Monday, December 28, 2009

Napolitano And Sheik Obama Get Tough With Terror?!

The Sheik Obama Administration has had it's image ruffled with the second terror attack in recent weeks. The first case was at Fort Hood where a Muslim double agent was posing as a patriotic soldier but was really gathering intelligence for Al Queda. The soldier was a sleeper cell under the auspices of an Islamic Cleric in Yemen. The second case involves a Nigerian Muslim who had ties to the Yemenite radical movement also. He attempted to bomb a plane headed for Detroit from Amsterdam but failed to be properly detonate his device. What these two cases have done to Sheik Obama's first governing year is shatter the confidence and positive outlook the brilliantly executed speeches have built. What measures must be mandated to retain the open minded outreach to World Islamic leaders while providing security for travelers on planes?
A deeper look into the pants of the Nigerian reveals a sewn in explosive. The device was carefully hidden until he went to the restroom where he removed it. To ensure the most devastation, he waited til he returned to his seat before setting it off because he deliberately seated himself over the fuel. He disguised his evil doing by wrapping himself in a blanket. The plot was foiled thanks to a daring Amsterdam citizen who immediately responded to the emergency. He proceeded to subdue the terrorist, put the flames out that started, and made others aware of the situation. While I fail to find just cause for Sheik Obama's Nobel Prize, I find this foreign traveler worthy of a Presidential visit and some recognition of his deed (like the key to the city he visited). The Nigerian Muslim is now in custody awaiting trial. While being recognized as a terrorist, his case will be taking place in Civil Court.
I thought a "war" on terror meant the crime belongs in Military Court, but what do I know. What must Sheik Obama impose on the flying public to deter and prevent further safety concerns?
When the shoe bomber attempted to take down a plane over New York, President Bush consulted several sources before announcing the policy of every passenger removing their shoes for scanning. Apparently, the same cannot be done here because removing every one's underwear for scanning could make for serious concern: underwear streaking, a few questionable stains, and who knows what else!
The answer may be easier than first believed. Woody Allen has the answer?! Yep! Woody made a movie back in the day when he was funny. The movie was called Bananas. In the movie, a group of rebels takes over a country and Woody helps them believing it is for the greater good. When the leader of the rebels takes control, he becomes mad with power and creates new laws which are ridiculous (not rucking!) Here is the clip:

In the scene, he demands everyone change their underwear every half hour. In order to check, underwear must be worn on the outside! Ahhh! Now this still may be offensive to Muslims, better go back to the drawing board.
Sheik Obama has issued a statement where he lets the terrorists know we will not rest if they continue. Will not rest? What the HELL does that mean? We won't get any sleep?! Wow! Your speech writers didn't exactly give you Shakespeare. Afraid of insulting fellow Muslims, he and his team have refrained from any real detail about what will be done. Napolitano has stated it is safe to fly and everyone should have the utmost confidence in our security already in place.

Well, let us see what was missed here to understand why this sneaky individual slipped through our security.
First, his own father warned authorities of the son's radical position and feared he could commit a horrible act. Second, the Nigerian terrorist was on a watch list. He had been labeled a possible loose cannon and should have been more thoroughly searched and questioned. Third, He is a Muslim. No one of any other faith, radical or not, has ever committed such an atrocious act.
What are the consequences of this whole act? The overall hue to the act of terrorism is softened by trying the case in Civil Court. The opportunity to "understand him" and sympathize with his reasoning for wanting to do this crime can be understood. He can be sent for artistic rehabilitation as ample punishment, as in Saudi Arabia. The risk of bringing more radicals to the US to help him get released is dramatically higher! Oh, but it will create jobs, just like in Illinois at the Thomson Correctional Center. So, maybe we should fund terrorism with tax dollars because it creates jobs. It will create more jobs than Obama created or saved and at a much cheaper price! It has generated concern for the airline industry to it's employees and it's customers. It has allowed the public to accept a terror attack or attempt may occur from time to time and not to get too alarmed. It has shown that education or lack there of has no reflection on an individuals radicalization. It shows that a persons financial status, impoverished or wealthy, has no bearing on the individuals radicalization. It shows the lack of security measures we already imposed which are constantly being tested by all accounts of NSA members I personally know. It shows a person from any country may attempt to make an attack. It shows a person's involvement doesn't need to stem from a country with a dispute like Israel or India. It shows the open and inviting hand of Sheik Obama hasn't softened the position of radicals towards the US. It shows negotiation is not the path to deterrence of such acts. Where were the airline Marshals on board for protection? El Al has 2 on every flight. Do we need to rely on passengers to stop terrorists on planes?

This administration has a poor understanding of the enemy. The first year of this President has seen 2 terror attacks on our soil with the knowledge that it has been done before and will continue to be at risk for another. This inappropriate response to recognize and address who our enemy is will lead to further attacks at the expense of more American lives. We read the Miranda Rights to the enemy and they cut our throats. We send terrorists to court while they kill us. How do you think the enemy reads all this? Rucking Fidiculous!!

This is a true hero!! A rumor was found on the internet stating the terrorist plans to file assault charges against the hero(s) that thwarted his attack. Can the dumbing down of the serious nature of this war crime into a civil crime be further diluted to now include personal injury litigation? I sincerely hope not.

The Muslim World believes that the United States is a Christian country. Here is an example of a Muslim who tries to kill Christians on Christmas in a Christian country! Israel is obviously viewed as a Jewish state by the Muslim World, legitimate or not by their judgement. I remember back in 2004, Israel was attacked by terrorists in what is now referred as the Passover Bombings. This is an example of the disdain felt about Jewish holidays. During the Bush Presidency, the Muslim Clerics in Iraq and Afghanistan made their position very clear that any attempt to attack a Muslim country would be the utmost insult to Islam. This statement was sent with the underpinnings of a threat of riots, deliberately. We did not attack until the holiday was over, incidentally. Is it offensive if a Christian attempts a terror attack on Muslims during Ramadan? What message are we sending to our enemies if we honor their religion while they forsake ours?

Breaking news!! Another Mideast person was taken off the plane in hand cuffs. Bomb sniffing dogs detected something in his bag. Just stated by a passenger from the plane on Fox News 12/28/09!!

Friday, November 20, 2009

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

Friday, November 6, 2009

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!

Thursday, November 5, 2009

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

Posted by ShoZu

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!! 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.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

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

Posted by ShoZu

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.


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.

Posted by ShoZu


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.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Alleged Burglars Attempt Crime In Black Face

Uploaded by

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

Sunday, October 25, 2009

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!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Soldier's Angels

Uploaded by

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 Thank you and G-d Bless!

Uploaded by

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).

Friday, October 16, 2009

The Convention Begins

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

Posted by ShoZu

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

Sunday, September 27, 2009

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.

Posted by ShoZu

Monday, August 31, 2009

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!)

Thursday, August 20, 2009

"Communism in the Classroom" Pass it On!


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

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.


Trevor Loudon


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!?

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

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

Monday, August 17, 2009

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.

Posted by ShoZu

Saturday, August 15, 2009


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!!

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 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!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009


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
Ivanka Trump Pictures

Thursday, July 9, 2009

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!

Posted by ShoZu

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

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

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

Tuesday, July 7, 2009


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

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!



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!


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.


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!