Confronting the 'Spin' on the Fort Hood Massacre

Confronting the Spin on the Fort Hood Massacre
Written by Frank Salvato
Friday, 13 November 2009 00:00

It is sad and disturbing commentary on the state of American culture when the facts surrounding an event, such as the slaughter that took place at Fort Hood, can not only be manipulated to facilitate a political ideology but blatantly ignored in the pursuit of a political agenda. In the face of the most potent enemy the United States and the free world has ever know – aggressive and violent radical Islam – our leaders and members of the mainstream media are doing just that; manipulating the truth to facilitate an agenda, and we are all in danger because of it.

By now, everyone in the world knows the details surrounding the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas. US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, in committing not only an act of terrorism but an act of treason, perpetrated the most deadly terrorist act on American soil since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Actions and statements made by Hasan prior to his murderous spree indicate beyond doubt that he was not only opposed to US military action in the Iraqi and Afghan theaters and that he felt it was appropriate for Muslims in those countries to kill US and NATO soldiers in response to “the infidel occupiers,” but that he made a purposeful and premeditated choice to execute his jihad. Yet, President Obama, his spokespeople and members of the mainstream media are hyping the “backlash against Muslims” sentiment while completely ignoring – and in some cases arguing against – the mountain of evidence that points to the fact that Hasan was a radical Islamist and a jihadist.

Four Qualifications for TerrorismAlan Colmes erroneously cited a definition for the word “terrorism” as used by Webster’s Dictionary during a recent stint on The O’Reilly Factor. While Webster’s is a wonderful resource for everyday use in divining the meaning of words, where terrorism is concerned it falls short.Terrorism is, effectively, a classification of a type of violent act. The National Counterterrorism Center uses the definition provided in Title 22 US Code § 2656f (d) (2):“...the term ‘terrorism’ means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;...”The NCTC specifically states in its 2008 Report of Terrorism that this definition includes:“...military personnel and assets outside war zones and war-like settings.”In addition, and from a clinical perspective, terrorism is distinguished from other acts of violence, and from war, by always having these four characteristics:▪ Terrorists violate the rules of modern warfare, as established in the Geneva Conventions and Hague Conventions; they can also be “sub-state groups” who can't declare war legitimately.▪ The goal of those who employ terrorism is almost always, without exception, to achieve political change.▪ The targets of those who employ terrorism are symbolic of the political issue in question. ▪ That acts of terror are designed specifically to be sensational, to get attention from the public and especially the mediaWhen examining the actions taken by Hasan, both on the day of the shootings and before, each of the criteria in the officially recognized definition for terrorism has been satisfied:▪ It was premeditated: Hasan acquired non-government issued firearms to use for the attack and he began, days earlier, to give away all of his personal belongings.▪ It was politically motivated: Hasan was acting in defense of his political beliefs – as well as his religious beliefs – where Muslims and Muslim nations were concerned as is evidenced in many of his statements provided in a medical lecture at Walter Reed Hospital.▪ It was an act of violence against non-combatants: While the location of the attack was indeed a military base the victims were unarmed and Hasan knew they would be.▪ It violated the Geneva and Hague Conventions: Hasan fired on unarmed people and non-military personnel.▪ His targets were symbolic: Hasan targeted US military personnel at a military base that is one of the primary embarkation points for troop deployment, thus the symbolism of an attack against US military might and ability.▪ His attacks were sensational.With all of these facts – all obvious and overt – presented to the American people, law enforcement, our elected officials and the mainstream media, it is an act of dishonesty to pretend that the actions taken by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan on November 5, 2009, were anything but an act of terrorism.Hasan Is Obviously ‘Pro-Choice’The argument over whether Hasan’s mental state played a significant part in his terrorist act against his colleagues and fellow soldiers has been championed by the mainstream media and some in the Obama Administration.

Some are advancing the laughable theory that Hasan was suffering from “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,” even though Hasan had never been deployed to any active theater. Further, Hasan was schooled as a psychiatrist who specialized in treating soldiers with serious personal injuries and PTSD.It is more likely and, in fact, probable, in light of Hasan’s own words, that he made a purposeful choice to follow his Islamic faith in that way of a fundamentalist. His statement that he is “a Muslim before I am an American,” lends credence to this notion, as do several of his other statements:“It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims...”“If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the 'infidels'; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc...” [sic]“Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam...”“Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly...”And one slide in his visual presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Hospital presented: "We love death more then [sic] you love life!"Disturbingly, and unreported in the mainstream media, Osama bin Laden is quoted as having said:“We love death. The US loves life. That is the big difference between us."The chances of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan not being of sound mind during the events of November 5, 2009, are distantly remote given the statements he made over the years.

The shootings at Fort Hood weren’t a case of PTSD or a person who “just snapped,” they weren’t even the actions of a coward who was refusing to go to war. They were the actions of someone who made a clear and decided choice to champion his religion – fundamentally – over his nationality. Hasan chose to be a jihadist and to kill US military personnel in the name of Islam; in the name of Allah; ergo, his use of “Allahu Akbar,” the takbir. Texas Counts the ‘Fetus’Another of the fallacies being foisted on the American people is that Hasan’s shooting victims number thirteen (13).One of Hasan’s victims, Francheska Velez, 21, who had just returned for her overseas deployment, was six months pregnant at the time of her murder. This is significant for more than the obvious reason.In the State of Texas, if a pregnant woman is murdered and her child dies as well, the assailant is charged with both the murder of the Mother and the murder of the child.

In 2007, a Texas state appeals court upheld a state law that protects pregnant mothers and their unborn children from acts of violence. It is because of this law that Hasan should be charged with fourteen (14) counts of premeditated murder, not thirteen (13).So, why won’t the mainstream media and the Obama Administration use the correct number – fourteen (14) – when referring to the victims of this massacre? Because they would then have to admit that an unborn baby, pursuant to Texas law, is a human being worthy of the right to life as established “unalienable” by our US Constitution. Should either the mainstream media or the Obama Administration establish the precedent – nationally, due to the fact that this happened on federal land in the form of a US military base – that the unborn have a right to life, constitutionally, and the entire pro-choice movement is set back to zero.By the authority of Texas law, the accurate number of murders that took place at the hand of Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan is fourteen (14). It is cowardly and pathetically ideological for the mainstream media, the President and his administration to ignore this truth, this fact, this moral accuracy.Political Correctness KillsSo, why did this all have to happen? Why could all of the “red flags” exist without any definitive action having been taken by the FBI or the US Army? The truth of the matter is that none of this had to happen. Fourteen (14) people would still be alive today if it wasn’t for the ideological cancer that is political correctness.Because of political correctness federal authorities failed to categorize Hasan as a potential threat to national security.

Further, in another stunning bit of denial, the wheel chalks weren’t even under the tires of the government plane that brought FBI investigators to Fort Hood before they issued a statement saying “terrorism was not involved in this shooting.” The obvious question begging to be asked is this: Based on what? Before the FBI had even gathered the first shred of evidence it discounted terrorism. Why, because classifying a violent act perpetrated by a fundamentalist Muslim as “terrorism” isn’t politically correct.And because of political correctness, the US Army refused to act on the concerns of several of Hasan’s colleagues that brought to light his penchant for radical Islam. Several of Hasan’s colleagues stated that he was vehement in his defense of Islam to the point of taking the side of jihadists engaged in combat against American soldiers. This information was provided to superior officers but because Islam has been erroneously declared the “religion of peace” it isn’t politically correct to accuse a fundamentalist Muslim of committing a terrorist act when he shoots people as he screams “Allahu Akbar.”Islam is the only religion existing today with religious tenets that validate killing to advance the religion.

All one has to do is to take the time to read the Quran and Hadith to understand that Islam is a religion of conquest that condones violence in its version of proselytization. In using violence – and sometimes deadly violence – against non-believers or “sinners” within the religion (which can range from a woman talking to an unrelated man to drawing a picture of Muhammad), how can anyone justify calling Islam the religion of peace? The only justification comes by way political correctness.Political correctness has kept the federal government, law enforcement and the mainstream media from being honest about several terrorist plots against military installations right here in the United States.▪ Jihadists targeted Fort Dix.▪ A jihadist shot a military recruiter in Arkansas.▪ Two jihadists targeted a US Navy base which docks nuclear submarines in South Carolina.▪ And now Fort Hood.In light of the Fort Hood massacre we can now say with absolute certainty that because of political correctness, fourteen (14) people are dead. Political correctness kills.And In the End...Perhaps we are naïve. Maybe the falsely elevated self-esteem fostered in a generation of me-first, gimme-mine, golly-I’m-great, narcissistic ideologues has left us unable to recognize true evil when it stares us in the eye; has left us unable to recognize an enemy attack – or a number of enemy attacks (whether plotted, attempted or completed) – even as it occurs. In light of the denial of the facts by our mainstream media, law enforcement and federal leadership the argument for naiveté can be successfully advanced.Or maybe we have foolishly allowed disingenuous and dangerous people to establish a shadow set of cultural norms – antithetical to constitutionally legislated public law – in political correctness. And perhaps these people don’t really have the best interests of the country at heart.

Maybe, just as Nidal Malik Hasan put his religion above his country, the politically correct have put their ideology above their country, above national security and above you and me.No matter how you assemble the pieces, our nation has suffered the first terrorist attack since September 11, 2001, in the massacre at Fort Hood. It was perpetrated by a radical Islamist executing jihad and it happened on Pres. Obama’s watch. Fourteen (14) people are dead and no amount of politically correct spin can bring them back.

About Frank SalvatoFrank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He is a member of the International Analyst Network. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel, and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Captain's America Radio Show airing on AM1220 WSRQ and on the Internet catering to the US Armed Forces around the world and on The Roth Show with Dr. Laurie Roth syndicated nationally on the USA Radio Network. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements.

The REAL History of Social Security and why it's time to END it.

US Social Security: Why the System is Bankrupt -and How We Can Replace It
by George L. O'Brien.


"If the US government were required to keep its books the way businesses are required to keep theirs, the national debt wouldn't be $5 trillion. It would be $17 trillion, an amount equal to 2½ times the nation's gross domestic product."Forbes, "The Legal Ponzi Scheme," October 9, 1995. Discussions of Social Security remind me of the joke about a man who jumps from the top of a fifty-story building and after falling half-way is asked, "How are you doing?" He answers, "Fine, so far." The issue of Social Security has long been considered the "third rail'' of politics – as on the electrified subway: "touch it and you die." But like the falling man, Social Security is not really "fine."

There are many reasons for the popularity of Social Security. It is the only part of the welfare state which promises benefits to nearly every person. It is also seen to relieve adult children of the responsibility of supporting their elderly parents, and it helps the elderly poor for whom there is a great deal of sympathy.

There is only one problem: the system is a fraud. In theory, Social Security is a form of "insurance." In practice, it is a "Ponzi scheme." Historian Mark Knutson, writes that in the summer of 1920, [Charles K.] Ponzi claimed he was giving investors just a portion of the 400% profit he was earning through trade in postal reply coupons. As Ponzi paid the matured notes held by early investors, word of enormous profits spread through the community, whipping greedy and credulous investors into a frenzy. Investigation later revealed that there were no coupons or profits – earlier notes were paid at maturity from the proceeds of later ones. The simplicity and grand scale of his scheme linked Ponzi's name with a particular form of fraud.

This type of fraud is called a pyramid scheme. To pay off earlier "investors" in such a scheme, an ever larger number of participants must to be added. In the early 1970s, a federal law known as ERISA (Employment Retirement Income Security Act) was passed after it was found that many corporate pension plans were paying current beneficiaries directly from current contributor's funds. When income declined, the corporate pension plans were terminated - just like the late investors in Ponzi's scheme. (The whole idea that businesses should handle employee savings due to federal tax preferences helped create this problem in the first place.) Under ERISA, any employer who failed to fully fund its pension plan could be held criminally liable.

Charles Ponzi went to prison. But the politicians who run Social Security are not held liable for what is normally considered criminal behavior. The Prussian Model. Many Americans believe that Social Security is an integral part of our free enterprise system, but it is neither American nor free enterprise. The original Social Security system was created by the Prussian/German leader Otto von Bismarck in 1883. Bismarck was looking for a way to win the support of the working people, who were unhappy with the high taxes needed to support the large German military and the high prices created by the government-protected industrial cartels. He wanted to find a way to con people into believing that they were going to get something from the state, without its actually having to deliver. He asked an actuary how long most people could be expected to live. The answer was 65 years. Bismarck then set the age of eligibility for his social security system at 65, knowing full well that most of the people would have died before they received a dime from the system. In spite of this, the system was wildly popular.

The Prussian concept of Social Security was an authoritarian one – based on the false premise that people are incompetent to look after their own affairs and need a paternalistic socialist state to force them to provide for their own retirement. In the US during the 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was looking for a way to gain the support of the working people who were unhappy with the continuing Great Depression and the high taxes needed to support his New Deal programs. So the Social Security program was created in 1935 (just in time for the 1936 elections).

The Social Security "Trust Fund" Myth. Republican and Democrat politicians tell us that the money each employee "contributes" to Social Security goes into a "trust fund." The money from this fund is "invested" in federal government bonds. Upon retirement, the "reserve" made up of "contributions" and the interest on the bonds would be used to pay benefits to the retiree.

From the beginning, in spite of the claims that it was an old-age insurance program, Social Security paid its benefits from current cash flow, rather than paying benefits out of interest accrued on a reserve fund as a private pension plan would do. As Social Security taxes were paid into the system, the funds were immediately doled out to beneficiaries. As more taxpayers retired, they would be paid from the money taken from younger taxpayers – just like Ponzi's investors.

There are other structural flaws with this system. First of all, people began to live longer. Whereas in 1883 most people died by the age of 65, by the late 20th Century people were living an average of a decade longer. This meant a huge increase in potential beneficiaries. When the Social Security program began in 1935, there were 16 contributors for every retiree, but a decline in the birth rate paralleling the increase in longevity has dropped the ratio of workers to retirees to only 3 to 1 in the 1990s. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Once the Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964) start retiring, the ratio will shrink even more. Estimates are that there will be only two workers for every retiree by the year 2025. Social Security taxes alone will have to exceed 22% of each worker's income by that point. (Plus a compulsory matching amount paid by employers).

Preserve The System: Ruin The People. Typical proposals to "reform" Social Security have been built around increasing taxes. The 1983 Social Security tax increase was supposed to create a reserve fund of $10 trillion by the year 2030. However, since 1967 Congress has been raiding up to $70 billion each year from the Social Security fund to hide part of their massive deficit spending. Thus the Social Security trust fund is filled with IOUs in the form of Treasury Bonds. The interest on these bonds must be paid by you, the taxpayer.

The typical alternative "reform" is to renounce promised benefits by implementing a series of major benefits cuts and raising the age of eligibility. Many people have come to expect this solution. Indeed, one public opinion poll found only 8% of Americans under age 30 believe they will get anything out Social Security. Even defenders of the status quo admit that benefits will have to be reduced. Recently, proposals have emerged in Congress to partially "privatize" Social Security. But with rare exceptions, none of these proposals address the problems of the $12 trillion in unfunded liability or the high risks involved in transferring control of one's retirement savings into the hands of politicians. The promises made by politicians are simply a fraud. Few people will ever get what they've been promised from Social Security.

The Chilean Model: an example of an honest system that works. In the mid-1980s, Chile had an even worse problem than the US. Yet according to Rita Koslka in her article "A Better Way to Do It," published in the October 28, 1991 issue of Forbes: Replacing the old system, then Minister of Labor José Piñera put in a plan that requires each of the country's 4.8 million workers to put 10% of his pre-tax income into a private pension fund of his own choosing; there are no employer contributions. There are 13 plans to choose from, and workers can switch their funds between plans to get the best returns at the lowest cost.

In Chile, at age 65 for a man (60 for a woman) the worker takes the accumulated savings and either buys an annuity or organizes an individual payout schedule. He can retire earlier if he has enough money in his pension fund. To protect worker's savings, most funds are invested in securities automatically indexed for inflation. The benefits to the individual worker of this policy have far exceeded expectations. The original plans for the Chilean program anticipated an annual return of about 5.5%. A retiree with 40 years in the fund at that rate, would receive 70% of the average of the last five years of his or her salary. With a return of 6.5% the payout would be 100% of that rate.

It turns out that the average rate of return has actually been in the neighborhood of 13%, which has induced many workers to contribute far more than the required minimum amounts. This has not only made it possible for people to retire in comfort, but has provided funds for a major economic expansion. Because the money that goes into these private pension funds is invested in production, a great supply of investment capital was made available to businesses and entrepreneurs at relatively low interest rates. With capital available, production increased many-fold and a huge new labor market has been created. There was also a major stock market boom (helped by new funds and new freer market policies). These private funds now constitute the equivalent of one third of Chile's gross national product.

In 1992 alone, Chile's economy, measured by its Gross Domestic Product, grew by 9.7%. That is nearly 4 times the rate of growth in the US for that same year. Inflation and unemployment in Chile have been declining steadily and rapidly during the same time period. In fact, so much investment capital is now available that Chilean investors have been able to invest in neighboring countries.

The program has in fact proved so successful that Argentina has adopted a similar system. Delegations from Mexico, Venezuela and Poland have visited Chile to study how this approach can be used in their countries. According to Augusto Iglesias, chief economist for the Chilean pension fund, Habitat, the Chilean Social Security system "is based on very simple and reasonable principles: that people care about their money, and that putting it in private hands is more efficient than with the government".

The Chilean program goes beyond replacing a government pension system with a private system. It also eliminates the domination of retirement programs by corporate pension plans, since workers now control their own funds. Chilean Minister of Labor José Piñera summed it up by saying, "It is a common-sense system that is more easily understood by the average Chilean mother than by social security experts." However, the Chilean system is not perfect. The program is compulsory and there are limitations on investment choices.

Ending Social Security. At some point people must realize the futility of trying to save the current bankrupt Social Security system. More tinkering with the status quo won't help – Social Security is both financially and morally bankrupt – and soon this Ponzi scheme will collapse. Completely ending Social Security and returning total control over retirement savings to individual workers will end the fraud and provide opportunities for them to earn a decent rate of return on their own hard-earned money. Moreover, it will protect their savings from rapacious politicians and ensure that their money is used productively rather than to disguise federal deficits. Reforms in places such as Chile suggest that the overall benefits to the economy could be substantial if government is removed from the equation. Unfortunately, like the falling man, it is hard for most people to realize that things are not "fine" – until they hit the pavement. The sooner we end Social Security, the better for everyone concerned.
****************************************
George L. O'Brien is a prolific libertarian writer, policy analyst, lecturer and political strategist. He is ISIL's Regional Representative for the southwestern United States.

Small Town Living

by Mark Baker


One wouldn't think that there's anything 'inspirational' to write about on this rainy, gray morning, but they would be wrong because as I set here at 'Sweet Linda's Cafe' sipping on my ice-tea and looking out the window onto Bridge Street, I smile because of the great peace I feel living in the great little town I grew-up in and raised my sons in. In less then an hour since I entered Linda's, I have spoken with seven people I know and waved at a few who strolled past on the sidewalk outside.

Ken Black, a friend who owns 'Four Seasons Gift Shop' saw me as he passed by and came in to say hello on his way back to his shop; 'Stan,' a retired banker shared how his week went and we waxed-on about the nature of the economy, the odd weather and such. Laura Sepalla (sp?) just came-up to me as I was typing the last sentence to introduce herself and inquire about my feelings regarding the Acer Aspire One NetBook I'm typing on today. She's going to encourage her husband to get one for his travels. Although I just met Laura, she underscores exactly what I'm writing about here this morning, 'the Nature of Small Town Living.'

Grand Ledge has a population of approximately 9000 people, many of whom grew-up here and consider themselves 'Ledger's.' We are a unique lot by and large and value honesty, goodwill and 'neighborliness' on a list that includes many other virtues of a era that has largely disappeared in larger venues such as Lansing, the capitol city nine miles to the east, but as far away as the moon as it applies to quality-of-life issues. Don't get me wrong, we're far from utopia, while Lansing has suffered a couple murders in as many weeks, we've experienced a couple of murders in the last sixty years (both perpetrated by 'out-of-towners'); we have our share of idiot's and oddballs (myself perhaps included in the latter category), as well as some jerks who long to be 'Ledger's,' but whom lack the underpinnings that make us, US! However, they are entertaining to watch. From my words here, one might be tempted to retort that we're elitist in our thinking. Nothing could be further from the truth, because we largely value most intangibles such as relationships with one-another far more then tangible, material things.

Here again I've lost my focus as I just finished getting caught-up with Lynn MacDowell, wife of Bruce and co-owner of 'MacDowell's' Fireplace and Flower Shop here in town. We both attempted to determine if the 'Grand Ledge Farmer's Market' across the street was selling peaches or apples on the first table, but weren't brave enough to get rained-on to go find out, lol.

Looking back, I can remember not being able to wait to get out of Grand Ledge when I was a kid in high school here. But after going away with the Air Force and then living in Lansing for a few years after I returned, I couldn't wait to return to the little town I grew-up in. Funny how our perspective can change as we experience life. What I thought to be 'Podunk' as a smart-ass teenager, turned out to be paradise when I 'grew-up.'

To those of you who are looking for a great place to raise your kids and enjoy real community, consider Grand Ledge (at least pay us and our great businesses a visit); to those of you who might be inclined to kick dogs, disrespect women, elders and live off the system (or might be political carpet-baggers who might be named 'Virg') such, stay in Lansing, Flint, wherever you are and leave us alone, lol. Ah Yes, one can take a jerk out of the big city, but one can never take the big city out of the jerk.

There, I've vented, I feel better now, and I love my little hamlet of Grand Ledge...

-Mark

James Edward Baker, 1936-2006.

For You Dad, With Love...


At 47, some might think it odd that I'd think about my late father as frequently as I do. I wanted to take a moment on this 'Father's Day' to share my thoughts on my Dad and what he meant to me. My Dad, like many from his era, was a fairly quiet man who possessed a great deal of wisdom. Dad was humble, thankful and respectful to our Lord for the blessings in his life. He was a very dedicated family-man, who put my mother, brother and my needs far ahead of his own. Dad was a hard worker, who seldom complained about his lot in life, yet wanted more for my brother and I.

My Dad was absolutely one of the most generous men I have ever met; he literally would give another 'the shirt off his back' if they needed it. My Dad was kind to others (even those who might slight him) and not one to harbor ill-will towards others. In a word, my Dad was noble. In 1999, Dad was diagnosed with Frontal Lobe Alzheimer's. We were told by his doctor that the type he had tended to be very aggressive and that many with it often died within 18-24 months. Dad proved them wrong and stayed with us for another six years. I had the honor of caring for Dad for those years as he slowly slid into darkness, but during that time I learned more about Dad (and about myself as the Lord gave me the strength to care for his needs) then I'd ever known before. Dad, I wish I'd told you "I Love You Dad" more. I wish I could have had more time with you and that your grandsons Kyle, James Russell and Thomas, could have known you as you'd been before your decline, hearing more about your experiences in life, gaining a bit more of the quiet wisdom you possessed and always shared with me from as far back as I can remember. I wish I could play another round of 'catch' with you.

I Miss you Dad,

Love Mark

http://www.alz.org/apps/findus.asp

Two Great Mothers to consider

This week at work, I had the honor of viewing the dedication, love and work-ethic of two great mothers. The first one I had occasion to meet, Robin, became very cross and aggressive with me when she thought I was getting too close to her babies. Robin, actually 'buzzed' me twice, nearly striking my hard-hat as she flew-in close to chase me away from her young, The second mother in question, a 'Chipping Sparrow,' also exhibited vocal displeasure with me when I approached her young.

Far from being offended by either mother's actions towards me, they both earned my admiration! Both of these 'feathered ladies' possessed a level of dedication to and love-for, their young that is all-too-often missing in their human counterparts.

Each and EVERY morning, I would find these mothers sitting in their nests (that they'd built themselves for their new family) warming their young and voicing their displeasure with me whenever I got too close to their nests. Throughout the day, whenever I looked, I'd find the mothers bringing food to their every-hungry nestlings. On Wednesday morning, I cut-up a nice big Night-Crawler I came across. I was certain that the mothers would be thrilled with the gift I'd prepared for them. I was wrong; both mothers ignored my handout (a sign that they both were noble creatures who didn't cotton to any form of welfare or public assistance).

It was refreshing to observe two great, dedicated mothers tend to their young without second thought. Over the course of my observations, neither mother left her duties to 'Find Herself,' or to cavort with any male bird in the area. Their young (kids) came first, PERIOD!

To all the great mothers out there who share these basic 'Motherhood' traits (as my great mother, Judy Ann Baker did), I offer my sincere thanks and admiration. To those many who don't subscribe to their example, I pray for your children and offer that you might pause to learn something valuable from bird-watching.

-Mark

His Hand in our lives.

On Monday, General Motors declared bankruptcy, today I learned a good friend is in serious financial distress bordering on disaster. Just two days into the twenty-first week of my forty-seven-something year, I reflected on how tough times are at present; more then I can ever remember in my life.

In preparing to update my blog here, I did a quick review of my previous posts and came to realize that they all seemed to be... Negative in nature (with the exception of my euphoria during MSU's great run back in March, lol).

Less I allow readers who don't know me well to think I'm a 'Negative Ned,' I thought I should reflect on what I truly DWELL ON each and every day of my life and that would be all the things I have been so richly blessed with by God above. For starters, my three sons, Kyle, Russell and Thomas; they have been the most wonderful gift I could have ever received. My late parents, James and Judith Baker; they taught me the importance of love, family, responsibility and patience (with ME! lol) and I have tried to model those virtues for my sons. My extended family (aunts, uncles and cousins) and friends, all of whom have touched my life in positive and wonderful ways.

Yes, I have been hurt by people I loved and trusted, we all experience this at one time or another, but when stacked against the far-larger positive people in our lives, their slights pail and fade away.

Our country and way of life is changing in a manner few of us could have imagined, but at the same time, where it matters, the IMPORTANT THINGS in Life, NOTHING has changed. Family, Love, Friends and every gift He so abundantly blesses us with each and every day we're here are still with us.

Perhaps it's in times such as these, that we can more clearly focus on these most important things He provides by His Hands.

-Mark

The first 535 people in the phonebook...

I don't know who coined the phrase, but I think it's a good time to reflect on an old adage that is apropos to the times and struggles we Americans face. The adage specifically was: "We'd be better served by the first 535 random names in the phonebook then we are by our current 535 members of Congress" (435 in the US House of Representatives and 100 in the US Senate).

More succinct words could not be applied to a vast majority of those we've elected to 'serve' us as representatives. To those of you who know me personally, you are acutely aware of my less-then-positive feelings for a majority of those who end up in Washington DC as well as our various state capitals. A good deal of these negative feelings are directly attributable to the flawed and undesirable two-party system that overwhelmingly ensures that are choices in the ballot booth are either a Democrat or a Republican. Far too many of my friends and acquaintance's wrongly assume that I fall into the latter camp because of my conservative leanings, both fiscally and socially; this is a mistake. Granted, I have overwhelmingly voted for Republicans since I was old enough to vote, however this was more by default then true choice in that more appealing independent-party candidates either weren't on the ballet or simply didn't have any substanitive chance of winning (or so I thought).

The fact is, conservatives aren't really served that well by the GOP and neither are liberals by the Democratic Party (if you doubt this, just consider for a moment how disappointed dedicated liberals and conservatives become months after 'their' person wins an election and quickly begins to backtrack on the promises they made while running).

Our Founding Fathers would be up in arms if they could come back and see what's happened to the Constitutional Republic they forged for us; and I have no doubt they would rail against the two-party system, seeing it as a form of tyranny. Why do we act so surprised when an Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, or Randel Cunningham is exposed for the corrupt fraud they are? The truth is that the very nature of politics is such that it tends to attract the least principled, most narcissistic, egotistical cretans among us.

At least with the first 535 random names in the phonebook, we'd get a true cross-section of Americans. So regardless of your political leanings, I encourage you to consider the 'road less traveled' when it comes to voting and pull the lever for an independent third-party candidate and where confronted with only a choice between a Republican or a Democrat, choose none-of-the-above.

-Mark