Saturday, February 28, 2009

America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

Notable on please!

"Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody."
"Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party."
"Obama will set the clock back decades..."
"One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists."

Subject: Dr. Vaknin : Barack Obama is a narcissist

Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the President is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist.

David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.

"Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white)grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995".

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote. (120 times when in the Illinois State Senate). No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him. Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.

The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer time than expected and at the end it evolved into his own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.

A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.

A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others...They are simply self serving and selfish.

Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites.

The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.

White supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels not seen since the turbulent 1960's.

Obama will set the clock back decades... America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.

It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

"...we should take this very seriously and fight against it tooth and nail." And would that be the UN?

From: Blog for Russell Blackford, Australian writer/philosopher/critic. Devoted to philosophy, philosophical bioethics, transhumanism, science fiction, fantasy, and other metamagical themes.

"The concept of defamation of religion is a very worrying development. If it starts to gain legal force, it has terrible potential as an encroachment on freedom of speech."

The idiocy of "defamation of religion"

Anti-liberal actors in the international arena, such as the Muslim states of the Middle East, are pursuing a path of attempting to suppress what they call "defamation of religion". Their campaign is achieving some success, and I believe we must take it very seriously.

The whole idea of defamation of religion is nonsense. Taken literally, it would mean that I could not utter any falsehood that is damaging to the reputation of a religion (so, it might lead people to leave the religion or doubt its doctrines, or fail to be convinced to convert to it). But a religion has no right to flourish, be believed, retain adherents, gain converts, or anything of the sort. On the contrary, it is in the public interest that the truth and credibility of various religions be tested continually, and it is quite within my rights to try to convert people from their current religion to my religion of choice or to an anti-religious position. Much like political ideologies, religions have to take their own chances. Many things will be said for and against various religions, and some of those things will not be true, even if they are said sincerely.

In that sense, the flourishing of a religion is simply not analogous to the flourishing of citizens. The concern that the state has to protect the flourishing of its citizens in no way applies to religions. If a religion dies out through a peaceful process of deconversions or a failure to reproduce itself, the state should be entirely neutral about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Even apart from that fundamental point, the justification for defamation law can't simply be scaled up to apply to the "defamation" of something like a religion. On the contrary, we should ensure that speech about the public actions of elected officials and other public figures, the actions of business corporations, the actions of religious organisations and communities of religious believers, and the truth of religious doctrines, etc., is not chilled by applying concepts of "defamation" beyond their very narrow area of justification. In some cases, this might require narrowing of the existing law (e.g. in its application to large business corporations).

Let's look at this issue of justification. If The Sydney Morning Herald accuses me of being a pedophile, it will be very difficult to remove that slur without taking some kind of action in the courts. If the slur is believed by my friends, they will shun me. If it's thought more widely that there's any truth in the slur, then my career will undoubtedly be ruined. Indeed, in situations like that individuals can be ostracised - and so destroyed as social beings - and it seems that the only way to counter the possibility is by invoking the majesty of the law to clear their names and/or provide heavy damages for the loss. That provides some deterrence to giant media corporations, which wield private power, acting in ways that can ruin individual lives. Media corporations take potential legal liability for defamation seriously, and that's usually a good thing. It gives some reassurance to those of us who are not media magnates.

By contrast, consider the public actions (not, for example, the sex lives) of elected officials. It's well known that these actions are controversial and that any criticism, no matter how trenchant (or plausible-seeming), has to be taken with a grain of salt. Furthermore, elected officials have enormous resources with which to put across their own viewpoints and defend themselves without recourse to the majesty of the law for vindication. Moreover, whereas the sex life of an individual citizen is not, prima facie, a matter whose discussion is of public interest, there is great public interest in conducting robust discussions of the public actions of elected officials.

Accordingly, it should at the very least be extremely difficult for elected officials to succeed in defamation cases relating to criticism of their public actions. Over the past 15 years or so, Australian law has been moving in that direction, and it has long been so in the US.

When it comes to religious organisations, and to religious claims about prophets, gods, and so on, there is even less need to resort to the majesty of the law. If it's claimed that Muhammad was a pedophile, that has no effect on Muhammad, who is long dead, has no friends to shun him, has no career that can be ruined. Moreover, there are literally hundreds of millions of followers of Muhammad to defend him, and many of them wield enormous power and influence, and have easy access to the mass media. Furthermore, it's known that issues surrounding the lives of ancient and medieval prophets and saints are matters of heated and almost intractable controversy, so any false claims will be taken with a grain of salt by reasonable people. Such people either ignore the claims or look a bit more deeply, rather than accepting them uncritically. Indeed, the greater problem that we face is that even true claims in criticism of religion will not be taken seriously by the general population. At the same time, there is a strong public interest in discussing the origins and credibility of religions. Was Muhammad a good role model for contemporary Muslims or not? Are the traditional claims about his life even credible? With such questions, there is an overwhelmingly strong case that there should not be anything like a defamation action available. That case is even stronger than the equivalent case applying to the public actions of elected officials.

Similarly for claims about the behaviour of religious organisations. These organisations wield enormous power and influence, and their actions are inevitably controversial. Organisations such as the Catholic Church have practically unlimited resources to defend themselves against untrue claims, without needing recourse to law, and even true claims are likely to be greeted with disbelief by adherents and cynicism by many others. It's true that many less rational people will swallow nonsense such as Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, but even more will accept religious dogma, and the fundamental rightness of an organisation such as the Church, as a result of childhood indoctrination. It is in the public interest to discuss the actions of these organisations without enacting laws that chill the debate.

When it comes to actual religious doctrines and rejection of those doctrines, the case against anything like a concept of "defamation" is stronger still. If someone says "The Abrahamic God does not exist", well, even if God does exist he will not be shunned by friends or have his career ruined. There is no equivalent to destroying him as a social person. Claims about God's existence or non-existence are highly, intractably, controversial, and many people treat all such discussion with derision, despite its philosophical importance. Although most citizens are probably more worried about their children, their mortgages, and so on, it is important to conduct philosophical inquiry into religious claims, and we must ensure that the discussion is not chilled by any such concept as "defamation of religion".

I could go on and on about how the justification for some kind of concept of defamation in liberal societies is an extremely narrow one, and how attempts to broaden it into concepts of group defamation, or even worse, defamation of religion, are fundamentally flawed. It seems that the immediate target of those who seek to prevent defamation of religion is to prohibit claims that something about Islam tends to lead its adherents to terrorism. But that claim is surely at least arguable: whether or not it can be defended at the end of the day, it is a controversial, yet important claim that merits fearless discussion. We should be very reluctant to suppress such claims, and of course Muslim leaders and intellectuals have enormous resources available to them to put their own side of the story without taking such a controversial and debatable psychological/sociological/theological thesis to the courts for an official ruling.

Thus, it would be incredibly simplistic to say, "Defamation of individuals is a bad thing; therefore anything analogous to it is a bad thing." Even the first part of this is misleading if it's intended as a broad generalisation - if the individuals concerned are elected officials and the "defamation" relates to their public conduct (not, say, to their sexual practices) then it is by no means obvious that any false criticisms should be cognisable by the law as a "bad thing". The law should not apply to criticism of the public acts of elected officials in the same way that it does to statements about the character or private conduct of ordinary citizens. The private conduct of elected officials may fall somewhere in between, but it should normally receive protection from defamatory claims.

Once we move beyond individuals to organisations, communities, bodies of religious or political doctrine, and so on, it is even less obvious that any legal concept of defamation is applicable. Indeed, it should be obvious that all the indicia point the other way: i.e., there should not be a legal concept of "defamation of religion", whatever, exactly, the concept is supposed to amount to. It is in the public interest that scrutiny of religion go ahead from every possible angle (philosophical, historical, sociological, etc.) without the ensuing discussion being chilled by anything analogous to defamation law.

We should be camapaigning to confine defamation law as narrowly as possible, not extend it even further. What I would support (and this already exists in some, perhaps many, jurisdictions) is a narrowly-confined tort of interference in privacy, according to which even true publications about the strictly private behaviour of individuals can be met by a claim for damages. Such revelations can greatly damage individuals as social beings, and the individuals concerned may have no other practical redress when confronted by media corporations. But such a tort would need to be confined narrowly in some way so that it applies only to revelations in the mass media, not to everyday gossip. In any event, this is quite remote from ideas of defamation of religion. If such a privacy tort is justified, it's on a totally different basis, and it shows why the sorts of concerns that might justify certain narrow exceptions to freedom of speech don't lead to a concept such as defamation of religion.

The concept of defamation of religion is a very worrying development. If it starts to gain legal force, it has terrible potential as an encroachment on freedom of speech. I submit that we should take this very seriously and fight against it tooth and nail. Our whole Enlightenment legacy is at stake here, and if the UN continues to take an illiberal path I see no reason for compunction about criticising the UN. The UN may or may not be a useful institution, but it is certainly not beyond trenchant criticism and satire, as and when the criticism or satire is merited.

There's no need to believe that the credibility of the UN must be retained at all costs. Doubtless, the organisation has done some good, but it has failed to achieve its crucial goal of ensuring "never again" for Nazi-like genocides and atrocities. It can't take much credit for the fact that there was never a World War III between the NATO allies and the former Soviet Union and its satellites - surely that related more to a balance of terror between nuclear-armed states. I doubt that it has done much to contribute to the fundamental freedoms enjoyed in liberal societies. In any event, no matter how wonderful the UN may be, it should attract criticism just like any other powerful organisation.

Freedom of speech has been squeezed and squeezed. Yes, it's not an absolute value that can't be overridden by other values in any circumstances whatsoever. I doubt that there are any such absolute values. But exceptions to the presumption of freedom of speech need to be justified, case by case, with compelling argument and evidence, and the exceptions then need to be defined as narrowly as possible, not used by analogy for dubious new exceptions.

The time has come to shout "Enough!" We've been moving too far in the direction of creating more and larger exceptions to freedom of speech. We need a loud, popular movement to push the other way.

"The vast majority of Muslims know little of Islam..." - neither do Americans

Islam? How will it affect you? I received the following commentary by e-mail this morning and thought about how complacent most Americans are concerning this threat (yes, it is indeed a threat) to our American way of life...
One should also read: A free speech killer - UN warns: Don't defame religions, especially Islam
And this just in...: Don’t Take Flight 93 To Mecca 2-2009

Big Lies In High Places
Many Voices: understanding the debate about preventing violent extremism - Hazel Blears MP
Source: DCLG
Published Friday, 27 February, 2009 - 09:28
British Member of Parliament Hazel Blears spoke to the London School of Economics, making several idiotic statements. At the conclusion of her remarks, she said this.

And if we are to change minds and win this debate, it will not be through restricting our engagement to a select few, but through bringing in new voices: not through concealing what we believe in, but through making our arguments confidently: and not through acquiescing with those with whom we disagree, but through being robust in our challenge to them.

Thank you for listening - I welcome your questions and comments.

M.P. Blears probably won't see my comments, and surely would not welcome them. While I agree with much of what she said, I find these expressions of idiotic ignorance too egregious to let pass without condemnation.

Barack Obama used his Inaugural Address in February to tell the world:

"Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

So what is this 'far-reaching network of violence and hatred'?

It is rooted in a shifting mosaic of international groupings, with their origins in the struggle of the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, in the refugee camps and some madrassas on the Afghan-Pakistan border, in Algeria's political unrest of the 1980s and 1990s, and in the war in Iraq.

Islamic Jihad, with its tactics of genocide & terrorism, flows directly from Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. None of the major schools of Shari'ah rejects the Jihad imperatives found in Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah. The congruent pattern of speech & conduct formed by Moe's recitation & sunnah is reflected in Shari'ah. Let doubters & dissenters turn first to the two surahs above named, next to Riyad us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234: Obligation of Jihad and finally to Umdat as-Salik Book O, Chapter 9.

There is the obvious danger that we say 'Islamism' but people hear 'Islam' or 'Islamic', especially as the word translates poorly into other languages such as Arabic. Even in English, where the two words are distinct, many people lack the political literacy to distinguish between a political ideology dubbed by some as Islamism and Islam itself. There are plenty of people, for example the far right in this country, or Geert Wilders' outfit in Holland, who would wish to conflate the two in order to stir up race hate.

Islam is not a race, it is a war cult which has enslaved members of several races. Arabs, Asians,Blacks, and Europeans became Muslims at sword point. Many of their descendants remain Muslim out of tradition and filial piety; they have known nothing else and would be dispossessed, tortured and killed as required by Islamic law if they abandoned Islam. Moe's abominable creation is classified as a Deen, way of life, which encompasses all human activity. It conflates the spiritual & temporal. It prescribes certain duties which must be performed; Jihad: the military conquest of the world, is one of them.

A second trap is that to talk of 'Islamism' suggests there is a unified, single movement. But there is no more a unified Islamism than there is a single socialism, or a single conservatism, or a single liberalism.

While maintenance of perfect uniformity is nearly impossible, Islam has a standard, which was set by Moe in his recitation and exemplified in his sunnah for all Muslims to obey and emulate. Which schismatic group rejects and denies the Qur'an? What Allah said about Jihad, terror & genocide is law. What did he say about them? Unless you read the Qur'an,. you will have no clue. To complete the pattern which forms Shari'ah, you must know what Moe said and did about them, from his sunnah.

For example, Al-Qaeda is in conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood over fundamental questions such as the nature of the state, and the duty of the individual to fight the perceived enemies of Islam.

Does the ignorant speaker know her head from her butt? For certain she does not know that Al-Qaeda is a branch of Al-Ikhwan Al-Islamiyya. Has she read the writings of Hasan Al-Banna or Abdullah Azzam? Has she read the Charter of Hamas, which includes the Al-Ikhwan's motto? No, instead she pontificates from atop the pedestal of ignorance.

A third trap is to assume that all Islamists are terrorists. Some groups specifically oppose violence but have religious views which are very conservative and can conflict with other values we share in society.

It is not possible to be a Muslim and oppose violence & terrorism, both of which are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. Such opponents are branded hypocrites by Islam's demon and founder; accursed, to be fought and ushered into Hell along with us Kuffar. Islam is all or nothing; you can not pick and choose.

A belief in the supremacy of the Muslim people, in a divine duty to bring the world under the control of hegemonic Islam, in the establishment of a theocratic Caliphate, and in the undemocratic imposition of theocratic law on whole societies: these are the defining and common characteristics of the disparate strands of this ideology here and around the world.
The items in that list flow directly from Allah's word, as recited by Moe and codified in the Qur'an; exemplified by his sunnah. They are standard Islam, not exceptional ism.

You can't ignore the facts that this ideology is rooted in a twisted reading of Islam. The academics, scholars and imams I meet to discuss these issues tell me that the message of Islam is one of peace; and the followers of Islam I meet oppose the single narrative promulgated by Al-Qaeda, and certainly oppose violence. Indeed, the vast majority are proud of their faith and their nationality, see no conflict or contradiction between being British and being Muslim, and are an integral part of the economic, cultural and social life of their neighbourhood and the country, giving the lie to the ideas of division and difference that lie at the heart of extremist ideology.
Your facts are fallacies! Allah's commands are contained in clear verses whose meanings are obvious. You do not know this because you have not read 3:7; nor have you read Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of 3:7.
The message of Islam is one of peace: the peace pertaining after the violent conquest of the entire world! "Fight them until", "fight those who","strive hard and fight with your lives...""made a great slaughter", "killed and wounded many of them". Hell yes, a religion of peace indeed. The ignorant fool has not read the Qur'an. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir will make it easy for you; it presents the ayat, their translations and the hadith which exemplify them all in one compact text. Read them and understand the truth.

This is what Islam truly means in practice for the vast majority: a personal and spiritual faith matched by a sense of social responsibility, motivating people to do good for their neighbourhood and community.
The vast majority of Muslims know little of Islam beyond what they have been told by the Imam or Mullah. One recent survey reported that only 13% of Muslims have read the Qur'an.
With groups which call for or support terrorist acts there is no room whatsoever for debate, only vociferous opposition.
There is one such group: Islam. Have you read 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 33:26-27, 59:2 and 59:13? Why not? Here is your chance, click the links and read them. Because you have not read the hadith, you did not know that Moe was a terrorist. He did not just preach it, he practiced it. Read them and curse Islam!
Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331, Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

If you will make good use of the links I have provided in this post, you can access the Qur'an & tafsir and four hadith collections along with an assortment of hadith with commentary and the handbook of Islamic law. If you will not take the time and exert the effort necessary to comprehend the reality of Islam, you will surely fall prey to the liars & ignoramuses who pontificate from the pedestals of al-takeyya & ignorance. The most egregious ayat, along with relevant tafsir have been compiled with the most egregious hadith and Shari'ah, into a Windows Help File: EgregiousAyat.chm. Download it and start learning.

Thursday, February 26, 2009

From Whence We Came - Do you see a BIG problem here?

The Faith and Wisdom of George Washington

  • Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair. The event is in the hand of God.
  • By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, altho' death was levelling my companions on every side.
  • Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions.
  • Your love of liberty - your respect for the laws - your habits of industry - and your practice of the moral and religious obligations, are the strongest claims to national and individual happiness.
  • A good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous.
  • The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest purposes.
  • It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.
  • I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
  • May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us in all our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.
  • Let the poor, the needy and oppressed of the Earth, and those who want Land, resort to the fertile plains of our western country, the second land of Promise, and there dwell in peace, fulfilling the first and great commandment.
  • The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
  • The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
  • Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness.
  • I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
  • The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.
  • We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.
  • No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
  • The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
  • You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.
  • Without an humble imitation of the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, we can never hope to be a happy nation.
  • Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
  • Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.
  • To contract new debts is not the way to pay old ones.
  • Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
  • A government is like fire, a handy servant, but a dangerous master.
  • The foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing is a vice so mean and low that every person of sense and character detests and despises it.
  • I attribute my success in life to the moral, intellectual and physical education which I received from my mother.
  • If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
  • To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.
  • Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.
  • There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness.
  • Refrain from drink which is the source of all evil--and the ruin of half the workmen in this Country.
  • The determinations of Providence are always wise, often inscrutable; and, though its decrees appear to bear hard upon us at times, is nevertheless meant for gracious purposes.
  • I die hard but am not afraid to go.

The BIG problem with this...

is that not a one of the far left ideologues* believe any of this!

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy* at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies in the heart of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear. The traitor is the plague......"

Marcus Tullius Cicero, speech to the Roman Senate.

*Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Kennedy, Gingsberg, Kerry, Biden, Kissinger, Carter, Clinton (X's 2), et al... To all those that read to this end, "How is it that you do not believe this?" These traitors from within are just that! It is true beyond a reasonable doubt! It is precisely the reason our country is in the shape we're in today. Remember, it is not the citizenry (you) that caused these problems, it was the people that YOU voted for! They lied to you! ...or haven't you noticed?

We are now in a great civil war of words, a precursor to anarchy and violence...and the precursor is about at the end of it's rope! ...or haven't you noticed?

An absolute must read: The Insatiable Demands Of The Radical Left

A suggestion here: MESSAGE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...and the Führer wannabe!

Watch this: Stop Obama or U.S. will cease to exist


H.R 45 - From The Mail Bag

Update: Forget HR 45...go here: ~ Norm

----- Original Message -----

From: L S

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 4:47 AM

Subject: Blair Holt Firearm Licensing....


Blair Holt Firearm Licensing
& Record of Sale Act
2-16-9 Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House.

This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. We just learned yesterday about this on the Peter Boyles radio program.
Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information. Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: ·It is registered ·You are fingerprinted ·You supply a current Driver's License ·You supply your Social Security # ·You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing ·Each update - change or ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. ·There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison. If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family - pass this along. Peter Boyles is on this and having guests. Listen to him on KHOW 630 a.m. in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and "spring into action". Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA. This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it. This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe. …END Of Quote

HR 45 Previous History

H.R. 2666:

110th Congress

This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 110th Congress, in 2007-2008.

The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.


Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007

To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.


Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL]

Cosponsors [as of 2009-01-08]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]

Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]

Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]

Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]

Rep. Jesse Jackson [D-IL]

Rep. Edolphus Towns [D-NY]

Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]

Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]

Rep. Fortney Stark [D-CA]

Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]

Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL]

Rep. Elijah Cummings [D-MD]

Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]

Rep. Luis Gutiérrez [D-IL]

Rep. John Larson [D-CT]

This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven't passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

HR 45 Current Status

H.R. 45:

111st Congress about="" datatype="xsd:string" property="foaf:name" v:shapes="_x0000_i1026">

This is a bill in the U.S. Congress originating in the House of Representatives ("H.R."). A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate and then be signed by the President before it becomes law.

Bill numbers restart from 1 every two years. Each two-year cycle is called a session of Congress. This bill was created in the 111st Congress, in 2009-2010.

The titles of bills are written by the bill's sponsor and are a part of the legislation itself. GovTrack does not editorialize bill summaries.


Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009

To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.


Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL](no cosponsors)

Note: Rush was a Co-Founder, Illinois Black Panther Party, 1968

Cosponsors [as of 2009-02-14]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?




Congressional Research Service Summary

The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress. GovTrack did not write and has no control over these summaries.


Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm unless that person has been issued a firearm license under this Act or a state system certified under this Act and such license has not been invalidated or revoked. Prescribes license application, issuance, and renewal requirements.

Prohibits transferring or receiving a qualifying firearm unless the recipient presents a valid firearms license, the license is verified, and the dealer records a tracking authorization number. Prescribes firearms transfer reporting and record keeping requirements. Directs the Attorney General to establish and maintain a federal record of sale system.

Prohibits: (1) transferring a firearm to any person other than a licensee, unless the transfer is processed through a licensed dealer in accordance with national instant criminal background check system requirements, with exceptions; (2) a licensed manufacturer or dealer from failing to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements of this Act; (3) failing to report the loss or theft of the firearm to the Attorney General within 72 hours; (4) failing to report to the Attorney General an address change within 60 days; or (5) keeping a loaded firearm, or an unloaded firearm and ammunition for the firearm, knowingly or recklessly disregarding the risk that a child is capable of gaining access, if a child uses the firearm and causes death or serious bodily injury.

Prescribes criminal penalties for violations of firearms provisions covered by this Act.

Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a firearm injury information clearinghouse; (2) conduct continuing studies and investigations of firearm-related deaths and injuries; and (3) collect and maintain current production and sales figures of each licensed manufacturer.

Authorizes the Attorney General to certify state firearm licensing or record of sale systems.




Jan 6, 2009


Referred to Committee

View Committee Assignments

Not Yet Occurred:

Reported by Committee


Not Yet Occurred:

Voted on in House


Not Yet Occurred:

Voted on in Senate


Not Yet Occurred:

Signed by President


This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. [Last Updated: Feb 14, 2009 2:11PM]

Last Action:

Feb 9, 2009: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

Sample Letters/News Articles

One gun bill plan would be good

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Dear editor:

Reference to Mike Bradbury's letter (Feb. 18 issue).

Mike, I agree with you and for the reasons you stated. You stole my thunder as I was about to write the same thing.

I am a member of the NRA and also the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA). Today, my monthly newsletter from the CCRKBA elaborated on bill H.R. 45, which Mike more than mentioned. The CCRKBA also told about bill H.R. 197, the proposed National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. If approved, H.R. 197 will allow Idahoans with a state right-to-carry license to travel to or through other states with their guns, whether or not the state traveled in has a right-to-carry law.

This would be great for me as my children/grandchildren live in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and I have to travel through states that don't recognize Idaho's right-to-carry license.

As my wife and I are 72 years old, and not in the best physical shape, we would have no chance with car thieves or nuts who shoot up a restaurant, etc.

Today I wrote to my senators and congressman and told them to vote against H.R. 45 and for H.R. 197. I also reminded them that I vote only for NRA approved candidates (those who support the second amendment). I urge all voting-age readers who favor gun rights to do the same.

I do not live in England, Australia, Canada or Japan. If we do not advise our politicians how to vote, we will end up like the citizens of the mentioned countries. No guns, no self protection, and no hunting!

Last of all the United Nations is still trying to disarm the world. Like the Clintons, I'm told that President Obama favors the UN. Lord help us if they get together.

Pen A. Bidwell

Source: Mountain Home News

Defeat Firearms Bill HR 45
posted February 9, 2009

This bill isn't being covered in print or on TV, but the argument over "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" (HR 45) is building steam, and could become quite a distraction.

It is named for Blair Holt. Holt, the 16-year-old son of a Chicago police officer, was killed in 2007 while shielding a female classmate during a gang-related shooting on a Chicago city bus.

It was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat. According to Wikipedia, Rep. Rush went A.W.O.L. from the Army in 1968, and founded Illinois' Black Panther Party. In 1969, he did six months in prison on a firearms conviction.

He is the only person to defeat Barak Obama in an election for public office, and said, of Obama, "Barack Obama went to Harvard and became an educated fool. Barack is a person who read about the civil-rights protests and thinks he knows all about it." Nevertheless, he supported Obama in the Presidential Primary, after it became politically expedient.

In my opinion, Rep. Rush is exploiting Holt's heroism and death. By naming the bill after Holt, he increases his popularity in his district, and he creates a situation where those representatives who respect the right of the people to keep and bear arms have to vote against a bill named for a hero/victim.

The bill would require individuals to obtain a federal license before they could possess a firearm. It would require the registration of all firearms, and for the owners thereof to report the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a firearm to federal authorities within 72 hours. The license would be a photo ID, complete with thumbprint, would be accompanied by training requirements and fees, and could be revoked for any number of reasons. The bill also provides criminal penalties for those in violation.

If permission/license is required to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege.

Murder is already illegal, and Chicago already restricts gun ownership. This did not stop the criminal who killed Blair Holt from doing so, and HR 45 won't prevent crime.

Rep. Rush's piece of legislation should be rejected. Please encourage your representative to do just that.

Kevin Hargis

Source: The Chattanoogan