Is there proof of evolution in the Judeo-Christian Bible?

So a question was posed to me by my evolution-denier cousin, about what I thought of Noah’s Ark. In the simplest of terms, I told him it was biblical proof of evolution. Yes, I said that. Biblical proof of evolution. But, but, how can this be? I mean, in Genesis, it speaks of God creating every living creature according to its kind, does it not?

Why yes, it does. When I speak of “evolution”, I am not speaking of monkeys magically turning into men. I am speaking merely of one species having a common ancestor with other species. This concept is really not difficult to figure out, if you use a bit of logic with it.

Yes, it involves random mutation, which is also not one of those “myths of liberal science”. Genetic mutation is caused by any number of environmental factors, even occurring from things as simple as sunlight. It is not necessary to be dropped into a puddle of radioactive ooze in order for a genetic mutation to occur.

It also involves adaptation of an organism to its environment. For the record, I am completely aware of the fact that adaptation and evolution are not the same thing. Adaptation is a mechanism of evolution.

Evolution occurs when the offspring of a particular species has changed to the point where it is no longer the same species of its ancestor, according to the determinant characteristics defining its ancestor. Obviously, this doesn’t happen overnight, it happens across several (perhaps even hundreds or thousands) of generations.

There are different species of dogs, cats, and even people. Yes, there are AT LEAST thirteen different species of "human", with five of them having been actually discovered in my lifetime.

The "theory of evolution" does not necessarily state that mankind evolved from primordial ooze, but merely that different species share common ancestors.

Now, moving on to the biblical aspects of this discussion, I know for a fact that things are "lost in translation". Ever seen the photos of the 40lb box of "RAPE"? Having taken several years of Latin instruction in high school, I've seen half a dozen people come up with different translations of the same text...and every one of them were "technically" correct. That's going across two languages. Context of the translated language, as well as knowledge of the original intent, are what makes a translation "truly" correct. In order to know the original intent of the originating language, you must be both fluent in it, as well as be able to have intimate knowledge of popular custom of the age it was written. Many languages have words that cannot even be properly translated at all, because the culture of the original language uses a particular idea that is simply non-existent in the culture of those who live where the translating language originated or is spoken fluently. The German word "schadenfreud" comes to mind here. Literally translated into English, it means "harm joy". Loosely translated into English, it expresses an idea of taking joy in the misfortune of another, but without truly ill intent. There is, however, no true and proper way to translate this simple word without an entire paragraph describing its cultural significance...and even then, you're lucky if you get close, as it is purely a German cultural idea. Keep in mind, this is not passing from an ancient language to a modern language, but between two modern languages existing simultaneously.

Modern biblical translations of Genesis have passed across the lines of AT LEAST three languages, with centuries and even a millennium or two in between. Ancient Hebrew culture did not exist at the time of the ancient Greek translation, nor did ancient Greek culture exist at the time of the modern English (or even the medieval Latin) translation.

Personally, I do believe that my Almighty God created this place called Earth, as well as all of the creatures on it. When the bible says that God created the animals, it does not specify HOW He did it. It merely says He did it. I consider it a gross violation of basic logic to even suggest that our One True God is capable of simply "poofing up" something as complex as an animal lifeform, but is too unintelligent to allow nature to run its course so all of those innumerable atoms He created to form the bonds necessary to create the complex strains of deoxy-ribonucleic acid that make up an animal. The bible DOES say that man was created by God, by basically scooping up some dirt and making a man. I'll get to that later.

Modern science has been able to isolate every single chemical in the human body. When you look at it from a biochemical point of view, the human body isn't really that complex. It's just a bunch of molecules. What makes mankind (or any living creature, for that matter) "special" is the fact that all of these molecules have combined to create a living organism that breathes, reproduces, and in many cases actually THINKS. That's "intelligent design", right there.

If God can create something like all of the chemical elements that make up our planet, does it not stand to reason that he is capable of designing them in a manner that they can be arranged to form a human being?

Now, the big problem most people have with this theory of creation is the timeline. Before, I mentioned that evolution occurs over multiple generations. I also mentioned the near impossibility of being able to translate accurately the ideas of one culture to that of another.

Here's something I haven't mentioned yet...the Old Testament story of creation was written more than a thousand years (at least) before Abraham first spoke to God. Remember about how the Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew? Hebrew is the language of the Israelites, the descendants of Abraham.

Is the Judeo-Christian bible the true word of God, inspired by Him? In my personal belief, yes. In this bible, it also says that we (mankind) will never truly understand God. While I believe the bible is the "true" word of God, I do not personally believe that it is the "literal" word of God. Perhaps I am wrong about this, and it certainly wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong about something. This is just my personal opinion.

However, just imagine the possibility of the first human transcribers of the bible receiving a vision from God. It certainly wouldn't be the first time someone has received a vision from God. Thousands of years ago, mankind was still struggling with the invention of the wheel. Gravity wasn't even fully understood until Newton. Imagine the possibility of putting the awesomeness of creation into words, using the most appropriate language you knew to use. These people couldn't quite understand the concept of indoor plumbing, so it would be quite a stretch to say they would have been able to understand things such as molecular bonds and evolution of species.

The same science that tells us about the power of the atomic bomb and the mutation of the various strains of influenza virus also teach us about things like carbon dating and evolution. I don't know about you, but I firmly believe that both nuclear weapons and flu season really do exist. I don't think these things are "liberal pseudoscience", nor do I think this way about evolution or carbon dating.

To be of the impression that evolution is wrong, and that the earth is only six or seven thousand years old, requires something very simple...and very simple-minded, in my opinion. It requires a person to believe that your particular translation of the bible is an exact word-for-word transcription of the direct spoken word of God, that God would never use a metaphor in a description of His awesomeness, that God is unimaginative, and that God did not intend for mankind to think.

In my personal opinion, I feel that evolution is most definitely reconcilable with the notion of God creating mankind and every other creature on this planet...and I also feel that ancient man simply lacked the knowledge to appropriately describe exactly how awesome my God really is. If God had intended for every man in this world to have known exactly what was on HIS mind, he would probably just tell us Himself instead of going through a middleman. I think He's more than capable. Instead, I think he didn't want us to be lazy, either (an idea actually passed along by the bible!)...so He allowed us to get the basic gist of it, while being able to learn more through study, and in turn becoming closer to Him.

Now, back to actual proof of evolution from the bible...

¹ The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. ² Take with you seven ^a]">[a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, ³ and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. ⁴ Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

Now, it's my understanding that the word "kind" is used to describe a class of animal, not a species. Regardless of how this played out, that boat was going to be full...but there are only a few different ways this could have gone.
A) The word "kind" referred to a particular type of animal, and not a species...which means that there were only a limited number of animals on that ark. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of different species that exist today.
B) The word "kind" referred to a particular species, and there just weren't that many different species of animals at the time. Evolution would have occurred, due to the sheer number of species that exist today.
C) The word "kind" referred to a particular species of animal, and the same number of animal species existed at that particular time also exist today...which means that, essentially, evolution does not exist and Noah had a boat the size of California.

Remember, if the word "kind" referred to a particular species, and each "kind" of "clean animal" was to have seven pairs of male and female with each "kind" of "unclean animal" having two pairs, he would have been loading up a massive amount of animals. Even if "kind" merely referred to a class of animal, as opposed to an individual species, that's still a lot of 'em. The boat would be at least bigger than a city block, unless you were greatly simplifying things in regard to the "kinds" of animals you're bringing along with you.

If you think you've got a better idea, I'd love to hear it. I like to think that my God wants me to think, so I try to understand things the best way I know...

Kiddie-fiddlin', a stolen grenade launcher, and a scumbag named Rhodes!

Okay, so seriously...what's the one thing that 99.44% of every American citizen detests, regardless of race, religion, political affiliations, et cetera? Yep, you guessed it...it's the sexual abuse of a child.

Maybe this is why the BATFE used the "child molester" excuse for annihilating the Branch Davidian property in Waco, TX. I was a youngster then, but I still remember it. It was a big played-up media circus about how Vernon Howell, AKA "David Koresh", was sexually abusing children. Of course, after the Branch Davidians were slaughtered, everything about "child abuse" was quickly forgotten about...unless someone made the point about how the BATFE violated so many federal statutes and murdered all of those people.

It's been almost 17 years since the last day of February in 1993. In those years, I've read up a lot of things about what happened to Waco. About two years ago, I saw the FLIR footage of the final massacre. I have also seen the close-up photos of the infamous metal doors, which showed no outgoing bullet holes...the same doors that mysteriously disappeared when the defense counsel of survivors being tried for murder (and were actually acquitted).

Much the same, you can look at my first ever blog posting and see how a particular county in Texas used the same old "child molestation" excuse to run through the Fundamentalist church of Latter-Day Saints, even going so far as to break out an armored personnel carrier affectionately known as "Bubba" supplied free of charge by the Pentagon's L.E.S.O. program. Apparently, the local Sheriff's Department was hoping for a Waco-style shoot-out with the FLDS, but couldn't quite pull it off because the people weren't looking for a fight.

Instead, the FLDS had over four hundred children KIDNAPPED by the Child Protective Services of Texas. Ironically, several of these "children" were actually past the age of legal majority and were, in fact, ADULTS.

This fiasco resulted in no new charges to the FLDS, cost the taxpayers of Texas several millions of dollars, and resulted in families being ripped apart solely for the sake of being able to say "your religious practices are weird!". Oh yeah, the entire thing originated from a BOGUS CLAIM OF "CHILD MOLESTATION" BY A WOMAN WHO WAS NOT A CHILD...AND WAS NOT EVEN IN TEXAS WHEN THE "ANONYMOUS TIP" WAS CALLED IN FROM COLORADO.

But I digress...

Let's talk about someone else now. His name is Charles Dyer. Charles Alan Dyer, a former sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, is better known by the rest of the world as "July4Patriot". You can see his youtube.com channel here. Be forewarned, his words just might be inspiring.

The story is, on the 18th of this month, county deputies went to his home to serve a search warrant for DNA after allegations were made that he repeatedly sodomized a seven year old girl. Sgt. Dyer was not home when deputies arrived, but a "roommate" supposedly granted permission to search the home. During the course of this search, authorities allegedly found an M203 40mm grenade launcher laying out openly in one room of the home. Deputies supposedly decided that this find warranted notification of the BATFE. According to official reports, the M203 grenade launcher is one of three that were reported stolen by the US Army.

Mr. Dyer is currently incarcerated on state charges of child molestation, as well as federal weapons-related charges due to the untaxed (notice I didn't say "unlawful", because you can own a grenade launcher if you pay the appropriate tax!) grenade launcher.

There are so many holes in this story that I don't even know where to begin...

First of all, there is the fact that the allegation of sodomizing a seven year old girl. From everything I've heard, this allegation originated with the out-of-state wife he has been separated from for quite some time. On top of that, there is the whole "child molestation" issue in general, which seems to be used by authorities when they are looking to crucify someone who cannot be touched by legal means.

Then, let's look at the search of Sgt. Dyer's home. According to police reports, Dyer's home was originally approached by deputies holding a warrant for a DNA sample. This, in and of itself, is ludicrous for the simple reason that A) since the Patriot Act, federal, state, and local authorities are not only authorized, but ENCOURAGED to collaborate in criminal investigations, and B) Sgt. Dyer is a fairly recent veteran of the USMC...which means Uncle Sam has his DNA on file. Regardless of these two facts, the warrant covered only the DNA of Mr. Charles Dyer...and DID NOT permit a search of his home, unless the authorities serving the warrant had probable cause to believe that Mr. Dyer was hiding from them in the house somewhere. Since there is absolutely NOTHING that would reasonably provide such probable cause, there was no valid cause to search the home...aside from his roommate supposedly "consenting" to a search of the home.

The immediate "RED FLAG" that instantly popped into my head, upon reading this, was the fact that Mr. Dyer was surrounded by "like-minded people"...and there's not a single one of these people who would have thought twice about telling a cop to go get f*cked if he came poking around. I don't buy, for a second, that Dyer would have been around anyone that would have told the cops "yeah, go ahead!".

And then, there was the notion that deputies just happened to have found an M203 grenade launcher laying around out openly. Seriously, what kind of stupidity are they trying to claim Mr. Dyer suffers from?

A) An M203 grenade launcher is COMPLETELY USELESS without 40mm grenades.
B) 40mm grenades are NOT available to anyone but military personnel, and such ordinance is highly regulated.
C) A man familiar with the M203 would also be undoubtedly aware of the criminal nature of the untaxed/unregistered M203, and would not leave such a thing lying around in his home unattended...especially not a person so concerned with the actions of the very same government that supposedly found said grenade launcher lying around in his home.

Then, I remembered a particular person I met a few weeks ago at the local gun range. Myself and my cousin were on the range, firing our evil "assault" rifles. I was firing my AR15, and he had his AK47. Both are lawfully-owned SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles.

While on the range, a very peculiar young man approached us. Myself and my cousin both thought he was a bit odd, as we overheard him talking about how he was going to load his Taurus Judge with BIRDSHOT for the purposes of "home defense". Cousin and myself enjoyed a slight chuckle about it, and went on about our shooting.

He asked me about my rifle, and I told him it was an AR15. Was nothing unusual at that point, as I get those kind of questions all the time when I'm on the range. The average layman can instantly pick an M16 out of a line-up due to movies and militaria, and the standard AR15 looks no different. My particular AR15 happens to be a bit different, as it has been outfitted with a larger barrel, bipod, abnormally large scope, and has had the front end wrapped in camo burlap for deer season...so I get a few questions when I bring it out.

Things got a bit weird when this man started talking about random issues with the AR15 (did I mention that both myself and my cousin are "gun nuts", and have forgotten more about them than we should probably know?) to other people, while me and cuz just looked at each other in the standard "huh?" formation. He proceeded to approach both of us at our bench, and start talking about the various ways we could modify our rifles to make them full-auto.

Naturally, I trust people I don't know about as far as I can throw 'em, and this guy was quite a bit bigger than me. Things got really weird when he handed me a business card from the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (A.K.A. "MARSOC"), telling me about how they "lose things all the time", and if I was ever looking to modify my rifle to full auto, to give him a call.

At this point, I'm thinking, "Seriously, what the fuck just happened?". Seriously. He is supposedly a US Marine, and approached a complete stranger at a shooting range with a proposition to supply contraband machine gun parts. Red flags went up right, left, and center.

I am not a US Marine (see you later, SSgt. Jackson!), but I've seen enough R. Lee Ermy movies to know that a US Marine knows his rifle inside and out...as well as knowing what it is used for. While my setup was capable of accepting 100rd drum magazines and could easily facilitate "rapid fire", anyone who knows anything about rifles PERIOD knows that it was set up to facilitate single-shot accuracy. Making a heavy-barreled rifle sitting on a bipod and equipped with a 24x scope into a full-auto rifle is greatly defeating its purpose. Even I got that much out of my Knowledge...

Furthermore, you would think a Marine working for MARSOC would know a decent bit about the masterpiece of Eugene Stoner...enough to know how easy it is for a garage hobbyist to make his rifle full-auto using a hacksaw blade, if he were inclined to do so...and anyone that has spent the amount of time and money as I have apparently spent on mine would probably know these things. Then again, if you had any f*cking clue what you were talking about, you would have recognized my rifle from the get-go as an AR15. Good to go?

So no, I don't buy the charges at all. "Child molestation" accusations have been a long-time favorite of our government, as a way to undermine the real issues at hand. It happened in Waco, it happened at the FLDS ranch, and it's happening everywhere Big Brother wants to turn a person's supporters against him...because our government knows that, deep down, every single one of us would castrate anyone that has been found to have hurt one of our children.

The "stolen grenade launcher" story? Again, not buying it. Even if (and this is a VERY BIG "IF") he actually had possession of a grenade launcher that could not be used for lack of ammunition, someone in Mr. Dyer's situation doesn't seem like the type to leave a ten-year sentence sitting around in his living room. Fer f*ck's sake, I'm not even breaking any laws and I'm more paranoid than that! On top of that, I seriously doubt he would be living amongst people who would willingly allow the police to "take a look around". Again, I'm not even a law-breaker...and I am hesitant to let them look in my car when they pull me over!

So the charges are, at least as they appear to me, completely bunk...which leads us to the next topic. The "Oath Keepers". An organization founded by a Mr. Stewart Rhodes (I pray to God that I am not related to this scumbag!), widely considered to be a front-runner in the emerging "patriot movement". Oath Keepers is an organization of Law Enforcement and Military personnel who are dedicated to keeping the original oath they swore, which is to uphold the constitution of the United States of America.

Oath Keepers had invited Dyer to be a guest speaker at some of their events, and had allegedly even considered Charles Dyer to be their liaison to the US Marine Corps...and with good reason. Judging by his words, Dyer had what it took. Judging by those who knew him, he stood by those words.

However, the moment news broke about Dyer being arrested on the charges of molestation and a stolen grenade launcher, Stewart Rhodes disavowed Dyer in an instant. Mr. Rhodes went so far as to claim Dyer was never an "official" member of their organization, and did everything he could to distance himself and the Oath Keepers from Dyer.

This story couldn't be more of a "made for TV movie" if it had an actual screenplay written by someone on the payroll of the Lifetime channel, but Dyer's supporters are split down the middle over the incident. Half of them are afraid to support the man who inspired them so much, while the other half are willing to support him to their dying breath. Those who believe in the republican system of law and "innocent until proven guilty" proudly show themselves for who they are, and are waiting to see the evidence.

The question remains, "but did he actually do it?". That's something I can't answer, as I don't know all the facts yet. However, judging based solely upon what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to say "I'll believe it when you can prove it!"...mainly, because I've seen what actions our government has taken in the past, and it's readily apparent that lying and destroying a person's life are not things they have a problem with doing.

Just my two cents, you can take it however you want...

Ahhh, the wonder world of gun control!

This morning, I was doing two of the things I really enjoy doing in my spare time. I was putting together a new rifle, while reading LewRockwell.com. Ironically, there was an article on that website about how our new president is considered by most to be "gun salesman of the decade".

It would seem that our beloved president is heavily supported by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which in and of itself was more than enough reason for me to have not voted for him...as if I actually needed another reason. You see, I am a firearm owner, and I actually detest the idea of violence. With this in mind, know that I do own several firearms that were designed with no purpose whatsoever than to kill another human being.

Contradictory statements? Hardly. Firearms were originally designed with the express and primary purpose of taking a human life. Why would a non-violent person ever want to own such a thing? Well, aside from the "sporting purposes" they have since been adapted to, they are also for the purposes of armed defense of ones' life, liberty, and property. Remember this, boys and girls: When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!

Seeing as how the rifle I am in the process of putting together at the moment happens to be one of those evil "semi-automatic military-style assault weapons", I thought I would go over some of the so-called facts on the Brady Campaign's page dealing with this exact situation. And, of course, correct these myths with, well, you know...actual facts. Please keep in mind, I have placed words such as "military-style" and "assault weapon" in quotations, as these are terms utilized by the Brady Campaign and have absolutely no bearing in reality.

1) A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
It takes less than a second or two for a practiced individual to drop an empty magazine from your typical rifle, have another in its place, and have the bolt released to load a new round. High-capacity magazines do not increase the number of rounds fired, they merely reduce the number of magazines a person needs.

The claim that "many assault weapons come equipped with 50 round magazines" is, of course, nothing more than a blatant lie. I am considered, even amongst my redneck friends, to be somewhat of a "gun nut". I own two of these "military-type" rifles, and am in the process of building a third. I have NEVER seen a new-in-box rifle sold with a magazine capable of carrying more than 30 rounds. Most ACTUAL military rifles (you know, the ones actually used in combat) don't even come equipped with magazines larger than that.

2) A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
A folding stock does absolutely NOTHING to diminish the accuracy of a rifle. I know this must really warp the minds of those at the Brady Campaign, but here's how it works...you UNFOLD it before you shoot it.

3) A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
What is "spray-fire"? Seems like yet another made-up word, like "assault pistol". The purpose of a pistol grip on a rifle has absolutely nothing to do with being able to control a weapon, and everything to do with the design of the rifle itself. The ergonomic characteristics of a "traditional"-style (read: NOT pistol grip) stock actually provide for better control when firing from the hip, due simply to the angle of the wrist...but we wouldn't want human biology to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?

4) A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
Have these people ever actually seen even a hunting rifle? You need a "barrel shroud" for neither stabilization, burn prevention, nor to prevent overheating. The standard fore-end of a wooden stock on your average ordinary bolt-action rifle will handle the first two, which is why they were designed with them in the first place. A "barrel shroud" actually acts contradictory to the third reason, as it provides more of a barrier to open air, thus preventing the rifle from cooling as rapidly as possible...but we wouldn't science to get in the way of those lobbying dollars, now would we?

5) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
Wow. Did these people get a list of facts, and then intentionally write the exact opposite of the truth? First off, the flash suppressor (or "flash hider", as it is more commonly called), is not used to "increase concealment" for night shooting. It simply won't do this. It is nothing more than a vented extension to the barrel, which redirects muzzle flash in specific concentrated directions, as opposed to throwing a ball of fire directly out the end of the barrel. The purpose of the flash hider is not concealment, but rather, to prevent flash blindness of the shooter by dispersing muzzle flash.

The "sporting purposes" of this are quite clear. The two most commonly-hunted game animals in Texas are whitetail deer and wild hog. Both are commonly hunted in low-light conditions. Hogs frequently roam at night, whereas deer commonly feed at dawn and dusk. If you are blinded by muzzle flash, are you not less likely to make a follow-up shot if you miss your first shot?

Now, moving right along...the idea of "stability during rapid fire" being a byproduct of a flash hider. Again, blatantly false outright lie. A flash hider is NOT the same as a "recoil compensator" (or "muzzle brake", as they are commonly known). While they are similar, and many compensators also perform the task of working as a flash hider, the purpose of a recoil compensator is to direct muzzle blast outward instead of forward. Unlike a traditional flash hider, a muzzle brake typically has a smaller outlet on the front end, usually only slightly larger than the barrel bore. This forcefully directs muzzle blast outward, after expansion inside the compensator causes the blast to push forward on the "cap" of the brake.

Ironically, during the years of 1994-2004 under the "Assault Weapons Ban", muzzle brakes were allowed by law, whereas flash hiders were not. BATFE approval was necessary, to ensure that it acted primarily as a brake instead of a compensator, and it was also necessary to either blind-pin or weld the brake on to prevent swapping it out for a flash hider. Again, the "sporting purposes" of the muzzle brake should be obvious. If you can prevent your barrel from kicking upward after firing, it is easier to take a follow-up shot. This, of course, is why the manufacturers of hunting rifles (yes, even bolt-action rifles) put muzzle brakes on their weapons.

6) A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
Pardon me, but when did the Bloods and the Crips start taking lessons from James Bond? They don't sell silencers at Wal-Mart. They aren't exactly common on the black market, either. Seriously...when was the last time you saw someone being prosecuted for a firearm-related violent crime involving the use of a sound suppressor? Oh, you haven't ever heard of such a thing? Yeah, me either.

That's probably because it requires a special license to make one, and you also have to fill out extensive paperwork and pay hundreds of dollars in special taxes and filing fees to buy one. Each one is registered by the government. It is literally just as easy to purchase a full-auto machine gun in a lawful manner, as it is to purchase a sound suppressor...in other words, it's a certifiable pain in the butt to get one, which is why gangbangers don't ever use them.

7) A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.
Again, when was the last time you heard of someone actually bayoneting someone to death in America? To the best of my knowledge, this hasn't happened since the 1800s...in that thing we like to call "The War of Northern Aggression". Okay, so it's properly called "The American Civil War" in our textbooks, but I think you get the idea. Essentially, it just doesn't happen.

So what did banning a bayonet lug mount do to the "assault rifle" industry? Not much, except cause them to retool for recasting of front sight bases for AR15 rifles. You see, the Colt AR15 rifle and its clones were adapted from a military rifle (designated as the M16 by the US military). No, the "AR" is not an abbreviation for "assault rifle", nor is the "15" anything having to do with "military-lite"...it was a design by Eugene Stoner, employed by the Armalite ("AR" being "Armalite Rifle"), and the "15" was merely a model number preceded by the AR7 (.22LR) and the AR10 (.308). Anyhow, the combination front sight and gas block had an integral bayonet lug cast into it, as it always had for the decades predating the assault weapons ban. When bayonet lugs were outlawed by the AWB, it caused A) excess inventory of such-equipped front sight bases to be rendered useless without modification, except as replacement parts for "pre-ban" rifles, and B) increase in costs associated with the manufacture of of new front sight bases. It did absolutely nothing to lower the virtually non-existent "bayonet homicide" rate in America.

8) Semi-automatic "military-style" rifles have no purpose as "sporting weapons".
Actually, this is taken from a quote from Jim Zumbo of Outdoor Life Magazine, it was merely posted on the Brady Campaign website to somehow "prove" that the modern rifle is useless for hunting.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. In actual fact, EVERY firearm currently used for hunting today was either ACTUALLY used as a military weapon, or based on a design of a military weapon used at some point. This tradition dates back all the way to the bow and arrow.

I have killed only one deer in my entire life, and it was done with a semi-automatic civilian version of the M16 rifle currently in use by the United States military. The animal was killed efficiently and ethically, with only one round having been fired that day from my rifle.

9) The assault weapons ban expired in September 2004 when Congress and President George W. Bush took no action to save it. That means that AK47s and other semi-automatic assault weapons are once again flooding our streets, as the weapons of choice of gang members, drug dealers and other dangerous criminals.
Interesting. They are the "weapons of choice" for the criminals who aren't allowed to own firearms to begin with? Hmmm...something just doesn't seem right about this. Oh, I know what doesn't seem right about that statement. It's contradictory to REALITY.

The Brady Campaign likes to point out that the number of "assault weapons" traced to gun crimes dropped by 66% during the AWB. Interestingly enough, even during the year they used as the "high number" when the AWB was not in effect, "assault weapons" accounted for LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of all "gun crimes".

While the above statistic is true, and also included in the "assault weapons" page on the Brady Campaign website, there are a few other facts they left out. Aside from the fact that these "assault weapons" consisted of less than five percent of "gun crimes", there is A) many of these "assault weapons" were actually nothing more than semi-auto pistols that held more than ten rounds, and B) "gun crimes" consisted not only of crimes of violence involving firearms but also thefts of firearms from law-abiding citizens.

10) Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor.
"Assault weapons" are, in reality, no different than any other firearm in terms of being able to penetrate body armor.

Body armor is rated by the National Institute of Justice. Most policemen wear a Level IIIA vest, which is rated only to stop HANDGUN rounds. Handguns included in the AWB are NOT able to penetrate this armor, as their only characteristics putting them on the list are semi-automatic firing and a standard (read: higher than ten rounds) magazine capacity.

Just about every rifle larger than a .22LR rimfire rifle (which is the smallest commonly-available round on the commercial market) will penetrate a Level IIIA vest, because these vests are not designed to stop a rifle round...which means that an "assault rifle" will penetrate it. So will your grandpa's old bolt-action hunting rifle.

A LevelIII vest, which is designed to stop rifle fire, WILL stop rounds from an "assault rifle"...but won't stop many of the heavier hunting rifle rounds available on the commercial market. In reality, "assault" cosmetics (bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks, et cetera) make a rifle no more or less dangerous than any ordinary bolt-action rifle, especially when it comes to penetrating body armor.

*********************************

So, what have we learned here today? The Brady Campaign is so full of that their eyes are turning brown. I really enjoy my "assault weapons". "Assault weapons" are not used extensively by gangbangers. An AR15 can both kill a deer AND accept a 100rd drum magazine...and it will still fire only one round every time you squeeze the trigger, unless you break the law or pay the tax necessary to have it do otherwise. We don't have a problem with "drive-by bayoneting" in this country, or anywhere else in the world. President Obama hates guns. Did I leave anything out?

500 Mayors against illegal guns, huh?

Well, you can count at least one common citizen in the list of people "against illegal guns". However, my idea about being "against illegal guns" and the mayors across this nation may be a slight bit different...

It would seem that these 500 mayors who are against illegal guns are actually for the notion of making all guns illegal for certain people who haven't been convicted of any crime. My notion of being "against illegal guns" states that there should be no such thing as an "illegal gun". In Texas, even convicted felons regain their right to self-defense five years after they get "off paper".

A good while back,Rahm Emmanuel is taped saying this:


The ad, in case you haven't looked at the text, gives the following facts:
1) Major Nidal Malik Hasan was suspected of having terrorist links. The FBI
had monitored Hasan, reviewing 10-20 communications between Hasan and
Anwar al Awlaki – an al Qaeda recruiter who acted as a “spiritual advisor” to
two of the 9/11 hijackers.
The last time I checked, it wasn't against the law to speak with clergymen, regardless of what religion you subscribe to. Let's also not forget that the US gov't seems to have serious credibility issues, regarding who was even responsible for hijacking those planes. AT LEAST FOUR of the men our government claims were "suicide 9/11 hijackers" have long-since turned up very much ALIVE, wondering "What the hell are you talking about?".

2) Hasan passed the federal background check that is designed to prevent
criminals and other dangerous persons from obtaining guns.
This article leaves out two very important pieces of information. First and foremost, it doesn't tell WHEN Hasan purchased his handguns. For all we know, he could have done it ten years ago. Second, lest we also forget, some states (including TX) issue concealed handgun permits to active-duty military personnel. Persons with state-issued firearms licenses such as the Texas Concealed Handgun Permit do not undergo a "background check" us "normal people are subjected to, that is run through the BATFE...instead, their permit number is recorded, their photo identification is verified, and the sale is made on the spot. Still, as having only read this advertisement, I don't know if he purchased these handguns long before he ever contacted the alleged "terrorist-linked imam".

3) FBI counterterrorism officials were not notified when Hasan purchased a gun.
This very well may be the case, but I can assure you that it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the average American being able to purchase a handgun. If the FBI was watching Hasan, and the BATFE did not notify the FBI, this is merely an example of government incompetence. Either the FBI did not notify the BATFE that they were watching Hasan, or the BATFE knew the FBI was watching him and simply failed to notify them. There is currently no law that prohibits such sharing of information...and with the passage of the completely unconstitutional "USA Patriot Act", such information is shared even more easily. Well, at least it should be, as this was one of the fundamental reasons for having the Patriot Act in the first place.

4) Major Hasan used that gun to kill 13 people and injure more than 30 others.
Well, duh! This fact is presented for sensationalist purposes, and nothing else. It has no bearing on HOW the man was able to purchase his firearms, which firearms were used, why the man was being supposedly "watched" but was allowed to kill so many people, et cetera. It merely states that several people were killed by a madman with a firearm.

Now, I'm going to tell you a few reasons about why I have such a profound distaste for Rahm Emmanuel.

First and foremost, I am on a "watchlist". I found this out in February of 2003, as I attempted to board an airplane to fly home from Illinois. While I am not on the "no-fly list", I know I am on the list of "security selectees". Information as to what put me on this list has never been disclosed to me, supposedly for matters of "national security". That was in 2003. It has been almost 7 years since I found this out. I have never been convicted of a crime more serious than a misdemeanor traffic offense.

Second, what Rahm Emmanuel won't disclose, is that he himself is an army veteran who served during the "Gulf War". The reason he won't disclose this fact publicly is because he is not a veteran of the UNITED STATES ARMY. No, he was serving in the Israeli Defense Forces. Of course, he claims that he was working "as a civilian, changing brake pads". He won't admit to the widely-known fact that he was working on tanks belonging to the government of Israel, as a member of the Israeli army. The Israeli government (not necessarily the people themselves, as I have met my share of Jewish Israeli citizens who are openly Jewish as well as openly TOLERANT) has had a long-standing history of being anti-Islam since before Israel even became a recognized modern nation.

Third, take a good look at the podium Emmanuel is speaking at in the video. It wasn't shot from a government gathering, but before a convention of Brady Campaign supporters who seek to eliminate ALL firearms. Notice that he speaks so strongly against the National Rifle Association. The NRA and the Brady Campaign are "enemies" like professional wrestlers are enemies. People who understand our government's unending quest for disarmament of the populus know those controlling the Republican party side with the NRA, while those controlling the Democratic party side with The Brady Campaign...even though they collaborate to write gun control laws.

If you want to see what people who really oppose gun control have to say about it, I'd check out Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership or Gun Owners of America.

If this supposed "terror gap" bill were to ever pass into law, I can assure you that I will be making two trips the day I hear about it. The first will be to my local firearms dealer, so that I may be denied the right to purchase a handgun based solely upon my being "suspected". The second will be to my attorney, and I will happily fight this case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Wars, and Rumors of Wars!

Someone has apparently fired up the old rumor mill again, getting all the buzz going about the Blair Holt Act (HR45) that died a quiet death in congress earlier this year. In case you are unaware of what HR45 was, it was the bill that made our democratically-controlled government responsible for more private gun ownership than any other time in the past 150 years.

Among the many requirements of HR45:
1) A man may not possess any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (all but three of the semi-auto rifles in this house), or ANY handgun (revolver, semi-automatic, or even single-shot) without a license issued by agents working under the authority of the Attorney General of the United States. The licensing requirements aren't much different than the requirements of actually purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer...other than the fact that you are required to provide a passport photo, a signature, a set of fingerprints, and the license fee. The Attorney General has the authority to set additional requirements of licensing. It must be renewed every five years.

2) Any sale of such a firearm must be recorded and reported to the US Att'y Gen's office. The federal law prohibiting a federal registry of firearm ownership is, by the Blair Holt Act (HR45), annulled. Agents working under the authority of the Attorney General (most likely, the BATFE) would be allowed to inspect any licensee to ensure that you had your guns in a locked cabinet, which effectively renders them useless for their intended purpose of defense of life, liberty, and property. No firearm shall be transferred between two private parties, without going through an FFL dealer with specific exemptions regarding inheritance and the like.

3) It is a crime to allow access to a firearm by a child...even your 17 year old son for the purposes of hunting a deer, and that child is involved in a COMPLETELY ACCIDENTAL shooting of another person.

Now here are the reasons why this is a bad idea, in general. First and foremost, there's the SECOND AMENDMENT. It says the RIGHT (read: RIGHT, NOT PRIVILEGE) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. "The People" are not "the militia", the army, the national guard, the coast guard, the air force, the marine corps, or the local police department. No, "The People" are EVERYONE NOT USING A FIREARM IN THE COURSE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT, STUPID. If I have to pay a tax in order to possess a firearm, that "right" just became a "privilege". When it becomes a crime to possess a firearm without paying a tax, I have lost my RIGHT to possess a firearm.

Then we have left the regulatory authority in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, we have essentially handed over our rights. There is nothing in this bill that will prevent (in the name of "public safety" or "the children", of course) these unelected bureaucrats from telling us we need to have six separate gov't-issued photo ID cards, the name of our employer, the name of our ex-wife, any campaign donations, et cetera as part of our licensing requirements. There's nothing stating that they're prohibited from allowing only those who pass a $4,000 "safety class" and paying a $300 tax stamp from owning an "assault weapon" designated solely upon the basis of its cosmetics. Lest we forget, even before the Clinton-era "Assault Weapons Ban", the assault weapons listed in the law were responsible for only 2% of all firearm-related homicides.

Third, it places actual criminal liability upon people for not adequately preventing crimes against themselves. I currently keep a loaded pistol in the console of my locked vehicle (in accordance with the law, of course), for the purposes of self-defense when I am on the road. Anyone who has ever driven through Houston's 3rd Ward (or for that matter...Freeport, TX) at night understands the importance of being armed. Should someone break the windows out of my vehicle and steal everything I own inside it, including my pistol, I am facing a five-year prison term if the thief was under the age of 18 and shoots someone with it.

Thankfully, this bill died a quiet death on the floor many months ago, as it rightfully should have. Again, thankfully, people keep firing up rumors of its imminent passage. I say "thankful", because it is these same fearmongering people who spread false rumors that keep the rest of the world thinking about what Uncle Sam is trying to do to every chance they get.

Disarmament is, and has historically been, a precursor to slavery. This has been true of every tyrant nation in the history of mankind, even the United States of America when we prohibited slaves from possessing weapons out of fear of insurrection. Whilst armed, we are a nation of citizens. If we are disarmed, we become a nation of subjects to the government, regardless of whatever title our leader chooses to utilize.

Lest we forget, the Jews of Nazi-controlled Germany did not have their firearms registered by the Nazi government. It was the previous Weimar government that ordered registration of firearms, and that list was merely inherited by the Nazi government when Adolf Hitler rose to power. He then picked and chose who he wanted to remain armed, and confiscated the remaining weapons from all other "unreliable persons" who chose to follow the law.

Under the previous eight years of George W. Bush, this nation saw a rape of its constitutional rights unseen under the administration of any other American president. Everyone thought surveillance of emails, phone calls, et cetera was all good and fine if it was done by our government for the purposes of "national security", to protect us from "terrorism", et cetera.

Well, now we have Barrack Obama in office. Under the legal precedent set forth by Bush, Obama now has a ridiculous amount of power of the average American citizen...and there's nothing we can do about that now. It became legal precedent because no one stood up to stop it when it started.

What we can do now, as a nation, is to prevent further usurpation of our rights by insisting that our governmental leaders currently in power reject the notion of further intrusion of our rights under the guise of "protecting America". We can elect leaders who will repeal the legislative damage that has been done, as well as appoint judges who will not stand for unconstitutional abuses of our rights.

Get involved. Support local candidates who will raise holy hell about the abuses of our rights at ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, whether they be from President Obama or from a lowly police chief in Clute, TX. Make your voice heard. Don't allow your voice to remain silent, as silence does not equal vigilance. Only YOU are able to allow yourself to remain free, you can count on no one else to do it for you.

Never cave in to a "slippery slope" of allowing certain freedoms to be done away with, for ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR ANYONE, in the name of "safety", "security", "patriotism", or anything else of that sort. Remember the old saying..."Give 'em an inch, they'll think they are rulers!".

How "gangsta rap" made me even more of a Libertarian...

Okay, if you STILL haven't figured it out yet, Libertarianism is that radical notion that you don't actually own another human being. Under this philosophy, you still have the right to own personal property, make decisions for your own children while they are still minors, et cetera. You don't, however, have the right to tell another human adult how to run his or her life...with a few minor caveats. These are pretty basic, really. The first exception to this rule is if you are the paying employer of someone who willfully enters into employment for you. The second would be when another person, by virtue of his actions, directly prevents you from exercising your own natural rights. Other than that, you have to grin and bear it...just like they have to do, when you live your own life the way you want.

One of the biggest parts of the libertarian philosophy involves the role of business in our lives. We, as citizens of these United States, have the opportunity to work hard and make our lives better because of this hard work. Government (the "G-word" so hated by Libertarians) has long-since had its dirty little hands in business, and the two dominant parties have seemingly opposing (yet strikingly similar) views of what is good and bad when business and government intermingle.

The republican party has long-since touted itself as the "free market" party, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Democrats, on the other hand, have also mislead Americans by claiming that they represent "the common man".

While I have a tendency to harp on the US War on (some) Drugs a bit more than I probably should at times, I'm going to use it tonight for the reason that it provides an all-encompassing scenario in which the Libertarian ideal may be explained. Just for kicks, I'm going to use some old-school gangsta rap to get that message across!

For those unfamiliar with the recordings of Ice-T, you may know him as Odafin 'Fin' Tutuola from the television series "Law & Order: SVU". Pardon the language, and pay close attention to the message.



Now, let's get back to the Libertarian ideal of self-ownership. In the video, we see that there's a seedy underworld of drugs, machine guns, pimping, prostitution, violent assaults, and just about every other thing unlawful and unwanted you can think of.

Moving right along, let's look at other places where personal freedom is valued and respected.

In Amsterdam, where authorities turn a blind eye to drug abuse, we don't have rampant drug-related gang violence. You can go to any decent cafe and buy your reefer...in 31 flavors, if you choose. In Houston, TX (60 miles away from where I'll sleep tonight, and drugs are outlawed), it is highly likely that there will be at least one homicide involving drugs because tonight is a Friday night. If you're shooting smack on a crowded Amsterdam streetcorner, you're likely to go to jail...but you aren't likely to see a news report about a heroin dealer's dope house getting raided by the Amsterdam SWAT team after a year-long investigation.

In Nevada, some lonely truck driver will be getting his rocks off in a whorehouse, and he'll be paying his hard-earned money to do so. A lawful and licensed prostitute will perform sexual favors for this truck driver, and may even be interviewed for an HBO reality TV series afterward. Again in Houston, TX, we will likely hear within the next month about how an underground prostitution ring (most likely involving minors or illegal immigrant "sex slaves"), and the cops will likely have driven past at least a dozen of these whorehouses on their way to the one they are busting.

I may or may not have consumed my fair share of Mexican horticulture in my younger days, but I can assure you that it wasn't a D.A.R.E. program or a threat of going to jail that kept me from smoking crack for all of my almost 31 years. No, rather, it was common sense. While I may have dated some women that even my own mother probably wouldn't approve of, I can honestly say that I've never paid for sexual favors...but if I wanted to, everyone knows where Clinton Drive is at. Government regulation has not lessened the demand, nor has it lessened the supply, for drugs and hookers. All government interference in the problem has accomplished is an increase in price.

Is prostitution good for the mental and physical health of anyone involved? Of course not. Everyone from your shrink to your priest will tell you that being a hooker OR buying a hooker is bad for your head...and that doesn't even cover the STD aspect. Drugs? Same issues. It's bad for your mental state on so many levels, and it ravishes your body.

This leads us to two interesting issues we, as a supposedly free society, must deal with. First and foremost, what right does any person have to tell another adult what to do with his or her body? Second, what effects are government intervention REALLY having on the situation?

CAPITALISM. It's been a "dirty word" for so long that it's not even funny...but it's what makes America keep on rolling. It's also ingrained into the human psyche. We want better for ourselves, and this is just human nature.

When you outlaw something on the basis of "morality" (as is the case with the republican party) or "for the common good" (as is the case with the democratic party), and yet the people still demand it, you have opened up the doors for true capitalism in its most raw and unrefined form. It stops being a system according to the laws of free civilized men, and becomes the law of the jungle.

I do not "support" or "advocate" drug abuse or prostitution. What I am advocating is the removal of government prohibition of the sale of drugs and sexual favors. I understand if this isn't making sense to you, because I run into that quite a bit...but take a second look.

In the video presented above, you see the Original Gangsta glamorizing the "pimpin, hustlin', gangsta lifestyle". The "get in my way, and I'll beat you down or just shoot you with my illegally-obtained weapons" mentality is prevalent, as are the products purchased by his ill-gotten gains.

When you outlaw something the people demand, the demand is NOT going to stop. Crack addicts aren't going to stop craving crack, just because you said they will get locked up for being in possession of crack. When you make it something that costs $80 a day because of prohibition, as opposed to $8 a day it would cost if there were no criminals willing to overcharge for the privilege of smoking a substance your government says you aren't allowed to have.

Prostitution, likewise, isn't going anywhere. There's a reason why it's called "The World's Oldest Profession". In Nevada, where licensed prostitution is legal, you have women who fill out applications and take physicals to ensure that they aren't spreading disease. They are vying for openings at brothels, who have no trouble in attracting women who want the job. In Texas, where prostitution is illegal, we have abusive pimps who make outlandish amounts of money selling the services of "sex slaves" who are often underage illegal immigrants.

So the real question comes down to this...even if you don't support the notion of smoking crack or boning hookers...has government involvement really "helped" the situation? No, not really...

Every morning, I look at the Houston Chronicle's website. We continuously see drug-related shootings, and illegal immigrants being forced into the sex trade.

Obviously, smoking crack and selling your cooter are both bad for your health, physical and mental. But ask yourself this...if you had to take your pick, would you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone selling crack to someone in your neighborhood, would you want it to be Hajji at the Kwik-E-Mart up the street, who wouldn't hesitate to call the cops if it got out of hand, or would you want unlicensed and unregulated gangbangers selling crack behind the Kwik-E-Mart who wouldn't hesitate to shoot you if you got in the way of a sale?

If you ABSOLUTELY HAD to have someone pimping a whore in your neighborhood, would you want it to be a heavily-armed member of MS-13 renting out a 12 year old El Salvadorian girl forced into the business to pay off her smuggling debts, or would you want it to be a scumbag former used car salesman who now rents adult hookers in a zoned portion of town after they've been properly inspected and licensed?

You obviously aren't going to stop drugs and prostitution. Drugs and prostitution will always be run by unsavory characters. You have your choice...would you rather that drugs and hookers be regulated and licensed by the state, or would you rather they be regulated and licensed by whoever has enough stroke to control that corner tonight?

The choice is yours. Hopefully, you will see the folly in our flawed system of prohibiting personal freedoms, and will begin to vote Libertarian.

A wise man once said, "Popular speech doesn't need to be defended...but all speech must remain free." Actions, like speech, must remain free, even if we don't agree with them. If you think certain actions are wrong or immoral, make it your mission in life to teach others that such actions shouldn't be a part of someone's life. I didn't need a D.A.R.E. program to keep me from shooting smack...the Alice In Chains album "Dirt" did enough for me. I didn't need a law against prostitution to tell me that I shouldn't bang a hooker...the "consequence education" slide show did that for me.

Government intervention in the form of DEA, vice cops, et cetera has done irreparable damage to so many innocent people that its effects cannot be quantified. We haven't even begun to attempt to tabulate the damage done to people by willful criminals who see an opportunity to engage in unlawful activities, because society and our legislature has deemed something to be "immoral".

If a liquor store sells a gallon of Vodka to a person, and that person drinks it in one sitting and dies, that person is responsible for his own actions. Under the laws of many states, doing the same thing with cocaine can literally end in a death sentence for the seller. Merely selling a particular quantity of a drug can literally give a person a life sentence in all states.

If a person is willing to risk 25 years in prison for the sale of a controlled substance, what makes you think he gives a damn about your kids? On the other hand, liquor store clerks can make a legal paycheck every week...but may be fined or arrested if they sell to an underage person, which makes them check ID before selling a gallon of Vodka to someone.

In Nevada, if you lack the necessary paperwork, you go to jail for pimping or whoring. If you have the necessary paperwork, you become a part of the lawful workforce. In Texas, there is no paperwork for legal prostitution, which makes everyone involved a "criminal"...so if a person is willing to risk jail for pimping an adult, what makes you think he's unwilling to risk jail for pimping a child?

Again, I direct you to the video...and this time, pay close attention to the lyrics.

"Lock me up, a genocidal catastrophe...there will be another one after me. A HUSTLER."

A bit of objectivity in the wake of Ft. Hood.

Today, we as a nation watched on television, while the second-largest US military installation in the world held a memorial service for more than a dozen people gunned down by a Major in the US Army a few days ago.

Many have called this an act of "terrorism". Maybe it is. If the shooting was done with the purpose of creating terror in the hearts and minds of his fellow Americans for the purpose of advancing a political agenda, it is terrorism. If not, it's a mass homicide that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".

Some have called him an "enemy combatant". So long as it is truly known that he is being labeled an "enemy combatant" strictly because he was actively engaging military targets for the purposes of aiding the war effort of the enemy or for the purposes of waging war against the United States and her people, he is an "enemy combatant". If not, he's a mass murderer that does not, by definition, meet the criteria of "terrorism".

Furthermore, the interwebs have been lit up by claiming that the entire religion of Islam is comprised solely of "enemies of the United States". To that, I call bullshit. Unless, of course, someone has re-written the Koran since a year or so ago when I read it.

Why do we have more instances of "terrorism" committed by self-proclaimed Muslims, as opposed to self-proclaimed Christians? Don't be stupid. How many predominantly-Christian nations has the US invaded lately?

This guy was a nutcase, plain and simple. He just happened to be a nutcase who also happened to be affiliated with radically violent people who chose to associate themselves with Islam. Does this happen quite a bit with people who associate themselves with Islam? You're damned right, it does. It also happens quite a bit with any other group of people who are living in or share a kinship with those who live in places where an occupying force has taken over their homeland.

For instance, the idea of "suicide bombings" weren't started by Muslims, but rather by a group known as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. While they are a secular organization, they were oppressed by the majority...and pioneered the use of a "suicide vest" for military action against the oppressing force.

In Northern Ireland, "The Troubles" between the Irish Republican Army and the British army date back for more than eight centuries. Yes, that's right, EIGHT CENTURIES. While the real issue is regarding the power struggle between British empire and Irishmen who want to be free, both sides frequently bring religion into the equation, as most Englishmen who subscribe to religious belief are Anglican protestants (the "Church of England"), while their Northern Ireland counterparts are Roman Catholic. Both claim Christianity as their religion, and they fight each other while denouncing their opponents' particular views on religion.

In Mexico, the Chiapas natives have been persecuted and oppressed for so long by the Mexican gov't that songs have been written about them. Much like in Ireland, the Middle East, and damned near everywhere else a war has been fought, the plight of the Chiapas does not center around religion, race, or culture. It's about control of the land, and control of the people...which eventually traces back to MONEY.

Before digressing further, I'll say this...prove that he was an actual affiliate of a "foreign terrorist organization", and not just a sympathizer, and I'll call this a "terrorist action".

I sympathize with any group of people wanting to be free from tyranny and willing to fight for that freedom, including the IRA. The Irish Republican Army has been labeled a "terrorist organization"...not just by the British gov't they've been fighting for 800 years, but also by my own government. I happen to be of partial Irish descent. If I were to go on a shooting spree, would you call me a "terrorist", even if it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything whatsoever related to that issue, and was just because I was a bit nuts and got pissed off at traffic in downtown Houston that morning?

Some call him an "enemy combatant" because he knew a guy who knew a guy who's third cousin married the stepsister of a guy who went to junior high with a guy who once met one of the 9/11 hijackers...and he also had skewed political views. Prove to me that this was an actual military action, and not just the work of a deranged man with a gun who shot a bunch of people and also happened to pray to God while calling him "Allah", and I'll agree that it was the work of an actual enemy combatant. The way I see it, it was the work of an American citizen with mental issues, a different religious upbringing, and a pair of handguns. It doesn't mean the guy who sold me a sixpack tonight is secretly plotting to kill me because I bought a sixpack, and Allah doesn't approve of light beer with a hint of lime flavor.

While we're on the subject of "militant Islam", I'll be right up front with you. Islam, like Judaism and UNLIKE Christianity, is severely lacking in the whole "turn the other cheek" area. Jesus tells me to love my enemies. The Prophet Mohammed tells Muslims to, well, basically fuck up their enemies in the most brutal manner possible.

That being said, what constitutes an "enemy" of Islam? According to the Koran (you know, the ACTUAL teachings of the Islamic religion, not the words of some "radical Islamist cleric"), you aren't deserving of death until you invade the homeland of a Muslim. Hmmmm, where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's right. I knew I had seen that somewhere. It's that Gadsen flag hanging on my wall. According to the Koran, a Muslim is PROHIBITED from doing harm to anyone, including "infidels" like us, unless the homeland is invaded for the purposes of taking over.

Regardless, I'll come right out and say it. I support our troops, who owe an allegiance only to the Constitution of these United States. I do not, however, support our government's actions overseas. Our invasion of Iraq was complete bullshit...not to mention, completely illegal under every applicable domestic and international law you can think of.

Our mission in AfPak is a completely different fuckup. First and foremost, our "mission" stopped being morally justified the moment we decided to limit our assault to only those who attacked us, and began including all who "engage in acts of terror"...namely, because we as a nation continue to support those who engage in acts of terror, even to this day. Second, we never really dedicated the necessary resources to truly "get" Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we simply keep feeding money to corporations who build "drones" that drop bombs on wedding ceremonies. Third, we really don't have a definable enemy, and keep fucking up whoever our "enemy of the week" happens to be. Let's just say there's a reason cliches become cliches...and tonight, I'm gonna party like it's 1984.

If the United States wants to hold any moral high ground WHATSOEVER, it will do the following things:

1) Withdraw troops from Iraq IMMEDIATELY, and apologize to the Iraqi people for invading their sovereign nation. Seriously. We had no cause to be there, and we turned it into a giant fuckup. I know Saddam was a bad guy. Is Iraq really any better off today, than it was ten years ago?

2) Start showing some testicular fortitude, Barrack. Seriously. Grow a pair. Stop worrying about elections in random 3rd World nations, and focus on the task at hand. We, as a nation, know who the enemy is. It is Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Not some guy who used to date a chick who knew a guy who went to high school with a dude who drove a cab for the Taliban's third in command, but Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Stop worrying about the political implications, and focus on the 6'6" Arab with the dialysis machine strapped to one hand and the microphone in the other. You remember him, right? Osama Bin Laden? He's half-dead from nature, let's get the job done.

3) Start implementing the necessary actions to make the first two a reality. Those in Iraq due for leave in the coming months need to be sent home. Fresh arrivals to, and those destined for, Iraq need to be redirected to Afghanistan. Gen. McChrystal says we need more boots on the ground. Go hard, or go home. Anything less than the best shows me that my government is more concerned with prolonging the war than it is with actually winning it.

If we are to accomplish our mission of bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice, we must focus on that...and ONLY that. If we extend our mission to ANYTHING ELSE, our mission fails. End of story. In addition to failing that mission, we will also manage to piss on an ant pile that will come back to bite us, as it has repeatedly done. When we expand the scope of our mission to include anyone who sympathizes with those who hold ill will toward this nation, we've expanded our mission to include 80% of this planet. Our military is the greatest on Earth...but we ain't that good. When we piss off that many people, we're going to have idiots like this jackass in Ft. Hood thinking they have an actual reason to go on a shooting spree.

Then again, had we not been shitting in the sandbox to begin with, 9/11 likely wouldn't have happened. I'm not saying it was right to kill several thousand innocents. At the same time, I'm saying I understand where the hatred comes from, and our elected leaders are the cause of it.

I'm not saying it's right for your neighbor to shoot your kid...but if you continuously usurp him for your own gain, insult him because you can, attempt to run his life for him, and bitchslap him when he doesn't do what you tell him to, you should reasonably expect him to hit you where he's most able to do the most damage. It's what I would do if I were him, and had no other means of fighting at my disposal. Right and wrong take on a whole new meaning when you put it into that perspective, do they not?

Above and beyond all, I'm not saying I'm supportive of the mass murder at Ft. Hood, nor am I saying I understand the motivations behind it. I do, however, say that this nation has placed itself in a considerable amount of danger when it decided to start picking on every "little man" in the neighborhood. One on one, the little guy doesn't stand a chance...but he might just slash your tires in the middle of the night, regardless of whether you kick his ass in the morning. He's also going to have the support of all the other little guys you've picked on.

My prayers go out to the families of those who have lost their loved ones...not just at Ft. Hood, but in all of our warzones abroad and all of our criminal episodes at home. We need to take serious stock of our actions, and ask ourselves this: Is this what Jesus would want me to do?