Lighter fare... Christmas Song Parody Time!

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls, it is the CHRISTMAS Season! Often, this place has commentary on weightier matters, but I'm in the mood for some levity. Thus, I am going to write a couple of lyrical parodies of a favorite Christmas song or two.

Now, I'm an early middle-aged man (in case you didn't know), but I've always liked the song sung by a little girl in 1953 who wanted, of all things, a hippopotamus, for Christmas. That's right, a hippopotamus. Now, me, I don't think that owning a hippopotamus would be a financial, social, or humanitarian plus for me. Also, I'm not a child; me, I want MAN kind of things for Christmas. So, without further ado, I shall present my parody of "I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas (sung by Gayla Peevey, 1953, for Disney)." Title of parody will follow....

I WANT A BIG-BOOBED REDHEAD GAL FOR CHRISTMAS

I want a big-boobed Redhead gal for Christmas

Only a big-boobed Redhead gal will do

No waifish blondes, or anorexic girl-boys

I want a big-boobed redhead gal to play with and enjoy

I want a big-boobed Redhead gal for Christmas

I don't think Santa Claus will mind, do you?

He won't have to use the dirty chimney flue

Just bring her through the front door, that's the easy thing to do!

I can see me now on Christmas Morning going back to bed

Oh what joy! Oh What surprise!

When I don't believe my eyes

and see that big-boobed woman with red head.

I want a big-boobed Redhead gal for Christmas

Only a big-boobed Redhead gal will do

No dull brunettes; nor dyed platinum tresses

I only like red-heads with big boobses

And red-heads with big boobses like me, too!!!

(fanfare from original song)

My ex says a redhead will eat no meat, but then,

buddy says a red-head is a phallitarian.

(more fanfare)

There's plenty room for her in my room, no garages

I'll oil her up and rub her down and give her a "massage."

I can see me now on Christmas Morning going back to bed

Oh what joy! Oh What surprise!

When I don't believe my eyes

and see that big-boobed woman with red head.

I want a big-boobed Redhead gal for Christmas

Only a big-boobed Redhead gal will do

No dull brunettes; nor dyed platinum tresses

I only like red-heads with big boobsesses

And red-heads with big boobses like me, too!!!

Why Mohammedanism (Islam) Is ESPECIALLY Bad For Black People

Today, at the Vast Right Wing Negrocon Zionist Conspiracy, I wish to address an issue too often ignored by apologists for Mohammedanism (aka Islam); those who oppose Mohammedanism, and the general world "community."

We have known for years that Mohammedanism is waging a world-wide campaign to force itself on the rest of Mankind; or, rather, we WOULD know this if our so-called "media" were telling the truth and if History were truly being taught. Fact is, for so many decades the story has run somewhat along these lines:

"The Muslims were peaceful and not bothering anyone when the Christian West invaded their lands with the Crusades."

"Christianity forced itself on Africa; Islam is the natural religion of black people."

"Islam freed slaves and opposes Slavery."

"Islam means peace in Arabic."

There are many other canards about Mohammedanism, and I could probably write an entire series of books in regard to them. However, those books are already written and out there; and by people who have more likely spent more time studying Mohammedanism and its history that I have. This commentary is NOT meant to do that today. Instead, I only named four of these canards, and I intend, in fact, to address only TWO of them.

Why only two of them? Because not nearly enough people have sought to the two I will seek to talk about. Those two will be the second and third that I have listed. I shall now address them as best I can.

Myth: "Christianity forced itself on Africa; Islam is the natural religion of black people."

Fact: The truth of the matter is that, according to information given in the Book of Acts in the "New Testament" of the Judaeo-Christian Bible, belief in Yeshua (Jesus Christ to Christians in the West) went to Africa soon after Pentecost. In Acts 8:26-40, Philip, a Christian with a thriving ministry in the Samaria area (once held by the northern kingdom of Israel when ten of the twelve tribes split from rule by the descendants of David and Solomon *the southern kingdom became known as Judah*), is directed by God to travel the "desert road" from Jerusalem to Gaza (yes, in those days, Jews lived throughout the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, LONG before Mohammed's birth).

On the road he meets an "Ethiopian" eunuch. The man is reading (or having read to him by a servant) the book of Isaiah from the Septuagint, indicating that he may be a convert to Judaism, or that his family converted some time before. Philip joins him and is asked by the Ethiopian to explain a passage. Philip explains that the passage refers to Yeshua's being unjustly accused, tried, and executed, and of His Resurrection, and that salvation is now available to all through that Sacrifice.

The Ethiopian asks is anything is hindering him from being baptised in the Spirit, for he believes the message Philip has brought, and they are now near water. So, the Ethiopian eunuch is baptised; Philip is suddenly "taken away," but the Ethiopian proceeds in rejoicing as he and his train continue on home toward Meroe, then capital of the kingdom of Aksum. For nearly two millenia after, the Ethiopian kingdoms of Cush, Aksum, and their successor kingdoms in the region of modern Ethiopia

The message here is that Christianity is for ALL who will believe and come, regardless of physical condition, age, sex, racial or ethnic origin, or geographical location. That the man is an Ethiopian speaks volumes, not only to us to day, but to the original readers of the book of Acts in the Greco-Roman world. For the ancient Greeks and Romans were utterly fascinated with "Ethiopians" (the word is derived from the Greek aithiops, meaning "the glowing" or "the black") as they lived on what was the edges of their known world. What this story also tells us is that Black people were among the earliest Christians, and that Mohammedanism (Islam) was NOT, in fact, the "natural" religion for black people. Even when the Europeans emerged from their home continent and arrived in Africa in noticeable numbers betwen 1450 and 1900, they did not, by and large, try to FORCE the native Africans to become Christians. Oh, yes, the Catholics and Protestants sent missionaries into the interior, but they were not under orders to force conversions. Even when the European powers nearly completely colonized Africa in the 18th-20th Centuries, there was no compulsion for the natives to become Christians. In spite of this (or perhaps BECAUSE of this), the fastest growing CHOSEN faith for Africans is not Mohammedanism, but Christianity.

In fact, if one were to compare the Bible and the Mohammedan "holy" book, the Quran, one would find that the Bible, though often mentioning "Cushites" (a Hebrew appelation for black peoples, as descended from Ham's son Cush), does NOT impart any special status of inferiority to the Cushites/Ethiopians. In the Quran, however, Mohammed and Allah seem to have a special hatred for dark-skinned peoples. There are numerous passages in the Quran that are entirely derogatory to black people. Mohammed even goes so far as to tell his adherents that if they wanted to see Satan they should look at black people, and one in particular, by the name of Nabtal.

We can see from this that, though Jews and Christians have found themselves looking down on Africans at times, it is not inherent to their faith; nor does Yahweh/Yeshua command such. In fact, in the books of history in the Old Testament, the Cushites/Ethiopians are as often allies and friendly toward the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews as they may be inimical to. *Something Jew-hating black folks MIGHT want to give serious thought to before embracing the lies that Mohammedan apologists like Louis Farrakhan and others are touting.*

Myth: "Islam freed slaves and opposes Slavery."

Fact: Although Slavery has existed almost as long as humankind, throughout most of human history it did NOT have a definitive racialist attitude. In fact, most slaves in the Ancient World of Greece and Rome were NOT of African origin. Most slaves held by Romans were of the peoples of Western and Southern Europe, as many of the Roman conquests took place in these areas. There were Africans who were slaves in the Greek and the Roman empires, of course. There were also, in the Roman world at least, many Africans who were not slaves, and some were, in fact, Roman citizens. (Roman citizenship was not entirely dependent on origin; many soldiers of the "auxiliaries" to the Roman legions (cavalry from Numidia, Gallia and Germania; slingers from the Balearic Islands; spearmen from Nubia and Egypt, and other non-Roman formations *most Romans in the legions tended to be infantry*) became Roman citizens when their terms of service were ended.) Also, in the Roman world, slavery was not necessarily a life sentence. Household slaves often became freedmen, as did successful gladiators. Many even moved up to become wealthy men and women in their own right, and even accorded the status of Roman citizen.

There was also slavery in the Judaic and early Christian world (from the time of Avram *Abraham* to the 2nd Century AD); here, too, there wasn't a definitive racial or ethnic element to it. It was simply a person's misfortune to have been born or made a slave. In fact, as the Roman Empire waned in the West and the Eastern Roman empire became known as the Byzantine empire, slavery died off somewhat in the West. Part of it was that the economy had become such that holding and maintaining slaves to do the work was impossible, and part due to an emerging ethos among Christians that men should not be enslaved. 

Enter Mohammedanism; enter Mohammed. The Quran, Sira, and Hadiths are replete with the doings of the "prophet" Mohammed. They tell how Mohammed, after his teachings were rejected by the Meccans, left Mecca, went to Yathrib (today's Medina) and began to attack Meccan caravans, loot Jewish tribes, and enslave those captured in raids. There are passages in which Mohammed manumits a slave or two when they  become followers of his personality cult cum political ideology posing as a "religion;" however, by and large, Mohammed funds his new "religion" by raiding caravans and trading slaves. 

Also, Mohammed is very often quoted as speaking entirely derogatorily of Black people. He calls blacks "raisin heads," among other epithets. Further, his followers have enslaved many millions more Africans than did all the "Westerners" from the time of the Romans to the ending of Slavery in Brazil in the 1880s. Yet, the Americas, to where there were fewer Africans taken over a 360-year period stretching from around 1450 to 1810 than the tens of millions of Africans marched off to the Mohammedan world over 1400 years, has a greater proportion of its population descended from said Africans than does the Mohammedan world, and in far and away a better economic and health condition. Though the Christian West is not guiltless in the slave trade and the enslavement of Africans, the Christian and Post-Christian West HAS struggled mightily to overcome the racialist legacy of such. No such self-searching occurs in the Mohammedan world; in fact, the Arabic word for "black" and the Arabic word for "slave" are one and the same.

The Europeans who brought enslaved Africans to the Americas did not castrate the men, nor did they actually do much raping of women, Oh, some rape of the enslaved African women DID occur, but by and large it was not standard practice. This is not true in the Mohammedan world. Most of the enslaved African men were castrated so that they could NOT reproduce, or so they could be sold to serve in the women's quarters of palaces as eunuch guards. Most of those castrated did NOT survive the march to the slave markets. The women were often raped by the Arab slavers, and repeatedly. Those women who did survive were used as sex slaves or for household duties. The difference in the general treatment of the enslaved Africans by "Christian" Europeans vis-a-vis Mohammedan Arabs and Persians is most visibly seen in the proportions of population that the descendants of the enslaved make up of the Americas vis-a-vis Mohammedan world.

In addition, the Europeans got into the "Slavery" game rather late, and got out of it sooner. In fact, in the West, the idea of Slavery had always had both proponents and detractors. Many in the West came to see it as an institution that ran counter to the Judaeo-Christian ethos. This is particularly so among the Protestants of Britain and their American colonies, thirteen of which would become the original Thirteen of a new republic named The United States Of America. The concern about Slavery and whether it should continue unhindered, be gradually phased out, or ended "cold turkey" shows up from the very first. In the drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had even added a direct reference to the enslavement of Africans as a crime of which the British Crown were guilty. However, it was removed in order to get the Southern colonies (South Carolina and Georgia, in particular) to agree to the Declaration. The failure to directly oppose Slavery engendered the British wit *and inveterate opponent of slavery*, Dr. Samuel Johnson, to comment wryly and derogatorily on it.

Further, as the United States Constitution was being written and hammered out, there was written in a "sunset clause" on the importation of slaves. It was to be ended by 1808, a year after the British Parliament had set for the slave trade an end year of 1807. Also, the notorious "Three-Fifths" compromise, which many have interpreted to mean that the Founders saw Blacks and American Indians as being worth only 3/5 of a human being, was actually put forth because the Southern states wanted their entire population (many to most of whom consisted of enslaved Africans, and American Indians) to count for representation in Congress, but without their actually being free and able to vote. The Northern and Middle States objected, and felt that only free persons should be counted for representational purposes in Congress. The idea behind the compromise was that 3/5 of the enslaved black populations and of the Indians would be allowed to count for representation. Try as they might, the Founders could not see a way clear to bringing to its death an institution that most of them understood ran counter to their belief in Liberty. The end came as a result of Civil War, but even this is a testament to the Western ethos of personal liberty in that war would be fought to bring it about. This is something not seen in the Mohammedan world ethos.


Thus, when the "race card" players and Mohammedan apologists claim that Mohammedanism (Islam) is a good thing, and the "natural" religion for black people, understand that they are either woefully ill-informed or outright LYING! The worst thing that could happen to a people once enslaved *a people who fought to be free to choose how they will get on with living* is to willingly acquiesce to be enslaved once more; or to NOT fight those who would re-enslave them to the death. If you do not agree, look at Nigeria; see Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Mali, and a host of other black African nations on the borders of the Mohammedan world. In Mauretania, 20% of the population (all Black) are enslaved by their Arab Mohammedan "compatriots." Sudan is now divided into Sudan and South Sudan because blacks in Sudan were subjected to rape, enslavement, castration and murder for so long by the Arab Mohammedans in the north that they rebelled and fought for nigh-on twenty YEARS, and gained an independent nation only a few years ago. Already, that new nation has had to fight off incursions by the Arab Mohammedans. Mohammedanism IS the most virulent form of hatred the world has ever seen; and its hatred of Black people is second ONLY to its hatred of Jews. *if you ask me, being hated by Mohammedanism puts us Black folks in good company, as it also hates Jews, Christians, and former Mohammedans who got sensible and got out of it.*


Many Africans know this, and if they do not already abhor, despise, and reject Mohammedanism, are very wary of its expansion. It can only hold on in Africa, indeed, anywhere on Earth where men and women think for themselves, by the sword, the gun, the bomb, and by rape.

I Am NOT a Fan of Democracy

.... yes, I said it.

I am not a fan of "Democracy." 

Before you go off calling me a Monarchist, Communist, Fascist, Theocratist, etc., walk along with me while I tell you WHY I am not a fan of Democracy.

"Democracy" comes from the Greek "demos" and "kration", meaning "people's rule." In a Democracy, the majority rules; on the face of it, this sounds like a good idea. Is it, really, though? Consider the fact that all government and political systems are operated by human beings. Humans, being what they are, are all too often fallible, vain, bullying, selfish beings. We all know this to be true, deep down, and those who say "people are basically good" ignore both the Bible and History. Both are absolutely full of the failings of human beings; this cannot be denied. The last 100 years of human history have demonstrated that human beings are not 'basically good', but that, given the opportunity and power, they will thoroughly enslave, oppress, and slaughter their fellow human beings.

O.K. We've established that. Now, considering the above established facts and truths about Humankind, think about what "Democracy" entails. It entails that a majority of the people decide what's what. This means that they also decide who's got what "freedoms" and "rights." This turns those "freedoms" and "rights" into "privileges" which can be denied to any minority group the majority decides to deny those to.  Keep in mind, however, that "majority" doesn't always entail sheer numbers. It can also denote the preponderance of power, whether military, political, economic, or social. Prime examples of this kind of "majority" is apartheid-era South Africa or Mississippi for most of its history. There, a numerical majority was denied basic "rights" and "freedoms" by the political "majority" (those with the power to legislate matters).

Of course, the most well-known type of "majority" is the numerical one.

When a numerical majority rules, that majority gets to decide not only what freedoms, rights, and rules they will have, but also what freedoms and rights the minority can have withheld from them. Of course, once that minority is either thoroughly subdued or removed, another majority tends to form, along with another minority. That new majority can do the same with that new minority as the previous majority did with the previous minority. The cycle continues until you end up with, not a "democracy," but rather, an oligarchy. That is where a few persons rule over the rest of a population. THIS is precisely the situation in MOST of the world, and we're seeing "Democracy in action" in the so-called "Arab Spring" where Mohammedans acted and then voted to install Mohammedan governments who are basing their laws on the Mohammedan "Shari'a". Those minorities who are NOT Mohammedans are now suffering under the "democratically elected" governments brought on by the so-called "Arab Spring." 

(Say what you will about the likes of Mubarak, Assad, and Qadafi, but they kept the Mohammedanist tendencies in check, and offered SOME protection to "religious" minorities *Christians, Jews, etc.,* That's all done, now, with the "Arab Spring," which should, in fact, be termed the "Spring of Islam.")

As one can now see, "Democracy" is not a great thing. In fact, it generally tends to devolve into an "Oligarchy." Of course, if various "minorities" decide they don't like their situation enough to not only politically oppose it, but take up arms, then that "Democracy" goes straight to "Anarchy." Anarchy, of course, is the state of there being NO government, to speak of. Anarchic situations tend, also, to create oligarchies, as the majority of people seek to get some stability in their life situations; and thus, will give away their "rights" and "freedoms" for a sense of security.

Also, in a Democracy, every citizen gets a direct vote on every issue facing that Democracy. Might work well for a small city-state with a limited voting population, but becomes unwieldy for anything larger, and impossible in a large land-mass nation-state with millions of people.

I've told you, now, why I am not a fan of Democracy. Does this mean I want an Oligarchical system of govenrment? Hardly.

So, let me tell you what system of government I AM a fan of.

Republicanism.

That's right, REPUBLICANISM. Republic comes from the Latin "res publica," or "things of the people (the public things)"

In a "Republican" system of government, there is a set of laws and rules which delineate the powers of the government branches; this set of basic laws and rules also delineate what freedoms and rights the populace has. These rights are, usually, guaranteed to all citizens whether they constitute a "majority" or a "minority." Everyone has the same basic rights and freedoms, and may not be deprived of such without the due process of law. This basic set of laws and rules is usually called a "Constitution," and it basic framework is developed either over time (examples of this would be the oft-spoken of "British Constitution" and that of the ancient Roman Republic) or in one swoop (primary example: The Constitution of the United States of America). Granted, the United Kingdom is officially a monarchy, but over time much of the actual lawmaking and governing has devolved onto Parliament. 

In a Republican system of government, basic freedoms and rights CANNOT be taken from any minority by any majority, nor from individual citizens except by due process of law. When a change needs to be made in a republic's constitution, there is most often a process for doing so. The people may feel the need to either expand the national government's powers based on a changed national or world situation, or to further restrict said government's powers.  This is where "amending" a constitution becomes quite handy. Constitutions are generally developed or written with a view toward allowing some changes to be made without having to hammer out a whole new constitution. This allows a changing world to be dealt with in a manner that not only allows a majority to see to making changes as they may deem wise, but also prevents said majority from simply imposing its will on a minority. Any laws a national legislature may promulgate must also meet the basic standards delineated in a republican constitution. If the national legislature's (or a state or provincial legislature, or a town or city council) promulgated laws violate the basic standards of that constitution, that law is made null and void.

Also, in a Republic, the citizens vote to send representatives to the national legislature. They also vote on the head of state, either directly or by choosing "electors" who then cast their votes (usually, but not necessarily) behind the candidate the people have chosen.

So, the basic differences between a "Democracy" and a "Republic" are:

Democracy-
1. The MAJORITY rules, and the MINORITY has to accept whatever the MAJORITY wishes to give them or keep from them. The MINORITY has no greater standing than the MAJORITY decides, and that standing can change at whim.

2. ALL voters vote on each and every issue, law, or rule put forth. Again, in a small city-state with a limited voting population, this could work, but it becomes more difficult to entirely impossible as you get larger populations and more land area.

3. Democracies, as they weed out various minority groupings, and those majorities get smaller and smaller and more different groupings of minorities form, tend to devolve into multiple factions which first create a state of anarchy, and then as people tire of the uncertainty, form into an Oligarchy.

Republic-
1. A basic set of laws and rules, called a constitution, delineate governmental powers and state the basic rights of all citizens. It also protects the basic rights of any minority that may be, right down to the individual citizen. Majorities cannot deny minorities rights and freedoms guaranteed by the national constitution, and laws that violate that constitution are nullified.

2. Voters elect individuals to represent them in a national, state/provincial/prefectural, or city/town/village legislative body. They also elect their head of state to represent them to the outside world.

3) Changes may be made to a constitution by a constitutionally prescribed process. This allows a constitution to be 'tweaked' without there being a need to hammer out an entirely new constitution every time something needs changing. Properly understood and maintained, a Republic might never devolve into a Democracy, Anarchy, or Oligarchy.

These are only a few reasons any sane person who cares about their basic rights being protected should much prefer a Republic to a Democracy. This is also why I AM a fan of Republicanism as a governmental system.

Islamophobia? Hardly!

I daresay the above picture says it all.

For years, people have had a knee-jerk reaction everytime a Mohammedan (Islamic, Muslim) person or group commits an act of war against non-Mohammedans. The reaction is, "Oh! These people are twisting Islam into something it isn't to justify their actions!" This is because we, as Americans who have been told that "Islam is a great religion," want to believe that all "religions" are the same. In fact, the Ecumenical movement folks declare that "there are may paths to God, and Islam is one of them."

Well, I don't know about you, but in my observations of the last 25 years or so, and in my study of History (with a more recent focus on the history of Mohammedanism (Islam) vis-a-vis the rest of the world) over the years, both in and out of schools, I've noticed something. That tale of  "all religions are the same and lead to God" ain't so. There are differences in religions. MAJOR differences, if we're honest.

I don't claim to be an expert on Theology and the like; however, I AM literate, have some degree of intelligence, and can actually THINK for myself. The very NAME of this blog should tell you THAT, whether you agree with what's written here or not. Using the intelligence God gave me, and the literacy skills I learned from grade school on up, I can see that, of all the "religions" that exist or have existed, only ONE tells its adherents to "slay the infidel wherever you find him," or "we are to fight you until you worship Allah alone *oops, I wasn't supposed to reveal the "religion". Oh, right. I've already done that.*. Let's go down the list, shall we?

Um, any of this in the Vedas of Hinduism? Nope, not there.

How about Buddhism? Did Siddhartha Gautama, also known as the Buddha, say anything like this? Um, can't find it in any Buddhist text that may be extant.

What about Animism and Shamanism, as currently or formerly practiced among the indigenous peoples of North America or in parts of sub-Saharan Africa? Considering most of those don't even have texts, probably NOT.

Let's take a look at Judaism? *looks in the "Old Testament of the Bible* Oh, wait, there is something here about removing the Canaanites from the land promised to Avram, Yitzhak, Yachov, and their progeny. I suppose that could be used to justify warfare and violence. Oh, wait. That was for a specific time, in a specific area, and a specific group of people whose practices included human sacrifice (including throwing babies into roaring fires). Oh, yeah, and the time for those actions was limited to a couple generations and then only for a specified amount of land. After that, they could defend the land. They even expanded under their second king, David. However, I don't think that the Israelites, at that point, did any removal of peoples. They put them under their suzerainty, yes. Oh, yeah. They had some laws. Apparently, ONE set of laws that EVERYONE had to follow. Still, I don't see anything about "slaying infidels" or forcing everyone to believe as they do. Guess we can rule out Judaism.

Let's take a look at Christianity, shall we? O.K., what two main themes does Yeshua (Jesus, Iesus, Iesuos, Gesu, Ya'sua) speak on? *looks in the "New Testament" of the Bible* Oh, well, look here! "You are to love the Lord, Yahweh, with all your heart, all your mind, and all your strength," and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Hmm, that sounds awfully nice. Seems entirely different from "slay the infidel" and "fight until none but Allah is worshipped." *looks further* Hmm... it seems that Yeshua isn't ENTIRELY sweetness and light. Apparently, that last book shows Him having had enough, running out of patience, and wreaking havok on the unbelievers and what not. Oh, wait. Apparently, He's still giving people a chance to choose Him, even in the midst of all this. It seems someone else is killing those who do choose Him. Ah... so THAT'S why He descends and unleashes hell on his enemies.  Hm... still, I don't see any call for people to kill other people on His behalf. Oh, and it seems He's coming to rescue... What? According to this, He's coming to rescue Jews, along with others who are still around and believe in Him.  Not seeing any calls, even in that last book of the Bible, for people to go around killing others because they refuse to believe.

Well, I think I've hit all the major "religions." Oh, you say I forgot about Islam.

No, I didn't forget. I just wanted to address an argument some bring up about the "Crusades" and the "Christians" being somehow involved in those. Can't leave that be. Gotta address that.

If my readings and my recollections are correct, the Christian faith had spread itself over three or four centuries over the entirety of that little empire that was around back then called the Roman Empire. I seem to remember that they didn't do it by fighting and killing non-Christians. In fact, it seems the Roman government went about killing THEM from time to time. Still, by the beginning of the 5th Century, Christianity was pretty much found everywhere in what were, or had been Roman lands. Even beyond, apparently. So, why did these Christians have these "Crusades," anyway?

Oh, right. Sometime, starting from the early 7th Century, some Arabian con-man named Mohammed took some of his native paganism, twisted some stories from the Bible, and borrowed some from the Talmud (which, by the way, is not Scripture, but more akin to the Apocrypha in Christian literature). He called this concoction "Islam." Apparently, however, his fellow Arabians didn't buy it when the tried to preach it. So, he went off to another town and began attacking caravans from his hometown to fun his new "religion." He eventually bludgeoned, robbed, murdered, raped, and pillaged his way to rule over Arabia, and then decided that the rest of the world needed his "religion."

Of course, he knew it was too incoherent, too nonsensical, too mean-spirited, and too, well, just plain evil, for anyone to choose to follow it. So, he decided to lead raids and wars to force people to follow this. His successors fought, pillaged, raped, slaughtered their way into taking over Persia, Mesopotamia, Iudaea, much of Anatolia, Egypt, Libya, Cyrenaica, Carthage, parts of Numidia, Berber lands and up into Hispania and Lusitania. All this by conquest, NOT by conversion through the word. Well, I can see why the Christians (by this time, mostly Roman Catholics in the West, and Orthodox in the East of the old Roman Empire) might be a bit upset.  After all, you can only take so much of someone beating on you before you have to strike back. 

Well, apparently, they decided early to push these invaders, who called themselves "Muslims" back from the southern part of what is now France and try to drive them off the Iberian Peninsula. Took 'em 700 years, but they did finally succeed. While this is going on, them "Muslims" are pressing their attacks further into Anatolia and east into India and Central Asia. Finally, some folks stopped their advance into China and India, and I've already mentioned Iberia. Unfortunately, them Eastern Romans were having a harder time. It got so bad, that they called on their cousins in the West to help them out. So, that means that the "Crusades" were a belated attempt to stop the Muslims from pressing on to try and conquer the rest of the world.

O.K. Enough of that. Let's take a look.. hm... what's that? *turns to the side to hear someone in the audience* You say I don't need to continue this? You've figured out what "religion" tells people to "slay the infidel," and "fight until only Allah is worshipped," you say? Well, very good.

O.K. Now that we've seen that it is Islam that does that, what about CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and their contention about this thing called "Islamophobia?" Well, in a nutshell, a "phobia" is an irrational fear of something. Considering the 1400 year history of Islam and the fact that nearly all the world's terrorists are followers of Islam, I think it's safe to say that a "fear" of Islam is NOT irrational.

Here endeth the lesson.

Monday's Random Thoughts

Hello, fellow Vast Right-Wing Negrocon Zionist Conspirators!

Today, I am writing simply out of boredom. Or is it? Anyway, I'm sending out random thoughts in this post, so anything might come out of my head, through my fingertips, and onto the pages of this blog.

The sun is setting now, and it's been about a week since the rest of the household headed for North Carolina to check out houses and such, leaving ME with Gabby, the house cat. Now, I'm rather allergic to cats, and am not particularly fond of them. However, I have, of late, seemed to going out of my way to give her treats and make sure she's all right. I'd still rather have a dog, though; however, I have to ask myself, "are you becoming a cat lover, or are you just getting old?" Who knows? I don't even know if it is a question I should be asking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

O.K. What's next...?

Seems that the flow of thoughts has suddenly, and inexplicably, stopped. Perhaps I'm out of thoughts to expound upon. More likely, though, is that they've all snarled in a huge multi-thought pile-up on the freeway of my mind. If that is the case, then I suppose I'd better... oh, wait. They're starting to move again; and I suppose it wasn't a pile-up, after all. Some officious thought-monitor decided to put a HUGE red light up in the middle of the road. (I did warn you all that this was going to be a rather random posting!)

Thinking back 20 years, it was a Sunday Morning in April 1993 when I opened the newspaper and, out of some strange curiosity, I turned to the Obituary pages. I saw the name of a friend of mine from school there, along with his picture. I can tell you it was an awful shock, particularly since I had been thinking, earlier that weekend, "I should call Paul up and see what he's been up to." The next few days were somewhat difficult, as I hadn't seen him or his parents in a couple of years. I attended the wake, and seeing him there, I was reminded that none of us is guaranteed a "tomorrow." I grieved with his parents, other friends from school I hadn't seen in a few years, and was quite unsure I could go through the attendance of his burial the following day. I did, though, as he was a good friend of mine, and it's only right that you see your friends off on their final journey. Since then, I've had several other friends of mine pass from here, and every time, I remember the good times, and remember how brief, how uncertain, how precious each life is for those who share in it.
Yes, it's been 20 years, Paul Loveland, but I still think about you, from time to time. Rest in Peace, always.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hm... it seems the thought stream has dried up for now...

That's the end of my random ramblings *or maybe not so random* posting for today. Peace, Love and Fried Chicken (NON-Halal Fried Chicken)!

Well, what do you know....

Well, what do you know...

A couple of days ago, I gave my thoughts on the Boston Marathon bombings and who I thought was responsible. It seems that I was right.

I turned on CBS earlier today, hoping to catch at least a part of "The Price Is Right;" instead, CBS This Morning was still running. The story was about the Boston Marathon bombing suspects. Now, I grant that I don't watch the news much, being disgusted with the way they always seem to slant against anyone who is to the right of, say, basic Socialism (that includes anyone from classical Liberals *not the phoney-baloney "liberals" of today who are, in fact, at the very least, Fascist (which is on the right wing of Socialism, still left of center), and at most, Communists* to true Anarchists *true Anarchists believe in NO government control at all over anything*), but to see that they were telling us that the suspects were Chechens (all of whom, in fact, are Mohammedans) told me two things. First, that I was right in thinking Mohammedanism (islam) was at the root of the issue. Second, that someone, somewhere, in the world of Media, realized that nobody  (other than a far-left dhimmi) was going to buy the "right-winger terrorist" angle.

So, why is it, after nine of mostly prevented  Mohammedan attacks on American soil, that now we have had the Fort Hood Massacre, this Boston Marathon bombing, and perhaps the explosion in Texas, being perpetrated by Mohammedans? Well, I can think of two or three reasons:

1) The US has, since the first Inauguration of "President" Obama, been steadily weakening the image of the United States as a nation willing to hand out S.A.W.s* to those who attack the Republic. By going to the Mohammedan world and basically apologizing for our being unwilling to kowtow to their backward, twisted ideology which is a bastardization of 7th Century Arabian culture perpetrated by a demon-possessed madman whose comtemporaries thought him evil, Obama has, perhaps, single-handedly weakened the position of the United States in the world.

2) Supporting the so-called "Arab Spring" which toppled secular-minded dictators in favor of "democratic" reforms in the Mohammedan world (I'll address "Democracy" and what it REALLY is all about in another posting); the which, in fact, has brought Mohammedan governmental structures to rule over those nations. With the fall of Mubarak and Qadafi, both of whom, I grant, were no paragons of virtue, the leashing and suppressing of Mohammedan tendencies has ended in places like Egypt and Libya. We've seen the results of the fall of Qadafi in Libya in the arming of Mohammedan jihadi groups, which then proceeded to take the northern half of Mali from its legal (though military) government. They wanted to take the whole of the country to spread their jihad and Mohammedan racism further, but the Malian government, backed by French troops, has made inroads in taking back much of what was lost.

3) Benghazi. The attack by Mohammedans on the "US Embassy" in Benghazi, and the non-action to either defend, evacuate, or avenge by the Obama administration has given the Mohammedans further "proof" that the United States, and its leadership, is weak and ripe for destroying. 

So, the Mohammedans are stepping up their jihad. They figure if they can either overrun or destroy the United States (the "Great Satan**", as Mohammendans like to call us Americans), then their path to world conquest will be smoothed. So long as Obama and his advisors continue to try to be conciliatory toward the Mohammedan world, the Mohammedans will continue to believe they will win easily. This will simply embolden them to continue their path of jihad, terrorism, and brutality.

What to do about that? First, We the People MUST tell the "leadership" that if they do NOT defend the Constitution and the Republic, then they need to get out of office and out of the way. Until we make it known that we will not tolerate this situation, they will continue to go blithely through their lives as if there isn't a problem. Second, every law-abiding citizen who values their rights and freedoms should look into taking firearms courses, even if they don't intend to ever OWN a firearm; further, we must let the government know that we DO NOT approve of the disarming of the citizenry. Third, we must be ever vigilant against the rise of Mohammedanism in this United States; Mohammedanism is NOT a "religion." It is a racist, misogynist, anti-Christian, anti-Judaic political ideology wrapped up in a personality cult. 

It is only when enough of us learn the truth that our forebears knew about Mohammedanism (Yes, President Thomas Jefferson owned a Quran, but that was so that he would know what the new Republic was up against when fighting the "Barbary Pirates" in the early 19th Century) that we can truly begin to fight it and defeat it; by bringing those trapped in Mohammedanism's darkness out of it if they want to break away, we will weaken its death grip on the minds of its captives. Those who know their Mohammedanism and want to expand it, well, there isn't much else to do with them but to render them impotent (by killing them, if need be.)

That's all I have to say for now...

*- Severe Ass-Whoopin
**- Satan comes from the Hebrew for "adversary." The United States is perceived by Mohammedans as being a nation of Atheists, Polytheists, Christians and Jews, and thus, Mohammedanism's adversary. So, when a Mohammedan calls you a "satan," stand up and declare that you DO oppose Mohammedanism in all its forms.

The Boston Marathon Bombings and MY Thoughts on Who Did It

The Boston Marathon Bombing and MY Thoughts on Who Did It

Hello, Fellow Right Wing Negrocon Zionist Co-Conspirators!  Yes, it has been several years since I have posted here. Got distracted by Real Life and other things.

Anyhow, I wish to address the Boston Marathon bombings. First, I wish to say that my heart goes out to the victims of the terrorist attack. I hope and pray that the wounded recover as fully as possible, and condole with those who have lost loved ones in the attack.

Over the last couple of days, I've seen reports that the Boston Police "have a suspect," then that they don't have a suspect, but a "person of interest," and then that they've let said person go. First they said that said person was a Saudi Arabian national (according to some sources), and then that they have NO leads at all. Maybe I'm just a bit jaded about that, but it seems to me that someone, somewhere, is trying to hide some shit. God knows that we're still getting NO info on the Benghazi attacks on US diplomats; it isn't as if they don't have any info on what went down there, or on how it went down. Now, this rigamarole with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation.

Now, I'm going to admit to you all that I don't like Barack Obama. I never have: I didn't vote for him in either election, and I firmly believe he is, either through incompetence or willful malevolence, trying to destroy this Republic of ours. I've got that out of the way, now. So, let's take a look at what we do know about the attack.

1) Two bombs were set off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.

2) Three are confirmed dead (last I heard) and more than 180 injured to varying degrees of severity.

3) The blast radius and kind of damage done to the victims indicates a shrapnel IED (Improvised Explosive Device) using ball bearings and other kinds of debris shrapnel. In other words, a bomb designed to do maximum damage to human beings in close group.

Now, let us look: WHO, historically, has used this kind of device against people? Mohammedan "militants" in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world. In fact, it is widely known that these are the kinds of devices groups like al-Qaida prefer to use. They can do lots of personal and personnel damage for minimal price. Also, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) seems to have already asked people to not jump to the conclusion that "Muslims" were involved. Come to think of it, that's the same argument "President" Obama has cautioned us with.

All of this leads ME to believe, "Yes, Mohammedans (Muslims) are responsible for this..."

While I'm on the subject: Have any of you noticed that, since the 2009 Inauguration of Barack Obama, there have been many fewer stories about Mohammedan activity against Jews and Africans in the MSM (MainStream Media)? Why is that? During the supposedly "racist" Bush Administration, one could easily find stories about Arab Mohammedan atrocities against non-Mohammedan Africans in Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria, et al.; with Obama in office, we don't hear too much about those places. Even the Mohammedan insurgency in Mali didn't get a lot of press until France intervened on the side of the Malian military government against the insurgents, and then one has to go to European news sources to find out what's going on.

O.K. Here's what I have deduced from what we know:

1) This kind of attack on a mass of people is almost always perpetrated by Mohammedans following the tenets of Mohammedanism (Islam).

2) The MSM will try to spin it into a "right wing extremist" attack, when, in fact, nearly all such attacks by "right-wingers" are targeted at specific persons, not random groups. Most often, the so-called "right-wingers" are only "right-wingers" vis-a-vis Communists (they may be Fascists, National Socialists, or just plain Socialists, but they're still LEFT-OF-CENTER, and usually rather farther left than the MSM wants you to believe).

3) When it comes out that this was perpetrated by Mohammedans, the MSM and the Obama Administration will try to either hush it up or try to claim that the bombers were 'radicals.' (anyone who's actually read, or tried to read, the Qur'an, will know that such violence is part and parcel of Mohammedanism, and those who perpetrate it are actually following what the "prophet" Mohammed did and commanded)

4) Most Americans will swallow it, either in part, or in whole, and try to not be "racist" by doing so. Fact is, there is no such thing as a "Muslim," "Mohammedan," or "Islamic" "race" (unless, of course, you consider the fact that all Mohammedans are truly bound to twist themselves into wannabe Arabs, and that Arab Mohammedans are, in fact, considered by the Mohammedan writings to be better than all others *now THAT is a truly racist ideology*).

Give it some thought... you may agree or disagree. THAT is your right as a human being of Free Will, and as an American *if you happen to be an American*.  Have a great day! :)

Away Too Long

Greetings! This is D S Dunlap coming back to you here. I've been away from this blog for a number of years, and quite frankly, I'm rather surprised that it's still here. Life hasn't been quite so wonderful in the interim years, but that's the way Life goes, sometimes.

At any rate, I'm back and will start posting new commentary on various thing soon. In my next couple of commentaries I intend to comment upon large issues such as:

The 2012 Election
Islam
The 2012 Summer Olympics

Also, I will post personal observations more mundane topics, and even stuff that really only concerns me and some of those close to me. So, here I am again. If you enjoy my comments, wonderful. If I offend, well, that's Life.

Have a wonderful day, everyone!

Mr Little and Ms Sille Rant

Okay...





What is with people? They plot and scheme, spreading false information to people with trust and control issues. These people (the ones with the aforementioned issues) then go off half-cocked with half-baked threats. Well, it is time for me to address said persons. I will refer to them as Mr. Little and Ms. Sille.



To Mr. Little:



I have seen your ways. I know your heart. Do not think that I cannot discern your motivations. It is ONE thing to wish for things, but quite another thing to seek to steal them from others. As it appears that you cannot win these things on the strength of your own merits (you have none), I will say this: Just because YOU haven't been blessed with enough stature, charm, or intelligence to achieve your desire does NOT mean that you will necessarily be overlooked. Too often your mouth has written checks your behind cannot cash, only to be rescued by others. This time, however, that credit may prove insufficient.



Further, if you think you are going to get what you want, you have another think coming. It is no one's fault that you have a dinky mind (among other dinky parts, I've been told), so understand this: Disingenuousness, lies, and schemes will only get you damaged. Quit now, while you can still remain intact.



Now, Ms. Sille:



Three things: 1) Where do you get off ranting and raving about calling up ex-boyfriends and all that mess? You fly off the handle because of what someone told you (falsely, I must add) that I said? You have a brain inside that skull of yours, I assume. USE IT! Think about this for a bit: How is someone going to say something if they are sound asleep? Does that make sense? I understand that you have trust issues, but DO NOT go using them against ME! I will not put up with it; nor will I continue to put up with what is fast becoming a control issue.



2) You have, also, a very nasty habit of being somewhat disrespectful. I have, up to now, been willing to forgive and forget. That is quickly ending. I am too old to put up with that kind of crap; also, I have been through this kind of thing before. It is not pleasant, nor is it tolerable for long. Thus, you can either cut that crap out, or you can be dropped. I am not into drama, nor am I into drama queens. You and I will sit down and converse like adults, or I will simply depart.

3) I also hear that you have been flirting and aiming to get with other men. I will say that I do not quite believe that, but know this: There are people who will tell me what they observe, and if enough of these reports come to me, there will be actions to be taken. I will have to look into them further and possibly conclude from what evidence there is what precisely is happening. Others may wish to ignore things, but I cannot.


In closing, I have a final sentence or two for the principals addressed here:

For Mr. Little: End your plots and schemes, or risk the annihilation of your ego, at the very least. You're a little troll, and little trolls get smashed.

For Ms. Sille: Two words-- Grow Up.


That is all.

Excerpt #4

Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, it has been a while since I have gotten 'round to putting anything up, but I am now finally back to work on this story of mine. Some of you may have already seen excerpts from the story... well, here is #4.


Philippine Sea
24 June 2010 0500 HRS


The surface of the water is placid. Upon it, nine transports steam north toward Japan, loaded with Islamofascist troops and weapons. The ships glide to deliver reinforcements to Nagasaki on an uneventful passage. Sure of victory, the men on board often go topside to breath the warm sea air as they make their way to war.

Three hundred feet below, a lone submarine tracks the fleet in silence. In this self-contained environment there are twenty-one officers and one-hundred enlisted men. Among them is a single woman. Commander Ariel Three Wolves monitors the control panel as two others guide the ship through the depths. At forty-six, she is comfortably svelte; a testament to her disciplined eating and exercise habits. In fact, she could pass for a woman half her age if not for the streaks of gray in her hair.

Standing up, she begins to head for the galley. As she arrives at the door, a young Ensign gets her attention. “Commander, we’ve identified nine transports; Heading 036; Speed 20KTS. No apparent escorting vessels.”

“Identify origin, Ensign,” CDR Three Wolves orders.

As the young junior officer contacts an overhead satellite, CDR Three Wolves orders General Quarters. Trays of food are abandoned and cooking and warming appliances are shut down as the crew scrambles to their stations. Moments later, the young Ensign gets the satellite report.

“Commander, ships identified as enemy transports,” he informs her. “No escorting vessels.”
“Ensign, contact Pearl Harbor and see if Intelligence has any report on ships leaving Davao or Manila.”
“Aye-aye, Commander.”

Over the next several minutes, Ensign Steven Appler sends and receives coded messages. The report from Hawaii informs the man that three destroyers, two cruisers and the IFS (Islamic Fleet Ship) Al-Basrah left Manila two days before and that the two fleets were expected to meet up in about two hours from the present time. The nearest Allied fleet was still more than a day out from Nagasaki, and was expected to engage the Islamofascist flotilla near Okinawa.

“Commander, do we attack?” ENS Appler asks.
“With an Islamofascist battle flotilla approaching?” she replies with a somewhat mischievous grin. “Of course we do.”
“That,” he says with an evil grin, “is what I thought.”

With that, ENS Appler was ordered to bring the sub to 80 feet. While that was being done, CDR Three Wolves orders the torpedo room to load the four forward tubes with the new MK-50 multiple-warhead torpedoes. She is preparing to not only destroy the transports, but also to inflict serious damage on the coming enemy battle flotilla. If all goes well, the fifteen Islamofascist ships will soon join previous enemies of the United States at the bottom of the Philippine Sea.

Several minutes pass as the USS Anchorage programs the warhead on the torpedoes with the coordinates of the transports. Once the torpedoes are launched, their onboard computers will continuously communicate with the overhead satellite to stay on track with the enemy ships, using the programmed coordinates as a marker.

Finally, all is ready. The nine transports continue to steam north-northeast as the USS Anchorage follows behind. The men on the transports are oblivious to the death to be brought to them by fire and water. They continue to talk about all the plunder and pillaging they expect to do when they take Nagasaki. In the holds of four of the transports sit twenty BT-71 tanks, hundreds of rounds of tank ammo, and millions of rounds of small arms and machine-gun ammunition. One transport even carries enough vehicle fuel for ten days of combat.

In the submarine, CDR Three Wolves uses the periscope screen to observe the transport fleet. Determining that they are within range, she gives the order. “Forward torpedo room: Fire all tubes!”

In seconds, four MK-50 torpedoes leave the ship, racing toward the enemy fleet. At one-half mile away from the nearest of the enemy transports, the torpedoes break open and six warheads from each torpedo make their way toward the eleven ships. As they run toward the unsuspecting transports, the crew sits with bated breath. It is several more seconds before the first of the now twenty-four smaller torpedoes finds its target.

Down in the middle cargo hold of the center ship, an Islamic Imperial Army guard looks over a box of rocket-propelled grenades. This shipment should seal Nagasaki’s fate, the man thinks as the ship shudders and then explodes in a huge ball of fire. The ammunition goes off in wild abandon as the fire expands through the ship’s bulkheads, setting off more ammunition.

The lead transport’s captain turns suddenly as the noise of the explosion on the center ship reaches his ears. “Ya’allah!” he exclaims as the afflicted ship disappears into smoke and flame. In the next minute, another ship explodes, casting heads, arms, legs, and even whole bodies of men into the air and onto the water. As the captain watches the convoy, ship after ship explodes in great balls of fire, ensuring that much of what is to be brought to Nagasaki finds itself, instead, moving toward the bottom of the Philippine Sea.

Deep below the surface, the crew of the USS Anchorage cheers as the reports of the hits is received aboard that deep-sea denizen of death. CDR Three Wolves smiles quietly as she realizes that she has already sent the greater part of the Islamofascist supply flotilla to Davy Jones’ Locker. She knows, however, that their day isn’t over, nor that it can be counted a success. The escort vessels are on their way to meet with the transports, and she is certain that they are close enough to have seen at least the smoke, if not the fireballs themselves.

On the horizon there approaches an Islamofascist battle flotilla. The IFS Al-Basra’s admiral looks northeast and sees smoke coming up over the horizon. We are closer than we thought, he muses as he watches the rising smoke. Seconds later, his communications officer gets an urgent coded message, and runs up to him. “Admiral, this has just come to us from the convoy!” the officer exclaims.

Taking the paper with the message on it, he recoils in shock and horror. “Impossible!” he shouts incredulously. “Intelligence told us that the nearest enemy fleet was still a day and a half out from Nagasaki! We shouldn’t have encountered them until at least another two days from now.”

“Submarine?” the Communications officer inquires.
“It could only be. Captain, give orders to all pilots to standby for anti-sub operations,” the Admiral orders.
“Yes, sir!” the carrier captain responds.

As pilots rush to ready rooms and the entire battle flotilla prepares for action, the Admiral considers his next move. He knows that there is a good chance that the attacking enemy submarine is already making way for Tokyo, Honolulu, or Vladivostok. It is also possible that they are heading in our direction, not knowing that we are ready for them, is another thought that enters his head. It is now a game of cat and mouse. Will the offending raider strike for Tokyo and a Japanese Carrier Battle Group; to Honolulu and Pearl Harbor; or will he head for Vladivostok and relative safety.

With mind racing over the possibilities, he sees yet another cloud of smoke drifting over the horizon. Just after that, a fireball goes up looking like a mushroom. There can be no mistaking, now. It is a submarine that is causing such havoc. The Islamofascist Admiral orders all aircraft launched in the direction of the now devastated supply fleet. As the planes take off, the Admiral cannot help but wonder if it is already too late to save any of the ships being attacked.

Back at the USS Anchorage, CDR Three Wolves and Ensign Appler wonder if it wouldn’t be wiser to high-tail it on out before the now fast-approaching aircraft reach their location. As they consider their options, yet another Islamofascist supply ship goes up in flames. Seven of the ships are already descending into the sea, while an eighth burns vigorously. The remaining enemy transport begins to run, but is soon cracked open by two of the smaller torpedoes. Overhead, as Islamofascist pilots approach, there comes yet another piece of disturbing news for the Islamofascists. As two of the lead aircraft enter the area of the transport fleet, two AMRAM-4 missiles slam into them. As the other aircraft turn and head back to their own carrier, three escorting Shawabbi naval fighters break off to engage the oncoming Japanese-marked F/A-18s.

Using the ensuing air battle as cover, CDR Three Wolves and the crew of the USS Anchorage prepare to engage the oncoming Islamofascist battle flotilla. “Lieutenant! Set course heading 334. We’re gonna get ourselves a carrier,” she grimly orders.

“Aye-aye, Commander,” the Lieutenant answers.

The submarine silently glides in the direction of the oncoming enemy battle flotilla. There is now no turning back, as the crew well knows. CDR Three Wolves gives instructions for the forward torpedo room to load two MK-50s and two SK-10 missiles into the tubes. Now less than 40 miles separate the USS Anchorage from the Islamofascist battle flotilla. In the torpedo room two Ensigns program the SK-10s with what is already known about the IFS Al-Basrah. The MK-50s are given the coordinates of the enemy fleet and kept on standby. The SK-10s, however, can be launched from a range of nearly 75 miles away from the given target. This will be the first time the new missiles are used in combat.

“Commander, enemy battle fleet is 35 miles out from us. Do we attack?” Ensign Appler asks.
“Ensign, launch tubes one and three,” she orders.
“One and Three away,” he informs her.

The two SK-10s streak out of the submarine and travel out ten miles before the heads tilt upward. The bottom part separates as the solid-fuel rocket engines propel the missiles out of the water. Once in the air, the two missiles streak upward to an altitude of 20,000 feet. They seek out their target and locate it about six miles out. For another two miles the missiles fly, and then their engine guidance systems turn the missiles shipward. Hurtling down more than 600 miles an hour the two destroying angels head for the IFS Al-Basrah. The ships ringing the carrier open fire with all guns blazing. None of them, however, are able to find their targets until one lucky shot from the IFS Al-Basrah destroys one of the missiles.

It is a futile win, however. The surviving missile bursts open, and four smaller warheads arc along the length of the carrier. At 500 feet, their guidance systems cause each warhead to streak toward a different part of the ship. The last thing the fueling and ordnance crews see is a flash of light as the first warhead slams through the hangar door and into the hangar deck.

Damage control crews race for the afflicted area when the other three warheads strike. One destroys the engine room; a second slams into the base of the carrier’s command island; the third crashes through an elevator and lodges itself in the ammunition room. This last warhead sits idly as an explosives removal crew approach. They don’t hear anything, and assume the warhead is inert. Reassured that it is a dud, the removal crew sets to preparing the warhead for disposal. Seconds later, that final warhead detonates. All five men are thrown into the wall and imprint themselves in the metal. That imprint doesn’t last long, however, as the ammunition is set off, turning the IFS Al-Basrah into a complete ruin.

Back at the now destroyed transport fleet, the last of the Shawabbi fighters is downed, leaving the fleeing anti-sub aircraft without a defense. Nor, as they soon learn, do they have a place to land. The most senior remaining officer tells his fellows that they must find and destroy the enemy submarine if it is the last thing they do. Every one of them agrees and begins their sub-hunting. Little do they know, however, that the USS Anchorage has descended to a depth of 1000 feet and is now getting into the midst of their now carrier-less battle flotilla.

As the Islamofascists search futilely for their hidden enemy, CDR Three Wolves decides that she has done enough damage for one day and orders the crew to head for Honolulu. The USS Anchorage continues undersea for another twenty-four hours before surfacing again near Iwo Jima. From there, CDR Three Wolves send a coded message back to Pearl Harbor, requesting return to Hawaii and a rest for her crew, who have been at sea for seven months now. Permission to return for refit and rest comes back in yet another coded message.


One week later, the USS Anchorage enters the port of Honolulu and the United States 1st Fleet/Pacific Command Base at Pearl Harbor. Standing on deck, all crew members not directly involved with steering the submarine to its mooring await orders and permission to go ashore. Many, including CDR Three Wolves, have not seen their families in over a year. For some of their family members, it has been a long, yet endurable separation. For others, the time apart from their family members aboard the USS Anchorage have been at least half of, if not their entire, lifetimes. ENS Appler is himself a new father to fraternal twins who have never actually seen their father in person. CDR Three Wolves has two grandsons she has never seen, and a husband who himself has only recently returned from blockade duty in the Caribbean.

However, joyous reunions are delayed when FADM George Hallsten boards the USS Anchorage. He receives the salute of CDR Three Wolves on behalf of the crew and begins to speak.

“Commander, welcome home! Commander Three Wolves, it is my pleasure to award the crew of the USS Anchorage with the Distinguished Service Medal for the action on 24 June 2010 in the Philippine Sea. During this action, you and your crew were not only responsible for preventing reinforcement and re-supply from reaching the enemy invading Japan, but destroyed the IFS Al-Basra, one of the enemy’s newest carriers, using an unproven weapons system.
“In addition, during your seven-month patrol in dangerous enemy water, your submarine accounted for twenty-eight enemy transports, six enemy destroyers, four enemy cruisers and one enemy aircraft carrier. The intelligence information gathered has also been instrumental in the defense by our troops and those of our allies of the city of Hue in Vietnam and of Nagasaki in Japan. On behalf of a grateful nation, I, Fleet Admiral George Hallsten, award you, Commander Ariel Three Wolves, and the crew of the USS Anchorage, with the Distinguished Service Medal.”

Finishing the speech, he takes the medal and pins it on the chest of CDR Three Wolves. He also hands her the velvet box with the uniform ribbon, and then salutes her. He then steps back past the gangplank and calls out each member of the crew, from LT Edward Johns right through to ENS Steven Appler and on down to the lowest-ranking seaman on the vessel. After another hour, the ceremony is over except for one more announcement.

“Commander Ariel Three Wolves, step forward!” FADM Hallsten orders.

Commander Three Wolves approaches and halts at the prescribed distance from the Fleet Admiral. “Commander Ariel Three Wolves, you are hereby promoted to the rank of Rear Admiral, Lower Half from the rank of Commander. You will be reassigned to North Atlantic/Mediterranean Command Headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia as Undersea Operations coordinator.”

With that, he removes a star from its velvet box and pins it to the lapel of the new RADM (LH)[1]. He steps away and she salutes. With this action, the ceremonies are all ended with the exception of RADM (LH) Three Wolves giving a short farewell. When all is said and done, she bellows, “Crew, at-ten-shun! Dis-missed!”

The men on board move in a rushed order down the gangplank and toward their families. Wives and mothers, fathers and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters reunite joyfully. The chatter is boisterous and full of relief as every member of the crew has returned safely to their families. There are two very special reunions, however.

RADM (LH) Ariel Three Wolves seeks out her husband, RADM (UH)[2] Henry Three Wolves, and runs to meet him. The two embrace, and then kiss passionately. He tells her how much he missed her and how their sons are faring. Both sons are serving in the Army, one in Texas and the other at San Jose. Knowing the sons are both currently alive and well, Ariel thinks only of the coming night, when she and her husband will renew their bond.

ENS Steven Appler rushes to his wife and the two babies he has never seen in person. They are both nearly a year old. He has been away for their entire lives, and is happy to be home. His wife, Hannah, hands their son to him, and then their daughter. As he holds both of his children and looks over at his wife, he recognizes why he has been away for so long. Their faces compel him to continue the fight; to stand against an enemy who would enslave, abuse, or murder them. ENS Steven Appler, his wife Hannah, and their children Johanna and Wesley, disappear into the crowd and toward a waiting minivan. They leave the milling crowd and the submarine behind as they return to Honolulu proper to get to know each other again.

A Plan For Dealing With Illegal Immigration

As we all know, illegal immigration is a big issue in this Republic of ours. It is also becoming an international sore spot, as the Mexican government continues to provide maps and other info to assist illegals in defying U.S. Laws. Mexican officials are even going so far as to demand, that's right, demand, that we just let these folks come in and go out as they please. Well, there have been ideas on how to deal with this, and I will now present my own.

DSDunlap's Border and Illegal Immigration Plan.

1) Seal and militarize border, with designated entry points manned by United States Marines backed up by a platoon of M-1A2s at each point. At all other places, the border shall have a fence built just on the US side of the border, with razor wire strung throughout the fence and on top of it. After that fence, the entire area back from the fence for about a mile is to be MINED with anti-personnel mines at the concentration of 1 per foot. After this, a wall is to be built with guard towers every 1/4 mile. Each tower shall have two guards assigned to it, each having an arc of fire of 180 degrees. This way, those who happen to get through the minefield and over the wall can still be gunned down.

2) Round up as many illegals as can be found. Do not deport them, but rather put them to work building a vast super-prison in far northern Alaska.

3) Scrap all plans for a "guest worker" program. Instead, tell Mexican and other Latin American governments that assisting their nationals in crossing the border illegally is an act of war and will be dealt with appropriately. Follow up, if the warning is ignored, by bombing one city in each offending nation to show that we mean business.

4) Deny visas to anyone from the aforementioned Latin American nations: Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua, Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Suriname. Inform governments that all diplomatic ties will be broken if further attempts to violate U.S. Laws are supported by their governments.

5) Secretly prepare forces to seize all embassies and consulates of the aforementioned nations, to be enacted after all US diplomats in said nations are secretly removed. All documents seized are then to be thoroughly examined by the National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense and the Federal Bureau of investigation. *of course, #5 isn't diplomatically nor politically correct, but that's life.*

6) All actions of Federal, State, and Local Government, with the exception of court sentencings, are to be done STRICTLY in English. Translators will be provided for questioning and sentence announcement purposes only.

7) All money transactions from the United States to Mexico and other nations will be immediately diverted to a special fund set up strictly for those American Citizens who are willing to take jobs that the Mexican President racistically, "Not even blacks will do..."

8.) All US forces in the border states and Gulf Coast are to be on full alert at all times from here on in.

9) Any U.S. Citizen found to be aiding illegals in defying the laws of the United States is to be arrested and tried for treason. Penalties for conviction will be either 25 years hard labor or death by hanging.

10) Any foreign national, legal or illegal, who commits a violent crime or engages in robbery *robbery is the act of stealing from another person in said person's presence, usually with a weapon present. This is not the same as theft, which entails stealth in stealing goods from others without their knowledge or presence* will be, upon conviction, sentenced to death. Execution methods are as follows: Robbery- Death by Hanging. Assault- Death by Firing Squad. Rape, Murder, Child Molestation/Murder, Terrorism, and/or Home invasion- Death by Crucifixion along the US-Mexican Border.

Democrats Tear At The Republic... Again.

Over the last few years something sinister has been going on in this country of ours. Somehow, the Democrat Party has transformed itself from the party of pro-America (The party of FDR, Truman and JFK) to the party of anti-freedom. Somewhere, FDR is hopping mad, Truman is ready to reclaim his body so he can give someone hell, and JFK is simply shaking his head at the antics of his youngest brother.

Of course, anyone who has spent time studying history will have an attack of deja-vu. We've seen this kind of thing before, folks. Step back in time with me about 14 decades or so. Back to a time when the Democrats were doing what they could to destroy the Republic. Yes, we're going back to the Civil War era (1855-1870). The issue today may be the globar war against Islamofascism (I refrain from using the generic term terrorism) and all that it entails, but back then it was Slavery in the Territories and Civil War.

In the 1850s, the United States was engaged in furious debate over Slavery, both in the US proper and in the Territories. The two sides are the established Democrat party and the then-fledgling Republican party. Within each party there are two factions.

In the Democrat party there were what I'll call the Status faction and the Expansion faction. The Status faction wished to allow Slavery to continue where it already existed. However, they were leery of Slavery's expansion into the new Territories. Even so, the Status faction was willing to let people in the Territories decide whether to be slave or free areas. The Status faction is offset by the Expansion faction. This faction was not only amenable to letting territories decide whether to allow slavery or not; they were active in expanding slavery to ALL the territories. Some of these folks, in fact, wanted slavery everywhere.

The newly formed Republican party also has two factions. I will name these factions the Status faction and the Abolition faction. As with the Status faction of the Democrat party, the Republican Status faction would leave slavery where it already was (Abraham Lincoln was of this faction). However, they differred with the Democrat Status faction in that the Republican Status faction wanted NO expansion of slavery to the territories. Their rival faction within the Republican party was the Abolition faction. The Abolition faction of the Republican party would have liked nothing better than to see Slavery ENDED everywhere. Both Republican factions, however, tended to assist runaway slaves in getting to Canada, where there was no slavery. The Abolition faction, however, went further in that they were willing to physically hinder slave-catchers who ventured into the Northern and Western states. Some in this faction would go so far as to physically attack and sometimes KILL the slave-catchers.

This situation would last right up to, and past the Election of 1860, when the Status and Expansion factions of the Democrat party fielded two separate candidates for President. Stephen A. Douglas was the choice of the Status (Northern) faction of the Democrat party, while John C. Breckenridge was the Expansion (Southern) Democrat faction's man. The Republicans, however, ran a single candidate on their ticket for President, Abraham Lincoln. Fast forward to 1862. Civil War rages, and there are numerous Democrats of the Status faction, and some of the Expansion faction, who are still in the Republic, and not in the Confederacy. These Democrats criticized the President and his administration. They stirred up internal opposition to the war and tried to foster dissent within the Armies of the Republic. They used the press to malign the Administration, the Military and the war effort, often giving moral support to the rebellious Confederate enemy.

The result of this was that President Lincoln clamped down on Democrat and Confederate-sympathizing news media. As the war went on and the triumph of the Republic became more and more certain *particularly after that Emancipation Proclamation thing, the victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and the suppression of a Democrat-inspired anti-draft and race riot by Republic troops*, the consequences for the Democrat party's subversion tactics became clearer. With a few exceptions (Andrew Johnson *Democrat* succeeded Lincoln after the latter's assassination; Grover Cleveland in 1884 and 1892; Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916), the Democrats were out of the White House and greatly diminished in power for nearly three-fourths of a century. It took an economic crisis of nearly biblical proportions to bring the Democrats back into real controlling power. They would hold it for over half a century.

Now, back in the present day, the Democrats are at it again. Doing all that they can (with the most notable exception of Joseph Lieberman) to bring down the Republicans. Just like the period from 1855 - 1870, the Democrats' actions threaten to bring down the Republic. Only this time, ALL Americans may lose their essential freedoms and liberties rather than some who were previously left out not gaining theirs.

Middle Age

I know that at the end of the last posting, I wrote "Next Week: Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?" However, I had some more personal things to see to this last week. What with Thanksgiving having come and gone and me about 1,400 miles from any family at all, and my 33rd birthday having just passed, I left that article to wait until I felt the inclination to write it.

Anyhow, I've been told that I've officially entered "middle age," though in truth I feel I have been, at least psychologically, middle aged for about seven years now. Looking back, I wonder how things might be different if I had made a few KEY different decisions. As it is, however, there's no need to dwell on past errors of judgment, sins, hurts, betrayals, or wrongs. Of course, there is an entire industry in this country *and the world* dedicated to doing just that.

So, I'll make a few quick points and shut this article down, and perhaps soon I will get around to writing that promised Is Maureen Dowd Necessary article.

1. Southerners who still harp on the Civil War need to get over it. They started the war, and they lost. Sit down, move on, and shut the f--k up!

2. Black folks who still cry about Slavery and all that mess also need to get a clue and get over it. That was 140 years ago; it's time to move forward. Again, sit down, move on, and shut the f--k up!

3. Muslims. You guys are NOTORIOUS for dredging up past history, mostly to justify your continuing attempt to conquer the entire world. You use it to excuse your evildoings, even claiming that you are acting rightly when you slaughter Christians, Jews, Black Africans, etc. Well, I got one thing to say to you: Sit down, move on, and TRULY shut the f--k up!

That is all. Have a nice day!

Media Disconnected from Reality

It seems, these days, that the "mainstream" media is completely disconnected from reality. They reported the 2000th death of an American servicemember as if it were the Return of Jesus Christ Himself. Of course, when Jesus DOES return, you can expect that the media will only mention it in passing on "page 18" of the paper or in a 5-second blurb on the mainstream networks. Of course, this is where all stories of positive news about America, Christianity or Israel ends up.

The merest hint of the possibility that Americans have caused even the slightest discomfort to captured Islamic terrorists held by the U.S. make the front page in big, bold letters; or, it makes the top story of the "mainstream" networks, while the Islamic rampage that went on in Europe these past weeks, Iran's promise to wipe Israel off the world map, and any GOOD news about Coalition activities and efforts in Iraq are skimmed by, if not completely passed over. If they do give any depth to these aforementioned stories, it is only to find something that is either negative about America and/or Israel, or it is to make excuses and apologies for Islamic hatefulness and barbarism. One would think that the media were quietly approving of, if not actively aiding, the enemies of Freedom, Peace, and Life, if the reporting were any indication.

Of course, it stands to reason that many in the media are leftists who are opposed to the existence of any or all of the following: The Bush Administration, Republicans, Christians, Heterosexual men, the United States of America, Israel, Capitalism, Democracy, Republicanism, Jesus Christ, Absolutes of Morality and Virtue, and American Sovereignty. The blatant disdain for anything "Western" shown by today's media (along with Islamists everywhere) would be comical if it weren't so damn dangerous. By opposing the things on the aforementioned list, the media is actually endangering its own survival.

The rise of Intenet commentary and debate sites, of political and personal "Blogs" (this being an example of the latter), and of "talk radio" is merely the logical and necessary reactions of those who are NOT complete leftists, boobs, or sheep, to a media that has gone so far left, so partisan, so unbalanced, and so deceptive that it begins to make Josef Goebbels appear sane, reasoned, and truthful in comparison. For Goebbels, at least, acknowledged what he was out to achieve and was acting to guarantee the continued survival and success of both himself and his chosen party. Today's "mainstream" media, in contrast, doesn't seem to understand that they are undermining the very things that allow it to exist in the first place. In their hatred of all things American, Judaeo-Christian, and/or Bushian, they are aiding the very forces which, if victorious, will swiftly and brutally silence and destroy them.


Next Week: Is Maureen Dowd Necessary?