J. E. Sneed's Contributor Profile - Associated Content
1 day ago
Friday, August 1, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Providing For the National Defense
On July 2, 2008, Sen. Barack Obama was apparently quoted as saying the following:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He also proposed to double the size of the PeaceCorps, and quadruple the size of the AmeriCorps.
An engaging piece by World Net Daily's Joseph Farah begs to question why more people are not alarmed by these proposals, and why there seems to be very little attention by other media.
What I find even more troubling than Mr. Obama's proposal for a "civilian national security force" is how it is doubly alarming due to the qualifier that precedes this proposed force. His statement, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set", speaks volumes and is equally deafening in volume.
The core function and resposibility of the United States Government is to provide for the National defense. Currently, the U.S. Military, all branches, serves to facilitate such provision. If, as Mr. Obama so ridiculously claims, we can no longer "rely" on that Military, then he is bluntly stating that the core function of our U.S. Government must be usurped.
Or am I reading too much into his words?
"Just words", right?
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
He also proposed to double the size of the PeaceCorps, and quadruple the size of the AmeriCorps.
An engaging piece by World Net Daily's Joseph Farah begs to question why more people are not alarmed by these proposals, and why there seems to be very little attention by other media.
What I find even more troubling than Mr. Obama's proposal for a "civilian national security force" is how it is doubly alarming due to the qualifier that precedes this proposed force. His statement, "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set", speaks volumes and is equally deafening in volume.
The core function and resposibility of the United States Government is to provide for the National defense. Currently, the U.S. Military, all branches, serves to facilitate such provision. If, as Mr. Obama so ridiculously claims, we can no longer "rely" on that Military, then he is bluntly stating that the core function of our U.S. Government must be usurped.
Or am I reading too much into his words?
"Just words", right?
Friday, July 11, 2008
The Institution of Marriage
I've just had a thought on all this LGBT activism that's pushing so hard for faux-marriage.
Is Marriage (classical, 1 man/1 woman matrimony) an institution?
Or is it not?
For if it is an institution, then the circumstance of one's sexual orientation should obviously factor into that person's decision to get married. Right?
Stay with me here... there's more.
If a homosexual does not wish to indulge the option of forming a union with a person of the opposite sex, for the purposes of having children and raising a family with that person, then are they at that point making a decision to abstain from an institution? Clearly, yes. At least this particular institution.
Now if that same homosexual prefers to partner with someone who is alike in gender, then on first account the option of procreation is summarily forfeited. Therefore, in order to raise a family our same-sex couple would need to participate in some sort of institution that could facilitate such an endeavor. This is where science or adoption comes to the rescue, apparently.
But it remains that said homosexual has made a conscious and deliberate choice to avoid the institution of classical Marriage. Homosexuality may or may not be a choice, but entering into the institution of Marriage definitely is. (except for arranged marriages...)
Now let's pretend that Marriage is not a valid institution. This being the case, then our homosexual couple is free to enter into a union consisting of... what exactly? And without a facilitating institution, how would it be possible to raise a family?
Now I mentioned science and adoption earlier, but isn't that just cheating? And what basis is that to start a family on? Really! A family unit founded on the principle of cheating? That should do real well for establishing moral principles! but i digress..
Returning to my point, it can easily be established that legally and socially recognized Marriage, between 1 man and 1 woman, is in fact an institution whose sole purpose is to facilitate the creation of a family, which involves procreation. Any refutation of this would be fallacious for the following reason: humans typically are not monogamous creatures unless engaged in child-rearing. They just aren't. And yet like many other species in the animal kingdom, humans are quite often predisposed to mate for life with a very limited number of partners, and more often than not only 1 at that. Not to mention the biological drive to procreate contributes to the formation of relationships, for the purpose of sexual and emotional gratification. These relationships will naturally gain solvency, otherwise the survival of the species would be in jeopardy. Hence a definition of this institution can be established. We have historically named that definition "Marriage"
So as the biological drive to procreate is intentionally misdirected towards the wrong gender, and a non-procreative relationship is established, it follows that the aforementioned institution cannot take form. And without that institution, there is no "marriage".
It really is that simple.
Monday, June 23, 2008
This is Amazing!
A scout caught this Golden Trout (the California State Fish) while on a troop backpacking trip deep in the high Sierras near Mt. Whitney.
These fish are typically only 10 inches or so..
This one's a trophy!
I have a new mission in life. To bag one of these! (or I might just CPR - Catch,Photo,Release)
Here's the original link:
Friday, November 9, 2007
CAIR doesn't care for The Savage Nation
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or, NAMBLA, has been trying to convince companies to pull their advertising from Michael Savage's conservative talk radio show "The Savage Nation". They assert that Dr. Savage is a bigot and that he is inciting Islamophobia.
Personally, I would say that he is simply "displaying" Islamophobia, not necessarily "inciting" it.
Read for yourself:
CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it.-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave"
Now on the surface this does sound quite inflammatory. However, if Dr. Savage is exercising his freedom of speech by making a point about certain Muslims who would prefer the United States become a Muslim country, and keeping in mind the on-going violence in current Muslim countries, with or without a U.S. presence, then is he wrong? Is his opinion wrong? After all, it is just his opinion. Now a better question is whether or not his sponsors share that opinion. Obviously Dr. Savage's sponsors would not want to appear bigoted in any way, and therefore they would contend that they don't endorse the content of "The Savage Nation". But by continuing to sponser the show, they really are endorsing the content. So CAIR goes after the sponsors, and bristles like an insulted aristocrat whenever a talk-show host complains about subjugation in the name of Islam and loss of freedom. CAIR contends that they just want to "empower" American Muslims, and defend their rights of free worship. Funny thing is, I was under the impression that the United States of America is a democratic Republic, where the freedom of religion is already protected. But if the U.S. were to become a Muslim nation, then one can reasonably assume, given current and historical examples, that our nation would no longer be a democratic Republic that guarantees freedom of speech.
So how exactly do they want it? Currently here in America, you can actually have your cake, and eat it, too! So do they want the cake, or not?
Now back to Dr. Savage's on-air comments.
When faced by a threat, usually a person will react. Fight or flight response. Simple as that. But if the threat, real or perceived, is slow and gradual, then a person might have time to form a more comprehensive plan of action. Terrorism, including explosive suicide attacks and YouTube decapitations, just might be a kind of threat to some people. Maybe. But people are just people, right?
So after reading Dr. Savage's comments, I imagined the same comments directed at different entities, and with slight changes in wording. Just for fun!
Take, for example, this scenario:
The Communist Party of the United States of America has called for the sponsors of Michael Savage's conservative talk-radio show "the Savage Nation" to pull their advertising. They contend that Savage's recent remarks are anti-Communist and incite patriotism. The CPUSA was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Commie attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a factory. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a mine. And I'm not marching lockstep and raising my boots as high as possible. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about communism. I don't wanna hear one more word about communism. Take your failed economic system and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of philosophy is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-P-U-S-A and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Communist Manifesto is not a document of freedom. The Communist Manifesto is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave!"
Now then, if another threat were being presented by a different kind of people, which groups would want to silence the response? And how could they effectively present themselves as victims?
Try this scenario:
W.A.R. was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Arian attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a concentration camp. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in an oven. And I'm not throwin’ my hand out and saluting some guy that talks really loud. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about National Socialism. I don't wanna hear one more word about National Socialism. Take your dictatorship and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of government is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take W-A-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, Mein Kampf is not a document of freedom. Mein Kampf is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”
And what about this? If it were Jews and Israelis instead of Muslims and Arabs doing the killing, and then whining that people don't like them enough, or embrace their violent world-view, would we be hearing from their lawyers? Just because someone stands up and shouts his opinion?
The JDL was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Jewish attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a Yamulke. And I'm not gonna put my daughter through Law school. And I'm not smearing blood over my doorway and lighting a menorah. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Judaism. I don't wanna hear one more word about Judaism. Take your religion and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take J-D-L and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Torah is not a document of freedom. The Torah is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”
Fun with words!
That is all.
Personally, I would say that he is simply "displaying" Islamophobia, not necessarily "inciting" it.
Read for yourself:
CAIR was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Muslim attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a hijab. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a burqa. And I'm not getting' on my all-fours and braying to Mecca. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-A-I-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it.-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave"
Now on the surface this does sound quite inflammatory. However, if Dr. Savage is exercising his freedom of speech by making a point about certain Muslims who would prefer the United States become a Muslim country, and keeping in mind the on-going violence in current Muslim countries, with or without a U.S. presence, then is he wrong? Is his opinion wrong? After all, it is just his opinion. Now a better question is whether or not his sponsors share that opinion. Obviously Dr. Savage's sponsors would not want to appear bigoted in any way, and therefore they would contend that they don't endorse the content of "The Savage Nation". But by continuing to sponser the show, they really are endorsing the content. So CAIR goes after the sponsors, and bristles like an insulted aristocrat whenever a talk-show host complains about subjugation in the name of Islam and loss of freedom. CAIR contends that they just want to "empower" American Muslims, and defend their rights of free worship. Funny thing is, I was under the impression that the United States of America is a democratic Republic, where the freedom of religion is already protected. But if the U.S. were to become a Muslim nation, then one can reasonably assume, given current and historical examples, that our nation would no longer be a democratic Republic that guarantees freedom of speech.
So how exactly do they want it? Currently here in America, you can actually have your cake, and eat it, too! So do they want the cake, or not?
Now back to Dr. Savage's on-air comments.
When faced by a threat, usually a person will react. Fight or flight response. Simple as that. But if the threat, real or perceived, is slow and gradual, then a person might have time to form a more comprehensive plan of action. Terrorism, including explosive suicide attacks and YouTube decapitations, just might be a kind of threat to some people. Maybe. But people are just people, right?
So after reading Dr. Savage's comments, I imagined the same comments directed at different entities, and with slight changes in wording. Just for fun!
Take, for example, this scenario:
The Communist Party of the United States of America has called for the sponsors of Michael Savage's conservative talk-radio show "the Savage Nation" to pull their advertising. They contend that Savage's recent remarks are anti-Communist and incite patriotism. The CPUSA was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Commie attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- "I'm not gonna put my wife in a factory. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in a mine. And I'm not marching lockstep and raising my boots as high as possible. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about communism. I don't wanna hear one more word about communism. Take your failed economic system and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of philosophy is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take C-P-U-S-A and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Communist Manifesto is not a document of freedom. The Communist Manifesto is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave!"
Now then, if another threat were being presented by a different kind of people, which groups would want to silence the response? And how could they effectively present themselves as victims?
Try this scenario:
W.A.R. was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Arian attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a concentration camp. And I'm not gonna put my daughter in an oven. And I'm not throwin’ my hand out and saluting some guy that talks really loud. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about National Socialism. I don't wanna hear one more word about National Socialism. Take your dictatorship and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of government is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take W-A-R and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, Mein Kampf is not a document of freedom. Mein Kampf is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”
And what about this? If it were Jews and Israelis instead of Muslims and Arabs doing the killing, and then whining that people don't like them enough, or embrace their violent world-view, would we be hearing from their lawyers? Just because someone stands up and shouts his opinion?
The JDL was particularly disturbed by Savage's "shouted anti-Jewish attacks," which it quoted as follows:-- “I'm not gonna put my wife in a Yamulke. And I'm not gonna put my daughter through Law school. And I'm not smearing blood over my doorway and lighting a menorah. And you could drop dead if you don't like it. You can shove it up your pipe. I don't wanna hear anymore about Judaism. I don't wanna hear one more word about Judaism. Take your religion and shove it up your behind! I'm sick of you.-- What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation. You can take J-D-L and throw 'em out of my country. I'd raise the American flag and I'd get out my trumpet if you did it. Without due process. You can take your due process and shove it!-- What sane nation that worships the U.S. Constitution, which is the greatest document of freedom ever written, would bring in people who worship a book that tells them the exact opposite. Make no mistake about it, the Torah is not a document of freedom. The Torah is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.”
Fun with words!
That is all.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
A Continuous Threat
Saw an interesting movie last night.
Some secret service agent was about to party it up, thinking he was gonna have a nice, relaxing shift. Hang out with the other agents, stay cool, and play some poker or some shit...
But he went to get a soda or something.. then saw some room service dude drop a platter and saunter down a corridor. He got all suspicious and walked down the hotel hallway to where the platter was. He lifted the plate cover and there was no food underneath. He immediately called in a threat code to the other agents, and ran up to the roof. There he found a dead body, and upon further investigation, he confronted a man with Dynamite sticks strapped to his chest...
He said: "whoa. let's talk about this... I'm gonna put my gun down... and we can talk."
The guy with a chest bomb said, "death to Israel and all its infidel supporters!!!"
Then another agent, who was hanging off the edge of the building, grabbed the martyr's ankles and hurled him into open space, where he completely detonated into oblivion.
Oh well...
This movie is called "To Live and Die in L.A."
It is from 1985.
Approximately Five years after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the detention of American Embassy workers . Sixteen years before September 11, 2001. And 40 years after news of the murder of 6 million Jewish poeple, 20 million Russian troops and civilians, countless other gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people.
Does anyone really think that this shit is going to just "go away"?
Hmmmm...
Some secret service agent was about to party it up, thinking he was gonna have a nice, relaxing shift. Hang out with the other agents, stay cool, and play some poker or some shit...
But he went to get a soda or something.. then saw some room service dude drop a platter and saunter down a corridor. He got all suspicious and walked down the hotel hallway to where the platter was. He lifted the plate cover and there was no food underneath. He immediately called in a threat code to the other agents, and ran up to the roof. There he found a dead body, and upon further investigation, he confronted a man with Dynamite sticks strapped to his chest...
He said: "whoa. let's talk about this... I'm gonna put my gun down... and we can talk."
The guy with a chest bomb said, "death to Israel and all its infidel supporters!!!"
Then another agent, who was hanging off the edge of the building, grabbed the martyr's ankles and hurled him into open space, where he completely detonated into oblivion.
Oh well...
This movie is called "To Live and Die in L.A."
It is from 1985.
Approximately Five years after the Islamic revolution in Iran, and the detention of American Embassy workers . Sixteen years before September 11, 2001. And 40 years after news of the murder of 6 million Jewish poeple, 20 million Russian troops and civilians, countless other gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people.
Does anyone really think that this shit is going to just "go away"?
Hmmmm...
Friday, October 5, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
