Glen Beck Book Signing And Running For Pope

This gentleman was an early bird for the book signing at Books-A-Million in Jupiter, Florida. His sign was eagerly signed by the fans. The signatures are for Glen Beck to run for Pope. I prefer him running for President.

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

Religion of Peace Commits Terror Attack On American Soil....Again!

A soldier serving at Fort Hood in Texas has decided he can't take the sight of American aggressors on Islamic states that harbor terrorists anymore. No, the country that gave him free education with a six figure income which he could have used to fund his friends in Iraq and Pakistan. This soldier has a psychiatric background, making him ideal to deal with others with mental anguish. Apparently, he had been given poor conduct reports and for good reason. Why? Obviously, he could not deal with his own internal demons himself. He was an outspoken individual about his religion and proud of it since he displayed the word "Allah" on his home residence front door. A peaceful, religious, fair minded, care individual who embraces the good principles of his religion he was not. He embraced the loathing for other religions and the intolerance his religious fanatics are known the world over for. He murdered (in cold blood) his fellow Americans and fellow soldiers. He should be dealt no mercy. His cousin was interviewed on FOX saying how the murderer was such a good American. This person is an adult, not a 5 year old.

The incident was dealt with in typical fashion by the current administration. Sheik Obama was about to begin giving a speech about a conference that had taken place with the Dept of Interior's help when the incidental shooting took. Take a look:



He proceeds with his speech as planned and thanks staff including a shoutout of congratuations just prior to addressing this horrible massacre. His finesse with words allows him sound proper yet his mannerisms are beginning to appear cold and diluted in its meaningfulness delivery.





This person is rumored to have 2 brothers, one in the US and 1 in Jerusalem. The US government and Israeli government should investigate both individuals immediately! During WW II and the Cold War, the US had any immigrant denounce communism before entering. A similar measure should be taken for immigrants today.


Can anyone not be horrified by the Sheik Obama's initial reaction? What if Bush had a speech after 911 and made call outs to people in the crowd first before addressing the terror attack? Bush had a right to be in shock because the whole nation was in shock! That's why he didn't know how to react at first. This shmuck kept his composure and even conducted business as usual reading his speech. Rucking Fidiculous!

Health Care Bill: What will happen? Well, Your Doc Will......

Let's look at the medical profession on the simplest level. Doctor's businesses have an overhead that must be met in order to stay open. All businesses must collect money to meet the cost of doing business. When any business brings in less money than their overhead, they go out of business. The Obamacare platform is based on cuts to reimbursement fees and removing waste and fraud. Does the President believe no measures are in place that already do this? Of course!! Medicare has regular audits and reviews, inspections of offices, and so much regulation already, the repeating of such measures in this new bill is waste itself! Look up RAC's in google. Look up cases already caught committing fraud. Who is catching these violators? Thank you Sheik Obama but position is already filled!

What about wasteful spending? Well, if TORT reform were addressed, the cost of doing business for the medical profession would go down. Malpractice would be legitimized itself. Why aren't we going after fraud in the LEGAL world? There is a problem that is severely detrimental to all aspects of society. While some lawyers perform their jobs with integrity, the illegitimacy is so wide spread here that it commands a never ending joke! This problem is so wide spread that it has changed the grounds for what people think they can sue for. A lawyer advertised whocanisue.com!! Another billboard said "DUI. You are never over the limit! Call our offices." A potential patient called a doctor's office (friend of mine) several years ago. He was from out of town and had insurance which was only valid in his state and out of state ER. He said he has an infection, was a diabetic, and will be in town for another week. He states he has money to pay out of pocket but hates going to an ER and would prefer it if he could see him. He replied, "If you go to the ER, your necessary tests would be performed (Blood work, X-rays, given meds, etc) under insurance. Then, all your follow up treatment could be done at my office to minimize costs to you. This is your best line of treatment and your cheapest. I will be glad to see you at that point." The caller replied," Are you refusing to see me? Because if you are, I can sue, Y'know?." Needless to say, he wished him good luck and stood his ground.

TORT reform would also allow doctor's to order less tests? Well, this is not entirely true. If doctor's order tests en mass, why has this become habitual practice? Simple. Because lawyers sued doctor's for malpractice stating they didn't order enough to make a proper diagnosis. So, ordering tests gets proper treatment but we shouldn't be ordering them. Lawyers argue that things weren't done in their entirety to achieve the best care for a patient and the new bill wants to tell every citizen testing will be performed at a minmum because it is too often and costly. Wow! Either the standard of care is ordering enough tests to establish a correct diagnosis or a limited amount of tests to curtail costs. It can't be both!

Next, cutting business costs. Cutting business costs by implementing electronic medical records would decrease repeat tests and rid office space of paper clutter. It will prevent medication mistakes. Will streamline daily operation. All great points. The cost is tremendous. Legislation should not order electronic medical record usage. Let the market bring the cost down like it does with everything else. Once the costs are feasible, usage will increase accordingly.

Finally, covering the uncovered. People buy auto insurance because the law requires it. Some people pay more than others, depending on their record. Why is this different than health insurance? Car insurance is not more important than heath insurance! Why are no laws requiring every citizen to have it? If everyone had health insurance, the overall pool would be much larger, driving costs down for everyone and making people with preconditions or with newly diagnosed problems covered only slightly higher than healthy ones. That is the philosophy Sheik Obama is modeling to fund his own plan. So, the idea of covering everyone is great. Still, the government doesn't own the car insurance industry. It shouldn't own the health insurance industry either. Just make legislation mandating having it.


Doctor's treat patients all day long in addition to running the business itself. This includes bookkeeping, billing, filling out forms for insurance companies, running through policy changes every year, and much more. So, a doctor essentially has 2 jobs, being a doctor and a businessman. This is different from a worker who works 9-5 M-F and when they leave work, they go home. When taxes rise, expenses like energy and phone increase, and reimbursements from insurance companies decrease. In other words, nothing is static. The businesses are doomed to dissolve in this situation.


The government intends to eventually take over the industry of health insurance. The monies distributed to the medical professionals will be decreased absolutely. With costs going up, with the majority of doctors being over the age of 50 today, and the liability associated with practice without any discussion of TORT reform going on, the future of the industry is grim. Predictions for distributing care will be dramatically altered because doctors will retire, less are graduating now, and the ones still practicing will be overwhelmed with patients. The only solution will be to import doctors from other countries which is bound to happen.

Palm Beach County Tax Shell Game On Residents-Why Have Your Property Taxes Changed

The residents of Palm Beach County are regularly getting screwed by the politicians voted in solely on the basis of political party affiliation. The county has been a strict Liberal Democrat voting block. Also, it has been THE most corrupt county, being investigated multiple times by the Attorney General. It has the distinction of being the county for the most often arrested and convicted politicians. The Commission has raised taxes on absolutely everything, including parks, ramps for boats, and anything else. They listen to the residents who plead with them to limit taxes or abolish taxes. Instead, they never concede and pass new taxes every time! How arrogant is the Commission? Well, just ask the local Tea Party leader Everitt Wilkenson.


COMMISSIONER BURT "ARROGANT ONE" AARONSON!

This year property taxes are going to go up, way up! While people are losing their jobs or getting cuts in the jobs they maintain, loss of benefits, and increases in taxes such as electric and water, the county voted to raise the Tangible Personal Property Taxes. ( It's also Volusia County, Broward County, and more) Here's how it works: Assessed values are being reduced because property values are going down. In order to make up for the possible loss of revenues, the county Commission and the city Commssion are increasing the tax rates! This is also known as the Millage rate. This is the rate per thousand of value. Although the assessed value may go down, a higher tax rate will now be applied to a lower assessment. The net value will be that the taxes will either stay the same or go up. Devious? Dubious? In the words of Gretchen Wilson, " Hell, Yeah!" The residents will not feel the difference or notice it because the amount is nearly identical. When the economy gets better and the assessed values go up again, the taxes will dramatically rise. At that point, the Commission will contend with the matter. Odds are people will find the cost more acceptable because it won't happen until things get better generally. In short, it is a shell game. And no one is better than the current Commissioner!


When will residents be able to read the actual numbers in dollars and cents? When they receive their trim notice. What is a trim notice? Well, one's trim notice is sent to their home in September or early November. This is a statement of the estimated statement. On the statement, a comparison of last year's taxes and this year's taxes will be there. On the statement, you will have this years value and last year's value, a summary or an itemized list of expenses. Therefore, if your assessed value went down and your taxes went up, at what rate does it increase. Well, divide your taxes by your assessed value for last year and do it for this year. This rate is now higher. For example, if a marina's assessed value goes down a few million dollars, the county will not take a hit. Therefore, a higher tax rate per thousand will make up the difference. One area could be $0.02/thousand and will now be $0.026/thousand. That will be enough to make up the difference.

DIVIDE YOUR REAL ESTATE TAXES BY YOUR ASSESSED VALUE = MILLAGE RATE
COMPARE LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR!! SEE WHAT THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAS DONE TO YOUR RATE!

Your COUNTY and CITY COMMISSIONs are responsible!! They voted FOR this. If you are in a neighborhood with an HOA, you will be raised on association fees, too. Why? The property taxes on common areas your association is responsible for will be affected. Commercial and residential are affected equally. So, if you are a business owner, prepare to be taxed higher. Is this illegal? No. Your Commissioners are voted in by YOU! Your expectation is that the individual voted in will do the right thing.

Alleged Burglars Attempt Crime In Black Face

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

In Iowa, two white suspects were pulled over by local police after their car matched the description of a caller reporting a crime in progress. The suspects, Mat McNelly, 23, and Joey Miller, 20, were found in their car wearing Sharpie permanent marker on their face. The suspects were arrested and posted bail. Their lawyer has no comment so far. I suggest Sharpie compensate the bail posted by the suspects for the free advertising provided. Also, the Al Jolson Family Trust and Estate should see an increase in revenue for the increased interest in old time Black Face performers.

I have several suggestions for future would-be burglars that want to conceal their faces:
1) egg on their face
2) if the perpetrators are black, white-out their complexion (opposite of these idiots)
3) ski masks
4) dress up in drag with foundation, lipstick, and rouge
5) the eyeglasses with a fake nose and mustache
6) a Presidents face rubber mask (Bush or Obama recommended)
7) panty hose
8) shoe polish

The Secret Message Hidden Within The Movie Saw VI

I had a date this past weekend with a girlfriend. When we decided to see the new movie Saw VI, we anticipated it was going to be similar in concept to the past movies. The Saw franchise has produced a series that is reminiscent to the Friday the 13th run and the Nightmare on Elm Street run. The difference between the prior Saw flicks wasn't much until I paid particular attention to this latest rendition.
I noticed the Saw VI movie coincidentally came out when the Health Care Reform Bill is at its most heated controversy. The Saw movies have always put the characters into perplexing situations which gives "the edge" that draws the cult viewership. The main character here works for an insurance company, a health insurance company. The message is repeated frequently that the company decides who dies because the policies sold to patients is never honored. The insurance company is defined as greedy, trying to find loopholes in critically ill people's policies in order to deny coverage, and constantly investigating patients for preconditions in order to deny coverage. The moviegoer is given the feeling that the CEO of the insurance company is the evil person and is finally getting his just dessert.
That is not the only hidden message in the movie! Nope, it is the one I feel must be addressed first. The other hidden message is the one of forgiveness. Is forgiveness a politically correct message? No, it is not. But the deliberate portrayal of torture and death distributed to the guilty in the movie can be seen as a subliminal message against capital punishment. The victim is put through difficult decisions when he or she is given the opportunity to punish someone that has very grievously wronged them. They feel the rush of retribution because they can enact revenge upon the perpetrator. Yet, the degree of torture the perpetrator is subjected to creates guilt in the executioner and a new feeling of wanting to forgive the person is felt. The hidden message? When a horrible crime is committed, the need for leniency should be considered. This is against capital punishment for the most indescribable crimes.
I encourage everyone to miss this movie. The movie hides the message to the untrained eye and subliminally trains the viewer. The message shouted out to me which caused me to fade out of the movie instead of being drawn in. The next Saw movie I plan to miss. My girlfriend likes the "tug at your heart" feel good movies and I intend to watch one with her. Maybe if saw VII is about evil government officials who decide who gets medical treatment or not, I will catch it. But I doubt it!

Soldier's Angels

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

This is a picture of the handout that was distributed to the visitors at the Blogger Convention in Las Vegas. To learn more about this organization and help, contact them at www.soldiersangels.org. Thank you and G-d Bless!

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

At the bloggers convention, the most compelling vendor/exhibitor was the Soldier's Angels. The display was run by two volunteers who were both military people. They were not in the best location at the show but still created enough fanfare to be noticed by the attendees. The US Military sponsored the show and had their own exhibit adjacent to this organization. I thanked the people at the exhibits for their service to the country. They never hear it enough so if the opportunity presents itself, I suggest you do the same. The organization originated from a mother of a soldier. The soldier (son) "expressed concern that some soldiers did not receive any mail or support from home." The mother began to work on a writing campaign online creating a community of caring individuals.
The organization care created packages for different purposes. They consist of simple gestures such as a letter of support and appreciation to materials for the wounded and Vets to support for the families of the soldiers. Their efforts have merited them all kinds of recognition including the US Army Civilian Award for Service in 2006 and the Microsoft USO Effort Award of 2007.
This organization is a non for profit 501(c)(3).

The Convention Begins

The convention begins with the founder of Technorati. here is the entrance to the exhibitors area.

Blog World Expo 2009

I am attending the Blog World Expo 2009 in an attempt to make this site incredible. I have been working behind the scenes trying to incorporate podcasting in both audio and video into the site. I have neglected to post in the usual number of articles since it has been very time consuming. I am readying my pics from the Jewish Bloggers Convention in Jerusalem I attended about a month ago. I purchased photoshop finally! And I am already working on a small group of regulars I can interview for opinion insight from various fields. I have an insurance expert with an extensive history and understanding of what is taking place in the Health Care Reform Act debate. I have an immigration lawyer who has many years of practice. He has had experience with immigrants from multiple countries and how the laws have changed. I, myself, am a doctor currently practicing. The debate over the Health Care Reform is riddled with conjecture and fallacies that many have never addressed. I am hoping to make my post today the next big step on Rucking fidiculous and hope that this convention and the last I attended, will bring more
profound debate to the forefront. So hang in there. I am going to flood the land with information in the next 48 hours. I hope to meet fellow bloggers at this weekend event. If you see my site name on my name tag, please introduce yourself to me. See you!
Unapologetic Ethnocentric Semite

Magazine Advertisement Teeters With Possible Illicit Child Picture

Ebony Magazine page 49 has an advertisement for a product which has a picture of a topless woman and a baby. This picture assumes the woman is the mother.
The nude child is used only to equate the products use on an adult's skin to the skin texture of a newborn. Recently, a couple from Arizona was "turned in" for inappropriate vacation photos. Also, several years ago, Calvin Klein had questionable ads involving nude adults and Brooke Shields. Artistry is considered "pushing the envelope" when group nude photos are taken (all adults but...). Maplethorp was an artist who had nudes, urinating, and more vile(?) photos which were on display in museums. The need for guidelines is now. The message about truly bad behavior is greyed when examples like the above are allowed.

2nd Annual International Jewish Bloggers Convention

I am excited to announce I have signed up to attend this incredible event today. The first convention took place last year which I had to miss because of timing constraints. The lineup looks terrific and the opportunity to mingle amongst fellow Jewish bloggers is too great to pass up a second time. If an award is given for the blogger who attends from the greatest distance, I will be in the running for first place! Defending Israel through social media is the session I am looking forward to the most. While I have been a longtime defender of Israel since this blog's inception, the opportunity to get information firsthand to further my effort is the most precious. The "Scottish Jew" is in constant contact with me, but his aloof nature leads me to believe he will not attend with me. I can't imagine what this convention will ingrain in my persona, but I hope it meets all my expectations. Would I miss this convention a second time knowing that the current affairs of world stage politics is so tumultuous? Don't be rucking fidiculous! (And if you see me there, say hello. Not doing it is ridiculous!)http://www.nbn.org.il/

"Communism in the Classroom" Pass it On!

PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS FROM NEW ZEAL WHICH I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO VISIT FROM THE LIST OF BLOG SITES IN THE LEFT BAR

Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival is holding an important event in Washington DC August 20th.

“Back to School” Conference on “Communism in the Classroom” to be held August 20 at National Press Club. New disclosures about Barack Obama terror associate Bill Ayers.

America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI) is holding a news conference on Thursday to release the results of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests into the activities and foreign travel of University of Illinois Professor Bill Ayers, a former leader of the communist terrorist group, the Weather Underground. Bill Ayers and President Barack Obama were political associates and worked on educational issues together when Obama was an Illinois state senator.

In his best-selling book, Dreams from My Father, Obama said that when he went to college he picked Marxist professors and others as friends in order to avoid being perceived as a “sellout.”

“It is time to examine the influence of Marxist professors, not only on our president, but on students across the nation,” declared ASI President and veteran journalist Cliff Kincaid.

The University of Illinois has been embroiled in a scandal over hundreds of poorly qualified students getting admission through high level political and financial connections. The August 20 “Communism in the Classroom” conference will ask the questions: Who hired Bill Ayers and why?

For the first time, ASI will release and analyze the course descriptions or syllabi of Ayers’ “education” courses at the University of Illinois.

ASI will also report on a controversial trip Ayers made to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela in 2006, to speak at a “World Educational Forum.”

The event will be held on August 20 at 12:30 p.m. in the First Amendment Lounge of the National Press Club (529 14th St., NW) in Washington, D.C.

Speakers include noted author and Professor Paul Kengor of Grove City College on “Anti-Anti-Communism in the Academy;” Professor Mary Grabar on what Ayers is “teaching” in the classroom and whether he got his job “the Chicago Way;” and America’s Survival President Cliff Kincaid on journalism “educator” Curtis MacDougall’s 319-page FBI file.

The “Communism in the Classroom” conference is free of charge and open to the press and the public. But reservations are requested at 443-964-8208 or Kincaid@comcast.net

New Zeal

Anybody interested in the future of US education should be at this conference. I urge my friends in the US blogging community to circulate this notice as widely as possible.

Thanks

Trevor Loudon

MICHELLE OBAMA TRIES OUT FOR NEW NAIR COMMERCIAL

The position of First Lady is a distinguished one. The past position has been held by ladies who were dignified, respectful, classy, and well educated. The most memorable women that exemplified this were Ladybird Johnson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jackie-O, and even Hillary. The image of this office is changing with each administration. The current First Lady has had quite a reputation to live up to and she fully intends to make her own legacy.
The legacy of First Lady Michelle Obama will be one not soon forgotten, I assure you. From her pick of dress for the Inaugural Ball to meeting the Queen, Americans can rest assure Michelle will smite all Western leaders, dress inappropriately, act disrespectfully, and present herself with a contemptuous attitude worthy of her illustrious background. From slapping the Queen
across her back, to doing the "bump" with African leaders, to her anti-white rhetorical ideology, to relaying the message of her revelation that she can finally be "proud of her country".
So, in the tradition of our great heritage, First Lady Obama partakes in a family outing to the grandiose American phenomenon known as the Grand Canyon. Michelle dressed down for the occasion to a questionable, if not objectionable, point. Her contempt for this nation and disrespect has been questioned multiple times. Who could have provided guidance on the dress code for her outing? Other past First Ladies should have been interviewed for their insight and opinion. Her advisors should have picked a more appropriate outfit and something less controversal. Her lack of "cover" is distasteful. Her simple dressing showed lack of class. And her skin exposure showed her misunderstanding of greenhouse gases affecting ozone levels. If she unerstood, she would have covered up with clothes and sunblock.
What was she appropriately dressed for? Well, she could have made a Nair commercial!



She could have played a dancer for a P. Diddy remake of "Baby Got Back!"


In fact, she was prepared for everything except showing the virtue of her position. She has time to make ammends before her husband "Sheik Obama" is finally voted out or impeached. I trust she will continue on her personal crusade to denigrate America, though. Oh, and for those who feel she did nothing wrong the way she dressed.....I think if Michelle can continue to dress in this manner, I would like to offer a suggestion on dressing for Sheik Obama:





Is this appropriate for the President Sheik Obama!?

2nd Amendment and the Bible

I engaged a debate on a social networking site a few days ago about self defense and the Bible. A well-intentioned liberal suggested that the Bible prohibits self defense and the use of lethal force. As support, she cited Matthew 5:38-39:

"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the evil man who injures you; but if anyone strikes you on the right jaw or cheek, turn to him the other one too."

I responded:

You can't quote Scripture to support any argument because you can't quote Scripture to support the argument that the Bible somehow prohibits or even frowns down upon lethal self defense. It appears the issue is whether self-defense is Biblically permitted. I argue that it is not just permitted, it is encouraged. First off, we must ask why the right cheek was specified? Because the verse refers to what we today call a "bitch slap," where one strikes another using the back of their right hand (of course, this assumes correctly that most were right-handed). Back then, a bitch slap was used not so much with the intent to inflict bodily injury but to shame, insult. We must also remember that Jesus was correcting the pharisees who were teaching, erroneously, that the revengent notion of "eye for an eye" applied not only to gov't's punishment of wrongdoing, but also to personal revenge. It was personal revenge against insult, shame, etc., that Jesus prohibited.

This is a far cry from self defense, obviously, and you don't need Scripture to point out this fact. Logically speaking, if my life is threatened and I don't defend myself, then I probably won't be around to turn the other cheek. So interpreting the verse to mean we shouldn't defend ourselves doesn't make sense. Again Matthew 5 does not allude to ascenario requiring self defense, but to something much more benign. Moreover, Biblical support abounds. Exodus 22 can be cited for the proposition that we can use lethal force against an intruder. In 1 Sam. 13, we're told that a nation that doesn't bear arms invites attack and plunder. In Nehemiah 4, God instructs the Israelites to bear arms (swords) to defend and protect. Luke 22 (supra) stands for essentially the same proposition. And lastly (but not limited to), 1 Tim. 5 instructs us to take care and provide for our families. Obviously, this implies both protecting oneself (the bread winner) and his/her family (for whom he/she provides).

American Confucius

The Last Delta Two Rocket

Here is a picture showing the last rocket ever to blast off from NASA. I didn't expect it until I saw Fox News. I could not get my video camera in time. If you wanted to know what WW 3 would look like, it looks eerily similar to this, I imagine.

WEIGHING IN ON HEALTHCARE REFORM

I have been following the health care debate for the last year daily. Hours and hours spent watching different groups sprout up and give context to their agenda. Who are the groups and what are they saying? I have extensively read their articles, their activity, and looked up their staff. This issue has become the number one topic of conversation for everyone, regardless of age. The arguments are persuasive and profound. Conclusion? Many talk about the issues knowing full well that they are lying. For example, the American Medical Assoc. cannot possibly account for their position in support of the bill yet the members overtly oppose it. It is easy to understand the stand taken by the AMA when you reason for what purpose it serves. I have 2 names I use on this blog: 1) unapologeticethnocentricsemite and 2) grappledoctor. The grappledoctor name is a reference to mixed martial arts for which I will not comment further for now. The doctor reference is because I am in the medical field. As a doctor, I have the "inside" view most fail to recognize. As a citizen of this country, I am personally concerned. Finally, as the father of a child with a genetic disorder, I have experienced hardship unlike most have ever seen. The doctor side has seen patients both wealthy and poor. Patients perceptions of medical issues have changed over the years and I have witnessed the brainwashing of the public at large in believing medical care should be free. Is this the proper view knowing full well what it takes to be in the health care industry? I will be writing a plethora of articles over the next 3 weeks explaining the issues that have already been addressed in ways not yet viewed. I will be informing readers of this blog of issues not a single page on the internet has had the chutzpah to explore. And finally, I will be leaving for Israel in the next few weeks giving myself time to fully write the details others fail to write. I hope for feedback with dialogue from readers to express thoughts openly and honestly with the opportunity to indulge townhall meetings with intellectual conversation. We, the people, will decide the future path! Not Democrats or Republicans! When we remind the politicians of this, they will respond in kind. A Call to Arms!!

Evilbeetgossip.film.com Is a Site That Needs Help

When the news came out announcing the marriage of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, it was greeted publicly with the usual hoopla. The surprise came when Ivanka decided to convert to Judaism, the same religion as her fiance. Understandably, some people were disappointed and some were excited. When the web sites got wind of the news, the reporting was mostly favorable. When the website evilbeetgossip reported the news, it reported that, "Ivanka Trump is officially a dirty Jew." Considering the fact that the article later used Yiddish terminology in a positive light to describe the union leads me to believe the writer is Jewish or part Jewish. This poorly written remark is riddled with bad taste, overtones of hatemongering, and perpetuating the belief that it is okay to say it. The comments posted under this article are testament to this. A reminder of the Vice President referring to Sheik Obama as "clean" quickly comes to mind. Shame on evilbeetgossip!

WELCOME TO THE JEWISH RELIGION IVANKA!

The Jews do not pursue the conversion of others. On the other hand, when someone does want to become a Jewish person, the conversion is no small task. In the show Sex in the City, one of the characters was considering converting to Judaism for a relationship with a man. When the woman finds a Rabbi to assist her through the process, he refuses her request. (No, I don't watch the show). The character Charlotte is repeatedly dismissed because in Judaism your advances must be serious and sincere. So, when Ivanka decided to convert to Judaism, I know she went through a rigorous ordeal. She is a person I respected greatly beforehand. Now, I can say she is one of us. So, from the UnapologeticEthnocentricSemite, WELCOME. Happy to have you aboard. Oh, and the episode was from season six.

Ivanka Trump Pictures

Unlikely Foes: Ted Olson Takes On Proposition 8

There's an epic battle brewing on the Western front, and it's going largely unnoticed. Theodore Olson, former Solicitor General under the second Bush administration and a staunch conservative and Federalist, along with David Boies have filed suit in the Northern District of California challenging Proposition 8 on, inter alia, equal protection grounds under the 14th amendment. Ted Olson and David Boies are titans in the legal industry. Interesting tid-bit: Ted Olson and David Boies were adversaries in Bush v. Gore, with Olson defending Bush and Boies defending Gore. They stand at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, they are standing together in the name of equal protection.

Proposition 8, by way of Strauss v. Horton, was upheld by the California Supreme Court a couple months ago, which resulted in the continued validity of 18,000 gay marriages that occurred prior to the decision but outlawed any further gay marriages. So currently, while 18,000 gay marriages remain valid, no others are permitted under California law. And the rub is that now you necessarily have inequality based on sexual orientation. Proponents for Prop 8, led by attorney Charles Cooper, another legal titan, will argue that because each individual still has the right to marry whoever they want, as long as marriage is between a man and a woman, there is no equal protection violation. Opponents of Prop 8, led by Olson and Boies, will equate a ban on gay marriage with a ban on interracial marriage, specifically pointing to Loving v. Virginia that struck down on equal protections grounds a Virgina law banning interracial marriages.

I part company with many conservatives and find Olson's challenge to Proposition 8 compelling. I fully support it. Some conservative legal scholars, particularly those from the Alliance Defense Fund and the Liberty Counsel have argued that Loving v. Virginia is distinguishable with Proposition 8 because in Loving there was indeed discrimination based on a suspect class, namely, race, but that here, there is no such discrimination because sexual orientation is not a suspect class. In other words, the ban on interracial marriage treated people differently based on race, a fundamental trait, but that Proposition 8 does not because presumably sexual orientation is not a fundamental trait recognized by our laws. Another argument is based on federalist principles in that the people of California voted for a measure and therefore federal courts must respect the outcome.

Although I rarely part company with the ADF and Liberty, I must say both arguments are specious. The first argument is specious because there is necessarily unequal protection in California due to the ruling in Strauss v. Horton - you have 18,000 gay couples enjoying a fundamental right to marry (a right that is well established to be fundamental) while other gay couples are not enjoying the right beause they cannot under Strauss v. Horton. This presents an unequal instance that seems clearly violative of the 14th amendment equal protection guarantee. And if you accept that Proposition 8 is therefore unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter if 99% of Californians voted for the measure, it must be struck down.

As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too - gay marriage is either valid of invalid. If you say marriage is between a man and a woman, that is black letter law and thus must be enforced as such, which would necessarily mean that the existing 18,000 gay marriages must be invalidated as well. We are talking about a fundamental right here. But if you're going to allow the 18,000 gay marriages to remain valid, then you are necessarily saying that those gay marriages are legally valid, which in turn means marriage can indeed be between same-sex couples, which then means Strauss v. Horton is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Again, under our Constitution, you can't say the 18,000 gay couples can enjoy a fundamental right, but no other gay couple can. Undoubtedly, this presents a constitutional conflict ripe for the Supreme Court.

This case is surely going up all the way to the Supreme Court. The timing poses a risk for Olson and the gay community. The biggest risk is that the Supreme Court will take the opportunity to declare once and for all that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, effectively acting as a federal amendment to the Constitution. Then, Olson and the gay community would be hoist by their own petard. This is outcome if very possible given the make-up of the Court presently.

Regardless of whether you have moral problems with homosexuality and gay marriage, I think everyone who respects our Constitution should really consider the merits of Olson's case. In our nation, fundamental rights are provided to every citizen with equal vigor. We don't say one person can enjoy a right but another cannot. Loving v. Virginia makes it clear that marriage is a fundamental right. Moreover, our founding fathers were explicit in their intent to protect the weak from the strong, to protect the minority from the majority, and is why our country is a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a full-fledged democracy. Just because the majority of a state (or even our nation) votes one way or another, if that vote violates equal protection in any way, that must be struck down. That is the job of the Judiciary, our third, and perhaps the most influential and powerful, branch of government.

One last point, whether you support Olson and his lawsuit against the current status quo in California boils down to this question: What's more important to you, 14th amendment equal protection or stopping gay marriages in California? For me, it is unquestionnably the former. Olson's lawsuit challenges the inequality that resulted from Strauss v. Horton. In order to correct this situation, Olson is hoping to reverse Strauss and allow gay marriages in California and in doing so must directly attack Prop 8. If, however, stopping gay marriage is more important to you, then you are willing to tolerate the clear equal protection violation we currently see in California and will side with the proponents of Prop 8. Even if you supported Proposition 8, you can still maintain your integrity: by supporting Olson, you are not necessarily supporting gay marriage, but rather you are supporting equal protection and claiming that either everyone deserves to enjoy a fundamental right or no one does.

So my hat's off to Ted Olson and David Boies. Godspeed.

American Confucius

1943 Christmas Dinner: Company B Ordinanace Maintenance Battalion

Click the picture to enlarge!

When this menu is opened, the dishes are listed in the center. This was printed for Company B 127th Ordinance Maintenance Battalion. The symbol for the Company can be seen in the center top of the menu. It's yellow, blue-green, and red. It has a side view of a tank tread and wheels, a cannon with the barrel pointed to the top left, and a lightning bolt in red across the center.

WWII Christmas Dinner: Company B

For Independence Day, I felt like sharing a momento from WWII. The Veterans of that war are dying off in great numbers everyday. For them, please enjoy this!

Uploaded by www.cellspin.net

Battles of the 2nd Amendment

Judge Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit has been nominated to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court bench. The nomination has invited a flurry of opinions from everyone with two cents. Sotomayor's nomination has been controversial to say the least, but, as everyone knows at this point, despite all the questions surrounding her record, her victim-minority sensibilities and her competence as an intellectually-qualified jurist, the probability that she'll fly through the Senatorial kabooki theater (aka confirmation process) is very high. But recently, the Supreme Court's reversal of the infamous white firefighter case (Ricci) certainly adds to Sotomayor's baggage that may weigh her down during the hearings. Sotomayor was one of three 2nd Circuit judges that held against the firefighters. Without going into the details of the case, it's enough to say that the Supreme Court rightly held (and reversed Sotomayor) that a disparate impact along racial lines was not an acceptable basis upon which to deny the white firefighters (and one hispanic) their promotions, which they earned by passing a promotional examination. It was a momentous victory for meritocracy, fairness, and racial equality.

But perhaps this is not the most interesting happenstance surrounding Judge Sotomayor. Another one of Judge Sotomayor's 2nd circuit case, Maloney v. Cuomo, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in the next term. In that case, a New York resident/citizen was arrested and fined for owning a set of nunchakus (or, "chukka sticks") in violation of New York law prohibiting the ownership of arms. Under current New York law, nunchakus are considered arms and thus fits the state's 2nd amendment prohibitions. Moreover, under the 1873 Slaughter-house cases and the Cruikshank case, the 2nd amendment is not incorporated into the states and local governments and therefore, New York's prohibition of owning arms includes the prohibition to own nunchakus.

Here's the problem. DC v. Heller, the seminal Supreme Court's 2nd amendment decision, unambiguously pronounced last year that the right to bear arms is an individual fundamental right, on the same level as free speech for instance. This necessarily means that all states and local governments must comply and respect the right, unless the state's restriction can survive strict scrutiny, which historically-speaking is near impossible. The 2nd circuit panel in Maloney, which included Judge Sotomayor, concluded that 1) the 2nd amendment does not apply to the state or local governments (according to Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank) and 2) that the right to bear arms is not fundamental and therefore the states only have to come up with a rational basis for the restriction to bear arms, as opposed to surmounting the strict scrutiny standard which automatically presumes the state restriction is unconstitutional. The court of course ruled that the state did in fact have a rational basis for the restriction and upheld the New York law. Essentially, Judge Sotomayor and her panel colleagues completely ignored Heller's clear pronouncement that the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right deserving of the strict scrutiny standard and mooting the question of whether the 2nd amendment is incorporated into the states.

Interestingly, there are two circuit cases currently pending that directly concern both issues in Maloney. A case in the 5th circuit, Bledsoe v. U.S., concerns the issue of whether the right to bear arms is indeed fundamental, a challenge thats likely to fall on deaf ears due to the clarity of Heller. There's another case in the 7th circuit, NRA v. Chicago, where the NRA is directly challenging the Slaughter-house cases and Cruikshank's pronouncement that the 2nd amendment, or more generally the Bill of Rights, are not incorporated into state and local governments. Its reasonable to assume that the Supreme Court decided to review Maloney in order to dispose of both of these critical 2nd amendment issues, which in turn would dispose of Bledsoe, NRA, and Maloney, all at the same time. (The ruling could also overrule Slaugherhouse and Cruikshank, a very welcome proposition in my opinon).

Here's my prediction for Maloney: it's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will reverse itself so quickly after Heller. Thus, I think the Court will affirm Heller and rule that the right is indeed fundamental. The State of New York will have to show that its restriction on owning nunchakus has a "compelling state interest" (as opposed to simply a rational basis) and that the restriction is narrowly tailored. I highly doubt that New York will be able to surmount this high standard of review since there's an automatic presumption that the restriction is unconstitutional. Additionally, nunchakus are usually used to practice martial arts (how many assaults/murders have you heard of where nunchakus were used?) and the self-defense justifications for owning and bearing arms generally are compelling reasons that run against the State's compelling interest in curbing arms ownership by its citizens. So if the State fails to meet its burden, which I predict it will, the Court will then rule that the State law abridging the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional, reversing Sotomayor's ruling in Maloney. Moreover, given the incrementalist approach of the current Supreme Court, it's not unreasonable to predict that the Court may "prudentially" punt on the constitutional issue of whether Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank were rightly decided.

At any rate, it's an exciting, and in some ways precarious, time for the 2nd amendment. Its founding integrity is far from certain.

American Confucius

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

If you want to join the party, go to the website! It's here at southfloridateaparty.org






This is an example of the type of people that go to Tea Party events. Get a good look because there are NO EXTREMISTS HERE!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_chRvtWMZTZY/SlPBLI6rlUI/AAAAAAAAALA/RPgJWEAVOdo/s1600-h/3690653317_d4290f3d4f_m.jpg">


Here are real live EXTREMISTS!! Take note! They are holding signs containing slogans strictly pro America! The poorly informed media believe "White Supremists" run the party or are in attendance for recruitment purposes. Obviously, this is falsely reported. Why? Because the sign at the bottom picture has a sign for a man running for US CONGRESS. Who? Allen West. I met him at a 912 meeting in Palm Beach Gardens. He gave a brilliant lecture on his positions on current matters. Also, he happens to be Black or African American. I know, shocked! He is a recently retired military officer and I encourage everyone to go to his website and to vote for him!
AllenWestforCongress

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

Here is the radio celebrity Joyce Kaufman lending a hand. If anyone can get this party started, it's Joyce!





No lack of speakers here. These guys got the message across about why we were demonstrating.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

Some of the 912ers were in attendance. I wanted to point out many local groups sympathic to the message participated. I won't reveal who they are but they deserve recognition. Thanks!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

Joyce Kaufman is a radio talk show host who is very popular in South Florida. She is a hero in my book. Her shows have inspired many members to join. She has talked about terrorism, patriotism, and American Rights regularly. She knows who I am and knows how much everyone appreciated her appearing. Make yourself a list of things to do and make number 1 on the list to go to this site and listen to her. JOYCE KAUFMAN



Well, this little supporter should put egg on the face of liberals! She is extreme only in support of the Tea Party! And that is okay with us.







Police estimates were 2500 people. The demonstration got attention of the crowd that came down for the "Fourth on Flagler" celebration.

Maybe the Administration should look at some of these pictures. Dress the part!!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

The local Police Dept. was on hand to ensure the peaceful demonstration stayed peaceful. Thanks go out to them!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

This was the sign handed out to the adoring public. The message is short, sweet, and clear. When anyone cares to participate, it is great to bring your own homemade sign, too.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

This is a picture of the group which can be clicked on to make larger. If you look closely, you can see that the channel 12 local CBS news crew has a truck in the right back of the picture. They took little note of the demonstration. It was easy to miss right in front of their faces!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

CLICK THIS PHOTO! This guys sign is great!!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

This picture is the gathering of supporters before the actual march. Here the supporters prepared with their own signs. The audience was alert and attentive. The two Tea Party members with bullhorns were conducting operations. The "Surgeon General" instructed everyone of the gameplan and the intention on where to go.

The "Surgeon General" is not pictured here.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

These two did a great job! The guy with the red shirt on the left reads USMC.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION: VETERAN DEDICATION

America's soldiers are always underappreciated in my opinion. There is never enough thanks! One only has to visit a cemetery to understand the sacrifice. The VA system should be second to none. If I had to choose between giving illegals free treatments in hospitals across this country or give the funds to equip VA hospitals, I know my choice.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION: VETERAN DEDICATION

This is the call for all Veterans to be acknowledged by coming forward. The Pledge of Allegiance was done, God Bless America, and TAPS!

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

This is when people started to show up. You can see the park here is lined with benches. While the party started setting up, the crowd of people took notice. Many were Veterans from Vietnam, Korea, and WWII.

JULY 4 2009 TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION

Here the two members with bullhorns arrange the sign holders in a circle. Everyone is asked to speak a few words about what brought them down today and why they are here. These 2 guys worked hard all day. When you click this picture to see it closer, read the inspiring words on each sign.

July 4th Tea Party Celebration: The "Surgeon General" takes fromtstage while everyone with posters lines up in a semi-circle formation. Its time to get the word out!!

Tea Party July 4th Pics: Part of it and Proud!!

Here are two members proudly displaying their participation. (Click the picture!)

Tea Party Fourth of July: Pre Celebration Demonstration

The group gathered for reviewing of the game plan. Well organized and motivated, 3 bullhorns strong and the hardwork of a young lady on the poster detail, we proceeded to line up for attention getting walk!

AMERICAN BADASS

This is the website of an American who just kicks ass. He's a rootin', tootin', gun slinger who supports Western Civilization! And not with words only..he proudly wears his attitude on his chest with the T-shirts he sells at gun shows across this state. I highly recommend everyone go to his site and buy as many shirts as possible. Oh, and if you see him at a show and argue about his views, when you turn around, you will receive a steel tip boot in your a$$ courtesy of "The American Badass."

INFIDELINK.com

SAY HELLO THIS WEEKEND AT THE SOUTH FLORIDA GUN SHOW! July 4,5

Mark Sanford: Pick Your Ring

Mark Sanford, in his bizarre and utterly shameless attempt to explain his flings and extramarital affair with a "professional, passionate, and beautiful brunette," cited Scripture for why he is refusing to step down from his position as Governor of South Carolina. Specifically, he compared himself with King David, "who fell mightily. . . in very, very significant ways but then picked up the pieces and built from there."

As a Believer, I find this absolutely atrocious, beyond reprehensible, and a poignant example of rank hypocrisy and sanctimony that we too often see in the evangelical movement in this country and in the Republican party. How dare he drag all the good Christians (and non-Christians) through his own shit in a sorry attempt to save his own ass.

Now, I dont proclaim to be a Biblical expert, far from it. However, I do know this. King David's story was told as a cautionary tale, not an example to emulate. Moreover, he did not build jack shit after he "fell mightily." In fact, King David was prohibited from building the Great Temple in Jerusalem because a divine edict forbid him from doing so. "You will not build a house for My name for you are a man of battles and have shed blood." I Chronicles 28:3. (King Solomon ultimately built his father's dream temple) Moreover, Sanford should know, since he has proclaimed to be such a great Christian, that God ultimately took away his power (and gave it to his son King Solomon) and also took away his life.

Mark Sanford, you lost my respect, you lost my empathy. Sir, Dante's waiting, time to pick your ring.

American Confucius

Mea Culpa...

Last night, I posted some additional thoughts on Leonard Zeskind's new book thinking that it was the same author I had heard on Fresh Air last week. Apparently, I was wrong. Zeskind was never on Fresh Air, and I mistook him for another author discussing a completely different book. For this, my apologies to Leonard Zeskind and our readers.

Leonard Zeskind is Dead Wrong About the Tea Party

Leonard Zeskind has a career with notable writings in major publications. He was a community activist and is President of the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. He has a new book out about white hate groups in America called Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream Many of these hate groups he investigates are using names that allege a patriotic stance. Names like National Alliance, Liberty Lobby, and the Freemen are examples. But has his views been contaminated by outside influences? influences like Left Wing radical groups? Are the organizations primarily made up of whites immediately and prejudiciously lumped into the same category as racist groups? Specifically, are groups like the 912 Group or the Tea Party recreated movements rooted in this typical hatred.


According to Zeskind, the Tea Party has become a prime example of a new movement of white power hatred. His latest article has been alluding to the fact that white hate groups view any protests performed by the Tea Party to be an opportunity for recruitment. Upon attending meetings and protests, they will ultimately be able to take the leadership positions. He writes the July 4th showing is,"...where a constellation of anti-tax, anti-immigrant, and Christian right activists and Republican conservatives are gathering their forces. Expect white nationalists to put their own star in this sky."


I am a Jew and a Tea Party Committee member for south Florida. I can tell you that we ween out any undesirables immediately upon realizing who they are. Stormfront is in our neighborhood and has never distributed material at any meetings or events of ours. The South Florida Tea Party is run by REAL grass root Americans. Real grassroots meaning citizens themselves that have taken the helm and organized. Not a well funded right wing hate group nor a billionaire radical left wing group. Just average Americans who have the same spirit our forefathers had. No one is disqualified as a member for their heritage, this is the real thing(not the Coca Cola reference)! Rich, poor, blue collar, white collar, old, young, and everything in between are members actively participating. The misguided belief that hate groups are any part of or infiltrating the party in any numbers is wrong!

The most appalling part of Mr Zeskind's article is the title, "Rereading the Tea Leaves: July 4 Protests Will Include White Nationalists." This title infers that the White Nationalists "included" have been invited as speakers or guests at the protest. This is at least misleading his readers and at the most an inflammatory fabrication.



I find the absence of hate groups like La Reza and the Black Theology aka Black Liberation aka Black Supremacy and Black Panthers in your writings. These groups infiltrate Liberal activist groups with their poisonous agenda. Where is the criticism. Where are the books about their dangerous message.


In summary, failure to recognize the spirit of America's past in organizations promoting positive values is typical of people blinded by Left Wing ideology. Both Liberal and Conservative groups have a mixed message of good points and bad. Identifying radical hate groups on both sides of the fence is a responsible message. A deliberate misguided message overstating and over exaggerating the possible infiltration of these organizations by hate groups continues to divide Americans. I invite Mr. Zeskind to join us on July 4th so he can write a tasteful and truthful article.


SouthFloridaTeaParty

STOP EATING BEANS: SAY NO TO NEW TAX ON GAS

Well, the Democrats are preparing to pass a new tax today in order to push the green environmental agenda. The promise of NOT taxing the public at large is no longer important now that the Dems control everything. Does anyone remember Old Man Bush when he said, "Read my lips. No new taxes!" Well, now the Republicans should blast back with commercials showing public speeches by each Democrat stating no new taxes on the middle and lower classes. This passage stands to raise taxes on gas, coal, and all fossil fuels which are used by nearly everything. While technology does exist to generate energy in "green technology", the implementation of these things on a large scale is costly, requires time to construct and training to maintain, and is still improving at rates that would question whether this is the time to jump in. In detail, the bill would do the following:

Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion
Destroy an average of 1-3 million jobs, every year
Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation
Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent
Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent
Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500 annually
Increase the federal debt by 26 percent, which is $29,150 per person

I beseech you, contact your government representatives and tell them HR 2454 must not pass.

Randian Objectivism: The Highest Form of Morality

Recently, a buddy of mine and I had a debate about martial arts and philosophy. As a former (physical) pracitioner of martial arts (now I just practice the mental aspect of it), I found the debate very interesting and wanted to memorialize it here as it also pertains to the philosophical and intellectual roots of post-WWII modern American Conservatism.

So my buddy, who is as left as you can get, but incredibly bright, suggested that martial arts, in addition to its physical benefits, had tremendous intangible benefits as well. Namely, that practicing martial arts brought out one's innate morality, specifically, one's duty to protect the weak, to help the poor, and to put society above oneself. Then, in an attempt to provoke, he asserted that a disciple of Ayn Rand would object to this "moral" magnanimity. Yes, I'm a fan of Ayn Rand, and yes, his provocation succeeded. But as I will attempt to explain, the notion that Ayn Rand was somehow immoral or against helping the poor is a common misconception. Indeed, it clearly shows that the provocateur has not read much of Rand's writings and has simply echoed popular culture's erroneous perception of Rand.

First of all, men are not born innately good. Men are born in sin and are born virtueless (inability to detect right from wrong). We are not born with knowledge and understanding of a duty to protect the weak. But this does not mean that men have no ability to develop into good men. In fact, men are born with a "moral" gene. But it is our environment - family, friends, spirituality, religion, and of course martial arts - that create a conducive environment in which our seeds of morality can sprout and develop. In turn, it changes and civilizes us for the better. Martial arts is one vehicle by which we develop away from our innate weaknesses and toward civility, honor, and virtue. Moreover, in a diverse nation like ours, morality, for good or ill, will necessarily be fluid. What is moral to me differs from what is moral to you. So when the state, which is run by men, imposes their morality onto me, a conflict could likely ensue. And of course it does all the time.

Ayn Rand battled against state-imposed collectivism and state-imposed redistribution of income. In other words, Rand battled against state imposition of morality. She certainly felt that she had a duty to protect the weak (the people) from the threat of totalitarian government and state imposition, which undoubtedly diminishes freedom in society. Freedom from oppression and state control was the highest form of morality and thus her ultimate objective. Personally, it is freedom that allows me to carry out my learned duty to stand by the weak - giving to charity, church - not the state forcing me with the threat of loss of my life and liberty and happiness if I don't comply with their conception of morality. (Of course, if we were all Burkean conservatives, our moral sensibilities would more or less be the same due to our shared appreciation for Judeo-Christian values. But I must concede that Rand was a devout athiest. But her view of what was "moral" was, again, maximum freedom fettered only by positive law, a notion that squares perfectly with Judeo-Christian values and Edmund Burke's respect for religious traditionalism.)

But even so, the rich do not have a "duty" to give to the poor or to help the indigent. And the state certainly has no mandate to force the rich to do so. But wealth is relative. I'm not rich, and comparatively, I'm also poor. But damn, I certainly don't think that Bill Gates has an obligation, a duty, to give his money to me. I'll work and make it on my own. Moreover, we may not have such a duty, but again, through experience and wisdom obtained from our environment, we develop an understanding that private charity and philanthropy - whether it's giving millions to a charity or simply tithing every week to a religious institution - benefits everyone and makes for a better society. Because, from a both selfish and altruistic perspective, it is in all our interests to maximize everyone's standard of living. But again, I emphasize, it is not the job of the government to force me to be altruistic and to help the poor.

That said, it is obviously beneficial for the rich to give back to the poor, BUT THROUGH PRIVATE CHARITY, not under the duress of the state. History shows that Americans have been and continue to be the most generous nation on earth. Our overwhelming generosity was recently exemplified by the tsunami disaster. We gave, and gave, and gave some more. (I'm drinking Ethos Water as I'm writing this.) Moreover, history has shown that with all else equal, private charity increases with the decrease in the size of the welfare state. It makes sense if you think about it. If 35% of your hard-earned income (and all the other forms of taxation) is being taken away by the government and redistributed through welfare and foreign aid, what incentive do I have to give privately? The government is doing it for me!

If you read Rand's fiction (Rand articulated her philosophy mainly through her fiction), every single antagonist is clearly portrayed as lazy, entitled, and slothful. Rand's ire was directed to such individuals. Let's be clear about this: the antagonists were not hard working, driven people. They had abundant access to opportunity. Some were heirs to great wealth who went on to waste it away (a typical result of being born into privilege). They were entitled. They were idiots. They couldn't compete with the hard-working protaganists in the realms of intelligence and productivity. They were proven failures undeserving of man's compassion (perhaps all are deserving of God's compassion.) But this idea is certainly not incongruent with morality. It is not immoral to not want to help unproductive entitled individuals especially when there are so many out there who do truly aspire to augment their greatness through merit and hard work. So martial arts teaches. And so Rand believed.

American Confucius

Back to Our Roots: Burkean Conservatism

Today, I see two main factions warring over the label "conservatism": the traditionalists and the libertarians. Is there middle ground upon which the two sides can come together? Yes. And I will reason out my thoughts and arguments in two or three posts. For this post, I hearken back to Burkean Conservatism. In doing so, I argue that Edmund Burke and his strand of conservatism is the intellectual and philosophical forefather of post-WWII modern American conservatism. In fact, the roots of the label, "conservative", or a party of restraint, can be traced directly back to Edmund Burke.

Edmund Burke was an Irishman who rose quickly through the British political ranks. He first cut his teeth in British politics by writing for the Annual Register, an annual review of the political and cultural events of Europe. He eventually became the editor of the Register, which at that time was a highly successful and influential journal. His formal political career began when he was elected to the House of Commons where he quickly became an outspoken critic of Britain's colonial imprudence in handling the American colonies and taking focused aim at Britain's taxation of the colonies without proper representation. (Naturally, Edmund Burke and his traditionalist and libertarian philosophies were embraced by our country's founding fathers, particularly by J.Madison and A.Hamilton, evidenced by their writings in the Federalist Papers.)

But probably most notable was Burke's deep animus against the French Revolution (see book: Reflections on the French Revolution). Burke visited France in 1773 during which time he witnessed a country hobbling under serious financial problems and brimming with militant atheism. Upon return to Britian, Burke noted in an address to Parliament that "under the systematic attacks of these people, I see some of the props of good government already begin to fail..." (Reflections). Soon thereafter, mob violence in France grew and reached its peak with the mobs storming into Bastille on July 14, 1789. The Jacobins, under the leadership of Robespierre, took control and mandated that all cultural, legal, political, and religious institutions of France, including their figureheads, be immediately eradicated. (Wiki). By this point, Burke was convinced that the French Revolution was nothing like the American Revolution. The French Revolution was being driven by a force of evil.

Burke's political philosophy was based on the ancient classical and Christian moral natural law. According to Burke, this natural law provided the precepts by which rulers ruled and used their power to protect of life, liberty, and property (a very familiar idea). Burke regarded the protection of private property as essential to the maintenance of freedom in society. He viewed freedom in the marketplace as vital to a fluid and vibrant society, but he also recognized that a legal apparatus that maintained this freedom was equally necessary - you couldn't have one without the other. (see superb article: Edmund Burke and Adam Smith: Pioneers in the Field of Law and Economics) These views, boiled down, implied that rulers were held accountable to the Christian God and the natural laws, while being held accountable to his subjects through positive law (e.g. constitutional and contract laws), which, of course, derived largely from natural laws. Stated simply, virtue (quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong) and freedom had to work in tandem for maximum prosperity.

Today, we see Burke's moral values, derived from the religious traditions of Christianity, embodied by our social, legal, religious, and familial institutions (although such institutions are being threatened by the sturm and drang of a growing atheistic movement). Burke favored a strong presumption in favor of the validity of longstanding institutional traditions (Christianity) and hostility to rapid unfettered change. For Burke, conserving these institutions was critical and necessary. Burke also recognized that men were born evil and that the only way man could gain virtue was largely through the religious traditions of Christianity. This appreciation of the Christian tradition coupled with maximum individual freedom (a la small government, fiscal restraint, and other contemporary libertarian positions) is essentially Burkean conservatism.

This is core idea that the Republican Party must once again unambiguously embrace. Frank Meyer, a Christian libertarian, has articulated this goal brilliantly calling it "fusionism", which I will discuss briefly in a subsequent post.

American Confucius

Miranda Rights to Foreign Detainees: The First Step to a New World Order

According to a post on The Blog of the Weekly Standard, the "Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee."

That's right. Overseas FBI agents are being required to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured in the theater of war. The first right is of course the right to remain silent. Now how the hell are you supposed to protect your country from terrorists when the first thing you tell a suspected enemy combatant is that he has a right to keep his mouth shut?

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a Supreme Court decision and was a corollary to Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), another Supreme Court decision. In Miranda, the Court created seemingly out of whole cloth the right to remain silent. It is no where in the U.S. Constitution. And in Griswold, the Court created the right to privacy. Again, there is no such right in our written Constitution. In both cases, the majority created a brand spanking new constitutional right by arguing that such right derived from "penumbras" and "emanations" from our Bill of Rights. Such logic is obviously a very slippery slope. But forget the merit of such rights, and whether they actually exist. That's really a discussion for another day. The Court has recognized them. They're here to stay.

Once you declare that such detainees (usually enemy combatants) are entitled to our constitutional protections, one of the implications is that now the enemy combatants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. That is surpassingly absurd not only because it adds another provision to the rules of engagement (which already severely hamstring our military), but more importantly because the necessary premise of war is that both sides are guilty of attempted and premeditated homicide! The whole point of war is to achieve victory by death and destruction of human life. There's absolutely no reason to go through a trial process to determine whether the enemy combatant is guilty.

And herein lies the fundamental problem. The system by which we adjudicate our own citizens must necessarily be different from the system by which we adjudicate foreign detainees and enemy combatants. This is because, as previously mentioned, the premise upon which an individual is detained is completely different. When a United States citizen is detained, because our Constitution applies to that individual, he enjoys the presumption of innocence. A foreign detainee does not and should not. The premise of his detention if war.

Clearly, this is another step toward "internationalization", which ineluctably means a reduction in our national sovereignty. Once we begin extending our sacrosanct Constitutional protections to foreigners, the exclusivity and sovereignty of our Constitution must necessarily go along with it piece by piece. We'll soon be welcoming the New World Order.

American Confucius

Identity Crisis in the Conservative Movement

Conservatism in the past half century has had mixed political fortunes. The ebb and flow has often fueled acrimonious debate among those who consider themselves to be the real conservatives. The factions include traditionalists, libertarians, neoconservatives, paleoconservatives, and those who simply call themselves "conservative." We have the moderates in the northeast, the socially conservative in the south, the working class conservatives of the heartland, and the Ron Paul libertarians in the west all claiming ownership of the conservative movement, all giving their two cents as to which direction the Party should head. Such factionalization reveals, what seems to me at least, an identity crisis. What does it mean to be a conservative? What ideas, values, precepts should a conservative party espouse? Is there a common thread that can bind us all together into a strong unified party ? Complex questions require complex answers. But perhaps not. Perhaps one obvious reason for the crisis may be the lack of historical knowledge and perspective, which in turn, has led conservatism to be defined by our politics and not our intellectual superiority. The younger generation conservatives are (at least the un-apathetic ones) steeped in the political machine, but the depth stops there. (This is not to say ignorance isn't pervasive in older generations, because it is. But my indictment is aimed primarily on the future of the party.) In fact, the more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the problem is exactly that - historical ignorance and intellectual immaturity. 

Recently, I've come across profound ignorance in our current political debate, especially among my generation conservatives who appear to be fairly well educated. (Forget about the liberals - that's a problem for another day.)  It's rational ignorance at best, a permanent stupor at worst, and a serious indictment of the future leaders of conservatism in general.  I speak of folks active in Republican circles who speak adamantly about what is right and wrong with our country, who bemoan how much we've deviated from the original Republican party ideals, without having the slightest idea of the philosophical and intellectual seads that gave birth to post-WWII modern American conservatism. I've found much of the debates shallow and without knowledge of critical history. Such disregard for historical perspective is disappointing particularly when such disregard is practiced by those who take great pride in their ivy-league education.  They speak in talking points. When asked to elaborate and to articulate their historical understandings, I get aroused babble. No depth or breadth. They throw out names like Reagan, Goldwater, and labels such as economic libertarianism, fiscal restraint, party of small government. Indeed, talking points and labels serve a purpose, but the value of that purpose is only realized when they are used by those who have at least a cursory understanding of where they come from. 

A summer resolution of mine is to bone up on the contemporary origins of modern American conservatism and put pen to paper and record my knowledge and understandings. Because ultimately, it is philosophy that we lack, a historical knowledge and perspective. We don't appreciate our intellectual forefathers.  Without a clear philosophical and intellectual understanding of what it means to be a conservative, the Republican party, will continue in its current form -  a  fluid amoeba with no structure or focus.  It will remain weak, flaccid. It will remain susceptible to the lame elements of the conservative movement.  Thus, it is absolutely critical that the conservative philosophy remains constant and relevant in the minds of all conservatives. To this end, we must shave our heads and march back up to the temple, so to speak. (Well, maybe not so dramatic.) I will be posting  throughout the summer as much as time permits on classical conservative philosophy, our intellectual forefathers, and their respective magna opera that shaped modern American conservatism (e.g. Edmund Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, Philip Reiff's Triumph of the Therapeutic, and Russell Kirk's Conservative Mind, all of which I will discuss in later posts). 

American Confucius

Floridians for Immigration Enforcement (FLIMEN) on the Candidates for Senate 2010

A friend of mine recently asked FLIMEN who they were endorsing for the 2010 Senate Race. She provided me with FLIMEN's response (which I publish here with FLIMEN's permission):

Dear ______:

Good question. It is a wait and see for a worthwhile candidate- which unfortunately looks dismal. It should be no surprise that the Republican
party is in turmoil when they can't put up a pro-enforcement immigration candidate. The Republican Platform is good on immigration enforcement but
that has not filtered down to the pandering anti-American candidates. 
  
Crist has and is been adamantly pro-AMNESTY.  'Comprehensive Immigration
Enforcement' (AMNESTY) and enforcement are contradictory and mutually exclusive so Crist and other politicians who claim they are for
'Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement' AND enforcement are lying and pandering to the max.  
  
Rubio, to his credit, says he is against AMNESTY but none of the citizens who lobbied for the 6 six FL bills that were blocked by Speaker Rubio
believe him for a micro-second.  Martinez said he was against AMNESTY too and then launched a huge pro-AMNESTY effort. Actions speak louder than words. 
  
FLIMEN has intentions to get even more involved in races but likely not in the FL Senate race unless a decent pro-enforcement candidate is found.

Thanks for your interest.

Let's keep in touch. 
  
Regards, 
www.FLIMEN.org
Dave Caulkett, VP

I'm a bit perplexed as to why they don't intend to get involved more in the Florida Senate race. They are a Florida institution. They have a clear agenda - immigration enforcement - which is likely to become a central issue in the race, if it hasn't already.  Just because they don't have the picture perfect candidate does not seem me to be a sufficient reason to stay out of the fray altogether. Their reticence strikes me as analogous to those who refused to vote because McCain was too moderate for them.  Unless the Constitution Party candidate Marshall DeRosa miraculuosly comes out as a viable contender that is "worthwhile" in FLIMEN's view, it appears at this point FLIMEN will take a seat on the sidelines for this game. 

But given Rubio's publicly-stated position on illegal immigration, and chronicled in my previous post, it seems to me Rubio is becoming a "worthwhile candidate."

At any rate, I hope they reconsider and back a candidate.  

At your service,

American Confucius