More on Islam/Christianity

Sometimes I wonder about how this will all play out. Why for instance have there not been loud and furious protests by the ACLU over the obvious accommodations made to Islam? Why is the Federal Government permitting so many states to take steps to allow Islamic practices while restricting virtually all other faiths?

Is it a fear of backlash? Does our government just surrender to prevent violence here? That seems likely, but appearances can hide deeper truths. After all, since 9/11 we have unprecedented restrictions on our freedoms to protect us against ‘terrorists’ presumably, since all were Islamic, from Islamic terrorists. But, we have taken pains to stress that “Islam is a religion of peace” and “Most Muslims are good people”.

Is it merely an inordinate love of ‘Diversity”? The mantra of “Diversity is Good” has permeated our government and popular institutions over time so it has become a semi-official state religion.

As Mr. Clyde  Wilson(http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=414) has noted, flattening all religions can have the effect of creating a government religion. All are good and equal, means none are correct. If none are correct, than any may be controlled and/or suppressed.

Notice that for the last generation, the courts have ruled over and over that the state may not even respect any religion, unless all are equally represented. A Christmas display is ok, so long as a Menorah is present. We can have an invocation as long it is ‘non-denominational or completely non religious. We can have a ‘minute of silence’ but not a moment of prayer. By equating all religions, we dismiss them all as mere superstitions. This has been a goal of such groups as the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State for years.

The mainline religions have understood this concept of a “Naked Public Square” to mean that all may practice their faith unmolested. The new kid on the block, Islam has taken it to be an open field, and begun to run to the goal line. By seizing the mantle of Civil Rights, the Islamists have eroded the wall, and earned a preferred place at the table. The anger within other groups has begun to simmer. As the Islamists continue to press forward against a continuously yielding establishment, the Christian and Jewish groups will continue to boil. The Islamic groups learn quickly that taking offense at any slight earns large rewards, and will continue the cry of victimhood, as they press their claim to be the legitimate religion, and eventually the legitimate legal system in the Western world.
The predictable backlash will be sudden and fierce. Those who previously were the majority will resist and with strength and skill learned over the years. The fury of centuries of perceived repression will burst forth from Islamic groups, bringing about a dangerous and violent clash.

Watch for the resultant crackdown against ALL religious groups by a newly fearful and strengthened Federal Government. The US regime will strike back at ‘rioters, looters and insurrectionists’ imposing penalties, restrictions and outright suspensions on civil and constitutional rights. The very crisis set into motion by the inaction and misdirection of the established regime will be the reasons used to justify the later imposition of more repressive rules designed to entrench a stronger, more restrictive government than we have seen in generations.

This is certainly speculative, and absolutely not provable. If you disagree… tell me so, and why. Do you trust those in power to use restraint, when they have not done so ever before?

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Islamaphobic or Christophobic?

I know I’m not the first to discuss this, but it needs to be publicized everywhere.

Each of these US Representatives to Congress voted in October in favor of a resolution to recognize the “commencement of Ramadan” [H.RES.635.IH]

Rep. Gary Ackerman (N.Y.), Rep. Yvette Clarke (N.Y.), Rep. Diane DeGette (Colo.), Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.),  Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.), Rep. Robert Scott (Va.), Rep. Pete Stark (Calif.) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

 All of these representatives also voted AGAINST a resolution recognizing the importance of Christmas, on December 11. ( HR 1143)

In addition to the above, the following Representatives voted “Present” to the Christmas  resolution:

 Rep. John Conyers (Mich.), Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), Rep. Rush Holt (N.J.), Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.), Rep. Allyson Schwartz (Pa.), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Rep. Peter Welch (Vt.) and Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

These representatives have all shown themselves to be clearly opposed to Christmas while on record as supporting Ramadan. Were the two holidays and their respective legislative actions reversed, we would now be hearing unholy caterwauling calling for boycotts, and legal action to punish the “Islamophobic offenders” and to coerce the offending congressional representatives to undergo appropriate ’sensitivity training’ and thought control until they embraced Islam and Ramadan, and rejected the “Crusader faith” and punished Christianity.

This is no longer a matter of slight concern. We are seeing a clear and careful attack, attempting to put Islam into a preferred place in our culture and legal system,while undermining all traces of Christianity, or Judaism, or any faith for that matter that is NOT Islam

WAKE UP People. It is quite nearly too late. 

Do Good…

There’s an ad on TV currently, for some feminine hygiene product. There are images of young girls in stick huts, with a voice over. It seems these young women in “Southern Africa” have to skip school once a month because of the lack of tampons. So, from now on, ( or probably for a “Limited time only, ACT NOW”) when a woman in the US buys tampons the manufacturer will send a box to some tampon deprived girl in “southern Africa”. The tag line is earnest: ” Do good with your period!”

This is silly on so many levels as well as indicative of the general thesis which underlies much of liberal activism and government intrusion in our time.

First, these young girls are portrayed as living in nearly open air, stick shacks, in an open field. If this is not merely a dramatic portrayal to elicit sympathy, then these girls need housing more than they need a tampon. It is more likely that they are unable to attend school because they are needed to tend the farm or the family’s animals to survive than because they lack for feminine hygiene products. (Of course the never asked question is whether the culture will even permit the use of western hygiene products rather than traditional methods.)

All that is merely the setup, the ‘backstory’ to the idea that by buying a tampon a woman in the US can ‘Do good with her period”, helping some anonymous impoverished African girl merely by doing what she normally does.

Here, then, is the kernel to be picked out. As long as it does not change things, nor inconvenience us, we can do good. Such actions are best to make us feel good about ourselves without expending any effort or expense personally. Even better, the manufacturer can be perceived to be helping merely by loading some boxes and shipping them to some far away place. What’s even better, they can deduct it all as a charitable contribution, and pad the bottom line. They once again shift the tax burden to those of us not ‘charitable enough’ to be able to ship consumer goods to foreign cultures.

This is the essence of most liberal feel good activism. Take some action to alleviate a problem never before recognized. Allocate funds from someone else to accomplish a task. Set it up so there is no real effort, inconvenience, or expense to those who will take credit for ‘Doing Good”. Any expense is borne by someone else, whether through tax shifts, government mandates or by ‘Doing good with your period’ and having a company ship something which may or may not actually be needed by someone else.

We as a consumer society can sit back, using all of our time to pursue material goods, and then when we feel guilty we can spend someone else’s time or money or effort to make us feel like we have accomplished something.

A close analogy would be the secular saint of Global Warming Climate Change, Al Gore. He lives in a rather large mansion, using more than twenty times as much energy as the average American. He jets around the world, driving in limo’s preaching that we are using way too much carbon. Rather than actually reduce his own ‘carbon footprint’ directly, he brays that he has purchased Carbon Offsets. In other words, he will not stop doing anything himself. He will, instead, pay for the burden to be shifted onto someone who has less money or power than he does. For example, small villages in Southern Africa are discouraged from adopting modern technology to work their economy or to improve their agricultural output. That, you see, will increase carbon output. So, they should stay doing exactly as they are doing. This may require that the children work the family farm to ensure enough food to survive. So, they will not always attend school. But wait, have no fear. Some American woman wants to Do Good With her Period. She’ll send a box of tampons to help that young girl. After all, to provide actual farming technology might involve something more than a slogan.

Using the Courts

Ok, so today Barry Bonds was brought to court and voiced a plea of ‘Not Guilty” to federal perjury charges. He is being charged with lying during the investigation of rumors of steroid use by the new Home Run champ of Major League Baseball. ‘Everybody knows’ that Bonds cheated.’ Everybody Knows’ that he was juiced. A promising ball player went from a slightly above average build to a big headed behemoth who crushed the ball on a regular basis. No one could actually prove he took banned substances, they just knew it. Maybe Bonds could afford to pay enough for technology to beat the tests. Perhaps the Baseball Powers simply wanted to make money badly enough that they turned a blind eye. There’s certainly blame enough to go all around.

Now we get to something else. The oncoming trial. The Feds could not lodge sufficient charges to actually try Mr. Bonds. So he is now being charged and tried for lying about a crime for which he has never even been charged. Lying to cover up a crime that legally never occurred.

Sound familiar? Over the last decade there have been several prominent trials which have been represented as falling into this category. I’ll deal with several here. Bill Clinton: It was claimed that he was tried for ‘lying about sex’ and nothing more. Martha Stewart was convicted and went to prison for lying to investigators about insider trades she was never actually charged with having commited. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby was charged and convicted for lying about releasing classified information which was proved to have been leaked by someone else.

Let’s go through them:

Clinton. He lied under oath. He was a licensed attorney, testifying in a case in which he was accused of harassing and/or assaulting a woman sexually. His perjury was germane to a particular charge for which he was on trial. He was convicted of perjury. He was disbarred by the State of Arkansas. He had his license to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court revoked. Mr. Clinton was charged, convicted and punished for lying about a matters relevant to the crime for which he was being tried. This one works.

Martha Stewart was investigated for securities fraud. She was accused of making profits on a pharmaceutical stock which precipitously lost it’s value following an adverse ruling by the FDA. She sold the stock before it tanked, made her profits and took off. The stock has eventually regained most of it’s value, and the company continues to flourish.

Ms. Stewart was never charged with any crimes, nor any civil offenses. There was insufficient evidence to do so. But, “Everybody Knows” she must be guilty of something. They just couldn’t prove it. ( In a court, that generally means acquittal, or a verdict of ‘Not Guilty”)

Instead, federal prosecutors charged her with providing misleading statements and information during the investigation. She was convicted of lying to cover up a crime which legally had never occurred.

Scooter Libby was caught in the crossfire of a political battle. A special federal prosecutor was investigating who leaked the identity of Ms Valerie Plame. It has been revealed that quite early in the investigation, the prosecutor knew who had leaked the information, and it was NOT Mr. Libby. But, the feds thought “Everybody Knows he must be guilty of something.”So the charge of perjury is brought out. He was charged with lying about (here we go again) a crime which he never committed. Lying to cover up something which legally did not exist.

Now to Mr. Barry Bonds. Investigations have dragged on for years. No charges could be brought. No crimes could be proved. So, since “Everybody Knows he’s guilty of something” the feds bring out the famous charge. Lying about a crime which legally does not exist.

I’m no fan of Bonds. The steroid issue is only a part of my problems with him. I think the huge armored arm brace he wears is more of a cheat, but that’s another issue.

I think the federal prosecutors are overreaching again and again. They have virtually unlimited resources to fund investigations, and to bring charges. The citizen must fund his own defense. Somehow, somewhere somebody has to stop this. Federal charges of perjury are a catch all way to crush someone who defies the feds. They may not be able to prove a crime, but they can get you anyway. Anger the machine, and you will be prosecuted for years until you are broken financially or have your reputation ruined.

Much as I hate to say this, in this case I am rooting for Bonds. Go big guy. Fight back. Beat these charges.

Then, I hope Baseball finds a way to ban him and prevent his name from ever being entered into the hall of fame.

Win Barry, win this one. Then, please, go away quietly.

Tragedy in Gun-Free-Zones

The following story, by John Lott, is the best description I have seen, so far, for yet another media bias. I wonder why the media and other liberals pay so much attention to the bill of rights but this one lonely amendment eludes their understanding. The media will bend the first amendment around their ears and up their You-Know-Whats to contort it to whatever. Yet when it comes to the second amendment, well, you know the deal. Oh those evil guns strike innocent citizens again! Headlines like “God help us”, “Mall maniac”, and ” Mall Massacre” make us shudder in fear. But why is this becoming a trend? Why, despite evidence to the contrary, do people insist on disarming able bodied citizens to protect their families and the lives of other families? We have to understand that Police can NOT be everywhere. We will never have enough money to do that. Concealed Weapon holders pay the governement money to protect lives but we villify, Wyatt Earp-itize them, and belittle them as rednecks, ruffians, and Militia goons.

That leads me to another point. Militia didn’t used to be a bad word either, but the media and the government made it so. Militia was a word meaning common defense of the land by the people to the Founders. “Automatic” weapons, yet another word misued by the media to describe semi-automatic firearms. Is it an oops? Not on your life Buck-o. So why is a group of people so intent on “promoting human rights”, demonizing the most effective tool to ensure it? You’ll find no answer here. I don’t know either!

Take it away Lott:

Media Coverage of Mall Shooting Fails to Reveal Mall’s Gun-Free-Zone Status

Thursday, December 06, 2007

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The horrible tragedy at the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Neb. received a lot of attention Wednesday and Thursday. It should have. Eight people were killed, and five were wounded.

A Google news search using the phrase “Omaha Mall Shooting” finds an incredible 2,794 news stories worldwide for the last day. From India and Taiwan to Britain and Austria, there are probably few people in the world who haven’t heard about this tragedy.

But despite the massive news coverage, none of the media coverage, at least by 10 a.m. Thursday, mentioned this central fact: Yet another attack occurred in a gun-free zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.

The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer “was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed.”

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started “firing a pistol beside a busy city street” and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.

When will part of the media coverage on these multiple-victim public shootings be whether guns were banned where the attack occurred? While the media has begun to cover whether teachers can have guns at school or the almost 8,000 college students across the country who protested gun-free zones on their campuses, the media haven’t started checking what are the rules where these attacks occur.

Surely, the news stories carry detailed information on the weapon used (in this case, a rifle) and the number of ammunition clips (apparently, two). But if these aspects of the story are deemed important for understanding what happened, why isn’t it also important that the attack occurred where guns were banned? Isn’t it important to know why all the victims were disarmed?

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, closely was following Colorado legislation that would have allowed citizens to carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked the Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

Despite the lack of news coverage, people are beginning to notice what research has shown for years: Multiple-victim public shootings keep occurring in places where guns already are banned. Forty states have broad right-to-carry laws, but even within these states it is the “gun-free zones,” not other public places, where the attacks happen.People know the list: Virginia Tech saw 32 murdered earlier this year; the Columbine High School shooting left 13 murdered in 1999; Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, had 23 who were fatally shot by a deranged man in 1991; and a McDonald’s in Southern California had 21 people shot dead by an unemployed security guard in 1984.

All these attacks — indeed, all attacks involving more than a small number of people being killed — happened in gun-free zones.

In recent years, similar attacks have occurred across the world, including in Australia, France, Germany and Britain. Do all these countries lack enough gun-control laws? Hardly. The reverse is more accurate.

The law-abiding, not criminals, are obeying the rules. Disarming the victims simply means that the killers have less to fear. As Wednesday’s attack demonstrated yet again, police are important, but they almost always arrive at the crime scene after the crime has occurred.

The longer it takes for someone to arrive on the scene with a gun, the more people who will be harmed by such an attack.

Most people understand that guns deter criminals. If a killer were stalking your family, would you feel safer putting a sign out front announcing, “This Home Is a Gun-Free Zone”? But that is what the Westroads Mall did.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics, upon which this piece draws, and a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland.