Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Right and Wrong’ Category

Mall Shooter: Why?

So that’s the big question on everyone’s mind. After the news headlines flashed about the number dead, all the top headlines are all asking, “Why?” There’s discussion about all sorts of reasons. I humbly submit that the answer is really very, very simple. First, a word about the weapon of choice.

“Assault” Weapons

This really is beating a dead horse, but the media continues to mis-use words, so I feel the need to point out their bias. If you blame the weapon, you’re either ignorant or intentionally misleading. The left and the media here continue to show their bias, no, their hatred for guns. They honestly desire for no individual to ever own a firearm. They hate them. I think that it’s for one of two reasons — either they believe in a fantasy world where if private citizens didn’t own firearms that no one would ever die; or they believe that only government should have absolute power over people. Either way, it’s intentional.

There’s no such thing as an “assault” weapon. It’s not possible. The word “assault” is a verb. If the gun used in this attack were actually an “assault” weapon, then the guy who was involved in the shooting is a hero — because he must have been trying to STOP this evil weapon from assaulting more people. And to illustrate the bias, if the press were consistent, then anything that causes death would be referred to as an “assault” weapon. But how often do you read about “assault knives?” The media should be reporting about the “assault” wave that killed that surfer. There should be reports about the “assault” concrete that fell on those folks. But no, “assault” is reserved for things that the media hates — guns.

So don’t blame the gun, that’s stupid. Don’t blame “access” to guns — it’s harder now than ever in history to get a gun. Don’t blame the number of guns — there’s FEWER guns in public than ever before. I think it’s much more simple than that, and it has nothing to do with guns at all.

Today’s Society

So where are we today? What is it like growing up in America today? First, the government is involved in absolutely everything. And I mean that literally. There is absolutely nothing you can do today without asking government permission or paying government. Go ahead and try and think of something — I bet you can’t. So government is involved in literally every facet of life. Therefore, as children grow up today, most are heavily influenced by that very government. It was not always this way. Just 40 or 50 years ago, this was not the case.

So what does government and the public education system do today? Well, their main focus is “Accepting.” Everyone is taught and told to accept everything else. In fact, if you think that 2+2 = 5, you’re not wrong. You’re just thinking differently. You’re not ridiculed. You’re not even to be told that you’re wrong — that might damage your self-esteem. And you might be offended. In fact, you’re supposed to be offended. You’re supposed to be offended any time you disagree with anything (unless you’re a white, Christian, male, of course). But at the same time, you’re taught to have “tolerance” for any and all ideas that are not traditional or Christian.

That’s quite different than things used to be. You see, 50 or 60 years ago, government was not in everything. People were allowed to have points of view and were not sued or arrested for having those points of view. And, as a matter of fact, the vast majority of Americans were in agreement about basic ideas — and those were Christian ideas, whether you like it or not. Children were taught those ideas by their parents and other adults — and government was not used as a hammer to force them NOT to believe those ideas. I’m not saying that government was used to promote religion, just that government wasn’t used in opposition to religion as it is today.

Guns were more common and no one really cared if you were “offended.” But at the same time, Christian values were not “offensive” to government and the public. They were accepted as good. People actually believed that there was a power higher than government. Today that is not the case. Today, in America, government is the highest power that exists. Don’t believe me? Talk to any government employee (and there’s lots to choose from, unfortunately).

How many times do you hear, “I’m just doing my job?” In ancient days (50 years ago), there was right and wrong. People understood and accepted that there was an absolute truth — and it had nothing to do with government. But today, with a pervasive government, that’s no longer the case. Ask any government employee, and they will tell you why they do things: “Because it’s my job.” If you ask further, you might even hear, “I could get fired if I don’t do that.” There is no judgment. There is no consideration whether they should be doing anything — they’re told to do it, so they do it. They obey government, the highest power on the planet. They do only what government tells them to, no matter what.

So, why?

So how does that relate to this shooting? I submit that perhaps the reason this person shot those people is very simple. Perhaps he had never been told not to. Seriously. In today’s society, with government as the highest power, people are conditioned to do what they’re told. They’re taught to not do anything else. They’re taught not to think and judge, but to obey. And in the education system, children are taught to be accepting of anything — especially anything that’s “different” or “non-traditional.” And if you tell someone they’re wrong, that’s bad.

So I would seriously suggest that in today’s society, children are not taught that there’s right and wrong. No one told this kid that it would be wrong to kill other people. He did it because he didn’t think there was anything wrong with it. He believed that he wouldn’t have to answer to anyone for his actions — he never had to before in his life. Or if he believed that it was wrong, all that would happen if he got caught is that he might go to jail for a little while. That’s it. Of course, in reality, he’s burning in hell right now. But you can’t tell people that, because they might be offended.

Read Full Post »

TBogg deleted evidence of cover up at the Flight 93 MemorialTBogg has edited a comment thread to remove an important piece of evidence about the Memorial Project’s cover up of Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the planned Flight 93 memorial. A historically important comment left by a consultant to the Memorial Project has been deleted.

In January 2006, Alec Rawls baited the TBogg leftists for insisting that it is perfectly okay to plant a giant Mecca oriented crescent on the Flight 93 crash site. TBogg’s comment thread swelled to epic proportions and eventually yielded something more than the usual litany of moonbat excuses for not thinking straight. At the end of the thread, posted sometime in March or April of 2006, there appeared an extended comment, about 600 words long, posted anonymously, and written as a semi-formal evaluation of Rawls’ January 2006 report to the Memorial Project.

Mr. Rawls would later find out that this anonymous comment was the sole piece of written feedback on which the Memorial Project was basing its denial of Islamic features in the winning design. (Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, pp. 149-50.)

The Project only communicated snippets of the TBogg comment, so the fact that the whole thing had been posted online caught them by surprise, undermining their ability to control the story. In particular, the TBogg comment did not deny the Mecca orientation of the giant crescent. On the contrary, it acknowledged that the crescent at the center of the memorial is geometrically similar to a traditional mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built), and offered a variety of excuses for why people should not be concerned about this similarity. (e.g. “[J]ust because something is ‘similar to’ something else, does not make it the ‘same’.”)

Dr. Kevin Jaques

Only in the last couple of weeks has the identity of the anonymous scholar who wrote the TBogg comment been learned. Last week’s blogburst about the Park Service’s fraudlent internal investigation discusses a Memorial Project “White Paper” that identifies the TBogg commentator as Dr. Kevin Jaques, an Islamicist (a scholar of Islam), at the University of Indiana.

One of Dr. Jaques excuses for not being concerned about the half-mile wide Mecca-oriented crescent is that it is so much bigger than any other mihrab:

Thirdly, most mihrabs are small, rarely larger than the figure of a man, although some of the more ornamental ones can be larger, but nothing as large at the crescent found in the site design. It is unlikely that most Muslims would walk into the area of the circle/crescent and see a mihrab because it is well beyond their limit of experience. Again, just because it is similar does not make it the same.

You might recognize it as a giant crescent from an airplane like Flight 93 flying over head, but from the ground? Pshaw.

Crescent and star flag on the crash site

It’s too big to recognize!

TBogg deleted the Kevin Jaques comment from his comment thread

For most of 2007, the original TBogg comment thread has not been available, but TBogg now has it reposted, with one glaring omission: Dr. Jaques comment has been removed.

If you want to see what TBogg is posting now, the url for his 2006 “Lunacy abounds” post is http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2006/01/lunacy-abounds-nuts.html.For posterity, here are copies of the original comment thread, as of 5/29/2006, with Dr. Jaques’ comment intact at the end, and the comment thread repost, as of 12/3/2007, with Dr. Jaques’ comment deleted.

A full discussion of what TBogg properly calls “the infamous comment thread” can be found in Chapter Eight of Alec’s Crescent of Betrayal book (download 3, pp 131-).

The question now for Mr. TBogg is why he deleted Kevin Jaques’ comment. Did he do it on his own, or did he do it at someone’s request? Did Dr. Jaques ask him to delete the comment? Did architect Paul Murdoch ask? Did someone in the Park Service ask?

Whether TBogg acted on his own or was prompted, it is obvious that he understood that he was deleting an important piece of evidence. Just the fact that he singled it out for deletion shows a conscious act of cover-up. Maybe he did not realize the full import of having the comment remain publicly available via an original source, but he certainly knew he was covering up something important. What kind of blogger deletes a piece of evidence that he knows to be central to a high profile controversy? (Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo (R-CO) sent the Park Service a letter last month asking that crescent design be scrapped entirely.) This is very bad behavior.

Was TBogg’s comment thread originally removed in order to hide Jaques comment?

It was odd enough when the “infamous comment thread” first disappeared from TBogg’s blog. What blogger removes anything famous from their blog? But at that time, there was no publicly available information that could have alerted TBogg to the significance of that last anonymous comment. The most likely explanation for the disappearance of the comment thread seemed to be that TBogg simply had a coding glitch, or maybe he is cheap enough to have been worried about bandwidth.

Now that the comment thread has been restored without the Jaques comment, it seems likely that the reason the comment thread came down in the first place was to hide the Jaques comment. The interesting thing about this scenario is that at the time the comment thread was removed (sometime between June 2006 and June 2007) the only way TBogg could have learned the importance of that last anonymous comment would have been through the internal investigation conducted by the Park Service in the spring and summer of 2006. No one else knew that the comment came from an advisor to the Memorial Project until July 2007 when Alec Rawls released the downloadable “Director’s Cut” version of his Crescent of Betrayal book. (Given the urgent public need to know, World Ahead Publishing graciously allowed Alec to make his then final draft available for free download until the print edition—still being updated—comes out in the first quarter of 2008.)

The TBogg comment thread was removed before the Director’s Cut release. (Noted in Crescent of Betrayal, download 3, at p. 131.) Chief Ranger Jill Hawk, who was conducting the investigation, would not tell Alec who wrote the anonymous TBogg comment, but Alec warned her to be suspicious. Given the overtly dishonest nature of its excuse making, he urged her to double check its provenance. She answered back that she had been able to get email confirmation of authorship.

This email communication with Jaques might well have alerted him to the faux pas he committed by posting his comment on the TBogg thread. Did he then contact TBogg and ask for the comment to be removed?

That would seem to be the most likely scenario. Others who were privy to the internal investigation could have also contacted TBogg, but there is no evidence for any other such route of transmission.

It is disturbing to think that TBogg would have acceded to any request to remove evidence about a possible enemy plot. He is fully aware of what Rawls is claiming: that an al Qaeda sympathizing architect entered our open design competition with a plan to build a terrorist memorial mosque and won. Kevin Jaques’ TBogg comment is crucial for understanding how such a plot could succeed, revealing the utter fraudulence of the internal investigation that should have detected any such plot. As the lone consultant to the Memorial Project on the crescent design, Jaques engaged in overtly dishonest excuse-making. And TBogg is willing to help him cover it up?

If TBogg has some other explanation for his deletions, the rest of us would sure like to hear it.

The fraudulent internal investigation

For more of Kevin Jaques’ dishonest excuse-making, see last week’s blogburst on the fraudulent internal investigation. Before the Park Service was done, it managed to round up two more academic frauds in addition to Kevin Jaques. There is Dr. Daniel Griffith, who claims there is no such thing as the direction to Mecca, and a third Mosqueteer still to be discussed. (Saving the worst for last.)

But Jaques is the central fraud, being the Project’s sole source of feedback during a crucial period when its dismissive posture was set in stone. In addition to being an expert on sharia law, Jaques has also proved to be an expert at taqiyya.

—————————————————————-

If you want to join the blogroll/blogburst for the Crescent of Betrayal blogburst, email Cao at caoilfhionn1 at gmail dot com, with your blog’s url address. The blogburst will be sent out once a week to the participants, for simultaneous publication on this issue on Wednesdays.

Crescent of betrayal/surrender Blogburst Blogroll

1389 Blog – Antijihadist Tech
A Defending Crusader
A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever
And Rightly So
Big Dog’s Weblog
Big Sibling
Cao’s Blog
Chaotic Synaptic Activity
Error Theory
Faultline USA
Flanders Fields
Four Pointer
Freedom’s Enemies
Ft. Hard Knox
GM’s Corner
Ironic Surrealism II
Jack Lewis
Kender’s Musings
My Own Thoughts
Nice Deb
Ogre’s Politics and Views
Part-Time Pundit
Right on the Right
Right Truth
Stix Blog
Stop the ACLU
The Renaissance Biologist
The View From the Turret
The Wide Awakes
Thunder Run

Read Full Post »

In case you’re keeping track (and you’re probably not), there’s a new danger which government “needs” to protect us from: salt. Yes, that little white stuff that you find, well, everywhere. According to Those Who Know Better Than You, it’s killing you and should be regulated, banned, and controlled by government — much like marijuana. And word is that the government is actually considering punishing, jailing, and killing people who sell too much salt — because it’s “dangerous.”

I am still amazed at people who support such things. Why do they honestly hate freedom so much? Why do they believe that only they are smart enough to tell everyone else what to do? Why do they think that they should use the power of government to punish, and if needed, kill people in other to enforce what they, personally, believe everyone else should do? How incredibly selfish and self-centered these people must be to believe that they should determine everything for everyone. People who support actions like this are honestly evil and anti-freedom, even if they don’t believe so themselves.

But hey, as long as we’re banning things that are “bad” for you, next on the list will be working at night. You see, that apparently now causes cancer. Therefore, if we should use government to punish people who sell and eat salt because it’s bad, then we obviously NEED to use government to shut down any business that stays open or allows people to work at night. Perhaps we can have government patrols that look for lights on at night and they can shoot and arrest anyone who dares to work at night — for their own good, of course.

Oh, how I yearn for freedom.

Read Full Post »

So, did you see the results of the recent Florida Republican Straw Poll? Romney apparently bought his win. Oh, and the machines. Check out the report and video here. It’s just astounding. Republican Party chairmen allegedly threatening Ron Paul supporters with BODILY HARM if they reveal the corruption. What corruption? How about Romney supporters voting hundreds of times and Paul supporters voting once. How about election machines where you pick Ron Paul but the confirmation page says “Mitt Romney?” Indeed, politics is filthy and perhaps this is the only way Romney can beat Paul — but this is just disgusting.

Read Full Post »

So hey, did you know that if you claim that you’re gay that Alaska Airlines will give you a discount? Or you can look at this in the opposite direction and note that if you’re not gay, you have to pay more to fly on this airline. Is that okay with you? I mean, could you do it for other things?

Think I could sell things at my store and ask people at the register, “Hey, if you say you’re queer, I’ll give you 10% off.” Maybe I could say, “Hey, if you say you hate women, I’ll give you a 7% discount on all your purchases today.” What if I said, “You there, tell me Mohammed is gay and I’ll give you 10% off right now.” Is there anything wrong with any of that?

Now personally, I don’t think any of those actions are illegal. In other words, government should not care, nor be involved in any of those transactions at all. But want to bet they would? How long do you think I’d last as a store if I were doing that in a big city? I bet government officials would be in to visit me in no time. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone tried to charge me with a hate crime or sue me.

But apparently when Alaska Airlines decides to base their prices on perceived actions of people who like to have sex with members of their own sex, that’s perfectly okay — but only because they’re giving a discount to gays. Imagine what would happen if they were charging gays more. Just be aware of this policy if you happen to be flying Alaska Airlines and are bringing your children with you.

Read Full Post »