Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

The World’s Largest Army… America’s Hunters!

November 30, 2012

An interesting slant on things

I had never thought about this…

A blogger added up the deer license sales
in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion: There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin.

Allow me to restate that number: Over the last several months, Wisconsin‘s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world. More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state,Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters,all of whom have now returned home safely.

Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states.

It’s millions more.
The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting.it’s not just a way to fill the freezer…

It’s a matter of national security.

That’s why all enemies,
foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it’s true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don’t possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain… what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, or 50 million armed citizens.

(IF YOU AGREE, AS I DO, PASS IT ON, I FEEL GOOD THAT I HAVE AN ARMY OF MILLIONS WHO WOULD PROTECT OUR LAND AND I SURE DON’T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TAKING CONTROL OF THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS)

For the sake of our freedom, don’t ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns. We need to protect our second Amendment rights at all costs!

God Bless America!

Obama’s Continuing Corruption Exposed

January 5, 2012

Here’s a quick look into the three former Fannie Mae executives who brought down Wall Street.

Franklin Raines – was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregularities in Fannie Mae’s accounting activities. The government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. Raines left with a “golden parachute valued at $240 million in benefits.

Tim Howard – was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard “was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a “stable pattern of earnings” at Fannie. Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. Howard’s golden parachute was estimated at $20 million!

Jim Johnson – A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.” Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. Johnson’s golden parachute was estimated at $28 million.

WHERE ARE THEY NOW?

FRANKLIN RAINES?
Raines works for the Obama Campaign as his Chief Economic Adviser.

TIM HOWARD?
Howard is a Chief Economic Adviser to Obama under Franklin Raines.

JIM JOHNSON?
Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Adviser and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.

Kinda makes you sick to your stomach. Our government seems to be rotten to the core! Are we stupid or what? Vote in 2012…it is the most important election of our lives…

I Went To The Welfare Office

August 23, 2011

This morning I went to sign my dogs up for welfare.

At first the lady said, “Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare”.

So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their daddies are. They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because they are dogs.

So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify.

My dogs get their first checks Friday.

Damn this is a great country.

—-
While this is funny, it shows us a much greater problem that has been going on in our great country for far too long… the problem of welfare.

We are a generous country, giving foreign aid to about 158 of 182 countries around the world, many of who don’t even like this country!

We are giving welfare to millions of illegal immigrants who come to this country knowing that we won’t turn them away. We have a president who continues to bypass Congress, ignoring Federal laws regarding immigration laws, apparently afraid he would be deporting future Democrats. Because neither the feds or most of the states have enough guts to enforce immigration laws, many states are headed for bankruptcy like California, who lost over $1.25 Billion, YES, BILLION last year alone just in lost revenue from treating illegals at hospitals and other medical care.

When is Congress and America in general, going to wake up and realize that they can’t keep spending money like water? They are going to have to make some hard choices and stop the welfare and free medical for illegals. 12 million illegals X $???? = a serious deficit for a country that can’t afford to be spending without any hope of getting paid back.

Luckily there are a few bold and courageous states that are trying to pass laws similar to Arizona’s SB1070, that will address the illegal immigration problem. But Congress needs to step up and allow the police to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

I have no problems with immigrants that want to come here for a better life, but they need to do it the right way. They need to get a green card, a job and pay taxes like the rest of us. They need to get an education, and become a legal citizen.

Then, and only then can they realize the American Dream, without draining our limited resources.

THANK YOU NOTE from Michelle Obama

July 29, 2011

THANK YOU AMERICA!

Dear American Taxpayer,

For only the second time in my adult life, I am not ashamed of my country. I want to thank the hard working American people for paying $242 thousand dollars for my vacation in Spain.

My daughter Sasha, several long-time family friends, my personal staff and various guests had a wonderful time.

Honestly, you just haven’t lived until you have stayed in a $2,500.00 per night private 3-story villa at a 5-Star luxury hotel.

Thank you also for the use of Air Force Two and the 70 Secret Service personnel who tagged along to be sure we were safe and cared for at all times. By the way, if you happen to be visiting the Costa del Sol, I highly recommend the Buenaventura Plaza restaurant in Marbella; great lobster with rice and oysters! I’m ashamed to admit the lobsters we ate in Martha’s Vineyard were not quite as tasty, but what can you do if you’re not in Europe, you have to just grin and bear it?

Air Force Two (which costs $11,351 per hour to operate according to Government Accounting Office reports) only used 47,500 gallons of jet fuel for this trip and carbon emissions were a mere 1,031 tons of CO2. These are only rough estimates, but they are close. That’s quite a carbon footprint as my good friend Al Gore would say, so we must ask the American citizens to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and drive less too, so we can lessen our combined carbon footprint.

I know times are hard and millions of you are struggling to put food on the table and trying to make ends meet. So I do appreciate your sacrifices and do hope you find work soon.

I was really exhausted after Barack took our family on a luxury vacation in Maine a few weeks ago. I just had to get away for a few days.

Cordially,

Michelle (Moochelle) Obama

P.S. – Thank you as well for the $2 BILLION dollar trip to India from which we just returned!

PPS: Thank you, too, for that vacation trip to Martha’s Vineyard; it was fabulous.

And thanks for that second smaller jet that took our dog Bo to Martha’s Vineyard so we and the children could have him with us while we were away from the White House for eleven days. After all, we couldn’t take him on Air Force One because he might pee on some wires or something.

PPPS: Oh, I almost forgot to say thanks also for our two-week trip to Hawaii at Christmas. That 7,000 square foot house was great!

PPPPS: don’t forget my ski trip to Vail this winter and now the girls and I are in Africa with my mom. All this while Barack golfs and campaigns to keep my trips coming for the next 4 years!

Love ya!

Remember, we all have to share the pain of these economic times equally! Love to -redistribute- share- the wealth.


_____________________________________________________________________

NOW SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN –

STAND UP, SPEAK UP.

BATFE To Issue “Demand Letter” To Dealers This Week

July 26, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

BATFE To Issue “Demand Letter” To Dealers This Week

Multiple Rifle Sales Reports to Begin on August 14

Prior Belief That Executive Order Would “Enact” This Was In Error

FBI May Be Implicated in BATFE Gun Smuggling Program

NICS System Allowed Prohibited Sales

PHOENIX — July 25, 2011
by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Full contact info at end

According to four BATFE agents familiar with the planned Fast and Furious gun-smuggling “fix,” the bureau plans to release a “demand letter” by the end of this week, insisting that gun dealers in the four Mexico-border states begin reporting multiple rifle sales to the bureau.

All multiple rifle sales made to the same buyer within a five-day period will have to be reported beginning on August 14, on a form to be announced, according to the agents. The order will exclude rifles in .22 caliber, and rifles without detachable magazines. The agents acknowledged that congressional action, lawsuits, an injunction or other court orders might forestall the implementation of the hastily concocted scheme. Such preventive measures are already underway.

The rumored executive order to require gun dealers in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to begin reporting multiple rifle sales to BATFE will not be issued. A previous Page Nine report that referred to the expected EO now appears incorrect. It is possible that the uproar over the program caused the administration to change its approach, and put all the heat on BATFE to “enact” law without Congress. The EO was widely reported and anticipated.

An exhaustive examination of statutory authority under which BATFE is required to operate revealed no legitimate power to demand these records, though the agents claimed they do have authority (two younger ones said they have no control over the process, and were simply following along). When questioned if they would consider resigning if asked to implement an illegally introduced rule, the agents all either declined to answer or said no, they would not resign.

Because a buyer will have to be identified to show that the sales reflect purchase by one person, the record collections will be a gun registry tied to gun ownership, which is strictly forbidden under federal law. No requirement to destroy these records exists, since no authority to collect the records exists. The BATFE agents said they would not be keeping the records, because they “lack authority,” but could not identify a time frame in which the registry information would be destroyed, or any audit trail.

When pressed, the senior official identified a statute that supposedly conveyed authority for the daring plan. The citation is to 18 USC §923(g)(5)(A) which states:

“Each licensee shall, when required by letter issued by the Attorney General, and until notified to the contrary in writing by the Attorney General, submit on a form specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the times specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by this chapter or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.”

This does not confer the needed authority, because “all record information required to be kept by this chapter” does not include multiple sales of long guns to the same person in a five-day period. The agent disagreed. In fact, Congress specifically excluded such information when it enacted, by due process, a statute requiring similar information for handguns in the same law, in 18 USC §923(g)(3)(A):

“Each licensee shall prepare a report of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever the licensee sells or otherwise disposes of, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, two or more pistols, or revolvers, or any combination of pistols and revolvers totaling two or more, to an unlicensed person.”

In addition to the creation of this illegal reporting requirement, illegal gun-owner registry, with unknown details and no public control over the rule-making process, it amounts to record keeping specifically banned under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, 18 USC §926(a)(2):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act [5/19/86] may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

Like so many laws the federal government writes, this one declares that these acts cannot legally be done, but provides no specific punishment for perpetrators, such as those running this scheme inside BATFE. Laws could be written with teeth, to control bureaucrats. Instead of saying, “No one may collect this information,” the law could say, “Anyone who collects this information shall go to prison and pay a fine.” Given the common abuses now prevalent in government, such laws have been needed for a long time, on a state and local level as well as federally, some legislators say. Any legislator unwilling to draft laws that way, allowing “officials” to do whatever they please without consequence, deserves to be removed from office, according to leading experts.

FBI Implicated in Gun-Smuggling Operation

In other news, an insider source investigating BATFE’s gun smuggling to vicious Mexican drug cartels, reveals that several of the so-called “straw purchasers” were prohibited possessors, or had suspended drivers’ licenses and other problems that should have prevented them from passing the NICS background check.

Three of the straw purchasers, now indicted, had criminal histories, including a pending class 3 felony charge for burglary, an order of protection, a domestic-violence conviction, and a felony for resisting
arrest, later reduced (and criminal damage charge dropped). Any of these should have prevented, or at least delayed purchases when they hit the FBI NICS computer. One defendant even had a CCW permit, under circumstances that seem suspicious but remain unclear.

Whistleblower BATFE agent John Dodson apparently indicated that the NICS system had these buyers flagged for special treatment, and that when a sale request came through, it was routed to a special FBI office that approved the purchases, according to William La Jeunesse at FOX News. Dodson’s prior statements are absolutely incriminating, and riveting: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/eveningnews/main20039031.shtml

This implies that the FBI may have been complicit in the scheme, allowing BATFE’s mules to get possession of guns when they should have been blocked. How people with disqualifying criminal records or a suspended driver’s license could have repeatedly gotten through the tightly run NICS system is difficult to otherwise explain.

Some of the buyers were young adults living at home with parents, and with no visible means of support. How they got the tens of thousands of dollars in cash they repeatedly spent has not yet been investigated, but is sure to come out. The tax and IRS angles are also missing from all reports, so far.

IRS is often vigorous on tracking down unreported income and huge cash transactions, but is not involved as far as published reports go. BATFE installed video cameras at some of the gun shops and have the straw-purchase smugglers’ transactions recorded.

No information is available on how the data BATFE hopes to collect will be used to prevent gun smuggling. Since the information will be gathered by the very bureau responsible for smuggling guns into Mexico, confidence in the scheme is very low. BATFE claims the scheme will generate 18,000 records per year, but how they could possibly know that is unclear, since this is illegal and has never been done before.

Congressional hearings on the BATFE gun-smuggling program continue tomorrow, Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 10 a.m. East coast time, 7 a.m. here in Arizona. The effect on the gun reporting and registration scheme, if any, is impossible to determine ahead of time.

Tangential but important —

According to Wikipedia, BATFE has digitized out-of-business records from gun dealers, with several hundred million records in its hands:

4. Out of Business Records. Data is manually collected from paper Out-of-Business records (or input from computer records) and entered into the trace system by ATF. These are registration records which include name and address, make, model, serial and caliber of the firearm(s), as well as data from the 4473 form — in digital or image format. In March, 2010, ATF reported receiving several hundred million records since 1968. [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

::::

One final note —

BATFE began circulating a flier at the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix this past weekend, the state’s biggest gun show, threatening gun owners with arrest if they bear arms within 1,000 feet of a school.

Virtually all populated areas are within 1,000 feet of a school.

The gun-free-school-zones act, a feel-good do-nothing law passed by President Clinton, has languished basically unused for two decades, but essentially criminalizes almost all gun owners, creating tens of millions of unenforceable felonies daily. If Mr. Obama wants an under-the-radar gun ban, here it is on a platter, already on the books. This law MUST be dealt with by our legislators, and right quick.

The Crossroads gun show takes place within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

See the maps, and the simple amendment that would correct this travesty. http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones.htm

This is a special report from The Uninvited Ombudsman, Alan Korwin, author of the Page Nine news media watchblog. http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

Sign up for direct email reports yourself http://www.gunlaws.com

Permission to circulate this report granted.

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

“Don’t be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom.”

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing
because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Public sentiment is everything.
With public sentiment, nothing can fail.
Without it, nothing can succeed. –Abraham Lincoln

Kentucky Wisdom

July 19, 2011

A large jet plane crashed on a farm in the middle of rural Kentucky.

Panic stricken, the local sheriff mobilized and descended on the farm in force. By the time they got there, the aircraft was totally destroyed with only a burned hull left smoldering in a tree line that bordered the farm.

The sheriff and his men entered the smoking mess but could find no remains of anyone.

They spotted the farmer plowing a field not too far away as if nothing had happened. They hurried over to the man’s tractor.

“Hank,” the sheriff yelled, panting and out of breath. “Did you see this terrible accident happen?”

“Yep. Sure did,” the farmer mumbled unconcerned, cutting off the tractor’s engine.

“Do you realize that is Air Force One, the airplane of the President of the United States?”

“Yep.”

“Were there any survivors?”

“Nope. They’s all kilt straight out,” the farmer answered. “I done buried them all myself. Took me most of the morning.”

“President Obama is dead?” the sheriff asked.

“Well,” the farmer grumbled, restarting his tractor. “He kept a-saying he wasn’t… But you know how bad that sumbitch lies……”

To Pee or Not To Pee – The Welfare Problem

July 19, 2011

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem).

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question: Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT—-doing drugs while I work. Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”!

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don’t. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country – AND SOON!

P.S. Just a thought, all politicians should have to pass a urine test too!

THE SHARIAH THREAT TO AMERICA

July 16, 2011

THE SHARIAH THREAT
by Kathy Jessup

A judge refuses a protection order for a woman raped by her Muslim husband, ruling the man’s abuse is allowed under Shariah law.

A cartoonist is in hiding after a tongue-in-cheek “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” promotion earned her a fatwa death order for violating a Shariah edict banning drawing the Muslim prophet’s image.

A Shariah-compliant investment fund is camouflaged as a charity and funnels more than $12 million to finance Hamas suicide bombers.

Not exactly shocking in some Muslim countries where strict adherence to centuries-old rules, based on Islamic teachings, shines a spotlight on stonings and beheadings.

But these occurred recently in the United States.

Now “honor killings,” publicly funded accommodations for Islamic prayer and billions in Wall Street investments linked to potentially dangerous terror activities are raising political and constitutional questions in America.

Can or should Shariah law co-exist with the Judeo-Christian foundations of U.S. jurisprudence and the Constitution? Will imposition of Islamic-based edicts, enabled by so-called religious tolerance and political correctness, open the door to radical forms of the religion in Western democracies?

A growing number of states are drafting constitutional amendments to prohibit state judges from applying Islamic or international law in deciding cases. But even the 70 percent of voters who passed Oklahoma’s measure in November hasn’t settled the issue for Sooners.

When the director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) challenged the amendment in court, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction, ruling the amendment could be interpreted to single out Shariah law and discredit Islam, violating the First Amendment.

WHAT IS SHARIAH LAW?

Shariah (meaning “path” in Arabic) codifies the words, practices and teaching of Islam’s Prophet Mohammed, serving as a guide/law for everything from Muslims’ family and religious practices to financial transactions.

Several hundred years after the death of Mohammed, the prophet’s model living practices were assembled into the hadith, initially melding Islam and local customs. Various hadiths eventually developed into four schools of Sunni thought and one that guides Shiites. Each differs in the degree they draw from the Koran, Islamic thought and community practices.

Shariah identifies five hadd offenses, serious charges resolved by an Islamic judge. They are unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery or sex outside marriage), falsely accusing unlawful sexual intercourse, consuming wine (sometimes all alcohol), theft and highway robbery.

Punishments ordered for hadd crimes by conservative Shariah schools — stonings, executions, amputations and beatings — shock Western sensibilities. However, Ali Mazrui, of the Institute for Global Cultural Studies, says less severe penalties are more typically imposed.

Still, Islam has not uniformly banned so-called “honor killings,” genital mutilation, pre-teen marriages, polygamy, and divorce and inheritance rules that undercut the standing of women. Testimony from non-Muslims and even Muslim women is given less weight than that of Muslim men.

The size of a country’s Islamic population and its level of religious orthodoxy typically influence the degree to which Shariah law is inculcated in national legal codes.

Conservative Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and Iran declare Islam the official religion and Shariah the source of law. In more secular Muslim countries where Islamists are the minority, Shariah has gradually gained legal legitimacy through local customs. Other countries, including Turkey and Azerbaijan, enforce separation of state and religion, sometimes resulting in political clashes.

Some countries operate a dual system where Shariah is applied to family law, while secular statutes govern criminal cases. For example, Britain introduced Shariah tribunals in 2008 that apply Islamic law to inheritance, marriage and divorce disputes where the parties all agree to the jurisdiction.

SHARIAH AND THE UNITED STATES

In 2009, Dalia Mogahed, an Obama administration adviser on Muslim affairs, told a British television audience that the West misunderstands Shariah law, calling its perceptions of Islamic tenants “oversimplified.”

But deaths, abuse and threats involving Muslim women in the United States and Canada have put a Western face on facets of Shariah that had been cloaked in long-standing Middle East practices.

Pakistani-born Muzzammil Hassan was convicted in February for beheading his wife inside the Buffalo, N.Y., television studio the couple had created to promote Islamic cultural understanding. Jurors didn’t buy Hassan’s story that he suffered spousal abuse and killed his wife in self-defense. Hassan had been served with divorce papers the week before, and his children testified he had been the abuser in the couple’s relationship.

In 2008, a New Jersey judge ruled Shariah permitted a Moroccan man to rape his Muslim wife, despite state law making it a crime. The New Jersey Appeals Court overturned that decision and remanded the case, finally allowing the woman to get a restraining order against her husband while she sought a divorce. The appeals court decision said neither Shariah law, giving a husband physical authority over his wife, nor Muslim beliefs on the role of women provided the man an exemption from criminal intent under U.S. statutes.

“[T]he [trial] judge determined to except defendant from the operation of the State’s statutes as a result of his religious beliefs,” the appeals judges wrote. “In doing so, the judge was mistaken.”
Irfan Aleem went to a Pakistani embassy and performed talaq in 2007, exercising Shariah provisions that he said allowed him to divorce his wife Farah by proclaiming his intention three times. Although married several decades earlier in Pakistan, the couple had lived in Maryland for 20 years. Irfan said Shariah allowed Farah no claim on a lucrative pension he would receive from his job with the World Bank.

Maryland judges didn’t agree, ruling the Shariah practices were “contrary to public policy of this state.” The decision set aside the divorce Irfan had quickly proclaimed and afforded Farah a right to claim marital property in a Maryland divorce.

The deaths of at least 10 women in the United States and Canada have been linked to so-called Islamic “honor killings” in the last seven years.

In 2004, a 14-year-old girl who had been raped in Newfoundland was strangled by her father and brother to “restore the family honor.” A 20-year-old daughter of Afghan parents was shot dead in 2006, allegedly because she had moved in with her fiancé before their wedding. The killer was her brother.

In Ontario, a 16-year-old was stabbed to death in 2007 by her father while her mother held her down. The teenager had reportedly fought with her parents over wearing a hijib, a Muslim head covering. In another Canadian case, three teenage girls were drowned in their father’s car in 2009. Also found dead was their father’s first wife, who relatives say he never divorced. The father, his current wife and the girls’ 18-year-old brother were all charged with first-degree murder. Relatives told the media the killings were precipitated by one daughter’s dating decisions.

A Muslim father in Texas shot his two teenage daughters, Amina and Sarah Said, to death in January 2008. The murders allegedly were prompted by the girls having “unsanctioned boyfriends.” Later that year, a Pakistani man beat his 25-year-old daughter to death in Atlanta, reportedly because she opposed her arranged marriage.

Rifqa Bary, an Ohio teenager, made headlines in 2009 when she fled to Florida and foster care, saying she feared she would be the victim of a Muslim “honor killing” for her decision to convert to Christianity. She continued her religious choice a year later when she turned 18.

In a situation much like the 2008 Muslim assassination order against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris went into hiding at the FBI’s recommendation last spring after her “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” hit Facebook. A Seattle newspaper said Norris is “essentially wiping away her identity” in reaction to a fatwa urging her killing issued by Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric connected to the Fort Hood killings, the attempted Christmas Day airline bombing over Detroit and the failed Times Square bombing.

And in February, radical Muslims announced plans to take their demand for American Shariah to the White House, calling for thousands of Islamists to rally on Pennsylvania Avenue March 3. But just hours before the rally was scheduled to begin, its organizer, British Muslim cleric Anjem Choudary, called it off, alleging the cause had been “distorted by the media.”

Choudary said the demonstration was merely “postponed until we gather even more Muslims;” no new rally date was announced.

In an online video statement, Choudary said Muslims are obligated to implement Shariah law “immediately, wherever we are in the world,” and he said America can reverse “poverty, child abuse, rape, robberies, theft, crime and anarchy-type scenarios” only after the United States embraces the Islamic code for living. In the meantime, Choudary predicted “the dollar will soon lose its status.”

“We believe the whole of the world must be under Shariah,” Choudary said. “America is not blessed by God. The American dream has become a nightmare.”

Other elements of America’s Shariah debate are more nuanced. Some, like CBSNews.com’s political reporter Brian Montopoli, believe Shariah fears are “overblown at best,” and Jeffry Goldberg, The Atlantic’s national correspondent, said, “A Martian takeover of New Jersey is more likely than the imposition of a caliphate, or of Muslim law, on America.”

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, says the enjoined Oklahoma amendment is “an indication of growing anti-Muslim sentiment.” Hooper said CAIR has “not found any conflict between what a Muslim needs to do to practice their faith and the Constitution or any other American laws. We are, in fact, relying on the Constitution as our last line of defense.”

But conservative Jewish blogger Pamela Geller delivers an aggressive “creeping Shariah” warning: “It’s a drip, drip, drip, drip, drip. [In] the mosqueing of the workplace where you’re imposing prayer times on union contracts, non-Muslim workers have to lengthen their day. It’s wrong.”

Consider the political reaction Americans would have seen if these Muslim accommodations had instead been made for Christians:

* The Christian Science Monitor reported a California elementary school made accommodations when it absorbed Muslim students from a shuttered charter school, including revising its instructional schedule to add a 15-minute “recess” after lunch to allow Muslim students to pray in a separate room. The school district’s attorney defended it, saying “the Muslim faith requires specificity of prayer obligations … that most other religions do not,” a claim questioned by even some Muslims. Pork also was removed from school-lunch menus, according to media reports.

* In Massachusetts, where a firehouse was ordered to take down a “Merry Christmas” greeting, public middle school students took a “cultural diversity” field trip to a local mosque, where the boys participated in Islamic prayers while girls were excluded.

These public school incidents are not isolated instances.

Try getting Christian prayer in any school and have the ACLU all over you….but nothing is said re; Muslim special privilege.

* Starting about two years ago, school attorneys have been asking more and more questions about accommodations for Muslim students,” said Lisa Soronen, senior staff attorney for the National School Boards Association.

* Four Christian evangelists attending a July Muslim cultural festival in Dearborn, Mich., were arrested for “disorderly conduct to ensure they did not provoke violence from others attending,” according to a Detroit media report. The four said they were attempting to engage in a dialogue about faith. Shariah law prohibits Christians from engaging Muslims about Christianity.

* The University of Michigan-Dearborn, where about 10 percent of students are Muslim, spent $25,000 to install two foot-washing stations on campus to accommodate ablutions before Islamic daily prayers. The university said it is one of about 18 U.S. higher education institutions providing the unusual facilities, calling its decision “a reflection of our values of respect, tolerance, and safe accommodation of student needs.”

The Michigan Civil Liberties Union mounted no challenge, saying the foot baths have “no [religious] symbolic value.”

“They’re in a regular restroom and could be just as useful to a janitor filling up buckets, or someone coming off the basketball court as to Muslim students,” said Kary Moss, MCLU director.

* Thomas More Law Center, a conservative, public-interest law firm headquartered in Michigan, is challenging the constitutionality of federal bailout money to investment firm AIG, claiming AIG’s involvement in Shariah-compliant financing violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. A federal district judge in Michigan ruled that despite the fact the bailout gave the federal government an 80 percent ownership in AIG, there was no evidence the government’s money had funded “religious indoctrination.” And if there were evidence, the court said the $153 million of federal bailout money used to support Shariah compliance was an insignificant portion of the total $47.5 billion the government provided AIG.

That ruling is being appealed.

THE POWER OF MONEY

Conservative author Dick Morris says airplanes may have taken down the Twin Towers, but he predicts Shariah-compliant investing of billions in Western financial markets has the potential to “hijack our institutions, our social policies and ultimately our values in the name of Islamic rule.”

Huge oil profits and unease with their own Middle Eastern financial institutions brought Islamic investors to Wall Street in the 1990s in search of special funds that would meet Shariah restrictions. But it was complicated turf for bankers who knew investing but not Shariah.

Enter Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, a former Pakistani Shariah Appellate Court justice, hired by Dow Jones in 1999 to help establish a process that could attract trillions of investment dollars, generating handsome commissions and agency earnings.

In just a decade, most major U.S. and European investment firms have retained Shariah advisors and paid them millions. Those advisors assure Muslim investors their gains are not connected to interest charges, pork farming, alcohol, pornography or Western defense industries — all activities prohibited by Shariah.

But are those adviser fees — paid to highly placed Muslims — or the billions of dollars in “donations” financial institutions must contribute to specified Islamic “charities” in exchange for an investment’s Shariah stamp of approval actually bankrolling deadly extremist activities? Morris followed the money in his 2009 book “Catastrophe,” reporting that the U.S. government shut down at least three of the largest charities for financing terrorism.

In a 2008 article titled “Jihad Comes to Wall Street,” Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, called Shariah-compliant investing “an essential part of radical Islam’s efforts to insinuate itself into Western societies in order to destroy them from within.”

It’s also been a bumpy road for some of those hired consultants. Dow Jones severed ties with Usmani after the Center for Security Policy detailed some of Usmani’s writings, including one that urged Muslims living in the West to “conduct violent Jihad against the infidels at every opportunity.”

The CSP identified another paid Shariah investment advisor, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, as a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

According to Morris, Shariah-compliant funds must donate a small percentage of annual earnings to Islamic charities designated by the advisory boards. Those amounts are not inconsequential. For example, a typical 2.5 percent contribution can amount to billions of dollars.

And if a Shariah-compliant fund is found to have earnings from an outlawed investment activity, the advisors can “purify” those gains by donating more to the approved charities. Morris calls some of the charities “thinly veiled fronts for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Is the lure of trillions of dollars from Muslim portfolios strong enough to open civil law to expanding Shariah influences?

Consider Great Britain where, just a few years ago, then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wanted London to become the world’s Islamic-finance capital. Britain’s most senior judge subsequently proclaimed the country’s Muslims can use “Islamic legal principles” as long as the punishments and divorce rulings comply with English law.

According to Morris, that’s already made U.K. Muslims eligible for extra benefits if they have more than one wife, even though polygamy — allowed under Shariah law — is illegal in Britain.

TOLERANCE: AN ASSET OR A WEDGE?

Janet Levy, a prolific writer on Islam and national security, asks why Islam “is sacred, supreme and beyond reproach” in the United States, while other religions are “freely criticized, lampooned in cartoons and denigrated in artwork?” She concludes America is already embracing de facto Shariah law.

“Our uniquely American virtues of tolerance and freedom have worked against us to produce intolerance and oppression,” Levy says. “This has led to the stealthy introduction of Shariah law and a climate in which criticisms of Mohammed and Islam are no longer possible without serious repercussions.”

Are political correctness and moves to cool the osmosis of the American melting pot fundamentally changing us? Is the arena of ideas — where Americans have historically tested competing beliefs — being shut down so as not to offend?

Recall 1960 when Americans considered it fair game to question Democrat John F. Kennedy about whether he would look first to his Catholicism or to the Constitution in making presidential decisions. Former Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has come under scrutiny during his political campaigns, sans shouts of profiling.

European nations that have led the West’s embrace of Shariah law have recently begun to retreat from their policies of “multiculturalism,” suggesting failure to maintain a single national identity has actually cultivated Islamic extremism in countries like Britain.

In a February speech at the Munich Security Conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron argued European “multiculturalism has been a failure” that’s fostered Islamic extremism, adding that the West has been “cautious, frankly even fearful” of standing up to it.

“We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values,” Cameron said. “This hands-off tolerance has only served to reinforce the sense that not enough is shared. … What we see — and what we see in so many European countries — is a process of radicalization.”

Something also gets jumbled in the translation when East/West cultures talk about democracy and its relationship with religion.

In 2008 polling conducted by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, 82 percent of Egyptians said a democratic political system should govern their nation. At the same time, 73 percent said they supported stronger application of Islamic law in Egypt.

Of those, 68 percent said Egypt’s government should apply Shariah law to regulate moral behavior; 64 percent supported using traditional punishments like stoning for adulterers; 62 percent want the government to police women’s dress; and 59 percent said Shariah rules should be used to provide for Egypt’s poor.

So what does this all mean for Shariah in America?

The U.S. Constitution does not assign superiority to a particular religion. However, the idea that liberty is man’s God-given — not government-granted — right is a Judeo-Christian principle. America is exceptional because the people — regardless of how or whether they embrace God — allow government limited power.

America does not vest all authority in a theocratic government, where law and even daily life is dictated by a single religious code. But that does not mean the United States is Islamophobic, says New Jersey blogger George Berkin.

“[S]upporting the [Oklahoma amendment] does not make one anti-Islamic. But not being anti-Islamic does not mean that we should not insist that American legal principles — not foreign ones — apply here.”

Kathy Jessup is an award-winning, veteran journalist in Michigan whose writing career has focused on government, politics and criminal justice.

This article appeared March 24th, 2011 in Townhall Magazine,
http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=6533

Obama Executive Order Cannot Legally Enact Rifle-Reporting Law

July 14, 2011

Effort to Bypass Congress Is Illegitimate, Experts Say

Similar Laws Have Required Bills, Open Debate, Recorded Votes

News Media Asleep at the Wheel, Reporting Without Questioning

Firearm Owners Protection Act Bans Such Proposals Altogether

Congress Already Rejected Reporting for Long Guns

If this stands up, limits on power fall apart — Is that the true goal of Project Gunrunner?

The effort by the Obama administration to establish new gun law by executive order is not a legal method for enacting law in the United States, according to Alan Korwin, a national expert on gun law and author of nine books on the subject. Other experts agree that such a measure requires an act of Congress, and cannot legitimately be implemented by executive order, as Mr. Obama is attempting to do.

“We already have rapid-reporting requirements for multiple firearm sales, for handguns,” Mr. Korwin notes, “and this required Congress to draft and enact a statute, which became federal law 18 U.S.C. §923(g). It’s not legal to create another similar law for long guns without Congress,” Korwin says.

When that law was changed to allow reporting of multiple handgun sales to local authorities, in addition to federal officials, that also required federal law, which was passed as part of the Brady bill. Congress had an opportunity to include long guns in those reporting requirements, and rejected it. Congress is the only entity with legitimate power to change that, Korwin and other experts say.

According to knowledgeable observers, a firearms bill like this would not make it through Congress, since the House is firmly in pro-gun-rights Republican hands. This may explain Obama’s effort to sidestep Congress and attempt to enact a gun law by decree instead of due process and open
transparent deliberation. “Mr. Obama knows such a bill would have no chance of passage in the current Congress. His attempt to avoid Congress is an affront to all Americans, regardless of where they stand on the gun-rights issue,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “Apparently the president is a fan of former Clinton advisor Paul Begala’s approach to government: “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!”

A president who attempts to pass laws on his own is dangerous to the nation.

“If the administration can get away with this and enact new law without Congress, there is no practical limit on presidential exercise of power, a truly frightening development,” says Philip Van Cleave, a civil-rights activist and president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. “Even attempting to grab such power is a tyrannical act,” Van Cleave says.

No justification or rationale is known that would allow such action regarding rifle sales, when the essentially same law for handguns required a bill and proper passage. This goes even one step further than Obama’s federal health care law, which then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said we would have to pass to learn what’s in it. That at least used Congress for an appearance of legitimacy, this bypasses Congress completely.

Equal treatment under the law would also be defeated by the move, since the attempt singles out dealers in only four states — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. One gun dealer, who refused to be identified, pointed out that this will force Mexico’s deadly vicious drug cartels to make their illegal straw purchases in the other 46 states.

Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Oklahoma are the next closest states to the Mexican border, and could conceivably see an uptick in the sales Obama claims he is trying to thwart. Those states would be under no obligation to report multiple sales, though licensed dealers are typically vigilant and report sales that seem suspicious, if for no other reason than to protect their licenses to operate.

“The whole scheme is preposterous,” says Kim Grady, a board member and national coordinator for Second Amendment Sisters. “Federal agents were the ones smuggling guns into Mexico in the first place, to bolster the numbers Mr. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder were loudly promoting to build support for more gun control — even after their numbers were exposed as false,” Ms. Grady notes. “The ATF-managed straw sales were repeatedly reported to ATF officials, who ignored the information. Now dealers will be required to do what they were already doing, to the rogue agency that ignored them? This has nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with control.” If a new law is needed, Grady said, it’s one to imprison federal agents who cooperate in gun smuggling, not more paperwork for honest and conscientious licensed business people.

According to ATF, the new edict will generate 18,000 reports in a year. It is unknown where the staff and money to handle such a load will come from, or how the information will be used. FOPA specifically bans collecting this information in any sort of federal facility.

According to Charles Heller, the newly appointed executive director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, “The ultimate aim of all regulations like the one in this executive order, is to make it so difficult for private citizens to own and shoot a gun, that they no longer bother to do so. This is EXACTLY what the Declaration of Independence, whose anniversary we just celebrated, refers to as ‘sending forth agents to eat out our substance.'”

Heller notes that, “In the recent Gunrunner debacle, the Obama administration attempted to pad the statistics of ‘crime guns’ going to Mexico from the U.S. This is a violation of several U.S. laws, committed by law enforcement agents who failed to refuse illegal orders. The solution is simple and straightforward — disarm the agents and decertify the agency as a law enforcement organization. Remove their badges, and give them business cards like any other bureaucrats. Turn them from jack-boots into gumshoes.”

According to published reports, Obama promised action on gun restrictions to long-time anti-rights activist Sarah Brady, saying they would come “under the radar,” after he got things properly positioned. It defies imagination to suggest that Project Gunrunner, and the Fast and Furious smuggling crimes were just fronts that had nothing to do with padding the numbers, gun smuggling, or even building political support for gun control. “If that was just a smokescreen, all arranged so Mr. Obama could begin enacting gun law by decree instead of through Congress, now that would be one slick pre-planned political stratagem,” said author Korwin, adding, “I can’t believe he’s that clever, but it sure looks like he’s getting that result.”

The NRA has promised a lawsuit to fight the administration’s decree, about the only action short of impeachment that can be taken if a president acts outside the law. That case would be heard in federal courts, which operate under Obama’s Justice Dept. and AG Eric Holder, which have in the past mysteriously dismissed cases they did not like. Voter intimidation by a black panther in Philadelphia, for example, disappeared, even though the club-wielding perp was caught on videotape.

###

BACKGROUNDER

As early as Dec. 17, 2010, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that an effort was underway to create rifle-reporting requirements:

“An editorial in today’s Washington Post discussed the recent decision by ATF to require federally licensed firearms retailers along the Southwest border to report multiple sales, or other dispositions, of most semi-automatic rifles. Specifically this would impact semi-automatic rifles that are larger than .22 caliber, capable of accepting a detachable magazine and are purchased by the same individual within five consecutive business days.

“Though the Post supports this ill-advised proposal, it did acknowledge the legitimacy surrounding one of industry’s objections:

“When reports of its plan surfaced, the administration came under immediate attack from the gun rights lobby. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, argued that the administration lacked the legal authority to demand data on rifles and shotguns. It has a point: While Congress authorized the ATF to collect information on handgun sales, it declined to extend the requirement to long guns. A court is likely to be asked to decide whether demand letters may be used to shake loose this information …”
http://www.nssfblog.com/atf-to-require-multiple-sales-reports-for-long-guns/

NSSF continues to oppose multiple sales reporting of semi-automatic rifles. Such reporting requirements will actually make it more difficult for licensed retailers to help law enforcement as traffickers modify their illegal schemes to circumvent the reporting requirement. Traffickers will go further underground, hiring more people to buy their firearms. This will make it much harder for retailers to identify and report suspicious behavior to law enforcement.
http://www.nssfblog.com/more-on-atf-multiple-sales-reporting/

NSSF would also like to remind all members of industry, sportsmen and gun owners to voice their concerns by doing the following:

1. — Call the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Department of Justice, Desk Officer at (202) 395-6466.

2. — E-mail Barbara A. Terrell, ATF, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov

3. — Call your Senators and Representative: United States Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

The NSSF reports that, “According to ATF, the average age of a firearm recovered in the United States is 11 years old. In Mexico it’s more than 14 years old. This demonstrates that criminals are not using new guns bought from retailers in the states.”

Congress, when it enacted multiple sales reporting for handguns, could have required multiple sales of long guns — it specifically chose not to.

The Washington Post reported on Dec. 17 of last year that, “The plan (to register rifles) by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revives a proposal that has languished at the Justice Department and in the Obama administration for several months, according to people with knowledge of the proposal… The idea of such a requirement is so controversial to many gun owners that administration officials proceeded cautiously for fear of provoking the National Rifle Association, sources said.”

The paper quoted Ted Novin, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who noted the timing after the election and said, “This is an ill-considered proposal and one that ATF does not have the legal authority to unilaterally impose.”

The Post also quoted NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox, “This administration does not have the guts to build a wall (on the border), but they do have the audacity to blame and register gun owners for Mexico’s problems,” Cox said. “NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics.”

The original idea, says the Post, was to label the operation as an emergency, and have ATF issue a “demand letter” to 8,500 dealers in the four border states requiring the new reports to a centralized federal facility.

When the NRA got wind of the idea back then, it warned its four million members in a “grassroots alert” that the administration might try to go around Congress to get such a plan enacted as an executive order or rule.

“Emergency approval would last six months, after which the requirement would end unless other action were taken, the draft states,” according to the Post. That time is now up and Obama has seen fit to attempt to continue the operation, in defiance of law and with disregard for Congress.
http://tinyurl.com/6c37t97

From the Firearm Owners Protection Act 18 USC §926 Rules and regulations

“The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter…

(3)… No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (1986) may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”
This is a special report from The Uninvited Ombudsman, Alan Korwin, author of the Page Nine news media watchblog.
http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

Sign up for direct email reports yourself
http://www.gunlaws.com

We’ve added more than two dozen new books and DVDs to our line:
http://www.gunlaws.com/books19Newer.htm

“My Parents Open Carry”

“Surviving a Massacre, Rampage or Spree Shooting”

“Self Defense Laws of all 50 States”

“Bomb Jokes at Airports”

“After You Shoot: Your gun’s hot. The perp’s not. Now what?”

“America’s Godly Heritage”

Lots more, check it out
http://www.gunlaws.com/books19Newer.htm

Get our new full-color catalog absolutely FREE
http://www.gunlaws.com/catalog.htm

Alan Korwin
Bloomfield Press
“We publish the gun laws.”
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020 Phone
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020 Orders
http://www.gunlaws.com
alan@gunlaws.com
Call, write, fax or click for free full-color catalog
(This is our address and info as of Jan. 1, 2007)

“Don’t be a spectator in the struggle to preserve freedom.”

“No one could make a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little.”
–Edmund Burke

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed. –Abraham Lincoln
============

Resources from Bloomfield Press:

If you want to help make a difference, take a look at my page on Tactics That Work:
http://www.gunlaws.com/Tactics%20That%20Work.htm

To see prior issues of my media watchblog, Page Nine:
http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

For researched info on News Media Bias:
http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm

See my latest papers, news, Updates and more:
http://www.gunlaws.com/newstuff.htm

To find a law anywhere in the country, use our widely acclaimed National Directory:
http://www.gunlaws.com/links/index.htm

You can check out our growing line of Specialty Books with DVDs for gun owners and supporters of freedom and plain-English guides to gun laws across the nation:
http://www.gunlaws.com/books.htm

And finally, for logical, common-sense, reasonable positions on gun issues, try my Position Papers:
http://www.gunlaws.com/updates.htm

Memorial Day – a tribute to our military

July 9, 2011

He was getting old and paunchy
and his hair was falling fast,
and he sat around the Legion,
telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he once fought in
and the deeds that he had done,
in his exploits with his buddies;
they were heroes, every one.

And though sometimes to his neighbors
his tales became a joke,
all his buddies listened quietly
for they knew whereof he spoke.

But we’ll hear his tales no longer,
for old Bob has passed away,
and the world’s a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.

He won’t be mourned by many,
just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
very quiet sort of life.

He held a job and raised a family,
going quietly on his way;
and the world won’t note his passing,
though a Soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth,
their bodies lie in state,
while thousands note their passing,
and proclaim that they were great.

Papers tell of their life stories
from the time that they were young
but the passing of a Soldier
goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution
to the welfare of our land,
someone who breaks his promise
and cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow
who in times of war and strife,
goes off to serve his country
and offers up his life?

The politician’s stipend
and the style in which he lives,
are often disproportionate,
to the service that he gives.

While the ordinary Soldier,
who offered up his all,
is paid off with a medal
and perhaps a pension, small.

It is not the politicians
with their compromise and ploys,
who won for us the freedom
that our country now enjoys.

Should you find yourself in danger,
with your enemies at hand,
would you really want some cop-out,
with his ever-waffling stand?

Or would you want a Soldier–
his home, his country, his kin,
just a common Soldier,
who would fight until the end?

He was just a common Soldier,
and his ranks are growing thin,
but his presence should remind us
we may need his like again.

For when countries are in conflict,
we find the Soldier’s part
is to clean up all the troubles
that the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor
while he’s here to hear the praise,
then at least let’s give him homage
at the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline
in the paper that might say:
“OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY.”


%d bloggers like this: