Merry Christmas to all!

As a Jew I am offended by this attack by the left against Christmas. As a proud Jew, I am quite secure with my belief system. My world view does not come crumbling down when I see a Nativity scene or if some one greets me with a warm "Merry Christmas". As a sign of civility, I respond back in kind.

Public school teachers are being disciplined for greeting students with "Merry Christmas". Department stores not mentioning the word Christmas, while pushing their "Holiday" sale garbage on us. State Colleges banning any mention of "Christ" in Christmas:

University mandates 'Merry ------mas' as holiday greeting

What is this SHIGAON!!!(Craziness)

In fact, I find the greeting "Happy Holidays" more offensive. If you think about it, it is an arrogant statement. It denies the existence of all other holidays throughout the year. During the holidays of Easter and Passover, which fall roughly at the same time in the spring, I do not hear the same "Happy Holidays" clamor. So why should Christmas be any different??

The people that get offended are usually the secular humanists, whether they be born Christian or Jew. Their ultimate goal is to see all religions banned from the public and private arena. They cloak their agenda behind "separation of church and state". Unfortunately, many people believe that this clause is in the Constitution. It is not.

The phrase was pulled out of context from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists Association. The First Amendment was meant to ensure freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. It was never the intention of the founding fathers to prevent citizens of this country from expressing their religious convictions in public.

The goal of these secular humanists, i.e. socialists, is to eventually ban all forms of religious expression in both public and private domains. Socialists consider private property rights to be a great injustice to the "have nots". Their goal is to transfer all property to the state, and therefore making all property public. Once that is accomplished all religious expression would be banned under the guise of "separation of church and state".

All devout Jews should be concerned. During Hanukkah, we celebrate the Maccabees victory over the secular humanists of the past, the Hellenist Greeks. They tried to force all Jews in the Land of Israel to abandon the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to adopt their perversion. The attack against Judaism has not ceased. For instance, these secular fundamentalists are not to happy about Kosher labeling and the kosher slaughtering process. We Jews should not be surprised when they start to push the banning of these practices. Many on the left consider teaching Torah to our kids a form of child abuse. In Israel today, the same secular forces that wreak havoc in the US are pushing their poison on Israelis. Truth and all that is good is irrelevant to these people.

As a Proud Jew, who does not celebrate Christmas, I say MERRY CHRISTMAS to all my Christian brothers and sisters.

S.D. for Two Joe Schmoes

The Eco-Nazis Take the Mask Off

I generally try to not do rapid about-faces on issues, but having seen the growing evidence disproving the theory that "global warming" is man-made started me to rethink it.

And after reading this article, I'm suddenly convinced it's a complete lie. Science is about studying the data, analyzing it and figuring out an answer. What is happening regarding global warming is turning into a new Salem witch trial, where skeptics are being threatened for dissenting from the alleged consensus.

Don't believe me? Here's just ONE of several examples listed in the article:

Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

Marlo –
You are so full of crap.
You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.

Mike
Michael T. Eckhart
President
American Council On
Renewable Energy (ACORE)

Wow, just lovely, no? It seems that the eco-Nazis realize the data is not supporting their ludicrous claims, and now they are revealing themselves as politicians masquerading as scientists. What's worse, they're stifling what should be a serious scientific debate by making threats and silencing opposition. Sounds an awful lot like the start of a totalitarian state. Silence your critics by any means necessary. Destroy their careers, smear their names if they DARE to question the "consensus".

Take everything into consideration, and you'll see that the dreaded Nazi moniker actually fits:

• The Left is refusing to even listen to the growing number of scientists who say man-made global warming is not real,
• Talk is increasing about "carbon taxes", and Senators Clinton and Obama signed on to a tax that would amount to $4500 per year on each American family,
• Leftist paranoia about carbon is making them tamper with nature by trying to regulate "emissions" from animals (read: farts),
• Some insist we not only need to tax people who have children, but think we need mass sterilizations and forced abortions to control the "evil" of human population.

It's all about control and power for them. If they can intimidate scientists into submission a la Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany, they'll have "won" the climate debate. Every new tax is a new control on you. And the mere suggestion of taxing people for having a family, and the unthinkable of forcing people to limit children or forcing people to not have ANY children borders on megalomania.

I for one think there should be an open debate - if the evidence is so incontrovertible and solid, why is there such an effort to silence opposition? This makes me fairly certain that the eco-Nazis have no reliable leg to stand on. We can't let them run roughshod over the facts, it means a lot more than a warmer planet. It will cost us our very freedom as human beings.

- F. D. for Two Joe Schmoes

Who are the Real Fascists, Part II

There is a more subtle fascism at play from the Left which I neglected to touch on in my previous post, but which is probably more dangerous since it is on the surface not something one would associate with fascism.

That subtle device is known as tax.

You might laugh, and that's fair. Taxes are how our government is funded by the people. You may pay a sales tax when you buy something, that goes to your state (or city in some cases) and those taxes pay for road maintenance, sanitation, and so on. We currently pay the federal government out of our paychecks, to cover the expenses of keeping the country safe (which given our porous border is debatable) and an ever-widening array of social services.

So why is it subtle fascism?

A tax can support valid and ligitimate services, this much is true. But the trend lately seems to be that taxes are being used to steer behavior and control people, in a sense making them slaves to the state. Some states have heavy taxes on alcohol and/or tobacco products. These are often called "sin" taxes, and these things tend to probably curb consumption on some people's parts, or cause others to quit altogether. This is an indirect behavior modification. Now, there's talk in San Francisco about taxing caffeine and soft drinks. Why? According to mayor Gavin Newsom,

obesity accounts for tens of millions of dollars in city health care costs. He cites a recent San Francisco Health Department survey that found nearly a quarter of the city's 5th, 7th and 9th graders were overweight and that high sugar drinks make up a tenth of a kid's daily calorie count.

Why should the rest of us have to pay for bad decision-making by our kids? Another valid issue: if these drinks are so terrible, WHY are there vending machines in pretty much every school? It's all about the money.

Look at the increasingly insane environmentalists. Proposals of a global "carbon tax" and in some circles, taxing babies. What are these but more forms of control? Who'll have kids if they get penalized for it? Carbon taxes will really only punish the more prosperous nations - Third World developing nations won't have to pay these taxes, nor will they likely be held to the same stringent standards the US and Europe will be held.

One last form of control to touch on comes in the devilish form of "free trade". Supposedly, free trade will save us all, allowing us to run to Wal-Mart and buy all the junk our materialistic hearts desire for cheap. But what's often neglected is the fact that to get these goods so cheap, precious jobs are leaving the US because the publicly owned companies we're buying them from care only about the bottom line, not the impact on the people who are supposed to buy the junk they're getting made in China at a cut rate with expected cut-rate results. Free trade is pushed heavily by liberals, and sadly, many conservatives as well. Conservative establishment seems to be beholden to unrestrained capitalism, while liberals love the idea of a unified North America, as they love the EU, and eventually, a unified world government.

Go ahead, snicker at that thought, but who a mere 50 years ago would have thought there would ever be a unified Europe? It's the only logical conclusion: a unified Europe is a powerful economic force. Bush thinks that's the only way we can compete against the EU and China - a North American Union. In Africa, there have been talks ongoing for years to achieve a similar body for African nations. Why would it be so hard to believe that eventually, such unions wouldn't consolidate?

Consolidated power is a grave danger, even under the guise of improving the quality of life. That's pretty much how Hitler sunk his teeth into Germany: they were in a dire situation and he promised them a better life. He consolidated all power, took over all industry, socialized the state (yes, Hitler WAS socialist) and within 12 years destroyed Germany 100 times worse than World War I ever did.

Love him or hate him, Pat Buchanan sums it up best (emphasis added):

As too few patriots appreciate, free trade - with its lure of a cornucopia of consumer goos at the cheapest possible price - is the Pied Piper to world government. For any continental common market must call into existence institutions with the power to enforce its rules. These evolve into regimes. So history teaches.

- F.D. for 2 joe Schmoes

Who are the REAL Fascists?

Think back a few days to Mitt Romney's now-famous "Mormon speech" - and then go look at reactions from the Left and the Right.

Those on the Right call the speech "well-thought out", "brilliant" and "a good example of true religious liberty".

Those on the Left? Well, I'll quote the MotherJones blog as one shining example that is easily found on many other Left-leaning sites: "Romney to Atheists: Go To Hell". A quick look at other columns and you'll find the old liberal chestnuts about the Right trying to force a "Fascist theocracy".

And look at most liberal sources. There's always that recurrent theme that somehow, we evil conservatives are out to steal all your liberties away and impose our philosophy on everyone at gunpoint. But let's look closely at just who really wants fascism in this country of ours. I'll hit a few topics here:

Abortion: Sure, let's start with one of the biggies. Yes, many conservatives want to see this atrocity outlawed, and I'm one of them. But walk with me down the road of logic and reason:

• Our "inalienable rights" include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
• These are put in that order for a good reason. One right provides for the one following it. But, to make the point clearer, I'll work backwards...
• A person can't pursue happiness if they do not have liberty. Simple enough - if you're not free, how can you possibly pursue happiness?
• More importantly, how can there be liberty if anyone is denied the right to live? When a nation allows the death of innocent humans, how can we really be free?

Liberals pretty much universally support abortion, hiding behind a fictitious "right to choose" for parents. (I don't say the mother, because the man is equally responsible in these cases.) But someone's freedom of choice is limited where it affects another's life. True freedom is the freedom to do good. Every society has laws to protect the rights of others. We may be free, but we're not free to kill or harm others with impunity.

Gun Control: Again, the Right are often called "gun nuts" because we support the Second Amendment's guarantee of people to bear arms. I support it, but I don't own any weapons for a variety of reasons. But that right is there explicitly to protect us from our own government. I quote the Second Amendment in its entirety, emphasis added by me:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Can't get any clearer. Now, that said, even conservatives have the good sense to know that not everyone is stable enough to own a gun, so there ARE laws on the books to prevent unfit persons from getting guns (at least through legal channels). Liberals, on the other hand, would prefer guns be out of our society, the line of thinking is that no guns means safer streets. I doubt that highly - there's plenty of other ways to make the streets unsafe and our endeavoring gang members will have them at the ready - not to mention they're not going to give in their guns without a fight.

More importantly, think about this: if the people of the US became unarmed, what's to stop a future government from imposing a dictatorship? I know, right now that sounds far-fethched, but it's a possibility nonetheless. But such a change would be very costly to a regime that sought totalitarianism if the people had access to arms.

Religious Freedom: I brought up Romney's speech for a reason: While conservatives are more likely than liberals to have a strong faith, we read the First Amendment in its entirety, which says that the government will not only create a state church, but it has no place restricting religious freedom or expression. This means that people and towns can put up religious displays at Christmas, Easter, Hanukkah, Passover, Ramadan...whichever holiday. This is NOT establishing a state religion. It is allowing the people to freely express their faith, as is protected by the Constitution. Kids can and should be allowed to pray in school if they wish, and those who don't can show a modicum of respect by allowing them to.

What does the Left want? Well, take a look around: mention of God is strictly verboten in schools, if a town DARES to put up a Christmas (and in a lot of places, Hanukkah) display, some militant atheist is screaming that it's a violation of law. And look at another issue - gay "marriage". If the Left gets their way, churches would be FORCED to have such ceremonies in their buildings in direct violation of the churches' beliefs. Don't believe me? Look at Canada. Prests were being threatened with "hate crimes" for speaking out their beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. So this would mean if I taught my kids to believe what my Church teaches, I could get put away.

This is just a sample, friends. The Left likes to call names, but look closely, you'll see that the accusations they sling are generally what they themselves support but don't want to be identified with.

How free do you really think you'll be if they get their way?

- F.d. for 2 Joe Schmoes

Listen to the Left, say no to Obama for president.

Since the war against terror started the left has claimed that our actions have only increased recruitment for terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. That if only we cared about the Muslim world, and we showed some compassion and understanding then we can "all get along".

If we follow this formula, then Barack Obama should bow out of the Presidential race ASAP. Barack Obama's father was a Muslim. Muslim law states, "once a Muslim always a Muslim". Barack Obama according to Muslim law is a Muslim by default. Unlike Judaism, which follows matrilineal descent, Islam follows a patrilineal descent when determining who is a Muslim.

If Obama becomes the next president, this will definitely offend and increase the ranks of Al Qaeda. Barack Obama has continuously claimed that he does not follow Islam and he is a practicing Christian. Can we afford to anger the Muslim world, and allow a man who will be looked upon by the Muslim world as a traitor to his faith represent the USA? This will only strengthen Muslim belief in the "Great Satan's" nefarious crusading efforts. In this case, I agree with the left, say NO to Obama for President.

S.D. For Two Joe Schmoes.

Why the hypocrisy?

We are constantly bombarded by bumper sticker slogans from the left side of the political spectrum. The State is their god and "man-made global warming" is their new religion. However, unfortunately like many supposed religious people, they fail to practice what they preach. Does Al Gore, the self-appointed pope of the global warming crowd, need a large mansion that consumes twice as much energy in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year??

If man made global warming is a real crisis, why does Al Gore and his ilk jet-set all over the world, consuming thousands of gallons of jet fuel??? I find it strange that the left is pushing to rebuild certain neighborhoods in New Orleans that are below sea level. I thought cities like New Orleans and New York City will be under water when (not if) the ice caps melt. Doesn't the left care about the poor black community in New Orleans?

The fact is, there is no crisis. Global warming is as normal as global cooling. The earth has gone through these cycles many times before, and there is nothing unnatural about it. Man was not, is not, and will never be responsible for any of the climate changes that occur on this amazing planet called Earth.

The true goal of the left is to control the population. After the Soviet Union collapsed, many of the socialists in the west, the useful idiots, cloaked themselves in the environmental movement. What they could not gain through force via the USSR, they would gain through these fabricated crises. The jewel of these fabricated crises is man-made global warming. Every human action from industrialization to procreation can be blamed for the cause of global warming and its consequences. Any behavior deemed destructive to the planet can be regulated and controlled down to how many children you can have, to where you can live, and what you can eat.

Global warming is about politics, power, and money not science. The socialist elitists will continue to jet-set around the world, eat their lobster, and sip their champagne. While you freeze your butt off waiting in line for your hand me down human powered bicycle.

S.D. for Two Joe Schmoes

Global Warm-fare Reaches New Lows

I admit, until fairly recently, I bought into the entire "global warming is all our fault" idea. I consider myself environmentally conscious: I turn off lights when not in the room, I try to buy cars with the best mileage for my needs, I'm all for developing new energy sources that remove our need for OPEC and their oil.

But my co-writer here pointed out some of the information that isn't being presented in the media, information that points out that global warming isn't really man-made, isn't really the dire crisis it's made out to be, and is in fact nonexistent or at worst severely over hyped.

And if you look at how it's presented, most intelligent people with half a brain notice a pattern:

• "Global warming is bad, it's very bad. Something needs to be done to save the earth!" OK, it's only human to want to do good and protect the earth for our kids and their kids. But, look at how it plays out:
• New laws and taxes are put in to essentially drain money from nations like the US and Europe, while a growing China scoffs at being regulated at all;
• The "carbon tax" is now being considered for people in some circles, meaning those of us who want to raise a family would be penalized for continuing the species.
• Some extremists are being lauded for suggesting people get sterilized to prevent polluting the world with more kids. This smacks of eugenics, and it's not too surprising coming from Leftists who think it's a woman's right to be able to kill her child in the womb.

All in all, it's more and more about a nanny state that seeks to control you and pretty much everything you do. Liberals talk of conservatives as fascists, but look at the world they envision and you quickly see that their way is one of a thinly veiled police state.

And today, I read an article at Human Events ("Kangaroo: Tasty Green Meat") that is talking about tinkering around with nature to cut methane emissions from cows. I'll grant you this article is done with humorous intent, but the story in it is not something to laugh at. The paranoia about greenhouse gases is reaching a dangerous level.

The Left is actually about controlling animal farts. Does this not smack of some degree of insanity or at least an obsessive-compulsive behavior? Look, I won't argue that human industry does pollute the air to a degree. So fine, their emissions do need a degree of regulation to make sure they're not dumping carcinogens or other really dangerous things out.

But to nitpick and go as far as regulating flatulence just tells me that the environmentalists are putting too much emphasis on the "mental" instead of the "enviro".

Keep an eye on industry. Keep out of our bedrooms, and for the love of all that is holy, stay out of the rump roasts.

- F. D. for 2 Joe Schmoes