It would appear to be the season for redefining who we are, how we think, and how we became us. My lifelong journey from academic liberal, to patriotic authoritarian, to selfish libertarian, to now being an avowed stateless anarchist, is fairly well documented on this blog. What is most interesting to me is that although I literally spent years studying and pondering the subject before making that last leap, few seem to take my decision seriously. At times it is trivialized and/or ridiculed hereabouts. I reckon it is the connotation most have for the word ‘anarchy.’ To me it means stateless — without rulers — not without order. Perhaps it is time to republish my 2 ½-year-old essay, to try to elucidate my thinking once more:
Liberty or the State
Choose one. Only one. They are mutually exclusive.
It is interesting how both sides of our Incumbrepublocrat duopoly have very different visions of the purpose and utility of the State. Yet, both staunchly defend the existence of the Federal Government, as absolutely necessary to protect our rights and freedom. Of course they do, their cushy jobs are on the line; yet, a good many actually believe they are doing good works, in their life-long struggle to save their own vision of America, from their opponents’ strident agenda and goofy ideology. It seemingly never occurs to any of them, that if they simply shut it down and went home, most of their ‘worthy’ causes would evaporate for lack of opposition, and they would never be missed by the vast majority of a much relieved population.
What would happen if we stopped legitimizing their oligarchy? What if nobody bothered to attend the carefully choreographed kabuki theater performances they call ‘elections?’ Without our dutifully voting for the least objectionable candidates offered, they could not claim a ‘mandate’ for their ‘vision,’ and claim the mantle of ‘leader’ for their ‘constituents.’ The most important statistic worth noting in post-election polling, is how many eligible voters chose ‘none of the above,’ by the simple expedient of boycotting the sham election.
For most of a long interesting life, I have generally been an upstanding American Patriot. I wore the US Army uniform for three years back in the mid ’60s, and then a peace officer’s badge in three different small towns for several years after that. Each of these ‘government jobs,’ required that I swear an oath to defend our country and its Constitution “from all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It never occurred to me back then, to question the legitimacy of the Federal government, or its moral authority to make laws governing our conduct. Neither did I question the basis of my sworn duty to enforce them. Everyone must obey… “it’s the Law!”
Since the Russia collusion farce seems to be exploding in the progressives’ faces, they have to come up with a new Trump crime. This time it concerns the separation of adults and minors entering the country illegally. Translated: the coyotes have figured out a way to game the system by bringing in “families†who may or may not be related in some way other than the crime they are committing by crossing the border illegally.
Predictably, the progressives and their media stooges are crying crocodile tears over these poor “innocent†babies, even showing some of them crying in cages (via a photo from the Obamanation administration at which time such was, presumably, quite OK.
In the last few days, I have seen/heard several attempts to explain things rationally – by Trump, Sarah Saunders, Kirstjen Neilsen (DHS Secretary) and others. All to no avail.
What bothers me most about this is that none of them seem able to bring up the obvious… can you imagine how many American children are separated from their parent (usually single parent) every week because of minor violations of drug laws which IMHO should not even exist? Do these children have fewer rights than children who are, in fact, part of the commission of a REAL crime? Nope, they don’t matter (at least at present). Why? Is it because most of them are black and/or poor? Not at all. It is simply that they lack political value.
I will repeat again my friends, a once great nation is being destroyed by self-serving traitor elites while most of us sit idle and watch. These people are committing crimes against humanity for which execution is the only just remedy. Please let it begin. Although I love our Constitution and once wore a uniform and vowed to die protecting it if necessary – I am almost willing for Trump to assume dictatorial powers if that is what it takes to drain the swamp. On that subject, if you don’t watch Steve Hilton’s show on Sunday evening on FOX News, then you are missing some of the best insight into our mess than I have ever seen.
If so, all you need to do is watch the movie Chappaquiddick. I always suspected that the whole Kennedy clan was rotten to the core but this, even with attempts to clean it up, was revolting in every way. (Would you believe my Mother was a Kennedy? Best I can tell, from the Scottish branch, not the Irish. Be thankful for small things.)
Then there is the ongoing farce with Facebook. Just read on Drudge that Zuckerberg will not be placed under oath and that his company is a large contributor to the committees that will be questioning him. Hillary all over again.
Then there is the Donald. It seems the hounds very nearly have him at bay. What should he do in response? I’m sure he is guilty of something – our legal code has become so convoluted that each and every one of us commits several felonies per week, without even knowing it. I have a radical suggestion for Donald. Declare himself dictator, hang as many of the traitors as he can round up, then start the country from scratch again.
I know this is an odd suggestion coming from one who reveres the Constitution as I do but – every indication I can judge suggests we are already on our way to dictatorship and, fool that I may be, I prefer it be Trump rather than a Clinton or a Kennedy.
The Austin area having been my past home for many years – and the current home of a daughter, son-in-law and two grandsons, one can easily understand my interest in the recent bombings there.
My first observation is that this moron of a perpetrator was home-schooled and raised to be a religious fanatic. Why then is anyone surprised when he behaves like a typical religious fanatic?
Note further than no single religious movement has a monopoly on fanaticism – all of them are subject to it. I guess it just comes with the territory – you learn to believe the impossible then suddenly everything SEEMS possible, however perverted it really is.
My second observation is that the moron did illustrate a very good point, assuming anyone in power was paying attention. That point is that gun control is a joke and has always been a joke. What do the powers that be propose now? Shut down Home Depot and outlaw the sale of nails? At what point does the nonsense in this approach shine through?
I have a better idea. How about we fix our school system so that it actually teaches things worth knowing – like, how to coexist in a peaceful world and how to process information such that they are much less likely to be taken in by fanaticism. Then, how about we return to that obsolete notion of holding people responsible for their own actions, starting when they are small children.
My final observation is that we should all grow up a bit. It is a known fact that freedom is NOT free. Indeed, it has many costs and one of those is that a few people will misuse their freedom to do harm to others. Yes, we can punish them after the fact if we so choose but there is little we can do before the fact (or before the act if you prefer). Trending toward a police state is simply not a valid answer – although, those who are greedy for power will try to convince the rest of us that it is.
Honestly, do fewer people get harmed in a police state? Or it is just the source of the harm that is different? (Deranged dictators rather than deranged citizens.)
We tolerate tens of thousands of dead an maimed each year in order to have the freedom to drive our own vehicles. We sacrifice who knows how many to the great god known as junk food. We lose who knows how many for the privilege of altering our minds with alcohol, nicotine and other drugs. Why then do we get so excited when the source of harm goes BOOM as we are killed?
Our old friend Pat Condell has been experiencing too much grief with YouTube’s SJW censors blocking his videos. He has started new channels on Bitchute and elsewhere. This is to experiment with embedding a Bitchute video here:
It required installing an iframe plugin; but it seems to work, although I would prefer less space between it and the text.
BTW: Personally, I think rapists should be “cured” before being deported. Here is a handy tool I used to own when I was a cattle rancher, which worked like a charm for making steers out of bull calves. 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
I have long been disturbed by a growing problem in our Republic that I am yet unable to describe clearly. Despite this, I will try:
A growing number of progressives, aided and abetted by the lame-stream-media, are now openly admitting that they are trying every trick in the book to unseat a duly elected President who, despite an ongoing farce of a special counsel, has no evidence against him of any manner of impeachable offense. Indeed, this President (whom I did not support and did not vote for) seems to be doing a reasonable job of “making America great againâ€. For sure, I could use more swamp draining and less half-cocked tweeting but, I guess you take the best you can get in lieu of the impossibility of perfection. At least the economy is growing, ISIS is shrinking and the rest of the world is beginning to take us seriously again.
To my tired old brain, what is going on looks like nothing less than a concerted attempt to bring down a duly constituted government. My quandary is that I am unable to interpret this as anything less than a form of high treason. For sure, our Constitution prohibits the overthrow of our government “by violence†and one might argue that the progressive traitors, with the possible exception of Antifa, have not yet resorted to outright violence. Or have they? An age old adage holds that “the pen is mightier than the swordâ€. Since we all recognize the sword as a potential instrument of violence, does this old adage not suggest that the pen (read the “mediaâ€) is an even more potentially violent instrument? Current events sure indicate to me that it can.
The real gnawing question then is this… why are the majority of Americans, who are most surely NOT progressive traitors, willing to sit quietly by (well – except for Tucker Carlson) and let these traitors do as they wish to destroy our Republic? Arms sales have been at all time highs for several years now so it is not as if we are not armed. What is it then that we lack? Could it be as simple as the lack of some credible voice to tell us that (to paraphrase Dave), it is time to start shooting the bastards?
As much as I abhor the notion of another civil war, that is much better than a quiet surrender. Are American patriots of the 21st century fated to be like the Jews of Europe in the 1930’s, apparently willing to be herded then slaughtered like so many sheep?
If we allow this President to forced from office, ultimately to be replaced by another traitor like the Obamanation (yes, he repeatedly and openly gave aid and comfort to radical Islamists, a declared enemy of this Republic), then it is all over but the rounding up, etc.
I am currently reading (and enjoying) Brian Kilmeade’s book Andrew Jackson and the Miracle of New Orleans. What a different people we were then! And could be again with so little effort.
Wake up America and do your duty to your Constitution and your Republic!
On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:
LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊
Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.
Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉
Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? â—„Daveâ–º
Using copy/paste, I went through the whole list and was stunned! I’ve turned them into links, to make it easy to try it for yourself.
By the time I got through ‘White American Inventors,’ I figured the search algorithm must be just ignoring the term ‘white,’ so I changed it to ‘Black American Inventors.’ You guessed it – huge difference!
The final one is pretty damn specific. Can anyone explain to me why the results are so absurd?
One of the 45 replies to the thread nailed it:
It’s like watching the ads on TV here in the UK; if you were an alien watching those transmissions, you would be absolutely convinced that the majority of human families consisted of a black guy, a white woman, and asian kids.
It is truly fortuitous that I no longer care a whit about the future of Western civilization, or even mankind itself for that matter. If the Jihadists or North Koreans don’t manage to destroy the internet first, the upcoming Ice Age should cure such utter nonsense rather nicely. ;) ◄Daveâ–º
Since the Trump announcement, it is official – we are in an opioid crisis.
Thank you very much Mr Trump but I have my own personal opioid crisis – like what if I run out, or, what if I can no longer get it.
The lame-stream-media assures us that there are many unnecessary deaths each year because of easy access to opioids. I sure wish I knew where these easy access points are because I have to jump through hoops to get mine. Oh yes, I am an abuser. On average, I take 2 oxycodone pills each day. Why? Without them (or something stronger), I would kill myself to stop the chronic pain. Do they make me “high� No. They make me itch if I take too many. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who takes these things who feels euphoric as a result. Instead, they only feel a bit less pain for a few hours.
I hear that some 9 million oxycdone pills have been shipped to a town of 400 in West Virginia. I agree that this seems odd at the least. So, why don’t the authorities descend on small town WV and leave me the hell alone? And, if some stupid know-nothing kids want to use them as a means of suicide, my only reaction is that I hope they do it before they reproduce. Why is any large scale method of suicide a “crisis†in a world that has several billion more humans than it needs. Sounds more like a solution to me.
But then, maybe my “addiction†has made me mean. Isn’t that what these chemicals do – make us into something worse than we are without them? I don’t really think so. I think there are inherent losers in every society who will find a path to self destruction and government’s only legitimate role is to try to prevent them harming others on their way to the oblivion they seek. If opioids furnish a relatively painless path to oblivion for the losers and some temporary relief for us old arthritis sufferers, I say, “bring ’em onâ€.
This mashup isn’t from conspiracy theorists; it’s from the NYT:
Listen carefully to the audio. Notice how much of the time the shooter is firing single shots, or not at all. Note: they counted a couple of short consecutive bursts individually, which I had counted together when I found only ten episodes of automatic fire, approximately once a minute.
Their count of 900 rounds fired at the crowd comports with my own estimate of 1000 rounds or less. In any case, 900/12=75. The only way to fire an average of 75 rounds per burst with an AR-15, would be with drum type magazines. I have heard nothing regarding such magazines being at the crime scene, and the leaked photos do not show any.
I still think that many of the sustained ~100 round bursts were probably from belt-fed weapons, such as the M-249. This would also make a lot more sense out of the time and effort expended to set up tripod tables. Although designated a ‘light machine gun,’ which can be shoulder or hip fired, the M-249 still weighs over twice that of a M-16. Then again, I suppose firing 1100 rounds (counting the 200 fired through the door) offhand with either weapon, would be a bit daunting for a pudgy 61-year-old besotted gambler. ◄Daveâ–º
Step 3:Â Buy a pant suit wherever-the-hell Hillary Clinton shops.
Step 4:Â Smile like you just smoked a doobie and executed a close relative.
Step 5:Â Nailed it!
—
Wow… I was able to copy and paste Scott’s entire post, pictures and all, over here in one simple operation! WordPress is getting effortless to use! 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:
Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment…
The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17th & 18th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.
As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.
The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.
I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.â€
Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.†I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.
The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.†That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.
My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?
It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.
More tutoring from Chris:
“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.â€
It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.
You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.
“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.â€
Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►
So, some nut case in Las Vegas collects an arsenal in his hotel room then uses said arsenal to kill and wound hundreds of people.
And, we-the-sheeple demand to know why.
Well, there are the usual suspects… the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, the GOP, Donald Trump, etc.
I beg to offer another very different point of view.
For years, the progressive movement in the USA has repeated the mantra that nobody is personally responsible for the outcome of their life. It is all the fault of THEM.
From all accounts, the Las Vegas nut was distraught over his massive gambling losses. (Can one assume that the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, etc. forced this nut to gamble and lose a fortune? Of course not.) But, according to the progressive mantra, the gambler himself could not have been responsible. Nope, it was all due to THEM.
So, our nut case does the only logical thing… he kills and wounds as many of THEM as he possibly can.
In a sick way, doesn’t this actually make some sense? THEY cause these awful things to happen to you so you strike back against THEM as best you know how.
If you don’t know Dave Rubin and Candace Owens, you should. He is gay. She is black. Both have moved decidedly from the Left to the Right, and can articulate why. Here is an excellent opportunity to get to know them both:
I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.
Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.
The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►
Profound: “My education was not free – I paid for it with my mind!†-Candace Owens
Start here:
…to watch the last 15 minutes of this remarkable interview. If you find her as inspirational as I do, then when you have the time you’ll want to go back and watch the whole hour from the beginning.
BTW: Here is her hot YouTube channel. Her clips are all short and powerful. Enjoy… â—„Daveâ–º
How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.
Are we winning?
The answer is a simple NO.
Why aren’t we winning?
Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?
I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?
First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religionâ€. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just thatâ€. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.
Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for†group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal†really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.â€) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).
But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islamâ€. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war†instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical†form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals†by this supposedly “other†branch of Islam.
That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.
Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.
Would the “left†have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.
My Stateless Mind
