Memory Lane [1]

Herself sez: The Ol’ Curmudgeon has a stock of posts that are slightly dated. But they are still interesting. So from time to time, we will stroll Memory Lane. This one comes from July 2007.

Conundrum –

If we are invaded, do we have the right to forcibly resist? If the Germans had occupied us would the correct response have been to try to throw them out a la French Resistance? Would we not rejoice if we won our freedom and killed and drove out the conquerors? Is it morally correct if we can do it to the original invaders? Is it still correct if it takes a generation to get rid of the bad guys? Two generations? Four? 200 years? 400 years?

A good term for taking the country back and driving out the invaders might be ‘ethnic cleansing’. Think about that.

If it is morally correct, as some of the more radical left states, to give the US back to the Indians – oops, pc = ‘native American’. Or to the Mexicans – who took it from the Indians, who took it from the previous occupying tribes, ad nauseum. Mostly you will notice that they hate the country and that the operative word is ‘give it back’. Now, as I say, if the preceding is morally correct, then why do the same aforementioned leftists get their panties in such a wad over the Serbians? It was their country for quite a while. As in centuries. As in longer than some of the Indian tribes occupied their territories. The Bosnians are Moslem invaders. About 400 years ago the Moslems came in and raped, murdered, pillaged, and occupied. They didn’t go home. To drive people out usually takes a bit of force. I will not defend torture and other such heinous acts. But let us remember, the Bosnians are equally guilty of atrocities against the Serbs. Today. Now. Yesterday. And for the last 400 years. Yet, thanks to the left, the US sided with the Moslems, bombed and invaded the Serbians and forcibly stopped them from driving the invaders from their homes.

Where is the cutoff? When does an occupying people become the native people? Is it ok for one Indian tribe to conquer another? Is it ok for Moslems to conquer and hold territory? Or is it that it is only wrong for European (white) Christians to occupy territory?

There is a marvelous scene in Shogun, both the book and the mini-series. What a concept – a movie that pretty much followed the book! Anyway, Toranaga asks Blackthorn if the Dutch were not vassals of the Spanish throne. Blackthorn allows that this is true. Toranaga states that it is unpardonable for a vassal to rebel against his lord. A true betrayal. Blackthorn insists that there is a case when it may be considered moral. Toranaga queries. Blackthorn’s response – “…if you win!” After a stunned moment Toranaga laughingly admits that Blackthorn has the right of it.

In his Starship Troopers – the real thing, the book, not the movie. How unusual, a movie that has damn near nothing to do with the book. There is considerable philosophy in the book – none in the movie. There is a discussion of the role of force in the history of the world. The upshot is that the drivel about force never solving anything is just that – drivel. The fact is that war – force, is a necessary part of the political process. When discussion, compromise, and diplomacy have failed, then a people can (and will) resort to force to gain their ends. If the opposing group is bent on the destruction of one’s group, either to take all of the food (a rational reason) or for pure hatred (a psychotic motivation), the only choice may be for one’s group to resist with force, or to just surrender and die. I suppose that it is my narrow and provincial attitude, but I prefer for my own group to survive. I think that if we defend because of rational reasons, it will be better for the future if our seed is preserved rather than that of psychotics. Do you lefties want the future to be populated by rational, peaceful people who only use force to defend? Do you want it to be populated by those driven by hatred that will kill anyone who thinks differently? Your choice. Right now you are not headed down a path of survival, for those who will not defend and their offspring will die. Those who are tougher and more determined will populate the future. Think about it. May not be fair. You may want to take your toys and go home. But – that is the way the world works. Think about it.

When the other guy’s goal is your death, non-resistance is always fatal. This may fit your individual philosophy. It doesn’t fit mine. I don’t think it is very noble to let a serial killer get his perverted sexual thrills by one’s pain and death. I would resist. I would not stand by and let a member of my family die horribly and painfully to satisfy another’s wishes. I would resist. I will not stand by while my fellow citizens are brutally butchered because they do not agree with some sick, mad bastard’s view of what their religion should be. I will resist. I will not stand by while other people are enslaved or tortured or brutalized to satisfy another group’s whims. I will resist – with force.

Hey lefties – a question. Why are you all emotional about Darfur? Yes, the Moslem Sudanese government is sponsoring horrible acts of brutality. You know – the standard mix – rape, torture, murder, on men, women, children. So. I see. OK. But why was there no outcry from the left during the Second Sudanese Civil War when 1.9 million were brutally slaughtered and over 4 million driven from their lands? Is it because the victims at Darfur are Moslems and the victims in the Second Civil War were Christian? I hope you guys see that I don’t object to going in to kick the Sudanese Government into some kind of civilized behavior, or changing it. I don’t mind protecting the innocent of Darfur. I do object to not being consistent. I do object to your – I hope unconscious – bigotry against Christians. There’s a damn sight more Christian victim of Moslem cruelty than there have ever been Moslem victims of Christians. I do want to see some of you libs that want us to send the military into Darfur to get off your sanctimonious asses and put your lives on the line for the protection of these people. Enlist. Put your life where your mouth is. Sauce for the goose.

Here’s a lovely quote from George Orwell:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Notes on Nationalism, May 1945

The only addition that I would make is that the thing admired now seems to be the failed socialist system. The libs in this country are still hoopee-hollering for socialized medicine and the Brits are drafting ways to return to private medicine. There is no country practicing socialized medicine successfully today.

It seems to me that Amnesty International talks more about US ‘atrocities’ than they do murder and torture of the innocent practiced as policy by other nations. I will not pay any attention to this crap nor believe them until they start impartially reporting facts instead of showing their hatred of our western democracies.

Hey righties – (you didn’t think I only kick lefties, did you?) – yes, you are on the right general track. Protect our own. Good. Defeat those who would kill us. Good. But – don’t demonize anyone who disagrees with you. This leads you to think that the end always justifies the means. That is true – only if you are a soulless animal. Your opponent is not necessarily your enemy. It is ok to have civil discourse with opponents. It is ok to disagree. Is also ok to kill those who would kill you. But – remember – the populous does not always reflect the murderous desires of their mad leaders. They may be ordinary people caught up in a tidal wave of insanity. Fight to victory – yes. But be rational and compassionate when the victory is won. Be greater in victory than in battle. Don’t try to shove your beliefs on everyone. We are not robots. We have free will. Let us exercise that as civilized humans. A civilized human will fight to victory in response to aggression, but is not the aggressor.

Corporations and Morality –

We humans have created the very interesting entity known as the corporation. Among the marks of the business corporation are:

1. Transferable shares (think stock market)
2. Perpetual succession (just because the president dies, the corporation does not)
3. Limited liability

The corporation has several characteristics that legal types like to talk about, among them are the ability:

1. To sue and be sued
2. To hold assets in its own name
3. To hire agents
4. To sign contracts
5. Make its own internal laws to govern itself

The corporation provides “limited liability” for the owners of the stock. Basically this is supposed to mean that a stockholder cannot be held liable for more than the value of the stock owned.

Now another characteristic or two that seem to be overlooked in discussion are the fact that no matter what the intentions of the founder(s), the only purpose for existence of the modern business corporation is to make money. This not necessarily a bad thing. Without the modern corporation we would not be able to have the production and economy that we do. Corporations provide a living and retirement for millions. This is a good thing.

However, the second characteristic is a result of the first. Employees can distance themselves emotionally from the consequences of other corporate employees. Like this: a company make a potentially useful product that may have unforeseen long-term consequences. Years later the consequences emerge. The people directly responsible are gone, dead or retired or just move on. The current crop of employees had nothing to do with the development of the original product and feel no need to accept responsibility. Now the lawyers get rich, and frequently the injured parties do not have the resources to fight lengthy and complex court battles. This is a bad thing. The corporation gets by with no penalty for the consequences of the past actions. Individual people may be moral. Groups of people are amoral. I might also point out that the corporation, particularly chemical, may have put out a decent product and that people down the line misapplied it. If we humans have an opportunity to screw up, we will.

Now, as I said, corporations are necessary to the modern world, but they sure have drawbacks. Congress tends to try band aids for problems that frequently make things worse. After the scandals of the 90s, and early 2000s, Congress tried a band aid in the form of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Now SOX, as it is known, is one horribly complex set of regulations which boil down to making corporate executives personally responsible for the accuracy of financial statements. Now this sounds like a really good thing. However, there are unseen consequences. First major hitch: never again will a technical person ever head a major corporation, or even be in the upper tier of management. Sounds OK until you realize that no financial type ever created or inspired or approved a major technological innovation. OOPS! We will have increasing profits by job cutting, corner cutting, whatever makes a quarterly short term profit. There will be no investment in long term returns, and strong technical people will have less and less say in the future direction of the corporation. More and more jobs will go overseas. The labor is cheaper even if not as good. And the stockholders will fiddle while Rome burns, as long as there is a dividend. Thanks, SOX!

Obviously, the above is a rather quick and dirty description of a tremendously complex problem. Several things are readily evident:

1. We must have corporations unless the population of the world goes back to pre-industrial agrarian support levels and people work long hours just to eat.
2. We have to figure out how to make corporations responsible for the consequences of their actions.
3. We must protect the investors.

These are some tough questions. They will require tough answers that have been thoroughly thought through. We already have bad legislation that is stifling American industry. We don’t need more. We need some far-sighted long-term legislation for a change. And we definitely need to properly regulate corporations because – the title is misleading. Corporations are amoral.

The Strenuous Life

By Theodore Roosevelt

{Herself Sez: dmsgroupster posted a LOOOOOOoong comment, and the Ol’ Curmudgeon asked me to chop it down and put this speech in a blog post.}

(Extract from speech before the Hamilton Club, Chicago, April 10, 1899. From the “Strenuous Life. Essays and Addresses” by Theodore Roosevelt. The Century Co., 1900.)

In speaking to you, men of the greatest city of the West, men of the State which gave to the country Lincoln and Grant, men who preeminently and distinctly embody all that is most American in the American character, I wish to preach, not the doctrine of ignoble ease, but the doctrine of the strenuous life, the life of toil and effort, of labor and strife; to preach that highest form of success which comes, not to the man who desires mere easy peace, but to the man who does not shrink from danger, from hardship, or from bitter toil, and who out of these wins the splendid ultimate triumph.

A life of slothful ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is as little worthy of a nation as of an individual. I ask only that what every self-respecting American demands from himself and his sons shall be demanded of the American nation as a whole. Who among you would teach the boys that ease, that peace, is to be the first consideration in their eyes–to be the ultimate goal after which they strive? You men of Chicago have made this city great, you men of Illinois have done your share, and more than your share, in making America great, because you neither preach nor practise such a doctrine. You work, yourselves, and you bring up your sons to work. If you are rich and are worth your salt you will teach your sons that though they may have leisure, it is not to be spent in idleness; for wisely used leisure merely means that those who possess it, being free from the necessity of working for their livelihood, are all the more bound to carry on some kind of non-remunerative work in science, in letters, in art, in exploration, in historical research–work of the type we most need in this country, the successful carrying out of which reflects most honor upon the nation. We do not admire the man of timid peace. We admire the man who embodies victorious effort; the man who never wrongs his neighbor, who is prompt to help a friend, but who has those virile qualities necessary to win in the stern strife of actual life. It is hard to fail, but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life we get nothing save by effort. Freedom from effort in the present merely means that there has been stored up effort in the past. A man can be freed from the necessity of work only by the fact that he or his fathers before him have worked to good purpose. If the freedom thus purchased is used aright and the man still does actual work though of a different kind, whether as a writer or a general, whether in the field of politics or in the field of exploration and adventure, he shows he deserves his good fortune. But if he treats this period of freedom from the need of actual labor as a period, not of preparation, but of more enjoyment, he shows that he is simply a cumberer on the earth’s surface, and he surely unfits himself to hold his own with his fellows if the need to do so should again arise. A mere life of ease is not in the end a very satisfactory life, and, above all, it is a life which ultimately unfits those who follow it for serious work in the world.

In the last analysis a healthy State can exist only when the men and women who make it up lead clean, vigorous, healthy lives; when the children are so trained that they shall endeavor, not to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them; not to seek ease, but to know how to wrest triumph from toil and risk. The man must be glad to do a man’s work, to dare and endure and to labor; to keep himself, and to keep those dependent upon him. The woman must be the housewife, the helpmeet of the homemaker, the wise and fearless mother of many healthy children.

In one of Daudet’s powerful and melancholy books he speaks of “the fear of maternity, the haunting terror of the young wife of the present day.” When such words can be truthfully written of a nation, that nation is rotten to the heart’s core. When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth, where they are fit subjects for the scorn of all men and women who are themselves strong and brave and high-minded.

As it is with the individual, so it is with the nation. It is a base untruth to say that happy is the nation that has no history. Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history.

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.

If in 1861 the men who loved the Union had believed that peace was the end of all things, and war and strife the worst of all things, and had acted up to their belief, we would have saved hundreds of lives, we would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, besides saving all the blood and treasure we then lavished, we would have prevented the heartbreak of many women, the dissolution of many homes, and we would have spared the country those months of gloom and shame when it seemed as if our armies marched only to defeat. We could have avoided all this suffering simply by shrinking from strife. And if we had thus avoided it, we would have shown that we were weaklings, and that we were unfit to stand among the great nations of the earth. Thank God for the iron in the blood of our fathers, the men who upheld the wisdom of Lincoln, and bore sword or rifle in the armies of Grant! Let us, the children of the men who proved themselves equal to the mighty days, let us the children of the men who carried the great Civil War to a triumphant conclusion, praise the God of our fathers that the ignoble counsels of peace were rejected; that the suffering and loss, the blackness of sorrow and despair were unflinchingly faced, and the years of strife endured; for in the end the slave was freed, the Union restored, and the mighty American republic placed once more as a helmeted queen among nations.

The Army and Navy are the sword and shield which this nation must carry if she is to do her duty among the nations of the earth–if she is not to stand merely as the China of the western hemisphere. Our proper conduct toward the tropic islands we have wrested from Spain is merely the form which our duty has taken at the moment. Of course, we are bound to handle the affairs of our own household well. We must see that there is civic good sense in our home administration of city, State and nation. We must strive for honesty in office, for honesty toward the creditors of the nation and of the individual, for the widest freedom of individual initiative where possible, and for the wisest control of individual initiative where it is hostile to the welfare of the many. But because we set our own household in order we are not thereby excused from playing our part in the great affairs of the world. A man’s first duty is to his own home, but he is not thereby excused from doing his duty to the State; for if he fails in this second duty, it is under the penalty of ceasing to be a freeman. In the same way, while a nation’s first duty is within its own borders it is not thereby absolved from facing its duties in the world as a whole; and if it refuses to do so, it merely forfeits its right to struggle for a place among the peoples that shape the destiny of mankind.

I preach to you, then, my countrymen, that our country calls not for the life of ease, but for the life of strenuous endeavor. The twentieth century looms before us big with the fate of many nations. If we stand idly by, if we seek merely swollen, slothful ease and ignoble peace, if we shrink from the hard contests where men must win at hazard of their lives and at the risk of all they hold dear, then the bolder and stronger peoples will pass us by, and will win for themselves the domination of the world. Let us, therefore, boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well and manfully; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve high ideals, yet to use practical methods. Above all, let us shrink from no strife, moral or physical, within or without the nation, provided we are certain that the strife is justified, for it is only through strife, through hard and dangerous endeavor, that we shall ultimately win the goal of true national greatness.

The role of government –

According to Jeremiah Wright, the government is the tool of the evil white community and it’s main function is to come up with schemes to kill or drug or destroy people of color. I must say that the Moslems must be much more efficient than we are. We imported 400,000 black slaves (doesn’t count the 100,000 or so that died in route) and there are 36 million plus black people in America today. The Moslems imported over 20 million (doesn’t count the approximately 50 million that died in route) and there are almost no blacks in the Middle East today. For that matter the Germans did a pretty fair job reducing the Jewish and Gypsy populations of Europe. Of course, Mr. Wright doesn’t like Jews very much. He doesn’t seem to like white people very much either. But he’s not a racial bigot. He’s not a hate monger. He doesn’t indulge in hate speech. Bullshit. Pardon my bluntness.

By the way – if there were really a white conspiracy to eliminate the black population of the United States – then there would not be those 36 million plus black people in the country.

So, if the government of the United States is so bad why then do the followers of Obama (and Hillary) expect the government to fix all the woes of their lives? If the government is engaged in a conspiracy to eliminate blacks how can it be that the black community wants to trust government to feed them and make all their decisions for them. Remember that one of Obama’s followers said that Obama was the best qualified to “feed the sheep”.

Either the government of the United States is trying to kill off all the black people and is so totally incompetent that it could not be trusted with anything or Mr. Wright is nothing but a bitter, hate-mongering kook.

We have provided the opportunity for each citizen to strive for whatever goals are in his heart. But, we can not and will not guarantee that any given goal will be met. We have simply provided an atmosphere where each individual can determine his own destiny. Success or failure is up to the individual at hand.

Even if one or more individuals put obstacles in the way our society puts no limits on the citizen. It is time for the black community to grow up and get over it. I can do no more than provide the freedom for opportunity and see to it that overt discrimination is punished. Even if I had the means to make every single person in the country an overnight millionaire I would not do it. When the Spanish started conquest of the New World so many people got so rich so fast that the country no longer had anyone who wanted to work. Outsiders started coming to Spain in droves to do the jobs that had to be done. The will to succeed disappeared from Spain and the economy tanked and the country went into a 500 year decline. Spain has been recovered from this self-imposed disaster only in the last 50 years or so. Sound familiar? People do not need an easy life handed to them on a platter. People need to strive for success and achieve it on their own to be happy and satisfied.

How to Defeat America –

The world knows the way not to defeat America – direct confrontation. In the last century Italy, Germany, and Japan tried direct confrontation – to their considerable sorrow. They should have known better. Many officers and high officials of those countries, including the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, were educated in America. Unfortunately for them, they mistook the leftist Ivy League University attitudes that they knew to be representative of the average American’s attitude towards totalitarianism.

In this century Al Queda made the same mistake on 9/11/2001. If you directly attack America, you will be flattened.

There is a much better way, as the North Vietnamese discovered. Fight a very limited holding action overseas and let the American left win the war for you. The North Vietnamese have stated that they knew that the war was lost in the late 1960s and they could not possibly win a military victory. Wise political and military strategists also saw that if they could just keep a holding pattern that the American left would force withdrawal and that the South Vietnamese could not possibly stand against them. And so it was. The first outright defeat of American troops came at the hands of home-grown American traitors, not at the hands of any enemy forces.

The left of the 1960s and their spiritual children who are such haters of this country and traitors are even stronger than ever.

Consider the words of George Orwell:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

Notes on Nationalism, May 1945

Consider Ward Churchill, Code Pink and other traitors. It is not enough for Code Pink that they will not serve to defend this country, they wish to deny others the freedom to follow their consciences. If an Armed Forces Recruiting station is in your neighborhood then you have the freedom to go in or not, as your own choice. If Code Pink shuts down said recruiting station then they have denied you the choice of going in. That is not freedom. That is totalitarianism.

I find it of interest that Mr. Churchill felt free to lie about his military service and his ethnic heritage. He felt free to misappropriate public funds for his un-factual “research”. I should say that this is typical of the left. Any conduct is ok. Any lie is ok if it furthers the noble goals of the left. Expediency is the byword of the day. The end justifies the means is a fervently held belief.

Given all that, the enemies of America are foolish if they provoke direct confrontation. The way to defeat America is to keep very slow pressure on and court the assistance of the left. Patience and little bites will allow our internal traitors to defeat us.

Make no mistake, the hate-mongers of the left will peace and love this country into the grave. They will destroy the military. They will open the borders. They will allow crime to be rampant in the streets, just so long as none of the criminals is politically incorrect. The rights of the sadistic criminal are more important than the rights of his victims. Remember that there was more outrage over the remarks of Don Imus than there are over brutal repeat child murderers. If a white gang murders a black, then that is a hate crime and there is great outrage. If a black gang murders a white then little or nothing is said.

If you enemies just wait a bit you will not have a military to worry about. You will be welcomed by these Ward Churchills as honorable repayers of America’s sins. After all, he and those like him consider the murder of the 9/11 victims was only what they deserved and asked for.

So, just be patient. Push forward an inch or two. Be ready to pull back half an inch and rest for a bit. Repeat. Let the left think that when you yield up half an inch of your gain that they have won a great diplomatic and moral victory. They will be happy if you just let them have an occasional scrap. Let them keep their pride in their great moral victory while you keep the majority of your gain. Yours will be the final pride when the left sinks America and you just walk in victorious, knowing that the proudest nation on earth is now yours. You can do anything you like if you don’t get in a hurry and let the left feel good about it. Remember Hitler’s big lie tactics – they worked with the left of his day – Chamberlain ring a bell? “Peace in our time!”, while Adolph gulped another country down.

Use lies, the left likes them and uses them. Consider the charge that America is imperialist. Obviously, anyone with an ounce of sense can see that it just ain’t so. America could have annexed all of Western Europe after either World War and no one could have stopped her. Consider that America has taken no foreign nation as a vassal. Think about the charge that the left is currently glorying in: America invaded Iraq for oil. America has not taken any Iraqi oil. I personally think that she should, at fair market value less some reasonable discount, until the cost of freeing Iraq is paid. But America has not chosen to take the oil. Consider some other leftist stupidities: 9/11 was an inside job. The government did it. Katrina could not have flooded New Orleans. The government must have blown up the levees. AIDS is a government plot. Like I said, dumb. But the left keeps spouting this crap. While the left’s policies are in place you grow stronger as America grows weaker. No new oil exploration of our own resources. No new refineries are being developed and built. The politicians are persuaded to waste resources on stupid stuff like ethanol, which costs more to grow and process than the energy it delivers. Outlaw incandescent light bulbs, even though the replacements cost more energy overall. Yes, the left’s policies will leave America so weak that she will fall on her own. The only battle necessary will be to determine which enemy gets to walk in and take over. Don’t worry about conquering. The Quislings of the left will welcome whichever conqueror prevails with open arms.

I Thought Jews Were Supposed to be Smart –

Back in June, I saw Ellen Ratner on Fox and Friends. She was supposed to be giving commentary on Obama’s resignation from his church. She pooh-poohed any suggestion that his church affiliation meant anything to his campaign, and rather loudly and proudly proclaimed that there would be an Obama presidency.

Deep sigh. Even the so-called intelligent Jews seem to be incapable of learning from history. Let us review. Many of Obama’s advisors and base supporters are Nation of Islam members. His (former) church, the one he belonged to for over 20 years, has a track record of strong ties with Farrakhan, and has had many sermons from the pulpit that are rabidly anti-Jewish and strongly pro-Palestinian.

Obama has publicly stated that he would be sympathetic towards further expansion of the Palestinian “rights” in Israel. He has stated that he would immediately open talks with Moslem groups that have the stated purpose of eliminating Israel and the Jews. Obama has selected Zbigniew Brzezinski as his chief foreign policy advisor. Those who can remember, or bother to research the history, will realize that Brzezinski was foreign policy advisor under Jimmy Carter, arguably the worst president that this country has ever had. Certainly Carter’s track record is that of pro-Moslem and anti-Israeli. Check the funding of the Carter Center in Atlanta. Follow the money, and you will see that Jimmy is considerably beholden to Moslem interests. Zbigniew Brzezinski showed himself to be not a friend to Israel long ago. He does not seem to have changed his spots.

I should point out to liberal Jews like Ellen Ratner that the anti-Jewish sentiment in the world is still alive and well. If America pulls what little support we have for Israel there will be nothing to stop the terrorist Moslems from wiping out the Jews. Check it out, there are very few Jews left in Europe courtesy of the Nazi “solution”. The anti-Jew sentiment in Russia is still as rabid as it ever was.

Many years ago we had a couple over to dinner. They were from Russia and came to our church. Lovely woman, nice husband. But – after dinner the husband started in on a virulently anti-Jewish rant. No logic, just lies and hatred. After a short period of trying to get this guy to calm down, see reason, and understand that I would not tolerate this sort of hateful diatribe in my home, I finally just had to ask them to leave. I could tell that the wife was mortified and ashamed of her husband’s attitude, which was totally illogical and incompatible with Christianity. I felt sorry for her. But not to the extent of putting up with that sort of poison in my house. Don’t ever think that this sort of hatred is not still alive in the world. And make no mistake, this guy and those like him would pull the lever on a gas chamber with glee. Or cheer while others bombed “those dirty Jews” out of existance. Why is it that the great unwashed always talk about “dirty Jews”?

If we allow Obama to weaken support for Israel and it is destroyed how much longer will it be before the racism of the Nation of Islam and other stupid and ignorant groups becomes inflamed to anti-Jewish action in this country? Remember, you liberal Jews who march in the same parade as the Jew-haters, that the Nazis and everyone else who has similar beliefs do not differentiate between those who are religious Jews and those who have Jewish ancestry. To these people, a Jew is a Jew, and the only good Jew is a dead Jew.

We are seeing history repeat itself, but this time the Jews are marching in the same parade as those who would destroy them. Just how smart is that?

The True Face of PC –

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/press_release.asp?article_id=713

This is a link to a news release which discusses a pending case. Rockwell Collins, as so many corporations, has required “diversity training” that employees are required to take online. The employee requested that he be exempted from the portion of the training on homosexuality since he was required to “celebrate and embrace” homosexual lifestyles. He was fired.

Now then. This is PC gone nuts. It is one thing to state that one should not actively persecute someone for being gay, it is quite another thing to require that we all “embrace and celebrate” the gay lifestyle.

I grew up around gays. One of my godmothers in the Episcopal Church was a lesbian. One of my parents dear friends was a homosexual. I daresay that I have probably known and worked with more gays than 99% of the people in Corporate America. I taught ballroom dancing in the 1970’s and was the only straight male teacher in the studio.

Now then. In the workplace there is no diversity. Not in the sense that the pundits mean. Yes indeed, there is diversity of people, but really there is not and should not be diversity of behavior. In Corporate America one must perform the job. Period. That is the only yardstick that can or should be used. To perform most corporate jobs it is required that the individual be able to communicate. This usually means that one speak comprehensible English. This also usually means that one must be able to read and understand English manuals and memos. One must also be able to write a comprehensible memo – in English, preferably with at least reasonable grammar and spelling.

Generally, sex has no place in the workplace. I don’t know (or care) if most of the people at my workplace are married, shacking, playing, solo, or what. It does not belong in the workplace. I am not interested in hearing about Studly Hungwell’s exploits whether the object is male – female – or ambiguous.

Likewise, proselytizing has no place in the workplace. This is usually understood by liberal dominated Corporations to explicitly mean that Christians have to shut up and allow the “diversity” of Hindu, Moslem, Buddhist, or whatever. I have no problem with considerate people of any persuasion. However, the Moslem who believes that women must always have a subordinate position must leave that at home. The Mormon or the Jehovah’s Witness or the Fundamentalist must not preach in the workplace. This is understood. But this also applies to the atheist, the Moslem, etc.

It is understood that the Moslem may not like the Jew, but is not free to express that dislike in the workplace. It is also understood that the Moslem will probably never celebrate and embrace Judaism. Nor is it required for him to do so (yet). It is understood that the Moslem may consider women inferior, and that while his attitude cannot be changed to “celebrate and embrace” females as the equal of male, this is ok as long as it does not get brought into the workplace.

Why then, is homosexuality different? I do not hate homosexuals, nor do I particularly like them. I like or dislike individuals based on their behavior and personality. As a Christian I do not approve of the practice of homosexuality, but I do not hate someone for being homosexual. For that matter, as a Christian I disapprove of any sexuality outside of marriage. No matter what the gender of the participants. Again I state that not putting someone down for being different – as long as they are behaving decently in public and in the workplace – that is all that is required. This business of corporations requiring that I accept, celebrate, and embrace some group or other is more than nonsense. It does indeed look like the people who are talking about the “homosexual agenda” are quite correct. They are not the paranoid nuts that they are depicted in the liberal press and worldview.

As a free American, I may like or dislike anyone or any group at will. What I may not do is infringe on the freedom of another individual. The government – or any corporation or individual – does not have the right to tell me what I must think. A corporation may dictate that hatred and discrimination not be practiced on the job. But said corporation may not dictate that I must embrace behavior which is totally against the teachings of my Church or conscience.

The thought police are on your case. If you do not toe the line your job will be in jeopardy. Last time I looked it was the liberals who were pushing this stuff. Go ahead, elect Obama and a Democrat Congress. This will become an even more common practice. The Constitution is dying. And most are standing by without any protests.

Kenndy Myths and Facts –

The liberals love the Kennedys. But let’s take a bit of a look at the record:

Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.

One of the richest men in America. True.

Staunch supporter of America. False.

Joe thought that democracy was dead and admired totalitarian government. He was an avowed admirer of Adolph Hitler and tried to get the US to align with Germany. He tried to get positive propaganda for Hitler in the US press.

Anti-Semitic, virulent. True.

Joe hated Jews and thought that they deserved anything that Hitler did to them.

McCarthy supporter. True.

Joe was a big time McCarthy supporter and thought that anyone vaguely communist should be persecuted.

Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr.

Totally agreed with most of his father’s positions. Wrote many positive letters from prewar Germany praising the work of Hitler to the skies. Agreed that anything done to Jews was only what they deserved.

John F. Kennedy

President of the US. True.

Did not reject Joseph McCarthy, which cost him the 1956 vice president running position.

Big on civil rights movement. False.

Quite reluctant to support civil rights. Approved J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI targeting and persecution of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy

Did not reject Joseph McCarthy. Represented the Kennedy clan McCarthy’s funeral.

Edward Moore Kennedy

Cheated in school. True.

Murdered Mary Jo Kopechne

Never proved that it was deliberate. However, if his account is to be believed he was drunk out of his mind and certainly had no business driving. That’s still murder by negligence and impairment. Alternately, he freaked out and did nothing while the woman struggled and drowned horribly. Choose any of the three scenarios and he deserves to be treated like the scum that he is.

Supports environmental causes. False.

Like so many, Senator Kennedy wants all the rest of us peons to have to live up to stringent environmental laws which he does not apply to himself. He opposed the building of a windmill farm near his area of the world because that’s where he sails his boat. There are photographs of oil being dumped off his boat into the bay, yet he would force the rest of us to live up to the highest standards.

Owns large shares of oil company stock. True.

Feels for the poor and less fortunate. False.

As with many liberals donates a very small fraction of income to charity.

Conservatives donate a considerably higher percent of income than do liberals. Liberals don’t seem to approve of voluntary charity, they want the government to do forced re-distribution of income, not voluntary private charity.

News Slant –

Is the media slanted left? If you can’t see that you are living in some alternate reality. I find it interesting that the newsies latest flap is that Sarah Palin may (or may not) have had an affair.

Now, whether she did or did not is not the question here. The question is why is this even a story? The media only lightly covered Bill Clinton’s getting a blow job in the oval office. And then only when they could not ignore it any further. The libs never did see why we conservatives were so upset about that.

The media has not seen fit to report much on JFK’s affairs – including that with Marilyn Monroe that may have contributed to her suicide.

There is little or no coverage or outrage over Martin Luther King’s many affairs – including his bird-dogging of every underage babysitter that I know of.

John Edward’s torrid affair and bastard child were ignored until the sleaze paper forced it into the open. The mainstream media surely is not going to convince me that they had no clue and only a yellow tabloid could find out about that affair.

And, Oy vey, do you ever hear about Ted Kennedy? Not only a drunk [HERSELF SEZ: and and murderer] but also too many affairs to count. Where is the coverage and the moral outrage?

So, let us ask why it is that the affairs of liberal men do no in any way seem to be news (unless the media’s hand is forced) and do not disqualify them for office. It would seem that the same newsies that give liberal guys a pass want to hold conservatives – particularly female conservatives to a different standard.

As I keep hollering I don’t mind which standard is used – but it should apply equally to all. Didn’t I hear something about without regard for race, creed, color, gender, sex, national origin, religion – or what have you. It seems that the double standard is alive and well – particularly among libs.

Well – truthfully – I would prefer a moral standard that meant something. But it should apply to all. And at what age do we start holding people to that standard. I – like most young’uns – didn’t have a whole lot of moral sense when I was young and dumb in the 60’s. Doesn’t mean that I would behave similarly nowadays at all. Do we give past behavior a pass? I don’t think that adolescent dumb is who I am today. We know that young dumb is curable by simple maturation. Do we hold females to a different standard? How then does that fit in with the liberal chant that conservatives are male chauvinist pigs? Is there not a great deal of anti-female bias in the good-old-boy cover-ups of liberal male congressional misbehavior?

Chuck Wrangle is not reported for the very same offenses that were used to hound a Republican congressman from office. Don’t mistake me – I think that corrupt officials should be run out of office. The difference is that I would also hold libs to the same standards. Of course – we might run out of liberal congress types if we held them to a moral standard. Actually – that’s not fair, and I should be fair. Truth is that we might run out of government type of all persuasions if we held them to some sort of moral standard.

[HERSELF SEZ: Gee, and then we might entice in some less corruptible people to public office. Wouldn’t THAT be refreshing. Think Plato’s Philosopher-King.]

Double Standard Alive and Well –

Consider the way Conservative talk show hosts were treated by the libs at the Democratic Nation Convention. They were bluntly told that they could expect no co-operation from the DNC and that their access to libs for interviews would be severely restricted.

Contrast the way the liberal media was treated at the Republican Convention. Full co-operation and they were treated quite well.

Consider the crucifixion of Sarah Palin. The media has put her private life under a microscope. They have not examined her on the issues but have gone exhaustively into her family life. The very libs that are all for “women’s rights” have hammered on her being a working mother. The very libs that want abortion on demand with no parental notification for minors are flaying Sarah Palin because her daughter is pregnant (and going to bear the child). The very libs that do not want our dui laws to apply to illegals and do not want child molester’s records to be public are making a big deal about Palin’s husband having ONE dui 22 years back.

Sarah Palin is constantly hammered as “inexperienced”. Bull – she has more executive experience than the entire Democrat ticket. The tough questions have never been put to Obama – who is qualified for nothing. Palin will be extensively grilled. There will be a microscope applied to Sarah Palin’s firing of Walter Monegan (so-called Troopergate). That’s not a problem – if reported fairly. Monegan was corrupt and incompetent. But where is the scrutiny of Biden – who is crooked as a dog’s hind leg? It is well known that Biden’s vote and influence are for sale. Where is the news scrutiny of the relationship of Hunter Biden to Joe Biden’s votes? Check it out – it’s for real. But I don’t see the lefty newsies pursuing what I consider a real and relevant story. Where is the grilling of Obama’s socialism – which is clearly contrary to the Founding Father’s intentions for this country – and which cannot be shown to have worked successfully anywhere on this planet. Where is the grilling of Obama for his stated intention to tax the people of this country heavily and send the money to other countries because we are “citizens of the world”.

Now the latest in double standards. A book about Aisha (sometime Ayisha), the child-bride of Mohammed, was cancelled by Random House at the behest of a Texas University Professor type – Denise Spellberg. Want to guess which way an academic type leans? Part of Spellberg’s response is “I don’t have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography.” Why is it that the nastiness portrayed in The Last Temptation of Christ arouses no such reaction? Indeed – if you will think about it the only reaction I can remember from the left was that The Last Temptation of Christ was a wonderful thing covered under freedom of speech. Why is it that The Jewel of Medina is to be restricted? Yeah, it is fiction. Yeah, it is not completely accurate. The book has Aisha 14 – she was in fact 6 when Mohammed married her. The tale that is recorded as Moslem sacred history is that she lost her hair immediately and Mohammed did not consummate the marriage until she was 9. Marrying a 6 y.o. and sex with a 9 y.o. is still perversion and pedophilia any way you dress it. Why is it OK to “play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography” if the story is about Christ and not OK to even come close to the truth about Mohammed? Why is The DaVinci Code OK and I am a religious bigot if I react negatively to that? Why are we supposed to be sensitive to Moslems and not to Christians? Random House was warned that the lives of their employees would probably be at risk if the book were published. Where is the outrage of the left? If a group of Christians were to riot and/or murder someone for perceived disrespect the left would be howling for blood. When Moslems riot and murder we are told that we need to be sensitive and respectful.

I don’t mind evenly applied criticism – but the standards need to be applied to all equally.