Thursday, February 19, 2009

About Attorney General Eric Holder's Comment

Subject: About Attorney General Eric Holder's Comment
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:57 AM
From: Herman Strom
To: Department of Justice


It's a typical liberal elitist comment. Usually people who have problem with something accuse others of that problem. Liberals are the only people who talk about "race relations" in America. The rest of us do not really care about such a non-issue. Like during the last presidential election I was accused by of being a racist because I was not voting for Barack Obama. I asked the person who accuser what was their reason for voting for Barack Obama. And after quick inquiry I learned my accuser was voting on the basis of race while my reasons for voting against Barack Obama did not include race at all.

Well, I am a Caucasian guy originally from Russia. I was racially discriminated against because I was a minority. I am a Hebrew. I have distinctively different features from a typical Russian. On the weekends I go to church, Greater Grace World Outreach. I go to an outreach on Saturday and talk to people of all races and two services on Sunday. Some of my best friends have brown-skinned, so called African-Americans. My church has been called by Baltimore City Officials, the most desegregated church in the City of Baltimore.

Mr. Holder should at least apologize to the American People for his racist statements. And if he does not, I think Mr. President should urge him to resign.

Thank you,

Herman Strom

Monday, March 12, 2007

Human-Caused Global Warming: Fact or Fiction

Let us not mix pollution and global warming. I believe that pollution exists however just because an area is polluted and causes diseases in people and animals, the effects on the environment are never permanent. If the source of pollution is removed, the area will clean itself up.

1. How global warming theory of today is different from global cooling theory of 1970s, which predicted that the earth would slip off its axis and polar icecaps would melt and we would drown? And humans could not have undone it even if they removed all the effects of progress, technology and civilization. Is this why it is called now “global climate change” because these so-called scientists cannot decide if the earth is cooling or warming?
2. Liberals claim to be very sophisticated in their outlook and they reserve simplicity for foolish Conservatives who believe in absolutes. Why do they then so quickly jump to blaming humans for global warming instead of considering broader scientific theories like maybe alignment of planets causing some gravitational pull of solar flairs which warm the Earth in cycles, etc? Why such an unsophisticated rushing to conclusions and instant laying of blame?
3. Liberals believe in the inability of human masses to provide for themselves, therefore the government must be empowered to give these helpless ones a handout. Are we really that incapable or are we so powerful that we can destroy the Earth, which according to the same Liberals, has been around for millions and billions of years? Has the “primordial slime” become so smart and powerful that it is capable of destroying the very planet upon which it has crawled so long?
4. If carbon dioxide is the number one green house gas then the plant life and not cars are its chief emitter, is it not? As most of us have learned in school botany class, as the Earth makes its full circle, the plants on the lit side convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and on the dark side, convert oxygen into carbon dioxide. This process is called photosynthesis. If we somehow were able to remove all carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the plants would die.
5. It is very exciting to note a certain level of hypocrisy among preachers of human-caused global warming, who fly in private jets, ride armored sport utility vehicles, live in mansions, lavished with every imaginable luxury which consume tens of times more energy then average American and yet they tell us to conserve, drive little electric lawn-mower with seat belts for cars or even better ride public transportation, live in little houses or even better to get rid of all technology, civilization and progress.
6. The latest from Al Gore the environ-wacko-in-chief who keeps insisting that “growing animals for human consumption produces more green house gases then cars” including SUVs. I doubt that he is a vegetarian. But to suggest now that flutuating cows are the biggest threat to our planet’s “fragile eco-system” is bizarre to say the least.
7. There are three steps to proving a scientific fact, observation, theory and test. This is called a scientific method. Anything untested stays in the realm of theory. A civilized debate is at the core of true science. This is how scientists safeguard the integrity of science. On the other hand the environmental scientists talk about consensus. They do not tolerate debate. When their theories are questioned, the spoiler will instantly be kicked out of their circle. These self-proclaimed scientists do not observe, theorize, test and debate but they state their unproven theories as facts and then persecute those who disagree with them. They blacklist, deny tenures and assassinate character. That is how they keep scientific community in fear and their false sciences propagated.
рео. There is no such thing as scientific creed or dogma. They belong in religion. There is no such thing as scientific consensus. Politicians reach consensus when they compromise. And that is exactly what environmentalism is. It is religion and politics. If these people could only become a holy inquisition and burn scientists at the stake. But this is nothing short of religious and political war on science. Because global warming is nothing short of a creed of liberalism. Which finally brings me to its political roots.
9. Are not environ-wackoes former communist? They are indeed. They hate free enterprise system, corporations, which employ thousands and millions. They hate all progress. Some of them like earth liberation front and sierra club are domestic terrorists. They burn down SUV dealerships. If you read history of communism, you will find that very few communists were purely theoretic in their idealistic thinking. Most of them were thugs and terrorists in their beginnings. All of us know this famous phrase, uttered by Ulyanoff-Lenin after his brother’s execution. His brother was one of the assassins of Tsar. Lenin said, “We shall take another way!” which became the Red October revolution. And Joseph Dzugasvillee aka Stalin ambushed local convoys for living in his native country of Georgia in the beginning of his communist career. And so in late 50s early 60s this was a plot by some liberal democrat senators to impose more government regulation on American companies by arguing that there was pollution which would eventually destroy the environment. And these are the origins of this religious and political movement.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Joke: Seventy-Two Virginians

When al-Zarqawi died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across his face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the nation I helped conceive!"

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed!" James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson was next, hit al-Zarqawi with a long cane and snarled "It was Evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the terrorist leader. It went on for what felt like days or maybe even months and years as they went in rounds over and over again.

As al-Zarqawi lay resting, bleeding and in pain, a figure of Dark Angel appeared. Al-Zarqawi wept and said, "This is not what you promised to me." The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you in your Afterlife. What did you think I said?"

Friday, September 08, 2006

We were shut down in less than four days into it

Although it's a personal experience, it has a certain political context. That is why I want to link it to my political opinion page. have fun reading it.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Today, We Are All Londoners! And By God, We Will Defeat The Islamic Terrorists!

Today, We are all Londoners! We stand side by side with every Londoner! We stand against all Islamic Terrorists who have utter disrespect for human life and would murder us all if they had a chance. We will not apologize to them. We will not appease them. We will not ask them, why. But we will only fight them until we win. We did not start this war but we will fight it to the end until our enemies can no longer fight. We will defeat them! For all Londoners, By God, we will defeat them! And that is our pledge!

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Stupid Versus Ignorant: Senator Durban’s Remarks on Prisoner Abuse at Guantanamo

I was outraged when I heard Senator Dick Durban of Illinois compare our brave military personnel to some of the most brutal 20th century tyrannical regimes which murdered tens of millions of their own and foreign citizens. As I said before the American Left calls us, the conservatives, “stupid” while we call them “ignorant.” Now ignorance presumes a potential of getting to know the facts and developing opinions on them. On the other hand, stupidity implies inability to learn or draw any rational conclusions.

Now, may I, “a stupid conservative, :)” put out some historical facts on the comparisons that the Senator made? I will also point out why I could be personally offended by this kind of comparisons. Nazi death camps: six million Jews were murdered there. Hitler also sent to those death camps close to twice as many millions of Germans and other people from the nations which he conquered.

My maternal grandfather was captured on the battle field and sent to one of those camps. Having escaped, he was captured for the second time. This time, he was subjected to experiments by his captors and lost his sight as the result. Fortunately he was liberated when the German Army was defeated by soviet and allied troops. When he returned back to our family in St. Pete, Russia, and had he not lost his site, he would have been sent to a Gulag death camp by Stalin’s murder machine. While there were only millions that died in Gulags themselves, there were countless tens of millions that died under Stalin’s murderous regime and on the ways to Gulags. And now the last one: while I don’t know anyone personally who was murdered in the killing fields of Cambodia, I am sure that the Senator’s words offended countless Americans who fled Pol Pot’s murderous regime and whose loved ones were murdered under this horrific dictator.

These kinds of comparisons serve few very gloomy purposes. 1. They diminish the horrific nature of the murderous regimes that perpetrated them. 2. They desensitize the hearers. 3. They unfairly paint our brave and courageous military personnel in bad colors. 4. And they incite unfair violence and hatred against Americans abroad. There can be many more of these consequences. But perhaps that is what Senator Durban and the Left purposed to do. His plentiful apologies only spoke to people’s offences not the substance of his remarks. I doubt that the Senator is stupid or ignorant. That brings me to a sad conclusion, he said what he meant. And that is why there has to be some consequences for the Senator because people, in such high positions, cannot speak so seditiously and get away with it. Who is stupid or ignorant, you should judge for yourself. But it looks to me that Senator Durban is neither. He probably fits the new definition of a patriot that the Left tries so hard to pound into our heads; a "patriot" is anyone who seeks to undermine our Commander-in-Chief and our military in the time of war.

Friday, April 01, 2005

An Essay on Conservative Stand for Life

I think people naturally progress in their life from not believing in God to believing in God not the other way around. It is a natural progression of human maturity. I used to be a relativist once. It almost seems like a long time ago. And I don not miss those days. I had no anchor in my life. I was confused, everything kind of flouted around. I pity relativists. They are so confused.

Simplicity is a friend of genius. Nuance is friend of proud fools who think they know everything. Objectivity is based in facts outside of one's personal emotional reality. All that relativists have is a humanistic dogma. All they can do is to scream, shout, and call people names. Unfortunately the Left in this country doesn’t know how to debate their ideology in a civilized and dignified manner. I am absolutely amused by their reactionary and immature behavior. I enjoy, getting under their skin.

The Left thinks that the "religious right" wants to take "woman's right to choose." No, that's not what we want at all. That's a subjective lie; they have been sold about us so that they can hate us. I have talked to countless numbers of women whose lives were wrecked by this type of philosophy. And it's not that the women who abort their babies will go to hell. People don't go to hell for what they do. That's another lie the left has been sold. People go to hell for what they reject. And what they reject is CHRIST'S PAYMENT FOR THEIR SINS. God's first institution given to man was FREE VOLITION. He gave us a right to be wrong. It is BY GOD that we have this right. Is that wonderful? Unfortunately for all of us, the time comes that all of us must die. And although some of us don't believe it, the fact doesn't change that one day when our bodies drop dead, our souls: mind, volition, emotions, etc. will stand before GOD. And then we will be made accountable for rejecting the payment for our sins. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a world famous French Mathematician. Pascal developed many arguments in favor of the existence of God. Therefore he proposed what has come to be known as Pascal's Wager. This is a common sense analysis of the benefits and consequences of belief or unbelief in the existence of GOD. "When it comes to God's existence, there are two possibilities: either God exists or God does not exist. In terms of our response, there are also two possibilities: either we believe in God or we don't. If God does not exist, and we wager that he does (by believing), then we lose nothing, since, presumably, there is no afterlife or eternal reward or punishment for belief or unbelief. If God does exist, however, and offers us the free gift of eternal life, and we wager that he does not (by unbelief), then we risk losing everything by spending eternity separated from God. If God does exist, and we wager that he does, then we potentially gain eternal life and happiness." In my opinion, it is a powerful argument, and I am for once absolutely convinced that GOD exists and He made the world and everything in it. Anyone who believes in evolution must have enormous faith to believe that over millions of years non-organic chemicals formed organic molecules. Which became amino acids and DNA, forming into cells which over time become more complex forming such precise organs like an eye, ear, reproductive organs, etc. Every organ in our body is infinitely complex. Imagine a brain evolving. Anyone believing it must be a faith giant compare to me. It is beyond blind faith, bordering brain-washed. Human brain is infinitely more sophisticated than the most advanced computer that a human has devised so far. And about organic matter evolving, when something dies, it very quickly turns into very basic organic and even non-organic matter. Now can anyone explain to me how something dead can make itself alive when the forces of death are so much greater? When I read about the perfect order of the universe from microscopic to infinitely humongous when I look into these things how every little thing vibrates in perfect harmony, I cannot imagine how someone can be so blind not to see the hand of GOD. But I understand to avoid accountability to his Maker; a man will believe almost anything however absurd.

Now I have read and heard countless times of the values of the Left which dove-tails quite well with communist Russia, my country of birth. The Left sees people as masses of stupid idiots, cattle. That's why I hear my liberal friends say about the unborn that were aborted, "... another 40 million would be draining the social system..."

We, conservatives, see people as individuals, capable not only of making money and taking care of themselves far better than any social program can give them if only they have a chance. If only the government were to back off. As much as the Left hates this country, we are the freest, and as the result of this freedom, wealthiest, most prosperous country in the world. Being only 5% of the world's population, we produce 62% of the world's wealth. And of course the Left wants to bring America down to the world's level which is called socialism. While we strive to bring the world to our level of freedom, we export that freedom, giving people opportunities to become as prosperous as we can be. And it works. All the Left does is hates these American values. In spite of this hatred, America is unmatched in her humanitarian assistance to the world. Our government sends countless billions to educate and treat people infected with HIV/AIDS in Africa. And even if we were not #1 on the list of public relief to the victims of tsunami in the Indian Ocean, those were our troops, which the Left calls, "war criminals” and “baby-killers," that delivered supplies to the people that were cut off from the rest of the world by the tsunami devastation. No other country has the resources to do these. So if we are to count all the public funds our government sent, the resources that our military used to transport the supplies and all the private donations that Americans gave to countless relief organizations, working in the area. America's contribution cannot be matched by any other country out there. But let's get back to freedom. Everywhere there is freedom, there is prosperity. Hong-Kong is a little island of the size of Manhattan off the coast of huge mainland China. If you were to go to the highest building, you can see where the city ends. And yet this tiny island produces 1/4 of China's wealth. Equal opportunity does not produce equal results. And that is where human individuality comes in. We cannot treat people like cattle or a burden on a social system. We look at every individual as though there is no limit to what they can achieve. Every soul has infinite value. And that is why some people pay with their own lives to bring freedom to others. And we must not forget that people paid with their lives to bring freedom to us all through the history of this country. As John F. Kennedy, a great American President, said in his inaugural address, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Think for a moment about individual people that changed the course of history. They wrote incredible music, literature, found vaccines that stopped plagues, created technologies that brought people closer and forever changed our lives for the better. And it's all because of freedom. Others inspired people to greatness creating progress where there was only stagnation. And of course there are others like thugs and terrorists who murder people. Tyrants and dictators who rule people by fear, murdering them by hundreds of thousands, millions and tens of millions, and burring them in mass graves. This is the struggle of good and evil. For this we, the freest country in the world, first of all, in the interests of our national security, defend our freedom and then spread it to every darkest corner of the world.

Now think of that great potential of an individual to liberate or to oppress, to murder the innocent or to give their own lives liberate others, to inspire, to create, to invent, to save lives. The greatest value of our country is idealism. it was passed down to us from the days of our founding. Idealism is the ability look far ahead into the future and inspire the people to greatness, to create something great with future generations in mind. These are the main criteria on the basis of which we, the American people, choose our leaders. Now thinking on these great ideals that define who we are as a nation and how deeply we value the individuality of every human being and realizing that our freedom comes from none other then the Creator himself. These words are in our founding documents: LIFE which is given to us by GOD, LIBERTY which is natural state of human existence and comes from none other but GOD, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS which having the first two things now we can go after. And that is why we treasure life. The abortionists want to take this first and foremost from the most innocent and defenseless among us. And now think of one example. Think as an abortionist for a moment.

How would you advise a mother who is pregnant with her fifth child based on the following facts: Her husband has syphilis? She has tuberculosis. Their first child was born blind. Their second child died. Their third child was born deaf. Their fourth child had tuberculosis. Would you advise the mother for an abortion? Oops! If you said yes, you would have just killed the great composer Ludwig van Beethoven! We cannot know what God has in mind for every individual and the millions of children that have been aborted; only God knows what they could have become. That is how precious life is. And that's why we have an obligation to protect the most defenseless among us.

Friday, January 21, 2005

What History Proves

It's the next day after President George W. Bush's Inauguration. And all of liberals are litterally standing on their heads, writing most bazaar op-eds in the every news paper they can get their hands on. It's amuzing to say the least. President's Inaugural Address was nothing short of a home run. The liberals got puntched and kicked in his speech.

The difference between people like George W. Bush and pathetic liberals is like day and night. This liberals will soon be forgotten just like Ronald Reagan's critics, Abraham Lincoln's critics, our Founding Fathers' critics and any other critic. Just like any nay-sayer who was put to shame by those who defide the odds and made a mark in history. This liberals act like they know it all and have done it all. And yet all they do they live in the past and they are terrified of what the future can bring. And yet the people like our President are visionaries and idealists who live in the future. And they lead people into that bright sunrise of this great future that they invision.

Thursday, January 13, 2005

Separation of Church and State?

Who can tell me where this text speaks of "separation of church and state".

Quote from the BILL OF RIGHTS:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What are these United States of America? What kind of country are we? Is the United Staes a Democracy? Do we really have separation of Church and State?

No, there is no separation of Church and State. No, the United States is not a Democracy. It's a Republic, a country with a Consitution as a most foundational law of our country. And even before the Constitution, there is a Declaration of Independence marking the birth of our Country and establishing a framework. And these two documents are in harmony with each other. These are the Charters of our Freedom. We are the freest country in the world. That's why we are richest in the world. That's why we are the only country that has the infrastructure to help any body in the world and we always do.

First of all, in accordance with United States Constitution, it is the Congress, the legislative branch which is supposed to make laws and not any other branch of our government. That is why the first amendment says "Congress..." Second of all, if we try to separate church and state, just like "American Civil Liberties Union", a Communist/Socialist organization, is attempt to drive Christianity out of public square. Since there is no such thing absolute absence of religion, they are establishing a religion called "Secular Humanism". They are violating the US Constitution in these two places they are establishing religion and they are trying to use courts to make laws.

Thursday, January 06, 2005

In defense of sanctity of life: Abortion, Groningen Protocol, euthanasia and capital punishment

I often ask people two question to see where they stand on the these issues. And I find that people who don't believe in absolutes give me wrong answers. The questions that I ask are, "Do you believe in abortion?" And "Should murderers and terrorist who murdered hundreds and thousands, receive the ultimate punishment for their crime?" I have lots of fun :), listening to peoples answers.

As you will see I don't like a word pro-choice, refering to abortionists. There is nothing pro-choice about telling a pregnant woman that doesn't want to raise her child that she should abort it. There are lots of choices out there. First of all, there is a choice not to have sex if you don't want to have children. Then there is a choice if you happened to get pregnant, take responsibility and raise that child. Or another choice, adopt the child out. There are lots of people out there who want to have children and can't and they would gladly adopt one. So, abortion is not the only choice and not a choice at all. There are plenty of choices out there, if we are willing to consider them.

What is an abortion? In my opinion, it is a murder of innocent unborn children. And this is my argument. Question! What is life? When does life begin? There is more and more scientific evidence that life begins far earlier than abortionists would want us to believe. And even among people who don't believe in most of liberal abortion practices like to talk about certain exceptions. So let's talk about some of those.

Serious threat to the mother's life? As I have mentioned before I talk to people about contriversal issues. I have talked to quite a few mothers with children who were told by doctors that they would die in child birth and still decided to give birth because of their convictions. And they had those children and they are healthy and growing and their mothers are just fine. Doctors can't say anything for sure. It's an educated guess every time. I don't deny that some women do die in child birth but obviously the mothers that I have talked to, definitely took a huge risk after being told that they would die and they lived.

Rape? how is it the baby's fault that it was conceived in rape. So, now the innocent baby must die? I would rather advocate death penalty for rapists then murder babies who were conceived in rape. Again I have talked to countless women with convictions who were raped who gave birth to those children. Some of them adopted them out, some raised them.

Now it's time to decide what you will do. :) And of course if you are a liberal, :) the government is your god, so you are pretty much on your own. :) And there is no standard of morality or respect for sanctity of life in you. So, go ahead kill the child. Afterall it's your chioce. Even God's first institution given to mankind is FREE VOLITION. So, go ahead make the choice if you are a true liberal you don't care to answer to God, afterall He doesn't exist. :) So, eat, drink and be merry for tomorow, we'll die. :)

Groningen Protocol is a commitee of Doctors at Groningen University Hospital in Holland drafted guidelines to euthanise newborns with savere birth deffects. Liberal are trying to play God again.


Thursday, November 18, 2004

In defense of our Troops

Key phrase: "Are we supposed to be outraged?"

Was it a war crime? Let's look at the context. Americans are picture-driven people. We don't care about issues until we see them on TV. If we look at this as a police brutality case on the streets of our cities, killing a wounded man would definitely be a crime. And there would be an investigation. However it's not peaceful pristinefulness but this is an urban warfare we are talking about here. A wounded terrorist is shot and killed and there is an investigation. And it is not yet over but the solder is condamned by the whole world already!?

For about two weeks our troops have been involved in this operation of "flushing terrorists" from the city of Fallujah. It was a terrorist stronghold. For weeks prior to the offensive, leaflets were dropped, warning civilians of impending attack and the plea to leave the city. And a lot of the people did leave.

What do the terrorists fight for? They fight to put the people of Iraq in bondage and they fight against the freedom, the opportunity for the Iraqi people to govern themselves and to elect their represenatives and their leaders. On the other hand American Troops fight to liberate Iraqi people and give them the opportunity to participate in the January 2005 elections where the Iraqi people, for the first time, will elect their representatives who will draft their first Constitution.

Now the rules of engagement in the urban warfare is to shoot anything that moves. There is no other way for the solders to survive in this fight. Anything that shoots at our troops gets demolished or bombed. And now an NBC embedded reporter broadcasts to the world how an american solder shot and killed a wounded terrorist. And we are supposed to be outraged. the american solders are shot, bombed, exploded by homocide bombers and booby-trapped corpses of terrorists. And we are supposed to be outraged when a wounded terrorist is killed.

In the same week, we hear shocking reports about a band of terrorists in Holland. These beasts brutally murdered Mr. Van Gough, a documentary film maker who dared in his latest documentary to expose horrible treatment of muslim women. They shot him, cut his trout and pinned a note to his dead body with a dagger. Then few days later Al-Jazeera received a video tape that shows terrorists assassinating a blindfolded woman. Margarett Hassan, a CARE International releaf worker who was kidnapped from her UN office by the same terroists a month ago. And we are supposed to be outraged at the site of a wounded terrorist being shot and killed by an american so-called "war criminal." The question realy is, who is a criminal here? There isn't a week that passes by when we don't hear about civilian foreign workers who are rebuilding Iraq. These brave men and women are kidnapped and brutally murdered by these terrorist thugs. And we are supposed to be outraged when these beasts are killed by our troops.

Now who are these terrorists that our troops are fighting against in Iraq? Nineteen out of twenty of these are either syrians, iranians, pakistanis, chechens or some other foreign terrorists. Only five percent of them are iraqis. And they are not even a subject to the Geneva Convention because they are not uniformed military personnel of a certain state.

So, are our troops committing war crimes? I think they are not. But they are fighting a deadly enemy. So, it's time for you to decide for your self these issues. Have fun :) Bye.

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Monday, October 18, 2004

The Duelfer Report

On October 6, 2004, the ISG (Iraqi survey group) release another report. It’s been called the Duelfer report named after Charles Duelfer the head of the ISG. In spite of partisan American news media’s reporting the fact that the weapons of mass murder were not found in Iraq. Since we already knew it from David Kay or first ISG report, it was not news. This latest thousand page report contained detailed evidence pointing to France, Germany, Russia and China receiving future oil contracts or oil vouchers from Saddam’s regime in exchange for voting the UN security council to prevent military action against Iraq and eventual removing of sanctions which would lead to Saddam’s reconstitution of WMD programs including nuclear program. The report also detailed the UN corruption in the Iraqi oil-for-food program. How Saddam was able to skim billions of dollars and divert it from helping his people to buying weapons and supplies for the military, bribes and his lavished lifestyle.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Who is an American?

Crying Statue of LibertyIf you love freedom, you are an American
When the war in Iraq began, newspapers carried the report of someone in Pakistan who had offered a reward to anyone who killed an American. An Australian dentist wrote the response below.

Who is an American?
An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan. An American may also be a Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, or one of the many other tribes known as Native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses. An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.

Americans welcome the best, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes. But they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families. I've been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 other countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not particular people from a particular place, they are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

The above was circulated on the internet in 2003. If you know the author please email me his contact info at