Thought's on the Washington Redskins' name

*Most of who object to the Redskin's name are not even Native American.

*Not all Native American's agree, such as Navajo Nation president Ben Shelly and Chippewa Cree tribesman Wade Colliflower who support the Redskin's name.

*Where does it end? Should we force a private business to change their name for a tiny minority? Should we change state named after Indian tribes if someone objects? Should we ban all Jeep Cherokees, Pontiac cars, and Winnebago's if someone is offended? Should we change the name of the Minnesota Vikings if someone of Norwegian decent is offended?

*This is political correctness run amok.

*In a free society offensives are inevitable, the only way to stop offenses is to stop free speech. You can either have freedom or you can have political correctness, but you can't have both.

*Native American's refereed to themselves "red men", such as Sitting Bull who said, "I am a red man. If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place."

*Ten years ago, the National Annenberg Election Survey polled Native Americans on the NFL franchise’s name. Nine percent said the name bothered them. Ninety percent said that it didn’t. 

*A small minority does not speak on behalf on the majority, nor should they dictate to the majority.

A deceptive map of the Arab-Israeli conflict

The following is a deceptive map depicting Palestinian lands lost to Israel:

http://images.alarabiya.net/israel-palestine_map_19225_2469.jpg

This map is deceptive because it begins with a false premise, that is all the land initially belonged to the Palestinians. This is false. First of all, the land previously belonged to the Ottoman Turks. Secondly, there is not a distinct ethnic people with a distinct language known as the Palestinians.

Palestine was originally known as the land of Judea by the Romans. After a series of Jewish revolts against Rome, Roman Emperor Hadrian renamed the land "Palestine" (Philistia) around 135 AD, after the Jews ancestral enemies the Philistines, and the name stuck. The idea was to disconnect the land from the Jews. The Roman coin below commemorates the Roman victory with the words "Judea Capta" meaning "[the land of Judea] is captured."

Fast forward several centuries later and the region is now under the control of the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923). During this time Palestine was a backwater province in the Ottoman Empire, it was not an ethnic people. Arab people did not widely adopt the name "Palestine" until the 20th century. Prior, even Jews were known as Palestinians. Jews in the area used the name Palestine for their symphonies, newspapers and other enterprises. There was the Palestine Post (later the Jerusalem Post), the Palestine Symphony Orchestra, the Palestine Electric Company, the Palestine Potash Company and others. Arabs in the region were referred to as Arabs not Palestinians. Only in the 1960's did the name become associated with the Arabs in the region due to the influence of the PLO and Yasser Arafat.

The Ottoman Turks sided with the Central Powers during World War 1 and lost. It then came under British control. The British and French are responsible for the nation states in the middle-east that we see today. Prior to this, there were no nation states. The British gave up their control on May 14, 1948, the day Israel declared independence, it essentially became up for grabs at that point. Israel had previously accepted a UN Resolution to partition the land, the Arabs rejected it and went to war. To everyone's surprise, Israel won. Note at this point Egypt annexed Gaza, and Jordan annexed the West Bank.

Following the 1967 war Israel did gain control over Gaza, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. Israel's justification for keeping these territories was to act as buffer zones against future attacks, and to deter further aggression so that the Arabs could not start wars without impunity, but losing would cost them something.

Israel has since given away land for peace. Since the 1967 Six-Day War Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979. Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000, and from Gaza in 2005. Israel was planning to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank as well, but that was cut short by unrelenting rocket attacks following the Gaza withdraw. Jordan has since renounced their claims to the West Bank in 1988, and Egypt renounced claims to Gaza in 1979.

And what of lands Israel has lost? The original British Mandate included all of Israel and Jordan (then called Trans-Jordan) as a Jewish state. Arabs complained so this was cut in two, 77% percent went to the Hashemites. Note that Trans-Jordan was created to absorb Arab refugees from the defunct Palestine province and today they make up over 70% of Jordan's population. Arabs complained again and the Jews were left with just 13% of the original British Mandate.  Most of this was land nobody wanted, such as swamps and desserts. Jews were the majority in the land allotted to them under the U.N. Partition Plan 181.

The Truth is there is one Jewish state and 22 Arab states.

Is Obama a Muslim?

Is Obama a Muslim? What evidence is he a Christan (other than his word)? What evidence is he a Muslim? The following is an article from Usama Dakdok (thestraightway.org) that is food for thought. Additions by me are in blue text.

1. He was born from Muslim blood (his father). (Which in Islam makes him automatically a Muslim).

2. He was educated in a school where as Muslim he was educated on Islam for a minimum of two hours weekly. He has said the Muslim call to prayer is "the most beautiful sound in the world;" he regularly quotes from the Koran and cites it for directing his life; ...

3. For a better education he attended a Catholic school, which many Muslims do.

4. He had nothing to do with Christianity until he married his wife.

5. He joined a cult church, a non-Christian church

a. The church teaches separatism (black and white)

b. They teach black theology, not Christ Theology

c. The church honors and respects Islam and Muslims to the point they welcome Muslims to be members of the church and gave Louis Farrakhan an award for being the man who will unite the true Christian to the true Muslim to the true Jew. WHAT A CHRISTIAN CHURCH!

d. Why would Obama leave Islam to join such a church? He joined skillfully to cover-up, knowing that a Muslim in America would have little chance to become a senator or the president.

e. When you believe in Mohammad you deny Christ.

6. He never denounced Islam or Mohammad or the Qur'an.

7. There is no record that he was baptized.

8. From his own words, we can judge him, for he made fun of Christianity, the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament, which proves he is not a Christian. 20 Obama Quotes About Islam Contrasted With 20 Obama QuotesAbout Christianity

9. When a Muslim leaves Islam to Christianity, there would be a 100% fatwa (decree for him to be killed) issued against his life.

a. A Fatwa has never been issued on Obama. But the opposite is true, for the Muslim world is endorsing and supporting him. This includes Louis Farrakkan's endorsement. Some may say that Obama has distanced himself for his radical minister and from Louis Farrakkan but my response is very simple, it is an act because he, his pastor , and Farrakkan, know if he does not say that. he will lose the vote of the rest of the country.

b. He was welcomed to Kenya as a Muslim hero recently.

c. Muslims in America support him, even financially “One dollar for one nation under God “(Allah).

d. As a senator, he has and continues to employ members of The Nation of Islam. Cynthia K. Miller was the treasurer of His U.S. Senate campaign. Jennifer Mason is Obama’s director of Constituent Services in his U.S. Senate office and is also in charge of selecting Obama’s senate interns. - (debbieschlussel.com)

10. His agenda for the Whitehouse clearly shows he is Muslim.

a. Remove our army immediately from the Middle East.

b. He sits and eats dinner with Muslim jihadist. Including the Muslim Brotherhood.

c. Removing the idea of the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance.

d. Passing a hate crime bill that will silence anyone who speaks against Islam.

e. In the past year alone he made a big deal out of hosting a celebratory dinner to open the month of Ramadan -- held in the state dining room; he refused to attend the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts (an avowed Christian organization), and, refused to attend the National Day of Prayer because he claimed to do so would be offensive to non-Christians.

11. His stance on the issue of gay marriage and abortion proves he is not a Christian. He does not support traditional Christian values.

12. Under his administration Christianity has become marginalized and vilified.

At the very least we can conclude Obama is a Muslim sympathizer, at the worst he has lied about his faith. And "if" he lied about that what else did he lie about? What does it say about his character? You decide.

Thoughts on moderate Muslims

*While it is true not all Muslims are jihadists, all jihadists are Muslim and Islam itself is not Moderate. Islam was born out of war and violence. When Muhammad couldn't spread Islam peacefully he spread it through violence, hence the contradictions between the peaceful and violent verses in the Koran. In Islamic doctrine the later (violent) verses supersede the earlier (peaceful) verses.

*It's estimated that 15-25% of Muslims are radical which would equate to around 180 million to 300 million Muslims out of 1.3 billion. 180 million is equal to a little more than half of the United States, and 300 million is almost equivalent to the entire population of the United States, a considerable amount no matter how you slice it. Even if hypothetically is was just 1%, that still leaves 13 million radical Muslims. By comparison the United States military, the largest in the world, has just 1.4 million active frontline personnel. However, size isn't everything. History shows even a small minority can have a huge effect. For example, the Nazi party started out as a minority. The Bolshevik party in Russia started out as a small minority. The Communist Revolution in China began with a small Communist party, and so on.

*Many moderate Muslims are actually cultural Muslims, just as there are many cultural Christians. That is they are Muslim in name only because of tradition but are not devout. They do not represent the true face of Islam.

*Many moderate Muslims support Shria Law which is anything but moderate, and includes such things as amputation of hands and feet for theft. A Pew study done in 2013 asked Muslims from 23 countries across Southeastern Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Middle East, their views on Sharia. Many Muslims said Sharia should be the law of the land. Also substantial minorities in several countries say such acts of violence are at least sometimes justified, including 26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories. Many moderate Muslims also believe it is okay to beat their wives or to kill someone who converts to Christianity.

*So-called Moderate Islamic countries are not so moderate when it comes to converting to Christianity, where it is legally punishable by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and United Arab Emirates. In Saudi Arabia women can't vote, open a bank account, work, travel abroad, or enroll in higher education without permission form a male relative. They must rely on male relatives to drive them places. In the UAE men can legally beat their wives. In Pakistan, 1000 die in honor killings annually. In Egypt there is a 91% genital mutilation rate.

*Many moderate's do not speak out against their more violent counterparts. One can conclude they are either afraid or secretly support their actions.

*Stealth Jihad, subtle non-violent subversion, is waged by moderate Muslims. This includes using politics, propaganda, taqiyya (lying), and mass immigration to achieve their goals.

*Many Muslims are moderate until they reach the majority. When the Muslim population is less than 2%, they are a peace-loving minority. When the Muslim population is from 2-5%, they recruit mainly from street gangs and prisons. When the Muslim population is 5% or more, they push for "clean" food by pressuring supermarkets and they push for self-rule; which is what is happening presently in France. When the Muslim population is 10% or more, they use treats and violence to secure demands; also happening in France. When the Muslim population is 20% or more, there is occasional rioting and church burning; which is presently happening in Ethopia. When the Muslim population is 40% or more, there are terror attacks, militia warfare and massacres; which is presently happening in Bosnia, Chad and Lebanon. When the Muslim population is 60% or more, there is persecution of infidels and sporadic ethnic cleansing; which is presently happening in Malaysia and Sudan. When the Muslim population is 80% or more, there is daily intimidation of non-Muslims, violent jihad and genocide; which is presently happening in Egypt, Gaza and Turkey. When the Muslim population reaches 100% -- known to Muslims as "The House of Peace" -- there is radical rule over the more tolerant, less devout Muslims and public executions; which is presently happening in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. (Hal Lindsey)

*Moderate Muslims can turn into radical Muslims overnight. Brigitte Gabriel writes, "During the Lebanese war, doctors in Lebanon slaughtered hand in hand with the terrorists in the name of jihad. This is a very difficult concept for Western minds and especially Western intellectuals to accept and understand or even believe. I remember when I started speaking out about my experiences during the war, I would share how our neighbors—doctors and lawyers who we had known for years—became radicals overnight and started massacring us the next day." (Because They Hate)

Thoughts on Eric Garner

Having had time to digest the details of the Eric Garner case, I've come to three basic conclusions:


1)It was not homicide. The officers involved were only attempting to subdue Mr. Garner, not kill him. Choke holds can only kill someone if the person continues to be choked past the point of unconsciousness. When Eric Garner was saying "I can't breath" he was not in a choke hold, and did not die at the scene of the incident but suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later. Garner was in poor health and suffered from obesity, asthma, heart disease, severe asthma, diabetes, obesity, and sleep apnea. All of which contributed to his death. I'm convinced if he had been a healthy person he would still be alive today.

Some mistakes were made on the police officers part. When Garner was saying "I can't breath" obviously they should have eased up. But of course hindsight is always 20/20. There is also the possibility that police training is just too aggressive. Officers tend to deal with resistance by immediate escalation by overwhelming physical force. The idea is that it prevents injury to officer by nipping it in the bud. This may or may not be true, however another approach teaches progressive escalation of force based upon a force escalation policy. Perhaps it's time for police academies to re-examine how their officers are trained.

2)Garner is not completely blameless. I believe at most Garner should have been ticketed at most, however once that decision was made to arrest Garner he only had two options, go peacefully or go forcibly. Garner choose the second option and so takes some responsibility for his demise. As we have seen from previous incidents, resisting arrest never ends well. The correct course of action should have been to go peacefully and then contest it afterwards with a lawyer.

3)The real problem is taxes. NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was quick to throw his own police officers under the bus, but in 2010 the New York State Legislature passed a law raising taxes on cigarettes purchased in New York City to $5.85 per pack of 20 cigarettes, the highest in the country. This has created a black market for cigarettes. So because NYC has a war on cigarettes, they created a virtual prohibition on a "legal" product which has fueled a black market. Has prohibition ever worked? I don't blame the police for doing their job, I blame the politicians for making the laws. There is an overabundance of laws and regulations, which NYC is notorious for.  Remember the Soda Ban?

The myth of Indian genocide

It’s that time again, Thanksgiving is upon us and as usual so are the self-loathing left with their accusations of Indian Genocide and stolen land. If anything they are predictable. So I compiled a few notes that draws heavily upon “The 10 Big Lies About America” by Michael Medved, to dispel these myths:

*The first Thanksgiving resulted in 50 years of peace with the neighboring Indian villages.

*Neither the colonial governments nor, later, the U.S. government ever endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination.

*Disease overwhelmingly killed more Indians than war. Infectious diseases brought about between 75 and 95 percent of Indian deaths after European settlement began. Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population. The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers.

*The notion of Small Pox blankets stems from an isolated incident involving British officials,  not Americans, and remains inconclusive. Pontiac's Rebellion (1763) in which Chief Pontiac said “It is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation which seeks only to destroy us.” resulted in the natives wiping out eight forts and murdering hundreds of troops and settlers, including women and children. Victims were variously tortured, scalped, cannibalized, dismembered, and burned at the stake. As a result of desperation British Commander Field Marshal Lord Jeffery Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet briefly discussed the idea of infecting the Indians with Small Pox blankets. However there are no evidence indicating that Amherst actually went through with the idea. At no point did the British commander issue orders or make a policy declaration regarding extermination of the Indians. Both whites and Indians suffered from Small Pox, which the Indians could have received the diseases from a number of sources. Ultimately it was It was Colonel Bouquet, not the smallpox virus, who finally rescued Fort Pitt.

*In addition to the massive numbers killed by disease, Native American tribes lost untold millions to assimilation and intermarriage.

*Atrocities were committed on both sides. Lord Jeffery cited the monstrous cruelty he had observed from his adversaries (scalping alive for souvenirs, branding, cutting out and occasionally devouring hearts, torture through slow skinning, piercing bodies with as many as a hundred arrows)

*Societies among the Indians and all other aboriginal peoples conducted devastating wars against one another that at times became struggles for domination, conquest, replacement, or even extermination. The hundreds of native tribes that occupied North America warred against one another for thousands of years, dispelling the myth of the "Noble Savage".

*The more developed New World cultures of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca not only turned their slaves into brutalized and mutilated beasts of burden but also used their conquered enemies to feed a limitless lust for human sacrifice.

*The U.S. experience with our indigenous populations strongly resembles any and every encounter between peoples at vastly different stages of development.

*Once a stone aged culture came in contact with a more powerful and advanced civilization there became only two inevitable outcomes, fight and lose or assimilate, either way their old life was finished.

*In the words of Mark Twain, ”There isn’t a foot of land in the world which doesn’t represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive “owners” who each in turn, as “patriots” with proud swelling hearts defended it against the next gang of “robbers” who came to steal it and did— and became swelling-hearted patriots in their turn. . . . Patriotism is a word which always commemorates a robbery.”

The problems with equaility

Equality is one of those buzzwords that we often hear nowadays. Equality comes to us in many forms such as gender equality, marriage equality, and economic equality. It is the driving force behind LGBT rights, feminism, social justice, and so on. The concept of economic and social equality didn’t used to be an American virtue, so where did it come from? The many forms of equality have its roots in Marxism and was imported to America in the form of cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is a very subtle method of influencing the culture towards Marxist ways of thinking. Marxism essentially tries to enforce equality in situations where equality does not exist. It is a worldview that radically changes ones thinking. It sees problems and inequalities in society and seeks to solve them. In doing so it stirs up feelings of anger and resentment. It creates such intense feelings of injustice that people feel they have to act. But it only succeeds in causing more inequality and ultimately tyranny.

When it comes to economics, income inequality is solved through wealth distribution. It robs from the rich while giving to the poor. Well, it worked for Robin Hood. Unfortunately equality is an ideology that ignores human nature. The incentive for the Haves to work hard is taken away since hard work doesn't bring any greater success or reward. And there are no incentives for the Have Nots to work hard since they are guaranteed the same slice of the pie either way.

Equality only succeeds in stifling ambition and killing motivation. No one can aspire to greatness because that would be unfair to someone else. It breeds mediocrity and makes everyone equally poor, except for the ruling elite of course. This form of economic equality was tried in Communist countries with disastrous results. All it accomplished was misery, death, and destruction. There was really no such thing as true equality. Even in the Communist countries, there were always those at the top who had more than everyone else. All it did was make the gap wider between the haves and have nots. Unfortunately, what we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history. In order to have a free society, economic disparity must be embraced otherwise why work at all?

Equality is most damaging when it comes to morality. There can be no absolutes with moral equality, because the truth becomes relative. That means elevating the bad with the good. From their perspective, saying something is morally wrong is elevating someone’s morality over someone else’s morality, and that would not be fair. So evil must, by necessity, be equal to good and good must be equal to evil. The values of American Judeo-Christian culture must be seen as equal to that of totalitarian Islam, and the value of heterosexual marriage must be equal to that of homosexual marriage. This concept of equality must then be enforced through coercion which ultimately leads to the loss of freedoms. Forced equality is not equality at all, neither can it replace virtue. It benefits some while being detrimental to others. You can have freedom or you can have equality, but you can't have both.

Life isn’t fair. There will always be people who are stronger, faster, smarter, taller, or better looking than someone else. Equality ignores these innate differences and in doing so, prevents people from utilizing their full potential. Feminism, for example, tries to make women equal to men in every respect. However it ignores the physiological and psychological differences between men and women. As a result, men may naturally be better at doing some things, while women may naturally be better at doing other things. There is no unity when it comes to equality. It creates a Balkanization effect where everyone is broken down into race, sex, gender, and then pitted against each another.

In conclusion, equality is based upon an ideology that is not about equality at all, but about control.  It forces everyone to think the same, behave the same, and expect the same. In the words of Igor Shafarevich, “They proclaim the greatest possible equality, the destruction of hierarchy in society and at the same time a strict regimentation of all of life, which would be impossible without absolute control and an all-powerful bureaucracy which would engender an incomparably greater inequality.”  Justice on the other hand creates true fairness where equality does not. The difference between justice and equality is best summed up by the following picture: