About Me

Name: Arik
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Justice and Judgement

Posted by Arik on Friday, November 28, 2008 10:08:40 PM
I have often struggled at the apparent dichotomy between the human desire for justice, and the biblical admonition against judgement. In much the same manner as the desire to defend oneself and the Christian dictum of turning the other cheek, I found myself at odds with myself trying to find common ground, a middle way, or a way to reconcile these two apparently opposite philosophies.  I have come to some conclusions, and I would like to share them with you here. 
 
Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay Sayeth The Lord (Romans 12:19, KJV)
 
As much as we like the idea of payback, of getting even, revenge is really not one of the nobler motives of mankind.  We really should keep our anger in check when dealing with criminals and those who wrong us.  The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" by the Federal Government, and is a good guideline for helping us look at punishment in a  more rational way. We should look not to exact our revenge, which really dehumanizes us and the criminal, but to make right, or as right as possible, the wrong that has been done. 
 
In Matthew 22:21,  Jesus says: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."  I interpret this phrase in two different, but not mutually exclusive ways.  In the first, we should follow the laws of this this world as best we can, as long as theyy do not conflict with the laws of God.  In the second, when the government deprives us, by law, of our life (by the death penalty), our liberty (via prison), or our property (through fines and taxation), we should not necessarily like it, but should keep in mind that what we are losing is of this world, and if we render unto God what is God's, which is, or should be, our soul, in the end justice will prevail.
 
I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight injustice and try to make the world a better place, but that in the end, this world is this world, and there is a better one to come. What we do is what makes us who we are in this world, and who we will become in the next. 
 
Judge not, that ye be not judged. (Matthew 7:1)  In the bible, this verse, along with another, from John 8:7, He lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her, are often, to my mind, misinterpreted by people who want to use them to your own ends.  These verses deal not with justice, but with hypocrisy.  In the first, Jesus is not telling us not to make judgements, which would essentially empty all the prisons, and let all malefactors free basically to do as they please (a liberal's idea a paradise). In the context of the verses that follow, it is clear that our judgement reveals our character, and that the criteria that we use to judge others are those that will, in the end, be used to judge us.  If we judge with an open heart, with honesty, nobility and integrity, those will be the criteria for our Judgement.  The same holds true if we judge with darkness in our hearts, and our more ignoble emotions.  In short, the way we look at others is a reflection of who we are ourselves.
 
The second verse deals with a woman accused of adultery.  In this situation, those accusing her and preparing to stone her were guilty of the same crime.  This is the key to the passage, and it resonates all the more strongly for it.  How many congressmen have accused rivals and colleagues of infidelity, while at the same time doing the same thing themselves?  How many televangelists have had their empire come crashing down for the same thing.  In another area, I see Barney Frank accusing the Republicans of bringing down the financial markets, while his fingerprints are all over the cookie jar.  The key here is to live in as righteous a manner as possible, and to understand that everyone makes mistakes, everyoone slips.  It's easier to help people stand if you are on your feet.
 
In conclusion, I believe that in this world, we have a set of laws created by man, and a set of Laws created by God.  While we are bound by the laws of this Earth, we should strive always to keep them fair, just and equitable, because the laws we create and the way we administer them reflect on us and, in the end, we are accountable for them.  In effect, man has little-j justice and judgement, and God has capital-J Justice and Judgement.  If we keep this in mind, our society will be better for it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hale to the Chief

Posted by Arik on Thursday, November 27, 2008 2:10:33 AM
There is now a movement in Cleveland, headed by City Councilman Zack Reed to rename the Nathan Hale Elementary school as the Barack Obama Elementary school. Instead of naming an already planned future school, they want to demote the honor given to Nathan Hale  in favor of a man who has proven no skill other than getting himself elected.
 
They are making the choice, based on the "potential" Obama has for his prseidency.  He could, and inevitably, WILL fail, due to the overwhelming expections his supporters have placed on him.  He's supposed to be George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Licoln, FDR, JFK and Jesus Christ all rolled into one. There's no way this guy can be a success.  He is destined to fail, at least by the standards set for him by the adoring masses on the left.
 
You can hear the interview of Councilman Reed by WTAM's own Bob Frantz that I heard at WTAM.com.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blood Stained Hands

Posted by Arik on Tuesday, November 25, 2008 9:52:23 PM
I came across a post today by Carol Platt Liebau which directed me to this article at Slate.com.  Now, I don't make a habit of reading Slate, because their writers tend to prefer reciting leftist ideology as opposed to actually thinking, but this article was so amazing to me that I can't quite wrap my mind around the mind-boggling stupidity involved in writing it. And it's one line in particular that just leaves me stunned.
 
The article revolves around the idea that Catholic clergy may prefer to close the Catholic hospitals rather than be forced to perform abortions due because they receive federal funding for some of their programs.  This may be a little surprising to some, but it shouldn't be.  The Catholic clergy has long been anti-abortion, and forcing programs run by the Church to perform what they consider an act of Evil in order to keep performing their good works in the field of health care is assuming that the Church will think the ends justify the means.  If the left tries to force Abortion on the Catholics involved in the medical field, there's a pretty good chance the Catholics will take their medicine ball home, and refuse to play at all.  They will redirect their efforts into another field, where an Act of Contrition is not required as a cover charge.
 
This is a problem, but we've long known the left acts without actually thinking the plan through to the end. History is replete with the wreckage left behind from leftists' good intentions.  No, where this article really blew my mind was with this passage:
 
"Yet, although abortion was not a major issue in the race, the pro-life argument that he was the candidate most likely to decrease the need for—and number of—abortions did make it easier for many Catholics to cast their votes for him. I think we should hold him to that commitment now."
 
Um, Okay.  Did I miss something?
 
Obama, July 17, 2007, at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event: "Well, the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
 
Call me crazy, but this doesn't sound like something the "candidate most likely blah, blah, blah" would say.  Whose "pro life argument" is this?  What in his record, in his history, or in anything he has said gave this impression anywhere, at any time?    This is sheer stupidity in print form.
 
We knew:
 
1). What he said to Planned Parenthood;
 
2). His record on the issue of Abortion and the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act;
 
3). His record as the most liberal Senator in Washington; and
 
4). His high regard among the Pro-Death crowd.
 
What commitment did he make? Again, did I miss something?  The only commitment I've heard, and I, as opposed to a majority of Obama voters, HAVE been paying attention, was the commitment to sign FOCA.
 
What I think happened here is that people ignored everything and anything negative about their False Messiah, in order to justify their vote for him.  The information was there. It was easily accessible.  They just stuck their fingers in their ears and yelled "LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU LA LA LA."  And now, they think they can feign surprise at what he wants to do.  If they were ignorant, it was WILLFUL ignorance. They didn't hear it because they didn't WANT to hear it.  They closed themselves off to what was right because they knew what they were going to do was wrong.  The blood of the Murdered Unborn will be on their hands,
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America's First Communists and the First Thanksgiving

Posted by Arik on Friday, November 21, 2008 9:18:52 PM
On my way to work today, I was listening, as is my habit, to Rush Limbaugh.  I heard a story that he and a caller had, ostensibly about the first Thanksgiving.  The caller had written a story for the L.A. Times, that I believe is fiction based in fact, which fact Rush then proceeded to call the story of the First Thanksgiving.  Always curious, your intrepid researcher (me) went to the source, William Bradford's "Of Plimoth Plantation." (pp 162-164) 
 
My conclusion?  Rush's contention that this is the story of the First Thanksgiving is demonstrably false, though the lessons he draws from it are absolutely correct.  The First Thanksgiving is commonly believed to have been celebrated in 1621 (though they did not call it Thanksgiving at that point).  The story referred to by Rush and his caller is dated by Bradford, the governor of the Plymouth colony, as taking place in 1623.  With this factual error aside, the thrust of the argument, that the first American Colonial experiment with Communism was a dismal failure, is absolutely on the money.
 
When the Plymouth Colony was founded, the settlers started out sharing the fruits of their labor, allowing each to take from the communal stores whatever they felt they needed.  Some worked hard and produced, others not so much. Yet each took the full share they felt owed to them. Some, forced to work for the betterment of others, considered themselves bound in slavery.  This lead to famine and hardship, with starvation and illness common.  After two years of misery, they decided to try another way.
 
The land was parcelled out proportional to the size of the families, that each might produce for themselves, letting God's Providence suffice to allow them to live.  After this division, the colonists prospered, as each had to produce for themselves what they required to live.  They worked harder, producing more than ever before.
 
Bradford's conclusion was that prosperity required allowing men to keep the fruits of their labors, and that men should be responsible for their own support.  He believed that mankind has a common corruption of the soul in that, given the chance, they will allow others to do the work required to support them, rather than doing it themselves.  He also believed that "spreading the wealth," as it were, is demeaning not only to those on the receiving side, but also those on the other end.
 
It is not a stretch, by any means, to call this America's first Experiment with Comminism, nor would it be improper to call it America's first triumph of Capitalism over Communism.  From the very first, the people of this land have understood that when the individual is allowed to prosper, the community benefits.  Even the Indians, "savages" that they were (and I use that term ironically), understood the basic tenet of survival: You don't work, you don't eat.
 
And it really is that simple.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitution 101: In the Beginning...

Posted by Arik on Monday, November 17, 2008 9:11:46 PM
The United States Constitution begins with the Preamble, which is sort of like a forward, or in today's business lingo, a Mission Statement.
 
It sets the tone for the document to follow, and lays out the reasons for, and purpose of, the whole.
 
It reads:
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
I want to look at this a little closer, step by step, inch by inch...
 
We the People of the United States - This refers to the Founders at the time of the Constitutional Convention, but in a larger sense, it has come to mean all of us, as we Pledge our Allegience to this Nation, the generations before us, and each successive generation as they take up the mantle of Democracy from those who came before.
 
 in Order to form a more perfect Union, - The precursor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, created a weak central government, which lead to conflict both within and between the States. The framers wanted a central government capable of controlling conflict between the states, while leaving the states with their own governance and identity.
 
establish Justice, - Set up a national system of laws and courts to ensure the citizens have the right of Redress (the right to have disputes, particularly with the government, resolved equitably), and to ensure that the laws are fairly applied.
 
insure domestic Tranquility, - The Framers were concerned that the central government, prior to the Constitution, had little or no power to settle disputes between the states, leading them to seek a better way to resolve the problems, or to keep them from getting out of hand.
 
provide for the common defence, - To allow the states to defend as one nation, rather than individually.  This was a concern, obviously, due to the threat posed by the British, who were still a little peeved about the Rebellion that had taken away their colonies, a strong source of revenue.
 
 promote the general Welfare, - Unlike today's interpretation of aid to the poor, Welfare to the Framers meant the ability to prosper, and, essentially, to pursue Happiness.
 
and secure the Blessings of Liberty - To ensure continued and continuing Freedom.
 
to ourselves and our Posterity, - Not only to themselves, and the people of their nation, but to all those who would come after.  They are setting forth a plan to allow future generations to grow and prosper in Freedom.
 
do ordain and establish  - Not only create the Constitution, but accept it to be the Law of the land.
 
this Constitution for the United States of America. - Finishes up the Mission Statement by Reaffirming the Title of the document.
 
Postscript:  I hope this is of some use or interest to someone out there, besides me.  Feel free to comment or to correct me.  Next, I will get into Article I: The Legislature.  How much of that at one time remains to be seen, but I should be able to finish the Article in no more than 3 or 4 posts.  Thanks!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I am Writing

Posted by Arik on Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:18:18 AM
These are my little monsters, Brenna (5) and Jake (2).  They are, of course, the cutest and brightest kids in the history of cute, bright kids, but I'm sure yours are a close second.
 
brenna by you.

jake by you.
 
brenna and jake by you.
Tags: KIDS   photos  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We, the People

Posted by Arik on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 10:31:30 PM
Throughout history, there are a relatively few opening phrases that really resonate with us as a whole, stirring  our memory and emotion in much the same way as, say, a hint of our high school sweetheart's cologne.  Just the phrase itself can set off a whole chain of thought, getting us pondering things greater than ourselves.
 
There is "In the Beginning..." which, to many, is truly where it all begins.
 
From history:
Four Score and Seven Years Ago..."
"When In the Course of Human Events..."
 
From Literature:
"It was the Best of Times, it was the Worst of Times,"
"Call Me Ishmael."
"Once Upon a Midnight Dreary..."
"She was a Fast Machine, She Kept her Motor Clean.."
 
And, there is the one I want to talk about today, the title of this post:
 
"We, the People..."
 
As the beginning to the Preamble to the Constitution, it sets the stage for what truly become a revolutionary document, setting forth a truly Revolutionary government, "Of the People, By the People, For the People." For, truly, the first time on Earth, a nation had not a King or an Emperor, for them to serve, but a President and a Congress, elected by the People, who come from the People, to serve the People.  Governing status was determined not by inheritance (well, excepting, maybe the Kennedys) nor by force of arms, but by the will of the Governed.
 
Over the next few weeks, I would like to go through the Constitution, Article by Article, Line by Line, to try to interpret and better understand the document and how it functions.  I hope it will be interesting enough that someone will follow along, but I am also doing it for my own edification and enlightenment.  If I'm going to have to protect and defend the Constitution from the seething hordes, I guess I ought to know what it says.
 
If you want to stick with me, please do, and feel free to add what you feel necessary. I will try to use my own words, with research when necessary, and a good discussion can only help with everyone's comprehension.
 
Thanks!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stupid World

Posted by Arik on Sunday, November 09, 2008 11:07:34 PM
Last week, I was arguing with a couple co-workers prior to the election. I was, of course, on the pro-McCain side, and was arguing the point that Obama believes the Constitution is "fundamentally flawed," and that it is a "Charter of negative rights."
 
These were the responses I got, at completely different times, on completely different days, I swear it:
 
"The Constitution? Isn't that, like, really old?"
 
"Isn't the Constitution, like, two hundred years old?"
 
And I couldn't even begin to think of how to respond to that.
 
Is it any wonder we elected this guy?  Nowadays, people think "Old" is last seasons winner on "American Idol."  We have a Constitution that protects the rights, including the right to vote, of people who can't even understand what the Constitution is, and why it is important and vital, even today. 
 
For my part, I think it is one of the most important documents ever written by man.  It falls in with the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bible, and the Koran.  I am not a Muslim, so I will not speak to the Koran, but I believe at least the other four were Divinely Inspired, meaning that they were Gifts from God.  Being translations from the Divine, they may be imperfect in places, as the language of God is so much more complex than any of those of man, but the basic messages shine through in all of them.
 
In fact, in acknowledging the flaws in the Constitution, the ingenious solution was to provide a way to Amend it, to keep it vital and relevant, as I believe it is even today, two-hundred-and-nineteen years later.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The New Holocaust

Posted by Arik on Friday, November 07, 2008 10:15:45 PM
There is a New Holocaust on the horizon, and it appears that American Jews are largely in favor of it. It will cause the slaughter of more innocents than Hitler ever dreamed of. It goes by the name of The Freedom of Choice Act.   Obama has made the signing of this bill a priority, calling it "The first thing I'd do," essentially sealing the fate of millions of unborn babies.
 
As we all know by now, Freedom of Choice is the pro-abortion code word for abortion on demand, and this act  provides that.  This bill will destroy the Rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Further, he has made it a part of his Platform to ensure that the murder of the unborn remains a right.  Included in this is the "Right to Reproductive Health," which is the pro-death code for taxpayer-financed abortions.  This is an attempt to make us all complicit in this despicable act. 
 
To those who would claim that an unborn child is "just a clump of cells," or prefer the term "fetus," as if that takes away the essential humanity of the infant, I ask this: If the fetus is not human, what is it?  It has the DNA profile of a human. At 10 weeks, you can clearly hear the heart beating. Not much later, the mother can feel the baby moving around, and pretty soon after that, the movement can be felt and seen from the outside.
 
I challenge you: Go tell a woman who has had a miscarriage, or a stillbirth that she shouldn't be upset,  she didn't lose anything but a clump of cells. 
 
Further, watch this video. (Warning: It is extremely graphic and disturbing). If you can say those are anything BUT human babies, I question your humanity.
 
This is not one of those issues where we can "agree to disagree."  The murder of innocent children, regardless of age, is appalling, no matter what politically correct code words you want to use.
 
Update: Thanks to DawnDawn for giving me a link to the petition to fight the Freedom of Choice Act.  I urge all who care about the unborn to sign.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (11) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Let's Get This Straight

Posted by Arik on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:30:09 PM
I am, first and foremost, an American. I am also a Conservative, who believes in Conservative values. 
 
The election to the presidency of Barack Obama brings me mixed feelings. 
 
I believe that the election of a black President is a great step forward in the race relations of this country. I did not vote for him, not because of the color of his skin, but rather the liberal values he espouses.  Despite being white, I was pulling for a black President, just not this one. I will vote for the candidate I believe best represents me, regardless of gender, creed or race. (Palin-Jindal 2012?)
 
I believe in supporting my President in furthering the interests of our Nation, both at home and abroad.  But I will not support him if he trashes the Constitution and lays waste to the foundations that have made this coutry what it is today: The greatest Nation on Earth.
 
I believe that our Republic is the greatest form of government ever conceived by man.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that I believe the Founders were Divinely inspired.  I don't believe, however, that Democracy can flourish when the People look upon  a Presidential election in the same manner as they view American Idol. 
 
This election was NOT about ideas. It was NOT about the economy. It was NOT about, essentially, our Country. What it was about, make no mistake, was who was most NOT George Bush. That's no way to run an election, and it's no way to determine the direction of the Nation in the future.
 
We spent so much time looking in the rear view mirror, that we didn't see the Donkey in the middle of the road.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Battle Begins

Posted by Arik on Wednesday, November 05, 2008 12:44:45 AM
This is a sad night for America.  The America that I grew up with, that I joined the Navy to serve, is in danger. 
 
We've elected a President who does not like our constitution.
We've elected a President who openly consorts with enemies of America.
We've elected a President who thinks judges should decide cases based on emotion rather than law.
We've elected a President who has openly supported the murder of infants.
We've elected a President who counts as his mentors Marxists and Radicals.
We've elected a President who is incapable of admitting a mistake.
 
For the first time, I am ashamed, not of my nation, but of the people in it, who chose:
 
Style over Substance;
Charisma over Character;
Rhetoric over Experience;
Arrogance over Accomplishment;
Emotion over Judgement;
Vague Promises of Change over a Proven Agent of Reform.
 
America's chickens have indeed come home to roost.
 
 But though I am down, I am not out.  I believe the fight is not over, but is just beginning.  It's time for those who understand what this election means to stand together, and to fight for what is right. There are hard times to come, and a lot of harm that can be done, but if we all do whatever we can to help set this nation back on the right track.
 
The wrong man was elected today, and I intend to do my best to limit the damage that he does.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Impeach Brunner

Posted by Arik on Monday, November 03, 2008 10:03:00 PM
I want to be on record NOW, before the election, calling for the resignation, impeachment or recall of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. 
 
In her quest to see her party's Presidential candidate, she has run roughshod over the right of Ohioans to have a voice in their government, from her actions to disenfranchise Republican voters, to her rufusal to investigate the fraud being committed by her campaign advisors, ACORN.
 
She campaigned on a promise to fix the alleged problems of Ken Blackwell's term as SoS, but appears to have done nothing, at best to remedy the solution.  In fact, in two years, the registration system she claimed she was going to fix is in the exact same place it was two years ago, if not worse. 
 
Regardless of the outcome of tomorrow's election, she has shown she cannot be trusted to hold a fair election. I don't want to see my candidate lose, but, in a democracy, my candidate is not always going to win. I can accept that graciously. What I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept is an election that is predetermined in advance by the actions of those who are supposed to ensure a fair election.
 
If SoS Jennifer Brunner will not resign, I call for the legislators and citizens of Ohio to use all legal methods at their disposal to remove her from office.
 
UPDATE:
 
I sent this letter to Kevin Coughlin, my State Senator, about 10 minutes ago (about 1am, 5 NOV 2008).  I will update if and when I hear back. 
 
Kevin,
 
I don't like to see my candidate lose, but in a democracy, it sometimes happens.
 
But democracy rests on a foundation of fairness, that the electoral process is impartial and that the results aren't tainted by fraud.
 
It has become clear that Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner handled this election in the most partisan of manners.  She repeatedly sought to disenfranchise Republicans.  She refused to investigate thousands of potentially fraudulent registrations.  She has been advised on campaign strategy by ACORN, which is under investigation for election fraud in numerous states. She has failed, despite campaign promises and assurances since, to significantly improve the way registration and elections are handled in this state,
 
My question to you is this: How do we, who care about democracy, remove Brunner from office?  Is impeachment a possibility, or should we start a recall?
 
In a democracy, the integrity of our voting system is of paramount importance, and Jennifer Brunner has shown repeatedly that she cannot, or will not, insure that integrity.
 
Thank you for your time.
 
Sincerely,
 
Arik M. Iczkowski
Mogadore
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Change We Can Believe In

Posted by Arik on Sunday, November 02, 2008 11:35:13 PM
Since change is what this election is all about, I have a Modest Proposal, to make a Fundamental Change in the way this nation operates.

Firstly, I think we can all agree that being rich is bad.  Not being rich ourselves, we realize that those who ARE rich have most likely made their money by crawling over the backs of the rest of us.
To remedy this, I propose a New Tax, designed to bring about Economic Justice.

This tax will be, essentially a Flat Tax., in that the rich shall only be allowed to keep the first Two-Hundred-and-Fifty Thousand Dollars of the money that they have so greedily ripped from Our grasp. This should be enough to allow them to live comfortably. 

This wealth shall be Redistributed equitably among the remaining, impoverished denizens of our fair nation.  In this manner, all income should become equal for all Citizens.

If the amount of revenue should fall below the threshold to allow for equal incomes, that threshold may be revised, In addition, the Relocation of Citizens not performing up to standards may be considered, in order that Production and Resources remain at acceptable levels. Emigration will be encouraged, so there will be that there will be that much more to go around. For those African-Americans whose ancestors were brought here in bondage, return tickets to Africa will be made available, free of charge. Likewise, recent Immigrants will be provided with Return Fare.

Education will be made available for those without usable skills.  Re-training in skills more usable by the State will also be provided.

Medical care will be made available to all in need. As the doctors will be employees of the State, the best care will be available to all.

In order to avoid discrimination, all possible attempts must be made not only to make all facilities available to all, regardless of ability, but to make all equally able.

In order that the State be better able to carry out its mission, Dissent is to be avoided.  The unpatriotic among Us must be nurtured and made to see reason. Those who fail to acclimatize will be dealt with in the most efficient manner possible.

There will be those who resist Change, but Change is inevitable and unavoidable. Indeed, Change, We Need.

So let us work Swift-ly to realize the true potential that this Great Nation can achieve.

Oh, yeah, and lets get rid of all the Jews.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Plea for Help

Posted by Arik on Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:08:33 PM
Nothing major, I just seem to be having a problem embedding video and audio, and posting pictures off of my computer.

Any tips will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Boehner: Obama Chickensh**t

Posted by Arik on Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:29:38 PM
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH),  while campaigning for John McCain in Oxford, OH, home of Miami University, called Barack Obama chickensh!t.  Though criticized by the Obama campaign, the move by Boehner brought tears to eyes, and a smile to the lips of this Buckeye. 

Somebody is finally calling Obama on his voting record.  If he votes anything other than 'Present,' it is strictly party line for him.  He is the most divisive candidate I can recall, making George W. Bush actually look like the 'Uniter' he wanted to be.

Hey Congressman Boehner! If you want to try for the Senate, you just got my vote.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »