Palestinian Situation

We hear the sound of our liberal brethren bemoan about the 711,000 Palestinians who 1) fled Israel or 2) were ejected from Israel; after Israel was created in 1948 by the Palestinian Mandate. As the region was divided by the British into two autonomous intertwined regions Israel and Palestine, the Arabic world decided to finish the job Hitler was unable to complete. That may sound harsh, but Saddam's own Ba'th party was deep into the hip pocket of the Nazi Regime. Also the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter the "final solution". So when in 1948, when the Nation of Israel was formed in the council halls of the United Nations, the Arabic resistance was less than passioned, for they had their own "solution". The word was spread by the Arabic world extending a faint hand to the Palestinians, leave Israel for a short time, and they would restore the Palestinians to their homes once they were rid of the vermin Jew. At the same time the 711,000 Palestinians fled Israel, the Arabic world forced 850,000 Arabic Jews from their homes in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Iraq and Yemen (In fact in several of these countries the Jewish population was established long before what has become today’s local population or over 1,000 years before the advent of Islam). These refugees were dumped into Israel, as their plan unfolded. Then when they thought the time was right, the combined Arabic world attacked Israel with the sole purpose of eliminating the Jewish people. The problem was, the Jews didn't roll over and play dead. Instead they fought back, leaving close to a million Palestinians homeless. Now we talk about them as victims, yet victim is hardly the word to describe them. Arafat the former savior of his people, wasn't even Palestinian, he was Egyptian. In my opinion if the Palestinians deserve a homeland it is up to the other Arabic nations to provide it to them, since they were the ones who orchestrated the refugee issue. The Jews were willing to create a country where Arab and Jew could live together in Harmony. They started their Zionist mission, by legally buying the land from the Arabs, which was taken away from them by the British, when the Arabs claim the Jews cheated them (even though the land was sold for 3-4 times it's value). So as far as I am concerned the Palestinians are along with their Arabic breathern are the authors of their fate and deserve nothing more than what Israel is willing to give them and or what their Arabic brothers will.

American Spoken Here

It is said the United States does not have an official language, however, it is generally accepted that English fills that spot. Now when our founding fathers sat down to discuss this subject many of them were so disgusted with England, that they refused to make English the "Official" language. Had it not been for the fact that Hessian troops were in British employment, to fight against us, The German movement might have had a chance of holding that honor. Despite, the myth, that because of one pro-German advocate suffering from diarrhea, English became our "Official" language. A vote never occurred and we just accepted English as the common tongue. Truth be told we don't have an "Official" language, but, English is the language used in documenting our official records, and the majority (for now) of Americans speck English. We need to establish English as the official language or perhaps since we are so far out of step with our British brethren, American as our Official language (despite the slang connection there). What would this mean? To most of us not much, Citizenship for example would be linked to speaking the American language. Official documents would no longer need to be printed in bi-lingual type. In the past, the key to successful integration into our society was linked with shedding the mother tongue and learning the language of America. When everyone is on the same page, we can all read it. I have nothing against foreign languages, and I think it is great that our children can learn other languages (I took German in high school myself). We cannot put ourselves through what the Canadians have put themselves through being bi-lingual. I remember spending the fourth of July in 1990 in Quebec, and having a waitress refuse to speak English to us, which changed once one of the guys tried miserably to speak french (which he took in high school so many years earlier), his Alabama accent was enough for the waitress to realize he was American not Canadian (she then explained that she and her friends were mad that French Canadians had to speak English, even though English Canadians could get away with not learning French) Do we really want to have that issue face us? Language unites us many languages divide us. If we accept Spanish as a second language, do we accommodate Chinese American the same way? Portuguese? French? Russian? Japanese? Italian? Korean? (need I list every language?) So I say lets do what our founding fathers should have done and make it "Official", American should be our official language.

No Offense Taken

Nothing that rattles my cage more, than someone who takes offense at my beliefs. What does it matter, if I profess a belief in the Sovereign Lord, My God, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" in this it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" i.e. the government cannot tell me, I can't profess my beliefs as I see fit. It cannot tell me I cannot pray in public, or tell my children they cannot pray in school, or my grandchildren. I can say "Merry Christmas" and if that offends you, tough! If you tell me Happy Hannukah, I will be gracious enough to thank you for your blessing, If you say to me Happy Ramadan, I will be gracious enough to thank you for your blessing. It is a sad commentary, that people who do not believe in God, to be so upset about someone telling them "God Bless you" If someone tells me "may the Force be with you" what is it to me? I won't be offended. So get over it, I have my beliefs, and you have yours. I take offense at your offense. So by your logic you have no right to be offended at me.

Terrorist = Coward

That's right, Terrorists are cowards, plain and simple. They refuse to obey the rules of the Geneva Conventions, therefore they should not be afforded the rights guarenteed by it. Terrorists attack non combatants (guarenteed direct protection therein), they specifically attack to create the greatest amount of fear and terror. There were no military objectives in the Twin Towers, therefore the attack on the twin towers in itself was a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. Any one participating in that attack, is by their own actions exempt from any protections therein. Anyone who, attacks any gathering of non-combatants deserves immediate extermination as the true cockroaches that they are. They don't deserve any rights associated with civilized society. In my opinion, they should not be afforded any rights. Now, let me stipulate, I don't believe torture is an effective source of good information. Therefore, I don't believe we should participate in torture to obtain useful information. Once we are done interrogating terrorists, then we should spend the 75 cents to put them down. They don't even deserve a last meal.

When Voting Becomes A Conflict of Interest

I know this will stir up a hornet's nest, but, I really believe this needs to be said. "People on public assistance, should not be able to vote." It is a matter of conflict of interest. Politicans will pander to these people promising them more aid, more money, for their votes. If people on welfare are restricted from voting, these same politicans will be more likely to help them with workable programs to get them off the public dole, instead of keeping them there. For instance, I have had single mothers working for me, who when given a raise, asked me to cut their hours, because they would earn too much and would lose benefits. A mere dollar increase, was causing them to lose two dollars in benefits. Why should we punish these people and make it harder to alleviate their situation. We should set up the system which gives them every opportunity to get free of the system. What should have happened is for every two dollar increase in earning they should have only lost one dollar in benefits. In so making it easier to get off the welfare wagon, and building self sufficient members of society, contributing to the GNP. That won't happen until politicans stop seeing the poor as a voting block, so they will have no interest in keeping them poor. I have no problem with giving assistance to those who need in the short term, but, we have created welfare as a career choice.