Socialism and Public Education: What You Never Knew Until You Read About It Straight from the Sources

Topic: The Symbiotic Relationship Between Socialism and Public Education:

Ayn Rand, early 20th Century right wing philosopher and literary author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead

"When one acts on pity against justice, it is the good whom one punishes for the sake of the evil; when one saves the guilty from suffering, it is the innocent whom one forces to suffer."

-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, Part 2, Ch. 6

Ladies and gentlemen, I do apologize for remaining away from blogging for the time being. I have felt under the weather lately, and as a result, needed some time to gather myself. As I quoted Ayn Rand just above, I am well aware she differs in principle with conservatives regarding religion and ethics, but in terms of self-determination and the rights of man, we diverge almost none at all. I consider the philosophy behind Objectivism to be far superior as it advocates social infrastructure at it barest necessity over Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalist core principle behind libertarianism. As there have been women such as former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) who were pro choice or in the case of a man, none other than George Will who is an atheist, conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke is a diverse ideology based firmly upon the principle of adding national and cultural traditions into the concept of classical realism as was presented in 1689 by John Locke. As Ayn Rand was a citizen of the Soviet Union prior to her arrival in the United States, she could not have helped for some of her background to have rubbed off on her personality and life's perspectives, for what once had been many centuries of predominantly a Orthodox Christian legitimacy of the tsarist tradition within Russia, communism had destroyed this and left her barren for 75 years of any culture that did not emanate directly from the state. Those were the social traditions of the Soviet Union, and that was what she never quite psychologically-renounced with regards to personal ethics or her decision to remain an atheist. She was, however, very cognizant of the right to choose to practice a faith, which socialists here have attempted for years to abolish its legality, with libertarians supporting this tenet by means of simply saying government should not encourage nor deny others the right to practice their faith - ironic only in how this is a very similar position to socialism. 

For the past calendar year, America and now the world have witnessed a series of crises pile atop one after so many others at an unprecedented scale in her history. America has faced crises all her existence, and we would mistaken to born its origins if we did not saying she was born from the American Revolution, or a crisis in denying our right to representation in the British Parliament. So too do we face not one, but many today, with countless others yet to have been reported and likely never will until the president is out of office either due to the term limit or by force. At the same time, as America and the world burn, our borders have been breached and terrorists welcomed with open arms and with funding to attack our sovereignty by President Obama, so too do we read of news that the United Nations is poised to usurp controls of our borders by demanding the president to describe these illegal aliens as refugees, which therefore grants the White House the capacity to hand over America's sovereignty to Ban Ki-moon.

Ban Ki-moon, current Secretary-General of the United Nations from South Korea

Ban Ki-moon, who is the United Nations Secretary General, not only is poised to forcibly control our borders by deploying UN troops to wrest it away from the Texas National Guard if Obama sees fit to support it with our own military personnel in theory, but as the issue with Detroit's water supply is another place he could set up shop as it has reached the point where the city is completely bankrupt and the city growing more morbid in its level of poverty post-bankruptcy, civic leaders are calling for the UN to send humanitarian supplies. Today, it was reported that water is being shipped across the lake from Canada, which means America has lost North America to a nation approximately one-tenth our total population. As our mounting crises continue to dominate the news, CNN's President Jeff Zucker remains intent upon not covering any House investigations into Benghazi nor for the IRS targeting conservative, Christian and pro-Israeli groups, what we have now is a battle for information that is also unprecedented in our history, with Fox News Channel, despite what the socialists along the Far Left both domestically and around the globe will tell you, doing the best job at providing as much information as it can where others either heavily edit film coverage as with the Clive Bundy comment in April or simply choosing to ignore it to support the White House in a public announcement. As these items are true, the die is indeed cast, and I will inform you that as this is true to how I have always run my blog, I will continue to use every available resource - socialist, conservative and libertarian - alongside international news media, both privately-owned as well as state-run. And as I just pledged to you my continual commitment to ensure I provide the most eclectic foundation of information anywhere I may find it, you can count on me to keep it straight, and to crucify in writing socialists, conservatives and libertarians as I see it fit to do so.

This article, however, will again address another very important domestic issue having plagued America for more than a century, but which has been largely swept beneath the rug by the media in fear that if it continues to catch fire, it will be, as Thomas Jefferson stated in 1820 during the Missouri crisis at the start of the slavery issue increasing in intensity, "as if a firebell in the night." But why is the media and more importantly, the federal government, so filled with angst by providing the people with greater autonomy in choosing the standards, curricula and cultural environment for their children? As one politician stated to The Houston Chronicle, it is because they would not be capable of regulating it. Sadly, this lawmaker apparently did not receive the flash bulletin where it stated how America's parents are finally fed up with government's brainwashing our youth, our future generation of leaders, and furthermore to mold an infinite numbers of generations filled with dependents upon them to live and to do so with no design upon achieving their own lives and standards themselves.

This post, like several others before it, is a response I provided Rush Limbaugh's Facebook page (not Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network) when he discussed our education system, how not all is faltering like most, but nevertheless that it is devolving like the rest of what has made America so exceptional since the first permanent settlement by English merchants at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607. When you read the points I made as to why one of the principle founders of public education named W.E.B. DuBois considered this a crucial step in manifesting his ideal American society followed by a very infamous list to those who virulently oppose the political and social doctrine, you will firmly grasp why.

Why Do Socialists Insist Upon Public Education? It is Not As Clean-Cut as You Have Been Led On:

With a few 'brief' comments I will provide with the appropriate primary sources, this will simply comprise of Mr. Limbaugh's article, and my response as a regular reader:

Rush Limbaugh: Not every school system is lost, but more and more the multicultural curriculum is taking over, and the truth and the greatness and the specialty -- the special-ness, the uniqueness -- of this country's being written out.

And to you, I provide finally my reply:

I support School Choice NOW's ultimate goal: the privatization of public education. America was far more educated and involved in civic responsibilities in all demographics of our population than we see today under socialized education, which veered far left of Horace Mann's advocating of significant parental involvement in the learning process. Even W.E.B. DuBois, a renowned socialist, acknowledged this was the ultimate goal for why public education was manifested more than one century ago when uttered these lines in a speech before the Communist Party of America:

"But this, Debs would say correctly, is not enough. It may come after some outrageous occurrence. However, for the long run and the continuing education of the people, Debs must learn that few reputable publishers today will take any book that deviates from respectable lines of thought as laid down by the National Association of Manufacturers; that no reputable book store will carry hooks advocating or not attacking communism; that public libraries will neither buy nor place hooks of which the FBI does not approve, and that none of our leading literary journals would mention a book by Debs himself should it appear today with a Heavenly imprint. Debs would learn with distress that the tendency apparent in his day of the readers of newspapers and magazines refusing to pay for the full cost of what they read has today sunk to the place where they expect to have their news and literature furnished them free and with pictures and gifts by the purveyors of tobacco, neckties and toothpaste."

And when you read the following list...

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c

... you might be interested to know that this is the tenth plank in Marx's The Communist Manifesto (1848), which I have read multiple times in college. It really is no surprise why socialists demand that no one have the right to choose where they attend school or if parents insist to home school their children. Many say that if they lost this, they would not be able to regulate what children learn. And of course, that is the entire point: to return to the standards of Horace Mann, who advocated for a family experience in education, which has since been dissolved in favor of total statist control. If the state did not enjoy its role as the sole arbiters of America's children's lives, how would they be able to discourage thinking outside the box and then to vote for Democrats?

***

While few civic leaders at the local municipalities have read any of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels' landmark piece, the basic foundation is there. If socialism has no capacity to regulate what America's youth learns, how might it be able to spread its influence across America and then the world? This is the sole purpose for why the United Nations exists, and why America and Israel are in danger of facing annihilation or at the least, a fundamental transformation in the quality of living for one and all. And once that happens, the domino effect will commence until Jerusalem is suddenly considered globally to reside at the United Nations headquarters in New York. 

Why do the United Nations exist? This can be answered in its official capacity within its Preamble.

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

***

It really is quite peculiar that when you consider the UN intends to ensure all nations have provided for them machinery and the quest is for social and economic advancement, they speak curiously like Marxists, which would explain why the organization honored the 65th birthday of North Korea just last year. 

To Korean To KNS Photo Service News From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK(Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

HOME

Past News

Introduction to KCNA

E-MAIL

calendar>>September 5. 2013 Juche 102

Staff Members of Missions of Int'l Organizations Pay Floral Tribute to Statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il

Pyongyang, September 5 (KCNA) -- Staff members of the missions of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Food Program here laid floral baskets before the statues of President Kim Il Sung and leader Kim Jong Il on Mansu Hill Thursday on the occasion of the 65th birthday of the DPRK.

They placed floral baskets before the statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il and paid tribute in the humblest reverence to them who made immortal contributions to accomplishing the cause of global independence.

Copyright (C) KOREA NEWS SERVICE(KNS) All Rights Reserved.

***

In the spirit of my deciding to use the English transliteration to the North Korean state news agency, I just want everyone to understand that I did not launch The John Birch Society in my prior life. I will say, however, in considering the U.S. spearheaded the UN assault to stop the North's armies under Kim Il-Sung, it rather is peculiar how it now champions despotism in any form - communism or radical Islam - over democracy. It defines human rights as a matter of equity, and the international governing body has no qualms in achieving it through Marxist measures, and it has. 

__________

Conclusion: The Full Text to Chapter II of The Communist Manifesto and Speech by W.E.B. DuBois:

As promised, I shall again delivered. This is perhaps the key section to Karl Marx and Frederick Engels' work on The Communist Manifesto, and I will again provide you the direct link to the page on which the literature is provided:

First addition of The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Marx and Engels

Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is therefore not only personal; it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, &c. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property – historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production – this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views, and conception, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of the ideas that revolutionise society, they do but express that fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involved the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

***

And lastly, W.E.B. DuBois's speech. Not surprisingly, he founded the NAACP, which still exists today to spur more class warfare just as DuBois intended: 

W.E.B. DuBois, founder of the NAACP

American Socialist, January 1956

If Debs could have returned to life for his Centennial, he would have found much progress towards socialism, but a grim battle still ahead, especially in his native land.

If Eugene Debs Returned

A Speech by W.E.B. Du Bois

IN the year 1920 when 919,000 American voters wanted Eugene Debs to be president of the United States, the socialist platform on which he ran demanded in general terms that eventually the ownership of the means of production be transferred from private to public control. The steps toward this end were not altogether agreed upon. But Debs demanded the supreme power of the workers ‘as the one class that can and will bring permanent peace to the world.’ He declared that then ‘we shall transfer the title deeds of the railroads, the telegraph lines, the mines, mills and great industries to the people in their collective capacity; we shall take possession of all these social utilities in the name of the people. We shall then have industrial democracy. We shall be a free nation whose government is of and by and for the people.’

If tonight Mr. Debs should saunter back to celebrate with us this his one-hundredth birthday, he would feel considerable gratification at the progress of his cause in 35 years. Capital is still mainly in private hands but not entirely. Increasing public control of capital is the rule in the United States while over most of the world public ownership is rapidly increasing. In our country public regulation of utilities, including railroads, water power and communications, has increased. We direct private business in numerous instances; we tax wealth in new ways, we defend the right of labor to organize and we pay out $1,500 million a year in social insurance. This is not yet socialism, but it is far from the uncontested rule of wealth.

EUGENE Debs, however, being an astute man and a logical thinker, would not be inclined to spend his birthday in celebrating the triumph of socialism in the United States. He would, on the contrary, see clearly that this nation, despite its advances toward socialism, is spending more money utterly to destroy socialism than it spends on education, health and general social uplift together.

He would realize with distress that advance toward the objects of socialism does not necessarily mean that the socialist state is at hand. Socialism includes planned production and distribution of wealth. But a completely socialistic result depends on who does the planning and for what ends. A state socialism planned by the rich for their own survival is quite possible, but it is far from the state where the rule rests in the hands of those who produce wealth and services and whose aim is the welfare of the mass of the people.

If Mr. Debs, during his absence from this earthly scene, has followed events of which we are too painfully aware, he will know that not all that is called socialism is socialistic in the sense that he used to understand it. He will know of Hitler’s National Socialism, which, indeed, built a magnificent system of roads and excellent public housing, controlled finance and wages, owned railroads, telegraphs and telephones and yet was not socialism as Debs envisioned it. He would note that widespread socialist methods in Britain, France, Holland and Belgium have not prevented these nations from exploiting labor in Europe, Asia, Africa and America and that their own laboring classes have been willing to base their increased wage and higher standard of living on the poverty, ignorance and disease of most of the working people of the world. This again can hardly be called socialism, and Debs would know that socialistic methods in the United States have succeeded in staving off financial collapse and may continue to do this for a considerable time, but that this social effort is for and by Big Business and financial monopoly and not for the farm and the shop. It bribes organized labor with high wages built on war industry and by this very act threatens the welfare of the mass of the people of the world.

The matter which would, I think, bother Eugene Debs most in the present scene would be the failure of democracy to change all this. If he arrived in time to look in on the polling places during our recent election, he would have seen with dismay that most Americans who have the right to vote do not make any effort to use it. It is unusual for a majority of voters to attend elections, not to mention the millions legally disfranchised by color and poverty.

NOW, the socialism of Eugene Debs was founded on the democratic state in which the law of the land was to be determined by the will of the people. If and when this prerequisite of the socialist state failed, I am sure that Mr. Debs, like Charlie Chaplin, would not think of returning to America, even for this celebration.

If then, Mr. Debs is nonplussed by the apathy of voters, he would learn in any barroom, barbershop or prayer-meeting, or even in the subway, that the reason lay in the fact that Americans have had no chance lately to vote on the matters in which they have the greatest interest. We have not had a chance to vote on peace or war, and will not next year, if we must choose between Eisenhower and Stevenson, or Nixon and Harriman. We have never voted on universal military service. We never voted to spend more than half our income on war; we never voted to make war in Korea. We never voted to beg, borrow or steal one hundred military bases all over the world to overthrow communism.

Why then should we vote if we cannot vote on matters which seem of greatest importance to us?

Mr. Debs’ reaction would be: If this be true, then it is our own fault that we have not talked to the people. He would say: Tell them the truth! Publish books and pamphlets; agitate! And then if Eugene Debs, forgetting that he is dead, should attempt to hire a hall, or stage a mass meeting on Union Square, or get time on radio or television, or get a book on the shelves of the Public Library, he would find himself guilty of subversion, proven a Communist quite unnecessarily by Budenz, Bentley and Philbrick, Inc., and since the courts have almost said that all Communists are criminals set to bring on violent revolution, Debs would soon be back in the very jail where imprisonment had already killed him.

BUT naturally, before Debs started on this impossible effort, we his friends and admirers would have coached him on the facts of life as we know them in this our America of today. It is not only true that Johnnie does not learn to read, but even if he could read he would have difficulty in reading the truth; that the vast monopolies which collect news from all over the world omit what they do not want known, distort what they submit and often deliberately lie about the rest.

‘But,’ I imagine Debs saying, waxing a bit hysterical, ‘why do not people insist on knowing the facts?’ Our only answer would be that since we have become a nation of the rich, run by the rich for the rich (a statement which Mr. Stevenson says he did not originate but merely quoted) the voters do not and cannot know that their best interests are not paramount aims of government; that as their education deteriorates during this the most illiterate government we have endured since Jackson, as their news becomes tainted, suppressed and slanted, it is Increasingly difficult for science and good will to usher in the state where the welfare of the mass of the people is the aim of government, where capital is owned by the people, where private profit is never the sole object of industry and where exploitation of labor is always a crime. We are no longer a democracy free to think, hut a frightened people scared of the socialism and communism which we dare not know nor study. We are threatened by mounting crime and facing jails full not only of criminals but increasingly of honest men whose fault is that they believe in the socialism for which Debs gave his life.

In the midst of this losing of our moral and intellectual integrity we are permitting almost unchallenged a concentrated power of industry and commerce and a monopoly of wealth and natural resources which is not only a threat to the United States but so great a threat to the world that the world with increasing unanimity is resenting it and organizing to oppose it. However, we could assure Mr. Debs that at times public opinion bursts the bonds of organized politics and wealth-control, and screams. We would for instance today be in the midst of a third and fatal world war if Nixon and Knowland had not been stopped in their tracks by an extraordinary avalanche of letters which made even the dumbest politicians in Washington realize that the nation wanted peace even if they got no chance to vote for it.

But this, Debs would say correctly, is not enough. It may come after some outrageous occurrence. However, for the long run and the continuing education of the people, Debs must learn that few reputable publishers today will take any book that deviates from respectable lines of thought as laid down by the National Association of Manufacturers; that no reputable book store will carry hooks advocating or not attacking communism; that public libraries will neither buy nor place hooks of which the FBI does not approve, and that none of our leading literary journals would mention a book by Debs himself should it appear today with a Heavenly imprint. Debs would learn with distress that the tendency apparent in his day of the readers of newspapers and magazines refusing to pay for the full cost of what they read has today sunk to the place where they expect to have their news and literature furnished them free and with pictures and gifts by the purveyors of tobacco, neckties and toothpaste.

IF Debs were still able to listen, he would learn that our representatives in Congress and legislature, our scientists, our preachers, teachers and students are afraid to think or talk lest they starve or disgrace their families and friends. Thus our basic culture patterns are vitiated.

To which Debs would reply: Those who believe in truth and know from slavery, poverty and crime what falsehood can do, must if possible save the truth from burial. Such action is not mere alms-giving, it is a great crusade Without unpaid crusaders and unknighted chivalry we plunge back into new Dark Ages, where ‘Guys and Dolls’ regale us with a crap game in a sewer.

And so Eugene Debs, returning with both sorrow and relief to the blessed peace of Heaven or the genial warmth of Hell (this depending on whether one reads the Timer or the Worker) will, I imagine, after a season of rest and reflection, look carefully about and say:

‘What really I fear for America is not merely loss of freedom, degeneration of schools, failure of the free press or failure of democracy. These, reason in time will combat. Rather I fear the threat of insanity; the loss of ability to reason. You’d hardly believe this, he’d say, but intelligent Americans cannot today see the direct connection between war, murder, lying, stealing, and juvenile crime. Their leaders actually propose to gain peace by war, to stop poverty by making the rich richer and to prevent force and violence by preparing force and violence on a scale of which the world never before dreamed anywhere at any time.

‘And furthermore, (this you will never believe, but I swear it’s true)’ says Debs, ‘the man who succeeded me as leader of Socialism in the United States and ran on the Socialist ticket for president five times, is today the most bitter and hysterical enemy of the only governments or earth which approach complete socialism. Brethren, I firmly believe that what my country needs today above all else is more and better insane asylums strategically placed.’

***

Whatever you believed you knew about public education before, you now know it is both the Tenth Planck of The Communist Manifesto and a key talking point in why DuBois wanted to discard all books in direct conflict of its base tenets. It is a great deal like Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. And like libertarianism, what socialism - and our president - does not approve from what one may read within our history texts, it simply revises.

America Under Siege in Rand Paul's Old Kentucky Home - Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees: Courtesy of ABC News

America Under Siege in Rand Paul's Old Kentucky Home - Courtesy of ABC News

Apparently, I have picked a wonderful time to launch an all-out assault on the junior senator from Kentucky, and as the old cliche involving feces and a fan will be avoided due to my commitment to abstain as best I can from George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words comedic stand-up gig most likely before I was born, well, I will simply inform my anarcho-capitalist detractors within the libertarian establishment of the GOP: Karma is a bitch. 

Well, I did a very poor job with that, as like a good politician, what pledge I made never surpassed the duration of its sentence.

But, in times of crises such as we are amid, I have to find something comical from which to derive a very twisted variation of laughter. And as America has never faced so dire a threat to our very existence, I pledge to you a lie on the cutting edge of Rand Paul himself, who once this story is revealed and, ergo, will make for a "short" to the great pleasure of many, well, I am going to echo Barack Obama and just say in perhaps a paraphrase since I cannot run for president legally yet, "I'm going to let it rip." 

And damn it all if he hasn't done just that when he isn't feeding us the solidified farts he passes on his near-daily trips to a ritzy golf course in either Northern Virginia or Maryland. 

A Brief Announcement Regarding My Research of British Archival Files for Obama's Father's Birth Certificate

To let you in on what is among my friends the worst kept secret in the world, I have spent a few days over the past week as time is permissive digging through the British National Archives in search of Barack Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama II's, birth certificate. Having ordered one series of documents from London to date, I received within 48 hours notice that my inquiry had not born fruit in the gentleman's search. I do not necessarily believe the British government is stonewalling this attempt since Prime Minister David Cameron of the Conservative Party (aka. Tories) is at most ambivalent about our president and at worst, considers him to be as much of an international man of mystery as a politician as Austin Powers really was not in the movies: Austin Powers was groovy and shagadelic, baby! But in my odd choice to read an interesting article from Breitbart.com and noticing how the service from 2012 posted a direct URL linking its readers to the British National Archives, well, the historian within in which I have training due to my degree saying I supposedly know what the hell I am doing, well, I am like any cat: I am curious all the time and wanted to take a look myself. And as I did, I managed to locate several records from the Kenya Colony of the former East Africa protectorate. The lone mention of a man named Obama was regarding a man who apparently fought in World War I, and the gentleman named, who lived in Kenya do recall, had as his first name Obama, not the surname. As I was rather exhausted after spending several hours those first three days just learning the formatting of the British record keeping system that dates back to nearly the time of the Norman invasion around 1066 by William the Conqueror, I saved what information I procured, which was very little and still is today, though I am slowly grasping the British government's very fascinating and detailed systems of records. As you might expect, there have been numerous Acts of Parliament which have served to organize and reorganize more old files and records, and as I am amazed at how much information they do have posted electronically as some documents from as far in the past as over 200 years are available in their scanned physical form, I look forward to more time spent researching the president's father's records, and figuring out exactly where it can be procured, unless the Obama-led NSA has somehow achieved further attempts to block access to any records to deter such vile, racist birthers like myself. 

This is the entire brief correspondence between the British National Archives and myself. It is encouraging that as part of the replied E-mail, I was provided by the archivist with information into where I might find it by way of which appropriate Act of Parliament it would be applied. The details, verbatim and to the exactly font with provided links, will be provided below in case anyone among my readers - and never forget how I appreciate and will never be able to thank you each enough for reading what I write even if you do not necessarily agree with any of my positions - wish to take a crack at our Anglophone allies across the pond. Without Britain, there could be no United States of America, and I am therefore very pro-British. They will always be our most steadfast allies even when we ourselves are bordering upon our own self-destruction:

Dear Mr Henderson

Thank you for contacting The National Archives of the United Kingdom.

We have a name index to the duplicate certificates of citizenship 1949 – 1986, which I have searched on your behalf but unfortunately I could find no entry for Barack Obama.

In carrying out a search of the relevant documents using the information you have provided, we have met our requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. Since most British citizens go on to apply for British passports, details of the certificate may have been submitted with a previous passport application, you may wish to contact HM Passport Office through their website or on 0300 222 0000 to ascertain this.

Duplicate certificates for a grant of British citizenship (citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies or British subject status) made from October 1986 onwards are held by the UK Visas and Immigration - not The National Archives. Use the request form on the UK Visas and Immigration website to request a duplicate certificate. Completed request forms should be sent to the UKVI not to The National Archives.

If you need to respond to this email, please click on Reply to do so. It is very helpful for us for the text of the earlier emails to be included. For a new enquiry, please complete our contact form.

To avoid receiving our initial auto-response again please make sure you include the letters SART, with a space on either side, in your subject line.

Yours sincerely

Padej Kumlertsakul
Remote Enquiries Duty Officer
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Let us know what you think about your recent contact as your views are important in helping us improve our service. Please fill in our feedback form.

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

From: contactforms@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk[SMTP:CONTACTFORMS@NATIONALARCHIVES.GSI.GOV.UK]

Sent: Friday, July 11, 2014 9:23:45 PM

To: ARK Records Enquiries

Subject: TNA140111994: Naturalisation request (Certificates of British citizenship requests) Auto forwarded by a Rule

ENQUIRY DETAILS

FIRST NAME: Jonathan

LAST NAME: Henderson

ADDRESS:

EMAIL ADDRESS: Dagan81@aol.com

CERTIFICATE HOLDER DETAILS

FIRST NAME(S): Barack

LAST NAME: Obama

ALTERNATIVE LAST NAME: Soetoro

COUNTRY OF BIRTH: Kenya, East Africa

DATE OF BIRTH: 4 August 1961

DOB APPROXIMATION True

ADDRESS:

CERTIFICATE DETAILS

COUNTRY OF ISSUE: Kenya, East Africa

CERTIFICATE NUMBER:

YEAR ISSUED FROM: 1960

YEAR ISSUED TO: 1961

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec.  (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.)  In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

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

 
National Archives Disclaimer
 
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the 
individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and 
have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email. 
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do 
not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor 
endorsed by it.


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

 ***

I provide this information to you because I wanted you each to know I am dead serious about finding out for myself more detailed records that will corroborate with those I already have located - some of which I owe my appreciation again to the British government documentation of old classified information detailing its history behind colonial names. When I have time to re-engage in further research provided I do not find myself listening to REM's It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine), you will know more as I learn from further digging. 

_______________

Obama Uses Islamic Fundamentalism of Muruna to Wage Jihad in Stealth; Rand Paul Pleas for Anarchy through Championing Crony-Capitalism Alongside the President:

So, again, the dookie has hit the fan and what it has scattered will only grow stinkier. ABC News reported on November 20, 2013 and was retrieved by me quite by accident over an hour ago via Twitter that my favorite senator to expose as a fraud from Kentucky may be a little more of a snake for political purposes than you and I ever really knew. As this was from a news medium some within the conservative establishment choose to call "the lamestream media", I have come to the realization during my years of researching and reading historical accounts which connect current events to our present that even if a historical narrative or biography chooses to revise specific accounts which detract from the objective of what the scholars want to impart upon its readers, the following is always true even if you read the National Enquirer, and that is to always be aware that where there is smoke, there is usually a fire accompanying it. What that means is exactly as how it was written: even a left-wing media source has some validity to its articles, or they would be sued for libel and stand the chance to pay millions of dollars in restitution for defamation of character or misrepresenting the facts; or just plain lying and completely alienating their audience. And having read many left-wing media sources for years including Chinese, North Korean, Russian and Iranian state media, well, even they have their reasons for reporting what they do because it is part of their political agenda. And as I state this, I think that state-run media outlets are actually less hypocritical in principle than our own private sector media since I know as I prepare to access ITAR-TASS or RT.com from Russia, The South China Morning Post, Xinhua or China Daily who reported what the Chinese Communist Party demands in Beijing, or KCNA out of Pyongyang, I will only read what their governments choose to report and how each intends for the news to be disseminated online.  And as for the Chinese media outlet first listed, I happened to glance upon what appears to be attempts by Beijing to eventually violate its agreement with Britain in maintaining Hong Kong as an autonomous zone politically. That might be something I write about later, and how bizarre that this is reported as Edward Snowden fled to Hong Kong not because he wanted to seek asylum with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but because it is the freest economic zone globally, with far fewer regulations than our own. I also am curious, speaking of Britain, how this will affect Sino-Anglo relations and potentially if there is any measure of language within the Thatcher-brokered agreement with the late Supreme Leader Deng Xiaoping regarding Britain's obligations militarily should there be a major breach of the pledge for Beijing's neutrality. ITAR-TASS in remaining linearly-aligned with Iranian state media as the former Soviet media propaganda mouthpiece, continues to report more about its role in aiding Tehran in its nuclear development program while it profits greatly from its oil partnership with the Iranian state oil firm, which has a pipeline extending through Afghanistan and Pakistan on into India as I read months ago. Indeed,  there are more linked phenomena behind what you are reading just in Eastern Europe and the Middle East than you know, and I have been researching that sporadically for years, including information linking Russia and Ukraine's pipelines into our NATO allies land like Poland and Germany, and predicted nearly a month in advance Russia's invasion of first the Crimean Peninsula and later eastern Ukraine. Once I learned that Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter is an executive for Burisma Holdings - the largest private oil corporation in Ukraine - it became easy to grasp why Obama is so invested in maintaining what some claim is a fascist regime in Kiev, and why he reportedly funded the anarchy which led to the pro-Russian government's fleeing from the capital to Moscow. 

Without further ado, I will finally cut my own dookie and just post the "old" article that apparently went largely undetected. Of course, ABC News is again a network favoring the president heavily; why else do you think Diane Sawyer so suddenly lost her position as the anchorwoman for what I personally felt was the best of the three major television stations' nightly news after she grilled Hillary Clinton over her claims of being broke and over her role in Benghazi?

Per ABC News, here you go, and do not forget to wipe the drool from your mouth. Also, do not be scared. We have to do our parts as patriots to fight the wrongs we are being dealt.

Exclusive: US May Have Let 'Dozens' of Terrorists Into Country As Refugees

Nov. 20, 2013

QUANTICO, Virginia

By JAMES GORDON MEEK, CINDY GALLI and BRIAN ROSS

BRIAN ROSS More From Brian »

ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent

Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky -- who later admitted in court that they'd attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- prompted the bureau to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists' fingerprints.

"We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that," FBI Agent Gregory Carl, director of the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), said in an ABC News interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline".

"I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more than that," said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. "And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States; and quite frankly, from a homeland security perspective, that really concerns me."

As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.

Suspect in Kentucky Discovered to Have Insurgent Past

An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home -- a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.

An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army's Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.

Most of the more than 70,000 Iraqi war refugees in the U.S. are law-abiding immigrants eager to start a new life in America, state and federal officials say.

But the FBI discovered that Alwan had been arrested in Kirkuk, Iraq, in 2006 and confessed on video made of his interrogation then that he was an insurgent, according to the U.S. military and FBI, which obtained the tape a year into their Kentucky probe. In 2007, Alwan went through a border crossing to Syria and his fingerprints were entered into a biometric database maintained by U.S. military intelligence in Iraq, a Directorate of National Intelligence official said. Another U.S. official insisted that fingerprints of Iraqis were routinely collected and that Alwan's fingerprint file was not associated with the insurgency.

"How do they get into our community?"

In 2009 Alwan applied as a refugee and was allowed to move to Bowling Green, where he quit a job he briefly held and moved into public housing on Gordon Ave., across the street from a school bus stop, and collected public assistance payouts, federal officials told ABC News.

"How do you have somebody that we now know was a known actor in terrorism overseas, how does that person get into the United States? How do they get into our community?" wondered Bowling Green Police Chief Doug Hawkins, whose department assisted the FBI.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Peter Boogaard said in a statement that the U.S. government "continually improves and expands its procedures for vetting immigrants, refugees and visa applicants, and today [the] vetting process considers a far broader range of information than it did in past years."

"Our procedures continue to check applicants' names and fingerprints against records of individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watchlist, or of law enforcement concern... These checks are vital to advancing the U.S. government's twin goal of protecting the world's most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety," the statement said.

Last year, a Department of Homeland Security senior intelligence official testified in a House hearing that Alwan and Hammadi's names and fingerprints were checked by the FBI, DHS and the Defense Department during the vetting process in 2009 and "came in clean."

After the FBI received the intelligence tip later that year, a sting operation in Kentucky was mounted to bait Alwan with a scheme hatched by an undercover operative recruited by the FBI, who offered Alwan the opportunity to ship heavy arms to al Qaeda in Iraq. The FBI wanted to know if Alwan was part of a local terror cell -- a fear that grew when he tapped a relative also living in Bowling Green, Hammadi, to help out.

The FBI secretly taped Alwan bragging to the informant that he'd built a dozen or more bombs in Iraq and used a sniper rifle to kill American soldiers in the Bayji area north of Baghdad.

"He said that he had them 'for lunch and dinner,'" recalled FBI Louisville Supervisory Special Agent Tim Beam, "meaning that he had killed them."

Alwan even sketched out IED designs, which the FBI provided to ABC News, that U.S. bomb experts had quickly determined clearly demonstrated his expertise.

'Needle in a Haystack' Fingerprint Match Found on Iraq Bomb Parts, White House Briefed

The case drew attention at the highest levels of government, FBI officials told ABC News, when TEDAC forensic investigators tasked with finding IEDs from Bayji dating back to 2005 pulled 170 case boxes and, incredibly, found several of Alwan's fingerprints on a Senao-brand remote cordless base station. A U.S. military Significant Action report on Sept. 1, 2005 said the remote-controlled trigger had been attached to "three homemade-explosive artillery rounds concealed by gravel with protruding wires."

"There were two fingerprints, developed on the top of the base station," Katie Suchma, an FBI supervisory physical scientist at TEDAC who helped locate the evidence, told ABC News at the center's IED examination lab. "The whole team was ecstatic because it was like finding a needle in a haystack."

"This was the type of bomb he's talking about when he drew those pictures," added FBI electronics expert Stephen Mallow.

Word was sent back to the FBI in Louisville.

"It was a surreal moment, it was a real game changer, so to speak, for the case," FBI agent Beam told ABC News. "Now you have solidified proof that he was involved in actual attacks against U.S. soldiers."

Worse, prosecutors later revealed at Hammadi's sentencing hearing that he and Alwan had been caught on an FBI surveillance tape talking about using a bomb to assassinate an Army captain they'd known in Bayji, who was now back home – and to possibly attack other homeland targets.

"Many things should take place and it should be huge," Hammadi told Alwan in an FBI-recorded conversation, which a prosecutor read at Hammadi's sentencing last year.

Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller briefed President Obama in early 2011 as agents and Louisville federal prosecutors weighed whether to arrest Alwan and Hammadi or continue arranging phony arms shipments to Iraq that the pair could assist with, consisting of machine guns, explosives and even Stinger missiles the FBI had secretly rendered inoperable and which never left the U.S.

But agents soon determined there were no other co-conspirators. An FBI SWAT team collared the terrorists in a truck south of Bowling Green in late May 2011, only weeks after al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan and Obama had visited nearby Fort Campbell to thank the SEALs and Army Nightstalker pilots for their successful mission. The Kentucky al Qaeda case drew little attention as the nation celebrated Bin Laden's death.

Suspects Linked to Attack That Killed 4 US Soldiers

Pennsylvania National Guard soldiers who had served in Bayji in 2005 saw news reports about the two arrests, and Army Staff Sgt. Joshua Hedetniemi called the FBI to alert them to an Aug. 9, 2005, IED attack that killed four of their troopers in a humvee patrolling south of the town. The U.S. attorney's office in Louisville eventually placed the surviving soldiers in its victim notification system for the case, even though it couldn't be conclusively proven that Alwan and Hammadi had killed the Guardsmen.

The four Pennsylvania soldiers killed that day were Pfc. Nathaniel DeTample, 19, Spec. Gennaro Pellegrini, 31, Spec. Francis J. Straub Jr., 24, and Spec. John Kulick, 35.

"It was a somber moment for the platoon, we had a great deal of love and respect for those guys and it hit us pretty hard," Hedetniemi said in an interview in the Guard's armory near Philadelphia. "I think that these two individuals are innately evil to be able to act as a terrorist and attack and kill American soldiers, then have the balls to come over to the United States and try to do the same exact thing here in our homeland."

Confronted with all the evidence against them, Alwan and Hammadi agreed to plead guilty to supporting terrorism and admitted their al Qaeda-Iraq past. Alwan cooperated and received 40 years, while Hammadi received a life term which he is appealing. A hearing for Hammadi's appeal took place Tuesday in the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio.

"We need to take this as a case study and draw the right lessons from it, and not just high-five over this," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, who headed the military's Joint IED Defeat Organization until last May. "How did a person who we detained in Iraq -- linked to an IED attack, we had his fingerprints in our government system -- how did he walk into America in 2009?"

Barbero is credited with leveraging the Kentucky case to help the FBI get funding to create a new state of the art fingerprint lab focused solely on its IED repository in a huge warehouse outside Washington. The new FBI lab assists counterterrorism investigations of suspected bombmakers and IED emplacers and looks for latent prints on 100,000 IED remnants collected over the past decade by the military and stored in the vast TEDAC warehouse.

The only man in the Humvee to survive the 2005 IED bombing in Bayji, Daniel South, who is now an Army Black Hawk helicopter pilot in Texas, said he was stunned to learn al Qaeda-Iraq insurgents were living in Kentucky -- but he's glad they were finally brought to justice for attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.

"I kind of wish that we had smoked [Alwan] when it happened, but we didn't have that opportunity so I guess this is second best," South told ABC News.

***

Accidentally let in? You and I both know better! They were being subsidized - provided by the federal government with welfare benefits and public housing! One resided in what amounted to a housing project complex in Bowling Green, and the other more insidiously near a local school. And while the White House was "briefed" and yet all that was done far too long was constant surveillance but no arrests under PRISM and the PATRIOT Act, the video revealed a bomb that apparently was detailed akin to those these terrorists slaughtered on the roadside in Iraq had been found in their possession. And what was the White House doing? Why was this incident not diffused like a sore thumb nationally? And, as he serves on the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, where was Sen. Rand Paul when he should have commented upon the danger to the lives of his own constituency? The very fact that I have to mock what these poor civilians of Main Street USA stated as the painfully obvious understatement of "the system failed" is very disturbing, and I cannot even blame these fine people for being speechless because they, like all Americans, should not have to suffer through this; they should not be forced to pay for what was not at all incompetence, but the initiation of the president's policy to allow not simply Latin American organized crime and drug lords over our borders. And this is all justified under the law of Sharia in recent manners of interpretation under the term muruna, or in Arabic, "flexibility." I suggest you each Google more on this since it has been a year to date when I last researched it. Islam is not simply frightening because of why it is willing to kill people - to glorify Allah and Muhammad - but because of the lengths its most virulent adherents endeavor to justify waging jihad as mujahideen warriors under Allah by way of lying. One source I will provide you is available at this link courtesy of The Right Planet: 

Four Arabic Words You Must Know: Takiyya, Tawriya, Kitman and Muruna

Posted on 05 Aug 2012 @ 10:21 by Brent P.

Belshazzar's Feast (Rembrandt)

 By: Louis Palme

In 539 BC, King Belshazzar of Babylon saw a dismembered hand-written four prophetic words on the wall. This "handwriting on the wall" was finally interpreted by the prophet Daniel as predicting the fall of the kingdom. He was right. Babylon fell to the Medes-Persians that very night.

Like the “handwriting on the wall” that Prophet Daniel had interpreted, there are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are takiyya, tawriya, kitman, and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims. Muhammad famously said, “War is deceit.” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 268)  The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Surah 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Surah 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are wise to your shenanigans. Knock it off!”

Takiyya

Takiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

Tawriya

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) How does this work? Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a supplication Muslims make to Allah seventeen times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, but he knows full-well that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

Another example would be when a Muslim responds to your greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” In your mind, you think he has returned a Christmas greeting. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam; he wishes the best for you which, in his view, is becoming a Muslim.

Kitman

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

“Are they seeking a religion other than Allah’s, when every soul in the heavens and earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?” (Surah 3:83 Later Medina)

Another example:

“Permission to take up arms is hereby given to those who are attacked, because they have been wronged.” (Surah 22:39) Late Mecca

“When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” (Surah 9:5) Late Medina

Muruna

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during their off-times while taking classes in the U.S. to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. Many Americans believe Hillary Clinton’s aide, Huma Abedin, married Jewish Congressman Anthony Weiner at least in part to burnish her security credentials so she could infiltrate the highest levels of the Administration.

The implications of these highly-honed tactics of deception could be enormous for unassuming Western societies. Twenty years ago, psychologist Paul Ekman wrote an insightful book, “Telling Lies”, which demonstrated that people give off recognizable clues when they are practicing deceit. Their consciences cause them, involuntarily, to sweat or raise their voices or make other recognizable gestures. However, Dr. Ekman’s research was exclusively with people from Western cultures. Muslims, on the other hand, show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam. Because any Western person who has raised children knows almost intuitively when someone is lying, so they assume they can do that in all cases. Unfortunately, those same Western people can be easily duped by Islamic deceit because there are no tell-tale signs in the deceiver.

Hopefully, this article will be a wake-up call to the unsuspecting infidels. Trust but verify – as was an old American strategy in dealing with potentially hostile parties – is the way to go in dealing with Islamists.

 ***

Upon reading the news multiple times daily and noticing more of how the president continues to support ISIS and Hamas not simply due to his turning a blind eye while Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel and the Gaza Strip continue to burn, there can be no disguising at least one fundamental truth: Barack Obama is aligned with al Qaeda as he just fired a slew of our armed forces while on the battlefields of Afghanistan; he is funding ISIS and Hamas as well as al Qaeda itself; he is blaming the current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and demanding that he resign his position while simultaneous waffling in public to pretend he vaguely supports his continuity as state leader while insisting on the side that he grant equal powers of government to feuding sectarians aligned with ISIS, and all through this while he is nearly demanding that through both he and John Kerry as a tandem, they broker the peace - not a cease fire or armistice - between Netanyahu's Israeli government and Hamas, the strong arm of the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas. And in the spirit of Margaret Thatcher who despised "... a rather nauseating stench of appeasement", she would simply state to her foes "NO! NO! NO!" 

And all along while we know what role the president is playing as this series of events unfold, I never once listened through what were several telecasts of coverage by ABC a single word out of Sen. Paul. I did not watch nor listen to the entire film footage of the televised coverage provided on the network and never would have known about this report had I not run into the link over a random tweet, but there again we may echo what the media has stated for at least a week now and what Gov. Rick Perry has most harshly attacked not simply the president for either incompetence or what I laud him for having the guts to just come out and say it, a hidden agenda, but in how he ripped Sen. Paul in his op-ed for being "curiously blind" to the crisis that not only my home state of Tennessee's offspring of the Texas which without our Volunteer State legends David "Davy" Crockett and my ancestor Sam Houston, would not today exist.

Gov. Perry, a veteran of the United States Armed Forces, leveled Sen. Paul in his opinion editorial in The Washington Post which I have yet to read if the junior senator from Kentucky has yet appealed to for clandestine funneling of campaign funds:

Opinions

Isolationist policies make the threat of terrorism even greater

By Rick Perry July 11

Rick Perry, a Republican, is governor of Texas.

As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further.

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.

In the Islamic State, which came to prominence in Syria and now controls ample territory, weapons and cash in both that country and Iraq, the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda. This group is well-trained, technologically sophisticated and adept at recruitment, with thousands of people with European passports fighting on its side, as well as some Americans.

This represents a real threat to our national security — to which Paul seems curiously blind — because any of these passport carriers can simply buy a plane ticket and show up in the United States without even a visa. It’s particularly chilling when you consider that one American has already carried out a suicide bombing and a terrorist-trained European allegedly killed four at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. 

Yet Paul still advocates inaction, going so far as to claim in an op-ed last month in the Wall Street Journal that President Ronald Reagan’s own doctrines would lead him to same conclusion.

But his analysis is wrong. Paul conveniently omitted Reagan’s long internationalist record of leading the world with moral and strategic clarity.

Unlike the noninterventionists of today, Reagan believed that our security and economic prosperity require persistent engagement and leadership abroad. He, like Eisenhower before him, refused to heed “the false prophets of living alone.”

Reagan identified Soviet communism as an existential threat to our national security and Western values, and he confronted this threat in every theater. Today, we count his many actions as critical to the ultimate defeat of the Soviet Union and the freeing of hundreds of millions from tyranny.

At the time, though, there were those who said that Reagan’s policies would push the Soviets to war. These voices instead promoted accommodation and timidity in the face of Soviet advancement as the surest path to peace. This, sadly, is the same policy of inaction that Paul advocates today.

In the face of the advancement of the Islamic State, Paul and others suggest the best approach to this 21st-century threat is to do next to nothing. I personally don’t believe in a wait-and-see foreign policy for the United States. Neither would Reagan.

Reagan led proudly from the front, not from behind, and when he drew a “red line,” the world knew exactly what that meant.

***

There is a very good reason why the true patriots of America, even if guilty of a borderline gross usage of a cliche, do so proudly and so too will I: "There colors do not run." And I will be damned if I sit by idly and do nothing by voting Sen. Paul as first the GOP nominee for president and then if he wins the primary, as our president. If by some miracle enough extraordinarily arrogant libertarians remain blind enough to a socialist in disguise like Sen. Paul to do the unthinkable as the hipsters he apparently is courting with a degree of success at Berkeley who sleep in hammocks along the limbs of large trees, inside the trendy coffee cafes of Seattle where his targeted voters just succeeded in a referendum to raise minimum wage to $15 per hour and the economy within a matter of a few months is tanking with inflation skyrocketing and jobs either being cut in hours to prevent incurring Obamacare mandate violations or laying off workers which grow more common by the months in passing, well, the "red line" which Obama championed in Syria and now with Russia in the conflict over our direct ties to Ukrainian oil with Hunter Biden is perhaps more dangerously being applied by Sen. Paul simply because he not only advocates isolationism, but like his ideological hero Murray Rothbard, to simply revise U.S. history in foreign policy to portray Ronald Reagan as an isolationist. And in fact, the late founder of anarcho-capitalism, the base of his brainchild he cursed us all here on Earth from his very special place in the amoral hell of his afterlife to this day, stated this about historical revisionism. You will see why as a historian I despise this method, and how I prefer Ayn Rand's concept of objective observation and the realistic truth that humans are not at all by nature iconoclastic animals:

". . . revisionism, in the final analysis, is based on truth and rationality. Truth and rationality are always the first victims in any war frenzy; and they are, therefore, once again an extremely rare commodity on today's "market." Revisionism brings to the artificial frenzy of daily events and day-to-day propaganda, the cool but in the last analysis glorious light of historical truth." 

- Murray Rothbard, "Revisionism for Our Time", Rampart Journal of Individual Thought (Spring 1966) 

As I have stated now in at least four different blog entries over the past month, if Rothbard was content with his own foundation for libertarianism as the final social evolutionary measure for anarchy to absolve all human beings of responsibility not by liberating them of any quantifiable standards, but lying through the claim it is because it never existed since any anthropologist will write in an academic journal that human beings are not an amoral phenomena of a physical manifestation of life, but instead a very morally-flawed creature who evolve as each individual learns from its experiences both triumphant and in failure, why did he choose to strike out the true term for classifying mankind to its primitive state as a pre-societal nomad - devolution - in favor of the very misleading and gross mistruth of the term evolution in favor of becoming savages? This is the ideology which Sen. Paul champions, and what he discerns to be crippling to his cause, he simply revises, which is why no one can ever feel positive of what a libertarian truly believes about his environs. It is a very atheistic model eerily similar to the four Arabic terms derived from the Quran written early and provided to you with the direct articles' referencing each quote and the citation.

Sam Houston (left) and David "Davy" Crockett (right)

As Sam Houston is a direct ancestor of mine, I am proud to state that not only was "The Raven" a former governor of Tennessee, he also was the president of the Lone Star Republic of Texas (a sovereign state), governor of Texas and later a U.S. Senator who opposed its seceding from the Union and led to his fall from grace in the state he served as the central iconic figure in establishing and achieving its statehood once he defeated in the open field of mind Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna near the bayou city of Houston, named after my ancestor, at the Battle of San Jacinto. He remembered the Alamo for which my forefather and mutual fellow Tennessean David Crockett died while taking untold numbers of Mexican regulars with him.

And in echoing the man Disney portrayed through Fess Parker as "King of the Wild Frontier", I will directly quote him upon learning that another Tennessee legend who founded the Democratic Party and populist politics in Andrew Jackson had destroyed his career since he was a political enemy powerful within the weak Whig establishment in my home state:

"Since you have chosen to elect a man with a timber toe to succeed me, you may all go to hell and I will go to Texas."

And like The Lion of the West, I will too, if not to fight along its borders, in spirit and through my blogging. I just hope that what I write in promoting my unity with the people of Texas at least in spirit reaches them. God bless them all, and may God have mercy on Barack Obama and Rand Paul's souls. They are the sorriest bastards perhaps in all American history. Because if there is one comment about Sen. Paul over which I find myself in disagreement with Gov. Perry, it was the one which garnered him his biggest headline: "curiously blind". There is nothing at all curiously blind about Sen. Paul's policies, and there most certainly can be no mistaking why he has introduced two bills which will assist President Obama will implementing amnesty if somehow shanghaiing our border with Mexico by cunning stealth does not work. Paul wants his way; he wants the undocumented votes of foreigners who will pad his wallets with the drug monies they launder through the skeletons of the enemies they slaughtered en masse that are now being discovered on our side of the Rio Grande in mass graves.

And as I hit the home stretch, well, Sen. Paul thump his revised Bible in such a disgusting manner as to insist that Jesus said to always turn the other cheek when confronted with adversity. Here is his interview with the Christian Broadcast Network where that pile of dookie beneath the derriere of that bull he does well stepping into is, well, just... epicly tragic in his own ignorance as a man claiming to be a devout Christian:

Sen. Paul, please read you Bible again. I am not a regular attendee of any church where I live and I have my reasons why (and not due to the terrible excuse of hypocrites within the congregations, but rather medical ones), but I know for a fact God demands you defend the faith and the rights for His people to worship free of persecution (Courtesy of King James Bible):

1 Peter 3:15 - But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

2 Timothy 4:1-22 - I charge [thee] therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;   (Read More...)

Jude 1:3 - Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Acts 17:1-34 - Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:   (Read More...)

John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

2 Corinthians 3:17 - Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty.

1 Corinthians 3:6 - I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

Romans 12:2 - And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Romans 2:4 - Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

***

And while the senator is willing to introduce legislation to appear to serve as the catalyst for himself to be the great mediator of modern congressional politics, he has no qualms and is doing so today both on our borders and in Kentucky by his complicity of doing more than simply turning a blind eye to unlawful entries of illegal immigrants from the Middle East intent upon slaughtering more or our farmers, poets and sailor brethren. He admits this right here, and this is the end of a very reactionary, albeit far calmer than I would have really liked to have been, blog entry.