Is THERE SHAME IN BEING a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE?

     The purpose of this article is not the disparagement of minorities, nor women, nor the majority of federal employees. The purpose is to point out just how commonplace the misapplication of Federal Laws, Executive Orders, and personnel programs affecting US Civil Service lower quality of Government Services by promoting inexperienced through preferential discrimination favoring only a select few minorities.

     From the top to the bottom, from the Presidents’ cabinets and administrations to new hires of every agency, the federal work force is controlled and run by people for whom diversity and EEO are not the desired ends but the MEANS to power. Their liberal, socialistic attitudes toward their jobs rob Civil Service of the best and brightest people for the Federal workforce and impede quality work as well as the hiring, training, and promotion of the best qualified candidates. And our Congress and Media (who are supposed to be fair minded overseers) simply ignore the problems. Our present illegal alien problem and one presidential candidate are highly visible examples of the mindset that minorities must receive preference.

     Far too many appointments and promotions have been and will continue to be filled with people chosen more for color, gender, and controllability than knowledge, experience or ability and this practice hurts the entire country. (Perhaps controllability was also a principal reason for Clinton’s selection of so many very young and inexperienced.) Too many appointees are also found virtually incompetent as they are neither knowledgeable about their jobs, agencies, nor even their supposed areas of operations for which they make and enforce policies to which everyone else must adhere.

Not too many years ago, Color and Gender were considered improper selective factors and were the basis for discrimination suits. Now they are the primary selection factors. Consider Pena (DOT), Elders (Health), Cisneros (Housing), and Reich (Labor). Which of those had actually successfully held previous jobs in fields for which they made policy? Fortunately, these are only political appointees.

Consider Barack Obama, the present Democrat Party designee for the next President. He only has about 140 or so hours of experience as a senator and none at all in business, personnel, law, or anything else that might equip him with sufficient experience for office. Of course, the Media fawn all over him and excuse his every foolish pronouncements because he is sorta black, the first such minority to not make a complete fool of himself by being Conservative as well (there have been other black candidates, you know, but they weren’t “Liberals”).

     Such foolishly liberal policies promoting diversity above experience or even education ensure continued failures by larger than normal percentages of minorities by promoting inexperience and ignorance to positions well beyond their abilities to effectively cope. Such supposedly enlightened policies hurt the nation and federal work force. Too many minorities fail who would have had a much greater chance for success and could have become much more effective if given sufficient training and allowed to accumulate sufficient experience before being promoted. This is true at all levels and areas of Civil Service from cabinet to field levels. BO is a mere example.

     Unfortunately, within all realms of Civil Service, existing director, manager, and supervisor effectiveness reports are partly graded and greatly influenced by who, which, and how many minorities they manage to promote. (see enclosure) Of course, ANY promotions not handed to PC acceptable femmes/minorities are often immediately challenged by partisan protected "Alphabet" groups (such as NBCFAE, PWC, NHCFAE, NAACP, etc.) run by social minority members of those groups. Women, Blacks, and Hispanics are currently all favored regardless of any other quality.

Resulting Equal Employment Opportunity complaints force all selecting officials to completely justify every selection factor, often falsely. (Anything less may result in a selecting official's being demoted or fired for "discrimination"). Self-protecting managers, therefore, take the easier approach of lowering acceptable minimum selection standards, then protecting, and covering up their selections mistakes. Here’s how it’s done.

     For every Civil Service (and these rules apply to Corporations as well) promotional vacancy, a public bid is published which lists the required qualifications for selection. If the highest candidates for any particular position might score 100 points on some arbitrary scale of education, experience, and awards but the nearest minority only scores 75 points, then lowering minimum acceptable cutoff points to below 75 allows even poorly qualified applicants to be considered. Since all candidates scoring above the minimum are selectable, selecting officials may then choose whichever female or minority that will make them look best in their own annual evaluation reports regardless of their selections qualifications. In some cases lower standards have become institutionalized, that is, lower standards have now been written into some Agency regulation manuals thereby insuring the continued lowest possible range or point minimum necessary to make the cut-off lists. Nearly every Agency has a list of required minimum qualifications for any given agency job. Dumb those standards down far enough and you can select anyone you choose to do anything regardless of the job type (which is what happens).

     Another common strategy is to disallow or give no credence to particular or common work related experiences that have direct bearing upon any specific job understanding or performance ability. For example, when applying for management jobs within FAA's Air Traffic Division, an obvious aviation related organization,  aviation experiences, other than direct Air Traffic Control, such as pilots' licenses, aviation management, aviation related college degrees, etc. are given no points nor credit at all; neither are Computer related degrees nor Personnel Management degrees. In fact higher education of any sort is given little weight when applying for any FAA management or supervisory positions regardless of division. Result: poor decisions. Witness ATR-420 icing deaths.

     This has become a common practice throughout the Federal work force. Even Military Commanders are now under pressure to promote "under represented" (normally spelled b-l-a-c-k) categories so that work forces will be more "diverse" regardless of qualifications. Leadership always suffers when nonqualitative factors dictate to whom and why promotions are given. Not color nor genders denote any merit, ability, nor capability for anything in particular so why are they deciding factors?

     In the not too distant past, being a Federal employee was a source of pride. Federal employees were generally considered competent, dedicated, educated, well trained, and productive. The Civil Service exam was supported by other agency and subject specific exams weeding out undereducated, incompetent, and lazy. Today, most entry level CS jobs require but a High School education or GED equivalency, however, even the outstanding scholar program intended to help in the hiring of superior academic achievers, is being abused to force hiring of Hispanics through waivers of required achievements. In 1996 only 25% of all hirees were required to take any sort of qualifying exam. Once hired for any job, socialistic programs intended to ensure minority equality and promote diversity are further abused to promote "under-represented" under qualified candidates over more qualified whether minority or not. Upgrade training is also lax and, too often, nonexistent.

     Such incompetence is viral spreading upward as under qualified, under educated, inexperienced, and ignorant people are pushed ever upward to higher positions of authority. As the inexperience and ignorance spreads upward, increasingly incompetent decisions and policies are foisted on the lower echelons resulting in further deterioration of services.

     Rampant socialism was the bane of the USSR but our liberal socialists, hiding under the guise of Congress (mostly the Democrat Party), still seem to believe in, and are constantly striving for, ever larger bureaucracies with ever more regulations to justify their own existence. Unfortunately, such policies filter down into those of the states, cities, and counties. Is this utopianism or just stupidity?

     Less this be misunderstood, there is definite need for some bureaucracy and Federal regulation in some major areas. And most bureaucrats are still fairly technically competent dedicated individuals regardless of whether minority status or not even though this percentage is steadily decreasing. However, the socialization of military and government agencies is under-mining our freedoms, promoting unworkable solutions, and forcing immoral, sometimes illegal, actions on the work force and the general populace. The Constitution is the forgotten document. California’s gross immoralities are pure examples.

     Simply put, multiculturalism, the belief that every cultural concept is of equal moral value and must be accepted as a valid lifestyle choice, is absurd but enforced within CS. Aiding and abetting this foolishness is a full time job for most, if not all, federal employee Unions and several offices set within the Departments and Agencies. Offices such as Human Rights, Equal Employment Opportunity, Civil Rights, Public Affairs, etc. are becoming separate entities no longer contained within agency personnel offices. They have become key offices through which every promotion or selection must be acceptable and which have veto power over the selection methods and qualifications of every selection factor. Of course, in practice, all affirmative action and diversity policies call for these offices to be staffed by the very minorities and femmes who have considerable stake in their selection processes.

     To assure minority power, these offices all too often force or require other hiring offices to give preference to minorities and femmes rather than minority status being the additional selecting factor when all else is equal as the law intended (see enclosures) making race/gender the primary factors in promotional consideration. Any complainant is immediately labeled a bigoted, prejudiced, crybaby and becomes unpromotable, a pariah within their agencies. For a white male managerial to actually complain about mis-application of laws or the selection process has become the kiss of death for many federal careers.

     The Nation suffers whenever all poor choices and uninformed

decisions are made, but particularly in the realms controlled by

various Civil Service offices. We very much need to return to

 

merit and measurable promotional standards. Only Congress has  

the power to affect such a return to meritocracy. Only the

voting public can force Congressional action when the tide of

minority PACs are against the return to the merit promotion

system. B.O. is merely the latest, but highest, minority

selectee unqualified for the position they seek. Don’t let his

rhetorical pretensions and the Media sway your actions. Let’s

make a real effort to eradicate incompetent Government.

PL Booth, the Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO

Liberals in the Woods Date: Monday, December 03, 2001 3:54 PM Liberals Whining in the Woods Deep neo-thinkers have long contemplated the following problem: If a liberal is lost in the woods and nobody is there to hear him whine, is there any noise? Which brings up three related questions: Why is the liberal lost in the forest in the first place,? Why doesn't anyone hear him? And why can't he hear himself? A well known and widely quoted metaphysician named Murphy, perhaps the same Murphy who formulated Murphy's Laws, arrived at an answer to the first question: why is the liberal lost in the forest? According to Murphy: liberals are perpetually lost, anyway. Even more significant, they cannot see the forest for the trees. Since their moral compasses are broken, with their eyes fixated on castles in the air and their ears seduced by Bolshevik sirens, they are incapable of finding their own way without governmental intervention. As Murphy's First Law states, "If anything can go wrong, it will go wrong." Murphy tells us the Liberal Addendum to his First Law states: for liberals everything must go wrong and (A2) everything must go wrong ever more rapidly. Therefore, it is no wonder liberals are lost in the woods. As the Romans would say, it is their "modus operandi". As for the second question, why no one hears liberal whining in the forest, empirical investigations provide some clues. As everyone knows, the liberals and their environmentalist siegfriends have driven the workers of the forest -- formerly known as "loggers" -- out of the woods. To save old-growth trees and spotted owls, the liberals have eradicated the logger in most parts of the north and west. Furthermore, derelict trees saved by liberal agitation are of no help. After all, trees, having no ears, cannot detect the shrill whine nor the muffled whimper of the lost liberal. The spotted owls, who actually favored logging camps for their nests, are nowhere to be found. Perhaps they have departed to Canada or Siberia. Why then, you might ask, aren't the Boy Scouts around to hear the distress of the lost liberal. But the Boy Scouts, persecuted by liberal attorney's and stalked by the National Man-Boy Love Association, are now too busy defending themselves in court to visit the woods. No longer are they free to roam the forest in search of errant liberals. Sly observers of the modern forest might then ask about the local pot growers. Wouldn't they hear the liberal and come to his rescue? But no, they are likely too busy listening for the rotor blades of the "war on drugs" helicopters. Well, what about other mythical creatures of the forest? Art Bell and his listeners might wonder why Big Foot doesn't hear the whining of the lost liberal. Wouldn't this shy creature, with his super-sensitive hearing, be able to detect the muffled cries, the self-aggrandized sobs? Alas, Big Foot also smells the liberal long before he ever hears him -- and runs in the opposite direction as fast as his big feet can carry him. Lastly, why doesn't the liberal hear himself? We could turn to the North American Underground School of Reactionary Metaphysicians, which secretly formulated the First Law of Feminism: "A feminist is a woman trapped in a woman's body -- who is screaming to get out." Although this same school erroneously postulated that liberals are hive animals with a shared consciousness, the Underground School was confirmed the first to realize that liberals are always found in a state of constant denial. As all liberal complaints are directed outward, the organ of self-responsibility becomes seriously atrophied resulting in internal collapse. Usually, a mini-black hole forms in the cerebral cortex resulting in every tidbit of common sense or useful knowledge in the proximity of the frontal lobes to be sucked away into infinity. At the same time, since politically correct rant and neo-Freudian psychobabble is known to possess special anti-matter and anti-intelligence properties, the hideous stuff of liberalism itself is nearly always regurgitated in reaction. This convoluted process results in the liberal's whining not being heard by the liberal as actual pitiful bleating, but rather, is mistaken as a mighty and righteous roar of their own making. Where the most of us might hear but a pathetic cry, the liberal only hears the promise of utopia. In other words, he hears nothing at all. So then, if nobody hears the whimpering of the lost liberal we come to the crux of the question: is there actually any noise? The answer is, "Yes, there is noise". You see, there are still hunters in the forest. They are probably right wing, but undoubtedly armed. Through their telescopic sights, the hunters may see the whining liberal long before they hear a thing; and because their HMO's are probably lamentably poor, due to the increasing socialization of medicine, the hunters may well have uncorrected stigmatism and may well mistake whimpering liberals for deer. So you see, unfortunately, there may well be the sound of rifle fire. And what is the moral of this deep neo-philosophical story which itself has become lost in the woods? A non-conservative middle-of-the-road Republican might offer that hunters should get their eyes checked once a year. But the real moral is that, strangely enough, bad eyes together with a steady trigger finger aren't always such a bad combination for solving some of life's deeper metaphysical questions. My thanks to Grover Norquist. In further commentary, please note that almost all leftist nonsense, empty rhetoric, and philosophical garbage descends directly from Marxist arguments, not from anything intelligent. It is also unfortunate but none the less true that Islamist Fascists and Terrorists share affinity for Marxist rhetoric because they both desire nothing less than total domination of the world and their own political control of all society. PLB The Blue Eye View, Blue Eye, MO

 

 

 

 

America’s Enemies – Traitors Within?

This war against terrorism, only a few months old, has publicized two youthful traitors. One was captured fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the other deliberately flew a small plane into a Florida building, leaving behind a note in support of Ben Laden. These are not just isolated individuals. It seems there are many other Americans who have publicly rejoiced at our tragedy through documented statements on college campuses as well as in coffee shops around the country. Americans are blaming America for the September 11 attacks!!!

Former President WJB Clinton (my favorite Jackass), has described terrorist attacks against Americans as having been brought on by slavery and past wars of conquest against the American Indians. Appalling as it is to me, he was applauded at one of our more prestigious universities for having said it. Thank God! Nothing like this happened during WW II. Even those who had genuine grievances knew, as Joe Louis put it, "There's nothing wrong with this country that Hitler is going to cure."

It’s an incredibly different mindset today that pervades so much of our educational system, our media, and our supposed intelligencia. It seems many people today not only critically compare the US to other countries, but also criticize our government’s stance in comparison to their own personal ideals. We see and hear the criticisms daily on TV newscasts. No institution, country, nor government can pass such a test. No two people's ideals are exactly the same.

It seems history's most privileged people, living in the most prosperous and free country on earth, cannot come to grips with their own successes. For reasons yet unknown, they turn to foreign ideology for the systems they believe they want - even if they know very little regarding the realities of those countries or where those ideologies may lead. Is it because they do not know enough about their own culture's ideals and origins?

Most Americans remain loyal and patriotic but unaware of the anti-American bias of our own educational establishment. Most simply don't realize how brainwashed whole generations of young Americans are by academics who joyfully consider themselves “agents of change." A dedication to wholesale change for the sake of change might make sense in a despotic or bloody dictatorship (where most any change would be for the better), but what sense does it make here in America where our existing institutions and traditions have produced far more freedom and prosperity than any other alternative tried elsewhere around the world?

Wonder why some of our young succumb early B some tragically? 20th century history has many examples of treason by privileged people in free countries on behalf of totalitarian dictatorships guilty of murdering millions. Just consider the numbers of American and British traitors who stole nuclear secrets and turned them over to the Stalinist dictatorship, which slaughtered more of its own people than Hitler killed in the Holocaust. Many were considered "the brightest and the best" -- or at least the most self-infatuated.

Our nation is rightly concerned about enemy aliens in our midst but the deeper and longer lasting problem of homegrown traitors may be more dangerous and will be harder to solve. We may actually get around to tightening our asinine immigration policies and practices but we will still have our homegrown enemies within? We are concerned about educational failures of our schools but that may well be overshadowed by our heedless poisoning of the minds of our young in our zeal to be propagandists for generic "change." What too many educators call "critical thinking" is merely critical negativism toward American society and hopelessly naive praise of other societies, including those of our enemies - the enemies of human freedom. We can and should be teaching ideals known as the best aspects of our own society. 

     

PL Booth

 

 

          Where Were You When

"Where were you when ..." is a question defining generations. Will Roger's death, Pearl Harbor, MacArthur's firing, JFK's assassination, Reagan's shooting, the WTC towers collapse; each will be forever etched into the memories shared by entire generations and the answer to the question a defining moment for those generations. The emotions and thoughts associated with those defining moments will never be forgotten.

It is impossible to forget the TV images broadcast worldwide of the 2nd aircraft's purposeful crash into the WTC. Nor could we forget the collapse of the buildings, the fear seen on the faces of the people running away from the disaster, the feelings of helplessness, the pain felt at so many innocent deaths, the anger that swelled worldwide at the perpetrators, the sympathy felt for so many who suffered losses from the attacks. And these memories are being shared by the entire civilized world because the images were broadcast throughout the world. Even our enemies felt for our losses, so apparently grievous, and so unprovoked.

Reactions were immediate. The people, their missions, their origins and movements, and their accomplishments were quickly traced and analyzed. What was found was made public and our leaders at last took decisive actions and installed drastic measures to ensure our national safety. Our President declared "War on Terrorism" though not on any particular country or definable people. Our security forces did define a particular source and we loosed our military might against the refuge of one of our most easily defined enemies. All the while, our leaders warned us that this was not an easy target nor should we consider it the only nor the last. Not yet answered is the question of "Why" we are a target of Insane Islamic Terrorists.

Some blame Western Civilization. Some blame our support for Israel. Some blame Christianity. Some blame Islam. Some blame American policies toward Islamic Nations. And some blame deranged minds led astray by misinterpretation of Koranic principles and the mis-application of power by Mullahs, supposed Islamic teachers. Perhaps some of all apply and perhaps none. It is important to our nation's continuance that we manage correct interpretations of present historical events or we will be forced to repeatedly relearn lessons until a solution is found.

It is important to know that where Islam prevails there is no form of government but tyranny and despotism. Only Israel in all the Middle East is a Democracy nor is there any country where the people are free. In the west the Rule of Law derived from Christian ethics prevails. Our rights are God Given and government only detracts or restricts our rights and freedoms. What the law does not expressly prohibit, the citizen is free to do. Western moral order and justice proceeds from law written by duly elected representatives of the general public and, however presently limited, everyone has some voice and all are considered equal under the law (except, of course, Bill Clinton). Where the rule of law prevails, freedom reigns. In the East no one has any right not directly granted by law or the will of the current ruler (despot).

In the early middle ages, Islamic societies enjoyed some freedom and were able to toy with ideas like the Greek rule of law and spirit of inquiry. That came to an end in the 13th century just about the time of the Western Reformation and Enlightenment's quest for knowledge became increasingly unrestrained. Where knowledge's increase is protected by law, wealth accumulates and the public benefits. That is the basis of capitalism. Doctrinal ideas of marriage, inheritance, individual property and real estate rights, safe banking of wealth, and the restraint of government from confiscating through taxation personal wealth accumulated promoted the wealth of nations and the personal freedoms eventually guaranteed in our Constitution. 

The Islamic world remains unwilling to adopt the West's fundamental excellences because its leaders would have to give up their absolute powers over their fellow men. Despite its wealth of raw materials, it will remain poor until it adopts meaningful reforms. Though doubtful, it is possible that the UN will, in Afghanistan, force some sort of Democratic reforms upon the Orient.

In the meanwhile we need to understand the individual psyches of those willing to murder indiscriminately in the supposed name of Allah. The NY terrorists were enjoying their time in the West and all that we have to offer. They had plenty of money to spend on luxuries such as car rentals, flying lessons, expensive gadgets and communications systems, schooling, comfortable housing, trips to bars and restaurant, and call girls, all generally forbidden by their Koran.

Poverty was not a way of life for them. So what were their common denominators?

It would appear that only during the last century or so have quantities of Moslems visited the West to gain knowledge of our ways of life. Some of those claimed the Western model of morality was "culturally poisoning Islam" and rejected all types of modernity even ideas of nationalism or the sovereignty of the people. Those who professed or adapted any such ideas were apostate and the willing tools of the hated Jews (another subject entirely) to be destroyed. It would also appear that their greatest hatred arises from a tormenting jealousy over Western Supremacy in almost every important branch of human endeavor.

Saudi born Osama bin Laden is the son of a billionaire entrepreneur well educated and traveled. He has repeatedly stated his desire to overthrow the monarchy in Saudi Arabia and to wage all-out war against any Western types of modernity. To Muslims his objectives and methods are legitimatized by Islamic teachings. Neo-Marxist/Leninist ideas of power projection and theories of dependency appeal to those who must force their will upon others to enhance their personal power. Thus methods espoused by Mao, Marx, Lenin, Che Guevara, Castro, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, et al. seem admirable and easily adaptable to Muslims accustomed to despotic rule and murder as the principal method of governmental change. Writings found in cars left behind by the NY terrorists were filled with Marxist rhetoric and exhortations toward self sacrifice to destroy the great "Satan" even though the Koran expressly forbids the killing of innocents and suicide.

Unfortunately, many of the extremists are homegrown having been born, raised, and nurtured right here in the USA. Many examples of children in Koranic schools applauding the WTC destruction and voicing their love for Islam and hated for their country of residence were aired by the media. The leader of the original WTC basement bombing was an American. Factually, multiculturalism, the idea that all cultures are of equal and compatible virtues, is greatly at fault here. This shallow, mental flabbiness is pure decadence supported by the arrogant assumption of invincibility by omni-tolerant elitists. The Clinton's are mere examples.

There are many America haters given regular voice in our media. Directly presented or quoted those such as Susan Sontag, Dick Gephardt, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and too many other vacuous Hollywood types, etc. preach, like Barbara Kingsolver, that the American flag "stands for intimidation, censorship, violence, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and shoving the Constitution through a paper shredder." They conveniently forget they are quoted because the media is only self-censoring, that we only send troops where invited or to free those oppressed or to kill our attackers, that we fought a great war and continue to pour trillions into racial equality that exists nowhere else on earth, that only in the West do women have any rights what-so-ever, that a healthy moral stance against perversion is not fear, and that it is the leftist elitists themselves who wish to limit Constitutional freedoms. In all the Middle East there is only one democracy, one country that espouses individual freedoms, one ever ready ally against all forms of tyranny, Israel. The elite cry for us to intervene in Israel's fight against aggressors but are numbingly silent about slavery in Sudan or the murder of Christians in many countries. Had we not intervened and restrained Israel, it would control all the land between the Mediterranean, Egypt, Iran, and the Euphrates. Also not mentioned are the billions in financial and humanitarian aid that we've gifted upon the ingrates of Islam.

Hitler has his American apologists. So does Lenin, Mao, and the insane Islamic Terrorists. That does not mean we should continue to pay them heed. Western, American, Judao-Christian culture is man's culmination and greatest achievement. We are great because we have adapted, nurtured, and culled the very best of every cultural idea man has ever had and we will continue to do so despite the silly notion that every culture is of equal value. It is past time to begin teaching the true meanings and sources of our freedoms. It is past time to start teaching children English at the first available opportunity so that they can read the great works of the West and absorb their truths. It is past time to reject the tenets of Socialism still being taught in our Colleges and Universities and slowly being infiltrated into our civil systems by both of the major political parties. It is past time for our politicians to grasp the easy reality that a vigorous assertion of a strong American identity would not divide but would congeal the citizenry into an amiable and more productive whole. (Of course, that is not the desire of some of our politicians, either, as they must devise ways to differentiate so that they can gain votes to remain in office.)

Has there been since Pearl Harbor an event more suited to bringing the American people together? We should seize the moment in honor of the thousands who died in the WTC/Pentagon attack to prevent similar, future events. We owe the effort to consolidate our culture’s virtues to those who died so that they will not have died in vain.

PL Booth

Blue Eye, MO

 

                  In God We Trust

Or do we ? The National Motto was adopted by a Joint Resolution of Congress on July 30, 1956 and all US currency has required this inscription since October 1957. It was first authorized on US coinage on April 22,1864 appearing on two cent coins in1864 and all gold and silver coinage in 1873. Though occasionally missing, it has been in almost continuous use since the Civil War.

The Mississippi legislature recently passed a law requiring each public school classroom, auditorium and cafeteria to display a copy of our national motto. The governor signed the bill into law and it became effective July 1, 2001. Alabama has passed a similar law and several other states are considering similar legislation. A MO. State Representative Judy Berkstresser is submitting a similar bill to the Missouri State House this next session. I urge you to encourage your state officials to adopt it. Would it not be a great thing to have our national motto in every classroom of every public school in America ? How about on public display in Branson ? The Mississippi legislature did not provide funding for the bill, leaving it up to private citizens' groups to provide the posters. Mr. Kenneth Briggs, a printer from Pearl, Mississippi, voluntarily printed the posters for the 32,000 classrooms, auditoriums and cafeterias without cost asking local civic and church groups to sponsor schools by providing framed copies of the poster free of cost to a local school in their community. By the way, Mr. Briggs also graciously offered to provide free printed material for all states bordering Mississippi which pass the legislation. Have we a similar patriot ?

In Florida, the Christian Coalition of Collier County availed itself of American Family Asso. provided posters in an effort to distribute as many as they could. The organization and the County Board of Commissioners cooperated in a project placing more than 50 framed copies of the posters with another 50 being prepared of the "In God We Trust" proclamations in every government building in the county. Christian Coalition Chairman Jerry Rutherford said the board "enthusiastically approved" the project and, "These plaques will serve as a reminder that our forefathers died to give us the freedoms we now enjoy."

Blue Eye ISD now has posters available for those teachers who wish to display it and several now do so. Isn't it time for Branson, Hollister, Reed Springs, Forsyth, and other area schools to also adopt the display. 

Worried about law suits ? As was expected, the ACLU threatened to sue MS. if a school or public official displayed the poster. They hoped that by threatening to sue, they could get the bill defeated. They did not. Unusually, public officials stood up to them! It wasn't the first time the ACLU entered into this fray. In 2000 they sued a county treasurer, Rita Cline of Kansas, who displayed a national motto poster in her office.  U.S. District Judge Sam A. Crow threw out the ACLU suit with some stinging words for the group which works to deny freedom of speech to those with whom they disagree. He called the ACLU suit "patently frivolous without any basis in law." You can't get much plainer than that. What is it that the ACLU finds offensive? The national motto simply says: "In God We Trust." It is printed on every piece of currency produced in this country. One wonders if the ACLU would threaten to sue should someone post a framed dollar bill in a classroom? But then, we must remember that this is a Communist organization, founded by Godless Communists, chaired by a communist, run by communists, and not at all interested in Liberty nor Civility but nothing less than the destruction of the American Constitutional Republic. Such is their charter. All Marxism is necessarily Atheist in nature.

The national motto is a patriotic statement expressing a principle "deeply interwoven into the fabric of our civil polity," according to Abington v. Schempp, [374 U.S. 203, 303-04 (1963)]. It also serves the honorable purpose of "expressing confidence in the future and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society." [Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 693 (1984)]   The national motto, "In God We Trust," is currently codified at 36 U.S.C.A.  302. On July 24, 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives, with the concurrence of the Senate, unanimously resolved to "encourage" the display of the national motto of the United States in public buildings throughout the Nation." (See Congressional Record, H6747-6750.) This non-binding resolution was submitted by Representative Bob Schaffer (R-CO).   The constitutionality of the national motto has been challenged on numerous occasions. Three federal courts of appeal, (Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits) have ruled that the motto passes constitutional muster. The latest challenge to the motto was addressed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. In Gaylor v. US [74 F.3d 214 (10th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1211, 134 L. Ed. 2d 934, 116 S. Ct. 1830 (1996)], the Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc., and others challenged the motto on grounds that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit firmly rejected this challenge, noting that the motto has the secular purposes of symbolizing the historical role of religion in our society, formalizing our medium of exchange, fostering patriotism, and expressing confidence in the future. (Id. at 216)   The court also said that "the motto's primary effect is not to advance religion; instead, it is a form of ''ceremonial deism' which through historical usage and ubiquity cannot be reasonably understood to convey government approval of religious belief." (Id.) The Tenth Circuit concluded by declaring that "the motto does not create an intimate relationship of the type that suggests unconstitutional entanglement of church and state." (Id. at 216) The Supreme Court denied review of the Tenth Circuit's decision. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in numerous cases, cited the national motto as an example of a constitutionally permissible expression of our nation's long tradition of faith in God. [See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313-14 (1952); Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 303-04 (1963); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 676-77, 693 (1984); County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 625 (1989).]  

Of course, in order to eliminate any possibility of confusion, a public school display of the phrase "In God We Trust" must, by its terms, plainly demonstrate that it is the national motto being advanced, and not a religious belief or practice. Therefore, the display of the words In God we trust must be accompanied by the conspicuous statement, National Motto of the United States. A school might also consider displaying the motto in conjunction with other symbols of American patriotism and/or America's heritage, such as the American flag, pictures of "Uncle Sam," pictures of Betsy Ross, the famous photograph of Marines erecting the American flag at Iwo Jima, founding-era paintings or prints, or documents such as the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation. Factually, some courts have indicated historical documents otherwise arguably religious also have a secular purpose when displayed with other, non-religious historical documents.)

This is a noble idea whose time has come. Let's see the Branson area officials get behind this !

PL Booth

Blue Eye, MO

779-4676

 

A former leader of a radical Islamic organization told Congress extreme Muslims are motivated by an ideology similar to Marxism and that Islamism has much in common with the former Soviet Union.

Maajid Nawaz, a native of England and once prominent figure in the London-based extremist group Hizb ut-Tharir, testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the root cause of Islamic terrorism was its fanatical ideology, not poverty or discrimination.

“There is a common misconception on the left in the UK that only grievances can lead to Islamism,” he said.

Nawaz drew parallels between socialist Marxism and Islamism, contending that both movements see everything as a global ideological power struggle. He said Islamists wished for the world to be ruled under a single caliphate state, “like the Soviet bloc.”

“There will always be a conflict between Islamism and capitalism, just as there was once conflict between communism and capitalism,” he said.

This runs counter to the opinion held by many liberals that Islamic extremism is a theocratic product of the far-right.

A problem with the West’s approach to terrorism, according to Nawaz, was that many viewed Muslim terrorism as a problem with the religion of Islam rather than a result of the political ideology of Islamism.

Nawaz had been involved with Hizb ut-Tharir since he was 16 when he was arrested in Egypt in 2002 for his membership in the organization. Amnesty International offered to assist him legally, which led him to revise his conceptions of the West. Upon returning to London, he renounced his former extremism and is now a director at the Quilliam Foundation, a British think tank dedicated to countering Islamism.

Dr. Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, echoed Nawaz, saying that Islamism had far more to do with politics than religion.

“The ideology that motivates these terrorists today has very little to do with the religion of Islam. It’s the difference between a religion and a radical ideology,” he said.

There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, although only a small percentage is believed to be Islamist. These extremists have been moving west, however, with recent Muslim immigrations into Europe.

Zeyno Baran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, said while Britain has a more vibrant Muslim community, American Muslims are more likely to be radicalized. Most Islamic organizations in the United States – such as the Council on American Islamic Relations – have ties to an organization called the Muslim Brotherhood which promotes an Islamist ideology.

“I’m worried about raising my children in this country because I don’t know where to send them to teach them Islam. I’d have to teach them at home,” she said.

Matt Purple :: Townhall.com :: Former Islamic Extremist: Radical Islam Similar to Marxism, Soviet Union