Erdogan's Egregious Error Part 1

Otherwise titled: How to make 6,000 a total of 600,000 with one phrase verbally expelled by an ignorant troglodyte.


In a recent interview, Recep Erdogan stated that Israel has killed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, while only "a few" Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rockets.  He made another statement which was just as ludicrously bogus, but let's deal with this first.

I have to notice, right off the bat, that the man does not challenge the fact that the Palestinians fires rockets into a sovereign nation.  That in and of itself should flip on a few lights as to the reliability of the man's statements; not to mention the true nature of his motives.  The Palestinians firing rockets are, at little best, terrorists.  Period.  There is no other accurate portrayal, no matter what the Mass (Sheep) Media says.

I am sure that there are Palestinians who want nothing more than to live in peace.  I am convinced of this.  Since this is the case, their fellows ought to cease their terrorist activities and work things out via proper procedure.  That, or the peace desirous Palestinians ought to hang their terrorist neighbors; that would make a greater impact than white flags, I guarantee it.

Either way, they cannot bring a demand for recognition of their "sovereign state" while inside the boundaries of a recognized sovereign nation.  Not without the go ahead from Israel.  In this case, Israel will not allow them to do so, and why should they?  The national boundaries they have now were gained through legal and proper channels; one with Egypt, and one with Jordan.  The area occupied by so-called Palestinians?  A part of Israel according to the Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace.  Those in the Gaza Strip?  Part of Israel according to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

Back to Erdogan's idiotic remark.


The first and most obvious is the number he used.  According to B'Tselem numbers, there have been nearly 6,500 Palestinians killed since September 29, 2000 to the present day.  Even as a conservative estimate, these numbers are a far cry from "hundreds of thousands."  More interesting, perhaps, is the breakdown of this number.

According to B'Tselem, 98.8% of these figures are "killed on their own land."  How can that be, I ask, when these lands are properly Israel?  The fact that B'Tselem calls these areas "occupied territories" brings into question their own allegiance.  If you go to IfAmericaKnew, you find a further distortion of the facts: They state that according to B'Tselem, between 3,535-4,226 of these deaths belong to civilians.

Here's the problem- Palestinians have no actual army.  The entire population, fighting age, IS the army.  In a word, there may be no army, but there are also no civilians.  The only reason they can be classified by "civilians" by this so-called humanitarian organization is because they could not be "actively tied to violent activity."

By the way- Israeli deaths stand at roughly 1,262- Rough because it is not a complete enumeration.  This number is significantly higher than the "few" Erdogan stated.  While it is significantly lower than the deaths of Palestinians, take into account the emergency medical accommodations available within Israel.  If not for these, the large majority of the more than 8,000 injuries would surely have been mortal.  Incidentally, this would place the number of Israeli deaths at far higher than Palestinian losses.


Let's look at the beginnings of "Palestine."


They came into being roughly about 135 A.D.  Prior to this, the land was- Israel.  Palestine was formed as a direct result of the Roman Empire- It was a move by the emperor Hadrian in 135 AD to prevent the conquered Nation of Israel from attempting to rise up any longer.  He moved his armies into the region and scattered Israel.  At this time, Jerusalem was leveled, and two foreign peoples were moved into the new regions he'd created, respectively named Palestine and Aelia Capitolina, part of the new province Syria Palaestina.

So to recap, Palestinians claim to own land for which they never had right to; land which was wrenched from Israel by Rome for the origination of Palestine.  Israel finally reclaimed the land which was theirs prior to ancient occupation with the peace treaty signed between Israel and Jordan.  Now, Palestinians are attempting to claim land which was not rightfully theirs to begin with as theirs now- Though the land in question has been legally and rightfully Israel's since 1979 and 1994.


So- With all of this being said, I have just one question:

What is the issue here?  Bottom line, Israel is dealing with squatters, and they're even willing to give them portions of Israel.


Try taking over someone's home and see if they're as kind.

PS: Hello to the readers from the United Arab Emirates and other Middle East countries.  I welcome all of your comments, but for those of you who are prone to aggressive linguistic jabs, I say this: Save any threats for some other person.  I'm not intimidated. Thanks.

Flirting DOES NOT Help A Relationship

This is an older blog that I just wanted to repost due to the ridiculous amount of chatter I've been hearing lately on this very subject.  Supposedly, this sort of thing is good for a relationship- Anyone who says that obviously has a screw loose.  With that said, I give you:
------------------------------------------------------------


In regards to the article written by Dave Zinczenko and published on Yahoo courtesy of Men's Health. This article can be found here:
Why Flirting Can Help Your Relationship

Flirting DOES NOT Help A Relationship

The idea of flirting outside of marriage is so akin to adultery, I find it offensive. There is a certain level of flirting that is natural, is normal, and is almost a subconscious thing. The cashier at the convenience store paying a compliment, or vise versa, for example.


However, to knowingly flirt while in an emotional drought in one's relationship puts one in dangerous territory, to say the least. Women especially are vulnerable to this form of emotional "foreplay," as the article called it.

The reason is that women are largely emotional beings. While very rational, and intelligent, God created women to be more in touch with their emotions for their children. (For their husband, to a degree, but that's a different topic.)

Because of a woman's naturally emotional standpoint, when her husband is not meeting those emotional needs at home, the last thing that she needs is to have that need met outside of her husband. It can cause/will cause her to question the validity of her marriage, the competence of her husband, even the genuineness of her feelings for him.
Obviously, you can see where this situation CAN lead to adultery.


For a man, the danger is slightly different. Not quite as threatening on an emotional scale, but just as dangerous, nonetheless.
A man has the ability to know when a woman is flirting with him. The mark of a truly content husband is his inability to notice, or his refusal to lend credence to, another woman's flirtations. As you can imagine, therein lies the problem- IF he is truly content.

As this article focuses on a couple who have hit a rough patch, we must assume that one or both are not feeling fulfilled. This means that, in spite of himself, a man's detection system is fully operational.

Because of this, when that pretty little waitress calls him honey and winks, there's something that hits him inside. If he is not careful, this will cause his thinking to become much more sexual in nature, leaving him fantasizing about someone other than his wife.
For this man, it is a rather short step from the fantasy to the action, provided he truly has convinced himself that there's no point in holding out.


I completely believe that there are men and women who have enough self control to not fall into temptation. I am convinced that a person is truly blessed when their spouse, following a withstood temptation, returns home to sweep them off their feet, demonstrating their love in action in a way both needed.
In this regard, I can see the author's point- However, it is far too risky and dangerous to initiate such a situation on one's own. Such a thing is like issuing an invitation to the devil.


However- Flirting within the relationship... Have fun!!

Two and a Half... Laughs.

All right- I'm about to do something I have never really done on this blog...  Review a television show.

I don't know if anyone caught the new Two and a Half Men, but...  Well, let's just say that their idea to kill off Charlie but keep the show going has not inspired me to continue watching.  Let's be honest about this- Charlie Sheen WAS the show.  There really is nothing else there without him.  Every other person on the show was more of a supporting role than anything.

Now, they've brought in Ashton Kutcher.  At first, I wasn't sure what to think about the move.  It could have been good, it could have been bad.  Turns out, bad doesn't BEGIN to cut it.  They're replacing the rascal character with a billionaire whose whining could potentially win over Moaning Myrtle from Harry Potter.  More than that, suddenly ALAN is the lady-advice guru?!  For crying out loud- It would have been better to get an over-the-fence neighbor!

As much as I hate to say it, the season premiere was funniest in the scenes where Charlie was being talked about, or talked to...  And the sad thing is, Charlie was nowhere to be seen.  That doesn't bode well for that 70's show kid...

Honestly, the best thing the network could do, at this point, is announce that Sheen will be signed back on, and turn this whole new season into some horrendous nightmare...  Sort of like the one it's shaping up to be.

A 9/11 Post on 9/12

I'd meant to post this earlier, but it remains just as true today as yesterday:

Keep those who lost loved ones 9/11/01 up in prayer.

For those who did not lose anyone, it may be tempting to consider 9/11 as a memorial and move on.

For those who lost... 9/12 is the memorial of the day after, when no information came through. 9/13 is the memorial of the day when fears gave way to a dull ache. 9/14 is the memorial of the day when they finally discovered the person they'd been seeking would never again light up their life... And many have not even had THAT closure.

So, for all of those who were never able to say goodbye properly; and for all of those who only know of their parents because of pictures and articles and monuments... Pray.

Constitutionalist Commentary part 3

This is part three of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This third part will cover the section titled “Bring Government Back Home.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

This section pretty much speaks to the issue of small government. The basic premise is that the Constitution granted certain powers to the federal government; but it also states that, where power is not granted to the federal level, it is either the state or personal level governing. A great deal of significance has been lost when it comes to this section.

Simply put, what is the federal’s, remains with the federal. What is the state’s belongs with the state. What is neither expressly given the federal or the state is strictly a personal responsibility. When the federal government legislates away personal responsibility, freedom begins to wane. Personal responsibility, you see, is where freedom truly starts.

For quite a while now, the government’s approach to power has been to grant it to itself when a lack of Constitutional power is discovered. The Environmental Protection Agency is a wonderful example of this, as is the National Education Administration. Decisions are being made on a daily basis by individuals who have not been elected, but rather hired by a bloated, out of control governmental effigy. Simply speaking, while the need for secretaries is a given for elected officials, unelected officials regulating use of land; crafting building codes; and demanding education be done exclusively within the public system, all point to the same issue. In short, we need a government that does its Constitutional job, rather than hand it over to be seen to by others unelected.

To bring the government back to its Constitutional boundaries, certain steps must be followed, and certain sacrifices must be made. The largest, of course, would the “easiest said”: The return from “giver-ment” to “government.” From there, a reduction of personal regulations, and so on.

Additionally, this would mean the return of power to the individual states. No longer will the federal government decide for them what they will spend on aid to destitute, for instance. Now, this may mean that some states will pull all funding, while others put more funding into the issue. However, if the citizens have an issue with any use of state power, the answer is not to cede it to the federal government; the answer is to change it from within.

Any candidate willing to do this, who stands behind this 100%, will get my vote- Pure and simple.

The next section speaks about Character and Moral Conduct. I’ve got more than a few things to say about that, so stick around.