This weeks Hamlin/Clarkson Herald (NY) has a report on its front page about WWII prisoners in Hamlin, NY. Apparently, these Italian  and German prisoners were used as labor on nearby farms, and in food processing plants. Hamlin had a large complex which was then run by  Duffy Motts. Motts was bought out by Cadbury Schweppes, and the plant hasn't been in operation for over 30 years now.They made apple sauce, and prune juice, among other things.

The story relates how prisoners were treated, with a pen put up to keep prisoners who tried to escape, or who did other things contrary to decency. The pen had no structures inside it. The prisoners slept on the ground at night in the clothes they had on during the day. They spent the day in the sunshine, or the rain.

Anyone who has spent a summer day in western NY can tell you the sun beats pretty hot on some days, and sunburn is easily obtained in short order. Rains are cold, and often sleet, or snow, may accompany them. A couple years back there was  major snowstorm in the first week of October. One summer day in the early 1970's my little brother was running throgh the yard when pea sized hail started raining down. "Lookm little ice balls," he retorted. It is said that during fall and winter prisoners acted much better, preferring the barracks and bunks to the elements day and night.

Apples, plums, peaches, cherries, tomatoes, cucumbers, cabbage, squash, corn, are, or were, staples of upstate, western NY, Lake Ontario's loam soiled border lands. Plum pumice (the remains after juice was removed, included prune pits) was dumped on nearby farms, and used to fill swampy areas, one area of which borders my neighbors land. Several people I know, including my father-in-law, and my best man, used to deliver the pumice by the truckloads to local farmers, or to their own property. My father-in-law dumped over 100 truckloads on his 4.5 acre plot. You'd never know it to look at it today. The large piles are no much smaller having eroded, and decayed to the point that they are a tenth their original size, or less. The soil is fertile, and very soft, excellent for growing root crops such as potatoes, Jerusalem artichoke, carrots, parsnips, garlic and onions. Other crops grow on it to proportions unimaginable. Good food from good soil.

 But the key here is that easily constructed wooden shacks surrounded by chain link fence topped with barbed wire were easy to set up, and kept the prisoners very well. After the war ended, many wished to stay in the U.S. knowing that--the author states he doesn't know how they knew--they were going to be returned to areas where the Russians (Soviets)  had control. They wanted nothing to do with the mad Russian cossacks, and their evil. Yet, was Hitler any worse? Were his economic, and social, policies better than the Soviets? Our forefathers, even those who hailed form Germany of the Hitler era thought so. So why does America rush to Soviet, or National Socialist style governance?

Have we become so enamored of our government, is our belief in its benevolence so unrestrained, that we are willing to  allow them to take over our businesses, our Health Care decisions, our lives, cradle to grave? What of American freedom, individual liberty, that can do spirit that made America grow faster, and become the most powerful nation to ever roam the Earth's seas, to fight major world wars, and win, to develop technology that could land a man on the moon, and put a space station in orbit around our planet, and to deliver supplies to it, and return to Earth none the less for wear? What of the technology to create instant communication with pictures, between individuals, on phones so small they fit in the palm of our hands, to send pictures through the air the instant we take them, to go from LA, to NYC in a matter of a few hours by plane, to have such an advancement in society that no other country to this time has been able to touch us, in fact, for the most part fear us, our abilities, and capabilities?

And, yet, we are willing to accept, now, some form of socialist policy that will make us give up all that has made us great, all the freedom that made one of the world's greatest powers in WWII, the Nipponese, say that they could never attack America in a land invasion, because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass? Today we are willing to give up our guns, give up our freedoms, for what? A Great'er' Society? A more civilized Politically Correct, hate filled, division of our people through hyphenated Americanism? Is that the America which was able to make itself great, to conquer a wild continent, to totally destroy enemies in world wars, to tame wildernesses, to build massive dams, to tame nuclear power, to release it to vanquish foes, to right civil wrongs? Is this still the same country people flee to from other nations to make a better life, to fulfill an economic destiny, to be free to pursue their passion, make a name for themselves, or simply survive in a land where they are free to pursue these freedoms, these blessing bestowed upon us by a 'greater hand'?

Have we advanced so far that we have come full circle to a neo-slavery, a slavery to government, and to its largesse? Is our desire to succeed so great, our fear of failure even greater, that we think we need a bloated bureaucracy to tell us what to do, when to do it, what job to be at, and when? Is that the America which allowed prisoners of war to work in its farms and fields? Is this the America at which these people preferred to stay rather than face Soviet domination? Are we willing to accept Soviet domination today because we are no longer great? Or are we doing it to satisfy some deeper desire to overcome, to atone, to seek the wisdom of our minority oppressors because it makes us feel better about ourselves? When did we become such a touchy-feely society, such a bunch of pansies, and posers? Was it the 1960's "Better red than dead" phenomenon that led us to this? Was it the peace and free love of the hippie movement? Was it the unwashed masses of illegal aliens yearning to be free who changed us? Or, was it, as I believe, we who took ourselves to the abyss?

All the immigrants I know who came here to flee the oppression of Hitler, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Hu, Castro, the Iranian mullah's, did so for a freedom that we take for granted, and are willing to sell for a few pieces of gold. We are willing to accept slavery that we might not have to suffer? Yet, our forefathers suffered greatly, in trenches in France, in frozen foxholes in Bastogne, on France's Normandy peninsula on Utah, and Omaha, Beaches. These brave souls sacrificed their blood and treasure to free slaves, to free whole people's from the tyranny of European imperialism. And, we are willing to give it up so easily to a Marxist Kenyan Muslim/Christian, and his ilk, who won't show his birth certificate, fights having to do so, and is most likely no cooperative because he knows that if he does he will be seen for the fraud, the charlatan, the unconstitutional president, that he is? What has become of this nation? What has become of our courts that they would rather accept his charlatan than ask for proper procedure be followed, ask that the birth certificate be produced? Can our country, the greatest nation ever, not survive a minor constitutional crisis in which we have to have a new election, one where we check the birth certificates of the people running for the office to assure they are constitutionally eligible? are we that fragile a society that such will tear us asunder? If so,  perhaps Jeff Snyder was right. Perhaps, Eric Holder is right. Perhaps we are a nation of cowards?

As a teen, I used to walk daily past the old prison where captured German troops were kept in the Orleans County, NY, Village of Albion. Perhaps other villages, or towns, had these still up in the late 1970's. Today, the site is an apartment complex.

What is my point? Well, just this, during WWII, we housed foreign soldiers on our soil. There was never any talk about trying them for crimes, or terrorist activity. There was never any talk of returning them to their homes, their home country, or any other country, until the war was ended. Many in the area told stories of how some stayed within the community, and the United States, afterward. Whether these stories are true, or not, is a matter for historians to investigate.

We simply housed them until after the war was over, then returned them to their home countries as was necessary. They were "Prisoners Of War," treated in accordance with international law.

Today we argue about whether the terrorists must be tried for crimes, and whether these should be military, or civilian trials. Should they remain jailed at Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) Naval Base? Should they be tried as enemy combatants, or as persons who have committed a criminal act? Can we prosecute them for a criminal act which may, or may not, have been on our soil? For instance, if the person was arrested in Afghanistan on the battlefiled, and they are members of al-Qaida, do we prosecute them for simply being in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban, or must they face a world court? Since the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan at the time of our attack, if they are Taliban, how long can they be held? When will the war against the Taliban end? Has it ended yet? How would we know? If they admit to being al-Qaida do we prosecute them as William Clinton's administration would have, in civilian courts, or as George W. Bush's would, in military tribunals?

Should the known terrorists, or any of the other enemy conmbatants, have all the rights of an American citizen, even though captured on the battlefield of another country, where U.S. troops engaged them? If they have all the rights in a civilian court, will that compromise security here in the U.S., or cause the government to have to give up secrets about how we track their terrorist buddies, and any other top secret information? Will it open others of our own (U.S. citizens) to possible trial should something come about which shows that these committed acts which were against the law?

Well, we do have past precedence on our side. The keeping of enemy combatants on our soil, imprisoned as such, not subject to trial, or other, only herein kept so as to see to it they remain out of any future fighting, as POW's, is precedent. The left would have us believe that terrorism is a criminal enterprise, but is killing multiple thousands of people at one time, or even attempting such, in the guise of religious jihad (Holy "war"), something we should even consider a criminal act? Is Holy "War" a terrorist act, or an act of warfare, subject to world laws, and world courts? Should they be tried in our courts, or in a world court? If tried in a world court, will they be subject to, once again, using their status to reduce our governments ability to protect us? Not that our current government seems likely to do such, being more worried about Christian's, gun owners, and right wing "extremists, but I become redundant, within our own country?

And what of the recent arrests of four criminals in NY City who were attempting to blow up Jewish synagogues, and take out at least one of our military planes, in a coordinated attack. These were, supposedly, former criminals, recruited by Islamists while in jail. Should we waterboard them to find out if they came by their desire to plan this attack with the assistance of their former jail Islamic leader, or other Islamic leader of any sect(s) outside the prison?  Will we need to? Since it was FBI in coordination with NY City police who brought about the arrests, does the U.S. government even have jurisdiction? Perhaps we need treat them as we would any other murder, or attempted murder, perp? Are they liable for the same civil rights as any other enemy combatant, or are they to be treated as just another group of crimials, tried in civilian court?

And what of their religious affiliation? Should our government be more watchful of Islamic groups within our own country? Or should they continue to be much more concerned about right wingers, tea party-ers, Christian groups, and other who believe in the principles of Constitutional Republican governance, instead of the Communist/NAZI (National Socialist) takeover of the nation's businesses, raising taxes on the people to allow this government to take what cannot rightfully (Constitutionally) be their domain?
 
Should these four be housed in a POW camp within our borders? What of the Gitmo detainees? If we do, at what level of security? Do we do a supermax camp? Do we treat them as we did the German POW's in WWII? Simply keeping them in barracks within a fenced in lot of a few acres, with barbed wire on top? Should we feed them as we did the Germans, many having never eaten so well in their lives prior?

Or, are these combatants more likely, if they escape, to continue with their terrorist ways? If they did, and do, would the government be able to keep them from killing multiple numbers of us, or would  they allow us to protect ourselves by reinstating the original Second Amendment? Since we know this administration sees the Second Amendment as a hindrance to their plans for communist control, and NAZIfication, of our society, would they even be amenable to such? Or, would they celebrate the death of every American citizen, especially if one of those is one so designated as possible internal dissenters, i.e., rightwing Constitutotional Republicans, gun owners, or Christians, at the hands of an escaped jihadi terrorist?

And, is that why some people want to know more about  Massa (master, from "Roots") (President) Obama-Soetoro, his origins, and whether he is, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen? Or is it his past history in Indonesia, where he was schooled as an Islamist for several years? Or was it his time spent in Pakistan which many are worried about, at a time when travel there was restricted to U.S. citizens?  Or, could it merely be the quickness, the recklessness, with which he has tried to institute the federal government into all facets of American life?

And, why is it he doesn't know about, that George W. Bush didn't know about, these past internment (POW) camps of WWII? Does he think that U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were the only ones kept prisoner here in the U.S.? That, after all, is the history the majority of us are taught.

Hillary today said she wants to repeal the gas tax. Instead she wants the oil companies to pay the tax for us. Where does she think the oil companies are going to get the money to pay for the additional tax? Does she think they are just going to pull it out of a hat like a magician does a rabbit?
No, Hillary is being disingenuous, because she knows that costs of doing business are passed on to the consumer, and every tax is simply another cost of doing business. It may sound good to the gullible, but mainstream, educated America knows different, and better.
Mainstream Americans' know that in order for a business to pay a tax they have to do it out of any profit they may make. In order to make a profit, the company must recoup the cost of the tax. Thus, Hillary seeks a shuffle of the deck. She doesn't really want the gas tax cut. She merely wants us to believe that she is responsible for doing such a thing. It will be a point in her hat, as if the point in it now isn't enough.
You can believe Hillary if you want. As for me, I would rather a tornado struck my house, and carried it away so it could fall on her in Indiana.

Middle America has been showing its strength, not just through its guns, religion, and supposed bigotry, but by its votes. Pennsylvania's primary proved this. Middle America is clinging to its guns because it sees candidates such as Barack, Hillary, and McCain as unlikable, not capable of change, and not working for the American people, their claims to be doing so to the contrary.

Americans see higher taxes in their future. They know that Social (in)Security (SinS) cannot be maintained without further raises in FICA, or revenue, something I proclaimed back in the Reagan era when the government was in another hoodwinking mode. Back then, FICA was raised to make the program solvent, but the premise was that the money taken in would be used for expenditures today, making the receipts years out pay for them. Well, as Barack's preacher, Reverend White has so succinctly stated, "...the chickens have come home to roost," and they forgot about the nest egg they had saved for us almost two generations ago.

Anyone with half a brain could have seen that SinS cannot ever be workable (even in FDR's time there had to be some) given it takes from today's generation to pay for today's recipients. Never was any money saved, or st aside, in a special fund. It was merely put into government IOU's. These IOU's are coming due, and the only way to prepare for the payouts is through printing of more money, or raising taxes, both of which will lead to inflation.

But, the government, long ago, figured this into SinS by reconfiguring the way they calculate inflation. Thus, real inflation is hidden in number crunching numb nut formulae, which only a mathematics scholar can understand. But, boots on the ground, "we the people," have figured it out long ago. They saw larger pay out for goods and services did not equate with government numbers. Today real inflation, for the market basket of goods of middle America, has increased 50%, if not more, in just a few short years, but calculations by our government have inflation below 3% most years. This doesn't add up in the super markets of America. Foodstuffs are considerably more expensive today than they were just a few short years ago, and with the food shortages being predicted, with other countries holding our debt, what commodities will they demand from us first? Will it not be our food, of which they are in short supply? So, our money will come bac to us in higher food prices.

What Obama doesn't understand is that middle America clings to its guns and religion because it is on that which they can rely. God is a constant. Guns are a means to hunt food, and protect our homes and loved ones, for surely our open borders government isn't protecting us. Surely bigotry never enters the equation in most of middle America, because most of middle America could care less about hatred sensed by the left. The left's senses have been dulled over the years by constant diatribes about race. Blame for the hardships of different segments, and let's be clear here, it is one main segment which has fallen on hardship, the black community. Latino's seem able, especially the illegal immigrant community, to find jobs, and make something of themselves. Asian immigrants fare well, both academically, and monetarily. Their work ethic is such that they are able, and capable. But, blacks, and some portion of Latino's whose families have been here since the welfare generation of the 1060's, especially those in inner city areas, have forgotten any work ethic they may have had. That is not the fault of middle America, but the fault of our nation's leaders, and the leaders within those inner city communities. They were looking for handouts when they should have been looking for hand ups. Worse, Barack's middle America was oblivious, or more importantly, unable to make a difference because of the high concentration of inner city socialists (for that is what the Democratic Party has become) voter registration.

What middle America has a problem with is the ever growing phenomenon of government. It can no longer afford the luxurious government social(ist) programs foisted upon it, especially with rising inflation, and ever higher taxation at the state and local levels. And, this is what the people see from Democratic candidates. Certainly they will save SinS, but at what cost to America's youths. And, why can't America's youths wake up to the fact that Barack will be selling them down a river of higher taxes, and lower wages, inflation which eats up their earning potential, and saddles them with increasing debt as much as it does the government. So, if Barack really wanted to become one with middle America he woud join them in expecting lower inflation, guaranteeing them lower taxation, fewer social programs, and a revived economy. He would seal our borders, an seek to return that population which lives here outside of our laws for the sake of middle America. Instead, Obama will keep blaming us for the problems when it is leadership which is supposed to fix them. Instead, the fixes are always temporary. The government programs ever increasing trying to fix what government cannot fix. But, I don't think any of the three top contenders understand this.

The SCOTUS has the onus now to set the gun control debate right. The lower (D.C. appeals) court ruled correctly--as has been seen in many briefs, and other court rulings--that this is an individual right.

Emerson v. U.S. (1999), argued that the right is individual. The Clinton administration JD sought that the 5th Circuit Court rule it a collective right of the state, even though there is no mention of the state, or even the federal government within the 2A. The 5th CC ruled 2A an individual right.

Those who argue for permit systems, waiting periods,  are also barking up the wrong tree. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Staub v. Baxley, and Cantwell v. Connecticut have all ruled that permits for rights are unconstitutional prior restraints on the individual, which means that all rights are individual.

Now, to the militia. Federal law states militia are every citizen between 18 and 45 with some officers up to 65 years of age, is a member of the militia. Militia law also requires each person to go everywhere armed, and ready to use those arms, unless there is some preemption for religious reasons (conscientious objectors).

There are two forms of militia. The organized, put together by the state, and the unorganized, which includes every individual citizen regardless of signing up to join a state's militia. The National Guard law was passed in 1903. The militia law predates it by over 100 years.

Since the militia are all persons over 18, since most every college student is over 18, or bordering on that age, they are members of the unorganized militia, As such, they are required by law to have with them, at all times, some form of firearm/armament.

Arms are considered any form of weapon to which the NG, or other organized military body might be privy, so said Tenche Coxe. He also noted these weapons were the "birthright" of every American/


Preeminent Legal Scholar, and Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe wrote, "There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus  that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states  to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists - thanks largely  to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law  professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns."
 "My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise. I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control."

None other than George Washington noted, “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Further, he stated, "If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."

Cesare Beccaria was a citizen of Rome during its heyday. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."-Cesare Beccaria's quote; On Crimes and Punishment, 1764, translated by Jefferson and copied into his Commonplace Book of great quotations.

So, there is great precedent for what Sen. Bailey-Hutchison, and her colleagues, have put together.
Paul Rusin

What did we learn from Omaha

    This question must be posed after the mall shootings of late. First, we learned that guns kill, and quickly. But, we all knew that.
    Second, we learned that criminals can get guns regardless of how they do it, whether it be through further criminal conduct (theft of a gun), or from friends, or relatives. In the case of Robert Hawkins in the mall in Omaha, Nebraska, he stole the weapon, and AK-47 from his step father.
    Third, we learned that there are a lot of screwed up children, who grow up to be screwed up adults, thanks to our permissive society which allows abortion (murder of the innocent pre-born), pre-marital sex (not only do we  not blackball people who indulge in such behavior, but we think they are great role models; further, we allow that teens will have sex, without marriage, and encourage them through sex education, handing out condoms, and the like), divorce--the single greatest scourge to be allowed by our permissive 1960‘s era hippie society. Drugs, and gangs, have exacerbated the problem with movies which glorify the gangsta way, rappers which expound on the gangsta path, and seem to encourage, rather than excoriate, these behaviors.  
    Further, many of these rappers are responsible for some of the gang violence perpetration, many having been gangbangers themselves prior to their new rapper life. You can take the boy out of the ‘hood, but not the ‘hood out of the boy.
    They, also, through their music, perpetuate stereotypes of girls, and women, as ‘ho’s, and bitches. Respect of others is less than tolerated, with ‘dissing becoming the most pervasive reason to blow the brains of another out. No ones understands sticks and stones anymore, or popping someone in the mouth for saying something stupid (not that this is proper behavior, either). Instead, we don’t pop another in the mouth for fear s/he will draw a gun and shot us. Better to shoot first, and be seen as someone who won’t be a walking carpet, than to iron out the problem with the person, even I this has to be done in a forum such as court, or other.
    In fact, police, courts, and the like, are also places where “the man’ is, and which are not to be trusted, not that the rest of us do not agree that police and courts are no longer where we might find justice. My son had a tooth knocked out in school in a malicious attack, but the courts ruled that the parent(s) of the child responsible could not be held liable for costs associated with tooth replacement, time missed from work, gas, wear and tear on the vehicle when in transport. That the judge may have been friends with the perp’s father didn’t even enter my mind.
    Another thing which has contributed to the lawlessness is the public disclosures by our elected representatives. Their inability to keep their pants on, to allow women, to take advantage of their position, and to accept that such advantage is to be expected. Shame on Bill for allowing a blow job in the Oval Office, let alone Hillary for remaining married to him. The only saving grace for my sanity is that she knew of Bill’s infidelity, and perhaps encouraged it so the frigid fish she is might not have to do the deed with her, now despised, and hated, husband. Besides, she looked at the long term picture, which included a senate seat in NY State, and a presidential bid.
    Which isn’t to say that these two are the only ones. Many of our representatives have been found lacking in morality. A mayor of Washington, D.C., is caught with drugs, and using cocaine. A senator from Idaho is accused of soliciting gay sex in a men’s bathroom in an airport, several Congressmen are arrested and placed in jail for crimes. One from New Orleans, has $90,000 in cash found in his freezer--giving  a new meaning to cold, hard cash--during Hurricane Katrina, which devastated that cities poor areas. Incompetence ensued prior to the hurricane by Mayor Nagin, who is then reelected after he messed up. Further, his violations of civil liberties in the confiscation of (still not returned) firearms from law abiding citizens, leaving them to the depredations of the gangbangers, drug dealers, and others who had not evacuated the city. One senator from West Virginia, who was a former KKK member of high rank, still sits, and still expounds morality in that once austere body.  The Clinton fundraising machine, the Gore fundraiser at the Buddhist compound, point to fraud, and abuse of major proportions. Even when caught, sometimes funds are not returned. How can one expect good, moral behavior from our populace when our leaders are so corrupt.
     So, one thing we have learned is that evil is pervasive, that our leaders do not show themselves anymore moral than the people, and in fact, probably less so if one takes into account the numbers so related in an email that goes around every so often detailing the number of moral, political, and criminal members.
    Then, there are the numbers of laws which relate to firearms. This number started as some small number which primarily prevented blacks from owning, as this would prevent depredations of them, and their communities, by KKK members, and others. Those laws were as bad as current laws, some 20,000 plus, which prevent the law abiding citizens from keeping, and “bearing arms, wherever they go, including shopping malls in Utah, and now Omaha, and airplanes (9/11), which could have prevented as much carnage as occurred. It only takes one alert citizen to save the day. But, our congress, our senate, our state legislatures, constantly, and consistently, side with Law Enforcement unions, whose very reason for wishing more, and tougher laws against gun ownership must be held suspect, given that they benefit from larger police numbers which relate to higher pay scales for the union bosses.  And don’t tell me with the number of crooked cops discovered every year, pervasive in the pre-Katrina New Orleans, that those cops voted as union bosses are going to all be pure hearts. I simply won’t believe you.
    “We, the people” must be allowed our rights so as to prevent, or help prevent, carnage such as occurred in Omaha. It is the least our legislators can do to make the killing field(s) of our streets, malls, airways, etc., even.
Paul Rusin
Holley, NY

Many a person, atheist, or agnostic, has related how the Bible is simply a book of books written by old dead guys, that God doesn't exist, couldn't exist, never existed, that God is a figment of people's imagination, that God was something made up by early man to keep society in check, and thus is no longer necessary, because that is the purpose of the state.

How wrong on all counts. Firstly, let's examine those who say that old dead men wrote the Bible, that it is irrelevant, and that these were simply rants. Certainly, old dead men wrote the Bible. On that we can all agree. The question is were they men of God, ordained by God to write what they did, and clearly men who had met God, whether in the flesh, or in His spirit form.

Some question whether God was/is a real entity, but we clearly see from various scriptures that God intervened, if not directly, then indirectly, whether through His angels, or through divine intervention, in people's lives. There are too many instance related for this to be a fluke. Jacob wrestled with God, most likely Jesus, the son of God. Daniel was saved from being eaten by lions while locked in a den of them for a long period of time. Jonah was swallowed by a whale, spending three days, and three nights in its belly, after rejecting God's call to go to Nineveh to warn them of impending doom. Those who think that God was irrelevant, or that these stories are simply fables, fail to see the relevance today in prophetic happenings, most of prophecy sealed up until the end time. That meaning we are, or were, incapable of understanding most of it until the latter days of the end of the age of man. 

The story of Jesus Himself is detailed by at least four of His disciples, and mentioned by several more. They relate how many of them saw Him after His death in spirit form. How could that be unless He was real. Even speculating that angels may have had a hand must include the fact that angels come from somewhere. The multitude of people's touched by the loving hand of Christ is too innumerable to mention. 

To those who state that the Bible is just a bunch of books written by old dead men, not relevant today, simply fiction, deliberate lies, or fairy tales, these preclude the very, and actual hand God had in saving the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, walking and talking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, intervening in the life of Lot when He was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, speaking directly to Noah instructing him to build an ark, and bringing the multitude of beasts to that ark to be saved from the destruction of the Earth through flood, the longest day wherein God lengthened the day of battle for the Israelites so as to help them become victorious, and not lose their battle edge, the striking down of the walls of Jericho simply by blowing trumpets, and walking in circles around that walled citadel, saving one portion of it in which a believer in God resided, and so many more interventions, and direct communications related, it is hard to imagine that there isn't a living entity of magnificent power, so powerful in fact as to stop the Earth from turning, to cause great gales in which people are swept off a ship and swallowed by a whale, to open a path through the Red Sea wherein the Israelites made passage, and then watching as the pursuing Egyptian army is swallowed up by the massive walls of water. Knowing that the Moabites, whom the Israelites first came into contact with after leaving Egypt, were defeated without a man amongst the Israelites killed. Thousands of men meeting in battle, and only those of the opposition end up dead? How preposterous! Yet written down for all posterity. 

Does God exist? I would have to say given the evidence, that He does. That many, even after reading this, could still deny His existence is a mystery to me. 

As I was watching the Democratic candidates debate on CNN the other night I noticed that Hillary was refusing to answer the question posed her by Tim Russert in regards illegal alien licensing in NY State. Given that I am a resident of NY State, given that approximately 70% of the people of NY State don't want illegal aliens to get driver's licenses, regardless of the form, I think I am in pretty good company when I state that Hillary blew her big chance to pander to the far left, and win some talking points in the leftist major news media, what some refer to as the Main Stream Media (MSM).

Most residents of NY State are having enough problems with illegal aliens. They speak a language many do not understand, and those that do, are often put off by them. For instance, my daughter worked at a local grocery whose clientele include a lot of immigrants who speak no, or little English. During checkout, she noted one Hispanic stated she was very good looking and he wouldn't mind doing her. She spoke up, in Spanish, that such language was uncalled for, and would cease, or she would call the owner/manager. The Mexican was flabbergasted that she even understood what he said, but that is what 3 or 4 years of high school Spanish will do for you. I taught her right, and well, and she learned amazingly, She is now a chemical engineer. 

Which brings me back to my point. Hillary has shot herself in the foot, first by being wishy washy on her desire to allow illegal immigrants licensed status (which Dick Morris stated on O'Reilly's FOXNews show, O'Reilly Factor, as being for before, and now, even having voted for the amnesty bill), but also to gather mainstream media focus for her campaign. Of course, given the sentiment in the country, the overwhelming antipathy towards illegal immigration, the people sitting in jails for doing illegal things here in our own country, the fact that Hillary, and most of the other's on the left, and that were on the stage that evening, are for illegal immigrant welfare, licenses, etc., but against unconstitutional--albeit politically accepted, even by many on the right, and many gun owner's and hunters, as well--licensing of firearms owner's for concealed carry, it is no wonder Hillary tried to steer clear.

Her position that the matter was precipitated by President Bush aside, it being a bogus, nonfactual claim--he wanting such an amnesty package--her diatribe also pointed to the fact that she wasn't prepared for such a question. Her opponents, rightly, pointed out her talking out of both sides of her mouth. As she did on the matter of troops in Iraq, another position on which she wants it both ways, she hemmed and hawed, and placed blame elsewhere for the failures of her party to make headway on the illegal immigration amnesty. Had they (Democratic Party operatives in the Senate) the courage to pass such a bill, it is most likely President Bush  would have signed it. Given that they knew the fatal outcome of such--an indeterminate loss of seats in the congress in both houses by Democratic Party candidates--it is no wonder she has, and is, shying away from proprosals to indoctrinate the country into the belief that we "need" Mexican, and other illegal, immigrants. Perhaps we do, but we should have a system that doesn't offer amnesty, or driver's licenses, but that offers them a way into, and a definite time frame for leaving, the U.S., so that they may pursue the jobs which no other American is willing, or able, to do. 
 
Further, we need to stop this belief that we don't have Americans who could do these jobs. We had American migrants who did them for many generations prior to welfare becoming a concept during the Johnson administration. I recall the many girls, and boys, who would come to the western NY orchards to pick cherries, peaches, pears, tomatoes, apples, and other fruits and vegetables. I also recall their downtrodden faces, knowledge being that they were hungry, didn't get to bathe properly, often smelled bad, were unkempt from having to take care of themselves, their parents in the fields and orchards from sun up until sundown, and some well past that time. I recall them not being with us permanently, either, most skipping out for warmer climes, and other fields, and orchards, of the south, and west.

Some people used the farms as ways to make extra money, as well. Some, who had been migrants prior to welfare, and finding work at local manufactories, etc., knew the lucrative nature of the fields for extra income, and this could still be the norm if we allowed that people were willing to work the extra evenings, and weekends, and if we required those living in rural areas who were on welfare to be supplemented by that social program if they worked in the fields, and orchards, and made substandard wages. If they refused because of medical problems, they should be switched to the Social Security Disability system. Should they refuse because they thought the work demeaning, then their welfare payments should be discontinued.
 
The whole key here is that Americans will work if they are required to, if it is out of necessity, and if they aren't beholden to government programs for their next paycheck. This can only be accomplished by changing the welfare system, reforming it so that ability to get on, and off is easier. But, then again, once an American finds out how much money they can make doing this type of work, they might be more inclined to stay working, or once they see the glorious nature of a hard days work, and an honest wage, they may become less enamored of the welfare program(s), preferring instead to work for a better wage, and more money, without strings attached. What would we do with all those who currently work for the welfare system who would be put out of work because of the lower welfare numbers? Well, perhaps they could pick apples, too.

The main thing is we need to recognize who Hillary is, and what she stands for: That is bigger government, higher taxation, less freedom of choice for the individual, and more power to her, and her elitist cabal.