Showing posts with label huma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label huma. Show all posts

Monday, October 22, 2012

What you don't have to do to save the nation


Saturday, October 20, 2012

LAST STAND: I Refuse to Give Up This Republic Without a Fight


You don't have to ride on a treacherous, unlit cow path from the north-side of Boston to Lexington as the King's Regulars attempt a surprise attack on the Sons of Liberty.

You don't have to board a frigate, sail for weeks across the Atlantic and then sack a city in Tripoli to rescue your imprisoned countrymen.

You don't have to kill a British soldier in a desperate, hand-to-hand struggle after leaping out of a boat on the beach at York during the War of 1812.

You don't have to hold the line against Pickett's desperate charge at Gettysburg as thousands of wounded men shriek bloody murder around you.

You don't have to resist a vicious attack by the Hun with fixed bayonets at Belleau Wood.

You don't have to survive a terrifying duck-boat run onto Omaha Beach as men around you are being chopped to bits by fortified Nazi gun emplacements.

You don't have to liberate the Nazi Death Camps, capping months of brutal fighting and desperate marching through the dirt roads of Europe.

You don't have to withstand a surprise attack by the Chinese 'People's Volunteer Army', fighting to hold the line in 35°-below-zero temperatures for days on end near the Chosin Reservoir.

You don't have to defend the city of Huế from a surprise attack by Viet Cong and PAVN regulars, fighting block-to-block as the entire country is set afire by the Tet Offensive.

You don't have to race across the desert, waiting for a chemical attack or a Scud missile to hit, baking in 130° temperatures, so that you can expel Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard from Kuwait.

You don't have to patrol a patch of hard-scrabble earth in Aghanistan or Iraq, waiting for the inevitable IED by the side of the road -- or signs that you've rolled right into an ambush by heavily-armed 'insurgents' equipped with Iranian RPGs.

You don't have to do any of those things. You just have to vote in November. You just have to take the time to rally your neighbors, your family members and your co-workers to vote for candidates who believe in the Constitution. You must marshal voters who will reject the out-of-control, free-spending government that has brought our country to the edge of bankruptcy.

Because if the Constitution doesn't mean anything, if all of the founders' sacrifices went for naught, if all of those American heroes who fought and bled and died for the flag mean nothing, if all your parents and grandparents gave you doesn't amount to a hill of beans, well, then our generation will be forever known as the weak-willed group that let the American dream slip from our fingers.

And we will be known forever as the generation that allowed American exceptionalism to be stolen from us by a radical leftist from San Francisco, a crooked, power-hungry weasel of a man from Nevada, and an Alinsky-trained community organizer who rose to the presidency without qualifications or even so much as a background check by the media.

You don't have to bleed for your country. All you have to do is rally our forces to vote in November. That is what we can do and that is what we must do to preserve this Republic for future generations.


http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/last-stand-i-refuse-to-give-up-this.html

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=154524

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Chavez, Castro, Putin: Four more years!


Obama Receives Endorsements from Three World Leaders

October 02, 2012

Hugo Chavez Joins Vladimir Putin in endorsing Obama's second term.
Should Americans be concerned that three of the world’s top dictatorships—also renowned for violating human rights—are endorsing President Obama? The White House probably won’t issue any press releases, but here are the details.
The latest to publicly announce his support for the commander-in-chief’s reelection bid was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who this week assured he’d vote for Obama if he were from the United States. The America-bashing strongman made the announcement on state-owned television, saying “Obama is a good guy” and that if Obama was from Caracas, he’d surely return the favor by voting for Chavez.
The Venezuelan dictator, who has forged a strong alliance with Iran, appreciates that Obama doesn’t consider Venezuela a threat to the interests of the Unites States. This despite illegally shipping U.S. military aircraft to help Iran evade American radar, hosting terrorists from Hezbollah and Colombia’s Revolutionary Armed Forces and helping Iran and Syria evade international sanctions. Chavez is also buying tons of advanced weaponry from Russia and has pulled out of human rights conventions that could call his regime on its many violations.
Oh, and who could forget that Chavez named a former military intelligence officer sanctioned by the U.S. for trafficking drugs as deputy interior minister. In 2008, the U.S. Treasury froze the new minister’s (Hugo Carvajal) assets because he assisted narcotics trafficking by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Chavez named another U.S.-blacklisted official who provided Colombian rebels with weapons and training commander General of the Army.
Earlier in the year the government-official daughter of Cuban military dictator Raul Castro proclaimed her country’s support for Obama during a visit to the U.S. “I believe that Obama needs another opportunity and he needs greater support to move forward with his projects and with his ideas, which I believe come from the bottom of his heart,” Mariela Castro said during a cable news interview. Cuba has for years appeared on the State Department’s list of terrorist sponsoring nations and its communist regime is famous for its atrocious human rights violations. Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro also endorsed Obama (actually an Obama-Clinton ticket) during the 2008 election in a piece published in the island’s communist paper.
That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has eliminated most elections in his country, monopolized all major media and destroyed the political party system. There is no doubt that he’s a dictator, according to a Russian journalist, who says the only reason this is questioned is because western leaders and western media refuse to call him one. Putin has also had his police cronies in Moscow arrest peaceful, legal demonstrators and confiscate, destroy or damage private property.
In a letter to a major newspaper, the president of a group dedicated to expanding freedom around the world points out that under Putin there has been an “across-the-board crackdown on civil society.” The piece goes on to ask: “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.

http://gerarddirect.com/2012/10/03/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-world-leaders/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=559b279744-July_22_20127_22_2012&utm_medium=email

http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Professor: Drones Will Soon Be Able To Kill During War Without Human Assistance


What would one do if it encountered the white house?

Share this
331
View Comments
File photo of a drone. (credit: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
File photo of a drone. (credit: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images)
Latest Polls
US Senate Virginia
Kaine             44% Allen              44%
Source: Suffolk/ WWBT 9/24-26
US Senate Virginia
Kaine             47% Allen              43%
Source: FOX News 9/16-18
Presidential Election Virginia
Obama             49% Romney           47%
Source: ARG 9/24-27
WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — Drones could soon operate without the help of humans.
Agence France-Presse is reporting that the Pentagon wants its drones to be more autonomous, so that they can run with little to no assistance from people.
“Before they were blind, deaf and dumb,” Mark Maybury, chief scientist for the U.S. Air Force, told AFP. “Now we’re beginning to make them to see, hear and sense.”
Ronald Arkin, a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology, believes that drones will soon be able to kill enemies on their own independently.
“It is not my belief that an unmanned system will be able to be perfectly ethical in the battlefield, but I am convinced that they can perform more ethically than human soldiers are capable of,” Arkin told AFP.
Arkin added that robotic weapons should be designed as “ethical” warriors and that these type of robots could wage war in a more “humane” way.
The U.S. military says people will be on the ground to control the drones despite the unmanned robots gaining more independence.
Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy at The Brookings Institution, believes there could be legal hurdles in regards to using robot-controlled drones.
“These responses that are driven by science, politics and battlefield necessity get you into areas where the lawyers just aren’t ready for it yet,” Singer told AFP.
Earlier this year, Singer wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times about the use of drones. In the piece, entitled “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?” he says the use of drones is “short-circuiting the decision-making process.”
“Without any actual political debate, we have set an enormous precedent, blurring the civilian and military roles in war and circumventing the Constitution’s mandate for authorizing it,” Singer wrote. “Freeing the executive branch to act as it chooses may be appealing to some now, but many future scenarios will be less clear-cut. And each political party will very likely have a different view, depending on who is in the White House.”
AFP reports that new military drones will most likely be implemented with more powerful jet engines and have longer range in combat.
There are currently more than 7,000 drones being used in combat.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Visions And Tomorrows - or do you want any for your kids and grandkids?



Visions And Tomorrows
Francis Porretto

I wrote some time ago about the 
 terrible power of the statists' strategy of gradualism. Gradualism cannot be made into a 
weapon for freedom. It requires the surrender of all principles of justice, after which the field
 belongs to the forces of evil. Thus, we must counter gradualism with other weapons.

Whether we've failed to find the proper countermeasure or have failed to use it properly, the
 statists have defeated us at nearly every turn. At this time we're barely a hair short of having 
a completely unbounded federal government that exercises arbitrary coercive power over any
 and every activity known to Man.

Mark Steyn has opined that the point of no return is government-provided health care. With 
ObamaCare, we're not far short of that. If ObamaCare's designed-in dynamic is permitted to 
 operate for a few years, we'll take the plunge into a Canadian-style single-payer service, if not 
a full-up British National Health Service, whether we like it or not.

Not to put too fine a point on it, America is on the brink.
***
Yes, the line just above the asterisk-break was intended to get your blood pumping. It was also
 intended to get you to ask the critical questions:
  • What "brink?"
  • What could push us over?
  • If we go over the edge, what might pull us back?
  • Most important of all: What measure(s) might pull us back from the brink?
The brink is the dividing line between two conditions of society: one that has at least some 
possibility of freeing itself by non-violent means, and one that can only reclaim its freedom by
 bloody revolution.

America will go "over the brink" if ever the following set of conditions should come to pass:
  • The right of free expression is suspended;
  • The writ of habeas corpus is no longer honored;
  • Elections are suspended, or are rendered inherently untrustworthy;
  • The preponderance of coercive force lies with institutions wholly subservient to the
  •  federal government.
All four of these nightmarish possibilities are required to plunge us into totalitarianism. We 
who have hoped for the restoration of freedom will be left with memories, nothing more. We
 won't know just "when to stop and when to go;" we'll be told when to do so. The shadows of
 the Omnipotent State won't "disappear;" we'll cease to see them, because they'll cease to 
have borders. But we'll have plenty of propaganda organs showering us with "golden lights;"
 what we won't have is any voices counterpoised to them.

The older ones among us will have memories of freedom, at least particular cases thereof. 
But Mankind's "magical vanishing memory machine" -- human mortality -- will cause those to 
dwindle and disappear. Nor will uncorrupted records of a free America be permitted to reach
 younger Americans' eyes. Indeed, that process is already under way; if you doubt it, check 
your minor children's "social studies" textbooks.

In such a state, Rousseau's dictum that "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" 
will have to be revised: Man is born in chains, and is everywhere told in a voice of thunder 
that he was never free.

A reader has written me to pose a penetrating question:

For all our disdain of politics, for all our anger at Obama, for all our fear of encroaching 
bureaucracy, what would it take for us, personally, to rebel?

That is, what would cause us to go on strike from work? Or what would cause us not to pay 
our taxes? Or what would cause us to sit, Gandhi-style in front of a politician's office?
I'm asking you to ask us, "What is your line in the sand?" We talk about being prepared 
with guns and ammo or staples. But what is the thing that might happen that would cause
 us to actually stand up and say, "NO!" rather than just prepare for chaos, uninvited and 
unchallenged?
What is that turning point from being angry to being rebellious? And what would we do?

That is the question of the hour. It must be answered both individually and collectively.
 Individually, because even in our time a single unbowed figure, a lone man who rises up
 and bellows "Non serviam," can make a difference, especially if he backs up his 
 proclamation with action. Collectively, because even the most fearless and inspiring leader
 must have enough firmly committed troops at his back to defeat his enemy.

Let's return to my four nightmare-scenario precursors:
  • The right of free expression is suspended;
  • The writ of habeas corpus is no longer honored;
  • Elections are suspended, or are rendered inherently untrustworthy;
  • The preponderance of coercive force lies with institutions wholly subservient to the 
  • federal government.
The federal government, or major institutions that have great federal influence, has inched 
toward all four of these in recent years:

The freedom of the Internet is under heavy attack via "net neutrality," "protection of intellectual
 property," and other gambits;

An American citizen detained under suspicion of involvement in terrorism cannot count on 
the success of a habeas corpus petition;

Forces on the Left have labored mightily to corrupt our elections to their advantage, and 
have occasionally succeeded;

The push for further incursions on the right to keep and bear arms is unceasing.
Once again, the key concept is gradualism. If the statists advance delicately enough on
 these fronts, they might just succeed in "boiling the frog before he realizes his danger." 
Our best hope lies in a sudden acceleration of their efforts, whether from triumphal elation 
or panic. That would cause their ends to become visible to all too many Americans, 
galvanizing us to draw our "line in the sand" and plant ourselves on it.

What are the odds?

Though the central force toward an Omnipotent State has historically been the Democratic 
Party (including the special-interest groups allied with it), the Republican Party cannot be 
held blameless. Its power-brokers have often behaved as if an unbounded federal 
 government is perfectly all right with them, so long as Republicans hold the levers of power. 
Thus it will be insufficient to elevate Republicans over Democrats at the next election 
(and subsequent ones). A statist can wear garb of any colors. He can spout rhetoric as 
stirring as any other man. It's not how he looks or sounds that matters, but what he does.

What we need is a political class with a rope around its neck: officeholders who understand
 in their viscera that any betrayal of Constitutional principles will truncate their futures -- and 
not just their futures as wielders of power -- absolutely.

Reflect for a moment on the Latin root of "state:" stare, meaning "to stand." The State is a 
means of compelling those under its yoke to "stand and deliver," in the old highwayman's 
phrase. The State itself doesn't stand still; it continuously increases its exactions and 
oppressions. As O'Brien said to Winston Smith, the purpose of power is power.

If government truly is necessary, it is at best a necessary evil. Our progenitors were more
 aware of this than we who have been bought piecemeal with subsidies, subventions, and 
 "safety nets." If we must have government, it is government itself that must be compelled to 
stand still: to confine itself to a fixed set of responsibilities from which it is never permitted to
 diverge.

Given the sort of character that impels some men to seek power, the only thing that will 
suffice for that purpose is an absolute guarantee of unthinkably severe punishment for any 
 betrayal of Americans' faith or invasion of our rights.

The creation of "a political class with a rope around its neck" will not come to pass easily. 
Indeed, should the necessary conditions be put in place, the ambition of the power-monger 
guarantees that they will be tested. Some who rise to high office will probe our resolve.

It will be necessary to prove that the rope is real and the trapdoor functions smoothly. Nor will 
we have the luxury of being merciful toward "minor offenders," while waiting for a "major 
violation" to reveal our teeth. If the logic of this escapes you, reflect on how we got to where 
we are today.

They who seek political power must be made to stand very still indeed:
"They are the crown of creation, they are ambition fulfilled - they have nowhere more to go....
"Soon they will attain the stability they strive for, in the form it is granted - a place among 
 the fossils....
"In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our rise; in loyalty to our kind, we cannot 
tolerate their obstruction." - John Wyndham, Re-Birth

You may take it as written in the stars that they see us in the very same light.

Mr. Porretto's websites are Eternity Road and Musings of an Indie Writer.




http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.12/tomorrows.html

As Gomer Pyle would say - Surprise, surprise, surprise! Jesus was not married

RSS
Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'
The fragment is written in Coptic, a language used by some early Christians.
September 28th, 2012
02:30 PM ET

Vatican newspaper calls fragment referring to Jesus' wife 'a fake'

By Dan Gilgoff and Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editors
(CNN) – The Vatican on Friday appeared to push back on a recently publicized piece of papyrus that appears to show an early Christian referring to Jesus' wife, with its newspaper calling the fragment “a fake.”
“Substantial reasons would lead us to conclude that the papyrus is actually a clumsy counterfeit,” the Vatican’s  newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said in a Friday editorial by the newspaper’s editor.
“In other words, in any case it is a fake,” wrote L'Osservatore Romano editor-in-chief Gian Maria Vian.
The fragment referring to Jesus wife was written in Coptic, a language used by Egyptian Christians, and says in part, "Jesus said to them, 'My wife ..."
The paper is generally thought to reflect the views of Vatican officials.
Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King announced the findings of the 1.5- by 3-inch honey-colored fragment earlier this month in Rome at the International Association for Coptic Studies.
King was quick to add this discovered text "does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married," she wrote in a draft of her analysis of the fragment set to appear in the January edition of Harvard Theological Review.
"This fragment, this new piece of papyrus evidence, does not prove that (Jesus) was married, nor does it prove that he was not married,” King said in a conference call with reporters earlier in the month. “The earliest reliable historical tradition is completely silent on that.
“So we're in the same position we were before it was found,” she continued. “We don't know if he was married or not."
In the accounts of Jesus' life in the Bible, there is no mention of his marital status, while the accounts do mention Jesus' mother, father and siblings.
The four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – tell the story of Jesus' birth and early childhood then skip to his short, three-year ministry before detailing his death and resurrection.
In its Friday editorial, the Vatican newspaper took aim at what it said was a media campaign to spread word of the papyrus despite questions about its authenticity.
“American media outlets had been alerted, a preventive press conference by Karen L. King held to prepare a global scoop which was immediately put into question by the experts,” the paper said.
– CNN"s Hada Messia contributed reporting from Rome