2011 18:14:19 +0000

Americans rightfully celebrated Osama Bin Laden’s demise. Now, they have returned to the routine of life under the continual threat of jihadist violence. This includes preparing for anticipated reprisals by Mohamadans seeking revenge for the death of their poster boy. Before closing this chapter of Islam’s war against the Free World, a bit of review and some plans for the future are needed.

Soon after seeing reports that American forces had killed Osama bin Laden, I initially questioned the whereabouts of his corpse. Eventually after scanning various channels for more than an hour, the journalists announced that his body had been dumped into the Arabian Sea. While awaiting confirmation, I began to formulate a suitable fate for the cadaver. Although the United States Navy has disposed of Bin Laden’s remains, I offer these suggestions, both as an exercise in retributive brainstorming and ideas for any other Islamists eradicated in the future.

The American government could have exploited his corpse as a prop for videos to dishearten jihadis. His carcass could have been shown with a beer in one hand and a pork chop in the other, sitting on a beach in a Speedo man-bikini, apparently gawking at sunbathing beauties. This would have included captions indicating that Obama had renounced Islam after realizing what a miserable existence that he had endured following the absurd dictates of a seventh century criminal from Arabia. This first proposal combines the film Weekend at Bernie’s with hedonistic Koranic portrayals of paradise spun by the fabricator of Islam.

The Navy Seals could have attached some underwater cameras to Bin Laden before they dumped his body. Arrangements for pay-per-viewing would have been established so people could have seen his remains. The segment of the population who enjoys so-called “reality shows” would have loved this type of broadcast. Perhaps those hungering for ultimate justice could have been satiated by watching aquatic life forms feasting on him. British Petroleum managed to submerge a camera to monitor its leaking oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico long before it found a solution to the problem. Why should the federal government not have generated some revenue from the former “Public Enemy Number One” considering all that he had cost us?

Another possibility of benefiting financially from Bin Laden’s departure for Hell involves selling the jihadi’s carcass. Uncle Sam would have placed his corpse up for public auction for museums to purchase with the proceeds going to paying for the costs of combating against his fellow jihadis. I prefer that alternative to raising taxes. His digestive tract would have been stuffed with scraps of rancid pork and his body dressed in an outfit made of dog fur after it had been embalmed.

Continuing in the vein of incorporating Bin Laden’s cadaver into efforts to raise revenue for the federal government, what if it were publicly displayed at Ground Zero? I envisage a spectacle similar to that inflicted on Benito Mussolini’s corpse after his execution. People would have paid a fee for five seconds with his body to spit upon, kick, punch or otherwise defile as long as they do not unsecure it from its moorings. I suspect that competitions would have occurred in which Americans wait in line for their opportunity to inflict humiliation then try to outperform those who have already had their chance. Repeat business would have resulted, thus, increasing the profits to pay down the debt from the anti-jihadist effort.

Perhaps a specific type of business would prefer to claim Bin Laden’s remains. A pork processing plant could have dumped his corpse in a pit which is used for disposal of swine excrement. That exhibit could have been turned into tourist attraction. The company could have made it the highlight of the tour of its facility. If breweries and candy-making operations can invite customers inside their plants for tours, why should a pork processor not follow the same model?

Osama Bin Laden’s body could have been buried somewhere in the United States with a public pay toilet installed on top of it. Not only would the tolls to use the toilet defray the costs of operating the facility, it could easily become a cash cow. Every civilized human being needs a toilet at some point. Why not use one that makes a statement against the savage whose ideology would have precluded the invention of an implementation of sanitation?

Finally, this operation has shattered any delusions of Pakistan’s importance in the struggle against jihadis. The Obama administration plus the American intelligence and armed forces conducted the operation to eliminate Bin Laden without involving or even informing Pakistan. Previous experiences have taught Americans that Islamists have infiltrated Pakistan’s military, intelligence services and law enforcement. With this in mind, all American aid to Pakistan should be halted immediately in order to stop funding this regime of double-talking backstabbers. Those who turned a blind eye to the presence of the most famous jihadi in the world for years inside a conspicuously high security compound in the vicinity of their capital should never receive another penny from the taxpayers of the United States.