Recognizing the inherent dangers of the Islamic religion isn’t a phobia

Recognizing the inherent dangers of the Islamic religion isn’t a phobia

I wanted to reply to a popular trending facebook post yesterday that basically states people are being taught to hate Muslims, like Malcolm X, etc. I apologize to my non-collegiate friends because their instincts are good enough to know that Islam is not an enlightened religion, and that doesn’t mean they hate Muslims.

But college is now designed to strip you of the ability to reason, and it rewards you for simply adopting the “right attitudes”. So as quickly as I can- people are not being taught to hate Muslims- have you not attended a secular college? It is the premier theistic religion in academia, following only atheism in adulation. They love it.

2) recognizing that Islam is a violent, coercive religion which strangles freedom of thought in a society, doesn’t mean you hate Muslims. It means you reject Islam as a religion, got it?

Moving along- Mohammad, the founder, the example to Muslim people, was a caravan bandit, and led raids against Jewish villages- according to the Sira, he personally beheaded 100s of Jewish people. He had women, mothers, assassinated. During his Meccan years he was poor and his Quranic verses were passive; after he moved to Medina and began raiding, particularly Jewish towns, his power increased and the verses he wrote became violent and warlike. This is called the principle of abrogation which Muslim apologists fail to inform people in order to mislead. He robbed people of their money and property, he killed, he told his followers to beat their wives, he had sex with barely teenagers. Just for starters.

If his followers imitate him, how will they behave? During a revival of brutal Jihad around the globe – it is not hateful to slow down Muslim immigration into America. All religions are not equal- and there are dozens of Sharia countries around the world where they could immigrate. How stupid do you want to be? If you want to discuss this or debate the merits of Islam, fine. But radio the posts that equate rejection of Islam with a phobia. That is not a coherent argument; it’s an ad hominem attack

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why did the Supreme Court return to Rome?

“…abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era…. Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn.”
Roe vs. Wade, supreme court decision which legalized abortion

Question: why did the supreme court have to go all the way back to ancient Roman times to find a precedent for legalizing abortion? Answer; It had been outlawed for nearly 2000 years in the Christian nations, that long. Do I need to mention that slavery was also legal in Rome? All historians acknowledge that Rome was built on the back of slaves. And what about the gladiatorial games in which hundreds of men and women were killed as the crowds roared? Their rulers were worshipped as gods and failing to worship a ruler meant death. So again, why did the supreme court use ancient Rome for a legal precedent for abortion- could not slavery, gladiator games and forced worship of leaders be also found constitutional under such precedent?

What could not be used as legal precedent if we allow the courts to go back into pagan history to find precedent for every popular quirk of the culture? This is not good jurisprudence, to put it mildly. And yet many Americans spew hatred towards the South and those who fought for the south, while supporting identical arguments to kill babies. That’s called blind hypocrisy.

In the Dred Scott case of 1857; supreme court decision that legalized slavery
“…that unfortunate race…had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order [and] they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Have a great day

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Hope and “Fundamental Change”? or a Restoration of what made America Great?

If America is such a horrible, racist, imperialist country; why is all the illegal border crossing basically one way? Why does everybody still want to come here? And why are millions of North Africans and Arabs from the middle east flooding into Europe?Americans are not lining up to get into Mexico and Europeans are not asking the middle eastern nations to feed them and give them jobs and housing. And this in not new, for decades people from all over the world have wanted to come here. If we became and still are to some degree, one of wealthiest and free nations in the world, why did we elect a president who said he wanted to “fundamentally change America”? Unless we have become fundamentally idiotic? History has proven that great nations begin to crumble and fall when they lose sight of what made them great. And no person I know of has lost that vision more than Barack Obama. America has never been perfect, but neither was it a country established by evil expansionists. And it has been, at least for a time, the greatest country in the world, at least in terms of economic and religious freedom and opportunity. Christianity and Christian morality lie at the foundation and backbone of this nation, as does religious freedom. Toss that away and you toss the nation away. You don’t get “fundamental change” you get fundamental destruction of all that made us great. Adopting the African slave trade did not make us great, Throwing the 5 Civilized Tribes off their lands is not part of what made us great. But throwing the entire nation’s economic and religious freedoms, bridled by Christian morality, under the bus of atheistic socialism will be the destruction of every thing we stood for. Freedom is risky. But anything else becomes slavery. When you vote don’t just think of burning cars and looters and of entitlement of the masses. Think of small coal mining or logging towns, their economies threatened or already crushed by federal government policies; and of lone cowboys being gunned down in the snow for trying to protect the right of a small ranching family to run a business and produce a marketable product. Think of unborn infants in their mother’s wombs who no longer have even the basic right to life, who have lost the freedom to exist. Of catholic nuns being forced to support abortion or bakers levered against their conscience to take part in same sex weddings, or be fined out of business. Not what the Puritans envisioned, and not the fundamental change we need. It’s time to vote to protect the individual and to restore the individual’s basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything short of that won’t work

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

God Save Our Public Lands (and Us) from this King

Public land is not public land under this King. Public land was set aside by Roosevelt with the express purpose of keeping it out of large corporate or private hands so it could be accessible to the local people. It was the same in concept as “the commons” were in England. And so it was up until the late 1970’s or early 80s. Small logging and ranching towns flourished, wood cutters and trappers, sheep ranchers and shake cutters prospered. Local mills employed thousands across the west.

Then came the environmental movement out of the explosion of paganism in the sixties, (yes, it was hippy paganism) with the idea that the forests and rangelands were to be left alone, worshipped, not logged or harvested. In the following years thousands of mills closed and small logging families struggled to stay in the timber harvesting business. The pagan view of resource use was endorsed and promoted by the colleges and many politicians, as most were from urban environments. The old biblical view, that the earth was created for man to use, a view that caused an explosion of technology in Christian Europe that put us light years ahead of the rest of the world, began to fade, and was considered, “uncool”. Thousands of miles of roads were closed and urban environmental extremist groups litigated every logging sale in the northwest.  Under Bush some of the anti-use policies of the BLM and USFS were pushed back-but then came Obama. No previous president has been as zealously supportive of the urban environmental coalitions as this young product of our universities who had absolutely no rural background at all and who lacked the character to question his professor’s purely philosophical and biased lectures. He was interested in passing his courses as easily as possible, and as a pantheist, had no real reason to think independently

President Obama’s land policies in the west have already lead to thousands of dead, burnt and dying acres, dead cows, dead ranchers, and BLM infantry units and FBI hit squads out on our once peaceful open ranges. Nothing like this ever happened under previous leaders. This man is not a president of the people. He is as tyrannical as King Charles the first with absolutely no empathy for the people outside of his urban voting reserves. As Lavoy Finicum spun to the ground in Oregon, three bullets in his back, our president was somewhere in DC, probably golfing, eating expensive organic food, or perhaps on one of his many trips to Hawaii or beyond. The death of a western rancher who was protesting the government’s anti-rancher land use policies meant absolutely nothing to him. This man is not a representative of the people, he is a narrow minded academian with no agenda but his own very narrow one, and a very one-sided bigot. Not because I say so, but because his behavior towards everyone he doesn’t understand or agree with shows that to be the case.

Perhaps we deserve him. We are a wayward people, who have not taken our Creator very seriously, or even our constitution. All I can say is -God save us from this King.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No Wonder we have a War Between Our Ranchers and the Federal Government

No wonder we have a war between ranchers and the federal government-

What the textbooks say Pinchot was about-(Gifford Pinchot along with T. Roosevelt were the founders of our public lands systems)
“Gifford Pinchot, an influential citizen and later as director of the National Conservation Commission, advocated environmental conservation as he witnessed the nation’s forests and wild lands being increasingly given over to development.” Human Geography, Knox, Marston, EWU textbook

What Pinchot actually said-“The first principal of conservation is development, the use of the natural resources on this continent for the benefit of the people who live here now. There may be as much waste in neglecting the development and use of certain natural resources as there is in their destruction.” Gifford Pinchot, the Fight for Conservation

The federal government, like in almost everything else, has adopted an atheist or pantheist view of our natural resource management on public land; this has caused tremendous hardship on rural taxpayers, ruined economies and is ruining the graze and forest areas themselves. It also is negatively affecting the lands ability to sequester carbon efficiently. They have taken a view in direct opposition to the men that founded the forest service and BLM and to the bible itself- and this view has failed.

The textbook writers would, with a sleight of hand, have you believe that modern day environmentalists share a common view of the environment with the early founders of the conservation movement. They don’t. Modern environmentalists view man as an alien and believe the best use of resources is to leave them alone. Many of them are pantheists; they view the earth as a living being that should be worshiped. Pinchot and all of the leaders of the conservation movement held basically Christian worldviews, and believed that the earth had been created with man in mind.

“The first great fact about conservation is that it stands for development. There has been a fundamental misconception that conservation means nothing but the husbanding of resources for future generations. There could be no more serious mistake.” Pinchot, the Fight for Conservation

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do we derive our Rights from governments and did the government create us or we them?

Do we derive our Rights from governments and did they create us or we them? Are they the Law and therefore, above the Law?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Funny thing. We now have a president that can routinely break the law, and uses the IRS and other agencies to break the law and at least one democratic candidate who has a record of law breaking without accountability. It brings up the question, can the government break the law? In many people’s eyes, particular those with an atheistic worldview, (which often includes many christians) the government is the law and can make rights and take rights at will (including redistributing the citizens wealth); but not according to our constitution.

According to the declaration of Independence, the document our constitution is based upon, men derive rights from God, and governments derive their powers from men. Governments then are not above the law, and according to the declaration of Independence governments can and will go rogue, no longer respecting citizen rights and freedoms and becoming mere vehicles for those in power to obtain their own agenda, even to the hurt of their own people – such governments can and must be held accountable to the basic laws and freedoms of men and women, and particularly those rights derived from our Creator.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Woodcutters Manifesto for Colville National Forest; Republic District

In the wake of the Burns area protest and gunning down of one of the protestors, it might be time to run this again; the BLM is not the only federal agency turning to harsh a control freak measures while being pushed by a network of environmental coalitions

Woodcutters Manifesto for Colville National Forest; Republic District

As regards the USFS Colville National Forest, Republic District land, local citizens file this manifesto;
This is public land, not the kings private domain, nor is it the private playground of environmental activists. Let’s respect the public’s rights to access and use its resources as Theodore Roosevelt originally intended. Times of economic downturn and stress are not the times to turn up the screws on law enforcement of area firewood restrictions. Too many laws and regulations create outlaws; too many closed roads lead to wood piracy.
We, the people who live in the local area where the public land exists, and are taxpaying citizens of the federal government, and in particular the people who make all or part of our living by harvesting firewood do make the following requests;

(1) More open roads in areas that actually have dead trees to harvest on them; not overcut mainlines or roads that are dominated by stands of small young trees. There are numerous closed roads with dead and dying, windfall or diseased trees on them. We would like to see at least one third of these now closed roads opened up, and left open for at least three years, with another one third opened up three years later. A rotation could be set up that not only would provide access to resources for woodcutters but also for trappers, berry pickers, the elderly and others wanting to make use of the roads. All roads not marked as closed on the firewood map or physically obstructed by the USFS should be considered open for woodcutters to explore and use.

(2) Less marking of dead trees for wildlife use (wildlife designated trees) within 200 feet of the road. There are thousands of dead trees beyond the 200 foot zone, and in the creek beds and watered areas that are now restricted from woodcutting. Marking trees inside the 200 foot zone places an undue temptation on woodcutters, and as the USFS knows, they are usually cut down anyway. It is a lose/lose situation for everybody.

(3) We would like to see law enforcement tactics and practices return to normalcy and civility on public lands. Most wood harvesters are from local families; they are not malicious or notorious and dangerous criminals. While a percentage of cutters are newly released offenders or drug users, they also have the right to harvest wood. Would you rather have them climbing in your windows at night, or cutting firewood? And as far as I know, no firewood cutter has ever threatened a ticketing officer with fire arms, or at least the incidents are few. We are not denying the officer or compliance person’s right to self-defense as the situation warrants; but we would like to see woodcutters treated with the same respect and courtesy as a person receiving a ticket for speeding or other non-felony violations. Drunk drivers and speeders kill far more citizens than firewooders; we are not a source of danger to the public at large. Many firewooders are not rich or well to do, but a man’s financial status should not render him unworthy of due respect or reduce his rights in front of a law enforcement officer. Aggressive and hostile methods and attitudes of law enforcement produce unwanted results; they escalate situations unnecessarily and could result in needless tragedy. Let’s return to a more friendly and civil form of law enforcement.

(4) Stop the seizing of chainsaws. This places undue hardship on the economically depressed offender and may hurt his ability to feed his family and heat his own home, as well as earn some cash elsewhere. This procedure of law enforcement is overly harsh and unusual. Banning the repeat offender from federal lands for one or more seasons would be a better practice. Not everybody has a good job and not everyone can work for the government.
Let’s show respect for all that use public lands, not just for the private interest groups or other outdoor enthusiasts.

We are citizens and taxpayers and part of the Public and we are local. Give us the chance to use our public resources responsibly and without undue harassment from federal law enforcement due to and aggravated by over- restriction of access.

Respectfully; from the class of citizens that use the public lands for harvesting dead standing and fallen trees.
Mark Hodges

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment