Should The U.S. Be The World's Policeman?

I'm sitting here watching FNC's Bulls and Bears (I think), and I hear some twit asking if the U.S. really needs to be the world's policeman, specifically asking, "Do we need to be in Germany?"

As much as I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't be the "world's policeman," one question comes to mind when I hear someone make that statement - If not the U.S., then who?

What other nation has the power projection? What other country has the track record we do? Russia? China? If those nation's project their power, it's only to invade and occupy, or "annex," like Crimea.

The United States has been, is now, and will be the only global force for good in history. We are the only ones who can do it, and people who believe that it's not in our national security interests to do so are dangerously naive.

It's one thing to stay out of other nation's internal affairs when one political ideology is squabbling with another ideology, but when an ideology's stated goal is the destruction of western ideals and they've been willing to put action behind those thoughts, as is the case with Islamic terror groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS, then we are obligated, in my opinion, to take whatever actions are necessary to ensure our safety and the safety of our allies.

None of this means the U.S. needs to be involved in every brush war that pops up everywhere across the globe, nor does it mean we should be "nation building." It simply means that we can't hunker down, with our heads in the sand, and just wait for the problem to clear itself up, or worse yet, make its way to our shores before we act.

It's past time to stop worrying about what other nations think about the U.S. and start worrying about making sure we're safe. ~ Hunter

More Truth About Islam

23,770: In the 29 days since my last post on this subject, the followers of mohammed (all mentions of anything muslim are in lowercase letters to denote my disrespect) have been very busy, committing 186 attacks, with fatalities -  an average of over 6 per day.

Fifty-one, including a Syrian child who was crucified, have been killed in 6 known attacks committed between 02 SEP and 05 SEP, an average of almost 13 people a day.

The number of Christians who killed in the name of Christianity............*crickets chirping* That's right - NONE.

Between 23 AUG 14 and 29 AUG 14, there were:

44 jihad attacks
6 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
700 dead bodies (that's 100 per day) 
433 critically injured in these attacks

Very busy week.

August 2014 totals:

222 jihad attacks
27 countries
24 "allahu akbars"
4573 dead bodies (averaging almost 148 people murdered in the name of allah per day)
2287 critically injured

The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:

2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just under 86 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured

To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.

I have no patience for the people who say "islam is a religion of peace" or "Christianity is just as bad." When I challenge them to prove it, they ALWAYS bring up the Crusades (which I've debunked here, or the Inquisitions (debunked here). I'm sorry, but if you have to go back at least 500 years to come up with a comparison that's tenuous, at best, to what's happening before your very eyes, well.....it's not really much of a comparison, is it? ~ Hunter

Move Along - Nothing To See Here

23,584: It's been 31 days since my last post on this subject, and shock of all shocks, there's been no let up from the followers of mohammed (all mentions of anything muslim are in lowercase letters to denote my disrespect). Between then and now, there's been 260 attacks with fatalities committed by islamic terrorists, a little over eight attacks per day.

One hundred sixty people, including an undetermined number, but at least three children, have been killed in 6 known attacks committed on just one day, 6 AUG 2014. No need to average that number.


During ramadan, the so-called "holiest month" of the muslim calendar, there was:
272 terror attacks
37 allahu akbars
2429 dead bodies (for those keeping score, that's almost 81 people killed per day)
2028 wounded

By the way, still no Christians killing in the name of Christianity (but Christians are the most evil people in the world, dontcha know?).

Between 26 JUL 14 and 01 AUG14, there were:

75 jihad attacks
10 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
707 dead bodies (that's 101 per day) 
711 critically injured in these attacks

Very busy week.

Let's look at the totals for just July 2014:

268 jihad attacks
28 countries
41 "allahu akbars"
2660 dead bodies (averaging almost 94 people murdered in the name of allah per day)
2079 critically injured

The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:

2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just under 86 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured

To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.

I have no patience for the people who say that the Inquisition was just as bad as islamic terrorism, especially given that anyone with half a brain, and five minutes can easily find this information online. The next time someone brings up the Inquisition, you now have the facts to refute their arguments.

I know some will say I'm “islamophobic.” That's fine; it's not true, mind you - but I can handle that. To those people, however, I submit this: A phobia is an “unreasoning fear” of something. With numbers like I've detailed above, you have to ask yourselves one question: Is it really “unreasoning fear” when their mantra is “Convert or Die”? ~ Hunter

What The World Is STILL Ignoring

23,324: It's been 24 days since last I wrote one of these posts, and shock of all shocks, there's been no let up from the followers of mohammed (all mentions of anything muslim are in lowercase letters to denote my disrespect). Between then and now, there's been 176 attacks with fatalities committed by islamic terrorists, a little over seven attacks per day.
Sixty-five people, including twenty children, have been killed in 6 known attacks committed over just two days since Sunday, 6 JUL 2014. Almost thirty-three people per day mercilessly slaughtered in the name of the "religion of peace."
In the ten days since ramadan began, the so-called "holiest month" of the muslim calendar, there have been:


72 terror attacks
8 allahu akbars
442 dead bodies (for those keeping score, that's almost 45 people killed per day)
515 wounded


I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure no Christians have killed anyone in the name of Christianity recently, so can someone please explain to me why Christianity and Christians are blamed for all the world's ills? I certainly don't understand how telling someone about Christianity is “forcing my religion on them,” but an islamist telling someone “convert or die” somehow isn't? Funny how that works.


Between 28 JUN 14 and 04 JUL 14, there were:


46 jihad attacks
4 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
306 dead bodies (that's just under 45 per day) 
418 critically injured in these attacks


Apparently it's been a slow week.


Let's look at the totals for just June 2014:


270 jihad attacks
23 countries
41 "allahu akbars"
2808 dead bodies (averaging almost 94 people murdered in the name of allah per day)
2232 critically injured


The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:


2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just over 44 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured


To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.


I have no patience for the people who say that the Inquisition was just as bad as islamic terrorism, especially given that anyone with half a brain, and five minutes can easily find this information online. The next time someone brings up the Inquisition, you now have the facts to refute their arguments.


I know some will say I'm “islamophobic.” That's fine; it's not true, mind you - but I can handle that. To those people, however, I submit this: A phobia is an “unreasoning fear” of something. With numbers like I've detailed above, you have to ask yourselves one question: Is it really “unreasoning fear” when their mantra is “Convert or Die”?


In a fitting touch of irony, as I was watching the news while writing this post, I saw a hamas leader complain that Israeli targeting of civilian homes is a "red line" for hamas, yet the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are completely acceptable. But it's Israel that's the problem?! Go figure. ~ Hunter

Will Trading Rights For "Freedom" Keep The U.S. Safe? No - But Racial Profiling Just Might

Ladies and gentlemen, I just heard one of the most ridiculous, not to mention stupid things I've ever heard. While watching "Cavuto" on Fox News, famed former New York Police Department detective Bo Dietl, commenting on the judge ruling the "no fly list" unconstitutional, actually said - and I quote - "In order to have freedom, you have to have some of your rights taken away." No, I'm not making that up.


I'm sorry, but wouldn't the taking of our unalienable rights be diametrically opposite the very definition of freedom? Mr. Dietl, you might have been a "legend" as a police officer, but in this case, you're dead wrong. Restricting the freedoms of everyone in order to have the possibility of catching a would-be terrorist isn't worth the price we'll all eventually pay. Do the Patriot Act and NSA spying mean anything to you?


Think about this for a few minutes: The TSA has yet to catch a single terrorist. There are multiple reasons why, but here's at least one good reason for that - and this part is somewhat important - 90-year-old grandfathers and 5-year-old toddlers aren't likely to be terrorists! You want to know who is most likely to be a terrorist - a young Arab muslim male. *G*A*SP* If that shocks you, you haven't been paying attention to the world for, oh, the last four decades or more, which makes you part of the problem.


Why doesn't the TSA single out Arab muslim men? That's easy - political correctness. Nobody wants to bring up a certain dreaded phrase anymore, but the truth is, so-called "racial profiling" actually works. Yeah, I said it.


Crime statistics show that a certain person, in a certain place, at a certain time of day or night, is most likely committing crime "X" - whatever that may be. Racial profiling is applicable to all ethnicities, by the way. Does it mean that every person of whatever ethnicity actually is committing "X" if they're in that certain place at that certain time? Absolutely not, but statistically, the chances are very high that they are.


For example, if we look at the number of homicides committed in the United States between 1974 and 2004, 52% of offenders were black and 46% were white. Seems pretty equal, right? The kicker is that blacks made up only 12% of the total population during this time period, while whites made up 80%. It's difficult to argue against those kind of numbers, isn't it? Keep these numbers in mind when reading the next paragraph.


Psychologists use a test called the "Implicit Association Test" to test for bias in people. Once used to investigate race bias, participants of the test were asked to match up "good" and "bad" words with pictures of black or white faces.  A majority of white participants made associations of "good" with white faces and "bad" with black faces. Care to guess how the black participants scored? Well, the black participants did the same thing.  Even black people use racial profiling when dealing with members of their own race.


After 9/11, the United Stated government was quick to point out that not all muslims are terrorists, and that is certainly true, at least as it pertains to the active activism of most muslims. It is also true that not all terrorists are muslim, but in terms of international terrorism of the type that occurred on September 11, 2001, the actors are almost invariably younger, unmarried, muslim males.


Before people misunderstand, I'm absolutely not saying we should profile muslim men strictly because they are muslim. Being a muslim, however, should certainly be part of the equation, along with as many similarities shared with the 9/11 hijackers as possible. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.


As for Bo Dietl and his inane comment - the only rights I intend to give up are exactly NONE, sir. We have given up far too many as it is, and the federal government has abrogated its responsibility to safeguard those rights in favor of violating those rights on an almost daily basis. You may be okay with that, Mr. Dietl, but a great many of us are not, and we're growing stronger every day. ~ Hunter

The Consequences Of Not Finishing What Was Started

By now, just about everyone in the world knows, or should know, that Iraq has been mostly overrun by islamic (lowercase for disrespect) radicals over the last several months. The islamic state of iraq and syria (again, disrespect) has gained control over vast swaths of territory. How did this happen?


Say what you want about the war in Iraq - we went in under false pretenses (we didn't), we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction (we did), Bush screwed up the war effort (he didn't - check the Rules of Engagement then versus now).


Whether or not you agreed with, or supported the war, the fact remains that we were there. We started something under President Bush, and while Bush definitely announced the end of major combat operations a tad.....prematurely, he certainly ran the war far better than King DingleBarry.


One conservative commentator recently said something to the effect that during the 2008 presidential campaign, all he remembers is Obama saying he would end the war in Iraq, but never once said anything about winning the war, and he was right. The Professional Prevaricator never said anything about winning. Well, he certainly accomplished that particular mission, as it were.


The problem with ending, but not winning a war, is that the ones who often pay the price for that failure are the ones who need help the most. The Iraqi "military" - although it hardly qualifies to bear that appellation, wasn't strong enough to turn back the tide they're now facing. Many units threw down their weapons, shed their uniforms, and ran away from the militants now taking control. They abandoned their own people to the mercies of those who have none.


Think about this for a minute or two - ISIS is so brutal and dangerous that even its "parent" organization of Al Qaeda - those terrorists responsible for the deaths of almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans - has disavowed them. That should tell you all you need to know about the "mercies" of ISIS.


The United States has nothing more than a token force left in Iraq, and a great many of those are private contractors, and last I heard, those contractors' positions were completely surrounded by the new enemy. I pray for them. They're going to need God to get out of the mess that the Constant Campaigner helped create.


We have a president who's so disconnected from reality that he doesn't even realize it. He actually thinks - no, believes - not only that pulling our troops out of Iraq, but announcing the timetable was a GOOD thing. It truly doesn't take a military genius the caliber of Alexander the Great to see announcing a troop withdrawal of an area that hasn't been properly pacified would only lead to disaster.


While certainly not identical in nature, what's happening in Iraq right now is eerily similar to the end of the United States' involvement in Vietnam, but it's worse. Much, much worse. After overrunning Vietnam, the communists were content with killing their own people. They stayed in Vietnam. After ISIS finishes taking Iraq, does anyone seriously believe - other than King DingleBarry, I mean - that they'll be content with staying in Iraq. I fear that a victory by ISIS spells trouble for the United States, right here on our own soil. I, for one, will point the finger of blame squarely at Obama, mainly because he did not finish what was started. ~ Hunter

What The World Seems To Ignore

23,148: It's been 37 days since last I wrote one of these posts, and shock of all shocks, there's been no let up from the followers of mohammed. That's right – 256 attacks with fatalities. That's almost seven attacks per day.

23,148: Seventy-one people, including a fourteen year old boy, killed in 6 known attacks committed over just three days since Tuesday, 10 JUN 2014. Almost twenty-four people per day mercilessly slaughtered by islamists.


I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure no Christians have killed anyone in the name of Christianity, so can someone please explain to me why Christianity and Christians are blamed for all the world's ills? I certainly don't understand how telling someone about Christianity is “forcing my religion on them,” but an islamist telling someone “convert or die” somehow isn't? Funny how that works.


Between 31 MAY 14 and 06 JUN 14, there were:


57 jihad attacks
13 “allahu akbar” suicide attacks
821 dead bodies (that's just over 117 per day)
628 critically injured in these attacks


I've done these posts for a long time on Facebook before starting this blog, and I believe the killing of 117 people is a new record. A disgusting record, but a record nonetheless.


Let's look at the totals for just May 2014:


233 jihad attacks
26 countries
1883 dead bodies (averaging just over 52 people murdered in the name of allah [lowercase to denote disrespect] per day)
2137 critically injured


The numbers for the entirety of 2013 are bringing the reality of the “religion” of “peace” will bring some additional clarity to this post:


2801 jihad attacks
51 countries
16,170 dead bodies (average of just over 44 people killed PER DAY)
29,432 critically injured


To put this in a little perspective, the estimate - which is based on new, very thorough research - of people killed during the entire *500* years of the Medieval and the Spanish Inquisitions is about 6,000 deaths. While those deaths are reprehensible, and all Catholics lament them, it's not quite the same, is it? The acknowledged average estimate is around 30,000.


I have no patience for the people who say that the Inquisition was just as bad as islamic terrorism, especially given that anyone with half a brain, and five minutes can easily find this information online. The next time someone brings up the Inquisition, you now have the facts to refute their arguments.


I know some will say I'm “islamophobic.” That's fine; it's not true, mind you - but I can handle that. To those people, however, I submit this: A phobia is an “unreasoning fear” of something. With numbers like I've detailed above, you have to ask yourselves one question: Is it really “unreasoning fear” when their mantra is “Convert or Die”?


While islam and muslims may not be the only problem in this world – Russia's antagonism of Ukraine, China starting to flex its political muscles around the globe, the looming global economic crisis that will happen if the nations of the world don't get their profligate spending under control quickly – but they certainly are a significant one. The political correctness needs to stop. It's time to call a spade, a spade. Only when the world stands together and says, “Enough is enough!!!” will this cease to be a problem. ~ Hunter

A Brief History Of The Inquisitions

Another way people try to equate terrorism perpetrated in the name of allah with Christianity, is to bring up the Inquisitions, particularly to bash the Catholic Church. To me, it's like comparing apples to fighter jets. The only real similarity that I can find is that religion and government were one and the same.

There were three major Catholic Inquisitions; the Medieval, the Spanish, and the Roman Inquisitions

Beginning around 1184, the Medieval Inquistion was the Church's response to the heretical movements sweeping through Europe, particularly Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy. Bernard Gui, perhaps the most notorious inquisitor of the time, tried 930 people, of whom 42 were executed. Jacques Fornier, another famous inquisitor, tried 114 cases. Five were executed. Using known numbers, scholars have estimated that approximately 2,000 people died during the Medieval Inquisition between 1184 to 1400 AD. Jewish historian Steven Katz remarked on the Medieval Inquisition that "in its entirety, the thirteenth and fourteenth century Inquisition put very few people to death and sent few people to prison; 90 percent of its sentences were canonical penances."

The Spanish Inquisition, reluctantly authorized by Pope Sixtus IV in 1478 AD under pressure from King Ferdinand of Aragon. Lasting about 350 years, it saw approximately 125,00 people investigated, which led to the executions of perhaps 2,250 people (1.8%). Most of those deaths occurred during the first fifteen years of the Inquisition's 350 history. At first, investigations centered around charges against Jewish and muslim converts to Christianity of secretly practicing their old religions. Acting under the control of the kings, its early excesses were soundly condemned by Popes Sixtus IV, Leo X, Paul III, and Paul IV. Of the 13,000 tried in the Portugal of the 16^th and early 17^th centuries, roughly 5.7% were condemned to die. News reports published at the time, however, make no mention if those sentenced to die were actually meant to be in effigy (an image or dummy burned in place of the actual person). Nineteen Spanish tribunals, between 1540-1700 AD, tried 50,000, executing 775 people, and executing 700 more in effigy. At its peak from 1478-1530 AD, scholars have found that about 1,500-2,000 people were found guilty. Meticulous records kept after that point detail all “guilty” sentences which amounted to 775 executions. When the full 200 years of the Inquisition was all said and done, less than 1% of the population had any contact with it, and most people outside of the major cities even knew of its existence. The Inquisition wasn't even applied to Jews and Muslims, unless they were baptized into Christianity

The last of the major Catholic Inquisitions was the Roman Inquisition. Begun in 1542, when Pope Paul III established the Holy Office as the final court of appeal in trials of heresy and served as an important part of the so-called “Counter-Reformation.” Although tightly controlled by strict procedural rules, the Roman Inquisition was made infamous by the trial of Galileo.

The Church has apologized for the Inquisitions, in the words of Pope John Paul II: 

“The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished...the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth".

This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel."

The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it:

'Lord, God of all men and women, in certain periods of history, Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love, sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse. Have mercy on your sinful children and accept our resolve to seek and promote truth in the gentleness of charity, in the firm knowledge that truth can prevail only in virtue of truth itself. We ask this through Christ Our Lord.'”
(Prayer for Forgiveness, Day of Pardon, 12 March, II; ORE, 22 March 2000)

Add the numbers and we find that the entire Inquisition of 500 years caused about 6000 deaths. These atrocities are completely inexcusable, but compared to the 3,998 killed in jihadist attacks just in JANUARY 2015, they're also statistically negligible. Even the more commonly accepted estimate of approx. 30,000 killed in the Inquisitions, when spread over 5 centuries is still statistically very low, against 3,998 spread over 31 DAYS.

When viewed in the context (there's that word again) of history, they're not really the same, are they? ~ Hunter