INCOMPATIBILITY ?

The United States--though, predominantly Christian--is a nation that spans the religious spectrum; even, some Americans are faithless or, atheistic. In America,unlike many other nations,the rights of women are equal to those of men. Included in the population are homosexuals; among them are transsexuals, transvestites; their civil rights are the equivalent of all other Americans. Recently, same-sex-marriage became legalized. Many Americans are lovers of dogs; dogs are common in near all areas of American society. With these, and a myriad of other realities, all being concomitant to America, it does seem incomprehensible that--except those who are, already, patriotic American citizens--a practicing or devout Muslim, who is a current citizen of a Muslim nation, could find America the least appealing. Why would a devout Muslim, of a Muslim nation, extend to extremes to migrate into American society, where a multitude of indications appear conclusive that, the American's way of living, their values--their habits and practices--seem not embraceable to a Muslim, dedicated to the tenets of Islam?

ATHEISM IS..."IGNORANCE"

The atheist is, a fool--and particularly, the "intellectual atheist"; they come to atheism by way of their "exceptional intelligence"--and if you doubt that, just ask them. Aside from that "brilliance of intellect", they can offer "no reference"; "no blatant or obvious proof" to which they can point, that disproves the existence of, God Almighty. Now, on the other hand, proof of God is the universe and all that is contained within it; grasping that conclusion requires no mastermind. The haughty intellectual atheist believes all that is, has "no origin"--while the believer considers all that is, and concludes, God exists. Put plainly: "God is", because "nothing else...makes sense". The atheist is--whether highly intellectual or, imbecilic--a "FOOL" (Psalms 14-1 & 53-1).

X X X = EXTRACT, EXPEL, EXILE

There's an old English adage: "Desperate cures must be to desperate ills applied." For what seems ages America has, strictly and obligatorily, charged society with the responsibility of reforming, rehabilitating, or otherwise correcting violent, felonious, offenders--to include even those who have been, recidivist violent felons. People have been made to believe that the concept of incarceration, as "punishment", is somehow "inhumane". Society has become persuaded that dangerous, recidivist, felons had gone wayward owing to some circumstance of societal lack of compassion, negligence, or merciless disregard; which seems to fault the law abiding, for the felonious violent crimes committed by, lawbreakers. The nation has nearly two million incarcerated in the federal prison system, reportedly, at an annual cost to taxpayers of from $20,000 to $28,000, per inmate.

In Chicago, in 1924, two homosexuals in their twenties committed the "thrill-kill" murder of 14-year-old Robert Franks to demonstrate their intellectual superiority in being able to commit the "perfect crime". It was, then, called the "crime of the century". Ten years later(1934), yet another "crime of the century" would eclipse the Franks homicide; the toddler child of American aviator Charles Lindberg was kidnapped and murdered by Bruno Hauptman. Those two murders would be major topics in crime for more than thirty years;if committed today, within weeks if not days, both would have vanished from public recollection. Since the mid-1960's on, America has been increasingly compelled to experience horrors in the ways of murder by terror,senseless murder committed by serial killers, murderers who kill and cannibalize; killers who murder, then dismember their victims,scattering body parts across large areas. Society has reduced to becoming familiarized with the utter madness of contract-killing, thrill-killing, murder via so called: "gang-banging", multiple murders committed by cults; murders committed in mass in public schools, movie complexes, and a myriad of other diverse outrages. Heinous acts of murder now occur so frequently, that--whereas in times-past, Americans might have been aghast into disbelief--today, many such homicides seem so routine, they may not even reach the level of being considered national news. The wickedness in which the slaughter of human beings occur today, becomes forgotten, because of those worse heinous committed, tomorrow; and, so on.

I have believed, since the 1970's,that America needs to undertake a system of..."Criminal Exile". Recidivist, violent, felons--murderers sentenced to life, those currently on death row--ought to be given an option: they could continue on death row until executed; they could continue serving their life sentence: or, they could take the option of being exiled. Once banished, there could be "no appeal" thereafter; it would be "permanent". Exile could be imposed by the courts either at sentencing, or even afterward the convicted could, through the court, opt for exile. Those of society who oppose capital punishment, it would seem, ought to find banishment an acceptable alloy. In time--given the slaughter madness practiced by terrorist groups across the globe, against free societies--it would be more than reasonable if Western Democracies united in a common practice of permanently banishing uncivilized killers to a consolidated location on the planet, where there they would be compelled to coexist with those of their own ilk.

A FOOLISH NOTION

If the GOP gentry seriously want Jeb Bush to become president, they're beguiling themselves. While he'd be an enormous improvement over the incumbent, that alone says little; most any Republican would be. Two terms of Obama's "left-bent" tumult requires far more of a conservative remedy than will be found in Jeb Bush. Also, cultivating in the minds of voters acceptance of high elected offices becoming routinely rotated within certain families goes counter-wise to our founding concepts. The dynastic Kennedy permeation ought to have taught that lesson. Also, both Bush presidents allowed political opponents --including "left-bent" media--to endlessly slander them with despicably outrageous accusations, without response. Congressman Barney Frank (who once accused G.W. of plotting genocide: "ethnic cleansing by hurricane") once said (September, 2010): "if you blame or accuse someone over and over of something bad and the accusation is never responded to, the accusation becomes believed". Against the Bush presidents, Frank--and his "left-bent" cohorts in government and media--were committed, prolific, practitioners of that doctrine. Jeb Bush would be just as susceptible to likewise attack--as had been his brother and dad--and for the same reason: not responding, believing it beneath the office of president to defend themselves. Regarding President G.W. Bush, he was not our greatest president--but hardly had he been our worst; nothing justifies the cascade of hatred dealt him by the "left-bent". Unfortunately, his choice to not respond, was contributory to the unfairness that victimized him. The GOP nominating Jeb Bush would be terribly bad strategy.

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE: America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founde...

A BAD INFLUENCE

America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founded on; was intended and expected to, become. The entertainment industry has so bedazzled much of the nation, in an influential way it might near be considered a branch of government. The most ill-informed of celebrities are--as a matter of routine--given platforms from which they, publicly, make incredibly ill-reasoned, narrow-minded, and stupid pronouncements. Owing to the broad influence they command, because of popularity, their remarks--no matter how ignorant--are enthusiastically given unquestioned credence by their most ardent, fanatic-like, devotees. This becomes, extraordinarily, dangerous to a society, whose citizens have constitutionally guaranteed them, the right to vote. To a great degree, this explains how it so happens we find many bizarre, nondescript, characters holding local, state, and federal elected offices. It too explains how habits and practices, decades ago thought too outrageous for even consideration, are now commonplace.

THE TRUE AND PHONY ATHEIST

Political pundit George Will is obviously a well-educated intellectual, as was the late Christopher Hitchens; both, able to reason on levels reflective of their education and intellect. Both men made their atheism, publicly, known. Education and intellect, however, do not indemnify from wrong reasoning. In Hitchens' case, he acknowledged it a possibility that God exists; but atheism leaves "no room" for that possibility. Admitting there can be "any chance" that God exists, is to blow the doors off atheistic convictions. For that reason, Hitchens was an enigma. You can't play it from both sides: claiming to be atheist, while acknowledging it possible that God, is. Reckon how many atheists will declare that, if lucid, their dying words will be: "there is no God"? Hitchens came quite close to making that declaration. Even after having acknowledged that God might exist, nonetheless, coming within weeks of the end, Hitchens made clear that, if ever he began to speak of his conversion from atheism, he would not be speaking in his, sane mind; rather, it would be "lunatic" ravings caused by his terminal illness. If, regarding God Almighty, your position is one of ambiguity, it might be more wise to claim agnosticism, rather than declaring atheism. Since George Will made public his atheism, it would be interesting to know whether he, too, concedes there can be "any possibility" that, God exists. I maintain that, no matter how lofty the education, or however haughty the intellect, an atheist...true or phony is, "a fool".