This is a true story and the author, Rick Mathes, Executive Director of The Mission Gate Prison Ministry, is a well-known leader in that ministry. The man who walks with God always gets to his destination.
This happened in May 2003.
If you have a pulse you have a purpose!
The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the United
States, especially in the minority races!!!
Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance. During the training
session there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman
Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their beliefs.
I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave
a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.
After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.
When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: 'Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world and, that by killing an infidel, (which is a command to all Muslims) they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an
infidel?'
There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied,
'Non-believers!'
I responded,'So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can have a
place in heaven.. Is that correct?'
The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a
little boy who had just been caught with his hand in the cookie jar....
'He sheepishly replied, 'Yes.'
I then stated, 'Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope John Paul
commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering all
Protestants to do the same in order to guarantee them a place in heaven!'
The Imam was speechless!
I continued, 'I also have a problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me!
Let me ask you a question: Would you rather have your Allah, who tells you to kill me in order for you to go to heaven, or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to heaven and He wants you to be there with me?'
You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame. Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the Diversification training seminar were not happy with my way of dealing with the Islamic Imam, and exposing the truth about the Muslims' beliefs.
In twenty years there will be enough Muslim voters in the U.S. to elect the
President!
I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with ACLU, there is no way this will be widely publicized.
Make a difference...tell your neighbors....
Michael Mack
An American
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
US Border Agents Given Bean Bags To Fight AK-47s
You have got to be kidding me!
Federal court documents have confirmed a report from WND columnist and former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo that U.S. Border Patrol agents were using bean bags against alleged drug gang members who had AK-47s when one agent was killed.
Tancredo reported on Dec. 18, 2010, how the confrontation that left Border Patrol agent Brian Terry dead developed, with the agents using "non-lethal" bean-bag rounds while the alleged drug smugglers "returned fire with real bullets."
"Real bullets outperform bean bags every time," Tancredo warned at the time.
Officials at the time reported such a scenario was impossible.
But now the Arizona Daily Star is reporting documents on file in U.S. District Court in Tucson involving the case are confirming Tancredo's report.
According to the newspaper, the court documents say the U.S. officer was killed after a group of illegal aliens in Peck Canyon near Nogales on Dec. 14 refused commands to drop their weapons when confronted by agents.
The documents show two agents then fired beanbags at the illegals, who returned with real gunfire.
The newspaper said its own requests for information on the protocols for using force were turned down by officials. But the report said Terry's brother, Kent Terry, confirmed the other agents at the scene told him they had been instructed to use non-lethal bean bags first.
"You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags – I don't get it," Terry told the newspaper. "It's like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. ... These (Border Patrol agents) are professionals; they should be able to use their judgment call on their own."
"The area is well-known as a major drug-smuggling corridor, and the smugglers are known to frequently be armed with AK-47s and other long rifles," he wrote.
"Here's the part Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Border Patrol management are trying to hide: Border Patrol Agent Terry and the BORTAC team were under standing orders to always use ('non-lethal') bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition. When the smugglers heard the first rounds, they returned fire with real bullets, and Agent Terry was killed in that exchange. Real bullets outperform bean bags every time."
Tancredo suggested that the "rules of engagement" place the lives of agents at risk.
The US is showing weakness like I have never seen! Political Correctness is ruining this country.
WE MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK...........
Michael Mack
An American
Federal court documents have confirmed a report from WND columnist and former GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo that U.S. Border Patrol agents were using bean bags against alleged drug gang members who had AK-47s when one agent was killed.
Tancredo reported on Dec. 18, 2010, how the confrontation that left Border Patrol agent Brian Terry dead developed, with the agents using "non-lethal" bean-bag rounds while the alleged drug smugglers "returned fire with real bullets."
"Real bullets outperform bean bags every time," Tancredo warned at the time.
Officials at the time reported such a scenario was impossible.
But now the Arizona Daily Star is reporting documents on file in U.S. District Court in Tucson involving the case are confirming Tancredo's report.
According to the newspaper, the court documents say the U.S. officer was killed after a group of illegal aliens in Peck Canyon near Nogales on Dec. 14 refused commands to drop their weapons when confronted by agents.
The documents show two agents then fired beanbags at the illegals, who returned with real gunfire.
The newspaper said its own requests for information on the protocols for using force were turned down by officials. But the report said Terry's brother, Kent Terry, confirmed the other agents at the scene told him they had been instructed to use non-lethal bean bags first.
"You go up against a bandit crew that is carrying AKs, and you walk out there with guns loaded with beanbags – I don't get it," Terry told the newspaper. "It's like going to the Iraqi war with one knife. It boggles my mind. ... These (Border Patrol agents) are professionals; they should be able to use their judgment call on their own."
"The area is well-known as a major drug-smuggling corridor, and the smugglers are known to frequently be armed with AK-47s and other long rifles," he wrote.
"Here's the part Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Border Patrol management are trying to hide: Border Patrol Agent Terry and the BORTAC team were under standing orders to always use ('non-lethal') bean-bag rounds first before using live ammunition. When the smugglers heard the first rounds, they returned fire with real bullets, and Agent Terry was killed in that exchange. Real bullets outperform bean bags every time."
Tancredo suggested that the "rules of engagement" place the lives of agents at risk.
The US is showing weakness like I have never seen! Political Correctness is ruining this country.
WE MUST TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK...........
Michael Mack
An American
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
America Must Choose - The Constitution or Sharia Law
Lt Gen (Ret.) William G Boykin is a great American. He has distinguished himself as a leader in the military with the Delta Force, the CIA, and Commander of the U S Army Special Forces. His last four years he was the deputy secretary of defense of intelligence. He retired in 2007. I believe he knows exactly what he is talking about, America must choose between the Constitution and Sharia Law. The Constitution MUST win in my book. Below is an article from Lt Gen Boykin.
We tend to assume Islam deserves unquestioned First Amendment protection. But it is a totalitarian way of life with aggressive political goals, not just a religion. What is to be done?
The Founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution were very aware that the citizens of this nascent nation wanted the freedom to choose their own manner of worship. They made history by forbidding religious tests for public office in Article VI. They added the First Amendment to ensure that Americans would be protected from government interference in their spiritual affairs.
But a dilemma exists in our nation today concerning whether or how the First Amendment should properly be applied to Islam. This essay will show that the ultimate outcome of blanket protection for Islam in all its manifestations on the grounds of “religious freedom” would be the establishment of Islamic law and government, or Sharia, alongside or in place of civil law and government in this country.
As we will see, Sharia law is totalitarian in nature, providing no individual freedoms while virtually enslaving those who live under its authority. This is absolutely not what the Founders intended in creating the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment Protection
Ever since its ratification in 1791, the First Amendment protection from government control of the church and interference in the faith of individual citizens has been a cornerstone of the American way of life. Although the protections have been challenged and redefined through the years, and continue to be debated, overall they remain intact. What Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation between church and state” has become part of our political and cultural landscape.
Most Americans accept the notion that the Constitution allows them to worship any way they choose, periodor to declare themselves atheists and not worship at all. Muslims who follow the teachings of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, have, therefore, enjoyed complete First Amendment protection like other faith, ever since the first Muslims arrived in America in the 19th century.
Case closed? No, because adherents of any doctrine, faith, or religion are still bound by the laws of the land. Citizens as well as visitors in America are required to obey all laws, regardless of any conflict with their individual beliefs or form of worship.
For example, religions that call for animal sacrifice or encourage sex with minors are not permitted to act out such rituals. While some Mormons may believe in polygamy, they are not allowed to practice it. Other practices such as the use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs are also deemed unlawful, religious justifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
To be a good American, one must accept these legal restrictions in the interest of public order, human dignity, and cultural consensus. People of faith can use their constitutional freedoms to try to change laws they may find objectionable due to conflicts with their faith. But meanwhile, no one is excused from obeying the law as it stands.
How Islam Differs
Where is the dividing line as far as Islam is concerned? That is now the burning question, and it may be literally a matter of survival for our way of life. We have taken for granted that Islam deserves the same constitutionally protected status afforded to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other faiths. This is reasonable if one simply considers Islam a religion like any other.
After all, the president of the United States has stated that Islam is one of the “world’s great religions” and “a religion of peace.”
Other world leaders have done the same. Muslims refer to Islam as their religion and have insisted on their unhindered right to practice it. Americans have been most accommodating in return. But therein lies a huge problem for the nation’s future, because Islam is not just another religion. In its fullest form, Islam is a complete and totalitarian way of life.
Theocracy and Totalitarianism
Islam does have a religious component but it has many other components, which should not be entitled to the same level of constitutional protection. Islam is foremost a legal system, called Sharia law. Islam under Koranic doctrine also includes economic, financial, social, military, and governmental components, which do not coexist easily with non-Muslim beliefs and practices.
Nor does Islam recognize any separation of church and state. Islamic republics are dominated by spiritual leaders who oversee the strict adherence to Sharia law by the populace. In countries where Islamic enclaves or ghettos have emerged, such as France and Britain, local mullahs enforce Sharia law regardless of its conflict with national or state laws.
Sharia law is the foundation of Islamic theocracy and totalitarianism. The establishment of global Sharia law is the goal of the adherents to authoritative Islam. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land.
That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America. But it is the exact opposite of what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Sharia is derived from multiple sources. The Koran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists and reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia.
Together these constitute Islam’s theological core, not some radical variationand they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslim subjects alike.
Death to Apostates
Sharia law is utterly inconsistent with American values, as it enslaves those under it and encourages or commands acts of violence and barbaric behavior. Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam.
Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, and severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.
The details of Islamic law are readily available in English translation. The one most commonly used is entitled Reliance of the Traveler. Authenticated by Islamic scholars for English speakers, this reference outlines the incredibly abhorrent behavior demanded of the adherents of Islam.
When one reads, for example, that Muslim men are directed to beat their wives for rejecting sexual advances,
it becomes obvious that American values are in direct conflict with what Islamic law requires of its followers. Yet these inhumane practices are exactly what our government and courts have been dutifully protecting under the First Amendment.
The Constitution of the United States in Article VI declares itself “the supreme law of the land.” No foreign laws can supersede our own Constitution and laws, nor can they be considered in the jurisprudence of courts at any level in America. Yet Judge Joseph Charles of the New Jersey family court denied a restraining order to a Muslim woman whose husband had serially raped and beaten her, because the judge determined that the Muslim man was acting under his beliefs (Sharia law) and not with criminal intent.
Fortunately, this 2009 decision was overruled by an appellate court. But Sharia law has nonetheless been considered in 17 court cases in 11 states.
Sharia is creeping into our society just as it has in many European countries and this must be stopped. Numerous adherents of Islam in this country have espoused an anti-constitution position and a seditious agenda, explicitly and on the record. The ultimate goal of these individuals and groups is to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law. This conclusion is beyond dispute, since the guiding force behind the effort, the Muslim Brotherhood (called in Arabic the Ikwan), has been open about its intent for America. The Muslim Brotherhood began infiltrating the United States in the 1960s with the declared intent of destroying the existing political order and establishing Sharia law.
Goal: Destroy from Within
Incredible? It sounds that way, but leaders and known associates of this group have repeatedly announced their intentions for our future. As early as 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi, one of the senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, made the statement that “.America will become an Islamic country,” while speaking in Illinois at a meeting of the Islamic Association of Palestine.
Mr. Alamoudi was one of the most respected Islamic leaders in the nation at the time, enjoying routine access to the Clinton White House. He was used regularly as an adviser to the president and was sent abroad frequently as a goodwill ambassador representing the United States government. Today Mr. Alamoudi is serving a 23-year sentence after being convicted on terrorism charges.
Other Islamic leaders, in openly making similar statements, have done so on the highest authority. For in a document placed in evidence by the prosecution at the U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, and stipulated as authentic by the defense, Muslim Brotherhood leaders officially declared:
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Home-grown Jihadists
So there can be no doubt about the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood in America: The United States Constitution is their targetand the First Amendment as currently interpreted is their protection. National headlines have repeatedly furnished us evidence of this cancer within, if we would but open our eyes.
Major Nidal Hassan screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he stormed through the Fort Hood Support Center killing and wounding his fellow soldiers and civilian employees at the U.S. Army post on November 5, 2009. Hassan was sworn to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, but on that day he was a Muslim following the dictates of the Koran, a fact our government's final report on that attack failed to mention. The report never mentioned his Islamic faith at all. Yet Hassan was an acting Muslim chaplain at the Army post, and in 2007 he had presented a 50-slide briefing to senior officers in which he made it very clear that his allegiance was to Sharia law and not the U.S. Constitution.
A similar incident occurred in 2003, when a Muslim soldier of the 101st Airmobile Division threw a fragmentary grenade into a tent and killed fellow soldiers just before the division entered Iraq. Again, this man’s allegiance was not to the U.S. Constitution; rather, he was following Sharia law by obeying the Koranic command to commit jihad against infidels.
Both of these home-grown jihadists, along with countless other American citizens who follow the violent directives of the Koran, were radicalized in Saudi-funded mosques across America where anti-American rhetoric is spewed freely and the establishment of Sharia law is advocated. Imam Faisal Rauf, the “Ground Zero Mosque” imam, has regularly called for the United States to allow the practice of Sharia, as have many other Islamic leaders.
Raise Awareness, Rethink Policy
What must we do to resist this avowed “grand jihad destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands?” The first step is to raise public awareness. The next step, more difficult constitutionally but imperative for our self-preservation, is to rethink public policy.
Shouldn’t Islamic leaders and imams be put on notice that when they advocate the imposition of Sharia in America, they will be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate? Shouldn’t the mosques from which they preach this anti-constitutional rhetoric be similarly investigated and, if violations of law are found, be closed?
Shouldn’t Muslims who reject Sharia be encouraged to speak out publicly and take a firm stand against it? Shouldn’t those who advocate the imposition of Sharia in this country be treated like the KKK and other hate-crimes groups and perhaps not even allowed to hold public office, serve in the military, or occupy positions of trust in the government?
Americans can no longer operate from a position of ignorance about Islam. It is the responsibility of every citizen to become informed on Islam in order to understand Sharia. Relying on political leaders, opinion elites, and the media to inform us is unfortunately not an option. When Americans realize the threat of Islamic law, they will certainly sense a call to action. Europe failed to answer that same call, and it may now be too late for them to reverse the inevitable Islamic domination of their continent.
Our First Amendment was never meant to protect sedition or insurgency. It is time to stop applying it in this suicidal fashion. Even as you read this, law and policy in the United States are continuing to allow seditious insurgents hiding behind a nave misinterpretation of “religious freedom” to erode our values, undermine our liberties, and threaten our future. We must stop it now before we are incapable of stopping it at all.
By William G. Boykin
http://www.sharia4america.com/n.php?nid=5076
Michael Mack
An American
We tend to assume Islam deserves unquestioned First Amendment protection. But it is a totalitarian way of life with aggressive political goals, not just a religion. What is to be done?
The Founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution were very aware that the citizens of this nascent nation wanted the freedom to choose their own manner of worship. They made history by forbidding religious tests for public office in Article VI. They added the First Amendment to ensure that Americans would be protected from government interference in their spiritual affairs.
But a dilemma exists in our nation today concerning whether or how the First Amendment should properly be applied to Islam. This essay will show that the ultimate outcome of blanket protection for Islam in all its manifestations on the grounds of “religious freedom” would be the establishment of Islamic law and government, or Sharia, alongside or in place of civil law and government in this country.
As we will see, Sharia law is totalitarian in nature, providing no individual freedoms while virtually enslaving those who live under its authority. This is absolutely not what the Founders intended in creating the Bill of Rights.
First Amendment Protection
Ever since its ratification in 1791, the First Amendment protection from government control of the church and interference in the faith of individual citizens has been a cornerstone of the American way of life. Although the protections have been challenged and redefined through the years, and continue to be debated, overall they remain intact. What Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation between church and state” has become part of our political and cultural landscape.
Most Americans accept the notion that the Constitution allows them to worship any way they choose, periodor to declare themselves atheists and not worship at all. Muslims who follow the teachings of the Koran, the Islamic holy book, have, therefore, enjoyed complete First Amendment protection like other faith, ever since the first Muslims arrived in America in the 19th century.
Case closed? No, because adherents of any doctrine, faith, or religion are still bound by the laws of the land. Citizens as well as visitors in America are required to obey all laws, regardless of any conflict with their individual beliefs or form of worship.
For example, religions that call for animal sacrifice or encourage sex with minors are not permitted to act out such rituals. While some Mormons may believe in polygamy, they are not allowed to practice it. Other practices such as the use of narcotics and mind-altering drugs are also deemed unlawful, religious justifications to the contrary notwithstanding.
To be a good American, one must accept these legal restrictions in the interest of public order, human dignity, and cultural consensus. People of faith can use their constitutional freedoms to try to change laws they may find objectionable due to conflicts with their faith. But meanwhile, no one is excused from obeying the law as it stands.
How Islam Differs
Where is the dividing line as far as Islam is concerned? That is now the burning question, and it may be literally a matter of survival for our way of life. We have taken for granted that Islam deserves the same constitutionally protected status afforded to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and other faiths. This is reasonable if one simply considers Islam a religion like any other.
After all, the president of the United States has stated that Islam is one of the “world’s great religions” and “a religion of peace.”
Other world leaders have done the same. Muslims refer to Islam as their religion and have insisted on their unhindered right to practice it. Americans have been most accommodating in return. But therein lies a huge problem for the nation’s future, because Islam is not just another religion. In its fullest form, Islam is a complete and totalitarian way of life.
Theocracy and Totalitarianism
Islam does have a religious component but it has many other components, which should not be entitled to the same level of constitutional protection. Islam is foremost a legal system, called Sharia law. Islam under Koranic doctrine also includes economic, financial, social, military, and governmental components, which do not coexist easily with non-Muslim beliefs and practices.
Nor does Islam recognize any separation of church and state. Islamic republics are dominated by spiritual leaders who oversee the strict adherence to Sharia law by the populace. In countries where Islamic enclaves or ghettos have emerged, such as France and Britain, local mullahs enforce Sharia law regardless of its conflict with national or state laws.
Sharia law is the foundation of Islamic theocracy and totalitarianism. The establishment of global Sharia law is the goal of the adherents to authoritative Islam. The Koran is unequivocal in its directive to Muslims to establish a global Islamic state, or Caliphate, over which the Islamic messiah, or Mahdi, will rule with Sharia as the only law of the land.
That is the intent of many influential Islamic elements in America. But it is the exact opposite of what the First Amendment was designed to protect.
Sharia is derived from multiple sources. The Koran, considered the “uncreated word of Allah” is the primary source of Sharia law. The Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) is the second most important document in Sharia. Historic rulings by jurists and reasoning by analogy make up the other two, less-influential sources of Sharia.
Together these constitute Islam’s theological core, not some radical variationand they result in a totalitarian way of life for Muslim followers and non-Muslim subjects alike.
Death to Apostates
Sharia law is utterly inconsistent with American values, as it enslaves those under it and encourages or commands acts of violence and barbaric behavior. Sharia demands the death of those who renounce Islam.
Honor killings, marital rape, female genital mutilation, and severing of hands and feet are but a few of the other components of Sharia.
The details of Islamic law are readily available in English translation. The one most commonly used is entitled Reliance of the Traveler. Authenticated by Islamic scholars for English speakers, this reference outlines the incredibly abhorrent behavior demanded of the adherents of Islam.
When one reads, for example, that Muslim men are directed to beat their wives for rejecting sexual advances,
it becomes obvious that American values are in direct conflict with what Islamic law requires of its followers. Yet these inhumane practices are exactly what our government and courts have been dutifully protecting under the First Amendment.
The Constitution of the United States in Article VI declares itself “the supreme law of the land.” No foreign laws can supersede our own Constitution and laws, nor can they be considered in the jurisprudence of courts at any level in America. Yet Judge Joseph Charles of the New Jersey family court denied a restraining order to a Muslim woman whose husband had serially raped and beaten her, because the judge determined that the Muslim man was acting under his beliefs (Sharia law) and not with criminal intent.
Fortunately, this 2009 decision was overruled by an appellate court. But Sharia law has nonetheless been considered in 17 court cases in 11 states.
Sharia is creeping into our society just as it has in many European countries and this must be stopped. Numerous adherents of Islam in this country have espoused an anti-constitution position and a seditious agenda, explicitly and on the record. The ultimate goal of these individuals and groups is to replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia law. This conclusion is beyond dispute, since the guiding force behind the effort, the Muslim Brotherhood (called in Arabic the Ikwan), has been open about its intent for America. The Muslim Brotherhood began infiltrating the United States in the 1960s with the declared intent of destroying the existing political order and establishing Sharia law.
Goal: Destroy from Within
Incredible? It sounds that way, but leaders and known associates of this group have repeatedly announced their intentions for our future. As early as 1996, Abdurahman Alamoudi, one of the senior leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, made the statement that “.America will become an Islamic country,” while speaking in Illinois at a meeting of the Islamic Association of Palestine.
Mr. Alamoudi was one of the most respected Islamic leaders in the nation at the time, enjoying routine access to the Clinton White House. He was used regularly as an adviser to the president and was sent abroad frequently as a goodwill ambassador representing the United States government. Today Mr. Alamoudi is serving a 23-year sentence after being convicted on terrorism charges.
Other Islamic leaders, in openly making similar statements, have done so on the highest authority. For in a document placed in evidence by the prosecution at the U.S. v Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008, and stipulated as authentic by the defense, Muslim Brotherhood leaders officially declared:
The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands and the hands of believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Home-grown Jihadists
So there can be no doubt about the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood in America: The United States Constitution is their targetand the First Amendment as currently interpreted is their protection. National headlines have repeatedly furnished us evidence of this cancer within, if we would but open our eyes.
Major Nidal Hassan screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he stormed through the Fort Hood Support Center killing and wounding his fellow soldiers and civilian employees at the U.S. Army post on November 5, 2009. Hassan was sworn to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, but on that day he was a Muslim following the dictates of the Koran, a fact our government's final report on that attack failed to mention. The report never mentioned his Islamic faith at all. Yet Hassan was an acting Muslim chaplain at the Army post, and in 2007 he had presented a 50-slide briefing to senior officers in which he made it very clear that his allegiance was to Sharia law and not the U.S. Constitution.
A similar incident occurred in 2003, when a Muslim soldier of the 101st Airmobile Division threw a fragmentary grenade into a tent and killed fellow soldiers just before the division entered Iraq. Again, this man’s allegiance was not to the U.S. Constitution; rather, he was following Sharia law by obeying the Koranic command to commit jihad against infidels.
Both of these home-grown jihadists, along with countless other American citizens who follow the violent directives of the Koran, were radicalized in Saudi-funded mosques across America where anti-American rhetoric is spewed freely and the establishment of Sharia law is advocated. Imam Faisal Rauf, the “Ground Zero Mosque” imam, has regularly called for the United States to allow the practice of Sharia, as have many other Islamic leaders.
Raise Awareness, Rethink Policy
What must we do to resist this avowed “grand jihad destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their own hands?” The first step is to raise public awareness. The next step, more difficult constitutionally but imperative for our self-preservation, is to rethink public policy.
Shouldn’t Islamic leaders and imams be put on notice that when they advocate the imposition of Sharia in America, they will be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate? Shouldn’t the mosques from which they preach this anti-constitutional rhetoric be similarly investigated and, if violations of law are found, be closed?
Shouldn’t Muslims who reject Sharia be encouraged to speak out publicly and take a firm stand against it? Shouldn’t those who advocate the imposition of Sharia in this country be treated like the KKK and other hate-crimes groups and perhaps not even allowed to hold public office, serve in the military, or occupy positions of trust in the government?
Americans can no longer operate from a position of ignorance about Islam. It is the responsibility of every citizen to become informed on Islam in order to understand Sharia. Relying on political leaders, opinion elites, and the media to inform us is unfortunately not an option. When Americans realize the threat of Islamic law, they will certainly sense a call to action. Europe failed to answer that same call, and it may now be too late for them to reverse the inevitable Islamic domination of their continent.
Our First Amendment was never meant to protect sedition or insurgency. It is time to stop applying it in this suicidal fashion. Even as you read this, law and policy in the United States are continuing to allow seditious insurgents hiding behind a nave misinterpretation of “religious freedom” to erode our values, undermine our liberties, and threaten our future. We must stop it now before we are incapable of stopping it at all.
By William G. Boykin
http://www.sharia4america.com/n.php?nid=5076
Michael Mack
An American
Monday, February 28, 2011
Harley a Friend for Life Died on Sunday
Harley Died on Sunday - she succumbed to the same fate as Duke at around 10-11 years old Labrador Retrievers have hip dysplasia an eventually cannot get up and must be put down. She died peacefully in her sleep Saturday night. She was a great dog, we had her for a little over 7 years. I am reprinting this Blog I printed on her a couple of years ago...Good Bye Girl..........
"Harley" is a chocolate lab we have had for about 4 years. She was probably 3-4 when we got her. She will bark like she will take your head off, but will love you to death, once she knows you are a friend. I had a black lab "Duke" we had for 11 years, that succumbed to bad hips, he could not get up on his own,had a stroke, and had to be put down. We took Duke to the Vet and he gave us the news that Duke would not get any better. He could be given some drugs that would help for a while but he would need to be helped up every time he would lye down or sit. The only other option was to have him put down. Although, it was a terrible option it was the best for Duke, rather than see him suffer. I cried that day, because of the loss of such a friend. We got Harley the year before because we knew Duke was getting old and would soon leave us. Duke had been run over when we lived in Atlanta but survived the accident and lived for many years after.
I write this in view of Harley and what a comfort she is: I freely admit that I am not always perfect, and many times she has not been treated with the utmost respect she deserves,but she is always there. This morning it was 22 degrees, she slept in the garage, at 6 am I let her out, fed her and she did her usual romp with me down the hill to feed the horses. The driveway is about half a mile. She runs down the hill sits or lyes down until I am ready to return to the house and then she runs back up the hill, a little slower coming up, but then, she sits on top of the hill sitting in all her majesty, in front of the house daring anyone to come up the hill.
I call her to me and it does not matter what I have done or not done, It does not matter, if I have been good or evil to her, I will get the tail wag, the body wiggling in all shapes, sit down in front of me and will sit there and let me pat her on the head and let me pass on my gratitude, to her for all she has done for me.
I don't deserve the love, but it is given freely.
I am grateful for the unconditional Love Harley shows me.
I am grateful to Harley, that she can make the saddest person smile.
I am Grateful to Harley because she helps me heal and brings me comfort.
I am Grateful to God, He created Harley to help me through life.
I am Grateful that the animals reveal compassion, teach hope and forgiveness, and serve as a barometer to measure feelings.
Harley is Great, she was created by God and she helps me through the day. It does not matter whatever is going on, She will show me love, just as God does.
What a great companion.
God is Great God is Good. Harley is a messenger from God.
Michael Mack, An American
"Harley" is a chocolate lab we have had for about 4 years. She was probably 3-4 when we got her. She will bark like she will take your head off, but will love you to death, once she knows you are a friend. I had a black lab "Duke" we had for 11 years, that succumbed to bad hips, he could not get up on his own,had a stroke, and had to be put down. We took Duke to the Vet and he gave us the news that Duke would not get any better. He could be given some drugs that would help for a while but he would need to be helped up every time he would lye down or sit. The only other option was to have him put down. Although, it was a terrible option it was the best for Duke, rather than see him suffer. I cried that day, because of the loss of such a friend. We got Harley the year before because we knew Duke was getting old and would soon leave us. Duke had been run over when we lived in Atlanta but survived the accident and lived for many years after.
I write this in view of Harley and what a comfort she is: I freely admit that I am not always perfect, and many times she has not been treated with the utmost respect she deserves,but she is always there. This morning it was 22 degrees, she slept in the garage, at 6 am I let her out, fed her and she did her usual romp with me down the hill to feed the horses. The driveway is about half a mile. She runs down the hill sits or lyes down until I am ready to return to the house and then she runs back up the hill, a little slower coming up, but then, she sits on top of the hill sitting in all her majesty, in front of the house daring anyone to come up the hill.
I call her to me and it does not matter what I have done or not done, It does not matter, if I have been good or evil to her, I will get the tail wag, the body wiggling in all shapes, sit down in front of me and will sit there and let me pat her on the head and let me pass on my gratitude, to her for all she has done for me.
I don't deserve the love, but it is given freely.
I am grateful for the unconditional Love Harley shows me.
I am grateful to Harley, that she can make the saddest person smile.
I am Grateful to Harley because she helps me heal and brings me comfort.
I am Grateful to God, He created Harley to help me through life.
I am Grateful that the animals reveal compassion, teach hope and forgiveness, and serve as a barometer to measure feelings.
Harley is Great, she was created by God and she helps me through the day. It does not matter whatever is going on, She will show me love, just as God does.
What a great companion.
God is Great God is Good. Harley is a messenger from God.
Michael Mack, An American
Friday, February 18, 2011
A Fundamental Change is Happening in American Society - And it is Not Good
From The Business Insider
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
Here are the statistics:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
Michael Mack
An American
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.
So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.
The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.
Here are the statistics:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.
Giant Sucking Sound
The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.
What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.
So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.
What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.
Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.
But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.
The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.
Michael Mack
An American
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Graciousness can pay priceless dividends. And it doesn't cost a thing.
Graciousness can pay priceless dividends.
And it doesn't cost a thing.
You may have heard the story about what happened between White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and Four-star Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli at a recent Washington dinner.
As reported by the website Daily Caller, Jarrett, a longtime Chicago friend of President Obama, was seated at the dinner when a general -- later identified as Chiarelli, the No. 2-ranking general in the U.S. Army hierarchy, who was also a guest at the gathering -- walked behind her. Chiarelli was in full dress uniform.
Jarrett, apparently only seeing Chiarelli's striped uniform pants, thought that he was a waiter. She asked him to get her a glass of wine.
She was said to be mortified as soon as she realized her mistake, and who wouldn't be? But the instructive part of this tale is what Chiarelli did next.
Rather than take offense, or try to make Jarrett feel small for her blunder, the general, in good humor, went and poured her a glass of wine. It was evident that he wanted to defuse the awkward moment, and to let Jarrett know that she should not feel embarrassed.
As Chiarelli wrote in an e-mail to CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr:
"It was an honest mistake that ANYONE could have made. She was sitting, I was standing and walking behind her and all she saw were the two stripes on my pants which were almost identical to the waiters' pants -- REALLY. She apologized and will come to the house for dinner if a date can be worked out in March."
Now, even if you've never met Chiarelli or followed him in the news, you have to be impressed with him after hearing that story. With his lofty rank in the military, he could have given Jarrett the deep freeze, reproached her and corrected her. But he poured her the wine -- "It was only good fun," he wrote to Starr -- and invited her to a meal at his home. He came out of the incident as a decent and magnanimous person.
It's easy to do, if you care about other people's feelings. Sportswriters who covered the National Basketball Association in the late 1980s and 1990s like to tell a story about Karl Malone, the great forward for the Utah Jazz. It seems that one day in the baggage-claim area of the Salt Lake City airport, a woman was trying to lift her bags from the carousel and, seeing Malone, who was there to pick up his brother from an arriving flight, mistook him for a skycap.
She asked him to carry her bags to her car.
Malone was a wealthy and world-famous athlete at the time. He could so easily have hurt the woman's feelings, rebuked her. But what did he do?
According to longtime Salt Lake Tribune sports reporter Steve Luhm, who covered the incident at the time and who confirmed it to me last week, Malone carried the woman's bags all the way to her car. Only when she reached for her purse to give him a tip did he in a friendly manner introduce himself and decline the offer.
One of the most indelible stories about a person going out of his way to avoid humiliating another person was told in Gay Talese's 1966 Esquire article "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," widely considered to be perhaps the finest magazine profile ever written.
In the article, Talese described a party at the home of Sinatra's former wife, at which Sinatra, who maintained cordial relations with her, was acting as host. A young woman at the party, according to Talese, "while leaning against a table, accidentally with her elbow knocked over one of a pair of alabaster birds to the floor, smashing it to pieces."
Talese wrote that Sinatra's daughter Nancy, also a guest at the party, started to say: "Oh, that was one of my mother's favorite..."
Talese continued:
"[B]ut before she could complete the sentence, Sinatra glared at her, cutting her off, and while 40 other guests in the room all stared in silence, Sinatra walked over, quickly with his finger flicked the other alabaster bird off the table, smashing it to pieces, and then put an arm gently around [the young woman] and said, in a way that put her completely at ease, 'That's OK, kid.' "
It can work the other way, too, and can be remembered just as long. I was once working on a profile of a famous singer, also for Esquire, and one evening we rode in his limousine to a concert hall. As he walked backstage he was stopped by a young, nervous and inexperienced usher with a clipboard who had been assigned to make certain everyone in the area was authorized. The usher asked the famous singer if he was the comedian who would open the show.
The singer did not speak to the young usher or make eye contact with him, but instead walked immediately over to a person in the management of the auditorium and demanded that the usher be dismissed.
The singer, in trying to make the young man who had made a mistake feel small, had only managed to make himself seem tiny. What Gen. Chiarelli did, though -- like Karl Malone, like Frank Sinatra -- was to demonstrate, instinctively and in an instant, what it means to be a big person.
The rest of us may never reach the exalted status of those three men. But kindness knows no social stratum. Every day, we're given the choice. Consideration? It's free of charge. It can echo forever.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.
You should think of others more than yourself. I agree with Bob Green
Michael Mack
An American
And it doesn't cost a thing.
You may have heard the story about what happened between White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and Four-star Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli at a recent Washington dinner.
As reported by the website Daily Caller, Jarrett, a longtime Chicago friend of President Obama, was seated at the dinner when a general -- later identified as Chiarelli, the No. 2-ranking general in the U.S. Army hierarchy, who was also a guest at the gathering -- walked behind her. Chiarelli was in full dress uniform.
Jarrett, apparently only seeing Chiarelli's striped uniform pants, thought that he was a waiter. She asked him to get her a glass of wine.
She was said to be mortified as soon as she realized her mistake, and who wouldn't be? But the instructive part of this tale is what Chiarelli did next.
Rather than take offense, or try to make Jarrett feel small for her blunder, the general, in good humor, went and poured her a glass of wine. It was evident that he wanted to defuse the awkward moment, and to let Jarrett know that she should not feel embarrassed.
As Chiarelli wrote in an e-mail to CNN Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr:
"It was an honest mistake that ANYONE could have made. She was sitting, I was standing and walking behind her and all she saw were the two stripes on my pants which were almost identical to the waiters' pants -- REALLY. She apologized and will come to the house for dinner if a date can be worked out in March."
Now, even if you've never met Chiarelli or followed him in the news, you have to be impressed with him after hearing that story. With his lofty rank in the military, he could have given Jarrett the deep freeze, reproached her and corrected her. But he poured her the wine -- "It was only good fun," he wrote to Starr -- and invited her to a meal at his home. He came out of the incident as a decent and magnanimous person.
It's easy to do, if you care about other people's feelings. Sportswriters who covered the National Basketball Association in the late 1980s and 1990s like to tell a story about Karl Malone, the great forward for the Utah Jazz. It seems that one day in the baggage-claim area of the Salt Lake City airport, a woman was trying to lift her bags from the carousel and, seeing Malone, who was there to pick up his brother from an arriving flight, mistook him for a skycap.
She asked him to carry her bags to her car.
Malone was a wealthy and world-famous athlete at the time. He could so easily have hurt the woman's feelings, rebuked her. But what did he do?
According to longtime Salt Lake Tribune sports reporter Steve Luhm, who covered the incident at the time and who confirmed it to me last week, Malone carried the woman's bags all the way to her car. Only when she reached for her purse to give him a tip did he in a friendly manner introduce himself and decline the offer.
One of the most indelible stories about a person going out of his way to avoid humiliating another person was told in Gay Talese's 1966 Esquire article "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," widely considered to be perhaps the finest magazine profile ever written.
In the article, Talese described a party at the home of Sinatra's former wife, at which Sinatra, who maintained cordial relations with her, was acting as host. A young woman at the party, according to Talese, "while leaning against a table, accidentally with her elbow knocked over one of a pair of alabaster birds to the floor, smashing it to pieces."
Talese wrote that Sinatra's daughter Nancy, also a guest at the party, started to say: "Oh, that was one of my mother's favorite..."
Talese continued:
"[B]ut before she could complete the sentence, Sinatra glared at her, cutting her off, and while 40 other guests in the room all stared in silence, Sinatra walked over, quickly with his finger flicked the other alabaster bird off the table, smashing it to pieces, and then put an arm gently around [the young woman] and said, in a way that put her completely at ease, 'That's OK, kid.' "
It can work the other way, too, and can be remembered just as long. I was once working on a profile of a famous singer, also for Esquire, and one evening we rode in his limousine to a concert hall. As he walked backstage he was stopped by a young, nervous and inexperienced usher with a clipboard who had been assigned to make certain everyone in the area was authorized. The usher asked the famous singer if he was the comedian who would open the show.
The singer did not speak to the young usher or make eye contact with him, but instead walked immediately over to a person in the management of the auditorium and demanded that the usher be dismissed.
The singer, in trying to make the young man who had made a mistake feel small, had only managed to make himself seem tiny. What Gen. Chiarelli did, though -- like Karl Malone, like Frank Sinatra -- was to demonstrate, instinctively and in an instant, what it means to be a big person.
The rest of us may never reach the exalted status of those three men. But kindness knows no social stratum. Every day, we're given the choice. Consideration? It's free of charge. It can echo forever.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.
You should think of others more than yourself. I agree with Bob Green
Michael Mack
An American
Monday, February 14, 2011
Love Him or Hate Him ... "Limbaugh Nailed This One"
Love him or hate him ...
~Limbaugh Nailed This One~
By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the
September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are
profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't
criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the
numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement
mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack,
you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of
$250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185
million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their
families know the dangers.. (Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by
politicians and commanding officers.) We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of
over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really
sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive
next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East
while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent
housing. Make sense?
However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension
that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being
millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement
because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people
stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.
As for me I Love Rush!
Michael Mack
An American
~Limbaugh Nailed This One~
By Rush Limbaugh:
I think the vast differences in compensation between victims of the
September 11 casualty and those who die serving our country in Uniform are
profound. No one is really talking about it either, because you just don't
criticize anything having to do with September 11. Well, I can't let the
numbers pass by because it says something really disturbing about the entitlement
mentality of this country. If you lost a family member in the September 11 attack,
you're going to get an average of $1,185,000. The range is a minimum guarantee of
$250,000, all the way up to $4.7 million. If you are a surviving family member of an American soldier killed in action, the first check you get is a $6,000 direct death benefit, half of which is taxable. Next, you get $1,750 for burial costs. If you are the surviving spouse, you get $833 a month until you remarry. And there's a payment of $211 per month for each child under 18. When the child hits 18, those payments come to a screeching halt.
Keep in mind that some of the people who are getting an average of $1.185
million up to $4.7 million are complaining that it's not enough. Their deaths were tragic, but for most, they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Soldiers put themselves in harms way FOR ALL OF US, and they and their
families know the dangers.. (Actually, soldiers are put in harms way by
politicians and commanding officers.) We also learned over the weekend that some of the victims from the Oklahoma City bombing have started an organization asking for the same deal that the September 11 families are getting. In addition to that, some of the families of those bombed in the embassies are now asking for compensation as well.
You see where this is going, don't you? Folks, this is part and parcel of
over 50 years of entitlement politics in this country. It's just really
sad. Every time a pay raise comes up for the military, they usually receive
next to nothing of a raise. Now the green machine is in combat in the Middle East
while their families have to survive on food stamps and live in low-rent
housing. Make sense?
However, our own US Congress voted themselves a raise. Many of you don't
know that they only have to be in Congress one time to receive a pension
that is more than $15,000 per month. And most are now equal to being
millionaires plus. They do not receive Social Security on retirement
because they didn't have to pay into the system. If some of the military people
stay in for 20 years and get out as an E-7, they may receive a pension of $1,000 per month, and the very people who placed them in harm's way receives a pension of $15,000 per month. I would like to see our elected officials pick up a weapon and join ranks before they start cutting out benefits and lowering pay for our sons and
daughters who are now fighting.
As for me I Love Rush!
Michael Mack
An American
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)