Posts Tagged ‘arbitrary power’

The Knife In Our Back

Monday, July 6th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, when you seek to stab someone in the back, it is best to get them to focus their attention on something other than you. While the libertarian/conservative movement dwells on policies, their outcomes and reason, progressives hold our attention on character assassination, innuendo and jealousy. Of course, they have to, since their policies are all designed to crush our nation under the jack boot of regulations, taxes and socialism, (stab us in the back). In any debate with a progressive they will immediately go on the offensive against someone’s character. Sometimes defending one conservative, to appear open minded, while attacking another, then turning and attacking that other conservative as well. That means of winning elections has worked very well for Marxists, progressives and socialists for a century, the results have been poverty, famine and tyranny. If we don’t wake up and see a villain for what he or she is, we along with our children will inevitably find the knife of communism in our backs as well.

By our very nature we like to gossip. We talk about this or that bad thing he or she has done, with an eye to mitigating by context the bad things we have done. He runs around on his wife and so my glancing at a pretty skirt now and then is nothing, she is a drunk, and so when I get a bit tipsy in front of my kids it is nothing. Gossip allows us to justify our actions by context. Progressives and Marxists know this and use it against us to gain power over us. They point at how terrible a political enemy is and destroy his character. They move the debate, from what they are bringing our nation to, to what a bad person the other guy is. Since we are gossipers by nature, enough of us fall for it, so the Progressive gets into power.

In The Republic by Plato, Glaucon asked Socrates, is it better to be just and be known as unjust, or is it better to be unjust and be known as just? Thrasymachus, (who favored arbitrary power) argued it is better to be unjust and thought of as just, so the elite can gain more power at the cost of the little people, who put their faith in justice so they can live their lives in peace. While Socrates disagreed and argued justice is a good in and of itself. That question was the whole point of The Republic. We are engaged in the same debate today, we just don’t do it openly and in public. Instead the elite are as unjust as they can be while claiming the mantel of justice. Most of us have never read The Republic, let alone understood the arguments it contains, and so are ignorant of the reality of politics. In short, the elite, and especially the progressive elite who make up the new class, are as unjust as possible while claiming to be pure as the driven snow, and anyone who threatens their drive to despotism is scum.

We have all heard the monikers the progressives, Marxists and socialists throw out, right wing hater, racist, rich, etc… They also condemn by association, she is against this legislation because she wants children to starve, he wants you to loose your healthcare, etc… To ensure there is never a real reasoned debate about the policies and the probable outcomes of those policies. In the last Presidential election, Romney was a deeply flawed candidate, but despite his flaws the unbiased media, run by new class progressives, kept the debate away from Obama’s policies and their results, instead focusing on how rich Romney was, the innuendo Romney didn’t pay taxes, how he put the family dog on the roof of his car and how he murdered a woman because her husband had been laid off a year before she got cancer and so she didn’t have health care. Romney himself participated in the meme, in the debates with Obama, Romney agreed with Obama at every turn, even saying Obama is a nice guy, as Obama was saying Romney is a rat.

It is hard, even impossible to stab someone in the back if they are facing you. It becomes much easier if you can convince them the threat is from the other side. Then they will gladly turn their back to you. Character assassination, exploiting gossip, and innuendo, drive people to focus on a person instead of the policies. The progressives have learned the lesson of The Republic very well, seeking to appear just while being absolutely unjust. Ask anyone if this is so and they will say, I know I know, but are then immediately herded into the trap. This is why we keep voting for “nice” people, and our liberty, republic and economy corrodes away. We focus where we are told to and turn our back. Is it any wonder there is always a knife in it?


John Pepin

Ideal Government

Monday, December 29th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, ideal government would be invisible to those “governed.” Imagine bringing up your children in a place where politics doesn’t matter because the government is limited the way the founders intended? Under such a system you and I would go about our lives not having to interact with government at all. No bribes, no political favor, no licenses, no taxes, very limited legal code, well, you get the picture. If we lived in that way, with only the most limited amount of government possible to provide for common defense, and standards to facilitate commerce, our interactions with government would be few and far between. Moreover the ability of a faction to seize control of government and drive their agenda down our throats would be eliminated. Prosperity would be the norm and the wealth gap would naturally contract under such a system, but then again, that is exactly why it would never be allowed, and anything like it is so hated and vilified by the elite.

Under such a system, where government is strictly limited to national defense, protecting the property rights of the people and providing standards, (not regulations), to facilitate commerce, people would have little need to engage government. Most people wouldn’t even know where the town clerk’s office was because there would be no need. But that is exactly the rub, isn’t it? If that were the case, government officials would not be able to make such large amounts of money, their ability to enrich themselves through crony capitalism, graft, bribes, and outright theft would be eliminated, if we didn’t need government permission for everything.

Every time you have to go to the town clerk’s office to get the government’s authorization to engage in some activity, the role of government is enlarged and power of government is enhanced, with a commensurate increase in the status and wealth of those in government. The cronies of government officials would have to work for their wealth instead of having it bestowed to them. Regulations create the conditions where some people, those with the right connections, can become immensely rich while those without the connections must stay in the station they were born into, regardless of their abilities and virtues.

The ability of potential despots to seize power would be eliminated. If government is limited so it is not allowed to monitor it’s citizens, pass reams of laws and regulations that empower the state over the individual, control the people with military power, seize the property of individuals, or practice arbitrary power, a would be oppressor could not oppress. There is not one case in human history where a power given to government has not been abused, no matter how much the people agreed when that power was given, that power has always been abused. That is because giving power to government is stepping out onto a slippery slope.

Without the friction that regulations, licenses, fees, taxes, and political favor create, the economy of a nation would operate at maximum efficiency. Without the elite controlling who can get ahead by rewarding their friends with favors, the ability of people to become uber rich would be lessened, and the wages of the bottom rung of the economic ladder would be increased… such that the gap would naturally become narrowed. The resulting rise in demand for labor would drive up the wages for that labor. The supply demand curve would swing to the advantage of workers, instead of management, because rapid economic expansion that such a system would encourage would keep the demand for labor high.

The power and prerogative of the elite would be limited as well. Which of course would be unacceptable to them. Those who wield power are always loathe to relinquish that power. They take, they never give, that is why the natural progression of every government, political system and republic that has ever been constituted, has been eventual tyranny. The elite convince us that if only they had a little bit more power… oh, the good they would do for us. Conversely they claim that any small taking of their power would result in calamity. Anyone trying to limit the power and role of government therefore becomes a de facto enemy of the state.

The goal of limited government is not a pipe dream, it has been achieved in the past, it is the limiting of government absent violence and revolution, that eludes humanity. People vote with their feet whenever they are allowed to. No one flees to Cuba, people flee from Cuba to the US, Canada and Europe. No one is migrating to North Korea, people risk their lives escaping that tyranny. Venezuela doesn’t have a problem with people from other South American nations rushing their border, people are trying to get out. Yet the elite in the media, government and academia fill the airwaves with propaganda that if only we could become like North Korea, Venezuela, or Cuba, life would be a utopia.

Every human being yearns to be free, prosperous and moral. That is why people vote with their feet, fleeing despotism to places that are only marginally more free. Despite that reality, anyone who seeks to limit the power of the elite are enemies of the state, and are treated harshly while those who seek to unshackle the power of government are hailed as heroes… like Che Guevara. We could achieve near universal prosperity, if only the friction to the economy was removed, by limiting the ability of government officials to decide who gets what. Limited government creates the conditions where a despot cannot amass the governmental might he or she would need to usurp power, by eradicating arbitrary power itself. Yes, limited government would be a boon to humanity, that boon would come at cost to the elite however, and as such, will be fought at every turn, but the gain by winning the battle, even engaging in it… ideal government, is well worth the effort.


John Pepin

Arbitrary Rule and Great Poverty

Monday, December 8th, 2014

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, two of the most corrupting influences on Mankind, are both arbitrary power and great poverty. Both stultify the soul and wither one’s empathy, they lower a person’s thinking to the most base level, reducing him to a mere animal, and both great poverty and arbitrary power give a human being a sense of entitlement, all of which lower instead of raise the individual. Only a saint could remain unaffected by unlimited power or great poverty. Therefore, if we want to live in a virtuous society, if we want mankind to grow in knowledge and wisdom, and if we want our children to live in safety and prosperity, we must strive to mitigate the effects and to eliminate arbitrary power and great poverty.

Arbitrary power has been known to be evil for thousands of years. Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, made even favoring arbitrary power punishable by the ostracism. Such was the threat the ancient Athenians held for arbitrary power. What arbitrary power is, is exactly what the term implies, that a person or group, have total control over a land and it’s people. They can make up laws as they want, they can change laws, they can take the property of others without consequence, they can order citizens executed without trial… basically, there is no limit on their power over others. Essentially, everyone suffering under arbitrary rule, are slaves, in the most draconian sense of the word. There are two kinds of tyranny, legal and arbitrary, a legal tyranny is the better because even the despot must follow the law when he tyrannizes you, but in arbitrary rule the despot’s power is unlimited. Nazi Germany is an example of a legal tyranny.

Great poverty lowers a human being’s thought to basic needs. What drowning man wouldn’t pull down even his own loved one? When living in great poverty a person doesn’t have the luxury of being able to take flights of imagination, the stomach intrudes on the mind. Those who live in great poverty have no means to change their lives because society itself lacks the resources. The starving man has no scruples around a loaf of bread, similar to a despot, who has no scruples at all. Seeing one’s own children starve to death takes away our humanity. How can it not? All of these factors impel those who live in great poverty to join rebellions, and engage in crime, because nothing strips the veneer of civilization from a person like starving to death. Unlike the despot however, once great poverty is lifted from someone their humanity returns rapidly, but the person who practices arbitrary rule is lost forever.

Wherever there is great poverty there is arbitrary rule, and whenever there is arbitrary rule, there will be great poverty. The two go hand in hand. In States where there is arbitrary rule the economy cannot function properly. There is not one example of an economy that survived arbitrary rule throughout history. Marxist nations have all collapsed economically because socialism grows arbitrary rule like a stagnant pond grows algae. Throughout the ages every great civilization that has risen in virtue has fallen in vice, vice that was introduced by arbitrary rule. When Pericles came to power in Athens he perverted Athenian polity and law to his own ends. He built great edifices to his mythical gods, and his ego, he used the ostracism as a weapon to enforce his arbitrary rule, and the result was the subjugation of Athens to Sparta.

In nations with great poverty there is always arbitrary rule. Darfur is an example of arbitrary rule destroying a people and ushering in great poverty. There has never been great wealth there, but the people had sufficient food, shelter and clothing. Once the despot, Al-Bashir, decided the people of Darfur were expendable, and on resources he wanted, he simply took the resources. When the people rebelled, Bashir sent military jets to kill them, he forced them out of their ancient villages and into the desert. The resulting great poverty was on television for all to see. Yet, most took the wrong lesson from that example, most believed the great poverty of the people of Darfur was the result of war, ignoring the root cause of that war, arbitrary power. Many believe Darfur’s great poverty could be alleviated by foreign aid, but the reality is that the warp and the woof of the problem is arbitrary rule.

Unfortunately, the siren call for the leaders of any nation to arbitrary rule is so great that only the most saintly, or the most limited, can resist it… and it is obvious that our leaders are not resisting. Despite the cautionary history of collapsed civilizations, lost wealth, and entire nations enslaved, arbitrary rule is even more of a threat now than ever in history. With modern technology, a despot could control every aspect of the people’s lives, like in the book, 1984 George Orwell. With our market based economies, of the various nations around the world, incipient arbitrary rule has already done great damage. Today we still live in relative wealth, but that is slipping away fast, even as we are told we should turn to socialism, to get an ever larger piece of an ever shrinking pie. In the end, if our children have to live in great poverty, it will be because we allowed arbitrary rule… again.


John Pepin

Arbitrary Power

Sunday, October 27th, 2013

Dear Friends,


It seems to me that since the dawn of time, city states, nations and empires have warned of the dangers of arbitrary power. Throughout history rulers that attained arbitrary power have brought their people to ruination. The lessons of history are stark and unanimous in their critique of the dangers of giving anyone arbitrary power. From Solon to Stalin the worst atrocities of man upon man have been committed by those with arbitrary power. Yet despite all the warnings, philosophy, and empirical data, we choose to ignore them and bestow Obama with arbitrary power. There can be no good end of this newest experiment in the annuls of Man.


Solon, the lawgiver of Athens, warned of the profound dangers of arbitrary power. He was elected to solve the debt crisis in ancient Athens. He did so in a fair way, and went on to make a proscription against arbitrary power, the ostracism. Never a hypocrite, Solon gave himself up to his very own system and submitted himself to the ostracism, for becoming himself a danger to liberty. He was banished from Athens for several years. In those years he saved Croesus of Lydia from being burned at the stake by giving that tyrant sage advice.


After the horrors of Tarquinious Superbus, the last Etruscan king of Rome, the people began the Consular system, whereby the rule of Rome would be separated into two men, similar to the Spartan system of two kings. This way no one man could attain arbitrary rule. The system held out for hundreds of years, but was overthrown when Julius Caesar gained popular support, installing himself as emperor… with arbitrary power. Once his nephew was crowned and instituted the Praetorian guard the heart of the Roman nation rotted from within. Within two hundred years, a nation state that had lasted almost a thousand years and had conquered the known world, was destroyed completely. Only the Eastern part, the Byzantines, survived for a few more years, only to be utterly wiped out and the people enslaved, by the Muslim invasion.


The many republics of Europe that started as a result of the Renaissance, rose in democratic representation, but fell into tyranny by the executive who wrested arbitrary power for himself. The history of Europe is rife with examples of those who gained this most pernicious form of power and visited slavery, oppression and destruction on their people. Yes, history is unambiguous about the danger of arbitrary power, especially in the hands of an egoist.


Democratically elected leaders are no exception. Remember, Hitler was elected in a free and fair election. Tyranny doesn’t necessarily come at the point of a gun it can come from the ballot box as well. That a person is elected by a popular majority, like Caesar, can become a despot, is proven conclusively by history. No matter how a person gets arbitrary power, be it by revolution, machination or the suffrage, arbitrary power always brings with it oppression. It is a factor of human nature.


Despite all the warnings from history, philosophy and recent events, a large part of the American people are comfortable giving our elected President… arbitrary power. He has usurped the power of the Legislative branch by arbitrarily enforcing the law, he has silenced the free press through intimidation, he has armed drug lords in a neighboring country, he has taken over a third of the economy by simply deeming a law passed, he ignores court orders with impunity, he abandoned an ambassador and several Americans to torture and death at the hands of our avowed enemies, while at the same time arming those very enemies, then lied about it, he uses the power of the government against his political opponents, he uses the paranoia of national security to record our personal phone conversations, (us and our allies), the list goes on and on, moreover, anyone who stands in his way, like Ted Cruz, is vilified by the political establishment as well as the media that calls itself unbiased. Yes, Obama wields arbitrary power in all but name. History shows us where this will end… unless we stand and demand Our Constitution be followed. If we do not, we deserve what we get… too bad our innocent children don’t.





John Pepin

Moderate Extremists

Thursday, August 15th, 2013

Dear Friends,


It seems to me, what is called moderate today is actually extreme, and what is called extreme is actually moderate, that most people don’t intrinsically understand this is cause for concern. That progressives claim their stances on every issue no matter how out of the mainstream, moderate and the libertarian argument as extreme, is their modus operandi and has been since their inception. It is the monopoly on the flow of information that progressives have that makes their perversion of the terms moderate and extreme so dangerous, especially since so few in our society recognize it. The results for our republic is that it will inevitably rot into a despotism. To be sure, it is our duty and responsibility, to protect the republic and point our united fingers at threats to it’s very existence, in this case overt, to enlighten our fellow citizens to the threat.


Language is the transmitter of information. Language has it’s flaws however. Kung Sung Lung wrote his famous treatise on, a white horse is not really a horse, to prove the weakness of language as a transmitter of truth. This has been known for millennia among the learned of society but the people have remained ignorant of it. We rely on language every day and in every possible way. Therefore the truth that language has fundamental flaws is lost on most of us. This ignorance is used against us by the elite.


Those who control the language therefore control the transmission of all information. Since language has inherent flaws it can be manipulated to change meanings, and the main reason for transmitting information is to convey meaning, this power can be exploited to control everything. The elite don’t have to change the wording of our Constitution, they simply change the meaning of the words. In the case of moderate verses extreme, the elite don’t change the meaning of the words, but the context of them.


Take the debate between conservatives/libertarians and progressives regarding “Death Panels.” Sara Palin was excoriated in the unbiased press for her characterization, of what are now widely recognized as… death panels. She was called extreme for her opinion. There was no corner of the unbiased media that didn’t pillory her for it. Yet today, only a few years later, everyone knows that those panels will decide who lives and who dies… and progressives even admit it. But Sara Palin was labeled an extremist for her stance, while those that disemboweled her for it, were, and still are, called moderate. History clearly shows that she was the moderate and her detractors were the extremists… and the theater goes on.


Now President Obama claims republicans are out of touch and extreme in their positions. His rhetoric is as vicious as it is prevarication. One example is that Obama maintains he has the power to arbitrarily enforce the laws as he sees fit. While some in the republican party, (the non progressives), disagree. They claim Obama must follow the Constitution, enforcing every law Congress passes, to the best of his ability. The position that the President has the arbitrary power to enforce law as he sees fit, is called, but more importantly considered, moderate, while the Constitutional argument is called extreme.


We are not quibbling about the meaning of a few words here, we are discussing the future of liberty in our country, and the World. If we allow the language to be controlled by a single faction in our society, we already have tyranny, in fact if not in name. Absurdity, like the switching of moderate and extreme, needs to be pointed out, else those who are lazy thinkers will accept the false label and act accordingly. Once that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, we are condemned by our silence.





John Pepin

The Frog and the Scorpion

Thursday, February 28th, 2013

Dear Friends,

It seems to me… those in the unbiased media should take heed of the old story about the frog and the scorpion. To forget this old adage will result in the painful death of the unbiased press and the drowning of their passenger… If you don’t remember the story I’ll retell it here.

There once was a scorpion who wanted to cross a pond. He couldn’t swim so he asked a passing frog for a ride across. The frog responded, “I cannot take you, you are a scorpion and will sting me.” The scorpion replied, “I cannot swim so if I do, I will drown, so you see, you can safely carry me across and I will be in your debt.” The frog considered this for a bit and thought, “It would be nice to have such a powerful friend.” So the frog accepted the job. The scorpion jumped on the frog’s back and they headed off across the pond. A wave came. This alarmed the scorpion so it stung the frog. In pain and despair the frog turned to the scorpion and said, “Now we are both doomed! Why did you sting me?” The scorpion said, “I am a scorpion it is my nature.”

To parse this story, the unbiased media is the frog, the scorpion is any political leader who seeks arbitrary power, the pond is public opinion and the other side is absolute power. The unbiased media carry the political leader across the water of public opinion so the political leader can have absolute power. The media figure that if they help this leader they will enjoy the favor of a person with arbitrary power. All they have to do is carry that politician over the barrier of public opinion for that political favor. Inevitably the tide of public opinion will create waves that alarm the potential tyrant. The politician will then sting the media with the power he or she has amassed, drowning him or herself in the depths of public opinion, and poisoning the media forever.

We see this daily by those that claim the mantle of unbiased arbiters of information. CBS fabricated documents out of thin air, then reported them as fact, only days before a close election. This is an example of the unbiased media carrying a scorpion across the tide of public opinion. In the case of CBS, it was a blogger who pointed out that the font that CBS used in their fictional account, was not even invented when the document was supposedly created. The journey was stopped before it began.

This same paradox was played out when Newt Gingrich balanced the US budget for the first time in generations. His efforts were roundly criticized by the unbiased media and attacked by Bill Clinton. CNN called Gingrich’s “Contract With America,” the Contract ON America! When the republicans had done the heavy lifting, limiting spending and actually balanced the budget, Bill Clinton got the credit and Newt Gingrich was charged with a crime. (Teaching a conservative biased class in college). The unbiased press to this day only mention Clinton when talking about the balanced budget and omit any reference to Gingrich.

Today the unbiased media continue this folly by misrepresenting the sequester debate. In doing so they carry Obama over the waters of public opinion. Universally among the unbiased press, they claim the cuts will be draconian, and will result in chaos. They tell the story Obama wants told, dutifully blaming republicans for any negative outcomes, while crediting Obama with any positive results. The unbiased media never call Obama out even when his rhetoric is obviously fallacious. Like when Obama claimed that police, firefighters and teachers will be laid off due to the “drastic cuts,” when these public employees are locally paid and not funded by the federal government. The unbiased press go along like lap dogs, as Obama claims he had nothing to do with the sequester, even though it was Obama’s idea. The unbiased media even follow the party line that the sequester is a cut, when in fact, the government will spend 15 billion dollars MORE this year than last! They eschew facts and the truth to carry the politician who openly seeks arbitrary power across the pond of public opinion.

On the surface it would seem that the frog has been ferrying the politician who seeks arbitrary power without worry or fear. This is an illusion however, because the scorpion hasn’t reached the middle of the pond, where waves are the most alarming. As the unbiased media bring Obama ever closer to the shore of absolute power the waves of public opinion will inevitably grow higher. The ego of Obama will grow and eventually he will turn on the very people who made it possible. Just as Stalin, Hitler and every other politician who sought arbitrary power has done. Those in the unbiased media will be arrested and purged for whatever slight the dear leader finds offensive.

The reason this is so is the nature of arbitrary power. Those that seek it are scorpions in the truest sense of the word. The closer they get to the other shore, the more impatient they get, and the more fearful of coming short of their goal they become. It is at that time they are most dangerous. Some wave will alarm Obama and the unbiased media will feel the poison of censorship fill their veins. The would be tyrant should take heed as well. His very nature will undermine his goal. Once his nature does come out, and he stings the foolish unbiased press, he will drown in the tide of public opinion, washing up on the shores of history as flotsam, along with other failed socialist dictators, like Pol Pot. People are loathe to remember history… and another frog will fall victim to another scorpion. It is the nature of frogs.


John Pepin

Egyptian Oppression and Morsi’s Rule by Fiat

Monday, November 26th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, no one should be surprised that the Islamofascist who now oppresses Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, would decree himself above the Law. Such shenanigans have been the currency of tyrants the World over and throughout time. Dictators and presidents for life have always considered themselves above the law, come to think of it… all Elite have that opinion. Look at the Elite in Europe and the US. They pass laws that apply to everyone but them. They hold themselves to no standards whatsoever. The Elite the World over consider themselves above any Law they write or precedes them. Morsi is just another tin pot dictator cut from the same cloth. I shudder to think of the violence, oppression and poverty, Morsi will visit on Egypt. But then again, it was Saint Agustin who said, people get the government they deserve. This adage is never more true then when the people themselves have elected a tyrant, instead of a President… both in Egypt and the US.

Mohamed Morsi is an islamofascist and makes no bones about it. His speeches are laced with anti Christian, anti Jewish and anti western rhetoric. He himself has called for the destruction of Israel, and his religious leader, for the extermination of the Jews, and Jerusalem as the capital of their World wide Caliphate. His rhetoric is uniformly anti democratic. The reality is that Morsi would be only too happy to deliver the Jews into another holocaust. Someone who is as extreme as Mohamed Morsi can be expected to usurp power every chance he gets.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood led government was elected in a free and fair election. That election delivered the Egyptian people into the hands of the group that spawned Al Queda, Hammas, Hezbollah and every terrorist organization in the twentieth century. This is a crowd that are evil incarnate. They openly seek World domination. Imagine if a capitalist regime sought World domination in their chartering documents and speeches? The unbiased media would be wall to wall coverage about the power hungry capitalists. The media feeding frenzy would never end until those people were driven from power and jailed.

The treatment the Islamofascists get is far different however. Obama gave up on a Middle East summit to keep weapons of mass destruction, (WMD), out of the Middle East. He capitulated because the evil men that run that part of the World are determined to get WMD. They see Nuclear weapons as their means to World domination. A very few electro-magnetic- pulse weapons could easily overturn the World’s power structure. Sure, billions would die in the ensuing wars and famines, but the World could then fall under the total arbitrary power of a Caliph. The results of Obama’s miscalculation in the Middle East will inevitably lead to human tragedy.

What would have been surprising is if Morsi had been a President instead of dictator. That would have upended the normal paradigm of Middle East politics however. That outcome was as unlikely as space Aliens landing, and giving the governments around the World trillions of dollars, to maintain their welfare spending. To say that Morsi has no mercy would be an understatement. The crucifixions of Christians that took place, shortly after Morsi came to power, might have been a wake up call that this man is evil. But the unbiased world media remained silent, until it came out, then the Islam apologists called it a hoax! It was no hoax! Especially to those who suffered a slow, painful and unmerciful death.

Would they have remained silent if a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto or a member of any other religion were crucifying protesters? Of course not. But then again, news is, by definition, something that is out of the ordinary. Since this is the case, a newly elected Islamofascist crucifying people, being normal for them, is not news. Those poor people, who live under the jackboot of an Islamofascist regime, have plenty of torture, hunger, oppression and lack of religious freedom, to look forward to. To expect anything good from the election of an Islamofascist, or a socialist, is just plain stupid. Apparently the Egyptian and the American people have that in common too.


John Pepin