Friday, December 17, 2004

On Target

After learning that Target stores had reportedly refused to allow Salvation Army ringers in front of their stores this Christmas season, I took the time to do some investigation. I researched the topic on the INTERNET and I also interviewed several Salvation Army members locally to ascertain the truth of the matter.After which, I went to Target's corporate website and expressed my displeasure with Target's actions and expressed my intent to remove them from future consideration as a place that I would engage my business with. I received the following email from a Target representative today.


The Salvation Army

Dear ****, Like many nationwide retailers, Target Corporation has a long-standing "nosolicitation" policy that it consistently applies to all organizationsacross all of its stores. We receive an increasing number of solicitation inquiries from non-profitorganizations and other groups each year and determined that if we continueto allow the Salvation Army to solicit then it opens the door to any othergroups that wish to solicit our guests.

While some of our guests maywelcome the opportunity to support their favorite charity or cause,allowing these organizations to solicit means that Target would also haveto permit solicitation by organizations whose cause or behavior may beunacceptable to our guests. We notified the Salvation Army of our decision in January 2004, well inadvance of the holiday season, so the organization would have time to findalternative fundraising sources.

Target also asked the Salvation Army tolook at other ways that we could support their organization under ourcorporate giving guidelines. To this date they have not provided a proposalthat fits those guidelines.Local Salvation Army chapters can apply for grants through their localTarget stores. For decades, many non-profit organizations across thecountry have successfully worked with Target in this manner. We are askingthe Salvation Army to work with us in the same exact manner as the othergroups and organizations who ask to solicit our guests.

This decision in noway diminishes Target Corporation's commitment to itscommunities. Target has one of the largest corporate philanthropy programsin America, donating more than $2 million per week and hundreds ofthousands of volunteer hours each year to the communitiesin which it doesbusiness.

Sincerely,Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

My Response

Thank you for your timely response Ms. Hanson.

While your explanation is represented as a plausible response to dispel an apparent misunderstanding of fact, in reality your explanation only serves to establish the faux reality supporting Target's defense.Companies that sincerely desire to be active members of any community, embrace the needs and customs of that community.

Target may contribute millions to the popular theist, secular and politically correct foundations and political causes masquerading as charities, but the reality of your represented sacrifices are contrast by your unappreciative reactions to other America institutions like the Salvation Army.

While Target may feel comfortably smug by partially shielding itself from scrutiny, the guise represented to justify your fear of forced inclusiveness of other organizations is as hollow as your representations of overwhelming philanthropy.The unholy pursuit of egalitarian philanthropy is the foundation of demise for Target and other similarly reacting corporations in America.

With the ever declining dollar and the ever increasing scrutiny of the American shopper, actions such as those taken by Target against the Salvation Army weigh heavily with a significant number of Americans.Something tells me that Target's philanthropy will diminish greatly in the near future, as will its profits.

Have a blessed Christmas

Copyright 2004 trickworm

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Peace on Earth, Goodwill Towards Men?

You wouldn't know that by looking at America today. Its the Christmas holiday season and most Americans are engrossed by the rapid pace of the final days approaching the biggest holiday celebration of the year. But be careful what you say and who you say it to. The phrase Merry Christmas may soon become offensive speech if some in America have their way. Hogwash you say? Who would assail or challenge the "goodwill" tradition of bidding good tidings towards your fellow man? (or woman) Don't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of insult, especially if you haven't been following the news too closely this year.

Most Americans have become familiar with the inclusive recognition of other December religious and secular observances such as Hanukkah and Kwansa, but they remain unaware of the continued attacks on the Christian observance of Christmas. Christmas has been observed on December 25th since 336 AD according to historical resources. The choice of the month of December was associated more with existing pagan celebrations recognizing the end of harvest than the actual date when Christ was born. But the origins of the term Christmas are pretty clear. Christmas is derived from the Latin words "Cristes maesse" which translates: "Mass of Christ." A religious observance begun by the Christians of the Roman Empire and carried forth by all subsequent Christian faiths.

There in lies the problem. Regardless of the fact that most of our Christmas customs of decorating and gift giving are outgrowths of the centuries old common practices of decorating with evergreens and gift giving to celebrate solstice, the real reason for the season is to celebrate and recognize the birth of Christ. Other traditions were only incorporated into the observance after the fact. By the 11th century, Christmas had become the most important holiday observance in Europe and St. Nicolas had been appointed the recognized symbol of gift giving. Christmas traditions were passed down through the generations and many people never considered the possibility that anyone might attack Christmas because of its Christian customs. But it has happened before and it is happening again. After the Reformation and the rise of Protestantism in the 1500's Christmas came to be looked on by many as a celebration inclusive of too many "non religious" customs. The end result of those views was to outlaw Christmas in much of England and in parts of the colonies in America during the 1600's. In essence, Christmas observances were almost permanently banned because the observance had completely strayed from what the Protestant church believed was the original intent and purpose behind the Christian observance of Christ's birth.

Today in America, Christmas is once again being attacked. Not because there are people that want to do away with the holiday or the festivities, but by those that want to completely remove all aspects of Christ and Christianity from Christmas. Holiday displays exhibiting any remote association to Christianity have already been banned from government buildings and most public buildings. Once again there are stories in the news daily from across America where government buildings are taking down Christmas trees and replacing them with the secular symbols that represent the pagan influences of solstice celebrations. Children are not being permitted to exchange Christmas cards in their schools in many districts and all mentions of Christmas have been replaced with the non offensive words of "holiday and season" Christmas trees are now called "holiday trees" in many American communities and many other communities have completely transformed their Christmas parades into "Holiday" or "Yule Season" parades.

No longer do you see decorations on light poles of angels, shepherds, stars or even candy canes. No mangers or crosses or shepherds staffs can be displayed on public property, only secular displays of lights, snowflakes elves, snowmen and Santa Claus. Malls may decorate with seasonal gaiety and lavish "holiday" displays, but look closely and you will note that these displays are carefully choreographed to eliminate any representations or associations with anything that could be remotely construed as Christian in origin. So as you go about you shopping and individual observances this year, take note and be aware that while the observance of Christmas is still celebrated, the observance that Christmas was originally meant to represent is steadily being stolen away from our heritage. Stolen away by those that represent themselves as only seeking equality and inclusion yet armed with the power of state sanctioned exclusionary government and the heinous belief that freedom of religion in reality means freedom from religion.

As you go about your holiday routines of shopping, entertaining and attendance of observance services this year remember this. The simple greeting to a stranger with the phrase "Merry Christmas" is no longer considered a innocuous or friendly salutation by many. After all, Christmas has the word Christ in it and therefore, represents offense to many non Christian members of our "inclusive" society. Someone that is non Christian might be offended by "Have a Merry Christmas" and we can't allow that in a tolerant society seeking "Peace on Earth." Copyright trickworm 2004

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Desertion and Dissent Not Recognized By a Voluntary Military

After reading the media coverage of the American deserter Jeremy Hinzman, I am angered by the blatant misrepresentations being perpetrated against both Americans and Canadians by the lies and half truths of a deserter, as reported in the media coverage of the story in both countries. Aside from the misrepresented belief in the individual choice of a soldier to determine his obligation of service and the rhetorical innuendoes being utilized in Jeremy Hinzman's defense, there exist no realistic defense or explanation for his crime of desertion.

Any intelligent person with common sense and an ounce of informed reasoning in either country recognizes that conscientious objector status exist only in the realm of conscriptive military service. The status is declared prior to not after the fact. Jeremy Hinzman was not drafted and he was made acutely aware of conscientious objector status provisions, before he (voluntarily) enlisted in the United States Army. He also signed an enlistment contract acknowledging his awareness of his responsibility for service, and in recognition of the fact that any potential claims conscientious objector status would be indefensible based upon his signed contract surrendering that right. He also took an oath to defend the US Constitution, to defend his country and to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and those in his chain of command in the US Army.

Having intentionally deserted from the US Army during a time of war, he is now the focus of international media attention and he is desperately seeking any leverage that will aid his ability to escape punishment for his crime. His allegations of war crimes are not unique in the defense of a deserter and are relevant to his defense only as examples of the reprehensible whining of a coward seeking to justify his desertion.

It is a certainty that no war has ever been waged where innocent non combatants have escaped becoming victims and the war in Iraq is not unique to that reoccurrence of fact. However, Jeremy Hinzman's defense, by refusal to participate in an "unfair war" (in his opinion) is no more than a contrived ploy and attempt to play upon the media's desire to find any and all fault with American war policy in Iraq, while affording deserters the aura of a plausible defense from the consequences of their actions.

By his own testimony thus far, Jeremy Hinzman has openly admitted his guilt and he is now utilizing the complicity of others in defense of his crime of desertion, to support his theoretical belief that he as an individual soldier can determine the authority of the President of the United States and the US Congress and the US Army to require him to perform his oath and duty as an American soldier.

While he may believe his own delusional and metaphorical misrepresentations of fact and he may believe his own choice of creative definition of terminology, his individual assessments concerning war crimes, violence, fairness, atrocities and the morality of war, do not alter or diminish his guilt or accountability for his willful desertion from the US Army during a time of war.

While Jeremy Hinzman would like Americans and Canadians to believe that he is facing American military justice for simply acting upon his political beliefs, in reality he is facing punishment for his failure to hold allegiance to his oath and obligation to the Constitution of the United States, the US Army and to the American people. An oath where he swore or affirmed to defend, protect and serve the Constitution and the Untied States, against all enemies foreign and domestic and to follow the orders and directions of his superiors while enlisted as an American soldier. Once he took that oath, he willingly surrendered his individual ability to reflect upon the politics of war or refuse to obey the lawful orders of the US Army. He also surrendered any individual right of determination concerning America's enemies or his ability to choose his duty assignment or agreement or non agreement with national policy. As a Vietnam veteran, I am quite familiar with his ilk and whether he is identified by the media as merely a shirker, dissenter or conscientious objector is irrelevant to me. As one that has honorably served and defended his country during a far more contentious time in American history than this, I recognize Jeremy Hinzman for what he is. A deserter, a coward and one that should be punished for desertion and violation of his oath as an American soldier. © trickworm 2004

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

I Do Believe In Spooks, I Do Believe in Spooks,

Let's see. A classified CIA Station Chief's memorandum is leaked (provided) to the media portraying the dire straights of destabilization in Iraq. Hmmmm. I wonder where the Station Chief's "agency" political allegiances fall?Anyone get a whiff of partisan politics afoot and the finger prints of militant liberalism, especially after Director Goss has implemented new policies to reestablish the CIA as a viable intelligence organization as opposed to its former state of malaise and inefficiency? Surely not after he has implemented new agency policies and directives that have resulted in large scale resignations of the former gate keepers, of which many were the root cause of the agency's past failures?Surely no one would jeopardize the safety of our soldiers by spreading the feces of enemy propaganda in an obvious salacious attempt to embolden the "insurgents?" Don't think so? Think again. They did it in Vietnam and they are trying to do it again. © trickworm 2004

December 7, 2004INTELLIGENCE 2 C.I.A.
Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's PathBy DOUGLAS JEHL WASHING TON, Dec. 6 - A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in briefings presented by a senior C.I.A. official who recently visited Iraq.The officials described the two assessments as having been "mixed," saying that they did describe Iraq as having made important progress, particularly in terms of its political process, and credited Iraqis with being resilient. But over all, the officials described the station chief's cable in particular as an unvarnished assessment of the difficulties ahead in Iraq. They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy.

What Time Is It At Time?

Time Warner and Newsweek are not either of my most desired news sources and it looks like that will remain the trend for the long term future.

"Newsmags' kiboshon Christmas BY ADAM LISBERGDAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Just in time for Christmas, America's two largest news magazines devote this week's cover stories to debunking the story of Jesus' birth.Among the conclusions in Time and Newsweek: Jesus was born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem; there is little evidence of three kings following a star, and the story of the virgin birth may have been borrowed.

"The Nativity saga is neither fully fanciful nor fully factual but a layered narrative of early tradition and enduring theology,"

Newsweek writes in examining the Sunday-school version of the birth of Christ.This may be unwelcome "news" to most Americans. A Newsweek poll found that 55% of Americans believe every word in the Bible is literally true, 67% believe the entire Christmas story is literally true and 79% believe Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary with no human father."

Maybe next weeks issues will be devoted to the debunking of Moses or David or Abraham. Or maybe even the considered scientific analysis of Mohamed or Budda the Koran and the Tora. But I think not.Theres no forensic evidence to support the telling of Christ's birth in Matthew or Luke? There probably isn't much "forensic evidence" that Moses led the Hebrews through the desert for forty years subsisting on manna either. Or that Moses brought down the plagues upon Ramses and Egypt and marked the passage of death past the first born of Hebrews by marking Hebrew homes with the blood of Passover. I say we get CIS New York and CSI Miami on these revelations right away.

© trickworm 2004

Monday, December 06, 2004

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

Many people in America would like to believe that the politics of race does not exist. Fairness, tolerance and equality are touted as the only means to unify the disparately differing view points on race in America.While many American have accepted and embraced the philosophies of peace and sought to make the I have a dream speech a reality, many others have sought to further divide the country for their own personal and political benefit.For example, who really believed, I mean "really believed" the DNC speech of Al Sharpton when he looked at America and told the republican party that the black vote could not be bought?

Well I did.

The reason I did was basic common sense. The republicans can never buy what has already been bought and paid for by the democrats. The democratic party "owns" the black vote in America and has for several generations. Therefore, the pandering and blathering of a so called civil rights leader attempting to camouflage that fact are in reality amusing.

But more importantly, the dies (of politics) are not only cast but closely guarded and maintained my the African elite in America. Their influence and desire to perpetuate the civil rights "industry" will not be curtailed or influenced by any "up and comers and near do wells" that may actually think or believe that any sincerity actually exists in the rhetoric of civil rights.What appears to have happened last week with Kweisi Mfume concerning his sudden and unanticipated resignation from the NAACP, is an example of the reality of philosopy, politics and control of the national black vote.

Anyone believing that Mfume was just taking time off to catch up on things around the house, or that he was off to pursue a more altruistic means for furthering race relations in America needs to guess again.He was ousted. That's correct, ran out on the proverbial rail. All be it minus the traditional tar and feathering. (That had already been done in private session). Mfume apparently violated the inviolate canon that black America is the private domain of the democratic party and you better not mess with that. Or else!Well Mr. Ifume got the "or else" with the real godfather of the organization after refusing to re-wrap the NAACP and black America in the swaddling clothes of democratic segregationism.

The end result was not that he decided it was time to leave. The decision had already been made by the real black power elite because of Mfume civil rights indiscretions.Read the truth about what really happened below. © trickworm 2004

"NAACP Head Mfume Didn't Retire, He Was Booted Out

by Armstrong WilliamsPosted Dec 6, 2004Don’t believe the well scripted press conference where former President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Kweisi Mfume, announced his resignation. Mfume did not resign from the nation’s oldest and most prestigious civil rights organization. He was kicked out, following a long simmering feuded with NAACP Chairman Julian Bond.

The two began feuding after Mfume nominated National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice for his 2003 NAACP Image Award. Furious that Mfume was reaching out to the Bush administration, Bond responded by nominating "Boondocks" cartoonist Aaron McGruder for his Image Award. McGruder had ridiculed Rice in his comic strip and later caller her “murderer” for her role in the war in Iraq." The rest of the story.

Sunday, December 05, 2004

The Truth Behind the Intelligence Bill

While the media is busy lambasting republicans for blocking the president's intelligence bill, the truth behind the controversy is not being reported by main stream media in America.

Republicans are blocking the legislation because the bill does not have provisions limiting the states ability to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. The 19 hijackers on 9/11 had a total of 63 drivers licenses between them (from different states) that they used to thwart our system and facilitate their efforts with the 9/11 attack.

This is another example of how partisan politics and liberal democrats have influenced and enabled terrorist to exploit our system for the sake of liberal egalitarianism.

Democrats are the main supporters of "motor voter" laws in most states in America. Get a drivers license and you are automatically eligible to vote. That's the reality behind the democratic ploy that created the dilemma. The more illegals that they can register to vote, the larger their voter base is the ultimate goal.

That is the reason the 9/11 hijackers were able to obtain 63 drivers licenses, because our system of regulatory control is be destroyed in America.
So now we have senators with commons sense saying no and the media isn't revealing the reason why? © trickworm 2004

Here's a story on the reality.

America’s Collective Loss of Memory and Mushrooms

Published in the Douglas County Sentinel November 2nd 2004.

Apparently, there is a far greater nemesis lurking in American than the threat of Alzheimer’s or other physiological disorders affecting our memories. As a nation, we are told that memory loss and memory dysfunction are attributable to aging, disease and other physiological disorders, but I think it is much worse than that. I think the reality of our condition lies more in the cultivation of mushrooms.

America was viciously and murderously attacked on September 11th 2001. Yet many Americans seem to have forgotten that. President Bush set a course and policy to hunt down and destroy those responsible, but to listen to many Americans you would think that he is the enemy. A war against terror has become a war for oil. A war to thwart and prevent further terrorism on our shores is represented as a war for financial enrichment and global conquest. We are told that 200 billion has been wasted and that 1100 American lives have been thrown away pursuing a wrong war in the wrong place. We have been told that the evidence clearly demonstrating the ties to terrorism to an evil and murderous dictator are in reality blurred and inconsequential. We are told that the embellished record of a candidate whose combat experience totaling four months is a more valid and substantial qualifier than a president whose war record stretches back three years. We are told that our president has lied, yet we are told to ignore the repeated lies of a candidate whose career and history of lies dates back thirty five years.

We are told to believe the ever changing and constantly manipulated reality of John Kerry is the true reality, yet no one seems to remember the lives lost in New York or Washington or Pennsylvania that September day three years ago, or sees the ever present danger of the threat that looms in America’s future. More importantly, no one seems to remember who was responsible for those acts and who was attacked. They either don’t remember or they don’t understand that we were the victims, and that we were the ones attacked. Some how, we have become the assailants and the president’s actions are portrayed as acts of aggression rather than defense and John Kerry is the savior to be embraced.

How can this be? How can this have occurred? The answer is not complex. Memory is based upon information and experience. If we don’t experience something personally, we must necessarily rely on the experiences of others to form our understanding and memory of events. The keeper of our collective memory of shared experience as a nation has traditionally been the media. Those that dared to seek the truth and braved the dangers to acquire the truth for the benefit of all. Sadly, that highest of goals has been circumvented and hijacked for the purpose of political advantage and surreptitious manipulation of public opinion.

As we approach next Tuesday’s election, each and every American should be considering the issues and the facts surrounding the presidential election and who will be best to lead our nation during this dark time of threat to America. Americans need to push aside the spin, and the manipulation and the forced perceptions being pandered by those whose motivations are based more in ratings and Emmy’s and Golden Globes and Pulitzer’s than truth and the common good of our country.

America needs a leader. A man that will stand by his convictions, a man that has a history of keeping his word and navigating the gales of dissention and the seas of purposeful deceptions. We need a president that not only tells the truth, but is willing to make hard decisions and then stand by those decisions in the face of organized efforts purposely assembled to assail and challenge his will and resolve. We need a president that will look coldly into the eye of murder and terror and not flinch and never blink. A man that will never barter the safety of America on the alter of international perception and approval.

America’s memory has been purposely manipulated and obscured by those that seek to realize egalitarian global plurality as their own personal reality at the expense of America’s safety and sovereignty.

Someone once said, “I feel like a mushroom, because I am kept in the dark and fed manure all the time.” The keepers of the mushrooms in America are those that control and editorially manage mainstream media. The major networks and the major newspapers are the ones responsible for keeping Americans in the dark and feeding them a steady diet of manure wrapped reality. As Americans it is our responsibility to let our voices be heard. Next Tuesday that collective voice should be a unified shout. Not only as a referendum on the man who will be our president, but also as a referendum on media in America and their collective attempt to weaken our nation. As Americans we each need to go the polls and vote. We need to let the liberal elitist in main stream media hear the voices of those other than the spoon fed mushrooms. © trickworm 2004

ABC News & Kerry Silver Star

October 15th 2004

Tonight on ABC News Night Line, I witnessed the latest attempt by the media in America to prop up and salvage the alleged war record of John Kerry. Apparently ABC News has spent the last several weeks investigating John Kerry’s Silver Star. Why? Because John Kerry’s character has been brought into question by recently aired privately funded commercials challenging his character and sponsored by a group of former swift boat veterans.

Did ABC News go to the men who were there during the battle and interview them? No, they went to Viet Nam and interviewed the modern day communist and former Viet Cong members who reportedly still live in the area and who “remember the battle of February 28 1969 very well.”

Ted Koppel attempted to lay out the evidence after ABC interviewed people that he represented as “only peasants” with no “axes to grind” and no concerns about the American presidential election. The ABC team interviewed a “husband and wife” a “widow” and a “former Viet Namese Provincial Commander who each told a different account of the battle.

These witnesses claimed that the Viet Cong elements that day comprised 12 Provincial Viet Namese soldiers and 8 District soldiers and that there was a fierce battle with the American swift boats. (Not exactly a superior force to oppose three fully armed swift boats with full crews and additional infantry troops on board who were put ashore to route the insurgents) Yet John Kerry didn’t report any fierce contact that day other than the teenager he was awarded a Silver Star for leading a landing party to kill.

Apparently the same soldier that had fired at Kerry’s boat immediately prior to Kerry’s heroic act of chasing him down and shooting him in the back yet the modern day residents of the village reported to ABC that the man killed that day was actually a “big man who was 25-26 years old. One of the Provincial soldiers, not a teenager and that he fell in the open on a dyke, possibly shot in the chest when he stood up during the battle, not while running from an American and hiding behind a hooch. No one there seemed to remember LT. JG Kerry’s heroics or having seen him that day period.

The man and his wife did not see the man get shot and they don’t recall anyone having chased him before he was shot, but they found him with his rocket launcher dead after the battle. These witnesses also noted during the interview that they were hiding in bunkers during the battle that occurred that day (with the exception of the VC commander now 54 years old). ABC also failed to identify the other soldiers or sailors that Kerry reportedly led as a "landing party" to pursue the enemy that day. Why? Maybe because he didn't lead a landing party “in the face of superior forces” that day. He beached his boat and abandoned his command to chase after a wounded individual soldier who was no longer a threat to his boat or his command and was nothing more than an easy kill for the record. Why would he do that? Was that a proper action or response? No one seems to care. But Ted Koppel and ABC over looked those minor discrepancies in Kerry’s Silver Star citation along with several other glaring discrepancies in the official account of the battle in the after action report.

The same way they glided over the fact that these same peasants told them that the Americans did not recover any sizeable cache of weapons or other equipment that day. (Contrary to the after action report and the Silver Star citation citing recovery and destruction of an enemy re-supply strong hold) All that happened according to these present day witnesses was that South Viet Namese soldiers burned down several hooch’s on the orders of the Americans that day and the Americans missed a large cache of weapons buried in the village that remains buried to this day under the widow’s garden. No one made an attempt to do any digging to substantiate or dispel her claim. It didn’t fit the proposed story line or the reported facts that they were attempting to establish so it apparently wasn’t relevant to the ABC investigative team.

The former District commander they interviewed is today 54 years old. That would seem to reflect that he was no more than 19 when he reports having been a “commander” of District troops, but no one bothered to question his military or war credentials or the validity of his claim that he had led a counter assault to attack the rear of the Americans that day, when no such counter attack was ever reported by any American present during the battle, including John Kerry. Or was the fact that at 19, this reported commander was commanding men in their mid twenties or older.

Ted Koppel was satisfied to report that after ABC News interviewed these “peasants” that it was clear that their recollection of the battle paralleled the accounts reported in the after action report of the battle and the Silver Star citation citing Kerry’s bravery sufficiently to support the after action report and the citation. But Koppel did not address the fact that there are three separate citations that have been presented for the same battle action and the same Silver Star alleging Kerry’s actions on February 28, 1969. Koppel also failed to identify the author of the after action report citing the combat action that day (as reported and relied upon as fact by ABC News) or who reported those facts to superiors for the official record.

Had Koppel read the accounts of those Americans who were actually there that day and had related in their eye witness accounts in Unfit for Command what they say happened, he would have already known the answer to many of the questions that ABC says appear to remain unanswered after their report tonight.

When John O’Neill (coauthor of Unfit for Command) was finally allowed to address the Night Line report, Koppel appeared more interested in appearing condescending towards O’Neill’s attempts to address the Night Line report than in giving fair or equal treatment to what O’Neill actually had to say concerning the undisputed facts of the battle. Koppel did not care to address that John Kerry’s own accounts and Viet Nam biography “Tour of Duty” and the book by the Boston Globe were the original reference sources for the battle account utilized by O’Neill. Koppel also did not want to acknowledge that O’Neill’s book Unfit for Command utilized the same accounts of the battle as reported in all previous accounts with the exception of pointing out the obvious flaws and misstatements of facts when compared to numerous swift boat veterans and Kerry’s version of the events that day.

None of that mattered to Ted Koppel. The verdict was obviously in. While they had not found the smoking gun or the Holy Grail of truth that they sought and had hoped to use to vindicate Kerry, they had found what they represented as “independent and credible information” sufficiently supporting the after action report of the battle and Kerry’s Silver Star citation. The fact that the motivations and memories of the Viet Namese interviewed were not only questionable but conflicting didn’t seem to be of any concern to those involved in the ABC News investigation of the battle and Kerry’s Silver Star.

In the end, Koppel fell back on an often used and rarely questioned predetermined premise of journalism. That premise being, when they couldn’t prove the story that they were seeking to prove, they simply reported the facts that seemed to support some of their original hypothesis and left the truth to be obscured by stating “many unanswered questions remain.”

Later on, during the ABC News “Overnight” broadcast, limited excerpts from Night Line were rebroadcast. After which the commentator remarked, “its good to see some in depth reporting on this after having seen 30 and 60 second snippets for months.” © trickworm 2004

The link to their written version of tonight’s ABC NEWS Nightline report.

Saturday, December 04, 2004

June 2004

What is Grief? What Is Vengeance?

Having lived through the aftermath of the September 11th attacks and having watched the media reports, specials and interviews that continue to this day, I cannot help but be amazed at some of the statements and vicious diatribe that I see regularly reported involving the 9-11 victim’s families. Over three thousand American families were horribly and permanently affected that day.

However, as soon as the immediate shock began to subside a number of Americans and a number of the victim’s family members began pursuing their own versions of vengeance and hatred towards our government and other Americans. This week’s testimony at the 9-11 Commission hearings is only the most recent example. The commission’s investigation was suppose to be for the purpose of determining what happened and what could be done to prevent further attacks of this magnitude. Sadly, it quickly digressed into a partisan political "witch hunt" seemingly more focused with assigning political blame than determining lessons learned.

The commission hearings have only served as a stage for partisan politics and some victim’s families to vent rage and seek vengeance for the benefit of the media. I am not in the habit of discrediting or attempting to diminish anyone’s grief or pain, but I am sickened by the conduct of some of these victim’s families and the media’s desire to capitalize and feed blood lust and a lynch mob mentality. Nineteen individuals and the terrorist leader and organization that financed and controlled them are the ones responsible for this tragedy. President Bush and Rudy Giuliani are not the one’s responsible for this tragic day.

They were just the one’s responsible for dealing with the aftermath. As with any horrific tragedy, hindsight is 20/20. We can learn from our mistakes, but we cannot assign blame for the sake of grief and vengeance or politics. Sadly, we have spawned a generation of Americans that are more concerned with "what’s in it for me" than what they can do to contribute to the general welfare of our society as a whole. Many of the 9-11 victim’s families appear to be more concerned with their collective political agendas and their own financial enhancement than with respecting the memories of their loved ones or supporting their country during a time of war. I am sure that those responsible for the 9-11 attack are currently planning future attacks against Americans and our country.

I am also sure that they revel and enjoy watching the aftermath of their actions and the ability our freedom provides for the misguided and emotionally motivated to assist them in their goals. Are President Bush and former Mayor Guiliani and other elected officials heroes? I doubt they are personally concerned with personal or public assessments of accolades. They are men of character and they are more concerned with preserving our democracy and our freedoms than with pondering their historical legacies.

The heroes of 9-11 were those who sacrificed their lives attempting to save others on that day. The heroes are those who currently serve in our military and who are engaged in preserving our freedom and the freedom of others. Those that attempt to assign blame because of their emotionally driven desire for vengeance wouldn’t recognize heroism if it were standing right next to them. Their actions belittling others, only serves to disrespect the memory of their honored dead. © trickworm 2004

My Views on John Kerry

From an article that I Wrote in July 2004

To my friends and family,This week the media's attention is focused on the Democratic National Convention in Boston. So far this week we have seen everyone from Al gore and Bill Clinton to last night s appearances of Ron Reagan and Teresa Heinz Kerry. Each are attempting to solidify their parties support behind the election of John Kerry this fall and hopefully (during the convention spectacle) persuade a significant number of American voters to vote for John Kerry for president. Sadly, many Americans get their entire knowledge of events and the issues from the limited sources of the national media. They don't know the truth behind the rhetoric and innuendo.

These are the voters that John Kerry and his party hope to once again hoodwink into voting for him and other democrats.I grew up understanding and realizing that you can learn volumes about people based upon who their friends are and what their (real) history has been. John Kerry grew up amongst the wealth and indulgence of the Massachusetts elite. He has his own portfolio of photographs of him with President John Kennedy taken while he (Kerry) was a teen aboard the Kennedy yacht.

A day hardly passes that he himself or those speaking on his behalf neglect to point out that he is a Vietnam veteran and "war hero." However, a closer look at those statements leaves a lot to be desired when it is compared to the truth and the facts of his service in Vietnam. John Kerry is a Vietnam veteran, that much is true, but his exploits of fighting in the trenches are zealous embellishments designed to remanufacture the truth. John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam lasted three months. (Actual combat assignment not counting 6 weeks of staging and training).

After which he petitioned and was granted reassignment after receiving "three combat injuries." The thing that most Americans don't realize is that these "combat wounds" were minor requiring only basic first aid medical treatment. In one instance, the record reflects that Kerry's wound was treated by a Navy Corpsman who "cleaned the wound and applied Bacitracin." Bacitracin is an antibiotic ointment specifically used for minor scrapes and not to be used on deep or puncture wounds. Yet each time John Kerry was "wounded" he reported the wound himself and transported himself to treatment and once treated he returned to his assignment. No extensive treatment or hospitalization required.

If you know of a Vietnam vet that received the Purple Heart for injuries, ask them how they were wounded and what their thoughts on John Kerry's three purple hearts are. Not only did John Kerry seek to receive his medals and awards by submissions of his own hand, but he sought to be removed from the combat of Vietnam after three months, so he could return to America and begin his political career working on someone else's campaign. As soon as he was discharged from the NAVY, John Kerry became a member of the anti war "Vietnam Veterans Against the War", an organization that aided and abetted the very people that our servicemen were fighting in Viet Nam.

The members of this organization (of which John Kerry was a prominent and vocal member) held rallies and protests that assailed out servicemen and accused them of war crimes. John Kerry testified before Congress and accused his former comrades in arms of rape, butchery and all manner of war crimes. Yet he could not provide any identifiable reference or evidence to support his claims. John Kerry went on to join celebrities like Jane Fonda and appeared at dozens of anti American protests, some of which he undeniably attended with Fonda. John Kerry participated in a protest in front of the White House where he threw his Vietnam awards and decorations over the fence as an act of personal protest and his strong opposition the the war. Yet today he proudly displays his Vietnam awards and medals on the wall of his Senate office.

When pressed about this obvious conflict, Kerry states that he actually threw "someone elses" medals that day and only threw his "ribbons."Now thirty five years later, he wants the American people to believe that he is a "patriot" and that he desires to steer our country clear of the mistakes made by President Bush. Well, if you want to review mistakes, you need look no further than John Kerry's record as a US Senator. John Kerry's voting record is considered the most liberal in the Senate. Even surpassing Ted Kennedy. John Kerry has consistently voted against America and against supporting our service men and women. Senator Kerry voted against funding for our intelligence agencies and funding the current war in Iraq. Yet that was before he began his candidacy for president.

Now he wants us to believe that he supports these same organizations. Since becoming a presidential candidate, Senator Kerry has missed 80% of the votes in the US Senate. Yet he wants America to believe that he is concerned about our future and he has the answers.What are his answers?

Maybe you should take a closer look at the substance John Kerry does or doesn't bring to the table. John Kerry has an extensive political history and record of supporting social programs and funding, yet his record of supporting the military and domestic policies (that protect Americans) are constantly opposed to funding these same organizations that he says he supports. John Kerry talks about the richest Americans and the privileged class, yet he shuns away from the trappings provided by his own wealth and the wealth of his Heinz fortune wife Teresa. While he assails those that own SUV's he denies that he owns them. Yet they are parked at his various homes and mansions for his use and I am not referring to those provided by his Secret Service detail.You want to know what John Kerry stands for and what he represents? Then look at his record. Look at the causes that he has supported and those that he has associated himself with. Look at the many times (to this day) that he has changed or reconfigured his opinion on an issue to suit the group that he is addressing at that moment.

John Kerry is a political hack that is motivated by the prevailing opinion polls that are fed to him daily. He is for a woman's right to choose, yet he says he is against abortion (on religious grounds) He was for the war in Iraq only to later determine that he was against it because it was not carried out properly? He talks about reinforcing and supporting our military and intelligence organizations on the campaign trail, yet he has consistently voted against their funding. If you want to know about a persons character, look at the company they keep and those that support them. Here is an article published today in a local newspaper in Florida. You won't see this in the main stream media.

You want to know where the democratic party stands on the issues and priorities? Look at their platforms and who supports them. Personally, I know where they stand. They stand for all the social "touchy feely" issues that they can associate with and thereby obtain the support of the many other special interests groups in America. They support and are supported by every liberal special interests group in America. They are also supported by the money of corporations that look to further their positions by associations with and contributions to the democratic party.

They are also supported by many labor organizations that want to increase their strangle hold on the American economy. Yet the democrats and John Kerry want America to believe that the only party with ties to multi national corporations and the rich are the republicans. Maybe people need to look at the richest liberal Americans and their business interest. They might be surprised.Take a close look at NAFTA. The agreement signed by Bill Clinton. He not only signed it, but he muscled it through congress with the support of these same environmentalists and labor union that now tell you that President Bush is responsible for jobs being lost overseas. Yet they kept their mouth closed and encouraged their members to support Clinton again in 1996. Don't trust me on these facts, look the history up for yourself. Given the opportunity, John Kerry will follow suit and employ and negotiate the same trade agreements while at the same time telling the American people that he will stop the jobs being bled from America.

Maybe someone should ask him how many of his wifes "Heinz" factories are located and have been located in other countries in the past ten years? I am sorry, but in my fifty old years on this planet, I have never seen a candidate for president who is more unworthy to hold the office of president than John Kerry. I have never seen a candidate of either party openly supported by the leaders of socialist and communist countries and the American Communist Party. But I have now.I have never seen a candidate that turned his back on his comrades during a time of war and protested against them, then turned and sought to be their commander in chief. I have never seen a media so determined to influence a presidential election and I have never seen a political party so possessed by their hatred, as to jeopardize the nation for the sole purpose of regaining power and influence.

The mantra of the liberal democratic left is "anyone but Bush." They don't care about the consequences, they don't care who has to sacrifice or suffer as a result. Their driving force is hatred. Regardless of the fact that even after numerous attempts to prove their point, the facts, the law and the Constitution prevailed in demonstrating that President Bush won in 2000. Yet this week at their convention, the misrepresentation of this fact has become a common thread in the speeches of those called to speak on behalf of John Kerry. Al Gore said 'don't let the Supreme Court pick your next president and don't let this president (Bush) pick the next Supreme Court." (paraphrase)Well it wasn't the Supreme Court that chose George W. Bush. It was the people and the US Constitution.

The same constitution that the democrats claim to appreciate and love, yet they only harken to it for the benefit of their 1st amendment rights. They turn their back on many others and they would have you believe that an election was stolen rather than acknowledge that the election was decided as it has always been, based upon the electoral college. If you have the time, you may want to brush up on that clause in the Constitution, you might be surprised to learn that it was designed and included in the Constitution to address the exact situation that occurred in 2000.John Kerry and his campaign have said that they will insure that "all" votes are counted this time and that no one will be left out of the process. What he won't tell you is that the democrats have hired dozens of lawyers to challenge any vote count that they don't agree with and that they have asked the United Nations to monitor the general election this fall. That should not surprise many American.s John Kerry believes that America's power and influence in the world should be subjected to the control and whims of the United Nations.

If this is the kind of man that you want to lead our country, by all means vote your conscious. However, if you are concerned about America and our future in a volatile world of Muslim extremist and terrorist bent on our destruction, then ask yourself one question. Who do you think will look out for the safety and security of America? Who do you believe is best capable of defending our country and our people against the wanton assault of global terrorism? There are many other issues such as your opinions on the economy and health care that may decide your vote. You may feel that social programs aimed at urban Americans and designed to perpetuate the class warfare polices of the democrats is where our money and efforts should be directed.

You may feel that stem cell research and the alleged weakening of environmental laws are more important than the safety of your family and your way of life. You may believe that AIDS in Africa is more important that the welfare and safety of this nation. If so, vote your conscience. As for me, I will be voting my conscious on November 2nd. I will be voting for President George W. Bush. Why, because I have closely observed the issues of political dissension thrust at America by the media during the past four years and I have determined that once you get to the facts and the truth, the pictures portrayed by those that would sell our nation short for their own benefit are liberal in origin and socialist in influence. President Bush may not be the greatest American president, but he is a long way from selling us out to socialist egalitarian ideologies.If you read this to the end, thank you for listening to my opinions and beliefs as it concerns one of the most perilous periods in our nations history. © trickworm 2004

The Social Controversy of Homosexuality

The social controversies of homosexuality, immoral conduct and religious separation do not (in reality) concern recognized definitions of inclusiveness or legitimacy as is often utilized, by those attempting to defend homosexuality and place the discussion in the context of “fairness“ as represented by the egalitarian perspective..

The (created) social controversy focuses on whether our society as a whole should be forced (not only to recognize but to accept) alternative lifestyles and religions, to the exclusion and denial of individual faith and the moral beliefs held by the majority of Americans. During the past century millions of immigrants coming to this country were expected to assimilate this country’s language and certain customs. However, that assimilation was never all inclusive to the point of required abandonment of individual religion or specific ethnic customs. What was required by socialization, was the learning of the English language and respect for existing customs and religious holiday observances.

No different than what would reasonably be expected from Americans immigrating to another country. It is argued that government is not attempting to force anyone to become a homosexual or atheist or socialist, that government is only seeking to allow these groups to become legitimate members of our society “along side others.” My agreement is to the singular point of legitimacy being the true goal of egalitarian deceit. Legitimacy is precisely the goal being sought by homosexuals and other groups representing sexual, religious and political philosophies that are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian and American values and moral beliefs. Legitimacy is the end game of egalitarianism and socialism.

Webster defines legitimacy as follows:Main Entry: 1le·git·i·mate Pronunciation: li-'ji-t&-m&tFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English legitimat, from Medieval Latin legitimatus, past participle of legitimare to legitimate, from Latin legitimus legitimate, from leg-, lex law1 a : lawfully begotten; specifically : born in wedlock b : having full filial rights and obligations by birth 2 : being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false 3 a : accordant with law or with established legal forms and requirements b : ruling by or based on the strict principle of hereditary right 4 : conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards Main Entry: fil·ial Pronunciation: 'fi-lE-&l, 'fil-y&lFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Middle English, from Late Latin filialis, from Latin filius son -- more at FEMININE1 : of, relating to, or befitting a son or daughter 2 : having or assuming the relation of a child or offspring

I included these definitions only to illustrate my points. While I am quite familiar with the (in your face confrontationalism) of homosexuality in America, I am surprised that anyone not previously blinded by that level of rhetoric would so easily be drawn into the propagandized version of the homosexual altered state of reality.

Specifically, “we’re here, we’re queer, so live with it.” In my opinion, simplistic catch phrases such as that or other examples such as “no justice, no peace,” or a hundred others are no more than hollow misrepresentations of a maligned truth and altered reality.

Homosexuals have a deep seated ignominy concerning their (assigned or chosen) lifestyle. Therefore, their desire for legitimacy of that lifestyle is perceived as the only realistic social salve or curative measure capable of bringing relief from the recognized stigmatization that has historically attached to their specific behavior. Many people will maintain that they “can live with it” as it concerns acceptance of the reality that there are homosexuals. Therefore, ther should be no conflict socially.

In that context, I too can live with the plain and simple reality of the existence of homosexulaity. However, I cannot live within the context of compromising my own values or religious beliefs on the false alter of acceptance, tolerance and inclusion, when in reality the compromise neing sought is not acceptance, tolerance or inclusion but rather legitimacy.

As Americans, we are not simply being asked to recognize homosexuality, we are being “told” to legitimize homosexuality as a “moral” alternative, or suffer being relegated to the demonized classes of bigots and extremists. Once again, these attempts at pseudo moralizations (to demonize and marginalize the opposition) only serve to bring into clearer perspective the very point being concealed by the camouflage of egalitarian acceptance and inclusion.

Those cognizant of the illegitimacy and immorality of the homosexual lifestyle, are seeking morality and legitimacy by virtue of concealing their intent inside the cloak of social inclusion and acceptance. (Egalitarian deceit) Therefore, it is (believed) that by default, legitimacy and morality can be conveyed by acceptance and assimilation into mainstream religious and moral definitions. The only thing that must be accomplished is that the acrimonious definitions of morality must first be changed to accommodate the desired more inclusive definition. As for me? I don’t accept the “we’re here, we’re queer, so live with it” philosophy of homosexual confrontationalism.

No more than I would accept the Jihadist Muslim extremists philosophy of “we’re here, so be in fear and live with it.” Its not a simple matter of “joining up” or not joining up or any of the other simplistic conceptualizations of justifying peaceful coexistence and acceptance. We are not discussing peaceful coexistence, we are discussing the unconditional surrender of Christian moral values. I have addressed the “threat of homosexuality” creatively represented by the use of marginalizations such as the term “homophobia” on many occasions.

To properly understand the creative birth of the term, you must look at the word origin and what it was contrived to represent. (Homo-phobia) Obviously a compound word or the morphing together of two words to create the desired representation. However, the key to this particular creation of vernacular is derived by the choice of conjoining the word “phobic.”What is a “phobic?”

Main Entry: pho·bia Pronunciation: 'fO-bE-&Function: nounEtymology: -phobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.

So by definition, a “homophobic” would tend to denote any individual that possessed an “exaggerated, inexplicable, or illogical fear, of a class of objects?” Or any individual, that harbored a “exaggerated, inexplicable, or illogical fear of a (homosexual) situation?” I maintain that fear of homosexuals or the fear of coexistence with homosexuals is only a reality that exist in the homosexual realm of reality. I know of no individual that I have ever come in contact with that was fearful of homosexuals. However, I have come into contact with a countless number of individuals that have expressed fear of being the subject of unso;icited homosexual advances or of being placed in forced homosexual social settings, by virtue of the laxity of our current social standards, forced acceptance and the lack of moral responsibility in our society concerning the tolerance of abrasive and aggressive homosexual conduct.

While homosexuals may like to believe that heterosexuals are afraid of homosexuals or that heterosexuals are afraid “to explore” their own sexuality, the reality is that (it is) homosexuals that are afraid of heterosexuals when the issue of human sexuality is examined with critical analysis. It is homosexuals that seek legitimacy for a lifestyle and behavior that has been recognized as immoral and condemned for millennia by every known religion and moral culture throughout history. While the Roman’s and the Greek’s may be exampled as having been the cradles of knowledge, wisdom and philosophy, the degradation of their morality was the ultimate causative factor behind the demise of their cultures.

It is not a simple issue of fear as represented by the obvious inflective use of innuendo and the use of false phraseology. Nor is it an issue of the right to be open concerning one’s particular philosophies, sexuality or lifestyle. A consistent theme of pursuit by homosexuals for a generation, has been to “come out”, to be able to openly express their sexuality without fear of reprisal or condemnation. To be able to openly interact at all levels of society while clearly representing their sexuality as a badge of honor as opposed to a title of shame. While that perspective is clearly reflective of the egalitarian desire of inclusiveness, in reality it is yet another example of a “Trojan Horse” argument, designed to deflect from the shallowness of the argument supporting the recognition being sought. Which is to afford equal ligitimacy to homosexuality on a moral level.

I once had a specific conversation with a man that was a leader in the “homosexual community” in Atlanta. He attempted to explain to me why it was important that the Mayor of Atlanta have an “openly gay” member of his cabinet, in order to facilitate and address the concerns of the gay community in Atlanta. To which I simply asked him to define the term openly gay? As he explained it, openly gay meant to be open about personal homosexuality and to openly express allegiance and association with the homosexual lifestyle in daily social interactions. After which I asked him if that was not in fact a double standard? A standard by which and a status of which, I as a heterosexual was in fact being discriminated against because of?

He assured me that I had every right and equal ability to openly express my heterosexuality the same as any homosexual; therefore, As long as I was afforded the same rights and abilities, how could that be considered discrimination? I explained very simply, that were I to openly express my heterosexuality outside the comforts of my own home and my chosen sexual partner (my wife) then I would immediately be assailed for committing the punishable offense of “sexual harassment! I also pointed out that as a heterosexual, I have no explicit fear of homosexuality or homosexuals and that I was not in any fear of my own sexuality or any latent homosexual feelings or tendencies. However, I did express then and I do express now, that the currently existing social acceptance of open homosexuality as a concept of inclusiveness is by default a deceitful representation of illegitimacy masquerading as legitimacy.

I also maintain that being forced by political and egalitarian pressures to accept open homosexuality is by default as threatening as heterosexual “sexual harassment” and constitutes a clear and obvious injury to the heterosexual majority of society.

No different than many examples involving men that have been preyed upon by homosexuals in everyday contact, we all have fallen victim to homosexual advances during the course of everyday life. No different from women that have been victims of heterosexual sexual harassment historically, heterosexual Americans can become the victims of homosexual harassment by virtue of existing homosexual social status and protection pf homosexuals as a class. The main difference being, that homosexuality has attained a socially protected status that not only openly proscribes homosexuality as a reasonable and viable sexual alternative, but also promotes it as a socially protected class above the rights afforded to heterosexual Americans.

Therefore, I don’t buy in to the clever manipulations of social inclusion or the subterfuge deployed by egalitarian principles to justify or award legitimacy by default to an abhorrent and immoral behavior. As it concerns the BSA holding a congressional charter, the BSA was in fact chartered by congress in 1916. As recently as 2000 attempts have been made to revoke the BSA’s “honorary congressional charter.” BILL TO CUT SCOUTS' CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER INTRODUCED; PRESSURE BUILDS ON CLINTON TO RESIGN BSA POST Web Posted: July 22, 2000 house lawmakers have introduced legislation that would authorize Congress to repeal its 84-year old honorary charter for the Boy Scouts of America because of the BSA's discriminatory policies.

The measure, H.R. 4892, was introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif), and cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision which declared that the Scouting organization was an "expressive association" and could discriminate on the basis of sexuality when hiring troop leaders. "We're not saying they're bad," Woolsey declared. "We're saying intolerance is bad, and I don't see any reason why the federal government should be supporting it."

Additional excerpt: The Congressional Charter was presented to the Boy Scouts of America in 1916, six years after its founding. Approximately 90 other groups also have Charters, which are given in recognition of patriotic, charitable and educational work. The status does not include any public funding, but Rep. Woolsey said that it "gives the impression that an organization has a congressional seal of approval."A review of this article clearly reveals the egalitarian attack on the BSA by virtue of the issue of the BSA’s lack of inclusion of homosexuals into its organization which does not advocate or support homosexuality. While the BSA possesses a charitable status, so do many other organizations in America including the NAACP and NAMBLA and a variety of other organizations devoted to minorities, sexual orientation and religion.

Therefore, the correlation that charitable status automatically denotes receipt of government funding by virtue of a non taxable status is a weak association of guilt based upon a specious representation of the facts at best. While many may find it difficult to understand how (some) people of faith or traditional values might feel threatened by the homosexual lifestyle, the reality of truth and the existing societal approval of homosexuality paints a different picture. How the fear exists that socially approved homosexuality might in some way steal away the children of the righteous, or religiously moral, is in truth a rather simple reality when viewed in the context of the mandated social acceptance of homosexuality and inclusion.

Faith in their traditional moral beliefs and their belief in God and his word reveals to most Americans the heresy and immorality of homosexuality. That personal faith also commands that the “moral” actively resist what Jesus referred to as an “abomination.“ Those of faith are also disposed to actively refute any attempt to moralize or bestow moral equality on a decidedly and historically abhorrent and immoral behavior. That same personal faith also reveals to most Americans the hollowness of representation and shallowness of arguments represented by egalitarianism and socialism, that seek to destroy the moral, religious and social fiber of America. Christians or any other members of historical faiths such as Judaism will not sit idly by while their religious beliefs and institutions are assailed and portrayed as extremist and altered by an approved class of hate mongers.

Nor will heterosexuals peacefully be relegated to the caste of the socially condemned by the not so artful manipulations of our Constitution and our faith. In this country we are free to be what we want to be as long as we don’t harm or injure anyone else. However, the open practice and display of homosexuality is as harmful and as injurious as any other activity or conduct that openly seeks to inflict its perspectives or practices on an unwitting public. Particularly as that concerns the youth of our nation or those incapable of defending themselves from unwarranted and unsolicited sexual advances.

There are laws governing levels of acceptable and permissible conduct in our society. We have strayed from the applicability of law to homosexual advances and homosexual acts perpetrated against the unwilling. That needs to change and the law of sexual harassment needs to be applied equally and not limited to the heterosexual segment of our society. © trickworm 2004

The Hyperbole of Homosexual Tolerance

The key word, the lynch-pin of phraseology in the homosexual social debate is the word "tolerance." Let's examine tolerance as it is applied to the social dilemma of human sexuality in America.

Society (heterosexual society) is told that a refusal to “embrace” homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle, openly and without reservation, is in fact manifest “intolerance and bigotry.” People that were from all outward appearances “normal” are suddenly transformed into that horrible "intolerant social class of bigot," if heterosexuals do not unconditionally surrender their individuality and sexual and religious beliefs on the alter of egalitarian propelled tolerance, then they are to be considered intolerant bigots.As you have probably already deduced, I am an odd sort of fellow.

Its not that I am terribly bothered by those that throw around names and social hyperbole, its just that I like to examine the original intended context and definition of these (weapon) words as opposed to the closed context of social egalitarianism where they are deployed.Therefore, examine what these two words mean by a recognized and common definition, before I proceed further.

(Source: Merriam Webster’s on line)
Main Entry: tol·er·ance Pronunciation: 'tä-l&-r&n(t)s, 'täl-r&n(t)sFunction: noun1 : capacity to endure pain or hardship : ENDURANCE, FORTITUDE, STAMINA2 a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION3 : the allowable deviation from a standard; Main Entry: big·ot Pronunciation: 'bi-g&tFunction: nounEtymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices - big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective- big·ot·ed·ly adverb

It appears then, that by definition, “tolerance” as applied to the homosexual lifestyle requires “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or (practices) differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” And a bigot therefore, is anyone that is “obstinately or intolerantly devoted” to their own opinions or beliefs. Therefore, it is only fitting, that we also examine the word prejudice in the context of the overall discussion.

"Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&sFunction: nounEtymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics"

I am not using these definitions as anything other than what they were originally intended for. A simple premise of understanding.

With that said, it must also be noted that the aforementioned definitions have been revised from their original definitive meanings during the last generation, in an attempt to make their applicability more relevant to the discussion of modern day sexuality, religious preferences and social behaviors.The social issue of homosexuality in my opinion, is not as much an issue of tolerance as it is a not so cleverly cast and portrayed social agenda designed to abolish all morality. Homosexuality in America has become an issue of forced social acceptance of sexual behavior that cannot be (satisfactorily) equalized by any other means than contrived manipulation of language and social pressure.

Based upon the definitions described above, to be truly tolerant, I and any other religious heterosexual must be sympathetic and willing to be indulgent.

( "Indulgent: 1 a : to give free rein to b : to take unrestrained pleasure in : GRATIFY 2 a : to yield to the desire of : HUMOR b : to treat with excessive leniency, generosity, or consideration intransitive senses : to indulge oneself.” in order to avoid or prevent the stigmatization and demonetization of being called or considered a (bigot) by those more socially enlightened and egalitarian.If I am a true (bigot because of my beliefs) then I am “obstinately” and “intolerantly” devoted to my own personal beliefs and opinions, correct? Obstinate defined by the same source reflects: “1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion 2 : not easily subdued, remedied, or removed.”

Therefore, in my opinion, by any application of definition that one wishes to apply, the true intolerance and bigotry of American sexuality is in reality reflected more accurately from a homosexual perspective towards heterosexuals than a heterosexual perspective towards homosexuals. Homosexuality in America, has become a protected class and the enemies are heterosexuals and all things religious or moral."Perversely adhering to an individual opinion?" In opposition to the combined religious teachings of all traditional and historical religions throughout history, homosexuals demand acceptance and inclusion into institutions and religions that have (or should have) an equally protected right to their own individual belief system or religion.

The refusal to accept the validity and relevancy of religious faith and heterosexuality is a concise description of the homosexual perspective of opinion as it is applied to today's social and religious standards.. "Intolerance?" There is no sympathy or indulgence for the practices or beliefs of anyone outside the homosexual community that does not subscribe to the philosophies and beliefs of homosexuality and those that subscribe to that lifestyle. There is no desire by homosexuals to allow for any deviation from the standards imposed by individual beliefs in homosexuality.

As for bigots? In my opinion, it is homosexuals that reflect more of an obstinate and intolerant adherence to their own opinions and beliefs in homosexuality and lifestyle than any contemporary heterosexual reality reflected through the prism of homosexual perspective.So in the context of understanding my problem with the article (above) describing the current conflict in the school systems of Kentucky and other states and in the context of the social debates and discussions of homosexuality and heterosexuality, I want to make my opinion clear and understood in the context being represented by the social arguments reflected by homosexuals and their egalitarian supporters.

The issue is not intolerance or discrimination or equality of rights, unless and until you examine the entire context and definition of social representations surrounding homosexuality. When you do examine these arguments, the reality is immediately and clearly revealed to be that true discrimination, intolerance and bigotry are practiced daily against heterosexual Americans and their religious beliefs by homosexuals and the egalitarian misrepresentations put forth by those that seek to destroy our faith and principles. © trickworm 2004

Friday, December 03, 2004

The First of Many

After observing many others use this type of format to communicate their personal thoughts, I have decided to delve into this medium as a means to catalog my many commentaries on contemporary topics of interest.

By virtue of a simple commonality of reason, my thoughts and opinions are of no greater relevance or importance than anyones. However, the convex of that same reasoning reflects that my opinions are of no less importance. Therefore, the value of my reasoning on any issue may be judged on its accuracy of fact or relevancy of counter point, but it may not be judged on its relevancy.

Individual relevancy, is the principle and right guaranteed by the constitution. © trickworm 2004