To Halal or Not


Should one concede, add foods people need,
Should one stand strong, plant hatred’s seed?
Silly little ditty but so true.

Now, before I go on I want to make one thing clear, I am not anti any ethnic group.
Today, Sunday I went shopping at the local grocery store. I do not usually go on Sundays due to the crowds but had to get some things for dinner. As I was shopping, more like hunting I noticed something I have never consciously noticed before; overhead signs proclaims sections for “Snacks,” “Pickles, Relishes, Condiments,” “Soups,” “Kosher Foods,” “Coffee and Tea,” “Mexican Foods,” “Asian Foods.” “Baking Supplies,” and so on.. Damn near broke my neck trying to read some of them.
While cranking my neck in one aisle to find wild rice, I accidentally bumped into a young girl who had dashed out in front of me. She was a cutie with beautiful long black hair and eyes that will one day win the hearts of many men. As I regained my composure, a women’s voice called to the child from behind me. I turned to see a young lady in a hajib telling the girl to apologize to me.
I told the lady it was a much my fault as the child, so no harm was done.
As I resumed my hunt for whatever foolish thing I wanted, I started to think about an article I had read last week. It seems a recent immigrant from a predominantly Muslim country was upset about not being able to find “Halal” foods for her family.
Not being a Muslim, I was curious as what Halal is. I googled it and found Halal means permissible. Halal food is food devout Muslims are permitted to eat. The food is prepared to set standards and procedures of Islamic teaching. This is also true of Kosher food prepared in compliance with established Hebrew criteria and procedures. They are similar but different.
So, how can I, a non-Muslim, non-Jew, non-Christian tell if a packaged product is Halal or Kosher? Label – read the label, certified Halal and Kosher products each display a seal of approval from the appropriate certifying agency within that religion.
Yes, I know, I have done a simple form of a complex issue, but I am not promoting anything other than what I have learned as a non-Jew, Muslim, Christian about a topic of interest to me.
Onward to the meat section of my local grocery store where I find Kosher meats section. This one was easy to find because the signs and the Star of David frame it. I think it is cool as it celebrates diversity and honors a commitment by a particular group of people.
I checked around but did not see any Halal meat section so, out of pure curiosity, I finished shopping in this store and went to another one operated by a different company. Know what I found there? Yep, the same product signs, and a Kosher meat section, but nothing other than packaged products with Halal seals. No Halal meat section.
The fact is, I have not noticed any Halal meat sections in any of the stores I shop. Guess no Muslims shop in those stores, right? Wrong! I see Muslims shopping in all the stores I do, so what’s the problem?
I do not know the answer to that question other than to say, all the Muslims I know eat meat, maybe not pork but they do eat lamb, chicken, turkey, beef, and some others. Now that I think about it, my Jewish friends do the same! This led me to believe that the dietary requirements for Muslims may, in fact, be equally applicable to those of the Jewish dietary needs. However, it does not explain why there are not Halal meat sections in stores I shop along with Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, and a plethora of other ethnic shoppers.
Perhaps the problem lies in cost v demand? Most businesses operate on the principle.
I am not suggesting I know the answer; I am suggesting it would be great to see a Halal meat section in the same stores we all shop. If there is a cultural issue, perhaps one could separate the sections by placing all pork products in the center of the display case, then add beef on one side and chicken on the other followed by Halal and Kosher at the respective ends.
I call this inclusion, the forerunner of assimilation and the opponent of anti-culturalism.

Identity in a Global World?

Currently, the United Nations is aggressively promoting the idea of a “Global Community.” The concept is that through trade agreements, treaties and other avenues yet to be put forth, all the Earth’s nations will join as one.  The initial major stage of this agenda began with replacing the monetary systems of some countries with a standard one, the Euro. This was a giant step balked at by numerous countries who felt the loss of their currency might cause a loss of identity.

The next major stage was the forced acceptance of immigrants and refugees from Middle Eastern countries into Australia, New Zealand, and the countries of Europe and North America. This was all done without strong, unified guidelines, security and rules of assimilation and has been a total disaster. Why is it a disaster – in a word, identity?

So what is an identity? Beginning with our DNA, it is unique to each of us. It can be used to identify each of us by ethnicity, heritage, diet, health, culture and numerous other unique features make each of us unique – they are our identity.

The powers controlling the United Nations and the European Union are promoting the Globalization agenda which is robbing both the immigrants/refugees and the people of the host countries of their identity. If allowed to continue, there will be no United Globalized World; there will only be anarchy, resentment, and envy the remnants of lost identities.


The next stage of Globalization has already begun with the development and designation of “No Go Zones” in non-Muslim cities. Despite what many think, I do not agree these are intentionally established anti-host country areas. I believe they are attempts by refugees and immigrants to have havens where they may maintain their cultural identity. There are areas of potential problems with this such as the inability to assimilate into a new culture v the new culture accepting an alien culture, the radicalization of severe malcontents on both sides of the agenda and conflicts over common things such as proper clothing, foods, school, etc. that must be effectively addressed. The core issue may be that neither side wants to be a clone of the other side, to do so would destroy identities.


How do we combat the negative effects of Globalization on personal and cultural identities?

I believe the first step in combating the negative effects is to teach what true cultural diversity is and how it can positively affect all of us. This must begin in the home, where the cultural values are the strongest. Parents must teach their children the values they may gain from exposure to diversity; not just the negative aspects of an alien culture. We must lower some of our cultural shields to understand the cultures of others better, by doing so, we may come to understand and accept that which is alien in our eyes.


Can we accomplish this without surrendering to the entire Global Community agenda? I believe it possible once we realize the benefits, and more importantly the losses of the agenda. No one culture must be forced to surrender its identity to meet the demands of the collective and become drones of the Borg.[1]



[1] The Borg are a fictional alien race that appear as recurring antagonists in the Star Trek franchise. The Borg are a collection of species that have been turned into cybernetic organisms functioning as drones in a hive mind called the Collective, or the hive.

What is Authentic Faith?

To me, authentic faith is not:

  • Knowing I can be a good person.
  • Knowing I can help others in need.
  • Knowing I can keep my promises.
  • Knowing I can overcome when required.
  • Knowing I can admit when I am wrong.

No dear ones, authentic faith to me is none of these things.

Hear me when I say, authentic faith is knowing I WILL do all these things and so much more.

Diversity – A Political Illusion


Seems that everywhere I look today; I see diversity promoted as the panacea for all human ailments. I think I even saw a sign in a health foods store proclaiming; “Diversity: A Miraculous Cure for Acne!”

Yes, I bought an eight oz bottle. No, it did not work, but then I don’t have acne so that could explain it, right? Maybe I didn’t use enough? However, the label does not say how much diversity I need to use to cure anything, let alone acne.

I confess, I’m sarcastic, but I’m desperate.

What is Diversity?      It’s an impossible dream, a fantasy an illusion!

Being the good student I claim, I researched the concept of Diversity beginning with synonyms and antonyms. I found 367 synonyms and 91 antonyms. Whoa, talk about a percentage variance – I was amazed. Even more so, I was stunned by many of the antonyms such as equality, agreement, community, equivalency, harmony, understanding, and union. Almost seems to me that Diversity is the antithesis of the historical spirit of America.

America was built on a perceived idea of diversity with a premise of Freedom of Religion. The tragic part of that was, initially, there was no Freedom of Religion.

Freedom of Religion was not the law in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The Puritans came to America so they could practice their religion as they pleased. However, they did not allow other settlers the same religious freedom. Settlers who did not follow the Puritan ways were not allowed to own land in the colony, and were often sent away.”  (Magliocca & Mele, n.d.)

Has the concept of Freedom of Religion improved since the Puritans? For the most part, yes it has, but I fear for its survival. Even now, a President who claims to espouse the Diversity of America’s Freedom of Religion is actively attacking that freedom by attempting to silence certain religious groups and promot\ing others.

There is Diversity in silencing Diversity.

Is there Diversity in Freedom of Speech?

“Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one’s opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.”  (“Freedom of speech,” 2016)

Since it’s inception, the U.S. Supreme Court has been challenged to define what “Freedom of Speech” entails.

Freedom of speech includes the right:

  • Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
    West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
  • Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
    Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
  • To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
    Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
  • To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
  • To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
    Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
  • To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest).
    Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).


Freedom of speech does not include the right:

  • To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
    Schenck v. the United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
  • To make or distribute obscene materials.
    Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
  • To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
    United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
  • Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
    Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
  • Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
    Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
  • (Federal Judiciary, n.d.)

Given the American penchant for lawsuits, I’m pretty sure this is a shortened version of a very long list of cases presented before the Supreme Court regarding Freedom of Speech. The problem for my old mind is the second portion of this list with its restrictions.

When one opinion of an argument mandates restrictions on another opinion, is that not censorship? Is that not suppression of Diversity?

I’m going to jump forward to the present time – fall, 2016, a time of major disruption in our world caused by Diversity? Yep, I said it, Diversity is a primary cause of all our ills – care for an explanation? Glad you asked.

Diversity, true Diversity does not exist – it’s an illusion.


  1. Certain cultures (A) in our world feel pedophilia is an acceptable practice, however, many others (B) do not. Immigrants from culture A moving to culture B may wish to continue their practice while members of B culture refuse to allow it. Which culture is being more Diverse?
  2. Political party (A) believes in Freedom of Speech for everyone regardless of what may be said while party (B) believes in politically appropriate censorship. Which party is more Diverse?
  3. The mayor of City (A) believes in allowing illegal/undocumented immigrants to settle without fear of deportation while the Mayor of City (B) believes the exact opposite. Which city is more Diverse?
  4. A black, female Principal of an elementary school in Oregon determines that the Pledge of Allegiance will no longer be said in the school to aid in “Diversity.”

If only one child wants to say the Pledge, is he/she allowed to based on her “Diverse” request? Is the Principal teaching true “Diversity?”

Since the Principal is the only black, female principal at the school, is she truly “Diverse?”

Were I to continue this list of questionable “Diversities.”, I would most assuredly run out of printer ink and paper long before I ran out of examples. I believe the reason for this is “Diversity,” as claimed and declared by manipulative people is strictly an illusion meant to mislead the innocent and control a population.

Does the wind care about “Diversity” when it erodes the soil?

Does the weed in the garden fight against the flower for nutrients and water neither ceding to the others “Diversity.”

Do the predators show “Diversity” when hunting prey?

Do people habitually recognize and fully honor the “Diversity” of others?

Is the genuine recognition and acceptance of true “Diversity a common human endeavor, something we only address when the need arises or an illusionary political tool?


August 29, 2016


Diversity: Is thy name a lie?


America, a country built on diverse beliefs, cultures, religions and ethnicities once united as a people strong against the foes of freedom. Have we lost the dream?


Today, August 29, 2016, I read an article about a black elementary school principal in Oregon who is celebrating her decision to prohibit students from pledging allegiance to the flag of our great nation. Her reason, “diversity.”


If offered the chance, I would ask this principal how she defines “diversity.”


Does not the denial of one’s right to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of United States of America also deny one’s right to be diverse?


Does she, as a black woman claim the right to be diverse in her culture, beliefs, and religion?

I would chance to guess her answer is yes.


Then why, dear principal do you feel it contingent upon you to deny others their right to diversity?

The Insanity of American Politics


What has America become?

Each day, I rise, make my coffee, check my blood sugar (I am a type II diabetic), water my tomatoes and other plants, feed my birds and rabbits then sit down with a mug of coffee and read my e-mail.

Sound like you? Sound boring? I guess in a way it is, but once I get to Facebook things have a tendency to liven up.

Yes, I am a Facebook lunatic – I freely admit it. Yes, I know Facebook works against certain political agendas and for others. Yes, I understand I may only be beating my keyboard for exercise, yet there is always the hope that my words will touch someone.

American politics are at a crisis period in our evolving history. Faced with what appears to be the decay and demise of our corrupt two-party political system the average voters struggle in wonder – which might destroy tomorrow?

Tragically, we are confronted with one of the most histrionic, if not perverse choices in our long election history.Whether to vote for a female career politician accused of gross negligence, fabrications, distortion of facts and potential money laundering simply because she has an XY chromosome configuration or for a gruff, no-nonsense, predominantly factual business person who has an XX chromosome configuration?

Personally, I do my best to see both sides of the issue, but it is becoming a miserable fail for me.

Are these the best choices a country of over 300 million people has to offer us? I do not believe they are.

I believe that we, the American voter are being manipulated by career politicians and outside interests whose only agenda is POWER.

I think our two major political parties have lost every iota of common sense and loyalty their founders once hoped. I no longer feel either party has our best interests are heart.

We have been betrayed as sure as Sanders betrayed his followers.

If we wish to have our voices heard, we must cast our votes for the candidate we feel the least traitorous, not necessarily the most experience. We must choose carefully and wisely even if it goes against the grain of everything we were brainwashed to accept. We must hold true to our decision and, WE MUST ORGANIZE SO THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.