Happy Bill of Rights Day! Thanks to a reminder from Always on Watch, I remembered! Today is a day set aside by the government to remember the Bill of Rights. For more details, check out AOW's link above -- there's also a link there to area celebrations, so check that out.

Unfortunately, I think Bill of Rights day has become more of an day to honor something that has passed, rather than celebrating what we have. Indeed, I'm not saying that this country isn't the freest in the world, just that we lose more and more freedoms every day and very, very few people seem to care.

Another thing that isn't taught any more in government schools -- the government doesn't GRANT rights. They're not capable of it. Instead, the Bill of Rights was intended as a specific list of rights that the government was to never, ever, trample upon. However, today, I think every single one of the original bill of rights has been violated by our government, including all three branches in cooperation.

If you do truly love the Bill of Rights, there is but one possible solution today that will allow YOU to live in a place of freedom. There is a very small, but growing, group of people who honestly love freedom. They want to claim a small area of the country and make it as the founders intended. They don't want socialism or communism as today's governments want. They want open, unrestrained freedom. They want government to do as it should in a free society: as little as possible. Who are they?

They are The Free State Project. And they need you, if you want real freedom, to join them. And if you're really, really serious about freedom, join them in the First 1000 pledge -- trying to find simply 1,000 people who will agree to move and work for freedom in our lifetime -- but only if 999 others will join them.

Celebrate the Bill of Rights -- by restoring those rights to the people where they belong.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:01 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

America, acting alone and with overwhelming force, must destroy the Iranian Islamic State now

Euphoric Reality points out an essay by John Lewis in which he very clearly outlines and describes the two times that America has been attacked in the last hundred years. He outlines the two possible responses to being attacked and clearly illustrates the results from the two possible responses.

As he so well points out, right now Islam is winning around the world. There is only one possible response to their actions and only one thing that will stop the terrorists around the world. Anything else (like what we're doing now) is worse than doing nothing. It's a long read, but very detailed and logical. Take a peek.

And I'm not alone with my support of a REAL war, instead of this namby-pamby crap we're "waging" now.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:04 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin points out this incident where muslims complain in Dearbornistan. In it, a mulsim woman has raised so-called "civil rights" questions because she was offended. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with "multiculturalism."

You see, Wardeh Sultan, the complainer, has a warped view of freedom. She claims that she is an American Citizen and that she wants to lift America up. And it's likely she does -- but HER version of America, not the traditional version. When people come to America and bring THEIR culture and refuse to assimilate and join the unique American culture, this is the clash that arises.

Wardeh Sultan has two specific complaints. One is that her afternoon prayer was "interrupted" by another patron. Zero details are given as to exactly how she was "interrupted." But her second complaint may shed a little light on it. Her second complaint is that she feels "humiliated" and offended, because the employee to which she complained said that other patrons didn't have to respect her (Wardeh's) God. Wardeh disagrees.

In other words, the primary complaint is that a person had the utter GALL to not offer complete and total muslim respect for Wardeh's muslim god. That's the complaint. That's all. Wardeh Sultan, by bringing her culture to America and refusing American culture demands that she have complete and total freedom without any responsibility. In other words, she should be free to do anything and everything she wants and everyone else should never be able to say or do anything that disagrees with her. I've got news for you, Wardeh, that's not freedom.

She has the freedom to pray in public. I've got the freedom to say she looks silly doing it. No one should stop either one of us. I'm willing to allow her the freedom to pray in public. Why won't she allow me the freedom?

One of the chief people in charge of complaing for mulsims said, "(Muslims) are resenting that they are to be suppressed from expressing themselves freely, like others." That's an outright lie. NO ONE tried to physically stop her from praying, from all published reports. Instead, what's true is that THEY (muslims) resent that everyone else does not follow their religion and give them complete and total approval of every single religious-related action they take.

Freedom works both way muslims. If you don't like it, I suggest you go find a muslim country and move there. If you like the freedoms we have in America, how about letting other people have freedom, too?

Posted by: Ogre at 04:51 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Apparently her "interruption" consisted of someone pushing her: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/update_fitness.html Ha! I don't get why these Muslims come to OUR country and think they can kneel on the floor in a locker room without getting pushed around. She's lucky she didn't get rat-tailed. That's the traditional America I remember from junior high! If you don't like people mocking and pushing you, move to a Muslim country where people leave you alone!

Posted by: John at December 06, 2006 02:55 PM (twXyP)

2 Feel free to read the WHOLE article, John. Notice that the muslims appeared to block the passageway and the women may have "pushed" them in an attempt to go to the bathroom. And then the muslim, who was inside a private business, REFUSED to show identification to the representative of the owner of the private business, so instead the police were called, legitimately, for trespassers.

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 03:02 PM (oifEm)

3 Hey! I'm the definition of "multiculturalism" and so I'm offended - why? I'm not entirely sure. But I've resolved to be offended. Anyone got money to throw at me?

Posted by: oddybobo at December 06, 2006 03:05 PM (mZfwW)

4 Well, you can certainly burn something Oddy. That's all the trend these days.

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 03:19 PM (oifEm)

5 I did read the whole article. The statement she got says nowhere that they were blocking anything. Debbie Schlussel introduced this idea. She calls it "reading between the lines". Most people would call it "making it up". She was not asked for identification. She was asked for her membership card. The manager did not call the police for trespassing, but for "creating a disturbance", which consisted of telling the manager what happened. Are you sure you read the same article I did?

Posted by: John at December 06, 2006 05:29 PM (twXyP)

6 Same article -- you just inserted things you liked. Feel free to explain exactly what was done to the complaining person. Was she touched? Did someone punch her in the face? Identify exactly where she was praying and all the walls and fixtures around her. Lacking that, one has to attempt to interpret. You interpret that the woman was in a corner, minding her own business. Me, I've been in various fitness clubs. The locker rooms typically have barely enough room to pass by another person, much less have a person on the floor praying. I've never seen a locker room with enough space to lay out a prayer rug without blocking access to other spaces. You seem to also have a problem with a person on private property being asked for a membership card indicating that they have been permitted to be on that property. How about I come hang around inside your house. Will you call the police or just ignore me because I claim you shouldn't insult my God?

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 06:14 PM (oifEm)

7 "you just inserted things you liked" If you can quote me saying anything that wasn't in the articles, I'd love to see it. "Feel free to explain exactly what was done to the complaining person." Simple enough, I'll quote the article: "the women were praying near the lockers when another patron began to make remarks and proceeded to push them." According to the common definition of "to push a person", both Muslim women were touched with enough force to make them move involuntarily. "Identify exactly where she was praying and all the walls and fixtures around her. Lacking that, one has to attempt to interpret." Actually, one doesn't. One can just say "I don't know exactly what happened." Then one have to say "Whatever happened, I don't know whose fault it is. I'll have to wait for more information." Disclaimer: this makes it harder to complain and be sensationalist. You chose a different approach: "In other words, the primary complaint is that a person had the utter GALL to not offer complete and total muslim respect for Wardeh's muslim god. That's the complaint. That's all." This turned out to be simply false. "You seem to also have a problem with a person on private property being asked for a membership card indicating that they have been permitted to be on that property." No I don't. I just said it's different from being asked for identification. Quote me if I said something different. "How about I come hang around inside your house. Will you call the police or just ignore me because I claim you shouldn't insult my God?" Of course the house = gym analogy doesn't really work, but if I invited you into my house a long time ago, you have been a paying "member" of my house for at least 7 months, you had petitioned me to remodel my house because of your religion and I agreed to do so, I would know who you are and I would not ask you for proof of your "membership". If you happen to be Christian and get offended because I push you while you're praying before a meal at my table, I would not come up with the idea to call the police.

Posted by: John at December 06, 2006 06:47 PM (twXyP)

8 You have provided the "common" definition of "push." That is not the legal, journalistic, nor complainer definition. If I make physical contact with someone, technically, that is battery -- even if I just brush against them as I pass them. So to claim that this person was pushed with enough force to move them is simply not possible given the amount of information provided. So, since neither of us can prove how much force was used, let's ignore that one for a moment. Her primary complain is still twofold -- one, that someone dared to tell her that it was permitted for other members to not respect her god; and two, that she was asked for identification inside a private club. Which one of those two things do you think is unreasonable?

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 07:00 PM (oifEm)

9 "If I make physical contact with someone, technically, that is battery -- even if I just brush against them as I pass them." So you're claiming someone committed battery against the woman and she has a legitimate legal claim against the person? That may well be. We have no indication whether legal action will be taken (except for the word "claimant", which is hardly meaningful), but it's possible we'll see legal action out of this. Maybe you should write the woman and tell her you support her potential legal action. "Her primary complain (sic) is still twofold" We don't actually know what her primary complaint is, unless you have had extra communication with the woman. This is not detailed in the accounts. She seems to have at least three, and no ranking is provided. "she was asked for identification inside a private club" I'll assume you mean proof of membership here, since it's already been addressed. "Which one of those two things do you think is unreasonable?" Neither. I think your sensationalist and factually incorrect complaining about this woman is unreasonable.

Posted by: John at December 06, 2006 07:31 PM (twXyP)

10 I'm sorry that you feel I should be forced to respect someone else's god that I do not believe in.

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 07:33 PM (oifEm)

11 Actually, I just said I think you shouldn't: a) Lie ("NO ONE tried to physically stop her from praying, from all published reports.") b) Complain about people complaining. I also think you shouldn't: c) Misspell "Multiculturalism" in your headline. d) Write words in all capitals for emphasis e) Claim that a person who doesn't know you is disallowing you your freedom by complaining about how she was treated. f) Claim that all people who move to America should leave their culture and religion behind them so they can take up the "unique" American culture (presumably the American Indian culture). None of these relate to people's gods, only your credibility. Obviously, it's good comedy for your readers when you do these things, but I don't think you are trying to be funny.

Posted by: John at December 06, 2006 08:08 PM (twXyP)

12 Feel free to provide any evidence that the statement was a lie. I've seen zero. You don't like people complaining about complaints. There's a word for that in the muslim society. It's called "Dhimmitude." It means you submit to their rules and they won't kill you. Sorry, but I choose freedom. I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm also sorry that you don't like America. Yes, I do. I believe in the American culture. No, I don't want people to come here and destroy it. You might like that, but I'll do everything in my power to stop it.

Posted by: Ogre at December 06, 2006 10:42 PM (ECkKW)

13 "NO ONE tried to physically stop her from praying, from all published reports." Published report saying she was physically pushed while praying: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/12/update_fitness.html "You don't like people complaining about complaints. There's a word for that in the muslim society. It's called 'Dhimmitude.'" There's a phrase for that in English-speaking society. It's called situational irony. It's not that I don't like it (I already said it amuses me), but I think you shouldn't do it for your own sake. "I'm also sorry that you don't like America. Yes, I do. I believe in the American culture. No, I don't want people to come here and destroy it. You might like that, but I'll do everything in my power to stop it." I actually like America quite a lot. Apparently you are the one who doesn't like America. This whole blog post and subsequent discussion is about how much you hate a series of events that recently happened in America. By definition, these events are part of "the American culture". If you "believe in the American culture", you shouldn't complain about it so much and so loudly. Or were you talking about some other American culture than the one that exists in reality? If that's the case, you should say "I believe in my fantasy American culture". It would be much more accurate.

Posted by: John at December 08, 2006 08:24 PM (twXyP)

14 Once again, you refuse to deal with reality. Are you, by chance, a registered Democrat (or Independent: read: Democrat but afraid to admit it) or a self-described progressive? You sure sound like one. You're spending your time quibbling over whether touching someone or bumping into someone or accidentally touching someone are vastly different items. Feel free to read my words and comprehend them. If you're having trouble, use a dictionary. There is absolute truth and a real world out here, even if you don't want to admit there is. You even go so far as to contradict your own self and make your own reality as you continue to write. One moment you claim you want the American culture to change and be muslim, then you claim you like American culture the way it is. Again, there is an absolute reality out here. I'm thinking that you've never seen it. That's truly sad.

Posted by: Ogre at December 08, 2006 08:46 PM (IuJ8j)

15 "Are you, by chance, a registered Democrat (or Independent: read: Democrat but afraid to admit it) or a self-described progressive?" This is an ad hominem logical fallacy. I prefer to only address logical discourse, though I'm sad to say that I'm finding little here. "You're spending your time quibbling over whether touching someone or bumping into someone or accidentally touching someone are vastly different items." The "published report" clearly indicates that it was on purpose: "the women were praying near the lockers when another patron began to make remarks and proceeded to push them." You claim no report indicates that. Therein lies the contradiction. Any conjecture you want to add on top of that is irrelevant to your statement about every "published report". "One moment you claim you want the American culture to change and be muslim, then you claim you like American culture the way it is." I can't find anything I said to that effect. Unless you can quote where I said I want American culture to change and be Muslim, I will assume you just made this up out of thin air.

Posted by: John at December 08, 2006 09:55 PM (twXyP)

16 You wouldn't know logic if it knocked you upside the head with a 2x4. You're so incredibly clueless, you apparently cannot even tell the difference between a question and a statement! You claiming that a QUESTION is an "ad hominem logical fallacy" shows your either utter and total inability to comprehend reality, or your intentional willingness to be antagonistic for no reason other than your person insanity. What's your favorite color? Is that an "ad hominem logical fallacy," too? Wow. You will find here, via posts and comments by me, nothing but logic. Perhaps you don't find it here because you clearly have no clue what "logic" really is.

Posted by: Ogre at December 08, 2006 10:00 PM (IuJ8j)

17 "Once again, you refuse to deal with reality. Are you, by chance, a registered Democrat (or Independent: read: Democrat but afraid to admit it) or a self-described progressive? You sure sound like one." That last sentence looks like a statement to me. Not only do you bring up an ad hominem topic, but you assume it's true without finding out. It's okay though, just keep insulting me with things like "You're so incredibly clueless", because that's "nothing but logic".

Posted by: John at December 08, 2006 10:15 PM (twXyP)

18 If you're ever interested in reasoned, logical discourse, I invite you to stop by. I don't have a problem with other people's opinions -- except when those opinions are in opposition to liberty. (And no, don't read into that as any attempt to insult you or anything, I'm just making a statement, plain and simple)

Posted by: Ogre at December 08, 2006 10:34 PM (IuJ8j)

19 "If you're ever interested in reasoned, logical discourse, I invite you to stop by." That's why I'm here, but you won't participate. You almost never respond to my points. You do things like just claim I don't have a grasp on reality, or say I might be insane. Sometimes you claim I don't love America. Once you told me how I felt and apologized for it. None of this has anything to do with the points I've raised. Logical discourse would look at the assertions made and determine if they are true. You, however, prefer to make non sequitur statements like "Sorry, but I choose freedom. I'm sorry you don't like it." and assume it proves something. "I don't have a problem with other people's opinions -- except when those opinions are in opposition to liberty." Have you ever read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"? It's a real classic from 1946 and you should read it if you haven't already. He critiques this statement, and many other similar statements you've made, better than I could. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Posted by: John at December 08, 2006 10:52 PM (twXyP)

20 Sorry, that's a rather poor copy of the essay. Here's a better one: http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/politics-english-language1.htm

Posted by: John at December 08, 2006 11:01 PM (twXyP)

21 The points of yours I didn't respond to had no bearing on the initial post. And responding to quibbling over whether a touch is a push is an "attempt to prevent someone from doing something" is simply pointless.

Posted by: Ogre at December 08, 2006 11:53 PM (IuJ8j)

22 Oh well. I had hoped beyond hope that you might participate in logical discourse, but I guess it's hard to change your whole way of thinking about the world. I wish you the best of luck in the future.

Posted by: John at December 09, 2006 06:53 AM (c7rNU)

23 Again, I'm always open to logical discussions. I don't think quibbling is logical discussion.

Posted by: Ogre at December 09, 2006 03:53 PM (IuJ8j)

Hide Comments | Add Comment