BEWARE THE STALL-OUT PROPOSAL

People on the left in the blogosphere are feeling so helpless about the Iraq War and so fearful that we will bomb Iran, that they have come up with the following proposal on a Toledo blog, www.manwiththemuckrake.blogspot.com.

Mud-rake wrote:
As I see it, only massive citizen action can awaken the sleeping masses.

Several months ago a friend and I were talking about such an action and we were struck by a very simple but highly effective method of getting the attention of the entire nation in a rather fast way. The automobile as an agent of action. Not a moving automobile but a stationary automobile. A 'stalled' automobile.
Stalled in rush hour traffic causing massive traffic jams all over America starting in Boston and New York, moving westward to Detroit, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Atlanta and Chicago. Then to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston. Further west to Denver, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego.

Thousands of stalled cars, millions of people brought to a standstill in 3 hours.

Americans would demand to know what was happening. The answer is simple: citizen action to stop the madness of George Bush and Dick Cheney. "We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!"

I think Stall-out is a really dangerous idea, a terrorist act in itself --causing lots of accidents and disrupting peoples' lives the way only an enemy would want to do it. It would prevent emergency vehicles from getting to accidents and heart attack victims, and to hospitals and fires, etc. It is a blackmail tactic, "See what we can do if you don't do what we want?" driving bus drivers mad with cooped up and frightened school children. It would be like a soccer game crush in effect.

Seems to me that American Radicals typically think of "demonstrations" of some sort --instead of legitimately getting into power so they can call the shots --or legitimately having a letter-writing campaign to the Pres. on down and doing positive, informative, publicity to convey their fears and beliefs to the masses--rather than calling the pres. a liar and Cheany a mere war-monger for corporate interests, etc. They foment anger and hatred instead of good reasoned debate. Reason and genuine concern for the future would be a novel approach for the left-- as opposed to the usual smarmy-toned, attack vitriol of MoveOn.org. Who needs enemies with friends like the far left?

Interesting article in Citizen magazine about a new book by a woman journalist who says the dems aren't listening to women --many of whom went republican on the abortion issue -- nor are they hearing the black women who indignantly think gay marriage is unnecessary and literally nutty.
This author says women want the war to end --but ALSO REALLY care about the values/ moral issues. So the war is the one the Dems are focused upon to shore up their base because they want to keep their radical left social votes and agenda as well.

Victory in 08 is Dems' no. 1 concern for the sake of their social issues which trump all others--they are just as single issue as any conservative Christians are accused of being. And they literally despise the Bible-based world view and those who hold it --evidence was in the recently deleted posts by Mud-rake, accusing Christians of being mentally disabled or victims of OCD, etc.

This sort of civil war with demonization even at the Senate/Congressional level in America is counter-productive to good national debate on the issues. Of course, we do know really nasty people in life --and so it is too easy to infer that the other party's politicians are really hopelessly nasty and corrupt, too. We do need to appeal to the better natures in each of us --if possible.

The top 3 dems have, according to blog reports on recent debate? , backed down on the immediate Iraq withdrawal advocacy --saying we do have to stay around in Iraq awhile longer. (Must be polls to that effect.) Of course, they still maintain Iraq was just fine under Sadam and no threat to join forces with Osama since no WMD were found. Sadam WAS the WMD killing his opposition off en masse --and he WOULD have joined forces with al quaeda, I believe, had we not intervened, because Sadam had to love what osama achieved.

Why doesn't the Left figure out how to put the blame and the rhetoric for global mess squarely where it belongs --on radical Islamic groups --and there are a ton of 'em misinterpreting their "peace-loving Koran" --and warring with their own continually, seeking revenge against Israel (their bedrock motivation --along with a goal of global Islamic theocracy)

No, I'm not talking about all Muslims --just Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Quadea, Taliban, Wahabi-style home-grown terrorists all over the globe --who, when in power, recognize few human rights of people who are not "with them" ideologically--and people who "sin" by the Koran.

American Christians DO share some faith principles with these people --but NOT the right to murder and terrorize, force a theocratic gov't --though some bloggers say social conservatives want theocracy just because we BELIEVE gov't should reflect the majority's view of what is good for society --restraints on evil --traditional definitions of right and wrong. These are not oppressive restrictions --unless you want to marry your own sex and kill your fetuses. That would be oppressive, of course, to promote heterosexual identification and normalcy in children --and cultivate a culture of life --that stressed sexual responsibility more than abortion as birth control, killing 45 million americans since 1973.

This was not vitriolic, by the way.














"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible