It’s no surprise to the folk who read my articles that I am waging something of a campaign against Google.  I would imagine there are those who believe my campaign is borne from jealousy or envy; really, who wouldn’t want Google’s money “problems”, eh?  In truth, I don’t envy it its successes though what it has done, on the surface, is what the American Dream is all about.  From the lofty height atop its mountains of treasure Google could inspire many to dream, to greatly dream, and doggedly pursue that dream.

Google does not, however, represent the American Dream.  From where I stand, it represents all that is immature, selfish, and hubristic about success; it is a greedy behemoth seeking to shape the world in its own image instead of working for the world’s benefit.  Propping itself as a neutral conduit of data it is anything but; for when facts are no longer conveyed, but shaped, they become something less than information and something more like propaganda.  Propaganda is a tools used by despots and tyrants to deceive, manipulate, and control.

It is because of these things that I no longer use any of Google’s services and encourage everyone I know to do the same.  Google cannot be trusted and it should not be rewarded for violating the trust of its customers, subscribers, and the world.

I’ve premised this thought before in these posts (here and here) and have recently come across more evidence supporting my thesis.  The first item, an article by Chelsea Schilling posted on WorldNetDaily describing the dichotomy in Google’s YouTube policies.  The second item is Google’s demonstrated disrespect for the American soldier from every generation.  Oddly, the first and second items are twined, together illustrating a Google more sinister than either item alone.

Sure, did Google or any of its “fanbois” deign to notice my single voice, I’d be dismissed as a right-wing, religious zealot who’s raving diatribes are best to be ignored lest I be given legitimacy.  To be certain, Google grants legitimacy to those who support its agenda -- like terrorists.

In Schilling’s article, she explains how Google enforces a ban on animal cruelty on YouTube, but it will allow the videos showing American soldiers being shot and blown up by IED’s in Iraq and Afghanistan under the guise of “free speech”.

I am an ardent supporter of the U.S. Constitution and will be among the first to defend anyone’s right to free speech, American or not.  Google is not defending anyone’s right to “free speech”, nor is it defending its own.  It is using the First Amendment as a shield to defend its nefarious purposes, among them is the anti-U.S. and anti-U.S. military policies which it pushes at every turn.

If it is a “free speech” issue to show American military personnel suffering at the hands of our enemies, then how is it not “free speech” to show a dog, cat, horse, or any other animal suffering at the hands of the emotionally decrepit?  If it is “free speech” to show a terrorist’s film showing an IED detonating under a Humvee killing all the soldiers within, how is it not free speech to show a cat with a firecracker tied to its tail or a dog being fed a lit M-80?

Is Google really saying that the rights of animals are more precious than the rights of the American G.I. giving the last full measure of devotion to his or her country?

Let’s not forget, (most of) those men and women in uniform are Americans.  So when Google says it’s ok to injure, maim, and kill soldiers, it’s also saying, in effect, it’s ok to injure, maim, and kill Americans.

By allowing such material on its website, Google is doing nothing short of supporting terrorists and abetting terror’s efforts by publishing, defending – and let’s not forget profiting from – these videos.  Aiding and abetting an enemy of the U.S. during a time of war is called …

Did I slice that item fine enough?  My second postulate is somewhat less sensational but underscores the first dramatically.

Monday, May 26, 2008 was Memorial Day in the U.S.  Americans have three days on which to celebrate the men, women, and families of its armed services; Memorial Day, to honor those who have died; Armed Forces Day, to honor those who are currently serving; and Veterans Day, to honor those living who have served.

Irrespective of how one feels about the current U.S. military engagements in the world, it would be foolish to forget those who have come before and died to ensure this country’s freedom.  Without such brave men and women who cared less for themselves and more for their families and countrymen, there would be no United States of America.  Without the U.S., the world would be a vastly different, vastly darker place.  For all its mistakes, inconsistencies, and travesties, consider a world ruled by Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Show me someone who’d rather live under one of these tyrants instead of any U.S. President and I’ll show you someone terrified of earning one’s way, personal accountability, and freedom.

Before I stray too far from my thesis, let me get back on track by pointing out that Google did not acknowledge Memorial Day with a customized logo.

It is Google’s practice to recognize certain events by changing its standard logo to an image customized for the particular occurrence.  We’ve seen Google logos for Valentine’s Day, Madam Curie’s, Picasso’s, Andy Warhol’s and Martin Luther King’s birthdays, the fiftieth anniversary of Lego, Shichi-go-san and Children’s Day (Japanese holidays), Groundhog Day, National Teacher Day, National Library Week, International Women’s Day, and many, many others.

For Memorial Day, Google did – nothing.  In my research, when I found all the things for which Google has changed its logo over the span of its existence (1999 forward), I’m left wondering why Memorial Day was ignored – but I don’t wonder for long.

Google would rather expend its resources defending the rights and life of an animal than defending the rights and life of an American by banning videos infringing on the former’s rights and allowing videos celebrating the deaths of the latter.  Further, it defends those deaths by purposely misapplying the principles of free speech.  When Google treasonously allows videos showing the assassination of Americans and then refuses to tribute the slain on the single day set aside for just such an observance, it shows just how little regard it has for the conviction and sacrifice executed on its behalf every single day, world-wide, by those better than it will ever be.  It will “benevolently” and “conscientiously” regard an animal while indifferently and callously disregard Americans stalwartly defending its right to choose whom it regards.

An Earth Day logo but no Memorial Day logo?  “Save the animals” but kill American soldiers?  Is this some upside-down world where fiction has supplanted fact?

Nope; it’s just how Google makes a buck.

First, let me get the full disclosure out of the way; I believe marriage should be defined as the union between heterosexual partners – that is, one man and one woman; I’m against gay marriage; I think gay marriage is an overt attack on the sanctity of the family. Since the family unit is the bedrock and smallest cohesive unit of society, I view gay marriage as an attack on the American way of life. Now, I don’t care if a gay couple wants to cohabitate and do whatever it is gay couples do; what happens in the privacy of a home should remain private. That privacy does not extend to birthing (in the case of lesbians) or adopting (either gender) children; children are the fruits of a heterosexual union and should remain that way; so you could say I’m against gay couples having children, too. 

Basically, I’ve always felt that each should be true to him or herself; I’ve only asked for that same courtesy in return. But we’ve gone beyond that now. Gays not only want me to tolerate them in their aberrance, but they are demanding I approve of their lifestyle and choices. This I will never do. 

So we have another gross miscarriage of justice in California this week. Voters in California decided that gay marriage was not for them; in 2000 61% of them voted to ban the practice. This week, the California Supreme Court decided to ignore the will of the voters. Instead of sending the law back to the Legislature to be rewritten, four of the seven justices took it upon themselves to not only overturn the ban, but to legalize gay marriage.

Guess those judges were asleep during the civics classes describing the separation of powers. But I stray.

In thinking about this news and discussing it with my girl, it occurred to me that gay marriage, as ugly and disgusting as it is, will actually be a boon to heterosexual divorce. Follow along with me, reader, and you’ll see where I’m headed in a moment.

Traditionally, when heterosexual couples marry and divorce, the wife is given preferential treatment. The treatment is so preferential that some fathers never get to see their children again. But, in the less extreme, courts have forced fathers to give up the majority of their pay to support the children and ex-wife, subjected the father to supervised visitation if the ex-wife even hints there’s something improper about his relationship with his children, and the list goes on. I challenge you to do a little research into it and read with the dismay of millions of fathers who are being treated like criminals – because they are male.

But now, gay marriage will save all that; it will right the justice system in a way that the men’s movement never could; it will end the prejudice against men and fathers and force a judge to award custody and support based on merit instead of gender roles.

How is gay marriage going to do all this? Easy – gay divorce.

It is a sad fact of our society that over half of all marriages end in divorce. I don’t think gay divorce statistics will be much different (not the honest ones, anyway). So when a gay couple stands before a judge to divvy up the estate, custody, who pays how much in child support, he or she will be forced to view the partners based on merit. Merit here means the ability to contribute to the support of the children. In a male gay couple divorce, there is no woman to automatically prefer with ridiculous child support requirements and draconian visitation rules imposed upon the father. The judge will have to drop this blatant sexism in favor of something more fair; from each according to his ability.

Similarly, in female gay divorces, a judge can’t automatically favor one female over the other – he or she will again be forced to view the case based on the merit of each partner.

We have in our judicial system a preference for previous decisions. The term used is stare decisis, in effect, ‘let the decision stand’. For example, if it was decided in 1967 that ‘separate but equal’ was not Constitutional, any other case that was similar would consider the judge’s decision and usually rule in a comparable manner. 

This is where I bring the tractor-trailer all the way around. Given that merit will be the requirement in gay divorce, it will only be fair and just for heterosexual divorce. No longer will men be treated as a criminal, as nothing more than the gene donor and pocketbook, as nothing more than a dalliance from which the ex-wife can be supported for the rest of her life. True justice will finally – finally – be granted to fathers and ex-husbands, justice that has previously been withheld for a myriad of reasons ranging from prejudice to outright disdain for the male gender. 

I don’t think gay marriage is right for our country or its future and I oppose it in any form it takes. If we are to have this travesty in our society perhaps there’ll be something good borne out of this evil; fathers will once again be respected, sought for more than his paycheck, and put on equal ground as mothers.

It’s about time.

A person’s character is at the very core of what we want to hear about because it speaks to who and what they are, how they will approach us as the governed, and whether or not they will make the right decisions at the right time for the right reasons. It’s the driving factor behind every single thought, word, and deed.

My mother used to chide me when I was caught in a lie, “Don’t you want people to believe what you tell them?” It’s a way of saying, “If your word is worthless then you are worthless.”

I’d say both Clinton and Obama are pretty worthless.

And don’t hand me that nonsense that every one lies; an appeal to broad practice is as fallacious as it is insulting. Really – folks jumping off a bridge make it ok to jump from a bridge? Is that how you want to justify the craven’s bald-faced grab for dominion over you, your family, and your country? You want someone like this to represent you to our allies? How seriously do you think our enemies would take us if they knew our leader was simply grandstanding?

How is it that the very folks who claim “Bush lied; soldiers died” can rally around either of these two – liars?

Look; if the candidates are willing to lie to you, to exaggerate their records or positions or well-documented situations, to speak and act hypocritically on the campaign trail, what makes you think they will change and do the right or honorable thing once they are handed the levers of power to the greatest nation in the history of the earth? They are putting their best foot forward now in asking for our votes – if this is their best foot, what do you think lay with their worst?

Someone who lies to you in order to earn your favor does not have your best interests at heart. Someone who exaggerates his or her contribution to something or position speaks of an insecurity that does not have your best interests at heart.

Sure, I want to hear about the issues like capitalism v. socialism, gun-freedom, free speech, free religion, and so on; but before I can trust you to talk about the larger, more important issues that affect billions (because if the U.S. sneezes the entire world catches a cold), I want to know if you’re capable of telling the truth, of meaning what you say when said, and if you’re really – millions of dollars per year aside – just like me. So far, they’ve shown me they can’t and aren’t.

And that tells me neither Clinton nor Obama are qualified to be President. Ever.

As with any person who has an email address, I am on the receiving end of a lot of chain letters, scams, and jokes, all forwarded from well meaning people.  Every once in awhile I stumble across something that I just have to do more than pass by; the below is just such a thing.  I received a version of this in my email, and verified it on snopes.com.  The version below is the updated notes from Richard D. Lamm.

It is probably old to most who read my blog but it was new to me.

I HAVE A PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA
RICHARD D. LAMM

I HAVE A SECRET PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA.  IF YOU BELIEVE, AS MANY DO, THAT AMERICA IS TOO SMUG, TOO WHITE BREAD, TOO SELF-SATISFIED, TOO RICH, LETS DESTROY AMERICA.  IT IS NOT THAT HARD TO DO.  HISTORY SHOWS THAT NATIONS ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN THEIR CITIZENS THINK. NO NATION IN HISTORY HAS SURVIVED THE RAVAGES OF TIME. ARNOLD TOYNBEE OBSERVED THAT ALL GREAT CIVILIZATIONS RISE AND THEY ALL FALL, AND THAT "AN AUTOPSY OF HISTORY WOULD SHOW THAT ALL GREAT NATIONS COMMIT SUICIDE."  HERE IS MY PLAN:

I.  WE MUST FIRST MAKE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY.  HISTORY SHOWS, IN MY OPINION, THAT NO NATION CAN SURVIVE THE TENSION, CONFLICT, AND ANTAGONISM OF TWO COMPETING LANGUAGES AND CULTURES.  IT IS A BLESSING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO BE BILINGUAL; IT IS A CURSE FOR A SOCIETY TO BE BILINGUAL.  ONE SCHOLAR, SEYMOUR MARTIN LIPSET, PUT IT THIS WAY:

THE HISTORIES OF BILINGUAL AND BICULTURAL SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT ASSIMILATE ARE HISTORIES OF TURMOIL, TENSION, AND TRAGEDY.  CANADA, BELGIUM, MALAYSIA, LEBANON-ALL FACE CRISES OF NATIONAL EXISTENCE IN WHICH MINORITIES PRESS FOR AUTONOMY, IF NOT INDEPENDENCE.  PAKISTAN AND CYPRUS HAVE DIVIDED.  NIGERIA SUPPRESSED AN ETHNIC REBELLION.  FRANCE FACES DIFFICULTIES WITH ITS BASQUES, BRETONS, AND CORSICANS.

II.  I WOULD THEN INVENT "MULTICULTURALISM" AND ENCOURAGE IMMIGRANTS TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN CULTURE. I WOULD MAKE IT AN ARTICLE OF BELIEF THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL:  THAT THERE ARE NO CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT ARE IMPORTANT.  I WOULD DECLARE IT AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT THE BLACK AND HISPANIC DROPOUT RATE IS ONLY DUE TO PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION BY THE MAJORITY.  EVERY OTHER EXPLANATION IS OUT-OF-BOUNDS.

III.  WE CAN MAKE THE UNITED STATES A "HISPANIC QUEBEC" WITHOUT MUCH EFFORT.  THE KEY IS TO CELEBRATE DIVERSITY RATHER THAN UNITY.  AS BENJAMIN SCHWARZ SAID IN THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY RECENTLY:

...THE APPARENT SUCCESS OF OUR OWN MULTIETHNIC AND MULTICULTURAL EXPERIMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED NOT BY TOLERANCE BUT BY HEGEMONY.  WITHOUT THE DOMINANCE THAT ONCE DICTATED ETHNOCENTRICALLY, AND WHAT IT MEANT TO BE AN AMERICAN, WE ARE LEFT WITH ONLY TOLERANCE AND PLURALISM TO HOLD US TOGETHER. 

I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL IMMIGRANTS TO KEEP THEIR OWN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE.  I WOULD REPLACE THE MELTING POT METAPHOR WITH A SALAD BOWL METAPHOR.  IT IS IMPORTANT TO INSURE THAT WE HAVE VARIOUS CULTURAL SUB-GROUPS LIVING IN AMERICA REINFORCING THEIR DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN AMERICANS, EMPHASIZING THEIR SIMILARITIES.

IV.  HAVING DONE ALL THIS, I WOULD MAKE OUR FASTEST GROWING DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP THE LEAST EDUCATED - I WOULD ADD A SECOND UNDERCLASS, UNASSIMILATED, UNDEREDUCATED, AND ANTAGONISTIC TO OUR POPULATION.  I WOULD HAVE THIS SECOND UNDERCLASS HAVE A 50% DROP OUT RATE FROM SCHOOL.

V.  I WOULD THEN GET THE BIG FOUNDATIONS AND BIG BUSINESS TO GIVE THESE EFFORTS LOTS OF MONEY.  I WOULD INVEST IN ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND I WOULD ESTABLISH THE CULT OF VICTIMOLOGY.  I WOULD GET ALL MINORITIES TO THINK THEIR LACK OF SUCCESS WAS ALL THE FAULT OF THE MAJORITY - I WOULD START A GRIEVANCE INDUSTRY BLAMING ALL MINORITY FAILURE ON THE MAJORITY POPULATION.

VI.  I WOULD ESTABLISH DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND PROMOTE DIVIDED LOYALTIES.  I WOULD "CELEBRATE DIVERSITY." "DIVERSITY" IS A WONDERFULLY SEDUCTIVE WORD.  IT STRESSES DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN COMMONALITIES.   DIVERSE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE ARE MOSTLY ENGAGED IN HATING EACH OTHER-THAT IS, WHEN THEY ARE NOT KILLING EACH OTHER.   A DIVERSE," PEACEFUL, OR STABLE SOCIETY IS AGAINST MOST HISTORICAL PRECEDENT.  PEOPLE UNDERVALUE THE UNITY IT TAKES TO KEEP A NATION TOGETHER, AND WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS MYOPIA.  LOOK AT THE ANCIENT GREEKS.  DORF'S WORLD HISTORY TELLS US:

THE GREEKS BELIEVED THAT THEY BELONGED TO THE SAME RACE; THEY POSSESSED A COMMON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE; AND THEY WORSHIPED THE SAME GODS.  ALL GREECE TOOK PART IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES IN HONOR OF ZEUS AND ALL GREEKS VENERATED THE SHRINE OF APOLLO AT DELPHI.  A COMMON ENEMY PERSIA THREATENED THEIR LIBERTY.  YET, ALL OF THESE BONDS TOGETHER WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO OVERCOME TWO FACTORS . . . (LOCAL PATRIOTISM AND GEOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT NURTURED POLITICAL DIVISIONS . . .)

IF WE CAN PUT THE EMPHASIS ON THE "PLURIBUS," INSTEAD OF THE "UNUM," WE CAN BALKANIZE AMERICA AS SURELY AS KOSOVO.  

VII.  THEN I WOULD PLACE ALL THESE SUBJECTS OFF LIMITS - MAKE IT TABOO TO TALK ABOUT. I WOULD FIND A WORD SIMILAR TO "HERETIC" IN THE 16TH CENTURY - THAT STOPPED DISCUSSION AND PARALYZED THINKING.  WORDS LIKE "RACIST", "XENOPHOBE" THAT HALTS ARGUMENT AND CONVERSATION.

HAVING MADE AMERICA A BILINGUAL-BICULTURAL COUNTRY, HAVING ESTABLISHED MULTICULTURALISM, HAVING THE LARGE FOUNDATIONS FUND THE DOCTRINE OF "VICTIMOLOGY", I WOULD NEXT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS.  I WOULD DEVELOP A MANTRA - "THAT BECAUSE IMMIGRATION <U>HAS BEEN</U> GOOD FOR AMERICA, IT MUST ALWAYS BE GOOD." I WOULD MAKE EVERY INDIVIDUAL IMMIGRANT SYMPATRIC AND IGNORE THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT.

VIII.  LASTLY, I WOULD CENSOR VICTOR HANSON DAVIS'S BOOK MEXIFORNIA -- THIS BOOK IS DANGEROUS -- IT EXPOSES MY PLAN TO DESTROY AMERICA.  SO PLEASE, PLEASE -- IF YOU FEEL THAT AMERICA DESERVES TO BE DESTROYED -- PLEASE, PLEASE -- DON'T BUY THIS BOOK! THIS GUY IS ON TO MY PLAN.

"THE SMART WAY TO KEEP PEOPLE PASSIVE AND OBEDIENT IS TO STRICTLY LIMIT THE SPECTRUM OF ACCEPTABLE OPINION, BUT ALLOW VERY LIVELY DEBATE WITHIN THAT SPECTRUM." -- NOAM CHOMSKY, AMERICAN LINGUIST AND US MEDIA AND FOREIGN POLICY CRITIC.

Both Governor Lamm and the writer of the e-mail misidentify the author of the book Mexifornia, whose correct name is Victor Davis Hanson.

This’ll be a short one today – I’m away from my keyboard more nowadays than before and need to get back to it.

I was catching up on the news when I came across this article about a hunters program in West Virginia.  Seems in West Virginia, public schools are required to offer hunter education programs to students in eighth through twelfth grades.  These courses are not mandatory, no one is required to take one of these courses; they are electives.

As I was reading the article and was pleasantly surprised there’s an entire state getting on the right side of this issue, one of the arguments against such a program jumped off my screen and stank up my office.

The odiferous argument against a mandatory hunter training program is that hunting, hunting safety, and so on are all better taught by the student’s parents at home.

This argument may have some familiarity to it because parents have been saying for a couple decades that sex education is best left to them, not the school system.  Hearing none of such an argument, school districts across the country have placed sex education (including the "alternative lifestyle" of the gays and lesbians) as a mandatory course; that is, they are not electives, they are required.

So why’s it ok for parents to teach their children about hunting and firearms at home, but not okay for them to teach their children about sex?

If you haven’t heard already, Washington D.C. is aiming to violate not just the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms) with its draconian laws and attitudes towards its citizens, but also the Amendments supporting an American’s right to privacy. Though there is no explicitly stated ‘right to privacy’ in the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled there is an implication of such a right resident in the First (privacy of belief), Third (private property, or privacy of home), Fourth (as the Third), Fifth (privacy of one’s affairs), Ninth (privacy as a right not specifically enumerated by the Bill of Rights), and Fourteenth (due process) Amendments; the D.C. Mayor and Police Chief seek to violate these as well.

While they’re at it they may as well declare martial law.

What I’m talking about is the “Safe Homes Initiative” (read about it here and here); a program announced by D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fentry and Police Chief Lanier yesterday (March 13, 2008). In another example of liberal Orwellianism, the program actually renders a home less safe.

“Safe Homes” allows police to search private residences door-to-door for handguns and drugs. That’s right – D.C. is going to send police officers door-to-door to search a home. Without probable cause to search or a warrant signed by a judge. That flickering flame you hear in the background is the U.S. Constitution being consumed by fire.

Sure, officers are supposed to ask for permission to search the premises; liberal thugs and socialist apologists can cite that as a loophole for the program to pass Constitutional muster. But what happens when the officers are not given permission? Am I to expect they would simply walk away without further incident? Clear thinking folk are suspicious of such a tactic; what happens when you’re stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and refuse the officer? It’s not very pretty after that, is it?

Too, there is the sham of amnesty. The plan is touted with an amnesty clause similar to the gun buy-backs wherein if a handgun is found, the officers won’t arrest the property owner (in D.C. it is illegal to even own a handgun – a blatant Second Amendment infringement). The police will investigate the origins, and to the extent possible, the use of the confiscated handgun; if it is found to have been used in a crime, charges will be filed. So the program isn’t really offering amnesty, is it? Oh, and never mind the trivial infringement of the Fifth Amendment with such a plan.

The Fifth Amendment protects an American from self-incrimination. How is filing charges against the property owner not an infringement of this right? Sure, if the property owner wasn’t the one committing the crime, he or she still abetted the criminal by stashing the handgun, right? So the amnesty provision of the program is a lie of omission; we are told that folk who turn over the handguns are immune to prosecution, but not that the immunity covers only the possession of the handgun; it appears the authorities are free to charge whomever they can relative to the firearm’s illegal use.

What isn’t mentioned is one of the other facets of the D.C. gun ban; long gun storage. In D.C., residents who own long guns (rifles and shotguns) are compelled by law to lock the weapon with a trigger lock or in a safe; in either case the weapon is to be unloaded. The “Safe Homes” program doesn’t specify what protections are afforded a citizen should an officer happen to find an unlocked or loaded long gun. In the absence of such direction, I imagine the homeowner will be charged and the firearm confiscated.

This program is vulnerable to the dreaded “racial profiling” argument that is preventing us from safely securing our airports and airlines. D.C. could have an ugly lawsuit on its hands from such a profiling practice. Though in this case it’s not racial profiling, it’s class; only those sections of D.C. where there are a higher proportion of lower class citizens will be searched. The neighborhoods of rich and affluent (such as the neighborhoods where the city council members live?) won’t be searched. So the program is not really about keeping homes safe, it’s about taking away handguns from the folks who need it most for personal and home defense.

Adding to this stinking pile of fascism is the fact that this program begins March 24^th, just after the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in D.C. v. Heller. D.C. has tried to legislate handguns out of the hands of private citizens for over thirty years; now that it looks like the legislation will be struck down as un-Constitutional, the mayor and police chief want to physically remove them, forgetting their civics lessons about inalienable human rights.

Let me touch on something less high minded and more insidious; one of the program’s goals seeks to undermine parental authority in addition to the annulment of private property rights. Lanier has the notion parents are not in charge of their own children and cannot control them.

Lanier says, “It [the program] focuses on parents or legal guardians who think their children have a gun in the house and are uncomfortable with searching for it themselves.”

The way I read that statement means that Fentry and Lanier do not believe a parent is capable of running his or her own home or his or her own children. In a fine example of nanny-state interference, Lanier admits she feels like the state can do a better job. Were I a parent, I’d be insulted on so many different levels by her arrogance.

Keep in mind it’s not just D.C., my friends; Boston is conducting a similar program this month and Philadelphia is considering it. Nothing spreads so fast as fascism, eh?

Liberal thought and action in this country stopped surprising me some time ago; I’ve come to expect the most socialist thought and position from our folk on the left and have not been disappointed. It’s been something of a sport for me to watch them twist themselves around questions of personal responsibility, liberty, and freedom in order to explain to Americans how socialism is really just an advanced and more compassionate form of capitalism. But this – this surprised me. Even in my most gloom-and-doom scenarios I never envisioned 2008 as the year openly socialist forces in this country turned openly fascist. I guess we can add the names Fentry and Lanier to those of Clinton, Obama, FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler in the annals of history.

To circle this tractor-trailer completely, let me opine a bit further. We must carefully weigh our options for Congress and President this coming election in November 2008. With this program in D.C., Boston, and perhaps Philadelphia it is becoming clear this ballot is not about the economy, the Iraq War, or some ubiquities and unexplained change. This election is about direction, about fundamentals, about the essence of what it is to be an American; do we want to lose our republic to the tyranny threatening at our door, or do we want to keep it?

We can only keep it if we throw off such programs as “Safe Homes”, fire public administrators like Lanier, vote out or impeach public officers like Fentry, reject the notion that socialism is matured capitalism, and demand with the authority of our Founding Fathers that our rights be respected. 

I, for one, want to keep it.

As I learn more about the political parties and processes in the U.S., I am repeatedly struck by the stark differences between the two largest groups, the liberals who are primarily represented by the Democratic Party and the conservatives who are primarily represented by the Republican Party.  In this election season there are pundits and cynical bemoaning how there’s no real difference between the parties, that a vote for either does not represent 'change' but more of the same sort of government 'We the People' have come to loathe.  Right or left, red or blue, there are differences separating the two parties, some minute, others huge.  One of the chief differences between the two camps is the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution in general, specifically the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is not an addendum of suggestions to the federal government; it is a list of rights specifically enumerated to protect citizens from tyranny.  Freedoms of speech, religion, and the press; the rights to bear arms and due process; the rights to be free from unlawful searches and seizures, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishments are all delineated in plain English to construct a border between government and the governed.  This border is not to confine the citizen, it is to confine the government, to keep it at bay and from interfering with individual liberty.

The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of fundamental rights.  A fundamental right in more understandable terms are those considered retained by every person simply because he or she exists; we also call these 'natural human rights'.  A natural human right is one that can neither be granted nor revoked by any government or entity; it is a right that each individual has simply because he or she is alive.  Therefore, these rights cannot be legislated, trivialized, or ignored.  Not every country on the planet believes in fundamental rights, but here in America, that was the intent of our Founding Fathers as established in the Freedom Documents upon which our system of government is based.

There is a difference between a natural human right, a fundamental right, and a privilege.  A privilege is something granted or revoked by higher authority, and used usually as a bargaining tool to keep the subordinate in line; a fundamental or natural human right is irrevocable.  A good example of a privilege is a driver’s license.  If a driver shows his or her incompetence behind the wheel, the State can revoke the license under which driving privileges have been granted.  That person would no longer be recognized as responsible enough to handle a motor vehicle.

Another good example of a privilege versus a right is the teen-ager and the telephone.  A teen ager’s main lifeline to his or her friends (and escape from parents) used to be the telephone (which is now supplanted by email and instant messaging).  One of the first things a parent would take away from a teen-ager not living up to his or her responsibilities is access to the telephone (or computer nowadays). 

To sum up, a privilege can be granted and revoked as deemed necessary by some higher authority while a fundamental right, or natural human right, is endowed upon each individual by virtue of his or her existence and is irrevocable which can only be respected by the government.

I went into such detail and definition because there seems to be confusion about our Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains.  Liberals and Democrats have it wrong, purposely so, I think; how can we have socialism in this country if the Bill of Rights are fundamental, natural human rights? 

Democrats view the Bill of Rights as a list of suggestions, as a list of privileges, a list to adhere to when speaking about patriotism in order to get elected but not actually respected when the governed consent.  Socialism is a Borg-like collective where there is no room for the individual or individual rights which, at its base, is nothing more than tyranny by a diffrent name.  The written documentation outlining our belief in natural human rights must either be ignored, or have its meaning subverted.  Since ignoring the Bill of Rights outright would not lead a socialist very far, we're seeing subversion of its meaning in the modern Democrat / Socialist movement.

For the sake of brevity, we’ll discuss only three examples underscoring my point about Democrats out of the plethora to be found with a quick ask.com search; Hillary Clinton’s socialist remarks on the campaign trail; John Edward’s remarks on the campaign trail; and published remarks made by the liberal columnist, Susan Estrich.

Anyone who’s been following the horse race to the White House for the last year and change knows that Hillary Clinton represents a radical shift to the left for America.  Her socialist rhetoric started in earnest last year and she has been pounding her message since; universal health care (socialized medicine) works only if participation is mandatory (garnishing wages); it takes a village to raise a child (state rights trump parental rights); windfall taxes on firms making a profit (notably "big oil"); and the most socialist remark I’ve heard on international TV from an American citizen, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."  "Things" can take all manner of forms from taxes to natural rights (such as the "fairness doctrine" which she supports).

For as left as Clinton is racing, John Edwards tried to outpace her by going even further to the left.  In a single interview, Edwards made up two rights not in the Constitution, and expressed his belief that one of our fundamental rights is a privilege; health care is a right, an illegal immigrant living in the country for a year has rights, and the Second Amendment is a privilege.  Watch a Socialist at work.

I purposely chose someone not in a leadership capacity for my third example because I want to demonstrate how diluted the Bill of Rights has become to the rank and file Democrats.  Susan Estrich is a syndicated columnist and on my short list of blue authors whom I respect.  I’ll read her columns to feel the "pulse" of "regular" Democrats; though her rhetoric is sometimes as shrill as the most bluely liberal blogger, by and large she writes and expresses herself rationally and succintly.  I honestly believe she loves America and wants to solve its problems but I don’t think her ideas are the right ones for the long-term survival of our country.

In Estrich’s column from Sunday, February 24, 2008, she writes:

"Maybe there should be an asterisk in the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of the press making the point that most of us who are parents of teenagers do on a regular basis: that freedom is not simply a privilege but also a responsibility, that just because you have it doesn't mean you need to push its limits, much less abuse it." (emphasis mine)

While I agree with Estrich that there are responsibilities associated and required of every natural human right (e.g. free speech does not mean a person can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, nor is a fecal-coated statue of the Virgin Mary considered "free speech"), her words illustrate our difference in understanding; to her, the freedom of the press is a privilege, not a natural right.  One the one hand, I am astonished by her position because she makes at least part of her living under the protections of the very right which she seeks to subvert.  On the other hand, I’m not surprised by her position because, as is apparent, the Bill of Rights is merely a Bill of Suggestions to Democrats, a quaint idea with no basis in human rights, improperly ignored when politically expedient to do so.

This is a dangerous ideology that will only serve to bring about America’s destruction, just as it did Rome’s.  Our Founding Fathers wrote extensively and toiled deliberately against a strong, centralized government that did not respect the individual and his or her natural human rights; they purposely designed a system of government that would reflect the will of ‘the People’, providing the smallest intrusion into a citizen’s life the world has ever seen.

It’s clear to me in this simple review that the Democrats don’t believe in our inalienable human rights because those rights stand as guardian and precipice against the form of tyranny we call socialism.  Socialism and individual liberty and freedom are inversely proportional; the more liberty, the less tyranny; the more tyranny, the less liberty.

In Hurricane Election 2008, which will you vote for?  For now, we have a Republic; if we can keep it.

I was reading this article on foxnews.com as a follow-up to the shooting at Northern Illinois University (NIU).  The article is part of the Associated Press syndication that is reprinted on foxnews.com’s website, so there’s no author to source.  Something leapt off the screen while I was reading the piece:

"Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought an arsenal of guns in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s." (emphasis mine)

Of course, being pro-Second Amendment and pro-self-defense, I dug into what exactly constitutes an "arsenal of guns".

According to this article on ABCNews.com, Kazmierczak has three pistols and one shotgun; two of the pistols were legally purchased a week before the shootings; the other pistol and shotgun were purchased in August and December of 2007 (which purchased when was not disclosed by the article).  So we have a fellow who own three handguns and one shotgun.  The Associated Press calls this an "arsenal".

In the movie Lord of War, Nicholas Cage’s character convinces a Soviet officer stationed in the Ukraine to sell the weapons cached at a forward deployed base.  As Cage and the officer walk through the bunker, we see rows and rows of AK-47 rifles, some forty thousand of them; this is what we call an "arsenal". 

It’s rather irresponsible to label what Kazmierczak owned as an "arsenal".  By using that standard, any hunter who has more than one rifle (as most do) would be considered owing an "arsenal".  In fact, I have an arsenal myself were I to apply the Associated Press’ standards to my weapons.

Just like the auto mechanic has a myriad of tools at his or her disposal, a hunter does too.  Why use a high-powered rifle for small game?  Why try to fell a deer or moose with a small game caliber?  "The right tool for the job" is a mantra repeated by anyone who uses tools to do any job.  According to the Associated Press, just owning "the right tools" constitutes an arsenal.

This article isn’t really about guns though; it’s about how the press continues to undermine its own validity and integrity by using cheap, ham-fisted methods to scare folk who don’t understand guns and "just want to do something".

Remember all the published rhetoric surrounding the methods Christians use to recruit new Christians and inspire good behavior?  Secular media always paints (unjustly, I might add) the clergy as fear-mongers using elaborate fictions of Hell and eternal punishment to keep the flock in line.  Criticism is heaped on anyone taking up the call to work in the clergy for being nothing more than a purveyor of fear.  The secular media does this as a way to undermine the validity and integrity of the clergy.

In all things political these days, which none of us can escape for more than a moment, accusations from the secular media fly in all directions surrounding any mention of radical Islam or further terrorist attacks.  Mention 9/11 as a valid reason to shore up our defenses and fight the drooling hordes of fascism and the secular media trivializes the speaker by labeling him or her as a fear-monger or alarmist.   The secular media does this as a way to undermine the validity and integrity of those who would act in the defense of our families.

So I’m calling the Associated Press – and all the rest – on the hypocrisy of their behavior.  If being a fear-monger and alarmist is wrong and the person or entity doing so becomes trivial, then you are as wrong and trivial as the clergy and defenders who you have denigrated.  Don’t you owe it to your readers to prevent such things from appearing in your articles, to take the higher road by simply reporting the facts of a story? 

When you label Kazmierczak’s weapons as an "arsenal" you are as guilty as those you accuse of fear-mongering because it is not even close to what one really is.  At least those who you’ve accused are simply trying to save a soul or prevent another terrorist attack on our soil; you appear to be trying to wrest away the best tools for a citizen’s self-defense and keeping tyranny in check by scaring the guns right out of their neighbor's hands.  Further, you’re trying to force the reader to draw the conclusion – your conclusion – that if a person owns guns – even just one! – he or she is a deviant, mentally unstable, and destined to be in the headlines as a mass murderer.  You are not in the business to force a conclusion; you are in the business to discover, and then report, the facts.  Period.

To those that would ask about what words to use when describing his guns, why not just say what was purchased?  Something like:

"Steven Kazmierczak, the 27-year-old grad student who bought three pistols and a shotgun in recent months and used them to kill five people and commit suicide, had been on medication and was said to have spent time in a psychiatric center as a teen in the late 1990s." (emphasis mine to demonstrate the difference)

Isn’t that a more reasonable and responsible way to report on the story? 

The Associated Press and its ilk who peddle in fear-mongering are the least qualified to trivialize or dismiss anyone for doing so (Pot, meet Kettle … ).  The media outlets practicing this hypocrisy don’t seem much interested in reason or responsibility; a fact which makes what they have to say uninteresting to me.

I don’t expect this article to last very long in Google’s search engine because of its content.  I can say this with reasonable assurance based on recent behavior from the internet search giant; though it commands well over 50% of the search activity on the internet it is showing signs that it is not a neutral entity with the public’s best interest at heart.  To be certain, any firm is in business to turn a profit first and foremost with corporate citizenship somewhere on the Form 10-K; the "public’s best interest" is hardly a fiduciary interest but Google is not a regular firm.

Google’s responsibility to the public is much greater than that of, say, Dodge or Wal-Mart because unlike the latter two which peddle in goods and services related to its goods, the former peddles in information which is a much more important and much more dangerous product.  Information has spawned enlightenment, influenced decisions, enabled education, and sparked revolution; Google wants us to accept it as the global peddler of information and until recently seemed willing to be its neutral provider.

So long as Google remained neutral in the transaction between information and seeker, I had no issue with it, even applauding its technology and successes.  The more we learn about Google the more we find it is not neutral; the less neutral Google is means a concerned public should be ever more skeptical of the services it provides.

The first indication I had Google was not a neutral conduit information and is trying to influence and shape policy was the incident outlined in this blog post.  In short, Google targeted Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine because she was using MoveOn.org as a talking point in her re-election campaign ads at the same time allowing MoveOn.org to sully General David Patraeus in its ads.  Of course, when called on it, Google cited trademark and copyright policies upon which Madam Senator Collins infringed but MoveOn.org did not.  What Google really said by its actions is that it is ok for a very liberal left-wing organization founded and funded by the Clinton’s to advertise ad-hominem attacks against an Army General charged with implementing the Bush Administration’s Iraq War Policy, but it was not ok for a conservative Senator to use that activity as part of her re-election campaign.  To boil that complicated sentence down to something more palatable, Google allowed an attack on conservatives from liberals but blocked a conservative using that attack as part of her advertising campaign.

Taken by itself one could argue that Google just made a mistake, that it is still a young company experiencing all the growing pains other young companies experience when they have such a sustained period of rapid growth.  I don’t buy it (particularly since Barak Obama was the only presidential candidate invited to speak on the Google campus), but a lot of folk did.  Then today we are met with another clue to the culture of corruption behind the white web form; Google de-listed Inner City Press.

To be honest, I had never heard of Inner City Press before today; had Google not censored the free press I might never have heard of it.  Again, taken by itself, this is not a sign of corruption for Google lists and de-lists as is necessary to maintain its "quality" of service to the public.  If we dig a little deeper, we find an insidious thread that tinges the white web form scarlet.

Inner City Press is an internet news organization that has been reporting on corruption and abuses within the United Nations.  Anyone who knows a whit about the U.N. knows that it is an organization long on rhetoric but short on results because of its incompetence and internal corruption; they also know the U.N. is perhaps the standard bearer for liberalism, socialism and communism in the world.  This is the same organization that seeks to erase the U.S. Constitution and make American liberties something for the history books all the while extolling its own vision for righteousness and humanity.  Clear-thinking folk world-wide know the U.N. for the sham it has become.  Considering its roots and intent, its fall is a terrible shame.

So corruption within the U.N. is not exactly new or unknown and Inner City Press was reporting on every tidbit it could uncover.  Google recently partnered with the U.N. for its anti-poverty initiatives and was called to the carpet for it by Inner City Press’ journalist and editor-in-chief, Matthew Lee.  Lee wondered to a Google representative why it was partnering with the U.N. for anti-poverty initiatives and not human-rights or anti-censorship.  Now, after a single complaint, Inner City Press has been de-listed from Google News.

That’s right, only one complaint was enough to de-list an internet news service from Google News.  I wonder if I complained about MSNBC.com, CNN.com, FOXNews.com, or GOP.com if I could get them de-listed.  I’m sure I couldn’t – in fact, I’m sure Google would ignore my email because I’d be the only complaint.  If it did respond, it would assure me those sources were legitimate news outlets.  Inner City Press is no less legitimate, albeit it is not nearly as large, and has a history of calling corruption where it finds it.  Since Google partnered with a corrupt arm of a corrupt organization one could rightly wonder what sort of corruption would be found within Google.

Again, this singular incident does not a “culture of corruption” make but I cannot help but think there’s more to it.  It seems to me that Google is not just aiming to be the main and best internet search provider in the world; it looks to me like it is actually trying to shape and influence policy.

Part of the reason Google has gained so much ground so rapidly is because it has an aggressive aggregation and indexing algorithm that makes an internet search fast and relevant.  Until this point, we have been able to trust the search results because we believed Google did nothing more than collect and index information, and return it when queried.  It looks like it’s doing more than that when it takes an active part in selective censorship (that is, of conservative outlets or those which could embarrass the firm).  If Google doesn’t already have a culture of corruption its recent activities show us it’s headed in that direction.

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder what will happen if Google becomes so big all other search was rendered irrelevant?  What would stop it from tailoring the news or search results to an [insert singular viewpoint here]?  What would keep it honest enough to provide information impartially without the taint of a political agenda?  Though there are other search providers that can compete (Yahoo’s is very good), Google still opts for heavy-handed censorship of those parties with which it does not ideologically agree; what happens when there are no other players on the field, how much integrity would Google retain? 

Google tells us its search is heavily reliant upon relevance; that is, a site is listed higher or lower in the search results, in part, based on how many other legitimate sites link to it.  How easy would that be to internally manipulate (pretty easy, in fact)?  As a fella that understands databases, indexing, and search, coupled with the way Google has recently been flaunting its power, I am chilled by the implications.

Now, it's fairly obvious from my posts on this blog and elsewhere to which political philosophy I subscribe.  Some of my readers may discount my thoughts in this post simply because my position in political thought.  I submit, however, that it doesn’t matter to which side a firm like Google sways; manipulating and censoring information is dangerous to understanding, liberty, freedom, and life and it should be condemned whenever it occurs.

My mother used to tell me there is always more than one side to every idea; Google would prevent us from hearing any other side but its own.

Trust Google at our own peril.