The Facts about Kwanzaa

Like Fox News, I report; you decide.
· Should Christians celebrate Kwanzaa?
· Is it an authentic African harvest festival?
· Is it an anti-American, anti-Christian, and racist fraud?
· Is it another battleground in the culture war?

Kwanzaa was started around 1978 by a U.C.L.A. professor of Black Studies, Ron Karenga, a.k.a. Ron N. Everett. Everett was the founder of "United Slaves." Members were to follow "the path of blackness" which meant they were to "think black, talk black, act black, create black, buy black, vote black, and live black."

In 1971, Everett was tried and convicted of two felony counts of torture and one count of false imprisonment. These crimes were committed against two female members of United Slaves. Everett was sentenced to one to ten years; he served four.

Other United Slave members committed beatings, shootings, assaults, and robberies, including the 1969 murder of two Black Panther members who were professors of Black Studies at U.C.L.A.

In 1975, Everett was released from prison. He changed his name to Ron Karenga and gave himself the title "Maulana" or "Master Teacher." He also converted to Marxism.
Karenga/Everett was appointed head of the U.C.L.A. Department of Black Studies in 1979.

Kwanzaa was an invention of Karenga/Everett. According to the official website, the purpose of Kwanzaa is to "enhance the revolutionary social changes for the masses of Black Americans." Kwanzaa is celebrated from December 26th to January 1st. Karenga/Everett explained this choice of dates as "that's when a lot of bloods would be partying."

Although claiming it was an authentic African harvest festival, no culture anywhere celebrates the harvest in December. One of the important symbols of Kwanzaa is corn, which is not native to Africa. Corn was imported to Africa from Mexico and North America by European slave traders.

Like all Marxists, Karenga/Everett opposed religion. The 1977 book Kwanzaa: Origin, Concepts, Practice states, "Kwanzaa is...an oppositional alternative to the spookism, mysticism, and non-earth based practices which plague us as a people and encourage our withdrawal from social life rather than our bold confrontation with it." In 1980, in Kawaida Theory, he wrote in opposition to both "Christian and Jewish mythology as well as belief in God and other 'spooks' who threaten us if we don't worship them and demand we turn over our destiny and daily lives.

Marxism is the direct source of several of Kwanzaa's Seven Principles. These include "collective work and responsibility," "cooperative economics," "self-determination" and "collective vocation or purpose."

The official Kawanzaa flag is black, green, and red. It is "the symbol of devotion for African people in America to establish an independent African nation on the North American Continent." The red represents blood because, "we lost our land through blood; and we cannot gain it except through blood. We must redeem our lives through the blood. Without the shedding of blood there can be no redemption of this race." Of course, Karenga/Everett is not talking about the redemptive blood of Jesus Christ. Rather, he advocates guerrilla war and violence, as needed, to establish a separate African-American nation.

The Kwanzaa pledge to their flag is suppose to be part of every Kwanzaa celebration, according to their website. The pledge reads:

" We pledge allegiance to the red, black, and green, our flag, the symbol of our eternal struggle, and to the land we must obtain; one nation of black people, with one God of us all, totally united in the struggle, for black love, black freedom, and black self-determination."

As Scripture warns, "Our people are destroyed by lack of knowledge." The media masks the origins and agenda of Kwanzaa. President Clinton was the first president to give official recognition to Kwanzaa. President George W. Bush has continued it. The U.S. Postal Service issued its first Kwanzaa stamp in 1997. The taxpayer-supported Smithsonian Institute sponsors an annual Kwanzaa celebration.

James Coleman, an ex-Black Panther, wrote: "By only stressing the unity of black people, Kwanzaa separates black people from the rest of Americans."

I submit to you that Kwanzaa is:
· a festival founded by a black segregationist or racist
· with roots in violence and murder
· celebrates a phony or non-existent African history and culture
· advocates a failed economic system (communism).
As such, Christians and patriotic Americans should not celebrate Kwanzaa. Because of its opposition to other religions, it should not be endorsed by any branch of government, and taxpayer dollars should not be spent on it.

You decide.

More Global Warming Absurdity: Blame Belching Moose

The IPCC blamed mankind for global warming in its latest reports this Spring. We were told that pollution from excess CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants and auto emissions was wrecking havoc on the earth. Unless we wanted the oceans to rise and flood all our coastal areas, we had better make radical changes in our lifestyles.

Lo and behold, humans are not the only culprits. We may not even be the primary contributors. Other animals are polluters, too.

Norwegian researchers have reported that moose belching is contributing to global warming. According to Professor Odd Harstad at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, the average moose “emits about 100 kilograms of methane gas a year.” The estimate is based on the emissions from cattle, which are also notorious methane gas producers.

Harstad goes on to explain that methane is 21 times more potent than CO2 in its effect on global warming. “With an estimated 140,000 moose roaming Norway's forests, that is a total of 294,000,000 kilograms of CO2 per year” produced by Norwegian moose.

“Across the globe there are estimated to be over 2 million moose with the highest numbers in Canada, Russia, United States and Sweden” (http://www.unsolvedmysteries.com/usm414112.html). Therefore, 2,000,000 moose worldwide x 100 kilograms of methane per moose per year = 200,000,000 (200 million) kilograms of methane produced by moose annually. That is the equivalent of 4,200,000,000 (4.2 trillion) kilograms of CO2 produced by the world’s moose annually (200,000,000 x 21), using Professor Harstad's formula.

All ruminants (cows, deer, moose, etc.) produce methane. That is why George Will recently suggested we should give up our Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Besides the fuel costs of raising and feeding cows and transporting their milk, the cows themselves are guilty of producing “eight gallons of methane” for every four gallons of milk (quoted in The Patriot Post, August 17, 2007). According to Mr. Will, “the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, more than transportation produces.” Who knew?

Now, please excuse me. The temperature today in Jacksonville is in the nineties. I hear my Haagen Daz calling to me from the freezer: “Come to me, I will give you some cooling refreshment.”

Don't Count 'em; Deport 'em!

The U.S. Census Bureau stepped in it big time when it suggested they might ask that enforcement efforts against illegal immigrants be suspended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) during the 2010 census count. This was reported by U.S.A. Today and others on Thursday, August 16, 2007.

"We're supposed to count every resident. If you go out and ask, 'Are you here illegally?' they are going to run," said Kenneth Prewitt, who directed the Census Bureau during the 2000 census. According to Deputy Director Preston Jay Waite, deportations were suspended during the 2000 count.

The reaction to this trial balloon was swift. Anti-illegal immigration activists were outraged that one government agency would ask another to violate the law. To quell the furor, I.C.E. spokesperson Kelly Nantel said on Friday, August 17th, "I don't want there to be any question in the American people's mind as to whether or not ICE would suspend enforcement efforts. The answer to that is emphatically no."

The Census Bureau backpedaled on Saturday, August 18th with a press release. In it, Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon claimed media reports regarding interagency coordination were inaccurate. Her statement was:

"The Census Bureau has not requested that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency refrain from enforcing immigration laws. While previous Administrations sought to have law enforcement raids curtailed somewhat to help obtain greater accuracy, we respect ICE's statement that they will not suspend raids even if a decision were made to ask them to do so. The Census Bureau fully recognizes that times have changed, with new challenges facing immigration authorities, and Census will change with those times."

"For the Census Bureau to be successful in getting an accurate count of all residents (as mandated by Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution), the Census Bureau will rely heavily on trusted individuals and organizations within hard to count populations to partner with us to increase public awareness that it’s important and safe to participate in the 2010 Census."

"The Census Bureau will complete its mission to count everyone and regrets any misimpression we left."

Isn't that special? Although activists like Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, would be horrified, I think it would be a wonderful idea if the census takers were accompanied by I.C.E. officials. It would satisfy constitutional requirements if illegal aliens were arrested and deported before they could be counted.

Attack on Yazidis: What Iraq Will Look Like if American Troops Withdraw Prematurely

Horrific suicide bomber attacks were made upon Yazidis in northern Iraq earlier this week. The Yazidis are "a small Kurdish-speaking sect that has been targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers." They live in a remote area where there are few American troops.

"This is an act of ethnic cleansing, if you will, almost genocide," Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, told CNN.

Those who are calling for immediate or near-term withdrawal of American troops from Iraq need to look closely at the pictures from these attacks. They are stomach-turning. Yet, this is what Iraq will look like if American troops are withdrawn prematurely, before Iraqi forces are ready to take over their country's security.

Do Americans want to see night after night of ethnic cleansing -- the results of civil war -- from Iraq on an unimaginable scale? I don't. Yes, we have seen many pictures and reports of suicide bombings and sectarian attacks on civilians for the past three years. They will look like a walk in the park compared to what will come if we withdraw early.

Do we remember the horrors of Rwandaa and Kosovo? Are we aware of what has been happening in the Sudan? Are those the kind of pictures we want with our dinner every night on the evening news or with our breakfast on the morning news shows? I believe that is exactly what we will see if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis are ready politically and militarily to secure their country and establish a viable democracy.

Our withdrawal would result in a bloodbath of ethnic cleansing: a holocaust. I agree there has been abundant mismanagement of the military efforts to establish the peace in Iraq after defeating Saddam Hussein. Donald Rumsfeld and his team served President Bush poorly in not planning effectively for the aftermath of the removal of Hussein. Nonetheless, I do not want us to be responsible for the deaths and injuries of millions of Iraqis in a civil war.

Hatred of President Bush has blinded many liberals to the raw reality of what would happen if Iraq descends into a full civil war. Ironically, these same liberals were quick to advocate our intervention into the Kosovo battles between ethnic Albanians and the Serbs. They have condemned our failure to intervene in Rwandaa, a bloodbath between ethnic tribes. These same anti-Iraq war protesters are critical that the U.S. has not rushed in to resolve the conflict in Darfur between Northern (Muslim) and Southern (Christian) Sudanese.

All of these are civil wars between ethnic or sectarian rivals. Why, if it is a moral imperative for us to rescue the underdogs in the civil wars in Rwandaa, Kosovo, and the Sudan, would it not be so to prevent a bloodbath in an Iraq civil war?

President George Washington wisely warned us in his Farewell Address to avoid "foreign involvements." I would respect a viewpoint that says the United States should remain neutral and avoid involvement in civil strife in other countries. But, I believe it is pure hypocrisy to advocate intervention in these other cases and not in Iraq.

How to Escape a Car in Water

Following the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis, many are more nervous crossing bridges. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 600 people die yearly in immersed vehicles. According to the agency, 2,000 nonfatal crashes occurred in 2004 in which vehicles were immersed, and 282 fatal immersions occurred. Here is how to survive a car sinking in water.

It is a myth that one should wait until the car is completely submerged to open the door. Get out as quickly as possible. It takes from 30 seconds to up to 4 minutes for a vehicle to completely submerge.

Think S.O.S. GO:
S = stay calm
O = open window
S = release seatbelt
GO = Get Out

Panic is a natural reaction to an emergency, but it is important to get control of it. Try slowing your breathing as you open your windows and unbuckle your seatbelt.

It may seem counterintuitive to open your car windows when water is rising around you. However, your best chance of escaping your car will be through a window. If your car has electric windows, you will have a few seconds before the electrical system shorts out in water. You must break one out if you are unable to lower the windows. Keep a hammer or a special tool called "window punch" within reach (“velcroed” to the visor or in the center console).
The car will sink engine first. The best chance for an air pocket, therefore, will be in the backseat.

Swim for the surface as soon as you are free of the car. Look for light above or follow air bubbles if you are disoriented. Shed shoes and heavy clothing, if possible. Watch for obstacles in the water. If you are unable to swim to shore, look for something substantial to grab hold of and hang on until rescue arrives.

For more information, go to:
http://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/rules_of_the_road/rr_chap10.html
http://www.lsp.org/submerged.html
http://www.whynot.net/ideas/2491
http://www.wikihow.com/Escape-from-a-Sinking-Car

It's About Time: Chertoff Announces Tighter Enforcement of Laws that Prohibit Employing Illegal Aliens

Friday, August 10th, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that his department would ramp up enforcement of laws that forbid employers from hiring illegal aliens. It is about time. "The changes, which would stiffen work-site enforcement, add border agents and increase penalties for rogue employers, could cause havoc in immigrant-dependent industries like agriculture, hospitality and healthcare, Chertoff acknowledged. 'There will be some unhappy consequences for the economy out of doing this,' he said in an interview with The [Los Angeles] Times." (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-immig11aug11,1,3189676.story?track=rss )

Does this mean that President Bush and his administration have had a change of heart regarding comprehensive immigration reform? Don't bet on it. In fact, the above article in the Los Angeles Times hints that this new enforcement crackdown may be a deliberate attempt to punish and threaten those who opposed the recently defeated immigration reform legislation. Bush may be hoping that the Congress will be pressured to reconsider his comprehensive immigration reform, including a "pathway" to citizenship for the 12-20 million illegal aliens already here by causing serious damage to the economy.

Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez remarked, "We do not have the workers our economy needs to keep growing each year. The demographics simply are not on our side. Ultimately, Congress will have to pass comprehensive immigration reform." He echoed Chertoff who said, "I'm not a lawmaker, but I presume, at some point, somebody's going to take a look and say, 'We've got to find a way to address this problem,' and that's probably going to require some legal changes."

Will this new enforcement effort cause economic hardships? Most likely, it will in the short-term. Industries and businesses who have become hooked on employing cheap illegal alien labor will have to adjust their employment practices. They may struggle to find enough new hires to replace their illegal employees. They will have training expenses that will impact productivity. They may have to increase wages to find qualified legal workers, which would require adjusting their prices or cutting their profit margins.

Consumers are equally addicted to the cheap prices that accompany the use of illegal aliens as employees. U.S. consumers may need to accept that prices will increase if they want to rid this country of illegal aliens. Stricter enforcement of these anti-illegal immigrant employment laws may result in some increase in the rate of inflation. However, this tendency will be modified by the laws of supply-and-demand if more illegal aliens self-deport, a trend that is increasing according to ALIPAC. It should be obvious that the presence of 12-20 million illegal aliens puts pressure on the supply of goods and services and that means pressure on prices, too.

However, the long-term impact on the economy and the country as a whole will be nothing but positive. The evidence is overwhelming that illegal immigration is costing us far more than it benefits us. I agree with Rep. Brian P. Bilbray (R-Solano Beach) who said, "If there's some pain, it's not because we didn't have amnesty. It's because we didn't enforce the law 20 years ago when we should have."

Those of us who oppose this administration's amnesty scams for illegal aliens must keep very vigilant. We need to closely watch that Congress does not waffle when unions, businesses and illegal immigrant supporters pressure them. The first thing to be on the alert for would be efforts to increase the number of temporary agricultural workers or skilled IT workers. Those need to be blocked by quick lobbying responses from those of us who want illegal immigration to stop.

Rasmussen Reports Poll: Real People Are Polled

In case you wonder if real people are polled by polling companies like Gallup, Zogby, and Rasmussen, the answer is "yes." I was polled by Rasmussen Reports on Thursday, August 9th. It was an automated telephone poll of "likely voters" that was quite lengthy. The questions ranged from my opinion of President George Bush to the presidential primary candidates to my political ideological bent to homeland security issues. It was fun to participate.

This is the second time I have been polled in a national political poll. Gallup called me a number of years ago. so, real people do answer these polls that the news media thrive on during political season.

Rasmussen Reports is one of the more reliable polls because of their methodology. They came closest to accurately predicting the outcome of the 2006 presidential race between Bush and Kerry. They survey "likely voters" with a balanced weighting to reflect the population. (See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology for details of their poll design )

The results of the Rasmussen poll I participated in were reported on Friday, August 10th. According to Yahoo! News, "this national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 8-9, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/rasmussen/20070810/pl_rasmussen/wiretapping20070810_1 )

Here are the results of some of the questions I remember and how I answered them. Then, I note the results reported by Rasmussen. (Caution: The questions may not be the exact wording used in the poll; they are how I recall them. Nearly all the possible answers included the option "unsure," which I have not noted below since I did not select that for any of mine. When it comes to politics, I always have an opinion!)

• What is your opinion of the job President Bush is doing? Excellent? Good? Fair? Poor? I answered "Good" as did 21% of respondents. Overall, 39% approve of the President's job performance and 58% disapprove. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_updates/president_bush_job_approval )

• If the Republican primary were held today, who would you vote for? Thompson? Guiliani? Romney? McCain? Other? I answered "other." Then, I was given the names of the "second-tier" candidates. I voted for "Tom Tancredo." The results were Thompson, 19%; Guiliani, 28%; Romney, 12%, McCain, 10%, and 31% either Other or Unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history )

• Do you believe Rudy Guiliani is Conservative? Moderate? Liberal? I answered "Liberal." The poll's results were 30% Conservative, 46% Moderate, and 12% Liberal. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Rudy Guiliani? I hold an "unfavorable" opinion as do 42% of other likely Republican voters. Fifty percent are "favorable." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: John Edwards? Rudy Guiliani? Other? I answered "other" because I would vote third party if Guiliani gets the Republican nomination. I will never, ever vote for a pro-choice Republican. In that match-up, Edwards would win 49% to 42%, according to the poll. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• If the presidential election were held today, who would you vote for: Fred Thompson? John Edwards? Other? I answered "Thompson" as did 39% of all polled. Edwards won 50% of likely voters. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_republican_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election )

• Do you believe allowing the government to intercept phone calls from foreign suspected terrorists makes America safer? I was included in the 59% of all voters and 79% of Republicans who answered "Yes." (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Did Congress vote recently to allow the government to expand its ability to intercept phone calls of foreign terrorist suspects and other electronic communications without warrants? I was also among the 34% who were aware that Congress had approved the legislation allowing this without warrants. Thirty percent incorrectly said Congress rejected it and 36% were unsure. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Does the government worry too much about individual rights or national security too much or is the balance about right? I answered "about right" as did 29% of those polled. Thirty-four percent said it worries too much about individual rights and 27% said it is too concerned about national security. There is marked differences between Republicans and Democrats on this question. Democrats line up 39% that the government is too worried about national security whereas only 12% Republicans said that. Fifty-two percent of Republicans believe that concern for individual rights is excessive versus 12% who say national security concerns are excessive. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )

• Who do you trust more to keep the balance between concerns regarding individual rights and national security needs? Democrats or the President? I said "the President" along with 41% of pollees. Forty-eight percent trust Democrats more. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/59_say_intercepting_phone_calls_from_foreign_suspects_makes_usa_safer )