I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Freedom of Expression~Democracy

Freedom of Expression~Democracy META NAME="DESCRIPTION" CONTENT="Our duty is to expose evil, not to conceal it. If exposure of their damnable doctrines & practices pisses off Muslims, their reactions are their own doing and responsibility, not ours. Our lectures, remarks, blog posts and books are for the Western audience of free men who wish to remain alive and free, not for Allah's slaves who are Hellbound to torment us. "> A/C.3/68/L.48 Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping,stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief continues with reaffirmation of another obfuscation.

Reaffirming also the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart
information can play in strengthening democracy and combating religious
intolerance, and reaffirming further that the exercise of the right to freedom of
expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, in accordance with
article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

expression & democracy

  • positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of
    opinion and expression and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart
    information can play in strengthening democracy
    Freedom of expression and information are essential to maintenance of democracy.  Without them, it becomes impossible to recognize, criticize and warn against impending tyranny.  Liberty can not survive without freedom of expression.

religious intolerance

  • combating religious intolerance
    That clause contains an embedded false premise which must be exposed and condemned:  'Intolerance of Islam must be combated.". Every free man has a right and duty to be intolerant of existential threats to his life, liberty and form of government. There can be no tolerance for Imperialistic doctrines such as Nazism and Communism. Islam is another intolerable threat to the human race.

    In reality, Islam is not a religion: it is a deen; a way of life having religious, social, governmental and military components. Islam's military component, called Jihad, is its highest peak. The quote comes from page 1290 of Tirmidhi.
“Its head is Islam, its pillar is Salah and the apex of its hump is jihad.”

Moe said: "I have been raised for Jihad and I am not raised for tillage." He also said that Jihad is the original religion of Islam and Allah will curse Muslims for abandoning it.
Sunan Abu Dawud 23.3455

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.


    Does that refer to Jihad an-Nafs: striving against the ego and temptation? How is that an alternative to agriculture and trade as a means of deriving income?  How does one get killed or kill others in striving against temptation?  How does one injure or enrage disbelievers in Jihad an-Nafs?

    Was objection to the Nazi invasion of Europe  an intolerance to be combated?  Was objection to the attack on Pearl harbor an intolerance to be combated?  Then neither is condemnation of the doctrines which inspired the Hindu genocide, Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide or the attacks on Beslan, London, Madrid or New York City and Boston  intolerance to be combated.

special duties and responsibilities

    It is not possible to be and remain free without free speech.  Another critical sentence in the resolution declares that terrorism must not be associated with any religion. Is terrorism an intrinsic sacrament of Christianity or Buddhism? But it is an intinsic sacrament of Islam: 3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67, 9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123, 33:26,27, 47:4,49:15, 59:2,13, 61:10-13; Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.  so why in Hell should we be made to keep silent about it?

    In the most damnable words of the most damnable engineers of the God damn Abomination: 
"Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your
attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion....

So, our religion is a religion of fear and terror to the enemies of God: the Jews, Christians, and pagans.
With God's wiling, we are terrorists to the bone. So, many thanks to God"

    Our duty is to expose evil, not to conceal it. If exposure of their damnable doctrines & practices pisses off Muslims, their reactions are their own doing and responsibility, not ours. Our lectures, remarks, blog posts and books are for the Western audience of free men who wish to remain alive and free, not for Allah's slaves who are Hellbound to torment us. 

    There is no duty or responsibility to avoid pissing off evildoers by exposing their evil.  Imams are always on the lookout for real or imaginary offenses with which to rouse the rabble to riot. The MoToons did not cause riots: rabble rousing rants at Jumah Salat did. Fitna did not cause riots: rabble rousing rants did.  The Innocence of Muslims did not cause riots: rabble rousing rants did. Moe never threw a bomb because he died before the invention of explosives. The MoToons, while exaggerated, were conceptually true.  Fitna is well documented. Innocence of Muslims is backed up by authentic texts of Sira.

    President Washington said it best
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Obamination: Treachery at the U.N.; Global Economy~Exporting Jobs

Quotes are taken from a transcript of President Obama's remarks to the General Assembly, published by the New York Times. [Emphasis added.]

And this leads me to the final pillar that must fortify our future: a global economy that advances opportunity for all people.
Does anyone recall the one export the Democrats & their willing accomplices in the mass media were complaining about in the last decade? What was it? Oh, thats it, good jobs. We were exporting good jobs, leaving hard working Americans unemployed or under employed. About twenty years ago I spent several weeks as a Temp., making wiring harnesses for G.M. vehicles. When the job was finished, the machines were packed up and shipped to Mexico. Michigan jobs were exported.

President Obama is a Marxist, he believes in redistribution in a zero sum game, not "growing the pie". Mexicans, Africans & Asians want jobs. Will yours be one of the jobs he exports?
The world is still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In America, we see the engine of growth beginning to churn, and yet many still struggle to find a job or pay their bills. Across the globe, we find promising signs, but little certainty about what lies ahead. And far too many people in far too many places live through the daily crises that challenge our humanity -- the despair of an empty stomach; the thirst brought on by dwindling water supplies; the injustice of a child dying from a treatable disease; or a mother losing her life as she gives birth.
Translation: people are suffering in third world countries wracked by war, corruption & mis-management. You must be made to suffer more in order to give them a false promise of relief. That child dying in Kenya has a right to the drugs & medical treatment required to save his life; you have an obligation to pay for that treatment, his food, clothing, shelter and education. That twelve year old mother dying because they sewed her birth canal shut resulting in permanent injury, has a right to the services of a surgeon; you have an obligation to pay for it, including the hospital and to feed, clothe and shelter her baby and the ten more she will produce in the next decade. Perhaps some of her progeny will come here to perform their Jihad when they grow up.
In Pittsburgh, we will work with the world's largest economies to chart a course for growth that is balanced and sustained. That means vigilance to ensure that we do not let up until our people are back to work. That means taking steps to rekindle demand so that global recovery can be sustained. And that means setting new rules of the road and strengthening regulation for all financial centers, so that we put an end to the greed and the excess and the abuse that led us into this disaster, and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again.
Growth: More people, producing, exchanging and consuming more. "Rekindle demand"? While many economists complain that we spend too much and save too little, our President wants to increase consumption so that people can return to work. Investment is required to put them back to work, and investment must come from surplus or delayed consumption. Catch 22!

Greed, excess & abuse? Could that relate to what went on at Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae? Of course not! It must refer to the greedy Wall Street bankers, the crooks in Washington had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Yeah, right.
At a time of such interdependence, we have a moral and pragmatic interest, however, in broader questions of development -- the questions of development that existed even before this crisis happened. And so America will continue our historic effort to help people feed themselves. We have set aside $63 billion to carry forward the fight against HIV/AIDS, to end deaths from tuberculosis and malaria, to eradicate polio, and to strengthen public health systems. We are joining with other countries to contribute H1N1 vaccines to the World Health Organization. We will integrate more economies into a system of global trade. We will support the Millennium Development Goals, and approach next year's summit with a global plan to make them a reality. And we will set our sights on the eradication of extreme poverty in our time.
If you will reduce the death rate, you will increase the population. How will you feed all those people? How will you provide the infrastructure they need? You are going to develop their economies, which translates to industrialization. That translates to their exporting goods for our consumption. That translates to fewer American jobs. That translates to a higher tax burden imposed on a smaller number of tax payers. And how about the CO2 produced by their growing economies? How will that affect the global warming crisis?
Now is the time for all of us to do our part. Growth will not be sustained or shared unless all nations embrace their responsibilities. And that means that wealthy nations must open their markets to more goods and extend a hand to those with less, while reforming international institutions to give more nations a greater voice. And developing nations must root out the corruption that is an obstacle to progress -- for opportunity cannot thrive where individuals are oppressed and business have to pay bribes. That is why we support honest police and independent judges; civil society and a vibrant private sector. Our goal is simple: a global economy in which growth is sustained, and opportunity is available to all.
While he shrinks the private sector at home, he talks about growing it elsewhere. Can you read between the lines? While he talks about reducing corruption abroad, he increases it at home.
I believe that the people of the world want this future for their children. And that is why we must champion those principles which ensure that governments reflect the will of the people.
Consider the difference between form and content. Our founders did, that is why they diluted democracy with multiple layers of representatives. Republicanism and limited government were designed to prevent the excesses of mob rule. Our founders did not want the urgent impulse of the moment to convert our government into an agency of predation.

If the people are peaceful, diligent, productive and honest, government reflecting their will can be harmless. But if the people are aggressive, lustful after plunder and swift to shed blood, government reflecting thiner will can be a most malignant institution.

Did Imperial Japan reflect the will of its people or contravene it? Did the Third Reich reflect the Volk or contravene them?
These principles cannot be afterthoughts -- democracy and human rights are essential to achieving each of the goals that I've discussed today, because governments of the people and by the people are more likely to act in the broader interests of their own people, rather than narrow interests of those in power.
Limited, constitutional government is more essential, secondary only to widespread morality & virtue among the populace. If the people are interested in pillaging, plundering and enslaving others and their leaders are interested in expanding their domains and building empires, democracy will not prevent them from pursuing those interests.
The test of our leadership will not be the degree to which we feed the fears and old hatreds of our people. True leadership will not be measured by the ability to muzzle dissent, or to intimidate and harass political opponents at home. The people of the world want change. They will not long tolerate those who are on the wrong side of history.
The President whose minions label domestic dissenters "mobs", "haters", "extremists" & "racists" and feign fear that we are about to riot demonstrated his arrogance with that paragraph. His party seeks to censor their critics by seizing control of radio broadcasting and the Internet. What a hypocrite!
This Assembly's Charter commits each of us -- and I quote -- "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women." Among those rights is the freedom to speak your mind and worship as you please; the promise of equality of the races, and the opportunity for women and girls to pursue their own potential; the ability of citizens to have a say in how you are governed, and to have confidence in the administration of justice. For just as no nation should be forced to accept the tyranny of another nation, no individual should be forced to accept the tyranny of their own people. (Applause.)
President Obama listed several concepts which are diametrically opposed to the tenets of Islam. If he were sincere, he would be offending the tyrants he seeks to appease.
As an African American, I will never forget that I would not be here today without the steady pursuit of a more perfect union in my country. And that guides my belief that no matter how dark the day may seem, transformative change can be forged by those who choose to side with justice. And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights -- for the student who seeks to learn; the voter who demands to be heard; the innocent who longs to be free; the oppressed who yearns to be equal.
Yes sir, you did a fine job of standing up with the Iranian dissidents after their election was stolen and many of them were imprisoned, tortured and murdered for seeking justice. No, instead you dithered and pandered to the tyrant who oppresses and torments those who stand up for their dignity & rights. Hypocrite!
Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people and in its past traditions. And I admit that America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it. There are basic principles that are universal; there are certain truths which are self-evident -- and the United States of America will never waver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny. (Applause.)
After WW2, the victors imposed democratic systems on the vanquished. We turned a monarch into a figurehead. It worked to some degree. Was that a bad thing to do? Who prospered in liberty, East Germany under the regime imposed by Stalinists or West Germany with a system modeled on western democracy?

The people of Afghanistan have an Arabic culture and war cult imposed upon them by invading Arab Muslims centuries ago. Those Arab invaders sought to destroy the indigenous culture and replace it with their own. What would be the harm in undoing what they did?

You declared that people must have human dignity and rights, gender & racial equality and the right to choose their own religion. Later you declared that each society must search for its own path based on their culture and traditions. The two declarations are contradictory because the culture of Islam is inimical to racial & gender equality as well as to freedom of religion. Whats more, you want them to have democracy, but Islam is inimical to democracy because only Allah has the right to rule. Allah's decision must not be questioned.

Liberating the people of Afghanistan & Iraq from tyranny, preventing them from reverting to it, ensuring their rights & dignity and preventing them from engaging in and promoting terrorism requires emancipating them from Allah's yoke of slavery. They can not be Muslim and free. Their governments can not be Muslim and democratic. They can not be Muslim and peaceful. While they are Muslim, we have lost the war, wasting our blood and treasure.
Sixty-five years ago, a weary Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the American people in his fourth and final inaugural address. After years of war, he sought to sum up the lessons that could be drawn from the terrible suffering, the enormous sacrifice that had taken place. "We have learned," he said, "to be citizens of the world, members of the human community."

The world is not a city. It has no sovereign governmental authority; it has no citizens. In another speech, you declared yourself a citizen of the world, very well, then, resign and get elected President of the world, the office you belong in.

The U.S.A. was founded to preserve the rights of minorities, each citizen being a minority of one. We are jealous of our rights, liberties & prosperity and unwilling to subject our selves to be outvoted by a greedy world envious of our prosperity. We will not subject ourselves to their dictates. We will retain the
sovereignty of this nation, our sovereignty; it is not yours to give away!

The United Nations was built by men and women like Roosevelt from every corner of the world -- from Africa and Asia, from Europe to the Americas. These architects of international cooperation had an idealism that was anything but naïve -- it was rooted in the hard-earned lessons of war; rooted in the wisdom that nations could advance their interests by acting together instead of splitting apart.

The tin horn dictators & empire building tyrants have no common interest with those they seek to conquer and enslave. They will rarely cooperate unless they perceive that it will advance their strategic objectives.

Now it falls to us -- for this institution will be what we make of it. The United Nations does extraordinary good around the world -- feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, mending places that have been broken. But it also struggles to enforce its will, and to live up to the ideals of its founding.

The institution was founded in the vain hope of maintaining peace. Where has it make peace? Where has it maintained peace? Where have its peace keepers kept peace? When and where have they been dispatched in good time; in sufficient numbers, with sufficient equipment & resources and practical missions & rules of engagement? Never and no place because the institution operates by consensus and stake holders have veto power.

I believe that those imperfections are not a reason to walk away from this institution -- they are a calling to redouble our efforts. The United Nations can either be a place where we bicker about outdated grievances, or forge common ground; a place where we focus on what drives us apart, or what brings us together; a place where we indulge tyranny, or a source of moral authority.

Did you listen to the other speakers at the opening of the present session? What did they do; did they nurture old and contrived grievances or forge common ground? Common ground is in cemeteries, not in the U.N.

The U.N.H.R.C. is a place where tyranny is indulged and rights eroded. Considering the corruption of its peacekeeping forces and bureaucrats, the U.N. certainly is not a source of moral authority!

By advocating International Socialism you promote the erosion of our rights and destruction of our prosperity. By false assertion of common ground with and mischaracteriztion of our enemy, you indulge tyranny & the terrorism it engages in.

In short, the United Nations can be an institution that is disconnected from what matters in the lives of our citizens, or it can be an indispensable factor in advancing the interests of the people we serve.

We do not want Washington dictating the details of our daily lives; what in Hell makes you think we want Geneva's paws in our pockets??? We want government to protect us from predators, we do not want it acting as their agent! We have enough government, we do not want another layer of it superimposed on us!

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations. And so, with confidence in our cause, and with a commitment to our values, we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people so richly deserve.

Translation: our treasury is your treasury, take whatever you want.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Obamination: Iftar Treason

President Obama celebrated sunset with an Iftar Tuesday, August 1, 2009. Excerpts from his remarks follow, with my comments interspersed.

Islam, as we know, is part of America.
Islam can not be a part of America. Islam is, by its own intrinsic nature, permanently alienated. In the Islamic world view, only Allah has the right to rule. Any government that rules by man made law instead of Shari'ah is unjust and must be removed by Jihad, if necessary. Moe prophesied that Jesus Christ will rule by the Qur'an when he returns.

Islam is not compatible with democracy. Allah said "It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision." [33:36] Allah and his Messenger (or Caliph ) make all the decisions; Joe Camel has no choice in the matter. Islam is theocratic autocracy, the polar opposite of democracy.

One of those values is the freedom to practice your religion -- a right that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Nashala Hearn, who joins us from Muskogee, Oklahoma, took a stand for that right at an early age. When her school district told her that she couldn't wear the hijab, she protested that it was a part of her religion. The Department of Justice stood behind her, and she won her right to practice her faith.
The practice of Islam entails more than hijab, salat, zakat, hajj & iman. Islam is not complete without Jihad, which is mandatory, not an optional extra. Jihad is defined in Islamic law as making war on non-Muslims. [Reliance of the Traveller, O9.0.] Jihad is a communal obligation, binding upon Muslims in every year. [O9.1]

The annual obligation to perform Jihad is confirmed by fiqh. Observe what Al-Shafi-i said about it. "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

If Muslims have a right to practice their religion, then they have a right to kill you, rape your widow, enslave your orphans and seize your property. If there is a right to practice Islam, we have no rights.

They all contain truths. Among those truths are the pursuit of peace and the dignity of all human beings. That must always form the basis upon which we find common ground.
Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam, where Allah's writ runs and Dar al-Harb, where Allah's writ does not run. Peace is when Dar al-Harb (the house of war) is conquered and engulfed by Dar al-Islam. I suggest that you read O9.8 & O9.9 of Reliance of the Traveller. So much for the pursuit of peace.

Islam recognizes the dignity of Muslims, not all human beings. Pagans & Atheists are to be converted, enslaved or killed, people with scriptural religions are to be subjugated and extorted, surviving as sub-humans living at sufferance. One of Islam's codified oral traditions has Moe declaring that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims. [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.]

Together, we have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect.
There is no mutual interest between prey and predator. Respect is earned, Islam has not earned it. Respect is reciprocal, Islam gives none, see the citation immediately above: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.

So tonight, we celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress.
What is Islam's greatness? Judaism gave us monotheism. Christianity gave us hope of salvation. Islam gives us predestination & predation. Islam's 'greatness', which it seeks to restore, is the Caliphate which enslaved nearly half the world at its peak.

What commitment to justice and progress? Shari'ah prescribes hudud, including corporal punishment. Proving rape requires four male witnesses who observed penetration. Rape victims are punished. The testimony of two women is required to equal that of one man.

Ten days prior to the eighth anniversary of the Accursed Abomination, our recently elected President celebrated the month in which the damnable book was "revealed"; the book whose sanctification of Jihad motivated the nineteen murderers of three thousand of our fellows. He referred to the war cult which sponsored the attack a "great religion", praising its "commitment to peace" & justice.

Allahu skata!! Camel dung in the desert. Islam: predatory war cult. Moe: profiteering pirate, pretender to prophecy, pederast, lecher & murderer. Obama: traitor. You fools who elected him should burn your voter registration cards and hang your heads in shame. No words can express my disgust.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Honduras Defending Democracy and Constitution

by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

In researching the events taking place in Honduras, I see President Obama immediately cited the outster of President Manuel Zeyala as "not legal." Another "gird your loins" moment for the American President. The question is: was this a coup d'etat or a constitutional succession?

Roberto Micheletti


Why did the Supreme Court rule that ousted President Manuel Zelaya was subverting the rule of law in Honduras? Why did Congress rule the same?

Zelaya's term of office ends in 2010. He called for a "controversial referendum" to take place on June 28th. The referendum, if approved, would have made changes to the Honduran Constitution to allow Zelaya to run for office for another term, an action the Supreme Court says is not lawful.
While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.
After the Supreme Court declared the referendum not lawful, Zelaya vowed to hold a vote on the referendum anyway. Zelaya dismissed "the military chief," Romeo Vasquez, who opposed Zelaya's position on the referendum. The Supreme Court asked that Vazquez be reinstated. Zelaya refused.
So on Thursday he [Zelaya] led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.
The Supreme Court voted to remove Zelaya "to defend the rule of law."
The Honduran Congress later swore in its leader, Roberto Micheletti, as the new head of state after voting to remove Mr. Zelaya for "manifest irreuglar conduct" and "putting in present danger the state of the law."
Micheletti said that the orders carried out as issued by the Supreme Court and the Congress "was not a coup d'etat, but a constitutional succession."

The new government's foreign minister, Enrique Otez Colindres said the new government looks forward to meeting with OAS officials:
...so they can realize that this is a government that respects all laws and the only thing it did was to remove a president for systematically violating the constitution.
Manuel Zelaya was elected as a conservative. He has progressively moved away from that position and cemented relationships with Cuba's Castros, Venezuela's Chavez and Bolivia's Morales. As Wall Street Journal writer, O'Grady said, it is not "about left-right politics."
It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.
So how do the Honduran people feel about the ouster? The Latin Business Chronicle says that Honduran business support the Supreme Court and Micheletti's new government:

It is extremely popular,” says Jacqueline Foglia Sandoval, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Honduras. “I don’t know of any one who isn’t celebrating."

[The attempted referendum] followed three years of Zelaya policies that were seen as arbitrary and often hurting business, Foglia Sandoval says.

Over the last three years, our ex president had created political and social chaos,” she says. “He [was] very unpredictable and many times [imposed] arbitrary actions that …affected the business climate.
The Latin Business Chronical reports that wage hikes smacked of socialism and resulted in the loss of 150,000 jobs.
[Zeyala] in December to raise the minimum wage by 60 percent despite that unions had demanded 20 to 30 percent and employers had countered with zero to 10 percent.
Not only did he exceed the union demands, but also imposed the new laws as companies already had their 2009 budgets ready, Foglia Sandoval points out. As a results some 150,000 jobs were lost during the past six months, she says.
Another concern was his talk about implementing socialism of the 21st century, modeled on Venezuela. “People associate socialism with ration cards, with lines, with the things we do not want,” Foglia Sandoval says. “It’s a poor country, but we don’t have rationing, or lack of mobility, or have to ask permission for moving.” Further issues raised by the business community is the lack of security, which Sandoval said Zelaya completely ignored. Drug trafficking is growing and people fear for their personal safety. Foreign investment has diminished, and Zelaya's treatment of foreign oil companies was considered "hostile."
In January 2007, Zelaya announced plans to temporarily assume control of oil terminals and restrict imports of oil to one company in an effort to reduce fuel prices. However, after the US Embassy in Honduras warned that the takeover would have serious consequences, the government reversed its position on the terminals.
Fogliz Sandoval said relations with the U.S. were "worsening."

The people of Honduras are standing to protect their Constitution. This is a hallelujah moment for Democracy.

President Obama has said that the ouster of Manuel Zelaya was "not legal." Obama has said the U.S. will "stand on the side of democracy." He has said nothing about the legality of Zelaya subverting the Honduran Constitution. That is the issue. If a democratic election is held, and then the one democratically elected attempts to take over the government illegally - then why are we not talking about that?


Rudi Stettner at Rant Rave looked at the differences in Obama's handling of the Iranian election and the Honduran succession and summed it up this way:
One thing that was established in the Honduran coup. When there is a "progressive" consensus, Obama will quickly find his voice. Since Islamic radicals are the fascists that liberals love, a blind eye will be turned to their sins.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Idiot Post of the Day: Crooks and Liars - Why do Republicans hate democracy?

~Snooper~

This is one of the many root problems in our society today, folks. So many have been taught the wrong thing. I ran across this post by David Neiwert at the socialist hang out called Crooks and Liars. Naturally, they are talking about themselves but they think they are refering to anyone that thinks differently than they. Simply amazing, isn't it? Behold:


Here is the key clue...

THE UNITED STATES WAS NOT FORMED, MODELED OR MOLDED AFTER A DEMOCRACY

The United States is a FEDERAL REPUBLIC operating under democratic principles. It really is that simple, In a nut shell, this is all explained in layman's terms here, here and here.

I have written on this subject for nearly forever and it never ceases to amaze me how DUMB the Leftinistra are in this regard. People throw the term "Democracy" around and have for so long that people think that is what we are. Well, we are NOT a Democracy. Democracy is mob rule and that is EXACTLY what the Leftinistra want us to be so they can move in and "fix everything" for us. This is purely unacceptable.

From a post I wrote a while back, "Joe Biden Proves My Point"...
Here's what The Biden said: (among other things)
Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the front runners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people. [...]
Earth to Joe! Earth to Joe! See if Kucinich can spare a few moments from his UFOers and make room for you. It is "WE THE PEOPLE" that have lost faith in YOUR ilk in DC!
And that is the issue in a nut shell right there. DC and State and City politicians are to do the WILL OF WE THE PEOPLE and not the other way around. Sorry to burst the Leftinistra bubble but there it is.

Morons.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Trackposted to , Mark My Words, third world county, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, The Pink Flamingo, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The Will Of The Congress Will Be Done


~Snooper~

Harry Reid stated just the other day that the will of the Congress will be done. That sounds "Rather" definitive to me and has an air of inevitability. It is also very unconstitutional. Therefore, his very statement is grounds for impeachment proceedings against him. Where in the United States Constitution does the Senate Majority Leader get his validity and his finality of this statement "Congress will work its will"? Nancy Pelosi tries to explain it all here...
"Ever since yesterday's vote, House leaders have been in frequent communication with each other and the White House to find a plan that can win strong bipartisan approval in the House. Many Members have offered ideas to modify the emergency bill narrowly defeated yesterday, and we are discussing those recommendations.

"The Senate has made a decision about how to proceed and what can pass that body. The Senate will vote tomorrow night and the Congress will work its will.

"House Democrats remain strongly committed to a comprehensive bill that stabilizes the financial markets, restores confidence, and protects taxpayers, and we hope Congress can agree on legislation in the very near future."
Incredible. She repeated Reid's statement thereby confirming that both leaders of either House will see to it that the "will of Congress" is that which will be accomplished and not necessarily the "will of We The People". This is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, whether or not anyone of any moral fortitude will actually call them on this blatant unconstitutional statement remains to be seen. I fully doubt it because not only are there none in either House capable of calling them on this garbage, there are none willing to step into the lion's lair. Regardless, this needs to be taken note of, does it not? It is the very epitome of that which is wholly wrong with our "Republic". If we were a "Democracy", the issue would be a non-issue. However, we were formed and based upon a Representative from of government.

Congress is charged by our very Constitution to serve The People and not Congress. They serve IN the Congress to SERVE the people, period. We don't elect them to office to have them turn around and take over nor to make friends with each other. I don't care if they have any friends "across the aisle" or on the same side of the aisle. I care about them being "friends" with their constituents of their prosepective Districts and not those of another District.

I wrote an article on this many moons ago. Initially, it was a two-part article and was eventually tailored down into one and was posted at Digital Journal. The original two-part pieces are located here and here with the merged pieces here. The Digital Journal version is located here. As a teaser;
[...] First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)

Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)

Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan) [...]
Our Founding Fathers selected the DELEGATE form of Representation but through the decades of socialist indoctrination, Congress has morphed into a merged version of the TRUSTEE and POLITICO forms of Representation which is pretty much no Representation whatsoever. This morphed form rears its ugly head as revealed in such statements made by Harry Reid and confirmed by Nancy Pelosi. My essays ended thusly;
[...] This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred. [END]
And I am serious. Take a look around you, if you are paying attention and can turn the television off, and find out for yourself. We have not been this politically split in decades, have we? I am not trying to sound like an alarmist as others have accused me of being. Was Paul Revere an alarmist or was he merely trotting around giving folks a heads up? Don;t get me wrong...I am no Paul Revere but I recognize that something is very seriously wrong when the two most powerful leaders in the House and Senate make statements as they have and no one calls them on their idiocy.

When will enough be enough? When it is too late? If so, what then my friends? What then?

The Crypt has an interesting post and interestingly enough, The Crypt is part of Politico. How ironic is that? Behold:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she's voting yea despite receiving 85,000 calls against it -- out of 91,000 total calls.
Is that incredulous? No matter the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, Diane Feinstein is going to ignore her constituents.

Simply amazing. The vast majority say no to the bail-out and she is going to tell them to shut up and please the vast minority.

Where do we go from here and what do we do about it people?

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Debating the Leftinistra: They Have Nothing To Stand On


~Snooper~



Case in point is represented in the screen shot to the left. Three friends of ours on BTR are forging into the enemy's lair this evening in an attempt to debate the undebatable. With that said, we wish them Semper Fi. I can hardly wait for the download.

When you click the photo to the left, you will find the very thing the Leftinistra are so wrong about. Also, many Americans are in the same sinking ship because they have no earthly idea of that which they pretend that they do hope to think that they might know one day. The United States is not a Democracy. That's all there is to it. The term "Democracy" is a buzz word because it is so much easier to say "democracy" than it is to say "democratically elected federal republic". Hello? Anyone out there?

Please read this post and get back with us, OK?

The misunderstanding of what this Nation was Founded upon is that which needs to be corrected and addressed. Until then, any debating on any issue and/or topic based upon a premise surrounding "democracy" is a waste of time and energy.
[...] The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." Truer words have rarely been spoken. So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny. So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." [...]
We MUST return to our Founding if this nation is to survive because the politicians would MUCH "Rather" have a "democracy" because there is no electoral accountability therein.

Think about that.

.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Democracy v Federal Republic...Which Are We?

~Snooper~

This is my take...I am just an old warrior, a grunt...

This post herein is a repost of two pieces I penned many moons ago at my Townhall blog, then the Wordpress blog and, finally, at the Blogspot blog, since merged with A Newt One. I have elected to combine the two pieces into one in preparation of the posting at Digital Journal. I have also taken the liberty, as the originating author to make the appropriate changes and corrections to the pieces in the process of combing the original piece as posted here.

Feel free to correct me, if you are able and/or leave comments...I am all ears...

What is democracy? What is Liberty? We hear all kinds of references to both these days, don't we? The terms get thrown away and I fear that the majority of Americans haven't a clue, really, what either term means. We won't even get into the terms Federal Republic or Democratic Republic and related terminology, at this point. According to the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, democracy has been given the definition as "government by the people; especially: rule of the majority", among a few others. What does majority rule mean and why is that an important aspect of democracy? Is majority rule relevant? If so, then, why? According to the same dictionary previously mentioned, majority rule has been given the definition as, "a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by 50% plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole." Wow; such a gaggle of words. We can gather from the definitions of Democracy and Majority Rule that the principles derived from them pertain to a tool whereby decisions can be made and applied or enforced.

With that in mind, is Democracy a good thing or a bad thing? Consider this; you like strawberry milkshakes but the majority has voted and taken the decision as to whether you should like strawberry milkshakes under consideration. The majority votes that it will be vanilla milkshakes and the strawberry milkshakes will no longer be available. The same process can be applied to every aspect of your life. Is this good or is it bad? For you, the strawberry milkshake drinker, it is bad. You are in the minority so you lose that particular choice. The decision process has been removed from you. For the majority, there is no more issue. Vanilla milkshakes it is. That "sounds" a little like tyranny, doesn't it? Does this mean that Democracy is a form of tyranny?

Yes, it is. However, this form of tyranny is an elected type of tyranny. What then, is tyranny? It is back to the dictionary for a definition, "oppressive power exerted by government." Really? We just had an election and the majority voted for vanilla milkshakes. The majority rules in a Democratic society so why is this considered to be tyrannical? This issue isn't as simple as some would lead us to believe.

The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." Truer words have rarely been spoken. So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny. So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Other wise men have made observations about democracy and several have compared democracy to a republic and have determined that the differences between the two are similar to the differences between chaos and order...Anarchy to be more precise. Isn't that a wondrous commentary to ponder? People of the world and world leaders prattle on about Democracy and all they want is tyranny, chaos and order? This can sound rather contradictory can it not? Why would other peoples want this?

You see, our Founding Fathers were really smart men. They had lived through various forms of government and watched many come and go. They knew the pitfalls and the snares and the traps. Unfortunately, our modern leaders have lost their way.

Our Founding Fathers had every intention on protecting the people of the new Nation of America. They did not want a tyrannical form of government. They did not want a king. They did not want a dictator. They intended to create a republican form of government, not to be confused with a republican political party. We will need to define this form of government so, it is back to the dictionary: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." This is a far cry from Democracy is it not?

Personally, I don't know why our politicians in this country as well as others make a big deal over Democracy. It is certainly superior to Socialism or Communism but we will discuss those issues another day. Would it not be better to spread our Founding Fathers' dream and experiment? Yes it would. However, we would have to return to it in order to proclaim it and spread the good news around.

That brings us to Liberty. What is Liberty? It is the "freedom to do as one pleases (anarchy) and quality or state of being free and free from arbitrary or despotic control." Our form of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was a Federal Republic, ruling over the "various states" and ensuring continuity and protection from foreign and domestic enemies.

It was a combination of Democracy, Tyranny, Republican, Anarchy and Liberty. Combine them all into one form and you achieve a Federal Republic where the PEOPLE govern and the politicians carry out the demands of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. The people are free to CHANGE the government at will (remember that). Combining these five elements and deriving law and order, a healthy society will emerge.

Today, in America, the politicians have become the governing body and "We The People" are their serfs. We have become a form of government our Founding Fathers feared the most. The people are no longer the ruling body.

It is time to Take Our Country Back.

I have read on the blogs at Townhall and elsewhere, where several terminologies are either being exaggerated, abused and/or misrepresented.

I have been hearing we are a "Democratic Republic". I have been hearing that we are a "Democracy". I have been hearing that we are a "Republic". It all started when an author posted the "Atheist Democracy" article. That was a good article, by the way.

With that being said, I will post here a bit of data that will explain in not so much boring detail, the gist of what a Federal Republic is, in laymens' terms.

The United States was founded as a Federal Republic. This means that is was to be a representative form of government. Many people do not know what this entails.

There are three forms of "representation".

First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)

Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)

Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan)

It is the Delegate form the Framers had intended and it worked that way up until FDR. From FDR and on, our representation went to hell in a hand basket and hasn't recovered yet. This form is what creates accountability in politics and we have not had much of that in decades, have we? Are we currently being represented by Delegates? In my estimation, most certainly not.

The Trustee form is what lazy and uninterested sheeple choose to live under and their "rights" can be stripped away because the Elected One "hears" them but tends to "ignore" them, thereby deciding as the Trustee so deems what is in the best interest of his constituents regardless of how the majority may or may not feel. Tyranny is the result. Trustee representation invites a degree of indecision on the part of the people and are seemingly incapable of correcting any wrongs the trustee may have accomplished. The Trustee form of representation has a tendency to become untrustworthy.

The Politico form is a mish-mash form of socialized "keep-them-in-the-dark and feed them fish eyes" representation. There is ZERO accountability. The Politico does as he or she pleases with no threats of retaliation for not representing his or her people.

The Federal Republic was making a come back during the Reagan and Bush years but was reverted back to the socialistic ways of FDR when Clinton gained control of the American Helm.

This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred.

Sunday, July 1, 2007

Democracy Addendum


This writing is an adjunct to a post I made which can be found in the featured post section under “Democracy…What Is It”.

I have read on the blogs at Townhall and elsewhere, where several terminologies are either being exagerated, abused and misrepresented.

I have been hearing we are a “Democratic Republic”. I have been hearing that we are a “Democracy”. I have been hearing that we are a “Republic”. It all started when an author posted the “Atheist Democracy” article. That was a good article, btw.

However, my article “Democracy…What Is It” was more or less a recap of 200+ years of history of this nation. It is a shortened version of the book I am writing and hopefully, one day, in my lifetime, I will finish the bloody thing.

With that being said, I will post here a tid-bit of data that will explain in not so much boring detail, the gist of what a Federal Republic is, in laymen’s terms.

The United States was founded as a Federal Republic. This means that is was to be a representative form of government. Many people do not know what this entails.

There are three forms of “representation”.

First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgements to make decisions. (not a good plan)

Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)

Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan)

It is the Delegate form that is what the Framers had intended and it worked that way up until FDR. From FDR and on, our representation went to hell and hasn’t recovered yet. This form is what creates accountability in politics and we have not had much of that in decades, have we? Are we currently being represented by Delegates? In my estimation, most certainly not.

The Trustee form is what lazy and uninterested sheeple choose to live under and their “rights” can be stripped away because the Elected One “hears” them but tends to “ignore” them. Tyranny is the result.

The Politico form is a mish-mash form of socialized “keep-them-in-the-dark and feed them fish eyes” representation. There is ZERO accountability.

The Federal Republic was making a come-back during the Reagan and Bush years but was reverted back to the socialistic ways of FDR when Clinton gained control of the American Helm.
This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. Our country has not been this split since 1861.

Democracy?

Democracy…What Is It?
Democracy…What Is It?
Thursday, March 01, 2007 4:47 AM

This is my take…I am just an old warrior, a grunt…

Feel free to correct me and/or leave comments…I am all ears…

What is democracy? What is Liberty? We hear all kinds of references to both these days, don’t we? The terms get thrown away and I fear that the majority of Americans haven’t a clue, really, what either term means. We won’t even get into the terms Federal Republic or Democratic Republic and related terminology. According to the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, democracy has been given the defined as “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority”, among a few others. What does majority rule mean and why is that an important aspect of democracy? Is majority rule relevant? If so, then why? According to the same dictionary previously mentioned, majority rule has been given the definition as, “a political principle providing that a majority usually constituted by 50% plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole.” Wow; such a gaggle of words. We can gather from the definitions of Democracy and Majority Rule that the principles derived from them pertain to a tool whereby decisions can be made and applied or enforced.

With that in mind, is Democracy a good thing or a bad thing? Consider this; you like strawberry milkshakes but the majority has voted and taken the decision as to whether you should like strawberry milkshakes under consideration. The majority votes that it will be vanilla milkshakes and the strawberry milkshakes will no longer be available. The same process can be applied to every aspect of your life. Is this good or is it bad? For you, the strawberry milkshake drinker, it is bad. You are in the minority so you lose that particular choice. The decision process has been removed from you. For the majority, there is no more issue. Vanilla milkshakes it is. That “sounds” a little like tyranny, doesn’t it? Does this mean that Democracy is a form of tyranny?

Yes, it is. However, this form of tyranny is an elected type of tyranny. What then, is tyranny? It is back to the dictionary for a definition, “oppressive power exerted by government.” Really? We just had an election and the majority voted for vanilla milkshakes. The majority rules in a Democratic society so why is this considered to be tyrannical? This issue isn’t as simple as some would lead us to believe.

The Father of our Constitution, James Madison had this to say about a pure Democracy, “there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” So, then, we may gather that a Democracy, in its purest form can lead to tyranny. So, is Democracy good then? Ask John Adams. He had this gem to express, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Other wise men have made observations about democracy and several have compared democracy to a republic and have determined that the differences between the two are similar to the differences between chaos and order. Isn’t that a wondrous commentary to ponder? People of the world and world leaders prattle on about Democracy and all they want is tyranny, chaos and order? This can sound rather contradictory can it not? Why would other peoples want this?

You see, our Founding Fathers were really smart men. They had lived through various forms of government and watched many come and go. They knew the pitfalls and the snares and the traps. Unfortunately, our modern leaders have lost their way.

Our Founding Fathers had every intention on protecting the people of the new Nation of America. They did not want a tyrannical form of government. They did not want a king. They did not want a dictator. They intended to create a republican form of government. We will need to define this form of government so, it is back to the dictionary, “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” This is a far cry from Democracy is it not?

Personally, I don’t know why our politicians in this country as well as others make a big deal over Democracy. It is certainly superior to Socialism or Communism but we will discuss those issues another day. Would it not be better to spread our Founding Fathers’ dream and experiment? Yes it would. However, we would have to return to it in order to proclaim it and spread the good news around.

That brings us to Liberty. What is Liberty? It is the “freedom to do as one pleases (anarchy) and quality or state of being free and free from arbitrary or despotic control.” Our form of government as envisioned by our Founding Fathers was a Federal Republic, ruling over the “various states” and ensuring continuity and protection from foreign and domestic enemies.

It was a combination of Democracy, Tyranny, Republican, Anarchy and Liberty. Combine them all into one form and you achieve a Federal Republic where the PEOPLE govern and the politicians carry out the demands of the PEOPLE, not the other way around. The people are free to CHANGE the government at will. (remember that) Combining these five elements and deriving law and order, a healthy society will emerge.

Today, in America, the politicians have become the governing body and “We The People” are their serfs. We have become a form of government our Founding Fathers feared the most. The people are no longer the ruling body.

Visitor Tracker