Wikimedia Lawsuit Endangers American Rights


From, the headline reads: “Wikipedia to File Lawsuit Challenging Mass Surveillance by NSA”

The Newsmax story begins:

—BEGIN QUOTE—————————————————————————
“Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization that runs free online encyclopedia Wikipedia, will file a lawsuit against the National Security Agency and the U.S. Department of Justice, challenging the government’s mass surveillance program.

“The lawsuit, to be filed on Tuesday, alleges that the NSA’s mass surveillance of Internet traffic in the United States – often called Upstream surveillance – violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and association, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

“The NSA’s Upstream surveillance program captures communications with “non-U.S. persons” in order to acquire foreign intelligence information.”
—END QUOTE—————————————————————————-

Based on that last sentence, I disagree with “Wikimedia’s” whining and hope our court system understands the potential danger of this lawsuit, should it pass, to the First and Fourth Amendments.

There seems to be, in this case as in many others, an over-generous attitude about the U.S. Constitution. The assumption, in this case, that Constitutional protections should automatically be extended to “non-us persons” simply because American Citizens are involved seems very dangerous; it blurs the line between Constitutional protections specifically extended to American Citizens by the Constitution and those generously “granted” to other world citizens under special circumstances. And, of course, it clearly presents a challenge to the NSA’s ability to protect American Citizens from foreign threats.

The line was, not long ago seriously crossed when our government first brought a non-citizen terrorist combatant to New York, granted him a trial and gave this self-declared enemy of America all the rights of an American Citizen and all the protections of U.S. Criminal law and the U.S Constitution.  Since then, the U.S. Constitution has been stretched and stretched, in different circumstances and in different parts of the world, until it is now in danger of it’s original intent being completely undermined.

Americans are generous people by nature, that comes from the complacency of freedom, but in the case of this Wikimedia lawsuit, suing the NSA and the Justice Department because “non-US persons” are actually being treated like the non-citizens they are and not being allowed protection by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which they are NOT entitled to), threatens to stretch our generosity and complacency to a dangerous breaking point.

We are making “baby-steps” toward a One-World Government; Americans need to wake up and stop denying the obvious.

Just to be clear: I’m suggesting that, for the sake of National Security, in the case of correspondence between American Citizens and foreign governments or foreign is not unreasonable to expect  American Citizens to forfeit some of their privacy rights. This is especially true and critical in this age of  terrorism, recruitment and solicitation. We have, tragically reached the stage where American citizens cannot be automatically assumed to be “loyal” American citizens. That is the cost of many decades of American complacency and “generosity.”

I know that’s a bitter pill to swallow but if we want America to survive we really DO need to  ‘wake up and stop denying the obvious.’



Newsmax: NSA Sued by Wikimedia, Rights Groups over Mass Surveillance

Beyond The Outer Limits of Tolerance


During the 3-day “White House summit on countering terrorism,” President Obama stated that he wants America to “remain true to our values as a diverse and tolerant society even when we’re threatened, especially when we’re threatened.” He actually said these words!

The questions then are: 1) How can a supposedly highly educated man who is the President of the United States and the Commander and Chief of our armed forces, ask us to remain “tolerant” in the face of the brutal, barbaric actions of the Islamic State (IS)? 2) How can Americans accept this barbarism as a form of diversity; especially when the IS is specifically and vocally dedicated to the eradication of all non-Muslims and when the IS has specifically targeted the United States as “the Great Satan”?

The only answer I can come up with is either Barack Obama is totally obtuse or he himself shares the passions and goals of the Islamic State, It’s not too hard, after 6 years of his foreign policy, to believe the latter.

During this 3-day conference Preident Obama went on to say that he “refuses to recognize terrorists as Muslim extremists, or even consider terrorism a basically Islamic phenomenon”; he said doing this runs contrary to American values and would only give extremists a cloak of legitimacy.”

Granted, all Muslims are not terrorists nor do they desire to become ‘martyrs for Allah’ — then why even bring up the non-violent Muslims at a “summit on countering terrorism?”

The only reason I can see is because he wants to change the subject, he want’s to blur the issue. ‘No, don’t think about the blood thirsty Islamic terrorists that are salivating at the thought of killing as many non-Muslims as possible and getting to “Paradise” instead think about the Muslims who means you no harm and if you think about the harmless Muslims long enough you will not notice the Islamic Terrorist who is sneaking up on you with his knife still dripping with the blood from the neck of the last person who was distracted by talk of tolerance, diversity and acceptance.

I can’t rid my mind of the terrifying thought that President Barack Hussein Obama, born and bred in the world of Islam, is intentionally trying to lead America into a fantasy world where: Muslim terrorists are not really Muslims; where all Muslims love America and are as guileless as the 11-year-old fifth-grader named Sabrina who sent him a Valentnes Day card expressing her fear of being hated because she is Muslim; and where Muslims are only joining ISIS because they have been discriminated against and are without economic opportunities. [Currently 5.7% of Americans (approx. 16 million) are out of work but looking and trying to find jobs and, according to some activists, every minority person in America (over 50 million) is being discriminated against. In spite of these statistics, the number of beheadings, stonings and bombings in America is alarmingly low. Could that be because Muslims are under-represented in our population?]

Perhaps President Obama really believes that fictional crap he spouts or perhaps he just want’s us to believe it so we don’t pay attention to that bloody knife in the hand of the terrorist behind us.


The Times Gazette, President Obama offers most extensive, direct rebuttal to recognize terrorists as Muslims

Bankrate: Unemployment Rate


The Religion Gambit


An individual can hate all religions, mock them, criticize them and genuinely feel that religion is a destructive force that needs to be eliminated from society; for me, at least, it’s easy to understand those feelings because at some level I agree with all of them; but I also understand some basic truths about human nature. When you criticize or worse yet mock a person’s firmly held beliefs (about religion or any other subject) you set yourself up as a moral authority based ONLY on YOUR OWN firmly held beliefs, you become a hypocrite and you create a conflict that very seldom will end well.

It’s a zero-sum game that we all thoughtlessly engage in because, in the end, we humans are most times ruled by our egos, not by our intelligence, good judgement, humility or respect for others beliefs. Of course I am speaking in generalities here but anyone who is reading and judging this should have to admit that we are each the centers of our own universes and we (depending on our natures) either attempt, on a daily basis, to coexist with other people’s “universes” or find ways to set up conflicts with them.


To what end do we say “no you’re wrong and I’m right?” If speaking of strictly fact-based endeavors like the various branches of science and mathematics, right and wrong can usually be proven fairly easily but disagreements about more abstract areas of knowledge: things based on beliefs, theories, legends, superstitions or ancient writings will always produce more and possibly larger disagreement.

So, to what end do we argue about religion? To no good end and possibly, as was the case in France recently and in Denmark several years before, to a violent end.

The major problem in the religious world right now is, of course, radical Islam. It is not a problem that radical Muslims have their beliefs and moderate- and non-Muslems have their beliefs; the major problem is that, to the radicalized Muslim there is no room for disagreements, opposing opinions or even intelligent debate.

Radical Muslims have reduced their religion to the same level as the cockroach and termite worlds. Their objective is to mindlessly infest the world with their ideology and destroy whatever stands in their way. No conversation! No debate! No moderation or respect for others, not even for those who worship the same God but follow the Qur’an with a less violent, more civilized perspective.

What do you do when faced with a threat like radicalized Islam?

You don’t do as the United States tends to do and attempt to appease it.

You don’t take the incredibly stupid route like Charlie Hebdo has done by taunting and teasing it — oh yes, in a civilized society they had the RIGHT to do that but they had no end-game, no objective except to piss murderous radical Muslims off and hope there are a few writers and cartoonists left to write their friends epitaphs.

What you must do to beat radical Islam is work  hard to understand it: their temperament, their methods, their weaknesses, their manpower, the sources of their financing and supplies, and their physical locations. Then attack their financing and their supply chains, weakening and demoralizing them. Finally you must make a plan to relentlessly exterminate them, cell by cell. You are not, after all, dealing with civilized human beings, you are dealing with mutated cockroaches and termites trained in the use of high-tech weaponry.

Come on America, “Grow a Pair”


I’m sure that millions of Americans are as pleased, as I am, to see Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, an American POW, released from Taliban custody after 5 years of what must have been pure pain and misery.

The swap of Sgt. Bergdahl for 5 pieces of uncivilized trash does not bother me that much, it just gives us five more Taliban targets; and I sincerely hope we have snipers in position, ready at the first opportunity to blow the tops of the heads off of the released prisoners AND their Taliban escorts. These people, the Taliban and their sympathizers, are truly sub-human and need to be hunted like any other uncaged predator would be. That however is just a fantasy as long as we have eunuchs in the White House administration.

If the White House was staffed with real American patriots and not left leaning quasi-Americans, Sgt. Bergdahl’s rescue (or at least an attempt at a rescue leaving behind hundreds of Taliban bodies) would have taken place over 4-1/2 years ago.

Yes, Bergdahl may have been killed in an attempted rescue but, like every soldier in the past 40 years who volunteered to serve in the military (in July it will be 41 years since the draft ended) he must have realized (as I did in my day) that death is a very real possibility during an armed conflict with the many enemies of the United States. I hope every kid who is contemplating military service is MADE to be aware of that fact!

Quoting the Huffington Post : Since late 2001, “at least 2,169 members of the U.S. military have died in Afghanistan as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan.”

It is interesting to note that in the world outside the military, during a shorter period of time (2000 – 2010)  there were over 165,000 murders in the U.S.. Based on these facts, it may be suggested that it’s safer to be in Afghanistan, in the military, than in many places in the U.S.. (Perhaps that is because, in the military, you are encouraged to carry a weapon! You think?) . . . but that irreverent supposition begs the question.

Is there a better way to face our enemy than putting “boots on the ground”? You bet there is. I know that with the technology available today, we could send a missile smack dab in the middle of any Taliban (or Al Qaeda) tent, cave, stronghold or training camp. That kind of approach, however, at least in the last couple decades, has it’s drawbacks. Mainly it encourages the powerful friends of our enemies to return the favor, and right now, due to the intentional erosion of our self-defense capabilities, put in place by those aforementioned eunuchs, it may be a very dangerous strategy that we are not prepared for.  We need to get prepared!

In the future, IF the U.S. military’s defense capabilities were to be restored by the American public and some real Patriots were put in place in the legislature, the White House and the Supreme Court, and if we could actually stand behind a firmly stated self-defense policy without the spokesperson’s knees knocking (a policy something like my personal “I Have No Other Cheek” Policy (see below)), we may be able, in just a few years, to instill an understand in our enemies that messing with the United States of America and our allies would be dangerous to the health of their nations.

I Have No Other Cheek, is such a simple and straight-forward self-defense policy, I reduced it to a Haiku (nonstandard):

I Have No Other Cheek

I’m a simple man
With a simple belief
Do onto others
As they’ve done to you.

Note that this is not a threatening policy that would encourage a “pissing contest” (excuse my language), it is simply a statement of personal intent and warning to those who would attempt to do harm to me or my circle of friends and family.

I repeat: Come on America, “grow a pair”

On a related note: every country in the world (not just the U.S.) needs to be rid of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I don’t have any idea how that might happen but it MUST happen if the human race is to survive outside of remote caves and urban shelters. I’m too old to worry about the personal consequences of that NOT happening but those of us who have extended families with younger family members should, in the words of a Hollywood script writer for the movie “The Fly, “Be afraid! Be very afraid.”

Thoughts on the Syrian Conundrum


Syria warIn his address to the nation on September 10th, President Obama made a strong, very believable case against the very existence of Chemical (Serin gas) weapons. Especially when these weapons are in the armory’s of terrorist nations or nations that sponsor terrorism.

He also made a convincing argument for action against Syria.

He did not, however, explain why the civilized nations of the world are not acting and why the need to act has been laid at the feet of our nation; why the United States should act unilaterally to neutralize this threat. It’s a heavy and dangerous burden to bare just so we can claim the mantle of “American Exceptionalism.” It’s obvious that our exceptionalism, our willingness to carry war to rogue states, means nothing — even to the people of our supposed allied nations — who have made themselves invisible for the occasion.

Complete inaction, as Obama explained, is the same as a sanction and would effectively erode the world-wide ban against weapons of mass destruction (chemical or nuclear) and make insane megalomaniacs around the world feel safe to use them and or to give them to terrorists who would delight in killing anyone who does not share their social or religious beliefs.

So action is needed, I can certainly go along with that; but the action that is required is not, in my opinion, one superpower possibly endangering the world by threatening a limited strike and assuming that that is all that is required to make the bullies cower; the needed action is dozens of nations with their guns and missiles pointed at Syria and Iran.

OR . . . Perhaps the answer is Russia!

One can only guess at his motivations, but President Putin brokered a deal last week with Syrian President Assad that would have Syria join the International Chemical Weapons ban and allow all his chemical weapons to be placed into the hands of an independent 3rd party and eventually destroyed.

It’s very likely that this is a sincere effort because President Putin is just as afraid of chemical weapons getting into the hands of terrorists (which could easily happen in the midst of the ongoing Syrian Civil War) as we are.

Putin assisting President Obama out of his (our) bad situation in Syria might ‘stick in the craw’ of Obama and most Americans but it looks like (assuming that this IS a sincere effort on the part of Russia) Russia has done the United States a large favor. Putin has, of course, done himself a large favor at the same time by making himself look like a hero in the eyes of the world and possibly winning a nomination for the next Nobel Peace Prize.

The only real problem is that Putin has embarrassed President Obama and the American government by effortlessly resolving what could have, if Obama had muddled into this by doing it HIS way, turned into a very large crisis.

Another problem is that America has to agree to whatever terms are hammered out for the transfer and ultimate destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons inventory. Because Putin’s actions embarrassed us in the eyes of the world and because President Obama may not be man enough to swallow his pride and go along with reasonable terms, this might have a disastrous end after all.

And then there is Secretary of State Kerry. He finally, after all these years has some apparent power and it’s obviously going to his head. Right now he’s in Geneva acting more presidential than our president ever has. He could easily “queer” the whole deal.

If America decides not to go along with a reasonable resolution to the chemical weapons conundrum and proceeds with his “targeted strike” its easy to see Iran getting involved and, from there, all Hell MIGHT break loose.

While all this is going on it’s interesting to note that the Obama Administration has just sent weapons to Al Queda and continues to insist that Assad be removed from office by his opposition. The problem with that is that history (the history of Iran) would likely repeat itself in Syria.

The Shah of Iran, like President Assad, was a brutal ruler but, also like Assad, he was not an enemy of America. President Jimmy Carter didn’t know enough to leave him alone and let his run HIS country the way he wanted, it meant nothing to Carter that the people who were known as his opposition and successors were not only more brutal than the Shah but were sworn enemies of ANY country that did not embrace Shria Law.

In Syria, if history repeats itself and Assad is replaced by an extremist Muslim government (which is almost a certainty) it will be a puppet government to Iran and Israel will have an even more dangerous ‘next door’ neighbor than it has now.

Why then is President Obama arming Assad’s opposition? For the same reason President Carter supported the Shah’s opposition; they are both shallow, narrow minded and self-righteous leaders. They both live in a Fantasy Land where every government is benign and democratic (and Christian). In fact many, if not most, of our Senators and Congressmen seem to have the same fantasy.

It’s time for America to get real and get out of Fantasy Land!

Several Points About Syria


Syria warSecretary Kerry is insisting that firing who knows how many missiles at Syria with the objective of punishing the president of that sovereign country and tipping the balance of power in a country that is in the middle of a civil war, is NOT an act of war and that turning that country over to some form of radical Muslim Brotherhood is not a likely outcome.

Common sense tells us that that is a bold-faced lie!

Attacking a sovereign country with missiles, for any reason other than eradicating a ‘clear and present danger’ to your country IS an inexcusable act of war in anyone’s play book and handing Assad’s regime over to one of the many Muslim factions opposing Assad (in the end it will be the one faction that is the most vicious and most well armed by Iraq) under those circumstances, is an act of insanity!

We’re about to see, next week, if our Congress can escape the notion that they are the world’s elected ‘moral warriors’ and if they are able to open their collective mind up to concepts that are the products of rational judgment, i.e., an ‘America First’ ethos and the now almost obsolete idea that the Congress is only sanctioned to vote the will of the people they represent.

One can’t really blame Kerry for his lies since he is now a virtual puppet with Obama’s hand up the back of his shirt, moving his mouth. Secretary of State Kerry’s unfortunate lack of character and honesty aside, we have never have been able to believe the majority of what has been touted as fact from Barack Obama or his minions; he has never has been totally honest and open with the American public and there is no reason to believe he will ever change. He has, in act after act during his administration, shown that he does not believe in the very principles that once made this country the richest and greatest bastion of freedom in the world. He has also, not unexpectedly, proved to be an overt Muslim sympathizer; he was, after all born and raised as a Muslim.

If the use of Chemical Weapons is an International crime and if the International community refuses to do anything about it, why is it supposedly the United States’ mission to punish the ‘wicked’ all by ourselves? That’s stupid and dangerous. Enforcing the chemical weapons ban ( which, incidentally, Syria never signed onto) is a job for the United Nations not any one individual nation. Right now there should be several battalions of ‘blue helmeted’ U.N. troops engaging Assad, as well as Hezbolah and Al Queda, dismantling Syrian Chemical Weapons storage facilities. That, however, has not happened and will never happen because the United Nations, as it is now, is as ineffectual as a day care Center.

Obama’s and Kerry’s assurances aside, there is a very large possibility that an American attack will ignite a larger conflict (involving the United States). This is not according to me, this is according to the Russian, Chinese and Syrian governments. Syria has, in fact, promised that it will fight back even if it leads to WW III.

It’s obvious to me and many others that Obama has an ulterior motive in Syria — he wants radicalized Muslims in control. Ever since Obama has been in office he has been kissing the rear ends of Muslims. That’s where his real sympathy lies. That’s one key reason that he is willing to commit America’s military might to the objective of destabilizing the Assad regime.

We really must stop playing “policeman to the world” right NOW! If some atrocity occurs in some uncivilized corner of the world and it is NOT a “Clear and Present Danger” to America or Americans, we just have to chalk it up to the fact that different people believe and act in different ways, believe in different gods and act according to THEIR beliefs (not OURS).

On the other hand, if an action by ANY government DOES present a clear and present danger to the U.S., we must act boldly, rapidly and without seeking the consent of any other country or body to eliminate that danger. That is the only action that rogue/uncivilized countries will respect.

As I’ve said before, the United States must be feared by it’s enemies if it is to survive.

Serious About Syria


SyriaI firmly believe, and have long retained this belief, that the United States needs to stop interfering in other country’s internal affairs, including civil wars, and especially in the Middle East. I believe that to keep United States citizens safe we should make the United States as invincible as possible and make sure that we are feared and respected by those countries who refuse to be our allies and by countries, individuals and groups who wish us harm. We should support our allies and encourage others who have similar value systems to become our allies.

That said, I know that the United States is about to “strike” Syria and I think we all know the reason. Our President put his foot in the all of our mouths by promising action if Chemical weapons were used in Syria and now that the “red line” has been crossed it’s put the United States in a position where our ‘reputation’ is on the line.

Reputation (or “face” as it’s called in some parts of the world) is a concept that is only used by the weak and insecure. The United States should never have to worry about how others see us, we are, by every measure, the “elephant in the room.” If any country thinks it can strike a fatal blow against the United States, it’s leaders are deluding themselves and putting their population in a very dangerous place.

According to a USA Today article/ from Tuesday: “The expected U.S. missile strike against Syria will be aimed at forces linked to chemical weapons as well as broader military targets”. If we have to go into Syria, that seems to be the best way to do it. We are apparently not going to attempt to effect a regime change in Syria, to do that would be a dangerous gamble because the next regime could be worse than the current one (like what happened when we forced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi off the Peacock Throne in 1979). Nor are we planning on putting “boots on the ground” in Syria. Let countries handle their own regime changes and let those local warriors who remain alive, live with any unintended consequences.

U.S. military “assets” are already in place and whatever we do we will do it soon!

Some of the media are making a big deal about President Obama not asking for consent from the Congress before the attack on Syria. According to the Constitution, the U.S. cannot “declare war” without the consent of Congress but this is not a declaration of war, this action is intended as a public “spanking” of Syrian President Assad. Threats have been made of retaliation against Israel if the U.S. attacks Syria. If that happens Israel will quickly retaliate and they won’t be nice about it; Israel will of course expect U.S. support if attacked and the U.S. is committed to defending it’s ally against a military attack from another Middle Eastern country or even from a certain “Bear” in eastern Europe.