Monday, December 31, 2007

Happy New Year!

I want to end this year with a quote from the Indian epic tale of Krishna and Arjuna - the Mahābhārata:

Earth is strewn over with bright
weapons and red with blood. She
resembles a dark dancing girl
dressed in crimson, fallen, confused
with wine, her golden bells and
silver ornaments all deranged...

But it is illusion. It is done in play.
Who has been slain?
Who has done murder here?
Here's to a New Year, full of hope and promise.
To my Muslim brothers, patience -
If I am worthy, allow me to do battle with you.
I will be happy to slay you.

- No Apology

Sunday, December 30, 2007

The Savage Nation Calls CAIR's Bluff

For the past several months I turned my attention to a whole panoply of wrongs being perpetrated on America and it's sovereign citizens. But at the close of 2007, I really should make a statement defining how I truly feel about the so-called, "Religion of Peace", and about Islam and Muslims generally. But Michael Savage of The Savage Nation beat me to the punch:

"I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear any more about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."
Ditto. I don't want to be sensitive to "Muslim feelings" - I don't give a crap about Muslim feelings, and as I have done in the past, I will continue to do everything in my power to shine the light on their deceptive, deceitful, hateful, warring ways.

Here's a little taste of the "Religion of Peace"'s September 1st, a day all Russian children look forward to - it's the first day of school, an annual celebration - full of hope and excitement.

Then the Chechens showed up.

The next time you hear CAIR speak about Islam as a "religion of peace", remember this event.

Trackbacked to: Woman Honor Thyself

Friday, December 28, 2007

The Real Face of The European Union (EU)

After pondering that silly fluff-piece yesterday on democratic freedom by the Christian Science Monitor, I want to bring attention to what is actually happening in Europe and England, as the European Union tightens it's grip on all the sovereign nations within Europe - and the UK, by creating a new superstate.

There is a plan, whose implementation is being carried out daily, in which the United States will be drawn into the same global government. Our sovereign status will be trumped by the United Nations treaties, of which the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is only one component, and looked upon favorably by President George Bush. Unless the light is shown upon the madness of such treaties, we will inexorably lose our sovereignty as individuals and as a nation.

The following video shines such a light on the origin and implementation of the EU.

Hat tip to The New Zonka Blog

The Real Face of The European Union (EU)

For more information on how this New World Order is being implemented, visit Euro-Med and SIAD. There you will discover that The European Council on Foreign Relations, the (Communist) George Soros founded think-tank, in collaboration with the US Council on Foreign Relations, are part of a vast international shadow government, called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), which conspire to tighten the Totalitarian grip upon the entire world.

Oh, you thought Communism was dead? Think again.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Live Within The Truth - Or, Live Within The Lie

Christian Science Monitor

'Live within the truth'

Global freedom has suffered increasing assaults. The words of Václav Havel offer encouragement.

December 24, 2007

Vladimir Putin is Time's "Person of the Year"? What about Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov, forced to withdraw his presidential bid because of state harassment? What about Burma's monks, beaten into silence? Standing for freedom is much harder than suppressing it.

Liberty around the world has taken it on the chin, and worse, this year, no small thanks to Mr. Putin. Freedom House, a nonprofit which tracks the progress of civil and human rights, concludes that 2007 saw an "increased assault" on freedom. This follows a decade of "freedom stagnation."

When rights are under attack is exactly the time when individuals need to take a stand for them. Václav Havel, the former anti-Communist dissident from Prague, talks about this in an essay called "The Power of the Powerless." He wrote it 11 years before the 1989 "Velvet Revolution" brought democracy peacefully to what was then-Czechoslovakia.

Imagine, he posed, that one day a greengrocer no longer places a propaganda slogan in his shop window, then stops voting in farcical elections. The grocer starts to say what he thinks at political meetings and even expresses solidarity with those whom he supports.

"In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie," wrote Mr. Havel. "He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity. He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth." Of course, the grocer's actions invite consequences. For Havel, standing for truth brought imprisonment; for others, it costs their life.

In itself, the greengrocer's action has no power, Havel continues. Its potency lies in the light it sheds on his surroundings – light that others see. That is what gives it power, and why, he maintains, living the truth is the greatest threat to autocratic governments built on lies.

Leading such a life is easier in some places than others. In Venezuela this fall, university students successfully campaigned against a constitutional referendum that would have allowed President Hugo Chávez to run for president indefinitely. Mr. Chávez vilified the students, who also personally watched over ballot boxes to insure the integrity of the vote. The referendum failed.

In Pakistan, lawyers and others staged protests this year against emergency rule and manipulation of the Supreme Court. Media images of attorneys in suits and ties, hurling tear-gas shells back toward police, shone a light – Havel's metaphor – on injustice.

Those pictures helped pressure President Pervez Musharraf to give up his military title and formally end emergency rule in advance of next month's elections, though their fairness is still in doubt. Pakistan's lawyers met with some success. But that is not the case for many defenders of liberty who patiently carry on in the face of hopelessness and repression.

- [NOTE: So Bhutto is dead. Hey, that's how the Islamists do it. And these are the people who want to set up shop here in the US?]

Burma's military brutally dispersed protesting monks in September. Will they regroup and try again? Like Havel, who later became president of a free Czechoslovakia, those who take a stand for liberty don't know when their actions will bear fruit. But they persist. Small or large, their actions expose repression for the lie that it is, and radiate encouragement to others who seek to live freedom's truth.

RANT: Is it just me, or is the CS Monitor missing the point here? Seems to me that the CSM is ignoring the attack on freedom within our own shores, where there is evidence aplenty that we have just such a condition of intellectual dishonesty - of Orwellian blindness right here in the US.

Islamic terrorists are afoot, doing what they do. So the politicians, aided by the MSM, pound us over the heads daily, hourly, for example, with memes of the so-called "War On Terror". A dizzying array of government policies, wars, and expenditures are given legitimacy under the cover of such false hysteria. Go after the terrorists Islamists, and stop trying to export Democracy. The rag-heads are sitting on all the oil, which gives them money & power? Declare war on them and kick their ass into the next world. That's all.

At the rate we're going in America, the Socialists will soon have complete control over the federal government - the masses have been positioned to swallow damn near anything dangled on the hook of TV - TV being the main means of disseminating the PC, multicultural bait. Like an animal swallowing a piece of meat that has a coiled steel spring inside, we ignore the disaster which awaits us at the hands of militant secularism - the demise of freedom, the end of sovereignty.

Americans must come to see that it is we who are living the lie by swallowing the multicultural bait, and professing to celebrate diversity - when in fact we have dropped to our knees at the alter of Totalitarianism, awaiting absolution which will never come.

This madness has it's root in man's unwillingness to accept the divine reflected within himself - being unwilling to worship the divine, he must bow to a lesser god, which has many names and faces. It is in the names of these gods that all the attrocities throughout history are committed.

To borrow from Thoreau, we are already "living a life of quiet desperation"; we have already entered Chief Seattle's prophetic vision: ..."the end of living and the beginning of survival".

What can we do? We must stop living within the lie, and live within the truth. Do you believe the secular humanists have destroyed our system of public education? There you go...We can begin by taking back the public square from the atheistic secular humanists, and that includes the public arena of your child's school. We must demand, not ask, for our values to be taught to our children. If the schools will not teach them properly, then the schools must be shut down. If we do not do this, then our only alternative is to hunker down, and "live the lie".

Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to prosecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

-Václav Havel

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Truth and Grace

Atheists vs. Grace

by Marvin Olasky
Posted: 12/13/2007

On the roller coaster of history, we're seeing a hands-in-the-air moment as atheistic books soar onto best-seller lists. Some Christians are alarmed at the furious flurry, but there's no need to be: This, too, shall pass.

Atheistic authors see themselves as avant-garde, but they merely are echoing the riffs of 19th-century scoffers who predicted the imminent demise of Christianity. Gilded Age orator Robert Ingersoll, for example, said that when Christians dominate schools and media, it is hard to mount an attack on concepts of revelation and miracles, but "now that religion's monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see those evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are."

So what happened? Why are many churches in the U.S. booming? Why is Christianity expanding so rapidly in Africa and China? To begin to answer that, we should let our imaginations run wild: What if in the 20th century, in the biggest country by land area and also in the biggest country by population, leaders had required the teaching of atheism in all schools? Freed of "feeble-minded inventions," wouldn't the world be a better place?

Oh, you say we don't have to imagine? You say the Soviet Union and China did establish atheism and the results were not pretty? Atheists regularly write about the ravages of the Inquisition. Sure: It appears that the Inquisition over the centuries killed 5,000 people, which in my view is 5,000 too many. But Stalin and Mao killed not 5,000 or 50,000 or 500,000 or 5 million, but at least 50 million. Torturing and killing innocent people is a human phenomenon, not a religious one. There's plenty of sin to go around.

Keeping that Soviet and Chinese experience in mind, it's remarkable that Christopher Hitchens, author of "God Is Not Great," claims his fellow atheists "may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and pursuit of ideas for their own sake." Who is "we"? Hitchens writes that atheists who disagree on a question "resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication." But the 20th century was a century of atheists resolving their disputes not by excommunication, but by murdering each other.

Hitchens argues that biblical commands lead Christians to two conclusions: either "a continual scourging and mortification of the flesh," along with confessions of guilt and denunciation of others, or "organized hypocrisy," with churchgoers paying the religious authorities to give them a break. He offers two alternatives: a "spiritual police state" or a "spiritual banana republic."

But the advent of Christmas offers a third alternative: grace. John Newton, the author of the hymn "Amazing Grace," had been a slave trader. He became a Christian, finally realized the evil he had done and could fight with confidence against slavery, despite his past, because he knew his sins were forgiven.

The atheistic best-sellers often lump together all religions, but Christianity differs from other religions in its emphasis on grace. Lots of religions are bargaining opportunities: "I'll do this for you, Allah, or Vishnu, and you'll do something or me." As we saw on Sept. 11, bargaining religions can cause big trouble sometimes: Fly an airplane into a building, and you get a big reward. Christianity, though, is about grace. We can't buy God off. We can't trade with him. Some folks never understand this, but those who do find it's enormously liberating.

Grace means that when a prodigal son returns, his past is not held against him. Some people keep close records of wrongs and hate the idea of brand-new beginnings, but Christmas celebrates liberation from the past. "He rules the world with truth and grace," the old carol tells us, and the beauty of Christian belief is that truth and grace go together in displaying the "wonders of His love."

Let heaven and nature sing.


Friday, December 21, 2007

Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control

Back by popular demand...GUN FREE ZONE PRESENTATION - "It's time to Stop the Madness"

December 17, 2007

Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control

by Dana Gabriel

There is a war on our freedoms and this includes the right to bear arms. Over the years there has been a mass indoctrination to the evils of guns, which has resulted in the systematic psychological disarmament of the American people. With less armed law-abiding citizens and more gun-free zones, the result has been more helpless victims. It has also demonstrated that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Most crime we are facing will not be solved by further gun control legislation. Furthermore tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all sought to disarm their own citizens in order to control them and ensure their own power. Many genocide victims were deprived of the necessary means to adequately defend themselves. A clear violation of the Second Amendment took place after Hurricane Katrina, when authorities engaged in gun confiscation. In many cases, it was these same guns that kept many individuals, families, and property safe from criminals and thugs when there was no police presence. This has set the precedent for future gun grabbing in times of crisis. There is also a new program in Boston that would allow police with parental permission to search their children's rooms for guns without a search warrant. There has been legislation introduced that would ban U.S. veterans who have experienced even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress from ever owning a firearm. The Second Amendment is about upholding the Founding Fathers vision of a free society, and the disarming of the population is a path to tyranny. History serves as the best example, and we all need to stop being naive and thinking that it can't happen here.

There are calls for stricter gun control laws after almost every mass shooting. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent such tragedies; it makes us less safe. Gun control laws do little to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and they simply ignore any gun-free zones which in turn makes them victim disbarment zones. In many cases it was a gun that prevented a situation from further escalating. We can't rely on the police to save us as they usually show up after a crime has been perpetrated. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals fear an armed citizenry, and it is not surprising that crime tends to rise in an environment where people have lost their ability to properly defend themselves.

On the heels of a mass shooting that took place in a mall in Omaha Nebraska, there were two recent shootings in Colorado which took place some 12 hours and 70 miles apart by the same shooter. It began at a Youth Mission office and ended in Colorado Springs at the New Life Church. The gunman opened fire in the parking lot, and was later shot several times and brought down by an armed security guard. Although he later shot himself in the head, this is a good example of guns saving lives. The attacker had a backpack which contained as much as 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and the heroic actions of an armed security guard prevented anymore bloodshed. Also recently, Washington Redskin's football player, Sean Taylor became yet another victim of gun control and disarmament. Although his probation had ended, he was unable to own a gun because he had plea bargained. Someone broke into his house, and he tried to defend himself and his family with a machete. He was shot and later died. A population that is disarmed is defenseless and is more easily enslaved.

Only an armed civilian population can properly defend themselves and resist a tyrannical government. When the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933, they immediately began massive search and seizures of firearms to further neutralize their political opponents. The Gestapo later established a system of central registration of persons obtaining firearms. Hitler's gun control and disarming of the population almost completely guaranteed that firearms were in the possession of Nazi supporters and sympathizers and made any kind of armed resistance inside Germany next to impossible. Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we would possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” The Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals and is about preventing tyranny. Gun control and the disarming of the population threatens a nation's very survival. It should come as no surprise that the United Nations, which is essentially the mechanism for world government, wishes to gut the Second Amendment and institute a global gun ban that would include the private ownership of firearms.

The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless. Many who advocate gun control want every gun in the world to be under UN control. This includes rifles, shot guns, and hand guns. Past UN conferences and forums have proposed a ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than a government official and strategies to reduce the number of handguns in private hands. Others initiatives include a worldwide licensing of firearms registered and administrated by the UN and mandating a maximum one gun per person. They also wish to develop and implement an effective disarmament, dembilization, and reintegration program. The United Nations remains a threat to the Second Amendment , our sovereignty, and security and international laws, and treaties further jeopardize our freedoms. Only after the American people have been disarmed can world governance truly be achieved.

Gun control and the disarming of law-abiding citizens should never be a solution to reducing crime and serves as a recipe for tyranny. Criminals rarely obtain firearms legally, and gun-free zones act as safe havens for criminals and crazies alike, making us all less safe and potential victims. There is a push for tougher gun control in Europe that would include a centralized firearm registration program as opposed to one controlled by individual European Union nations. History has demonstrated that the biggest advocates of gun control and limiting self-defense are those wishing to further empower the state. The training and tactics of police departments have changed, and in the process their traditional role of serving and protecting has been largely abandoned. We need to become more self sufficient and rely less on government, and this includes our own personnel safety. In many respects we are already in a police state. We have almost lost our freedom to challenge the government, and one of the final stages will be the disarming of the American people. It is a fact that the state is the leading cause of unnatural death. An armed citizenry remains an obstacle and a threat to the New World Order's agenda and its power monopoly. We need to restore and protect the Second Amendment and support gun rights. This is not a privilege, and the right to bear arms not only protects citizens and their property, but acts as a deterrent to government tyranny.

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"

(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 [1982]).

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

Thursday, December 20, 2007

World History Revisited

A vastness of conspiracy confronts mankind. When it dawned on me, I thought, "No way, this can't be right". I was unable to penetrate the cloud of deception, so I decided to follow the money. I discovered the bread-crumb trail always led back to the philanthropic organizations, and though I was unprepared for the shock of what I was seeing, I was able to search out thinkers who have already absorbed the magnitude of evil deception on the world's stage. Nancy Levant is one of those thinkers, as she ably demonstrates here, and elsewhere.

I admire the way Nancy Levant's mind works. Her power lies in her ability to reduce matters to their simplest elements, and for that I owe her a debt of gratitude. She looks like a good-natured schoolteacher, and she could be, for all I know. But beneath that sweet exterior lies a mind like a steel trap.


Nancy Levant
October 9, 2007

History can be summed up in one sentence: Deception, treachery, and bloodshed used to steal; new and enforced powers take command; new fortunes and powers are created; several generations of acceptance called false peace; new missions are set into play to rejuvenate and grow greater wealth, and plans are instigated to re-take/re-steal the accumulated wealth of the masses, which is history in a nutshell.

Sadly, we have never learned, never comprehended, the symbiotic relationship between war and political greed-based theft. Mankind just doesn’t fathom this kind of deception after several generations of relative peace. And mankind always forgets that wars, bloodshed, viciousness, and theft are always planned, funded, and carried out by the world’s aristocracies. In another nutshell, they kill commoners, over and over again, and throughout all written history, to ensure their leadership and constant wealth. It is extraordinary how simple and constant the pattern remains, and that mankind has allowed the so very few to bring this nightmarish pattern to fruition and repeatedly throughout human history. What a bizarrely unending tragedy.

And the sorriest aspects of these thieving traditions lie in the fact that the entire system is based upon mutual loathing between the common man and his historical masters. They despise us as lesser beings, and we despise them for the murderous thieves that they are, BUT we forget, generation to generation, the atrocities of the wealthy few. We forget the arrogance, the deceptive lies of their politics and greed, which trumps all aspects of any possible sense of humanity or compassion toward others. Surely we can agree that the love of money is, in fact, the root of evil.

I spent the past few days exploring federal grants. I suggest to all researchers that you do the same to see where research dollars are being funneled. Look, for instance, for healthcare grants and foundations. Man, oh man – talk about terrifying projects in the works. People experimentation – plain and simple – and intentions of which mankind is totally unaware - the one’s who have absconded with our wealth, once again, are in total financial mission to experiment upon and alter the cerebral abilities of mankind. Their new “sciences” are beyond belief, and I strongly suggest that you spend a day looking at grant and foundation monies currently available for the asking. If you still believe that all is well in the political world, you need to explore today’s grant opportunities, and particularly under the heading of “health.”

It is now beyond the intellectual capacity of mankind to read and comprehend history because history has been re-written, altered, and skewed by the owner/handlers of media and publishing industries. This we know. But what we can comprehend is that deception-based theft, war, and constant bloodshed breeds historical hatreds that do not, can not, and will not end. And as such, the perpetuation of hatreds and wars “scientifically” exists to propagate on-going wealth and power sustaining structures that have always rendered the common man as victim, poverty stricken, vulnerable, and enslaved by the whims of political warmongers. And the very, very few throughout all written human history have used war, terror, and theft to sustain powers and wealth. It’s a theft scheme, people – nothing more – nothing less – and it continues to rob all people of their futures. When has there ever been peace? Never, for war produces too much wealth for the few for peace to exist. It is not economically feasible for great wealth to sustain itself without on-going bloodshed.

Today, the entire world is operating on the global economy of warfare. This is why a new world military order is being erected in every nation of the world. This is why new paramilitary systems are being erected in every nation in the world. And this is why “crisis and civilian management” has become the new mantra of the world’s aristocrats, politicians, think tanks, sciences, and philanthropic and foundation organizations. Global wars, like WWI and WWII are but pale comparisons to what new world wars will cause and create for the masses AND for the very, very few.

Mankind is being psychologically re-wired and trained into servitude, all encompassing rules and regulation, to work for low or no pay (mandatory “volunteerism”), and we are being desensitized to living in a panoptical reality, where privacy, including private thoughts, private distain, or even disagreement are criminal acts. The world’s people are becoming group labor clones, while the political elite stand before humanity, day in and day out, and lie about the finality of their legislating, their treaties, and the restructuring of their power. And why would they do this to mankind? For the money and power that it has historically guaranteed, but still, there is more to fear.

Trouble on Earth is mandated – as we well know. Good and evil is universal. And it is our destiny to never fully understand its consequences. We can only imagine the fallout of ultimate and global endgames. And trust me - a 72-hour kit won’t cut it. However, intelligent indivisibility on the side of Good will bring forth promised hope and, pray, protection. And at this stage in history, I surely would not count on your churches for protection. They are, after all, corporations. And as we know, globalism is based upon corporations and war profits. Why don’t you mull that one over...

And evil – coupled with biotechnologies of many makes and measures – is enhanced. Evil – coupled with global armies – is enhanced. Evil – coupled with unrealized superpowers – is enhanced into something with no experience by which mankind can prepare. When the elites have told us for decades that their missions cannot be stopped, I suggest you believe them in earnest. Though they lie for their extraordinary livings, their powers, I suggest to you, are literally unimaginable, and we, the people, are, in fact, fragile creatures. Therefore, don’t get too cocky. If you believe in God, now’s the time to demonstrate it.

“The Plan” to subjugate humanity is an old plan, but one that the new age world does not understand in full. It is a plan for control over the whole of Earth. It does not include “conservation,” or love of nature, equity, equality, or ecology. These are the cover stories for the real Plan, and this is what mankind needs to know.

American history, much less the history of the world, is all but gone to most living human beings. It only takes a few generations to recreate reality when you have all the money in the world to buy reality into existence and worse yet, when you have all the money in the world to buy science-based human alteration into existence. And this is the reality we face, remembering that is OUR money - illegally absconded - that paid for the human altering sciences that we now face.

The war game is the same old historical game, but the sciences, technologies, and drugs that are being developed to change commoners into automatons, and equally strangled by new world rules and extraordinary superpowers, will surely change all courses of human events. It’s too easy to say that evil is afoot, but it’s just so bewildering when so very few can continue, century after century, to devastate and brutalize peaceful people, cultures, and existences for power, money, and the ultimate control of Earth. It makes one wonder if there is something wrong with the brains and souls of the masses – knowing that this time they really are after the souls of mankind. You’d think that mankind would get mad enough to stop them – once and for all – before suppression becomes the global condition. However, universal law says otherwise.

Yes, it’s too easy to say that evil is afoot. However, what more is there to say?

© 2007 Nancy Levant - All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, December 19, 2007


WND Exclusive Commentary
Posted: December 19, 2007

Have yourself a dreary little Christmas

By Burt Prelutsky

Over the last several years, a time of year that was traditionally a period of goodwill and universal brotherhood, when even actual brothers somehow managed to set aside sibling rivalries for a month or so, Christmas has become an annual battleground between decent people and a relatively small number of secular leftists who insist on carrying on as if auditioning for the role of Scrooge.

As many of you are no doubt aware, this year, Fort Collins, Colo., got a jump start on the foolishness. The town fathers, by making every effort not to offend anyone, have, like so many other town fathers in America, figured out a way to offend the greatest possible number.

I, for one, blame the ACLU. That's the group that, under the guise of promoting and protecting civil rights, has managed to bully any number of municipalities into accepting their lie that the Constitution demands the separation of church and state when, in fact, it does nothing of the kind. Aside from making freedom of religion an irrevocable right, the only thing the Constitution does is prohibit Congress from establishing a religion. There's nothing in the document that prevents Fort Collins from placing a Christmas tree or 20 Christmas trees in the town square.

But the bah-humbuggers raised such a stink over the course of the last few years that the city established a 17-member Holiday Display Task Force to deal with such matters as the color of holiday lights (red and green are out, blue and white are in), whether they can make do without an actual Christmas tree but allow one to be shown on a flat screen video panel, and whether or not Santa Claus is a religious figure. One wonders if "A Christmas Carol" or "Miracle on 34th Street" airs on a local TV station in December, whether or not the Task Force will demand that "The Last Temptation of Christ" be granted equal air time.

What this annual brouhaha brings home is that whereas the rights of the minority should never be ignored, neither should they automatically take precedence over the rights of the majority. But thanks to the ACLU and America's elected officials, that's become more and more the case.

The contempt that arrogant office holders in our country show for the concerns of their constituents is very nearly as great as the contempt France's nobility exhibited toward the peasants in the 18th century shortly before the peasants decided that the nobles would not only look better, but cause far less mischief without their heads.

Whether it's Hillary's plan for socialized medicine, Dick Durbin's blind hatred of the U.S. military or George Bush's cavalier attitude where illegal aliens are concerned, our politicians time and time again remind us that it's their country to do with as they wish, and that the rest of us are just a bunch of brats who should neither be seen nor heard.

Quite obviously, in their vision of the best of all possible worlds, we the people would simply shut up, go to our rooms and, of course, pay our taxes.


Say Uncle has an informative post on Bill O'Reilly's attempts to have a peek at the ACLU's finances...

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Linear A-theist Dogma Rules the Courts

Judge orders 'gay' agenda taught to Christian children

Rules kids need teachings to be 'engaged and productive citizens'

Posted: February 24, 2007

By Bob Unruh

David Parker and his team of lawyers approach the reporters and TV cameras after a recent
motions hearing. Left to right: Robert Sinsheimer, Jeffrey Denner, David Parker, Neil Tassel

A federal judge in Massachusetts has ordered the "gay" agenda taught to Christians who attend a public school in Massachusetts, finding that they need the teachings to be "engaged and productive citizens."

U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf yesterday dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by David Parker, ordering that it is reasonable, indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Wolf essentially adopted the reasoning in a brief submitted by a number of homosexual-advocacy groups, who said "the rights of religious freedom and parental control over the upbringing of children … would undermine teaching and learning…"

David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin, who have children of school age in Lexington, Mass., brought the lawsuit. They alleged district officials and staff at Estabrook Elementary School violated state law and civil rights by indoctrinating their children about a lifestyle they, as Christians, teach is immoral.

"Wolf's ruling is every parent's nightmare. It goes to extraordinary lengths to legitimize and reinforce the 'right' (and even the duty) of schools to normalize homosexual behavior to even the youngest of children," said a statement from the pro-family group Mass Resistance.

It also is making available background information about the lengthy dispute.

"In the ruling, Wolf makes the absurd claim that normalizing homosexuality to young children is 'reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.' According to Wolf, this means teaching 'diversity' which includes 'differences in sexual orientation.'

"In addition, Wolf makes the odious statement that the Parkers' only options are (1) send their kids to a private school, (2) home-school their kids, or (3) elect a majority of people to the School Committee who agree with them. Can you imagine a federal judge in the Civil Rights era telling blacks the same thing – that if they can't be served at a lunch counter they should just start their own restaurant, or elect a city council to pass laws that reflect the U.S. Constitution?" the organization said.

Lawyers for the families said they already had planned an appeal of the judge's opinion.
(read the rest...)


Yet more legislating of social agenda from the bench. This is actually a good thing. Here's why: Patricia Neill spelled it out, clearly right here: Squeeze, Baby, Squeeze.

These atheist dogma-pushers have been safely ensconced behind the ivory towers of our universities for a long time now. Advancing their Godless, socialist agenda in the relative comfort of tenured positions, protected by administrators who have bought into the whole cultural relativism ideology.

The history of this movement, if you will, is well known. It spread out into society like a rank tumor, first in the universities, then out into the political arena - through the various think-tanks funded by the robber barons, Rothschild, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, etc. Their influence began to take shape as the various quasi-non-governmental commissions, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Trilateral Commission, took their direction from the The Round Table's Bilderbergers network of good old boys rich, atheist elitists, the Club of Rome, etc.

Of course, this was made possible by the 1913 enactment of the Federal Reserve (which isn't federal at all, since it is a privately owned company), without which this global power grab would not be possible.

And this has been accomplished virtually behind closed doors, ie., the American public is totally unaware of the insidiousness of the take-over. But though the American public may be unaware of the vast power grab by the elite, they ain't stupid. Mis-guided and mis-informed, but not stupid. So when the federal judges, political appointees all, begin to try to hurry the legislative process of socializing America, with their rule-by-fiat methods, they are going to run into a buzz-saw.

Now the cat's out of the bag, and people aren't going to stand for it. Government no longer represents the will of the American people. This little dog-and-pony show being displayed by the politicians at each general election is bound to implode.

So yeah, keep on squeezing - it's the best thing that could happen. The remedy is in the pain.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Massacre of the Innocents

Two articles from the archives of

Question: How many of us remember the three shootings mentioned in this first article? Honestly, I have a vague memory of two of them. Remember, this happened almost three years ago. Isn't it true that we have become almost innured to massacres of innocents? Webster defines innured as: transitive verb : to accustom to accept something undesirable.

The MSM would have us commiserate, seek closure, and put it behind us. The thing is, these massacres of the innocents keep on happening with regularity, and for a very good reason: crackpots seek out gun-free zones to make their statement. We are literally being set-up.

I am beginning to understand that I must eat, sleep, breathe the convictions that I hold regarding sovereignty in America. What is the price for such vigilance? A slow burn, and desire to act in accordance with the liberty accorded a free man.

As I witness the perfidies being played out in the federal government, I am more determined than ever to fight for freedom in America.

Disarming Citizens and Multiple Murders

March 25, 2005

by John R. Lott, Jr.

The last ten days have seen three horrific multiple-victim public shootings: the Atlanta courthouse attack that left four murdered; the Wisconsin church shooting, where seven were murdered, and Monday's high-school shooting in Minnesota, where nine were murdered. What can be learned from these attacks? Some take the attacks as confirmation that guns should be completely banned from even courthouses, let alone schools and churches.

The lessons from the courthouse shooting are likely to be different from the other two attacks in that there were armed sheriff's deputies present. Even if civilian gun possession were banned at the courthouse, the officers still had guns. Not only did they fail to stop the attack, they even facilitated it, because the 200-pound former football linebacker who was facing trial for rape was able to take the gun.

Guns are most useful in stopping criminals at a distance. The threat of using the gun against a criminal can allow one to capture him, or at least can cause the criminal to break off his attack. Police have a much more difficult job than civilians.

While civilians can use a gun to maximize the distance between themselves and criminals, police can not be satisfied with simply brandishing a gun and watching the criminal run away. Their job requires physical contact, and when that happens, things can go badly wrong.

My own published research on criminals assaulting police shows that the more likely that an assault will be successful, the more likely criminals will be to make it. The major factor determining success is the relative strengths and sizes of the criminal and officer. In particular, when officer strength and size requirements are reduced because of affirmative action, each one-percent increase in the number of female officers increases the number of assaults on police by 15 to 19 percent. The Atlanta-courthouse shooting simply arose from such a case.

There is a broader lesson to learn from these attacks. All three attacks took place in areas where gun possession by those who did the attack as well as civilians generally was already banned – so-called "gun-free safe zones." Suppose you or your family are being stalked by a criminal who intends on harming you. Would you feel safer putting a sign in front of your home saying "This Home is a Gun-Free Zone"?

It is pretty obvious why we don't put these signs up. As with many other gun laws, law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, would obey the sign. Instead of creating a safe zone for victims, it leaves victims defenseless and creates a safe zone for those intent on causing harm.

A three-year prison term for violating a gun-free zone represents a real penalty for a law-abiding citizen. Adding three years to a criminal’s sentence when he is probably already going to face multiple death penalties or life sentences for a murderous rampage is probably not going to be the penalty that stops the criminal from committing his crime.

Many Americans have learned this lesson the hard way. In 1985, just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws – laws that automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 37 states. Bill Landes and I have examined all the multiple-victim public shootings with two or more victims in the United States from 1977 to 1999 and found that when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.

No other gun-control law had any beneficial effect. Indeed, right-to-carry laws were the only policy that consistently reduced these attacks.

To the extent attacks still occurred in right-to-carry states, they overwhelmingly happened in the special places within those states where concealed handguns were banned. The impact of right-to-carry laws on multiple-victim public shootings is much larger than on other crimes, for a simple reason. Increasing the probability that someone will be able to protect themselves, increases deterrence. Even when any single person might have a small probability of having a concealed handgun, the probability that at least someone will is very high.

Unfortunately, the restrictive concealed-handgun law now in effect in Minnesota bans concealed handguns around schools and Wisconsin is one of four states that completely ban concealed handguns, let alone not allowing them in churches.

(There was a guard at the Minnesota school and he was apparently the first person killed, but he was also apparently unarmed.) While permitted concealed handguns by civilians are banned in Georgia courthouses, it is not clear that the benefit is anywhere near as large as other places simply because you usually have armed law enforcement nearby. One possibility is to encourage prosecutors and others to carry concealed guns around courthouses.

These restrictions on guns in schools weren't always in place. Prior to the end of 1995 when the Safe School Zone Act was enacted, virtually all the states that allowed citizens, whether they be teacher or principles or parents, to carry concealed handguns let them carry them on school grounds. Even Minnesota used to allow this.

Some have expressed fears over letting concealed permit holders carry guns on school campuses, but over all the years that permitted guns were allowed on school property there is no evidence that these guns were used improperly or caused any accidents.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed – even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years. Seldom do cases make the news where public shootings are stopped or mothers use guns to prevent their children from being kidnapped. Few would know that a third of the public-school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns before uniformed police could arrive.

In an analysis that I did during 2001 of media coverage of guns, the morning and evening national-news broadcasts on the three main television networks carried almost 200,000 words on contemporaneous gun-crime stories. By comparison, not one segment featured a civilian using a gun to stop a crime. Newspapers are not much better.

Police are extremely important in deterring crime, but they almost always arrive after the crime has been committed. Annual surveys of crime victims in the United States continually show that, when confronted by a criminal, people are safest if they have a gun. Just as the threat of arrest and prison can deter criminals from committing a crime, so can the fact that victims can defend themselves.

Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore that the nations with the highest homicide rates have gun bans. Studies, such as one conducted recently by Jeff Miron at Boston University, which examined 44 countries, find that stricter gun-control laws tend to lead to higher homicide rates. Russia, which has banned guns since the Communist revolution, has had murder rates several times higher than that of the United States; even under the Communists, the Soviet Union's rate was much higher.

Good intentions don't necessarily make good laws. What counts is whether the laws ultimately save lives. Unfortunately, too many gun laws primarily disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of The Bias Against Guns Copyright © 2005 John Lott


The second, more recent, article - also from the archives ...

The Ideal Self-Defense Weapon

December 3, 2007

by Charley Reese

People who believe in gun control are ignorant, superstitious or stupid. Violence is not caused by inanimate objects. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, including gun-control laws. Therefore, the only accomplishment of gun-control laws is to assure the criminals that their victims will be unarmed.

When the state of Florida was considering a law allowing honest citizens to carry concealed weapons, my liberal colleagues at the newspaper became virtually hysterical. They were certain the murder rate would skyrocket and that there would be shootings on every street corner and at supermarket checkout counters. The law was passed, and the murder rate did not skyrocket. Nor did hundreds of thousands of Floridians apply for concealed-weapon permits. After all, lugging around a pound or so of iron is inconvenient.

What their hysteria revealed, however, was how far removed from reality elitists are. How could any sane person imagine that his fellow citizens would suddenly go berserk if they had access to a firearm? It shows you what low opinion elitists have of their fellow man.

Having been born in the Deep South by the grace of God and having lived in the South, by choice, my whole life, I have lived among people who had access to firearms. In the South, there is a cultural rule: Never insult a man you are not prepared to fight, and never fight a man you are not prepared to kill. Southerners, unlike people in some parts of the country, all have lines they do not allow other people to cross.

I have been blessed to live with such people. I guarantee you that Southerners would not stand around and watch some criminal murder a woman, as happened in an infamous case in New York City.

On one of my visits to Georgia, I heard a local newscast about a man who attempted to rob a store and was captured by the store's customers. The news story said police planned to charge the man "as soon as he is released from the hospital."

Another point to consider about gun control is that no criminal attacks an innocent person in the presence of the police. Even if the victim can get to a telephone, he has to deal with the criminal until the police arrive. So ask yourself: How do you plan to deal with a violent criminal? The best thing to do is shoot the villain.

A friend of mine, a South Korean tae kwon do master and a former member of South Korean intelligence, was laughing one day about kung fu schools, which teach students the use of the broadsword and the halberd.

"Who is going to walk around carrying a broadsword?" he said. "Besides, if your life is in danger, use a gun."

Some years ago, a store owner in Texas, after several burglaries, decided to sleep in the store and eventually killed two armed burglars who broke in.

"Now I know what a conservative is," the store owner said. "He's a liberal who's been robbed one damned time too many."

The gun is the ideal self-defense weapon. It can be wielded by a woman, a child, an elderly person or even an invalid. There was an old saying in the American West: "God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal."

The Supreme Court is about to decide an issue based on the Second Amendment. God only knows how the court will rule, but the Bill of Rights is crystal-clear. It guarantees the people, not the states or the militias, the right to keep and bear arms. Let's hope the Supreme Court justices understand plain English.

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Thanks For Nothing, Brady Bunch

I'm sick and tired of hearing, right after another massacre, that "it is a time for healing, a sad time".

President Bush was in Omaha on Wednesday to attend a fundraiser and left on Air Force One an hour before the shootings.

A White House statement said Bush was "deeply saddened by the shootings in Omaha."

He's saddened? Saddened? How 'bout "He's angry, furious that the citizens of this country, yet again, have been victimized by the anti-gun zealots"?

But no, his statement said,"Having just visited with so many members of the community," the statement said, "the president is confident that they will pull together to comfort one another as they deal with this terrible tragedy."

Right, 'pull together to comfort one another' - it's a done deal, put it behind us, move on. To Hell with that. How about a time to be angry, outraged that these now relentless killings go on, week after week, month after month, year after year, while the Brady Bunch denies that we have a right to defend ourselves.

Always the officials say the same thing -"it's a time of sorrow, of healing, of putting this behind us" - right after the senseless massacres. They never show outrage. Nope. What we hear right after the call for comforting one another, is what was in the "shooters" mind - oh, he left a suicide note.

"the youth was 'an introverted, troubled young man who was like a lost pound puppy that nobody wanted.' She said that in addition to losing his job, Hawkins had recently broken up with a girlfriend. She said he phoned her about 1 p.m. Wednesday, telling her that he had left a note for her in his bedroom. She pressed for an explanation, but he hung up without elaborating."

How touching. Another tragic youth. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Here are two accounts of the Omaha Mall massacre:

One is by a police officer who arrived on the scene moments after the killer shot his own brains out.


A Cop Speaks About the Von Maur Mall Killer

And he knows thereof because he was there:

Right after the shootings at Von Maur last week, Channel 6 News received message after message about the issue of gun control. We talked to a deputy on the scene who says no law on the books would have stopped the gunman.

Sergeant Shawn Millikan, with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Department, calls it the most surreal moment of his career inlaw enforcement.

“I made entry with a couple of Omaha officers,” he said. “First thing that struck me, I didn’t hear shots. Everything was quiet.”

The only noise was the Christmas music as the deputy secured the scene of a horrific crime.

Sergeant Millikan says, “You never expect it to happen but in the back of your head you know it could.”

Robert Hawkins murdered eight people with a weapon originally intended for military use. He then shot himself to death.

“It’s not commonly used for hunting but some people use it that way,” Sgt. Millikan said. Various people collect. Some people like them.”

The government banned the sale of some assault rifles from 1994 to 2004.

“My personal opinion is, the criminals are still going to have them,” Sgt. Millikan says. “Gun control usually just affects people who follow the laws. There are so many guns out there in society — so saturated — it would take years and even if there’s gun control from this point on it would take years for them not to be in society.”

Sgt. Millikan says people shouldn’t point blame at a weapon but rather at the man who pulled the trigger.

Sgt. Millikan says, “He had to sit there and load every round into that magazine. He even walked into that store before he even started shooting; unarmed. He had plenty of chances to say he wasn’t going to do it so the blame rests on him.”

The next account is from Joe's Crabby Shack: Firsthand account of the Von Maur shooting

"I took a later lunch that day because I had a noon phone meeting with a company out of New York, apparently we’re not on the same lunch schedule. I also planned to take a one-hour lunch that day, instead of a 30-minute lunch, so I could go to Van Maur and pick up some gifts for my wife. We were both there on the evening of Dec 03 with my 1-year-old daughter, and my wife tried on some coats and showed me some bath robes she liked, so I knew exactly what I was going for that day. I asked a co-worker (named K for this story) for directions to Van Maur from my place of business. as she knew a faster route that would get me there quicker.

I left work around 1:15 to 1:20 and arrived at the front doors of Van Maur at 1:35 (shooting -7), I remember specifically looking at my watch as walked in. I came in the south entrance to Van Maur, right by the elevators." (read the rest at Joe's Crabby Shack.)

I want ever man and woman who passes a background check to be able to carry a weapon. Some would even say that the background check violates our right to defend our own life, and I can't entirely disagree. People who carry are generally more responsible, more considerate citizens who will attempt to avoid a confrontation.

I'm no scholar on gun rights, I just know we have to do something to fight back, not become victims just because Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and their ilk think we should run away. I'm certain that the mall victims, and all the other victims of these massacres, would have loved to be able to run away, given they had no means of self-protection. But they didn't get the chance to run away.

They were gunned down by some dirt-bag who "wanted to go out in style, be famous". The last thing family members of the victims need is some putz in Washington "commiserating" with them. What they need, and we all need, is for Washington to remove the shackles from our hands - if they do that, we can take care of ourselves. The police obviously can't protect us - they show up with yellow tape to "secure the area" - so we insist on the right to protect ourselves. If your local and state politicians won't cooperate, then show them the door, post haste.

Thanks for nothing, Brady Bunch.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Pope Brings Sane Message of Family Values


1 JANUARY 2008


1. At the beginning of a New Year, I wish to send my fervent good wishes for peace, together with a heartfelt message of hope to men and women throughout the world. I do so by offering for our common reflection the theme which I have placed at the beginning of this message. It is one which I consider particularly important: the human family, a community of peace. The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family: “All peoples”—as the Second Vatican Council declared—“are one community and have one origin, because God caused the whole human race to dwell on the face of the earth (cf. Acts 17:26); they also have one final end, God”(1).

The family, society and peace

2. The natural family, as an intimate communion of life and love, based on marriage between a man and a woman(2), constitutes “the primary place of ‘humanization' for the person and society”(3), and a “cradle of life and love”(4). The family is therefore rightly defined as the first natural society, “a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order”(5).

3. Indeed, in a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters, the role of authority expressed by parents, loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age, mutual help in the necessities of life, readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them. For this reason, the family is the first and indispensable teacher of peace. It is no wonder, therefore, that violence, if perpetrated in the family, is seen as particularly intolerable. Consequently, when it is said that the family is “the primary living cell of society”(6), something essential is being stated. The family is the foundation of society for this reason too: because it enables its members in decisive ways to experience peace. It follows that the human community cannot do without the service provided by the family. Where can young people gradually learn to savour the genuine “taste” of peace better than in the original “nest” which nature prepares for them? The language of the family is a language of peace; we must always draw from it, lest we lose the “vocabulary” of peace. In the inflation of its speech, society cannot cease to refer to that “grammar” which all children learn from the looks and the actions of their mothers and fathers, even before they learn from their words.

4. The family, since it has the duty of educating its members, is the subject of specific rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represents a landmark of juridic civilization of truly universal value, states that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State”(7). For its part, the Holy See sought to acknowledge a special juridic dignity proper to the family by publishing the Charter of the Rights of the Family. In its Preamble we read: “the rights of the person, even if they are expressed as rights of the individual, have a fundamental social dimension which finds an innate and vital expression in the family”(8). The rights set forth in the Charter are an expression and explicitation of the natural law written on the heart of the human being and made known to him by reason. The denial or even the restriction of the rights of the family, by obscuring the truth about man, threatens the very foundations of peace.

5. Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace. The family needs to have a home, employment and a just recognition of the domestic activity of parents, the possibility of schooling for children, and basic health care for all. When society and public policy are not committed to assisting the family in these areas, they deprive themselves of an essential resource in the service of peace. The social communications media, in particular, because of their educational potential, have a special responsibility for promoting respect for the family, making clear its expectations and rights, and presenting all its beauty.

Humanity is one great family

6. The social community, if it is to live in peace, is also called to draw inspiration from the values on which the family community is based. This is as true for local communities as it is for national communities; it is also true for the international community itself, for the human family which dwells in that common house which is the earth. Here, however, we cannot forget that the family comes into being from the responsible and definitive “yes” of a man and a women, and it continues to live from the conscious “yes” of the children who gradually join it. The family community, in order to prosper, needs the generous consent of all its members. This realization also needs to become a shared conviction on the part of all those called to form the common human family. We need to say our own “yes” to this vocation which God has inscribed in our very nature. We do not live alongside one another purely by chance; all of us are progressing along a common path as men and women, and thus as brothers and sisters. Consequently, it is essential that we should all be committed to living our lives in an attitude of responsibility before God, acknowledging him as the deepest source of our own existence and that of others. By going back to this supreme principle we are able to perceive the unconditional worth of each human being, and thus to lay the premises for building a humanity at peace. Without this transcendent foundation society is a mere aggregation of neighbours, not a community of brothers and sisters called to form one great family.

The family, the human community and the environment

7. The family needs a home, a fit environment in which to develop its proper relationships. For the human family, this home is the earth, the environment that God the Creator has given us to inhabit with creativity and responsibility. We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

8. In this regard, it is essential to “sense” that the earth is “our common home” and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this “home” of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging counties are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

Family, human community and economy

9. An essential condition for peace within individual families is that they should be built upon the solid foundation of shared spiritual and ethical values. Yet it must be added that the family experiences authentic peace when no one lacks what is needed, and when the family patrimony—the fruit of the labour of some, the savings of others, and the active cooperation of all—is well-managed in a spirit of solidarity, without extravagance and without waste. The peace of the family, then, requires an openness to a transcendent patrimony of values, and at the same time a concern for the prudent management of both material goods and inter-personal relationships. The failure of the latter results in the breakdown of reciprocal trust in the face of the uncertainty threatening the future of the nuclear family.

10. Something similar must be said for that other family which is humanity as a whole. The human family, which today is increasingly unified as a result of globalization, also needs, in addition to a foundation of shared values, an economy capable of responding effectively to the requirements of a common good which is now planetary in scope. Here too, a comparison with the natural family proves helpful. Honest and straightforward relationships need to be promoted between individual persons and between peoples, thus enabling everyone to cooperate on a just and equal footing. Efforts must also be made to ensure a prudent use of resources and an equitable distribution of wealth. In particular, the aid given to poor countries must be guided by sound economic principles, avoiding forms of waste associated principally with the maintenance of expensive bureaucracies. Due account must also be taken of the moral obligation to ensure that the economy is not governed solely by the ruthless laws of instant profit, which can prove inhumane.

The family, the human community and the moral law

11. A family lives in peace if all its members submit to a common standard: this is what prevents selfish individualism and brings individuals together, fostering their harmonious coexistence and giving direction to their work. This principle, obvious as it is, also holds true for wider communities: from local and national communities to the international community itself. For the sake of peace, a common law is needed, one which would foster true freedom rather than blind caprice, and protect the weak from oppression by the strong. The family of peoples experiences many cases of arbitrary conduct, both within individual States and in the relations of States among themselves. In many situations the weak must bow not to the demands of justice, but to the naked power of those stronger than themselves. It bears repeating: power must always be disciplined by law, and this applies also to relations between sovereign States.

12. The Church has often spoken on the subject of the nature and function of law: the juridic norm, which regulates relationships between individuals, disciplines external conduct and establishes penalties for offenders, has as its criterion the moral norm grounded in nature itself. Human reason is capable of discerning this moral norm, at least in its fundamental requirements, and thus ascending to the creative reason of God which is at the origin of all things. The moral norm must be the rule for decisions of conscience and the guide for all human behaviour. Do juridic norms exist for relationships between the nations which make up the human family? And if they exist, are they operative? The answer is: yes, such norms exist, but to ensure that they are truly operative it is necessary to go back to the natural moral norm as the basis of the juridic norm; otherwise the latter constantly remains at the mercy of a fragile and provisional consensus.

13. Knowledge of the natural moral norm is not inaccessible to those who, in reflecting on themselves and their destiny, strive to understand the inner logic of the deepest inclinations present in their being. Albeit not without hesitation and doubt, they are capable of discovering, at least in its essential lines, this common moral law which, over and above cultural differences, enables human beings to come to a common understanding regarding the most important aspects of good and evil, justice and injustice. It is essential to go back to this fundamental law, committing our finest intellectual energies to this quest, and not letting ourselves be discouraged by mistakes and misunderstandings. Values grounded in the natural law are indeed present, albeit in a fragmentary and not always consistent way, in international accords, in universally recognized forms of authority, in the principles of humanitarian law incorporated in the legislation of individual States or the statutes of international bodies. Mankind is not “lawless”. All the same, there is an urgent need to persevere in dialogue about these issues and to encourage the legislation of individual States to converge towards a recognition of fundamental human rights. The growth of a global juridic culture depends, for that matter, on a constant commitment to strengthen the profound human content of international norms, lest they be reduced to mere procedures, easily subject to manipulation for selfish or ideological reasons.

Overcoming conflicts and disarmament

14. Humanity today is unfortunately experiencing great division and sharp conflicts which cast dark shadows on its future. Vast areas of the world are caught up in situations of increasing tension, while the danger of an increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons causes well-founded apprehension in every responsible person. Many civil wars are still being fought in Africa, even though a number of countries there have made progress on the road to freedom and democracy. The Middle East is still a theatre of conflict and violence, which also affects neighbouring nations and regions and risks drawing them into the spiral of violence. On a broader scale, one must acknowledge with regret the growing number of States engaged in the arms race: even some developing nations allot a significant portion of their scant domestic product to the purchase of weapons. The responsibility for this baneful commerce is not limited: the countries of the industrially developed world profit immensely from the sale of arms, while the ruling oligarchies in many poor countries wish to reinforce their stronghold by acquiring ever more sophisticated weaponry. In difficult times such as these, it is truly necessary for all persons of good will to come together to reach concrete agreements aimed at an effective demilitarization, especially in the area of nuclear arms. At a time when the process of nuclear non-proliferation is at a stand-still, I feel bound to entreat those in authority to resume with greater determination negotiations for a progressive and mutually agreed dismantling of existing nuclear weapons. In renewing this appeal, I know that I am echoing the desire of all those concerned for the future of humanity.

15. Sixty years ago the United Nations Organization solemnly issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948-2008). With that document the human family reacted against the horrors of the Second World War by acknowledging its own unity, based on the equal dignity of all men and women, and by putting respect for the fundamental rights of individuals and peoples at the centre of human coexistence. This was a decisive step forward along the difficult and demanding path towards harmony and peace. This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the Holy See's adoption of the Charter of the Rights of the Family (1983-2008) and the 40th anniversary of the celebration of the first World Day of Peace (1968-2008). Born of a providential intuition of Pope Paul VI and carried forward with great conviction by my beloved and venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II, the celebration of this Day of Peace has made it possible for the Church, over the course of the years, to present in these Messages an instructive body of teaching regarding this fundamental human good. In the light of these significant anniversaries, I invite every man and woman to have a more lively sense of belonging to the one human family, and to strive to make human coexistence increasingly reflect this conviction, which is essential for the establishment of true and lasting peace. I likewise invite believers to implore tirelessly from God the great gift of peace. Christians, for their part, know that they can trust in the intercession of Mary, who, as the Mother of the Son of God made flesh for the salvation of all humanity, is our common Mother.

To all my best wishes for a joyful New Year!

From the Vatican, 8 December 2007


Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Colorado Ranchers Continue to Resist Army's Pressure

Posted from Las Animas, Colorado

Here we go again. The Army promises to use 'time-out', and 'work with the communities in 'working out a solution'. Working for 'win-win' opportunities...all proper buzz-words to put the coalition to sleep. If anyone believes the Army is holding off on plans to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, then watch and listen to Lt Col Jim Rice's take on the expansion plan . But of course, it all depends on what you mean by 'working with the communities'.

Back in August this was the situation, and the lines are fairly well drawn: the Army wants the land, the ranchers don't want to give it up. There are some redundancies in the following video, but it's the best one I can find, as it lays out both sides of the problem.

Assuredly, the Army intends to work to break down resistance to the expansion, and has a $500,000-a-year contract with Booz Allen Hamilton, an international consulting firm, to help persuade the public, and Southern Colorado ranchers in particular, that the Army needs to nearly triple the size of the 238,000-acre training area northeast of Trinidad. Any other interpretation is simply misleading. They mean to get the land, and Lt Col Rice is on a mission to get 'er done.

Reps. Marilyn Musgrave and John Salazar have worked hard, at some political risk, to stop the Army from spending money on the expansion
. And though I am suspicious of their motives, the one-year suspension at least focuses attention on the problem.

The Army will only use a 'cooling-off period' to obfuscate on their progress. And to maybe sing another verse or two of the "Stars and Stripes Forever". Sec of the Army, Pete Geren, will "address concerns" within the communities affected by the takeover. Ahem, that's shorthand for "deflect concerns" - the Army will use this time-out period to build pressure against any opposition to the expansion.

And the ranchers ain't buying it...Colorado ranchers resist Army's plans

- the latest U.S. Army news release:

Army Commits to Working with Piñon Canyon Communities

Dec 07, 2007

Secretary of the Army Pete Geren today reaffirmed the Army's commitment to working with southeastern Colorado communities to identify and address concerns about the Army's proposed purchase of land from private landowners adjacent to Fort Carson's Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site.

"We will use the 'time-out' period requested by Colorado's Congressional delegation to revisit the issues, listen to people in the local communities for additional ideas, and work constructively with them on how we can meet the Army's training needs as well as the needs of neighboring landowners, residents and local communities," stated Geren, who is responsible for all matters related to the Army.

After discussions with Sen. Ken Salazar, Sen. Wayne Allard and Rep. John Salazar, the Army agreed to a "cooling off" period before proceeding with the planned purchase of land to enhance Fort Carson's key training area, which is located 150 miles southeast of Colorado Springs. Over the coming weeks and months, the Army will reach out to stakeholders, discuss issues of mutual concern, answer questions, and assess where 'win-win' opportunities might be sought.

The Army is seeking to enhance its training capabilities at Fort Carson by purchasing up to 418,000 acres of land adjacent to the Piñon Canyon Maneuver Site. The reason for the planned purchases is to ensure troop readiness by having the proper space for training required by modern warfare. The current 235,896 acre training area is used for large-scale mechanized combat maneuvers and live-fire exercises in support of Army Soldiers from Fort Carson and other installations as well as National Guard and Army Reserve units from all service branches of the military.

"The expansion is vital to ensure that America's young men and women receive the very best training possible before we put them in harm's way," Geren said "It is not only about our country's defense needs today; but it is critical for enhancing the survivability of our Soldiers and protecting our nation in the missions of tomorrow."


The ranching and farming communities are digging in for the long haul. I salute them.