If Israel Were the United States

Dateline: July 31, 2006-Washington, D.C.

A week has passed since some of the largest cities in the United States, including Washington, D.C., have been bombed by operatives of Al Qada. Crossing the Canadian border in Michigan, the Al Qada operatives kidnapped two American soldiers and are holding them hostage, slipping back into Canada. The Canadian government has declared that they are neither supporting nor aiding the operatives.

Al Qada has maintained known operation bases in Canada for at least four years.

The troops are believed to be held in an undisclosed Al Qada base in the Canadian province of Ontario, in or around the city of London. The United States has dispatched a troops to retrieve the kidnapped soldiers.

The President had stated that the kidnapping of the American soldiers was an act of war. He has stated that he has not ruled out the use force at any level.

Rockets, armed with metal balls, have been launched at U.S. cities just across the border from Canada, and within major U.S. cities, such as Detroit and Washington, D.C., with large Muslim populations.

All state governors of the continental 48 states have mobilized national guard units to patrol the major cities of their states, looking for terrorist weaponry.

The detected origination sites of the launches have been from densely populated areas with large civilian populations. American forces have been reluctant to retaliate due to the civilian presence, but orders have been given to eliminate the enemy at all costs, undisclosed sources have revealed.

Retaliatory strikes from the U.S. into Canadian territory which is believed to be strategic Al Qada bases has drawn the ire of the international community. Kofi Annon, Secretary General of the U.N., has called for a cease fire.

The United States has responded that acts of war upon the sovreign nation of the United States will be responded to as deemed fit by the U.S. The U.S. has asked for the assistance of Canada, but Canada has so far only offered token support in the effort to weed out Al Qada. No captures have been made, but Canadian forces have been dispatched to patrol for suspicious persons.

Some groups have cried out against the targeted patrol of predominately Muslim communities in the U.S. as racial profiling. Court challenges have already been filed in some jurisdictions as to the legality of the patrols by the military.

Others within the U.S. are also supporting the U.N. requests for ceasefire. Demostrations have been made in several major U.S. cities.

One such demostration in Philadelphia was disrupted after a missile struck the street on which the protestors were marching. Nineteen protestors were killed, and over 50 wounded.

The United States says that retaliatory strikes, including air raids in Canada, are not out of the question.

The above, of course, is fictitious, but not beyond the realm of reality.

On September 11, 2001, it seems that I recall that the U.S. was prepared to shoot down a civilian passenger jet if it headed for the White House after two had already hit the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in D.C. Civilian casualties are always a part of war.

The culture of Islam is a culture of war. The ultimate goal of Islam is forced conversion or death to infidels as defined by Islam. This culture is conducive to neither democratic institutions nor Judeo-Christian principles that is ingrained in the Western culture.

The choice for Israel, and consequently the rest of the world, is to defeat Islam or to be defeated by Islam.

The Voting Rights Farce

Each state has citizens whom the other citizens consider an embarassment. Georgia seems to have a plethora of such embarassments. Obviously, Cynthia McKinney has become such an embarassment that half her constituency in 4th district is trying to run her out of office.

John Lewis is another such embarassment. Lewis is the representative for Georgia's 5th district, which encompasses the southern part of Fulton county mainly, including south Atlanta and downtown. Every time I hear this man talk, I shudder to think that the voters of Georgia would elect him. English is definitely his second language, as he is reminiscent of Mushmouth from Fat Albert.

Nevertheless, the reason that I have even thought of Mr. Lewis is that President Bush is signing the extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into law. For those of you who may read this and do not know, the Voting Rights Act established Federal oversight of elections of states who were deemed to be a threat to the voting rights of blacks. Most, if not all, of the states that were targeted were in the south. Perhaps the act was good at the time, but, much like labor unions, it has outlived its usefulness.

One could argue whether or not over the course of time that issues will work themselves out without intervention of government. Some have argued that, eventually, slavery would have ended without the war between the states. Forty years after the Voting Rights Act, one would think that all attempts to disenfranchise black voters would have failed. We even have the gerrymandering of congressional districts now to ensure that minority voters, black in particular, have a black representative.

So why do we still have the Voting Rights Act? Race baiters masquerading as "civil rights leaders" must still have an issue to energize their constituency. It's a perpetual issue, since this act will come up for vote again in another 25 years. How better to stay relevant than to keep people under foot, believing that you are waging a battle on their behalf, even if the battle has been won for at least 30 years?

The Voting Rights Act is a farce. If people truly want to be progressive, they will purge the trash and move on.

A Conservative Quandry

The other night on the Documentary Channel (nothing else was on the satellite worth watching), I caught a portion of a documentary on the Waco/Branch Davidian raid. This was basically a series of video tapes of Congressional hearings and audio tapes of conversations between David Koresh and negotiators and 9-1-1 calls made from the compound that gave a look at both sides of the standoff. Although Koresh may have been miguided, I must say that based on the portion of the documentary that I watched, which was about an hour's worth, I came away with sympathies to the Branch Davidians. The evidence presented seemed to point to the ATF, who was at the compound to deliver a warrant primarily dealing with statutory rape, according to the documentary, storming the compound with blazing guns. The 9-1-1 tapes also indicate that the Davidians were defending themselves, begging the operator to get in touch with the Feds to call it off. The 9-1-1 dispatcher displays irritation that the radio frequency given to him for contact is not working. Further evidence that the Feds had their radios turned off came from a member of the media, who was asked by the Feds to call an ambulance.

Of course, the agents were following orders, for which they cannot be blamed, except to the extent that they acted with malice if they did. The shots were being called by Janet Reno in Washington. This has prompted me to think over some of the other debacles of the Reno Justice Department at the Clinton Whitehouse.

And then I remembered Elian Gonzalez. Elian was a Cuban refugee, only about 5 years old, who washed up on the shores of Miami. He lost his mother, who fled Cuba to bring her son to a better life in the U.S. Elian was taken in by some of his relatives already in Cuba.

Fidel Castro's government then got wind of the situation and demanded that the boy be returned to Cuba. The Reno Justice Department, under darkeness of night, raided the house of the boy's uncle, who was caring for him, and took him at gunpoint, crying, from the arms of his un-armed uncle. Shortly thereafter, he was deported back to Cuba and Papa Fidel.

As many inconsistencies as we can point to with the left on this issue, I cannot help but maybe question some inconsistency on the right.

From another perspective, Elian Gonzalez and his mother, had she lived, would have been illegal aliens unless granted political amnesty. We on the right, and rightly so, call for the sealing of our borders and the deportation of illegal aliens. But we were screaming at Janet Reno for deporting Elian.

No one questions his life would have been far better than in Cuba, but so would the lives of many of our brown brothers from the south of Texas.

Am I off base? Am I missing something?

The True Threat to Traditional Marriage

My last posting brings me to the next subject that I want to blog about. Traditional marriage is under attack in the U.S. from all sides. Many believe that the agenda of homosexuals to normalize same-sex marriage, and all of this for the true agenda of normalizing a deviant behavior, is the greatest threat to traditional marriage. While this does threaten what our posterity will recognize as "normal", the true threat to traditional marriage is already recognized as a normal part of living now. The true threat that I speak of is divorce.

For many years, about 1 in 2 Americans have been divorced. Many who are divorced go on to marry again, some of which later divorce again. How is it that we have gotten to the point of defending an institution that about 1/2 of the population appears to not believe in to begin with?

Marriage, from its roots, was a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. Let me clarify that statement by saying that from its Christian roots, referencing Paul's writings, marriage was a life-long commitment between one man and one woman. Divorce was given under the law by Moses, but as Jesus said Himself, it was given because of the "hardness of your hearts", but " from the beginning, it was not so." Jesus also clarifies that the legitimate reason for divorce is fornication within the marriage. Some argue that Paul also states that believers may divorce unbelievers without consequence. But nevertheless, from a Christian perspective, there are only a couple of legitimate reasons for divorce to be granted.

One reason for this is that marriage entails committing a vow to your partner. The vow is a life-long vow, death of one of the married being the only release. In one place, the scripture says that it is better to never have made a vow than to make a vow and break it.

So, if one professes to be a Christian, as most people in America today profess to be, then the only legitimate grounds for divorce is fornication, which is a breaking of the vow of marriage. Does this mean that the majority of divorces are as a result of divorce?

My guess is no. Since the inception of "no-fault" divorce, one does not have to have a reason to divorce his or her partner. All one has to do is file for divorce for "irreconcilable differences." And this is truly where the break-down of family and the threat to institutional marriage lies.

In today's world, marriage is more of a game of institutional dating. And with the involvement of secular law in marriage now, women particularly have much to gain from no-fault divorce; that is, if they married men who actually care about their children.

I could go on if time permitted about the Christian implications of divorce, but I will save that perhaps for another post. Any way you cut it, divorce is the scourge that is destroying marriage.

The Law Is For Lawyers

My brother-in-law is going through a nasty divorce. My family and I have tried to stay out of it as much as possible. Unfortunately, we have on occasion been dragged in to the fray. But through his unfortunate experience, I have learned two truths that I did not otherwise know, nor would I ever have had occasion to know:

1) Men have no rights to their children
2) Courts are for the most part a money scheme

This all started with his wife one day deciding to ask him to leave. His response was "Why?" He had no idea, according to his story, that she wanted him gone. So he left.

The next week, she served him with a do-it-yourself divorce settlement, which, of course, left him with nothing, including the right to see his children. He took it to a lawyer, who promptly served her with divorce papers. His nightmare begins.

He was in a no-win situation from the beginning. If he had signed the original papers, he would have forfeited his right to his children and to an attorney if she decided in the future to take him to court. But now that he is filing for divorce, he has been forced to undergo lie detector tests, pyschological evaluations, and supervised visitations (at our house, my wife being appointed supervisor without consultation to us). He has had to foot the bill for all of the above, plus psych evaluations for his children.

The mother, on the other hand, has been forced to do none of the above to my knowledge. And she has full custody of the children at the present.

The supervised visitations were the result of allegations that his wife made that he visited pornographic websites and was inappropriate with his children, particularly his daughter of eleven. Both he and his wife have restraining orders against the other. The visitation was originally set for Sunday, so as not to interfere with the daughter's sporting events (as this is much more important than visiting her father). On Mother's Day, the wife broke the restraining order by coming upon our porch after calling our home, which was also not allowed according to the order. Deputies were called to assist in the visitation. Nothing was ever filed by the Sheriff's department.

If he had came upon the porch of the house the HE is paying for, he would have been hauled to jail then.

Most recently, he was summoned to court as his wife was trying to stop all visitation after he performed an informal DNA test on his daughter at the request of his lawyer. Formal DNA testing that would meet the chain of custody requirement would be costly, and if the informal tests showed results that the children were definitely his, he would not need the formal tests. Royally making her mad, since one of the charges against her is infidelity, she drags him back to court making accusations that he asked his daughter to "pull her pants down" so he could "check for bruising", which did not occur. Even after this allegation was not proven, supervised visitation at a "visitation center" in town was ordered. Visitation was to occur on each Saturday.

He has not seen his children in 6 weeks. He is allowed one phone call per evening, before 9 o'clock, but he has not been allowed by his wife to speak with his daughter.

Now, I am sure that people who do not know my brother-in-law or his wife would say the following facts are what is really relevant:

1) He left the home
2) He filed for divorce
3) When erring, ere on the side of the safety of the child

I would venture to say that, in divorce cases in which a father is accused of molesting his child, 90-95% of those charges are bogus. "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."

His lawyer told him that this litigation could last for 3 years. That brings me to the other truth.

Up front, this divorce is cost my brother-in-law $10,000. He had to get a loan to cover the bill, because, like most people, he did not have $10,000 sitting around. The lawyer also stated an amount for retainer. This mess started in April. He has been to court three times already, and they still do not have a divorce. When their divorce trial is set, I do not know. But the longer it drags, the more money the courts and lawyers make.

Speedy trial my foot.

And so if this thing drags for 3 years, he will be paying retainer fees to his lawyer and court costs whenever he goes to court, I am sure.

No wonder men are reluctant to get married these days.

My Blogroll

I have added two new blogs to my blogroll. The first is "Scrambled Thoughts of One More Patriot." I have found his blogs interesting, and I believe he and are probably cut from the same cloth, as a lot of our interests seem to be the same. The other is "My Onion Pi." Although she and I met in the blogworld concerning a disagreement about abortion, and this not being the only thing we disagree about, I find her to be honest and independent. In other words, she sincerely believes what she says she believes, and she is not walking lockstep with one party or other. I can appreciate that about a person, and I consider Hamrose to be a blogfriend. And besides, debating people that disagree with you challenges you not only to think about why you believe their views are wrong, but also why you believe why your views are right.

Check them out.

Suicide and Eternity

A widely held belief among many who profess to be Christian is that if one commits suicide, that their soul is committed to Hell. This is because, according to the belief, a person who commits suicide has not had the opportunity to repent of that sin. This is a false belief and is not grounded in biblical truth.

The only factor that determines whether or not the soul of the departed is committed to Paradise or to Hell is whether or not one has obtained salvation by the grace of God. When the blood of Christ is once applied to the heart of a sinner, his sins, past, present, and future are covered. Mortal flesh will continue to sin, and sin with finally consume the flesh, ultimately resulting in the death of the flesh (Romans 6:23). At death, the soul that has obtained salvation will rest in the bosom of Abraham and await the day of the redemption of the body, when the dead shall be resurrected, meeting Christ in the eastern sky. Then all of the redeemed will enter the New Jerusalem together and be there forever.

The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31); that is to say, the rejection of the Holy Spirit when it beckons to you. Furthermore, salvation is not of works; therefore, we can perform nothing that will result in obtaining salvation, nor in losing it once obtained. It is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9).

So what does this have to do with suicide and where the soul of those who kill themselves will spend eternity? If salvation were of works, and we could fall away from Grace, then this belief would be correct. But if the blood of Christ were not sufficient for the covering of all the sins of his elect, then his crucifixion and death would be in vain.

Therefore, to say that one who commits suicide is bound for Hell regardless of whether he had obtained salvation is saying that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to cover his sins. If this is the case, how can anyone be saved from death and Hell?

I have held this belief and been aware of this truth for many years. I thank God that he has allowed me to have knowledge of some of his truths.

Personally, I also believe that one who would commit the act of suicide is not capable at the time of the act to know that their action is wrong. In other words, a mental illness has taken over to the point that the person committing the act is not responsible.

On Mother's Day of this year, my grandfather committed this very act. He had been suffering from depression for quite a while. He was not in the best of health, either. Unfortunately, none of us really recognized how depressed he really was. He had borrowed a 22 caliber rifle from a friend, went into a small room on the back of his carporch, and shot himself.

I do not condone what he did. I do not comprehend how someone can get to that point. But mental illness, whether in the form of depression or other forms, is a disease. Unfortunately, this disease affects rational thinking, often resulting in the death of the diseased at their own hand. Mental illness carries with it stigma, but the truth is one cannot help having a mental illness any more than they can help having a cold.

But I have no doubts of where my grandfather's soul is today. He is resting, awaiting the day when his body shall rise from the grave, in the likeness of Jesus himself, and put on perfection, to live forever in that Good Land.

Capitalists That I Don't Like

Friday night as my wife and I were lying in bed, we were watching 20/20 on television. Since John Stossel has taken on one of the anchor roles, this has become somewhat of a decent program to watch. One of the feature stories caught my attention.

A pharmaceutical company called Northfield has developed a blood substitute called Polyheme. This substitute is in trial right now. The purpose of the substitute, from what I understood, was for shortages of blood or to prevent medical transports, such as ambulances, from having to store real blood. When a patient arrives at a hospital, real blood can be transfused, and the Polyheme would be purged from the body.

If this product works, it would be a revolutionary medical breakthrough, undoubtedly.

Here comes the spoiler.

Northfield Labs, through approval of the FDA, has been authorized to test this product at 27 national hospitals across the country. The problem is, you might be a part of the testing and never know it, especially if you die from the side-effects that have been noted about Polyheme.

In order to opt out of the experiment, you must be wearing a blue bracelet that reads something like, "I choose to opt out of the Northfield Labs Polyheme experiment."

The way I always thought medical testing worked was that you consented to being a part of a test, signing waivers that you were aware of the risks, and then most likely being paid for your effort.

Not in this test. The FDA, a government organization, has approved a private business to TEST A DRUG ON CITIZENS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.

This is the type of capitalist I have a problem with. This company stands to gain a great deal by approval of Polyheme. Investors would stand to gain a great deal by the approval of Polyheme. This company used a government agency to force its product on citizens without their consent. Citizens are part of a medical experiment without their knowledge. Their lives could be in peril because of an experimental drug administered to them without them even knowing it.

If Northfield Labs tested this drug with consent of patients or their power-of-attorney, then I say fine. If Northfield Labs then makes a disgustingly large amount of money. Fine. They took the risk, invested the capital, they should reap the benefits.

But this is unconscionable. An company should compete for their subjects of experiments by gaining their consent and paying compensation for the efforts of the subjects. Instead, this company used the power of the FDA to make the public as a whole the subjects of their testing.

These are the kind of capitalists that I do not like. The kind of capitalist who uses regulation to get the upper hand in competetive advantage over their rivals. This is the true flaw in capitalistic societies; that government regulation is involved.

Below is a list of hospitals that this experiement is taking place. I suggest that you order the blue bracelet from Northfield Labs if you live in one of the areas. This is copied and pasted directly from the abcnew.com website.

To opt out of the study, contact Northfield Labs (http://www.northfieldlabs.com/contact.html) or a participating hospital and request a blue bracelet. If worn, you will be exempt from the trial.

California
UC San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, Calif.; No longer recruiting
Scripps Mercy, San Diego, Calif.; No longer recruiting

Colorado
Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, Colo.

Delaware
Christiana Hospital, Newark, Del.

Georgia
Medical Center of Central Georgia, Macon, Ga.

Illinois
Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Ill.

Indiana
Wishard Memorial Hospital, Indianapolis, Ind.
Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, Ind.

Kansas
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kan.

Kentucky
University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Ky.

Michigan
Detroit Receiving Hospital, Detroit, Mich.
Sinai Grace Hospital, Detroit, Mich.

Minnesota
The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

New York
Albany Medical Center, Albany, N.Y.; Suspended

North Carolina
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

Ohio
MetroHealth Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio; Suspended
University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
Miami Valley Hospital, Dayton, Ohio

Pennsylvania
Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, Penn.; No longer recruiting
St. Luke's Regional Resource Trauma Center, Bethlehem, Penn.
Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn.

Tennessee
University of Tennessee-Memphis, Memphis, Tenn.
Johnson City Medical Center, Johnson City, Tenn.; Suspended

Texas
Memorial-Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas; No longer recruiting
Memorial-Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas; No longer recruiting
University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas
Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam, Houston, Texas

Utah
University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
LDS Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah

Virginia
Sentara Norfolk Hospital, Norfolk, Va.; No longer recruiting
Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Va.
Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Va.; Suspended

West Virginia
West Virginia University/Jon Michael Moore Trauma Center, Morgantown, West Va.

(source: www.clinicaltrials.gov where it says "Verified by Northfield Laboratories June 2006) (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00076648?order=1)

The "Right" to Marry

The Supreme Court of the state of Georgia has ruled that the constitutional referendum banning homosexual marriage stands. This was placed on the ballot in November of 2004, and passed by 76% of the voters who participated in the election. Opponents of the referendum have challenged it on the grounds that referendum addressed two separate issues, those being gay marriage and gay civil unions. Constitutional referendums in the state of Georgia must by law address a single issue.

Many of the proponents of civil unions or homosexual marriage claim that their "civil rights" are being violated, and that they are being treated as "second class" citizens. Some even have the audacity to compare their "plight for equality" to that of blacks during their struggles to be accepted into society. But this is bogus.

First of all, marriage is not a civil right. It is a matter of contract law. Many rules exist for people to be eligible for entering into contracts. Marriage is not different. One cannot be legally married to someone else at the time of entering into a marriage contract with another; one must be 18 years of age, or have the consent of the parents if a minor. One cannot marry a brother or sister. Many reasons exist that one cannot enter into a marriage contract with another, no matter how much they may love the person that they want to marry. In the state of Georgia, another qualification for marriage is now that the parties wishing to enter into the marriage contract be of opposing sexes.

Secondly, no one is stating that members of the same sex cannot cohabitate. No law exists that one cannot leave their estate to another of their choosing. One can choose a power-of-attorney of their choosing for medical or financial decisions. Married couples have to do this in a lot of cases. In a lot of states, adoption laws are such that one does not have to be married in order to adopt a child. Health care coverage by your spouses or "significant other's" plan is even allowed by some companies now.

Thirdly, I do not see the police in the streets hosing down homosexuals as they did blacks in days past. Although I do not think that it would be a bad idea in a lot of cases.

And finally, agree or disagree, being black is not a choice of behavior. Being black is something that no matter how much one may wish to change it, they cannot make black skin another color. Homosexuality is a behavior. One cannot look at another (in all cases) and say, "he/she is homosexual" unless they choose to exhibit the stereotypical look of a homosexual. How one expresses his "homosexuality" is through behavior. People are accountable for their behavior. Black people cannot help but be black. Therefore, I would find it extremely offensive if I were black to have the plight of my ancestors compared with someone who is ticked because their choice of lifestyle is rejected as normal by the majority of the world population and throughout history.

And this brings us to the real reason for this debate; homosexuals want their lifestyle to be viewed as normal. My personal belief for this is that they want to behave the way they want, but without the guilt that their behavior is wrong.

I am not going to beat the crap out of someone because they are gay. As a matter of fact, I won't even bother someone who is gay. The only thing that I ask in return is for gays not to shove their lifestyle down my throat and force me to accept their behavior.

No Accountability for Judges

On the 11 o'clock news last night, I caught a story about a judge who had let an accused rapist go on bond. This man was accused of raping a 17 year-old girl, and the judge allowed him to go free after someone posted bond. The man then subsequently is accused of raping a 13 year-old girl.

I am an advocate of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. But I am also an advocate of common sense when releasing accused perpetrators before trial. If the man was a petty thief, then fine, release him on bond. I can think of a myriad of other crimes, even felonies, that I would say that setting bond would be alright, provided the bond were high enough to give the bond-poster incentive to be sure that the bondee behaves. But rape, murder, and child molestation are crimes that I believe regardless, for the sake of the safety of the public, and whether I am the accused or not, bond should not be set.

I have a daughter, a wife, a mother, and grandmothers. I also have nieces, and daughters of friends who I love like nieces. I do not want to see their lives ruined by rape. The outlooks of women today concerning men are skewed enough by the feminist influence. Sick men who get their kicks from forcing women to have sex do not help to change this outlook. And men who are accused of being sick should be behind bars until trial.

The trial should be as speedy as possible. If evidence enough exists to arrest someone on such a serious charge, then evidence enough should exist to convict him. Honestly, I teeter on this point from the standpoint that innocent people should not be incarcerated to the point that it infringes upon their Constitutional rights, but I also cannot see risking the release of people who are suspected of being as dangerous as a man who would rape young girls.

Judges have discretion, I would think, when setting bond. If this man is a rapist, and is convicted of such, then this judge has blood on his hands. The issue with judicial discretion is that many judges use their discretion in a manner that will further their own personal agenda. Who knows the experiences of this judge or family members that would color his discretion. Judges should therefore be subject to punishment, which would ultimately include fines or removal for negligence in rulings such as this.

Following the dictates of the law and applying the law, which is what judges are supposed to do, could not be an offense that would be subject to punishment. The points that judges should be held accountable for is when they step outside the dictates and application of the law, and use their discretion to make a decision such as this. We are all held accountable for decisions we make in our lives and our jobs. Judges should be as well.