I saw an article on MSNBC.com about an airline worker getting fired because she was wearing a crucifix publicly. Never mind that Muslims can roll out their prayer rugs and pray in the middle of a flight. I read this blog entry by Daniel Pipes dated November 14, 2005 and compared to this article dated October 26, 2006. Both articles detail how Muslim taxi drivers:

(a) Refusal to transport blind individuals with Seeing Eye dogs (physically assaulting a few people)

(b) Refusal to transport individuals carrying alcoholic beverages

Even more disturbing was the solution talked about in the Washington Post article:

“Last month, the airports commission proposed putting colored lights on top of cabs to indicate which ones will carry alcohol, a compromise worked out in discussions ongoing since May with the Muslim American Society of Minnesota.”

    Fortunately this measure was opposed and over 2,000 emails protesting the plan were sent to the airport commission. Even thinking of this measure was absolutely absurd. If they don’t want to be near alcohol or dogs, find another profession. Apologists say that the Muslims in these cases are simply following the religious rules, but if a Christian were to stand up and profess a religious belief (anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage) they would not be granted the same courtesy by the MSM. This is a slow Islamization of America, under the cover of multiculturalism and tolerance, and aided by Center for American Islamic Relations, the Muslim American Society, and the liberal media (to name a few). I think Dennis Prager nailed it here. He does an exceptional job of clarifying the issue to what it really is, and explaining the difference between the Christian and Islamic religion.

                                                                       Mike Grant

     With a Democratic Congress ready to take over in January, we are already hearing the clamor rise for the involvement of Syria and Iran in the Iraq peace process and the "phased redeployment" (i.e. withdrawal) of U.S. troops soon. The Democrats say that if we "negotiate" (i.e. give them everything they want) with regimes like Syria, Iran, and North Korea (to name a few) everything will work out just fine and we will have no problems. While this sounds like nice, non-confrontational way to settle differences, promote world peace and understanding, and improve our popularity in the eyes of the world, it is extremely flawed logic. These rogue states are rogue states for a reason. Their leaders are dictators, who often seize power in bloody coups, execute anyone who opposes them and rule with an iron fist of fear and terror. These dictators have killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and will continue to do so until confronted. I understand that the evil in this world will never truly be defeated, that the U.S. can only do so much, and that sometimes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” but some people in this country are all too willing to let the dictators of this world work unhindered until they (absolutely without a shred of doubt) directly threaten the United States. Even then, our politicians try "negotiating," and they make concessions, all in the name of "stability."

    These dictators are no more than violent, evil, thuggish criminals who will take a mile if given an inch. People in the U.S. are quick to call President Bush and former SecDef Don Rumsfeld "war criminals" and yet today a human rights organization says former dictator Saddam Hussein’s sentence should be revoked. The media often excuses many dictators, playing them off as "victims" of U.S. "imperialism." That "imperialism" is simply our President and military having the stones to call a spade a spade, as we have done with North Korea, Iran, Syria, Iraq, etc. Unfortunately, all of these regimes manipulate the liberal western media quite well. In The Fall of Baghdad by Jon Lee Anderson, the author details how the journalists were wined and dined in the finest of Saddam's palaces, shown the very best that Iraq had to offer, and given tours of Saddam's propaganda museums and monuments. I will note that the French journalists sucked it up like you wouldn't believe. These dictators are cunning adversaries and will have to be dealt with before all is said and done. They are all about power, and will have no problem allying themselves with anyone, especially terrorist groups, to destroy the U.S. This is a war and we are in the fight for not only our lives, but the world's as well.

                                                                                    Mike Grant

    While browsing the internet yesterday I found another Global Terrorism Analysis Site, run by the Jamestown Foundation. I signed up for it’s free email subscription service, which sends newsletters concerning Global Terrorism and China. I have downloaded several of its PFD books and have been very impressed by their quality and analysis. I highly recommend that those of you interested in foreign affairs check this site out.

                                                                                Mike Grant

     I was looking at the official CAIR website today out of curiosity and saw several interesting items. One was a “fact” sheet (which seemed more opinion) about CAIR which I have linked here. First, CAIR asserts that:

    "CAIR financial statements are audited by professional accountants and are certified as having passed with distinction. CAIR Annual Reports are made available to all our members and donors. Beginning in 2006 CAIR Annual Reports will be made available online."

    How can it be that their finances have “passed with distinction (of what?)” when five of CAIR’s employees and board members (Randall “Ismail” Royer, Ghassan Elashi, Bassem Khafagi, Rabih Haddad, Siraj Wahhaj) have been convicted or linked to terrorist groups! Not only that, but it has been receiving money from Saudi Arabia and has had board members publicly say that they support terrorism. In this attached article, published shortly after the London Public Transit Bombings, Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha took a close at CAIR’s propaganda and actual actions. CAIR opposed Pipes’ nomination to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2003, charging him with “hate speech.” Before 9/11, Pipes was called a racist by Muslims for “for insisting militant Islam is a serious threat to U.S. security,” but interestingly enough Pipes often explains the differences between militant Islam and the peaceful Islam. 

    That would incline me to believe that those who Muslims who truly decry terrorism (as CAIR says it does) would welcome Pipes’ opinion as a moderator. Even more interesting, an article by Pakistan Today (orignial article unavailable) in 2003 said that "many moderate American Muslims, frustrated by and angry at the extremist policies of militant Islamist organizations in the U.S. and their efforts to portray themselves as the sole voice of Islam, have welcomed the nomination of Daniel Pipes." There is also the afore mentioned CAIR-Saudi connection, where Saudi Arabian royalty donated money and Wahhabi books for placement in US libraries, which along with the rhetoric mentioned above, clearly illustrates CAIR’s goal is for the U.S. to become United Islamic States of Ameristan.

    CAIR also contends in the “fact” sheet that:

OUR ADVOCACY IS PART OF MAINSTREAM AMERICA

“CAIR, along with several Muslim and other faith-based organizations, opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003. Today a majority of Americans affirm our moral opposition to the Iraq war.”

“CAIR, along with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, was among the first to condemn torture as a tool for interrogation. Today a majority of Americans affirm our moral opposition to torture.”

“CAIR along with Muslim and Arab-American groups called for an immediate cease fire in the Middle East during the recent Israel-Lebanon conflict. Today a majority of Americans affirm our moral position on calling for a cease fire.”

“CAIR joined with the ACLU to file a lawsuit opposing the government’s NSA wiretapping scheme. A district judge affirmed our position and struck down this illegal activity. Our advocacy is part of mainstream America.”

“CAIR, along with ACLU, was among the first organizations to oppose parts of the USA Patriot Act. Several hundred cities and a few states passed resolutions against the un-constitutional provisions of the Patriot Act. Once again our views are part of mainstream America.”

    Frankly I don’t know what majority they are talking about. I haven’t conducted any scientific polling on any of these statements, and I doubt that CAIR has too. The truth of the matter is that all organizations with an agenda --- be it Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. --- spew political rhetoric such as, “working class families,” “majority of Americans,” and “disenfranchised.” The Iraq War certainly is a polarizing issue, and while I think that there is a great deal of debate about should we be there and why are we there, I think you would (depending on where you are) be hard pressed to get an American to say that removing Saddam Hussein was an immoral thing. Torture is another flashpoint in American politics, but I don’t think there is a majority either way. A certain degree of psychological torture is one thing in my mind (as outlined by the Bush Administration here), but the Gestapo became infamous by extracting information by extracting teeth, or other such barbaric ways. As for the NSA wiretapping of terrorist suspects, I believe that the majority of Americans support that measure as well as the PATRIOT Act. I know I do. In closing, CAIR is not all that it seems and warrants close surveillance of its associates and financial records.

                                                                               Mike Grant

     I checked in with the Counterterrorism Blog today and saw Douglas Farah's posting here. It covers a variety of topics, but I am going to concentrate on two postings (for now), starting with "What is Iran Up To" and ending with "Britain's Growing Islamist Problem." It doesn't surprise me that Iran may be attempting to ally itself more closely with Al-Qaida since the Islamic terrorists and Islamic regimes have had alliances of convenience before. MI5's release of it's tracking of 200 Islamic terrorist cells also doesn't surprise me, it only reinforces that we are dealing with a deadly, determined, and cunning enemy who is an expert this type of warfare. This is what makes border security and the PATRIOT Act so important. It also shows the absolute difference of values between Us and Them (a phrase often maligned by libertarians and liberals).

    This passage here "...described the terrorists' "propaganda machine" as "sophisticated," noting that footage of attacks in Iraq is posted on the Internet within 30 minutes, facilitated by teams that edit the video, translate the audio into many languages and package the material for a global audience. And, chillingly, we see the results here...Young teenagers being groomed to be suicide bombers." 

    The article also says that MI5 "...was currently aware of about 30 plots, which "often have links back to al-Qaeda in Pakistan." It is through those links...that al-Qaeda gives guidance and training to its largely British foot soldiers here on an extensive and growing scale." 

    I also saw that plutonium and highly enriched uranium was discovered in an Iranian nuclear waste facility. The IAEA's report 

    "also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have lead to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. And it said it could not confirm Iranian claims that its nuclear activities were exclusively nonmilitary unless Tehran increased its openness." 
    
    Can't say I didn't see this coming, It is obvious that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear arsenal to defend itself. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does an excellent job of manipulating the press, as all dictators do, allowing them to see what he wants them to, and playing the victim of U.S. "imperialism" card. The article goes on to say that, 

    "Since revelations more than three years ago of a covert uranium enrichment program, Iran has moved to develop its capabilities, activating two small experimental enrichment plants and enriching small amounts of uranium to nuclear fuel level. Although that is far short of the weapons grade uranium that could be used for nuclear warheads, international concerns about Tehran's ultimate intentions led the Security Council to set an Aug. 31 deadline for an enrichment moratorium — which Tehran has ignored. Officials have said they plan to have 3,000 centrifuges operating by next year — enough to make enough material for several nuclear weapons a year. Suspicions also are focused on Tehran's construction of a heavy water reactor that — when completed in the next decade — will produce plutonium waste, another pathway to nuclear weapons." 

    There is an excellent website that I subscribe to called MEMRI.org. It is the Middle Eastern Research Institute, and emails you reports directly from the Arab media. I highly recommend any readers visit this site, as all of its reports contain information you won't read in the MSM. MEMRI.org also has a sister site called MEMRI Films that has compiled a documentary (in PDF and video formats) on the Arab and Iranian Reaction to 9/11. I downloaded the PDF version, but because the length have not been able to read all of it yet (I have dial-up, so I couldn't watch it). I am also linking to this article, about the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and CAIR's continuing funding of Hamas, and radical board-members who advocate the spread of an Islamic caliphate. More later.

                                                                      Mike Grant

    

     I know the Paris Riots and its anniversary are old news, but I felt the need to commentate on it. While digging through some old articles I found some ones that I hadn't seen. In this article here, the rioters are referred to as "disaffected young men of black or north African origin rioting over the lack of opportunities open to them." This is bullcrap, these individuals are budding Islamic terrorists at worst, and dangerous criminals at the very least. Their violence hasn't stopped since last year, as this article shows. The article says, "Cars are regularly torched in France's poor suburbs but attacks on buses are rare. In the first six months of 2006, some 21,000 cars were burnt out and some 2,882 attacks registered against the police, fire and ambulance services, the RG police intelligence service said." What sheer insanity. 

    This article run in the NY Times (I have also linked a blog entry by the editor of The Brussels Journal) talks about an ambush of three police officers during their patrols. The assailants (in this case 30) were armed with bats, metal bars, and rocks blocked the officers in place with other vehicles. The police only escaped after firing shots into the air. I have linked to another article that gives a very in depth look at the Islamization of Europe. Even though I linked the article, I felt compelled to include this selection from the above article, to make sure it was read:

    "The number one best selling book in France is "September 11: The Frightening Fraud," which posits no plane ever crashed into the Pentagon. A similar book in Germany sold over one million copies. One prominent Belgian businessman conceded privately "no one knows what to believe anymore." Neither multiculturalism nor integration of Muslim communities seems to be working anywhere in Europe. Moderate Muslim voices cannot rise above radical hubbub. The French far left has also gone fishing in these troubled Islamic waters. One new leftist political star is Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, a hugely popular black comedian who appears to be a Gallic Louis Farrakhan. He dismisses civic educational programs about the Holocaust as "memory pornography." He was recently fined 5,000 Euros for comparing Jews to slave-traders. In a television sketch, he gave a Nazi salute while dressed as an orthodox Jew to denounce what he saw as "fascist Israeli policies."

    How anyone can be blind to the danger of militant Islam is beyond me. The article goes on to detail the resurgence of anti-Semitism, the anti-Jewish violence, the violence against police, fire fighters, and citizens and general lawlessness. Also note that most of this is ignored in the MSM.  

    I say this kind of situation could be a U.S. problem because of our own "Mexicanization" of America.  Imagine if the kind of violence unleashed in Paris by radical Islamic gangs occurred in the U.S., only it would be committed by radical Mexican gangs. There would be chaos, and order could only be restored by the military and police taking severe action against those Mexican gangs, which would further polarize Latin America and our current Hispanic population against the U.S. government. Hopefully it won't come to that, but we should be prepared for that possibility, as we could not count on the government to come riding to our rescue.

                                                                                        Mike Grant 

     I was skimming the headlines on MSNBC.com last night, and saw this article. Europe was weighing in with their, oh so precious opinion (which we all really care about), as was Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The article says that "over 200 socialist members of the European Parliament hailed the American election results as “the beginning of the end of a six-year nightmare for the world"...and gloated that they left the Bush administration seriously weakened.” Hmm, that sounds kind of like our new House and Senate. The Guardian's, a liberal London newspaper, commentator Martin Kettle wrote: "The cheering can be heard not just in America itself but around the planet."

    Gleeful reaction was not limited just to London. In Paris, "expatriates and French citizens alike packed the city’s main American haunts to watch results, with some standing to cheer or boo as vote tabulations came in." Does this group include the fire fighters and police who have had their backs to the wall for quite some time becuase of the radical Islamic gangs sweeping through the slums of Paris? I would tend to think not, as they are confronting this threat face to face. More on this later. 

                                                                                    Mike Grant

 

     I'm back, after a lack of blogging over the past few days. My grandparents were in town for my 17th birthday, and I hardly turned the computer on. I do appreciate the feedback on Buchanan's Hypocrisy, so keep it up. I got several interesting books for my birthday, including Tom Clancy's: The Sum of All Fears. I heard that Hollywood changed the villians in the book from Muslim terrorists to white Nazis in the movie. 

    I also got Enemies, which I told you about, The Battle for Peace: A Frontline Vision of America's Power and Purpose by General Anthony Zinni, and Who The Hell Are We Fighting: The Story of Sam Adams and Vietnam Intelligence Wars by C. Michael Hiam. All these books promise to be interesting reads and I wil review them once I finish them. More on the elections, the world, and The State of the Union later.

                                                                    Mike Grant

    I mentioned in my last blog that Pat Buchanan criticized the Bush Administration for selling weapons to Israel during the last Israeli-Lebanese War. While digging through Pat's archive on RealClearPolitics.com, I found a number of his columns on American Foreign Policy that I would like to comment on. I understand that Pat Buchanan has been around longer than me, and that he has access to more information than me, but some his ideas struck me as hypocritical and unrealistic.

    For example, in his column entitled, "How About Showing Russia Some Respect," 
Buchanan says:

    "...the relationship between the two greatest nuclear powers on earth has been going steadily downhill. Americans give these reasons for the estrangement: Putin's reversion to authoritarianism, his support for repressive regimes in Belarus and Uzbekistan, his closeness to Beijing (including joint military exercises), his sale of fighter jets to Hugo Chavez and anti-aircraft missiles to Tehran, his support for Iran's nuclear plant, his recognition of Hamas' election victory, his oil blackmail of Ukraine, his unplugging of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and his crackdown on U.S. NGO's promoting democracy in Russia. All seemed designed to show Russia's independence of -- and, indeed, defiance of -- the world leadership of the United States. And that is not an unfair conclusion. But Americans need to ask themselves whether we have had it coming. For consider how we have dealt with Russia's interests and sensitivities."

    Pat Buchanan's comments seem indicate the it is the fault of the U.S. for the deteriorating diplomatic ties between Russia and America – never mind that Russia is siding with open enemies of the U.S. – and makes excuses for Putin’s choice to revert to Authoritarian rule. He criticizes the U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in old Soviet satellites, and says that the U.S. and UN had no right to intervene during the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. His argument being that we can’t interfere in the politics of Russia, and we can’t tell Russia what to do. By this logic, we have no right to "control" or "reign in" Israel, though that is exactly what Pat Buchanan has suggested several times in a number of different columns, such as here and here. Talk about hypocrisy!

    Buchanan continues in this vein, blaming the so-called Israeli Lobby for hijacking our government, and doing our dirty work for them. He also says the Israel and the U.S. have never been attacked by Iran, a statement that is obviously false, seeing as Iran has been waging proxy wars against both countries through Shiite militias (Al-Sadr) in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He also seems to be ignoring the Iran Hostage Crises in 1979, when they seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran. President Carter failed to extract them, either militarily or through negotiations. His covert military strike to free the U.S. hostages was a fatal failure. Iran released our hostages as a sign of “good will” when Ronald Reagan won the presidency, probably because they feared direct confrontation with US and their loss of power. 
    
    Buchanan continues, saying that Israel doesn't allow us to talk to terrorists, and that diplomacy is the answer to our problems with terrorists and their sponsors. Never mind that diplomacy with terrorists, especially radical nutcases hellbent on dying for their religion, has been proven worthless! Case in point, Yasser Arafat, whom Buchanan mentions in the above column, had 95% of his deal met at the Camp David Peace Accords. Any rational leader would have upheld that agreement, but instead Arafat vowed to continue his war against Israel. 

    Back to Russia. As I mentioned earlier, Buchanan criticized the U.S. pushing prodemocratic movements in old Soviet satellites. In this column, Buchanan speaks of Georgia, who 

    "...is finding that ex-colonies of the empire pay a price for becoming estranged from Mother Russia. In 2003, Georgia underwent a Rose Revolution that swept Eduard Shevardnadze from power. But in the street demonstrations that raised up Mikhail Saakashvili, Moscow saw the fine hand of Bush's "democracy project." Since then, Moscow has seethed, as Saakashvili has pulled his country steadily toward the EU and NATO."

    Again Buchanan seems to be giving Moscow a pass on this, blaming the U.S. for Russia's power hungry and authoritarian mentality. He goes on to criticize the U.S. in this statement for seeming "...impotent or unwilling to take his (Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian Premier's) side." Wait a minute. Didn't Pat Buchanan just criticize the U.S. for meddling in "Russia's interests and sensitivities?" And now he is essentially saying we aren't meddling enough?! Which is it Mr. Buchanan, do we "meddle" or not? 

    The bottom line is that all countries meddle in the affairs of other countries and that is the sad reality of the world.  I don't disagree with Buchanan's argument that we need to establish diplomatic ties with secular, Arab regimes. Such ties will be important to build a coalition of allies (granted the enemy of my enemy is my friend allies), such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to combat the global threat of militant Islam, which cannot be underestimated, as Buchanan suggests here. He believes that "Al-Qaida appears to exist for one purpose: Plot and perpetrate mass murder to terrorize Americans and Europeans into getting out of the Islamic world." 

    They fight to exert their power and influence over others, to establish a world wide Islamic caliphate, and to kill all dissenters so that they may have absolute power over all. That simple. It is a clash of civilizations wether Pat Buchanan likes it or not, and the regimes in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, North Korea, and Caracas have very close ties to Islamic terrorist organizations, either as havens, suppliers or both. They will come gunning for us sooner or later and most likely sooner. And it seems to me that the more free, democratic societies there are with close alliances with the United States, the European Union, and NATO, the better off the world will be.

                                                                                            Mike Grant

    At first this might not seem like a big deal, because everyone sells weapons to everyone else. However, Russia sold new surface-to-air-missiles to Iran (a definite US adversary)and promised to upgrade their air force and armored divisions, and eight refueling tanker airplanes to China. I bring this up because during the most recent Israeli-Lebanese War, the U.S. sold weapons to Israel, which included precision guided bombs. Playing to the double standard for the US and the rest of the world, Pat Buchanan seriously criticized the administration, in this article here and here. I just wonder where his article was condemning Russia for selling antitank weapons to Iran, who then shipped them to Hezbollah, for use against Israeli troops. It was reported on MSNBC.com that the antitank weapons caused severe casualties to Israeli troops here.

In terms of China, I recently read a very interesting and well written book called "Showdown: Why China Want's War with the United States." It is written by Jed Babbin (former Air Force JAG) and Edward Timberlake (former Marine fighter pilot, held positions in DOD) and is about what war with China might look like, when it might happen (sooner than we would like), and who would win. Showdown mentions the closeness of Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran, and the arms deals between them. Technology on China's wish list include refueling tankers (which they just purchased), so they would be able expand their air power over Asia and the Pacific Ocean.

I am also linking an article by Joe Buff that I read on Military.com about China's rapid expansion of its nuclear powered submarine fleet. I am also linking to his archives, which contain several other articles about China's naval expansion. I am also planning on buying several other books about China, including "Enemies: How America'a Foes Steal Our Vital Secrets - And How We Lit It Happen" by Bill Gertz. One concern that I had about Showdown was the authors personal interests (such as employment for a defense contractor) but the end of Showdown contained the actual 2004 DoD report on China's military aspirations and buildup and that gave the book credibility in my eyes. More on Russia, Iran, China, and Pat Buchanan in my next posting. 

                                                                        Mike Grant

    I saw on the internet this several days ago that for major U.S. newspapers the "average paid circulation fell 2.8 percent on weekdays and 3.4 percent on Sundays." I have linked to the original article here, and have noticed for a bit that this is a continuing downward trend for major papers. I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but what does the liberal media expect? I open the Baltimore Sun everyday at breakfast, and all of the world news articles are from the NY Times, the LA Times, and the AP. The only differences among many major newspapers is the editorial board, most of which have a liberal slant, with a few conservative columnists tossed in here and there.

This approach leads to a monopoly of just one ideology presented by the media. This ideology becomes fact; information that doesn't support that ideology is ignored, and falls through the cracks. With no conservative data to challenge the ideology, anyone who speaks against it is deemed "out in right field" and not worth listening to. If that ideology is pushed long enough and hard enough, history could be rewritten, and no one would know or be able to do anything about it. Napoleon I, though a cruel dictator and conqueror, said it best in this case, "History is a set of lies agreed upon."

The risk of this abuse often leads to alternative information sources, such as Townhall.com, books, independent newspapers, and talk radio being established so that individuals can discuss things in an open debate and arrive at the truth (or their idea of the truth) through critical thinking, as opposed to indoctrination. Otherwise the saying, "Say it long enough, and loud enough, and it becomes the truth," carries more weight than any of us would like to think. 

                                                            Mike Grant

     I emailed my godfather (no, I'm not Italian) after my first blog posting. He was very enthusiastic about it and asked me to email him every time I update it. He is a professor of International Law at Georgetown University in D.C. and has his own blog on the Georgetown website. I added him to blog roll if you want to check it out, though International Law does make my head spin with it's complexity. After his initial posting students can add information to the blog, which makes it very interactive.

Several years ago he and my sister discussed the philosophers Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates (and then some) as part of her Philosophy course. Philosophy was over my head then (and still might be now), so I didn't pay much attention. Why does it have to be so complicated?! Very annoying. 

                                                                   Mike Grant

P.S. - I appreciate the comment by gregmc, it is always nice to have some
encouragement like that.

     Hi everyone, I am back. If anyone tried to visit my blog over the past few days, they likely had some issues. Fortunately they have been resolved (how I don't know) and I get back to blogging. Hopefully, I will have no more problems in publishing my entries and disappointing what readers I have. 

                                                                                Mike Grant

    I thought the title of this posting would be fitting, given that it is my first ever blog. I expect to touch on many issues during my blogging, especially issues related to National Security --- foreign affairs, safety and security, and immigration --- with some thoughts on the mainstream media, our culture, and government. 

    Hopefully this endeavor of mine will be successful in attracting enough readers to merit these postings. My biggest concern is just saying the same thing that everyone else is saying. Hopefully I will be able to bring some new perspective to some issues. I will be reviewing the books I am currently reading, and recommending some very interesting web sites so readers have more sources of information to draw from. 

    My grandfather, Paul Kearns, will also be contributing to this blog. He has been conducting some very interesting research on matters concerning wonderments and puzzlements of Faith. 

    I think that information sharing and availability is one of the most important things of our age, though it is a double-edged sword. Hopefully I will not disappoint anyone who reads my postings. Feel free to leave comments about my blog; just try to keep it civil among yourselves. I would prefer not to have to flag anything that is offensive, though it is an interesting feature to use. 

                                                       Mike Grant