The ground zero mosque

I have noticed a number of people that are commenting on the ground zero mosque. Some are saying that this is a matter of religious freedom and that it should be allowed. Others are saying that it is a constitutional issue. I disagree with both. They do have a legal right to build, but that has nothing to do with constitutional or religious right. It's not relevant.


What this is about is planting the flag of victory by a few muslims with and agenda at ground zero. Through out history, mulims have built mosques on either the holy ground of the defeated or the site of their conquests. This project is funded by the Cordoba Project. The name Cordoba project is significant in that it was a city in Spain that was conqured by muslims and was the capital of a caliphate. In fact we see many churches that were in conqured muslim lands that have been converted from chuches.

This ground zere mosque is on site the biggest attack on America in American history. Having a mosque is planting the victory flag. Now we have the media trying to claim that it is not even at ground zero. Well, the people behind it have tied it to ground zero by their comments. The media called it the ground zero mosque until the realized how much trouble it was causing.

The backers have said that it is to build healing and compassion, that it is a bridge to peopls of other faiths. The problem is that most people have said that they do not want it. If you really were trying to build bridges and show compassion and healing, you would not cram this down the throats of the people who are still traumatized by all of this. If they were concerned by others, they would respect their wishes. They do not want to hear our objections, they just want to hear the sound of the muslim call to prayer at groud zero.

It is also important to remember that many muslims don't want this because they understant how much hurt that this is causing for others as well. Not all muslims want this. Unfortunately, they never get heard from. They do not fit the agenda of showing muslims are victims and the American people are the opressors. Only the Muslims who are behind this and unfortunately alot of Americans that do not seem to understand or do not want to understand what this is all about really want this.



Now for all of those out there who are infavor of the mosque, let the bitter objections begin.

Why we should not allow the illegals to stay - an explaination

Soon to come.

How wars start - an extra observation

This morning the Israelies stopped the MV Racheal Corrie. It was supposed to deliver supplies to the gaza strip. The Israelies stopped them without any violence. See what happens when you realize that that you should not violate a blockade and at least co-operate with the blockade? This issue is not resolved at the tmie of this writing, but when you don't start a fight with the Israelies they don't shoot at you.

I think that this shows that the real violence started with the so-called peace activists. They wanted to start a public relations incident and got one at the expense of nine people killed. The peace activists knew it going in. That is what Israel is up against. It is what we will be up against here on our own land if we don't start to realize it.

This is how wars start

One of the bigger stories now is the incident between Israel and the "peace activists" that tried to cross their blockade of Gaza. The ship ,which was sailing under the flag of Turkey, was stopped and the result was the deaths of nine people at the time of this writing. This has resulted in universal condemnation of Israel. There is one question that is being asked, why is his happening since Turkey was Isreals only Muslim ally in the region?

Part of the reason is that Turkey has elected a Muslim government that has increasingly seen itself as a leader of Muslims in the region and is trying to assert itself as such. What better way than to set up a Turkish ship as a victim of Jewish oppresion? The Prime Minister of Turkey was warned that this would happen and when you violate a blockade, this is the result.

There is more to this than we may realize though. There is a recent spat between the US and Turkey that may have to do this. Last year the Democratic led House Foreign Affairs Committee in the House voted along party lines to recognize that the Turks commited a Genocide against the Armenians during WWI. This may not mean much to you and I, but in Turkey this is their equivalent to the problems of our past with slavery in America. For us to have interfered with this since it had no real meaning for us was foolish to say the least. To the Turks, this was the worst kind of insult. Now the Turks have plenty of reason to not listen to us and to want some sort of political payback.

How does this affect the current situation? Well, Israel is our ally. We have a president that shows no desire to defend Isreal and therefore there is not consequence for their defiance of past US policy. So, this shows US weakness  to the Turks and all of our enimies.

This is how wars start. When we go down the path of deserting our friends around the world and try to cozy up to our enimies who have no interest in working with us causing them to see this as weakness, we get this kind reaction. For those of us who are old enough to remember, this was what happened when Carter was present and we were dealing with Soviet communism. Today we are dealing with Muslim terrorists. Different ideology, same result.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Vs Libertarinanism

One day after Ran Paul won the election in Kentucky's Republican primary, I had one reaction: Gee, that happened real quick. The reason that I thought that is that I am familar with Rand Paul's political philosophy of Libertarianism. He was asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his answer was he would have except for the part that bans discrimination in privately owned businesses. Of course this brought on the wrath of every liberal that felt like going on a holier than thou rampage that day.

I have always had a problem with Libertarinanism and that it has one thing in common with liberalism, it sounds so good until you start seeing how it works in the real world. It is in one way the polar opposite of liberalism. Liberalism believes that people are essentially bad and must be reined in until they become perfect at some future time while Libertarinanism belives that all people are essentially good (for the most part) and must not be corrupted by the evils of government. Our own experiences show otherwise.

The reason that the Libertarian Party gets only 1 percent of the vote is because of what has happened to Rand Paul. When he and others are asked about a certain subject, they become caught up in their philosphy that the philosophy runs headlong into reality. This never looks good for the Libertarian and so he gets trashed by a news media that has no interest in understanding why Paul thinks this way. They have their own agenda and understanding the thinking process of those that are not in the Democratic Party is not a part of it.

So, what of Paul's thought process. Is it correct. Well, I would have to say not from my prospective and not from the prospect of the Constitution and more importantly, the Declaration of Independence. To understand why he is wrong you need to understand that though the Constitution may be called our founding document, it simply is not. The country was founded on July 4th 1776 with the sigining of the Declaration. The Constitution came along later in 1787. The Declaration has this quote that we all know"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We all know the first part, but what about the part at the end? You know the part about "institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." The point of this part is that it is the duty of the government to set up a government that is based on the idea of allowing people to pursue their happiness. The problem with Libertarinanism is that it does not seem to take into account that their is a role for government however small but greatly important to make sure that all people can pursue happiness.

To understand this, we should remember the time in which the Civil Right Act was implimented. We all know that their were segregationist laws that we instituted by the Democratic Party. We also know that they were aimed at black. What we do talk about very much, is that they were aimed at whites equally. Any white establishment that violated this law would be penalized as well.

Think about it. If white people in the south were as racist as we are lead to believe, then why did you need a law to stop them from dealing with blacks? The answer is that they were not. Their were some and they were the ones that wrote and enforced the laws. They stopped whites and blacks from working together, not the population as a whole. I am too young to remember the Civil Rights Act being passed, but I do remember that no one ever wanted to go back to the days when we were segregated. I also know that as the south became more Republican, the more free that it became for blacks and whites alike.

Is Paul right in that the Civil Right Act should not have affected business and allowed people to discriminate if they so choose? Well allow me to make two points. Point number one, at best their would still be some places that blacks would not have be allowed and further their would have been places where whites would not be allowe. Does anyone think that it would not have worked both ways? Point number two, contrary to what some may think the founders tried to get rid of slavery. The slave states forced them to compromise and allowed the USA to form. The founders thought that they had taken care of the problem long term. That did not happen. It took a war to end slavery. Therefore we could have had an even more segregated socitey than we had during the sixties with each side becomming more and more filled with anger at each other. There was no guarantee that we would have healed our problems on our own.

The duty of the government was to fix this problem with as little government interfernce as possible. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was probably the best way to do just that.

The Lords of Order

One of the many things that I have always had a hard time figuring out is why do people put so much faith in the government running things and have so little faith in people, business, and religion. For instance, I got into an argument with an aquantace of mine about the healthcare bill recently. I pointed out that the government has not succeeded in running anything succesfully. He responded as many on the left have by pointing out the successes of Medicade, Medicare and Social Security. My response was in effect, what planet are you from, these programs are going broke. His response was " well at least they are helping people."

Never mind the fact that these programs are going broke for the moment, this was the beginning of something of an enlighting moment for me. It did not matter whether they were financially successful, what mattered was that "they took care of someone." Since he never met a tax on the rich that couldn't solve all problems, all was right in the world. He did not care that it was unsustainable, he just cared that it would make him feel a certain sense of safety for him and all of his friends.

What ties this all together I think is a concept from the economist Joseph Schumpeter. Here is an extended quote from Peter Drucker that sums it up:

"In 1942, when everyone was scared of a worldwide deflationary depression, Schumpeter published his best-known book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, still, and deservedly, read widely. In this book he argued that capitalism would be destroyed by its own success. This would breed what we would now call the new class: bureaucrats, intellectuals, professors, lawyers, journalists, all of them beneficiaries of capitalism's economic fruits and, in fact, parasitical on them, and yet all of them opposed to the ethos of wealth production, of saving, and of allocating resources to economic productivity. The forty years since this book appeared have surely proved Schumpeter to be major prophet.


And then he proceeded to argue that capitalism would be destroyed by the very democracy it had helped to create and made possible. For in a democracy, to be popular, government would increasingly shift income from producer to no producer, would increasingly move income from where it would be saved and become capital for tomorrow to where it would be consumed. Government in a democracy would thus be under increasing inflationary pressure. Eventually, he prophesied, inflation would destroy both democracy and capitalism.

When he wrote this in 1942, almost everybody laughed. Nothing seemed less likely than an inflation based on economic success. Now, forty years later, this has emerged as the central problem of democracy and of a free-market economy alike, just as Schumpeter had prophesied."

Schumpeter believed that it was a matter of greed that would lead the bureaucrats and all the rest to destory Capitalism. I think that it is more than that. Greed to an extent is part of it but it takes so much more to keep arguing in this matter. So what is it that causes people to react so fearfully of what we would call freedom and they would call greed? Instead of just greed, I believe that it is just plain old fear.

The Wall Street Columnist Thomas Frank wrote a book callled What's The Matter With Kansas? Though I have not read the book, the premise is one that I have heard of before from people who are liberal. The premise is that the people of Kansas are voting against their own economic well being by voting for economic policies that promote the freemarket and not for the government polices that most would regared as socialism. Though I don't know that he actually uses the word socialism.

At this moment it occurs what all of these people are getting at. Most could not make in the world that most of have to, and those that are not a part of the government are resentful that they have to. We live in a world of what I would term "creative chaos." By this I mean that we have to create the solutions  to our own unforseen  problems and that we have to take care of our own selves. We don't demand that others have to pay our way for us if things go wrong, we believe in self-reliance.

This scares the holy you-know-what out of people who are leftists. What they want more than anything is order, and anything that provides order is good and anything that doesn't is evil. Not bad, but evil.  This is why so many are attracted to working for the government or giving up their freedoms to the government. Because the government can provide or enforce a sense of order.

This is why the Democrats went for broke with the healthcare bill. The capitalistic system was so evil because of it's disorder that they had to defeat it no matter what. It did not matter that the American people opposed it, the Thomas Franks of the world think that you are hurting yourself and so for your own good, you have to be over ruled.

The problem is that when you go down this road, it is not long before you move from a republic to a dictatorship, and you justifiy it with "it's for their own good."

Health care becomes the new abortion

We have all been fighting over national healthcare for over a year now. The thinking from the supporters of healthcare have the opinion that if we just get this passed, then everyone will support it once we find out how great this is. Some of the other arguments in favor of national healthcare is that it will help the poor. In fact, this seems to be a typical  argument of anything that the supporters of government at all costs. This should sound familar to those who remember the abortion debates of the 80's and 90's. We still have not finished that argument to this day.

It seems to me that we are going down that same road again. Abortion was opposed in the beginning as well. The people did not want abortion on demand in 1973. Today, we are being given something else that we do not want in national health care. For those that think that we will all accept this when healthcare is made legal, you will soon find out that this will not be the case.

There is something else that I have noticed as I was looking up some of the quotes from the time that abortion was legalized against the objections of a very large portion of the people of this country. It's contained in this quote:

For those who cannot be educated, sterilization or legalized abortion seems to be the only remedy, for we certainly do not want such stupid people to pollute the race with stupid offspring. The defective conditions of life call urgently for improvement - Norman Haire, letter to the editor, Birth Control Review, (July, 1930)

The idea from this quote is that there are those who think that they know better and that they must make decisions for us because we are stupid and ignorant. Well, there are people who feel the exact same way again. The comedian Bill Maher, who is about as mainstream liberal as the get recently had this to say:

“But what the Democrats never understand is that Americans don't really care what position you take, just stick with one,” Maher said. “Just be strong. They're not bright enough to really understand the issues. But like an animal, they can sort of sense strength or weakness. They can smell it on you.”


It is so typical that they both think that those who are not in agreement with them are stupid. The frightening thing is that people like this have been trying to get control over us for decades and are close to getting it.

Now you may think that comparing these two quote are not the same since that Maher is not calling for people to be killed, then bear in mind this. A woman in Oregon named Barbara Wagner found out that she had a return of cancer. Her only hope was a $4,000.00 per month drug. The insurance company would not pay for her drugs. What the Oregon Health Plan (the government run health care plan ) would pay for was pills for her to commit suicide. Ms Wagner said "It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die. But we won't give you the medication to live."

In my opinion it would seem that the Bill Mahers of the world are not to far from the Norman Haire's of the world. The difference is that at least Mr Haire knew what he was actually aiming for. In the case of Mr Maher who obviously either does not have the slighest clue where what he wants will lead or does not care.

What has to be considered, is that what happend to Miss Wagner may well be the future of all of us if this health care bill goes through. Those who support it will be very indignant about even thinking that this will happen. I am equally sure that the people of Oregon did not think it would come to this, but the reast of us knew it would. That's what happens when you have a healthy fear of government versus those who have an unhealthy trust in it.