| As of September 11th, 2001 America was pulled into a war by the genuinely fictional hand of allah, a collection of letters that I will not capitalize for a very simple reason: allah is not of a Spiritual realm at all, and as far as I am concerned is not even a formal name of an entity. I arrive at that conclusion by a simple knowledge, the fact that procreation is a physical act of man in the current, the existential, reality. I'd hope this would quickly expose islam as the fraud it is, its followers unaware they are serving as slaves for the promise of virgins, the promise of a sexually gratifying experience in perfect islam misogyny and that would only have meaning in the existential physical reality. I submit to you that the entire idea of islam is a current world enticement system similar to the games played by “confidence men” better known as a conjob. When a physically present reward is promised AFTER YOU DIE by a statement from General Mohammed's Quran – a manual on brainwashing the conquered – there is little doubt as to islam being derived of and entirely bound by and to the rules of life on Earth with absolutely no business being considered of any Spiritual purpose, a religion by the most primitive definition of repetitive acts and nothing else, which is further exposed by the list of uses of “zakat” (see http://changingwind.org/index/comment.php?comment.news.97) which has been erroneously equated the same as Christian tithing, which completely ignores the Quran dictated war purpose (“jihad”) use of zakat, and the absence of this allocation by the Bible or Christian Faith to any use of tithings. Islam is the equivalent of Communism, merely a philosophical statement made in opposition to the world as it is and not in relation to finding inner peace and speaking to the Soul, as something to read for guidance in leading a noble and honorable life in your existence on Earth to the best of your ability. Absent from islam is a recognition of the Soul and its redemption through Faith in God, no treasures in a realm outside of Earth, outside of the existential reality, no Heaven as a destination without the physical realm, which makes sense as rewarding you with a virgin would be worthless then. To be clear islam is the means of finding what the Communists would use to take over nation after nation prior to the fall of the Soviet Union (see http://www.dailymotion.com/video/ ) that they affectionately called “useful idiots” prior to killing them because these followers proved their beliefs could overthrow a government and after the Communists take over these same people who were manipulated to achieve the overthrow become a threat to the Communist Government. Please understand I have stated the truth about islam according to their own quran, a truth muslims demonstrate by how they've conducted themselves amongst the rest of the world, and yes I am including all muslims in every nation, for in every single nation the muslim population imports and demands unabridged continued living of their lives pursuant to their own foreign culture and seek to have a segregation, legislative carve-out relaxing the laws of that nation that would conflict with their culture from being imposed upon them. That alone is an act of war, an act of overthrowing the government of a nation, and though it is erroneously accepted and received as a civil mechanism and couched in a political light of their “civil rights,” the reality of when they don't get their way is their actions to disrupt the same civil rights, culture, and way of life of the people and nation hosting them – an assault on the very country they migrated to – a nation often sharing the financial and other benefits afforded by the industrious generations of the mostly non-muslim rest of the population that built that nation's economy and wealth, which is just another act of contempt toward the country they migrated to, and, also, again, in seeking to lead a life that gives them virgins after death, when they haven't a body for that to have any meaning to them, a purely “of this world” effort without any Spiritual context. I have no need for further evidence that General Mohammed is the Sun-Tzu of the Middle East, and his brainwashing manual the Quran, their “Art of War.” So, now to America's missed opportunity... We, America, had an opportunity after September 11th, 2001, to forge a unity amongst us as a people, one derived from recognizing the lives of all who died that day, but we have so far all but failed to recognize the assault on their Liberty and that this day was the beginning of a never-ending hatred of our belief in one having the right to their own way of life, what we call Freedom. What's so sad is that this is a solely American mortar, the very identical mortar that founded this nation of a people who founded their government, and has proven an impenetrable force throughout our history. But it seems that gone are the days of Americans appreciating their right to make their own choices, the quintessential meaning of “Individual Liberty” and “Personal Sovereignty.” We seem unable as Americans to ever again stand in defiance, to recognize our nation has foreign and domestic enemies that want to destroy this principle as it stands in the way of their agenda, and that they will use every ploy, from political party to jihad to effectuate every dent for their purposes, while also aiding and abetting the rest of our enemies. Almost 3000 people who were making a living died by the intentional crashing of 2 planes into the World Trade Center. Please, reread that statement slowly, let it sink in, see if your sense of justice comes to the forefront due to the very injustice of their deaths, the very unreasonableness of such an attack as it treated their lives as worthless for the sake of the idea they'd put an end to America's economic means. The lack of compassion, of appreciation for the truth of America's history and being envied for it is the enabling factor of those who politicized these deaths, while, at the same time others seeking fame saw an opportunity in denying the possibility of what happened on September 11th, 2001 – in their arrogant pursuit of those in complete denial of the possibility, watching the events unfold on their televisions and thinking “not in America, they [the enemy] aren't that smart.” And you can be sure that it is this very same politicization and denial that resulted in America's almost 6 years of the “change you can believe in” and “hope and change” islamic sympathizing “yes we can” Commander-In-Chief whose entire approach is to invite those enemies to act against America by the lack of any repercussions. There is no retaliation to “man-caused disaster” and “workplace violence” events lost in the media loop of political correctness and reporter's fears of being victims to those who rose in violence over cartoon depictions of Mohammed, a realistic fear after what happened to a female reporter while in Cairo reporting on what the Obama White House coined as the “Arab Spring” (see http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-lara-logan-assaulted-during-egypt-protests/). You might be wondering why I am going back to islam, and it's a simple fact that as long as zakat is used to fund jihad that on 09-11-2001 America was attacked by the collective of islam, and by the shear number of terrorist organizations in the Middle East, it is clear the collective continues to attack America in the continuation of their war against us! Americans can thank the imams who do not want their followers to see the truth, that their so-called religion is merely a military general's treatise on controlling the conquered, explaining the ways to manipulate them to become assimilated members of a religious governed society in a perfect use of circular logic as the ruling mechanism, the imam the slavemaster, the islamic “cracker” whose whip extends over the entire muslim community patronizing his mosque and is dictating their culture on the whim of his existence as imam, and of course, all in doing what they can to assure virgins as their reward after death. Can you see the absurdity of calling islam a religion? What evidence is there that this reality we live in, our physical presence is a Spiritual realm? We haven't any and, because it is the literal existential reality to which we have any certainty, such evidence would be as overwhelming as trying to pass your hand through solid objects and discovering it isn't possible, the object and you both exist separately. This is the very same evidence that proves islam, as anything but a glorification of a military work for the sake of those who will so glorify it becoming its “holy men,” is a fraud and a sham resulting in a shaman of rod and sacrifice ruling over those they can convince to believe in living for the promise of the physically sexually gratifying in our existential reality appealing reward as the meaning of Heaven. To emphasize: A gift of another to pursue sexual opportunity and encounter as though destined to perform at the muslim decedent's whim as an after-death perfect committed sexual experience via the rewarded concubine being a “virgin” who resides with them forever for this solely sexual purpose AFTER they die! This isn't sarcasm or mockery. This is the fact of islam's promise to its followers, to best be summed up by saying islam is Sodom and Gomorrah “Revisited,” and in context of ISIS “Unchained,” “Unleashed,” or for full context “Gone Wild.” There is no Spiritual context where sexual gratification is an appeal to the Soul of a person except where there is no Spiritual meaning to the instrument of their obsessive belief, an instrument that is alone explicit in its extreme views against all who do not submit – a coerced belief and is therefore no belief, not voluntary, at all – you know, like those beheaded reporters, or any who've been beheaded so the proud perpetrator of their death can parade around holding their head up as a sign of victory, a head that is only a part of the physical existential Earthly presence of the Soul of an individual who didn't want to become part of the collective islamic “State” – another admission of the Earthly origin and binding of islam, that it has no Spiritual purpose, no enlightenment of the Soul for the Soul; that the quran's opposing purpose of coercion as an invading culture is its sole, overriding, consistent purpose as intended by its author General Mohammed, the quran just another tool in his pursuit of controlling the entire world that it naturally cannot escape from. I close with a real noodle bender: Statist islamists who proclaim hating “the West?” Perhaps the next writing. Thank you for reading and sharing this, God Bless you, Toddy Littman |
  |
| Abortion, the idea of “a woman's right to choose,” carries with it a great revelation, one that explains immediately that this idea has nothing to do with abortion. You see, when the State, the Government, be it by legislation, executive order, or court decree, especially by National Government, uses some institutional legal term such as “previable” to parse out an authority to hear a case where the facts and the law do not carry any concern under the National Constitution, there is only purpose for it: To Expand Government. In this instance, it is the government defining a fetus, by a test of being “previable” or not, as property of the mother, to be discarded at her whim, and on the idea of all the, at the time, back alley abortions and coat hanger caused deaths of women. The trouble is that these incidents are wrong, wrong in every way, abortion is wrong to this Christian who knows Jesus Christ knew my name before my parents were born. But the greater wrong is that the moral decay of both doctors and people, to assume to end the pregnancy rather than accept the responsibility for their sexual “freedom” and the resultant need to then raise a child, is well overlooked as the true definition of abortion: indicia of the moral decay of society. So, as a matter of course, the State, the government, when given a chance to be the arbiter, to be the nanny-decider of the moral code of society, takes up the cause and devises a mechanism so barbaric that it breeds generations of people who discard life, which Planned Parenthood describes as a “tissue” to be thrown into the trash. “Life,” as an element of what “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed” with, is no longer held in high esteem by those already alive, and all of it because of a return to a feudal standard of subject servitude, of slavery, and solely in abortion's case for the purpose of death, entirely brought about by the Progressive movement. For it is by abortion that the previable test was invented by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine a baby is that tissue -- as a form of property held by the mother -- without missing a beat in establishing the feudal fiefdom element, and without any due regard to 50% of the property belonging to the father. Jodi Arias was convicted of 1st degree murder, after 1.8 million dollars was spent on her trial solely for the arrogance of prosecutors. I say this because Arias would have settled for 2nd degree murder with a chance at 40 years in prison as the plea deal due to the aggravating circumstances, and submit that this would have been justice for Travis Alexander 4 years ago without a trial that will only become a commercial opportunity for the prosecutor and Jodi Arias. But because of that 1st degree murder conviction, again because of the United States Supreme Court, a jury is required to decide if she gets the death penalty. To be clear: Jodi Arias, upon conviction for 1st degree murder is a ward of the State, belongs to the State of Arizona, and yet Arias will receive more rights than an innocent unborn baby. Is Jodi Arias viable at all? I'd say not. The Prosecutor, one who pursues cases like this and therefore has a reputation for them, who takes pictures with admirers of his knack for winning death penalties against murderers, in his need to pursue 1st degree murder to uphold this reputation, won his case, and, at the same time, assured Jodi Arias receives the protection of the United States Supreme Court in determining whether or not she receives the Arizona death penalty. Of course Kermit Gosnell, the abortion doctor with a very capable lawyer, who stands charged and may soon be convicted of murdering fetuses that were born alive, he too, like Jodi Arias, is receiving the benefit of a trial and a jury to determine his fate, unlike when he may have played god with a pair of scissors, convinced that he is applying the United States Supreme Court standard of viability with absolute accuracy, and irrespective of his Hippocratic Oath. Should we look at the rights being received by Dhokhar Tsarnaev, a man whose citizenship wasn't by birth but by grant from the United States government? At what point do we recognize that his citizenship is revocable, subject to the conditions determined at the time the Constitution was ratified, known as “good standing,” and recognize that merely being suspected of carrying out the Boston Marathon bombing is grounds to revoke his citizenship? But Congress, the media, the legal system and its presumption of grants to the people from the Constitution, etc., will have no part in this discussion whether for Dhokhar Tsarnaev, or any other person I've just mentioned, at least not on the part of the injustice that these cases show for the unborn, for the regard of a baby as a baby, as an innocent of which 100s will not be the character of any one of the 3 people I've mentioned above. No! We cannot show respect for the good of our society, for the overall good people that we are, who may well beat-up ourselves daily for what we view as our own skeletons, yet treat others around us with dignity and respect, never letting our own troubles have a significant affect, if any, on others and our lives go on until we die of natural causes. That we live this kindly, this gently, as a people unless we're wronged (such as Oklahoma City, 9/11/2001, The Boston Marathon Bombings) is a testament to that very fetal innocence being what makes Americans viable. We aren't plotting the downfall of another nation for sake of some form of religious law or establishment of another form of government, of justice, etc. No, we live out our lives with a goal of happiness, materially sacrificing to be sure for a spouse, a child, or family emergency, yet knowing that it is by what we produce and can accumulate that we've been able to help others, that by helping ourselves first we can help others, or there will be no one to help. This is the American knowledge and American way, one that every person listed above and myriad others in prisons across America or who've died by death penalty, have exploited (or are alleged to have exploited in the Gosnell case), in mockery and ridicule. All of the harm caused or alleged of these people, the fathomability of these activities, and the idea that they could be carried out without anyone caring or knowing, is entirely the cause of the Progressive movement that needs to break down the “moral fiber” of America, assaulting the moral principle with the only institution of force and oppression of individuality left standing: The State. This is the natural and historical use of government, of the State, and why the Church was part of the Feudal system, and yet the patronage corruption rendered both institutions incapable of government without oppressing to the point that war and poverty were all they, or their people, would ever have as memories and a legacy. This might help explain the underlying reason America has a written Constitution where the people dictate what constitutes the idea of government, establishing and ordaining the specific terms and conditions of that government's existence in a revocable (amendable) manner, always with noted specifics to convey that every object of such government is specific, thereby limited, for it is by a constitution followed by the government, without looking for “loopholes,” that we assure that each American is not subjected to the historical oppression of centralized power embodied in a government who educates our morality to infuse our trust in them to decide matters that undermine our very right to believe as we wish. Freedom exists from inception, not because a mother chooses not to abort, but because a mother has the Grace and Wisdom to recognize that she and the father need to pay the price for their choices, that this is responsibility, and that the baby is a gift. Anything else is un-American for it is to go against God-given Individual Liberty and adopt Civil Liberty in acting upon a recognized right in the mother by an agency of government, a privilege granted by a government to treat your child as property, a daisy-chain of slavery starting with government. Is it any wonder Progressives will do anything to defend abortion? Thank you for reading, Toddy Littman |
| |
| A question that surely the evidence suggests the latter is true, however, I am sure there is evidence to the contrary, yet, my issue is how this aligns with the acts and deeds of Barack Hussein Obama, on one hand, and the fact he was taught the Koran in Indonesia for almost 4 year, on the other. For me the correlation of action with childhood education during his formative years is extremely disconcerting, however, I may just be rightfully Islamophobic, rightfully in that, if this is true, then those who are feeding the machine of Islam are unwitting participants who may not react kindly to the test of Faith this places before them. So, in keeping my word to FEDupFRANK at Song Of Truth, I present what I found in a mere matter of minutes, and note all emphasis below is mine. Here is the web link I was given http://muttaqun.com/zakat.html, and here is some of the contents thereof, cited in similar fashion to a Catholic Canon regarding the meaning of a passage: “As-Sadaqât (here it means Zakât) are only for the Fuqarâ' (poor), and Al-Masâkin (the poor) and those employed to collect (the funds); and for to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islâm); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allâh's Cause (i.e. for Mujâhidûn - those fighting in the holy wars), and for the wayfarer (a traveller who is cut off from everything); a duty imposed by Allâh. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise.”--According to “The Noble Qur'an At-Taubah 9:60” It’s becoming common knowledge “holy war” means jihad, and this site makes sure not to disappoint as you read further down: “The people entitled to Zakaat are those places we can direct our Zakaat to. Allaah took charge of explaining for Himself what these places are, saying: “As here is one of their holy leaders explaining again the passage, as taken from “Those Entitled to Receive Zakaat by Imam Muhammad bin Saalih Al-'Uthaimeen from Fusool fis-Siyaam wat-Taraaweeh waz-Zakaat”: “'The charity (Zakaat) is only for the poor, the needy, those employed to collect (the Zakaat), those whose hearts will be inclined (towards Islaam, by giving them Zakaat), for slaves, for those in debt, for (Jihaad in) the Cause of Allaah, and for the wayfarer ( i.e. destitute traveler). It is an obligation imposed by Allaah, and Allaah is the All-Knower, the All-Wise.’ [Surah At-Tawbah: 60]”--As cited by them.” And here is the detail in paragraph 7, with an attempt to soften the meaning, while, to me, only highlighting the bookkeeping manipulations that they’ll do to transfer the funds and assure they meet religious exemption--we must remember we’re all infidels to them and there is no necessity of honesty to us, part of the “The Great Satan” as an “imperialist” deceiver: “7. In the Cause of Allaah: This refers to Jihaad in the Cause of Allaah. So those who fight in Jihaad should be given a portion of the Zakaat that will suffice them for their Jihaad and enable them to buy the necessary tools for Jihaad in the Cause of Allaah. “What also falls under 'the Cause of Allaah' is religious knowledge. So a student of Islamic knowledge should be given that which will enable him to seek knowledge, such as books and so on. This is unless he already has money of his own that will enable him to achieve that.” My example regarding my assertion in relation to this last paragraph is the Canada Free Press article regarding the finding of Al Qaeda members working with Saddam’s Republican Guard to learn about using nerve gas, that we discovered after the invasion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLG6-qGJcIY&feature=related. I contend that an argument could be made by Muslims that “books on the use of sarin gas to effectuate jihad are books on islamic knowledge.” Now this Zakat (or “Zakaat”) is a mandated act according to this Imam as well, and the money cannot be used elsewhere: “These are the people who are entitled to receive Zakaat, the ones whom Allaah has mentioned in His Book and informed us that this is an obligation that He mandated, which stems from His knowledge and wisdom. And Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. “It is not permissible to direct the Zakaat to any other place, such as towards building masaajid or fixing roads. This is because Allaah has told us those who are entitled to receive the Zakaat for the purpose of limiting them to just those mentioned. So this limitation indicates that we are to negate all other potential recipients that due not fall under this limitation. “If we were to reflect on those individuals that we may give Zakaat to, we would come to realize that among them are those who are in need of the Zakaat for personal use as well as those who are in need of it for the Muslims generally. So by this, we can see the extent of wisdom behind the requirement of Zakaat. And we would come to know that the wisdom behind Zakaat is to build a complete and upright society, as best as possible. And that Islaam does not disregard money or the benefits that can be generated from wealth, nor does it leave greedy and stingy souls to go about freely an unchecked with their stinginess and vain desires. On the contrary, it is the greatest guiding force towards the good and betterment of nations. And all praise is due to Allaah, Lord of the universe.” So the money Iran is spending on nuclear facilities, is for....the prohibited peaceful purposes or Jihad? And again, the money being given for the mosque built next to where 3000 Americans died, is that money for the prohibited peaceful purposes or Jihad? See if the money is being given pursuant to the Koran, then, it would appear these sums aren’t for any other purpose but those stated here in this passage, and for the purposes therein, rendering any statements to us infidels, claiming the contrary, intentionally misleading, disingenuous, and void. Is the Imam poor and this 100 million dollars for personal use? And, if “it is not permissible to direct the Zakaat to any other place, such as towards building masaajid or fixing roads,” then are we to believe the mosque is for a peaceful purpose, in light of all the poor in Muslim countries who such money should be going to if Allah is directing their will and all they do? Doesn’t this just smack of the stench of a non-religious purpose so long as these hundreds of millions are spent on building a Mosque in America, claiming a religious exemption by rhetoric at best, while the poor in their own countries continue to suffer? But I am sure that the order or priority as listed by Allah is viewed entirely as “directive” and that the Jihad is put to the highest priority, as that would make sense if the Muslims feel threatened, or such an overwhelming sense of power, that they believe their will is what must be manifest on this Earth now. See, it’s hard to tell what’s true here isn’t it? I mean, how do these so called Muslims, who claim to be building this Mosque in the name of Allah, and Religious Freedom, and building bridges, reconcile this focus when they have so many being oppressed in their own countries by the very same wealth they are wielding here in financing this building? Zakat, as a “mandatory” duty, would seem Allah’s demand the priority of their Zakat must not be “greedy and stingy souls to go about freely an unchecked with their stinginess and vain desires,” but as ambassadors of Allah’s good will in their own nation, helping their own poor, in “ the greatest guiding force towards the good and betterment of nations” as a priority over building a Mosque in America that will only add to the rolls of people they cannot take care of already, if following the Zakat. But maybe because I am not a Muslim I don’t understand the idea of letting my own people suffer while I pursue the vane desire to put up a Mosque near the Muslim Extremist created mass grave of the 911 victims, without apology, and demonstrating a certain regard for these dead Americans, of which some are Muslims, as infidels that apparently I extend to my own people in ignoring their needs in my own country. The vanity of the statement I must make in the name of Allah abroad, a sort of political act of jihad that will make me famous, is of far greater import than aiding the poor as Allah has directed according to the Zakat. There’s more but, for brevity, I found this one striking, located here, http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Tafsir/009.060.html: “Money and Converts In the Qur'an we read: "Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of God; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by God, and God is full of knowledge and wisdom" [Surat at-Taubah 9:60; translation by Yusuf Ali] “The following is taken from the classical Muslim commentary on the Qur'an, Tafsir Ibn Kathir. The comment on Surah 9:60 states: “As for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to the Truth) they are in various divisions: some who were given (money) to convert to Islam, like when the Prophet Muhammad - Peace Be Upon Him - gave Safwan Bin Ummayah from the booty of the Battle of Hunayn, and he (Safwan Bin Ummayah) had fought in it as an infidel [Mushrik], ... Imam Ahmad said: Narrated Zakria bin Uddi, that Ibn Al-Mobarek said that Younis Al-Zahri from Saaid bin Al-Messyab from Safwan Bin Ummayah who said: "The Messenger - Peace Be Upon Him - gave me (money) on the Battle of Hunayn and he was one of the people I've hated most; he kept on giving me (money) until he became one of the people I've loved most."[*] And some of them are given (money) to better their Islam and strengthen their faith in their hearts, like when he (Muhammad) gave on the Battle of Hunayn a group of the lowest of the released prisoners and the most noble of them one hundred camels each, and he (Muhammad) said, "Giving a man and others (money) is lovable (by me) because I'm afraid that Allah would throw him (the infidel) on his face into the hell fire." And in the Sahihayn (meaning Bukhari and Muslim) narrated Ibn Sa'eed, that Ali sent to the Prophet - Peace Be Upon Him - with a gold piece in it's soil from Yemen, so he (Muhammad) divided it between four people: Al-Aqra' Bin Al-Habis, Ayyinah Bin Badr, Alqamah Bin Oulathah, and Zayd Al-Khayr, and he (Muhammad) said, "Atta'alafuhum = I'm reconciling their hearts to the truth", some of them are given (money) to collect the charity from those close to them, and some of them are given money to protect the Muslims from attacks at the corners of the countries.” Can anyone see Chicago style patronage here being Blessed by Allah? So then could the Muslim upbringing of Obama, during his formative years, have left him thinking that such wholesale purchase of others, using their needs against them as a leverage, is a righteous way to treat people “because Allah did it?” ([UPDATED LINK] See, Obama’s 2008 Campaign website, http://web.archive.org/web/20070308125213/http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/06/obama_man_of_the_world.php) Of course Jesus helped many people as well, but without leaving them to come to him again for more as though a dependent subject of materialism to whosoever is the highest bidder, and instead, Jesus lectured on teaching them how to fish, versus just throwing them fish. This difference is the America way isn’t it? And thus, this patronage basis of buying the people and their will, is Islamic, is anti-American, and explains the political value by redistribution of wealth for the sole interest of power in Progressivism, Chicago style, ala Barack Hussein Obama, and, may also explain why some Americans are considering violence as the answer, as, by Zakat, those who hate America are persistent in being ready for jihad at every opportunity, even turning the innocent’s contribution in Zakat to blood money for the sake of vanity under the guise of Allah. I am just glad this Barack Hussein Obama is bringing us all together and World Peace is at hand....Yeah, right! Thank you for reading, Toddy Littman |
| |
| Cultural Differences Not Racism This is going to be hard to discuss, but, in light of Al Sharpton’s comments on O’Reilly about the Tea Party slogan, “Take our country back” being a racist slogan, I find this necessary. Of course Bill failed to address that issue, and ended up losing the argument. Racism is the card pulled from the bottom of the deck as a knee-jerk reaction. I find it in the psychological disposition of victim because a victim is always justified in whatever they do to get out of the position of feeling the victim, even when such position is a persistent driving force, to where there is no time they are not a victim. Apparently Al Sharpton didn’t know of Lloyd Marcus, or doesn’t regard Michael Steele as being non-white due to not agreeing with him, and this is the crux of the matter. Al Sharpton is not right in the sense of racism, but he is right in the sense of culture. The culture that came about from the way our nation was set up by Our Founders, is an American culture. This culture changed from time to time due mostly to innovations until the early 1900s, and then it began to change for a different reason: government imposition. Of course this change wasn’t telegraphed to people abroad who speak a different language and live differently. So they come here and often have to “fight for their due,” so to speak. African-Americans were largely brought to America after being sold by their tribes, which Emmitt Smith discovered is still going on in Africa to this day. What this explains is the difference in culture. Americans want to keep their culture, which by changing due to innovation, this means became a significant part of the culture itself, circular and inclusive. Our President today embraces a state of mind from his cultural background, surrounded by radicals, particularly racist African-Americans on the south side of Chicago, Mr. Obama has been imprinted with the cultural mindset of these people, “the white man owes me.” This is not to say President Obama is making sure they get what is owed to them, in the sense of reparations, etc., but it is to say that his actions are filtered through the prism of the culture he came to know very well in building his political regime. If you are unaware of Chicago being considered the African-American nation’s capital or it’s Vietnam War Protester roots, or the melding of the civil rights momentum with the anti-war movement, then you may not be familiar with the Chicago 7, the yippie movement and the influences these people have today using the very capitalist system they denounced. Mitch Kapur, famous maker of Lotus 123 who sold the company to IBM, was one of these very people. Today he is wielding his wealth in every way to help with engineering a culture appreciative of central power. Mr. Kapur is a principle in the development of 3D virtual worlds where the company dictates all terms of service and the entire mechanics of the world. This demonstrates that routine in a culture can imprint a way of thinking, a way of approaching things that tends to become a predatory imposition on another culture. Now, in light of the root of the predatory culture being based on victimhood, the race card must be pulled out to defend the right of that culture to impose itself. Again, this is how Al Sharpton is right, but his being right is of no significance because it is derived from the same victimhood culture. The idea that Al Sharpton actually said that the word “our” in the phrase, “take our country back” is “obviously racist” is a perfect demonstration of the persistence of victimhood, always watching like a paranoid conspiracy theorist, for that innuendo as a “fact” to play “gotcha” with. We Americans want our American culture that took root based on America being a free nation, for all people to come and join and become an American in more than name but by being a part of our culture. All cultures are welcome so long as their goal is not to eradicate our history, the basis of the American culture, and instead is to find the compromises necessary to accommodate expression of theirs or that of their ancestors host country as a part of the American culture. This, my friends is a large component of the battle before us, and it is necessary we recognize this in order to do justice for those who are from another culture and assume it’s purely racial due to their defensiveness of being different to the founders of this nation. Again this is a difficult subject to broach but it must be done for the sake of our friends who are from a different culture that haven’t come to appreciate America for itself, for its foundations and meaning in a world history that was significantly changed merely by the founding of this nation. Thank you for reading, Toddy Littman |
| |
| My Letter to Bart Stupak Hello sir. I want to show my conservative Tea Party appreciation to you for taking such a significant stand by sharing what Illinois Senator Obama said in his debate against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois. During the campaign he claimed he just argued there is already a law on the books, this is not so. The following is from the actual transcript at pages 85 and 86 of the discussion on March 30, 2001 in the Illinois Senate: "SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. "And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of constitutionality. "Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present." Original available from http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf, the pdf is protected so I had to type this in. I urge you to distribute amongst all pro-life democrats this statement of President Obama's, made in argument against adding language to a bill to protect babies whose birth is induced by a mother trying to abort, and the abortion is botched. You are doing a great service to our country in voting no on this healthcare bill and I hope you will always do what's right based on the people, as we really need our representatives to represent us. Thank you and/or your staffer for taking time to read this, Toddy Littman |
| |
| Significantly Updated March 23 2011 Originally I chose not to embed the following video, I wanted you to see the number of hits it would without even one comment, then look at what the poster explains on the upper right of the video on the YouTube page. You'll find why women's rights is not the underlying paramount purpose and issue, that it is instead to give importance to legality of abortion as a marketable product to facilitate the goals of our enemies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU So while the feminists tout women's rights in relation to abortion and "pro-choice" of killing their baby, those who understand that the reason for abortion is specifically to undermine America are laughing at them, at our nation, and any nation that embraces such population controls while other nations actually forbid abortion to assure population growth to overwhelm over time. See these people go to the root of understanding something, noting a certain truth: the variety of nations declining in power, their greatest similarity is their declining growth rate. Understand, terrorism is not the only line of offense enemies of freedom will use or empower to destroy every symbol and act of freedom from a centralized power structure, as it is necessary to allow their order, be it Communist, religious, or something identical but of a new name (or lack thereof, a reverse order of some sort) to control, command, dictate, and become, the culture. Think of this when Planned Parenthood, or any other pro-abortion promoter of death for convenience sake makes sure to inform you "it's your rights as a woman." I mean, it may just be that keeping your baby and teaching self sufficiency could be significant in preserving America and all our nation stands for. Thank you for reading, Toddy Littman |
| |
| A Special Note for January 22, 2009, from the Director, Toddy Littman.... Please remember, today is March for Life Day! :) It was 35 years ago today that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized murder and assumed there were no civil rights in the unborn -- something liberalism embraces while claiming civil rights as an ACLU mantra of authority to pick and choose the cases that merit such recognition (particularly murderers on death row), the criteria being if the case promotes liberal causes, you know, the freedom of some over others in class subjection. How else do you explain a government's reach into the womb, as though their wisdom of the creation and species known as man is omniscient, to then claim a criteria for this species survival based on "viability," and, irrespective of State Laws recognizing life as precious, as an opportunity for those who are given life and such an opportunity that cannot be denied by anyone else? Liberalism, and its feudal roots of central government that dictates from its elite noble castle as a prince "on high" to the "parishes" and their myriad serfs without any rights, is the only explanation for a departure from civilization and reason in favor of a cannibalistic, tribal, barbaric, backwards, emotional and self indulgent re-statement of "survival of the fittest" as a judicial decree under "might makes right" federal government enforcement. Just amazing to consider this occurred 35 years ago in a land claiming to be governed by law, law which our Founders intended to primarily be a result of reason with a slight mixture of ideological and political favorings. This "viability" is something Obama exploited in his speech against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (i.e "previable"), when, then Illinois State Sentator Obama, rose to speak against this Bill which protected those babies who survive a botched abortion -- the ones that died in closets per the mother's wish to have an abortion, the child's breathing or heartbeat apparently not meeting the U.S. Supreme Court criteria to deem them "alive" and worthy of protection as a U.S. Citizen in Obama's view. The transcript of this verbal exchange with link to the original Illinois State Archive, is in this pre-2008 election article. May God have mercy on us for being so complacent, compliant, and ready to be abused by our own, and more importantly, to assume we are ever in the position to be the abuser of others. You'd think those who have no religious belief due to the Dark Ages and the Crusades would do all they can not to repeat those mistakes, however I guess their lack of having Faith in anything, and thus no knowledge of the experience as a heartfelt memory, are bound and destined to repeat the mistake once more with exception of not having a God and moral values, platonic or otherwise, as a purpose. Please see http://www.marchforlife.org/ for more information on the March For Life. Thank you for reading and may God Bless you all, Toddy Littman |
| |
| Okay I have to type this in since the file is protected. My apologies for headings and such not looking identical, the html formatting codes of center and such don't seem to work. The original trascript is located here http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf "Pg 84-88, 03/30/2001 in the Illinois, 92nd General Assembly" wrote ... ACTING SECRETARY HAWKER: Senate Bill 1093. (Secretary reads title of bill) 3rd Reading of the bill. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) Senator O'Malley. SENATOR O'MALLEY: Thank you, Madam President, Ladies and Gentleman of the Senate. Senate bill 1093, as amended, provides that no abortion procedure which, in the medical judgment of the attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the child. The bill further provides that if There is a medical emergency, a physician inducing or performing an abortion which results in a live born child shall provide for the soonest practical attendance of a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion to immediately assess the child's viability and provide medical care for the [P.84] child. The bill additionally provides that a live child born as a result of an -- of -- of an abortion procedure shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken to preserve the life and health of the child. I'd be pleased to answer any question there may be. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) Any discussion? Senator Obama. SENATOR OBAMA: Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield for questions? PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) He indicates he will. SENATOR OBAMA: This bill was fairly extensively debated in the Judiciary Committee, and so I won't belabor the issue. I do want to just make sure that everybody in the Senate knows what this bill is about, as I understand it. Senator O'Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that on of the key concerns was -- is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the -- the fetus of child, as -- as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of description of one of the key concerns in the bill? PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) Senator O'Malley. SENATOR O'MALLEY: Senator Obama, it is certainly a key concern that the -- the way children are treated following their birth under these [P.85] circumstances has been reported to be, without question, in my opinion, less than humane, and so this bill suggests that appropriate steps be taken to treat that baby as a -- a citizen of the United States and afforded all the rights and protections it deserves under the Constitution of the United States. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) Senator Obama. SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it turned out -- that during the testimony a number of members who are typically in favor of a woman's right to choose an abortion were actually sympathetic to some of the concerns that your -- you raised and that were raised by witnesses in the testimony. And there was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The Second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide [P.86] treatment to a previable childe, or fetus, however you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of constitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have had compromised and -- arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) Further discussion? If not, Senator O'Malley, to close. SENATOR O'MALLEY: Thank you, Madam President and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate. The one thing the previous speaker did say is that this is a passionate issue. And -- however, I don't think it's challengeable on constitutional grounds in the manner that was described. This is essentially very simple. The Constitution does not say that a child born must be viable in order to live and be accorded the rights of citizenship. It simply says it must be [P.87] born. And a child who survives birth is a U.S. citizen, and we need to do everything we can here in the State of Illinois and, frankly, in the other forty-nine states and in the halls of Washington, D.C., to make sure that we secure and protect those rights. So if this legislation is designed to clarify, resecure and reaffirm the rights that are entitled to a child born in America, so be it, and it is constitutional. I would appreciate your support. PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR KARPIEL) The question is, shall Senate Bill 1093 pass...." And they went forward with the normal voting procedure. I apologize for typos. Please consider this opposing view to what Senator Obama eluded to above [Updated: The following link no longer works and can't find alternate, was a CNSnews interview with Martin Luther King's niece, Dr. Alveda King, regarding abortion, and her disgust with the democrat party hypocrisy to claim they championed civil rights, yet could be so against The Civil Rights Of The Unborn, could be so against the fact of conception being the beginning of independent individual life and thereby the beginning of their Civil Rights. I applaud her efforts, as I see no other time than Death where we are closer to God than the point of conception, when God's plan begins for the Soul sent to Earth.] http://www.cnsnews.com/public/cnsnewstv/video.aspx?v=e4kUnzuzaG Thanks for reading. |
| |