holiday card

The image in the holiday card has not been altered in any way. The original is in a church in Puerto Rico and was seen by friends who were startled at the likeness to your's truly.

THE OTHER 9-11S

We are all aware of what happened on 09-11-2001 due primarily to religious extremism; but how many of us know that there were two other incidents of massacres related to 09-11 due to religious fanaticism. The two incidents in question are:

I. The massacre at Drogheda:

This occurred on September 11, 1649 at Drogheda in eastern Ireland. After killing his King earlier that year, Oliver Cromwell, leader of the English Roundheads or Parliamentarian forces decided to bring his army to crush the Catholic Irish who had sided with the King. At the town of Drogheda his name would go down in Irish History in infamy. Cromwell issued an order that all with weapons within the town were to be slaughtered. After being given promises of their lives from junior officers, in a breach of military protocol of the day, Cromwell ordered the execution of the soldiers in cold blood. In total 3,000 soldiers were massacred even those who surrendered or sought refuge in churches (which were burned with the refugees inside) The exact civilian casualty figures are unknown however Cromwell boasted that it was "many". Contemporary accounts claim mass killing of women and children. Cromwell was a religious fanatic. One historian likened his regime to a Christian Taliban. Cromwell described his slaughter in the following terms "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches,...". He credits God with "this happy success" and states "therefore it is good that God alone have all the glory". Amongst the victims of this massacre was the Irish/Royalist commander who was beaten to death with his wooden leg.

Cromwell would later repeat this mission from God at Wexford one month later. Cromwell became a theocratic dictator. The celebration of Chrismas was banned as being un-christian. This was enforced by soldiers searching homes on the holiday. Theatres were closed. Public whipping and the stocks were favorite punishments for moral offenses. All games and sports were banned on Sundays as was housework. Even the olnly walks allowed were to and from your parish church for a three to four hour service. Neighbors were encouraged to turn in each other and get a share of the fine. Christian Taliban sums it up quite good.

II. The Mountain Meadows Massacre:

This massacre occurred on September 11, 1857 in Utah. This was a massacre of United States Citizens (the Fancher Party) who were emigrating to California. They were massacred by those wacko Mormons. The Mormons at first enlisted some Indian allies and attacked the settlers which resulted in a siege. Thereafter the Mormons induced a "truce" wherein the settlers gave them their weapons and were to be escorted to safety. Shortly after this the Mormons and their few Indian allies slaughtered nearly all of the settlers including babies in their mother's arms. In total about 120 were massacred and only 18 children under 8 years old were spared. They were given to Mormon families to adopt. The settlers' property was auctioned off at the Mormon Cedar City tithing office. This incident nearly pushed the US into a war with the Mormons as tensions had been escalating prior to this. The Local Mormon church leaders weredefinitely involved, however it is unclear whether the leadership in Salt Lake City ordered the massacre or not. What is clear is that the Mormon church and Brigham Young attempted to cover up church involvement. It is also clear that the church and Young had stirred up religious bigotry against non-Mormons before and after the massacre. After the massacre, Young stated in public forums that God had taken vengeance on the Fancher party. Given the problems of the Civil War and the lack of cooperation by the Mormon church authorities it wasn't until 1877 that a perpetrator was brought to justice John D. Lee who was a Mormon leader at the time of the massacre. Lee claimed to be a scapegoat for others involved and I think it likely.

Beware Religious fanaticism, my friends, it is dangerous.

The Romanovs

Here is an interesting article from the BBC related to the Romanovs, who were executed (or murdered depending on your perspective) 90 years ago today. From my readings a restoration of the monarchy would be difficult since the Succession laws were strict and different groups view different individuals as the rightful heir, but stranger things have happened.


Russians remember murdered tsar
Thousands of Russians have been taking part in events to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the assassination of Tsar Nicholas II and his family.
Russian Orthodox Christians held a service in Yekaterinburg, where the royal family were killed, and then followed an 18km (11-mile) procession.
Another service was taking place in the cathedral in St Petersburg where the bodies of the family now lie.
Russia's last emperor was shot dead by Bolshevik revolutionaries in 1918.
Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, their five children, doctor and three servants were killed on the night of 16-17 July, 1918.
The Romanov family have now been canonised as saints by the Orthodox Church, which has enjoyed a post-Soviet revival.
Renewed popularity
At dawn on Thursday, the faithful packed the Church on the Blood in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, on the site where the family were killed.
Bishops in red and gold robes wafted incense over the congregation, while many more stood on the surrounding hillside.
Then many of them, carrying icons and flags, joined a procession to Ganina-Yama, where the family's bodies were dumped in a mineshaft.
Other events were held across the country.
A short distance from what used to be Communist Party headquarters in Moscow, some even called for the restoration of the monarchy.
"I think that remembering the killing of the Tsar martyr gives us the chance to get rid of our scoundrel Bolshevik past," Mikhail Ustinov, dressed in the uniform of a Cossack, told the BBC.
The renewed popularity of the Romanovs is an astonishing transformation that mirrors the huge changes in Russia itself, says the BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow.
For most of the last century, Tsar Nicholas II was officially reviled as a tyrant. To Russia's Soviet regime, he personified all they had tried to destroy in the revolution of 1917.
Now, almost two decades after the end of the communist state which the Bolsheviks fought to create, the tsar is revered as a saint - a martyr who died for his faith.
Just before the 90th anniversary of his death, Nicholas II pulled into the lead in an online poll to decide on the greatest hero in Russian history.
It is perhaps a sign of the country's confusion over its own past, our correspondent says, that he is battling it out for top spot with the Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin.
Are you in Russia? What are your views on Tsar Nicholas II? Was he a tyrant or a saint? Send us your comments by filling out the form below.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7511267.stmPublished: 2008/07/17 15:03:41 GMT© BBC MMVIII

Response to psychomike about Lincoln

Well, psychomike sure paints a bleak picture of life in the Union under Good Ole Abe, It makes one wonder how he could be re-elected? Now were there some abuses of civil rights during the American Civil War? Yes there were, however, the extent of same are highly exaggerated in his scenario. I highly doubt that one average citizen would face each and every alleged abuse as is indicated by the scenario. I would also point out that given that the nation’s very existence was in danger due to the treasonous secessionists and their treasonous supporters in the North, a little bit of leeway should be given to Lincoln. And, yes folks I used the "T’ word in reference to the "Confederacy". For far too long, in the interests of reconciliation many have balked at using said term, but that is exactly what they did when they took up arms against the United States and attempted to end it as a nation. The sorry old mantra of "loyalty to their states" just legitimizes their behavior, which is inexcusable. "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." the quote from Sir John Harrington is apt here. Because so many who were involved in this treason, remained the leaders of their communities after the end of the war, many didn’t dare call what was committed treason.
Here is a scenario for you in response to psychomike. Suppose for moment that the Southern states were allowed to illegally secede from the Union. This would lead to the balkanization of the North American continent into smaller and smaller nation states, as each state seceded whenever the federal government passed some law that they did not like, or a presidential candidate was elected that they did not like. You would see a militarization of the continent. There would be border wars between these new Nation states, such as Illinois and Wisconsin at war over water rights or something else. I would point out that this is not far fetched. South America after achieving independence split into many different countries, and even though they were united in their struggle against Spain for independence, once achieving nation state status they ended up going to war with each other within a decade of independence and have fought many wars between themselves since independence.
Another consequence would be the further involvement of the Americas in European power politics and alliances. Without a strong United States and a Monroe Doctrine, European powers would be deeply involved in the affairs of these American nation states. Many nation states may become effectively satellites of European powers. One can also point out that these American nation states would often be ensnared into rival alliances. Picture Illinois an ally of Germany and Indiana an ally of France and all the mess this would cause.
I would also point out that the plight of the slaves in the South was awful and needed to be addressed. The whole basis of the treasonous secession was to preserve this evil institution.
In short Abe Lincoln saved this Nation as an entity, saved this nation from constant warfare, and also ultimately led this nation to free millions of people from the evil institution of slavery. Given all this not only does he deserve to make any list of the top presidents, he deserves the very top spot. Psychomike and other southerners need to remember that the treason of secession was very dangerous.

Book review

King, Kaiser, Tsar by Catrine Clay is a book examining the lives and interactions of the three royal cousins King George V of England, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. Well let me first say that the format of this book in basically intertwining biographies of the three cousins through the years and basically ending at the end of what is called World War I (I personally have never liked the term World War I as a title for this war for various reasons that I will explain in a separate post). This intertwining of the biographies is a valuable tool in showing how the cousins and their families interacted and how these interactions were to effect the Geo-political landscape of Europe. My only criticism of the book is that at times there is a slight English bias to the book, an example of which is the assertion (often cited by those who want to falsely blame Germany for the War) that Germany should not have built up a naval fleet and provoking Britain by doing so. Well the British had a policy that their fleet had to be superior to the combined TOTALS OF THE NEXT TWO COUNTRIES. This policy is not mentioned in the book, however, the British demand for naval supremacy is treated as if it is a natural God given right that should not be challenged. This policy is the height of arrogance and would justly be ignored by any other nation looking after their own self interests. Another English bias is the assertion that the British had to enter the war due to the German violation of the neutrality of Belgium by its invasion of Belgium. This is often cited as a just and noble requirement for their entry, however, the book (as does most material on this war) fails to mention that a sort time before this invasion of Belgium, the British Government had declared that the treaty in no way required that Britain go to war to protect Belgium and that the pro-war/anti-German members of the government had actually proposed a British invasion of neutral Belgium should they enter the war (apparently they would have invented other reasons for Britain to enter the war). All this being said the book is a fine examination of the history of the later third or so of the 19th century and the twentieth century through WWI. One particular element that was covered in much more detail than I had previously encountered was the influence of "the Danish Princesses", who were the mothers of George and Nicholas, and were virulently anti-German. This influence not only affected their son’s attitudes to Germany but also their husband’s attitudes and fundamentally changed the "balance of power" in Europe. It led from the alliance of Russia with Germany in the DreiKaiserBund (Three Emperor’s League) to an alliance of Russia with France, and increasingly close ties of Britain with both France and Russia. This hatred of Germany stems from the Danish-Prussian War, which was one of the wars of German Unification. This was a war that was caused by what was referred to as "The Schleswig-Holstein Questions". Schleswig and Holstein were two feudal duchies that were held by the Danish crown. Schleswig was viewed as a fief of Denmark, whereas Holstein was viewed as a fief of Germany. It should also be pointed out that under the Treaty of Ribe of 1460, they were not to be integrated within the Kingdom of Denmark, and would "always be together and never partitioned (or separated". This was later confirmed in the London Protocol of 1852. It should also be pointed that the majority of the population in these areas were ethnic Germans and spoke German. In 1864, Austria and Prussia agreed that recent actions of Denmark violated these principles and invaded Schleswig-Holstein. Denmark lost these two areas that were very rich. The Danish Princesses could not forgive this loss despite the wishes of the people who lived there (as evidenced by the support of many Nobles for the Prussians and Austrians and a plebiscite after WWI that resulted in all but a small areas of Northern Schleswig voting to remain a part of Germany) This hatred had longstanding effects on the European balance of power as well as the interaction between the family. The book also shows how family relationships effected national policy and vice versa. It shows the closeness that developed between George and Nicholas as first cousins spending many holidays together at the Danish Court, though this closeness didn’t prevent George from withdrawing an invite for the Romanovs to live in exile in Britain which ultimately caused their deaths at the hands of the Bolsheviks. The book shows the "love-Hate" relationship that Wilhelm had for England, and that England had for him. Cursing England and his English relatives after being snubbed by them (some imagined and many very real and intended to be snubs) and then showing great love for England and his English relatives especially his behavior when his Grandmother Queen Victoria was dying. In short the book does a fine job at showing the family relationships between these nation’s ruling families and how much impact said relationships had an impact on history. I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in late 19th century/early 20th century history or in the royal families of Europe.

Top Ten US Presidents

1. Abraham Lincoln: Saved the nation's unity by winning the civil war, emancipation proclamation.

2. George Washington: Could have been King or President for Life but chose not to; peaceful transition of power; establishment of presidential precedents.

3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Led country out of the Depression, and led country through most of WW2

4. Thomas Jefferson: Louisiana Purchase, increased democratic ideals of nation

5. Teddy Roosevelt: Anti-Trust legislation and enforcement; Environmental conservation efforts, mediation between Russians and Japanese

6. James Monroe: Monroe Doctrine helps to prevent to much meddling by Europe in Americas and helps to prevent entanglements in European politics and alliances by the americas

7. James Madison: Led Country through the War of 1812, and brought us out of it without becoming a colony of Britain again

8. Andrew Jackson: Increased Democracy in the nation, faced off with Secessionist and Nullifyers, (those who felt a state could nullify a federal law it disagreed with) to preserve the Union.

9. Harry S. Truman: Led us at the end of WW2, helped establish the United Nations, and the Marshall plan to economically rebuild Europe; racial desegregation of the armed forces, civil rights

10. James K. Polk: Settled Oregon territory dispute with Britain, Led us through Mexican War to victory (though many thought the war was unjust including Lincoln) and thus enlarged the nation