Thursday, April 24, 2014

Are Canadian Border Agents Islamophobes?

First, some definitions: 

An Islamophobe is one who fears Muslims, not one who is critical of Islam. Islamophobes are typically "dhimmi's": Those who feel subservient or beholden to Muslims for fear of offending and garnering their wrath or bad publicity from an ill-informed media.

During my recent trip to Canada passing through a Canadian border checkpoint, I observed a peculiar and disheartening event. Others may categorize it as Canadian kindness as if the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is running their customs and border security operation.

Here is the event - you be the judge:

As the bus stopped at the Canadian border checkpoint all the passengers disembarked - except one. The duly departed dutifully delivered their passports to the Canadian agents inside the nearby customs building. After we all pass muster we are inexplicably sequestered for another 10 minutes until the "exception", accompanied by a couple of border agents, finally enters the building. We overhear the questions and answers exchanged between the straggler and the agents.

The straggler is a 20-something year old Iraqi named Muhammad Hasad or Hasan. He claims he accidentally dropped his passport into a crevice at the front of the bus where he was sitting and couldn't retrieve it. The border agents inspected the crevice and observed what looked like a passport lodged deep into the opening but couldn't retrieve it either without dismantling the bus. So after a answering a few more questions and showing his drivers license, the young Iraqi (most certainly Muslim – how many non-Muslims are named Muhammad?) was allowed to proceed into Canada without his passport.

On our way back to the bus I enjoined Muhammad with the observation that losing his passport like that must have been embarrassing. He responded in agreement and offered that things like this seem to happen to him. He said that he is just coming to Canada to visit his mother.

There was another 20-something male individual with a similar Iraqi accent chatting with Muhammad during the entire 14-hour trip. I wonder if he was visiting his mother, too.

So, all the rest of us dutifully secure, preserve and display our passports, believing they are essential to enter a foreign country while a likely Muslim who fits a terror suspect's profile to a "t" is given a free pass. The time and effort we spent to secure our passports: $50 to $100. An individual fitting a terrorist profile not needing one: Priceless.

Was Canadian border security merely showing kind hospitality, or  were they being dhimmi's, fearful of offending a foreign Muslim?

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Islam: Only religion that promotes suicide as a weapon - this time on Flight 370

In some sects of Christianity suicide was believed to be an unpardonable sin.  Now it is considered a result of mental illness that is to be pitied.

In Islam, suicide, when committed to promote the imagined purposes of an imagined “god”, is a badge of honor in Muslim culture -  especially when it takes as many lives as possible.

Islam is the only ideology (aka “faux religion”) that invokes suicide as a weapon.

Evidence points to the likelihood that the pilot chose Flight 370 as a means to commit an Islamic-inspired “sudden jihad syndrome” suicide.  If he held virtually any other belief system, his suicide would have been alone, a private affair, taking no other life than his own.  But Islam is unique.  Uniquely evil.

This suicide took 239 lives. 

Here is the evidence of this theory as provided by a terrorism expert.

Supreme Court Women Promote a Tax on Religious Expression


Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgThe pending Supreme Court ruling on protecting first amendment freedoms depends on the likes of these individuals. 


These women will rule on the law of the land against religious freedoms.  God help us!  They represent the abortion lobby – not Hobby Lobby – and not religious freedoms.  What will be the result of their unGodly views prevailing in the High Court? 

The federal government will have a right to impose a tax (a “belief” penalty) on anyone whose religious convictions contradict the views of “the State.” 

In essence, the government will tax religion.  And for what purpose?  To facilitate the murder of unborn human beings.

Those who promote this abomination should be convicted of treason for they conspire against our nation’s constitutional foundation  and promote the violation of natural law.

Obviously pro-life is out of favor with our federal government.  What religious beliefs will be subject to a tax/penalty next?  Already Christians are persecuted for expressing our beliefs about sexual immorality.  Perhaps we’ll see a tax on evangelizing.  How many other Christian values will become persona non grata and subject to taxes and penalties?  Have we reached the point in this nation where our taken-for-granted “freedom of religion” has given way to the narrowly defined, boxed-in “freedom of worship?”  You know the difference, don’t you?  “Freedom of religion” is the right to practice your religion in public, in your work place, in your neighborhood and in your home.  “Freedom of worship” (minus freedom of religion) confines your rights to a church and your home only.  You no longer have the right to exercise your religious beliefs throughout your life’s activities.

How convenient for the Secular world view.  Bad news if you care about your religious convictions.  Perhaps the majority of Americans don’t have any convictions worth arguing about anymore.  We are being silenced by the tyranny of the secular majority.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Russia responsible for cyber weapon infecting Ukrainian networks

Capable of disrupting public water and electrical systems…

Ukraine and Lithuania have been attacked by a computer system virus called “Snake” as complex and potent as Stuxnet.  Digital forensics identify the source as in the Moscow time zone.  It is too complex to be developed by any other than a government entity.

Here is an excerpt from the Financial Times:

“Cyber warfare experts have long warned that digital weapons could shut off civilian power or water supplies, cripple banks or even blow up industrial sites that depend on computer-controlled safety programmes.

“The origins of Ouroboros remain unclear, but its programmers appear to have developed it in a GMT+4 timezone – which encompasses Moscow – according to clues left in the code, parts of which also contain fragments of Russian text. It is believed to be an upgrade of the Agent.BTZ attack that penetrated US military systems in 2008.

“The malware has infected networks run by the Kiev government and systemically important organisations. Lithuanian systems have also been disproportionately hit by it.”

This event should inform and warn us that we don’t need to be hit by a hurricane or by an EMP attack or solar flare to be without electricity or water for extended periods of time.  Use your resources for preparing wisely.

Monday, March 03, 2014

They prohibit discrimination and don’t even bother to define it…

Freedom of speech, expression, and association brought slowly to a boil in San Antonio and a hundred other places…


Last September, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, promoted the accommodation of homosexual acts to its discrimination ordinance.

A key section of the ordinance reads as follows:

No appointed official or member of a board or commission shall engage in discrimination against any person, group of persons, or organization on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, age or disability, while acting in their official capacity while in
such public position.

The underlined section, “sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status”, was added to the City’s existing discrimination language.

A big deal was made of this added “sexual” and “gender” language in the media and among religious groups.  It is a big deal.  But the bigger deal is the mindset that established the original anti-discrimination language.

Here are the problems:

First, there is no definition of “discrimination” in the ordinance.  Apparently, discrimination can be anything the city declares it to be.  The problem of lack of definition is discussed more, below.

Second, while “race”, “color”, and “national origin” are legitimate topics of anti-discrimination because such individuals did not choose those identities, and there is nothing inherently evil, dangerous, or immoral in those identities, there is no such legitimacy to the several listed protected behaviors, namely “religion”, “sexual orientation”, and “gender identity.”

Here is a big problem with this ordinance and the hundreds that are just like it around the country.  Religion is a personal belief system.  People choose their belief system.  Not all religions promote peace, despite the ignorant politically correct propaganda. 

One religion in particular is as much “political ideology” as it is a religion:  Islam.  It is, in fact a supremacist and intolerant political ideology that is incompatible with the culture and laws of the United States.  It is not incompatible just because of the belief and actions of “a few radicals” but because its original doctrine and current practice are at odds with our form of government and culture.  The great majority of its leaders, even in the United States, promote establishment of Sharia law and Islamic domination of our government and culture, not to mention the terrorist jihad that is an often used tool in their politico-military toolbox.  And yes, Muslims are more involved in persecution of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists around the world than every other belief system combined.  And we are prohibited from associating Muslims with that fact without being charged with “discrimination.” 

A prohibition against speaking the truth about Islam is tantamount to a prohibition against speaking the truth about Nazi’s during World War II, or expressing opposition to those who are dumb enough to identify themselves as allies with serial killers. 

I could never be appointed to a Board or Commission of San Antonio or any other city that has a similar ordinance.  Why?  Because I distinguish Islam from other religions.  I recognize its origins, its history, its leadership, its doctrines, and the beliefs and behaviors of its followers.  I dare to present the facts about Islam.  Consequently, I would be guilty of  discriminating against Islam, the organization.

This ordinance, and the hundreds like it, stifle the truth about evil and threats to our nation and freedoms.

Protecting what has been historically and universally declared to be immoral behaviors (homosexual acts and gay marriage) is just another chapter in this continuing erosion of freedom of speech, expression, and association.

These ordinance trample on the freedom of expression of Christians by declaring talk about what is moral and what is not to be “discrimination”, again without any definition of what discrimination really is.

So, what is discrimination?

Here are a number of definitions from several sources:


dis·crim·i·na·tion, noun \dis-ˌkri-mə-ˈnā-shən\

: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people  Staff report Ordinance, complete with staff slide show.  But where is the definition of discrimination?

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

Full Definition of DISCRIMINATION

1. a :  the act of discriminating

    b :  the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently

2. :  the quality or power of finely distinguishing

3. a :  the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually

    b :  prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment<racial discrimination>

dis·crim·i·na·tion, [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] , noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating, or of making a distinction.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing basedon the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with greatdiscrimination.

4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

dis·crim·i·na·tion (dĭ-skrĭm′ə-nā′shən), n.

1. The act of discriminating.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

dis·crim′i·na′tion·al adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

discrimination (dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃən),

1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice

2. subtle appreciation in matters of taste

3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences

4. (Electronics) electronics the selection of a signal having a particular frequency, amplitude, phase, etc, effected by the elimination of other signals by means of a discriminator

disˌcrimiˈnational adj

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

dis•crim•i•na•tion (dɪˌskrɪm əˈneɪ ʃən), n.

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. action or policies based on prejudice or partiality: racial discrimination.

3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment.

What is it, then?  Is it the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people?  When a group of people are known to believe in and promote violent acts, intolerance, supremacism, and practices incompatible with our form of government and culture, are we prohibited from treating these people or such organizations differently?  Differently say, from those we know as being productive, compatible, loyal, truthful, and desiring to promote the best interests of our nation and community?  This ordinance says “no”, we cannot distinguish between people or organizations with these distinct differences.

Or perhaps discrimination is the ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment, as in distinguishing good from evil, best from mediocre, safe from dangerous, tolerant from intolerant, team player from rebel, and every other point of distinction that makes great organizations and productive nations.  Sorry.  That’s likely not what the framers of these discriminatory, free speech-robbing ordinances had in mind.

What additional formally taboo behaviors and cherished freedoms will be added to the list of prohibited acts of discrimination?  The establishment and incremental cancerous growth of such ordinances does indeed remind me of the frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil.  The proponents say “hey, what is there to worry about with this additional provision – we already have an ordinance that prohibits this, that and the other – what’s one more category of “discrimination?”  What’s one more nail in the coffin of our freedom of speech and expression?

Here are several original documents  relevant to this discussion:

The City of San Antonio’s propaganda piece saying “nothing to see here folks, just another minor provision being added:

The City of San Antonio’s staff report presenting adoption of their comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance: 

The City of San Antonio’s comprehensive anti-discrimination (anti-free speech) ordinance adopted in September 2013, complete with staff slide show: 

Here is another source describing the problems with this type of ordinance:

Saturday, March 01, 2014

Ukraine: Relevant facts and realistic prospects

Here are some facts of life for Ukraine and some dire predictions:

  • Ukraine’s economic and military resources are less than 1/20th of Russia’s, or worse.  Ukraine is near bankruptcy and desperately require either Russian or European Union economic assistance.
  • More than 80% of the Crimean peninsula’s population favors Russia and Russian military intervention over a European Union alliance.
  • The new Ukraine leadership is in disarray and inexperienced.
  • The European Union is far from united on how or if to assist Ukraine.  The EU itself is nearly bankrupt, except for Germany and a few smaller nations.  They are in no position to assist Ukraine militarily or economically.
  • Ukraine’s former government vanished rather than invoke a bloody repression of the pro-EU uprising and expose itself to international human rights scorn.  This “vanishing” was by design knowing that Mother Russia will now be justified to defend the Russians and Russian sympathizers – and its own military and economic interests – throughout Ukraine.
  • President Obama is in la la land from a foreign policy perspective (and most other perspectives).  He is making Jimmy Carter look like a foreign policy genius.

The predictions:

  • The US will do nothing militarily.  We may invoke a few symbolic gestures and make some rhetorical but uninspired threats.  But we will do nothing of substance, and Russia knows it.
  • The European Union nations will do nothing of substance, and Russia knows it.
  • Russia will not stop at the Crimean Peninsula.  They intend to take the entire Ukraine back – under military authoritarian control if necessary.  They will not care if 100,000 perish in the process.  They will merely call them deserving fascists and hooligans.  If Russian perceives a real threat of international resistance to their takeover, and this is not very likely, they will, at the very least, annex the Crimean Peninsula.
  • Russian success in Ukraine will spell trouble for Georgia and other former USSR satellites that have since gained their independence.  And the rest of Europe and the United States will do nothing – and Russia knows it.

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Some church/state relationships never change

Patriotic Christians often lament the lack of influence of the Church on our government and culture.  While this concern can be heartfelt, well-founded, and well-meaning, we need to be careful what we wish for.

History has shown that the Church has gone overboard in its close relationship with the State.  In fact, this has happened quite often throughout history.

It was the Jewish leaders (the 33AD version of organized religion – the synagogue being that period’s equivalent to the “church” of the day) and the Roman government who conspired to crucify Christ.  This was the first “church”/state partnership in persecution related to Christianity.  

Persecution of Christians continued for over two centuries following Christ’s crucifixion until the conversion of Constantine to Christianity in c.312.  It didn’t take long for the the Roman Christians (the “Church) to join with the Roman government (the “State”) in forcing the conversion of pagans to Christianity.  Those who would not convert were persecuted and often killed.  This pattern continued for centuries.  And here we have the second “church/state” partnership.

Moving on to the beginnings of Protestantism in the 1500’s we have the mainstream protestants (the “Church”) and those like the Anabaptists whose beliefs and doctrine diverged from that mainstream.  In a number of instances, the prevailing majority church joined with their respective national governments to persecute and condemn these minority “heretics.”  This is the third “church/state” partnership.

Fast forward to the 1930’s and 40’s to the church in Germany.  This state-funded church/state alliance was the heart of Nazism.  All others - Christians, Jews, pagans - who were outside of that mainstream church/state partnership were persecuted, condemned, and most murdered.  Thus ends the forth “church/state” alliance.

Then I thought about what is going on today in the mainstream churches.  They, too, have been partnering with our government in a number of ways.  Most churches have jettisoned their millennia-old doctrine in favor of politically-correct, but immoral state-promoted public policy.  Homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia, legalizing mind-altering drugs, lowering expectations of personal responsibility and raising expectations for government entitlements are all part of the new church/state endorsed doctrines.  The state, once again, has co-opted the Church.  And the Church has willingly given itself over to the influence of the State.  Those of us who disagree with these new decrees, whether we are Jew, Christian, or atheist, are now outsiders – the minority. 

Will those of us who maintain our Christian standards be persecuted?  What do you think?  History proclaims that we surely will be.  Such is the nature of fallen humanity.

It is not Christianity that persecutes, condemns and kills.  It is those who maintain an erroneous view of God and Christ’s gift to us that does this.  Islam is the best known and most flagrant example of this with its faulty understanding of God and His love and Islam’s consequent intolerance, hatred and jihad against those who do not submit to their brand of Islam – including those Muslims who are not devout “enough.”  In Islam, religion and government (sharia) are one and the same.  Talk about a partnership!  Running a close second are nations like China and Russia who have partnered with the religion of atheism to form their church/state partnership to persecute, condemn and murder all who threaten their belief system.

Is it any wonder that Islam, liberal churches, and our government have created a new alliance that calls the rest of us “bigots”, “intolerant” and all manner of “–phobes?”  Faithful Christians are now the outsiders.  We are now at the beginning of the fifth “church/state” alliance.  We do indeed need to be careful what we wish for with regard to church and state.  Some church/state relationships never change.  When church and state get in bed together all hell breaks loose.

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Syrian peace talks fail. No surprise here.

Lakhdar Brahimi, a Sunni Islam Muslim, was appointed by the United Nations as the new peace envoy to Syria, replacing Kofi Annan on 17 August 2012.  On Saturday, February 15, 2014, those peace talks failed.

Why?  The answer may be complex but seems clear to me.

Here is a clue from Wikipedia:

The ongoing Syrian civil war was inspired by the Arab Spring Revolutions. It began in 2011 as a chain of peaceful protests, followed by a crackdown by the Syrian Army.[54] In July 2011, army defectors declared the formation of the Free Syrian Army and began forming fighting units. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the leading government figures are Alawites.

Who are the Alawites?

Alawites are a prominent group, centered in Syria, who follow a branch of the Twelver school of Shia Islam.

The “Twelvers” comprise the majority of Shia Islam Muslims and believe in the soon return of the Twelfth Imam at the end of days.

What did Sunni Muslim negotiator Lakhdar Brahimi propose to the Shia Muslim government of Syria?  (Are you beginning to sense the problem yet?)

Sunni Brahimi suggested instituting a new transitional governing body with members from the Shia al-Assad government, as well as members from Sunni the Sunni opposition.  That didn’t go over too well with Assad – wanted no part of it – and only wanted to discuss “terrorism.”  As an aside, this reminds me of the US Democrats wanting amnesty for 15 million illegal aliens while the rest of us see that of a danger to our culture and a diluting of conservative and Republican representation.  Think of the Syrian equivalents being Brahimi is to Democrats as Assad is to Republicans insofar as a concern of shift of power is concerned. 

Here is the rest of the story from Generational

The al-Assad regime wanted no part of that discussion, but only wants to discuss "terrorism," referring to the jihadists in Syria. So Brahimi came up with a kind of compromise: The Geneva II peace talks would discuss "terrorism" on day 1, then discuss the "transitional governing body" on day 2, and alternate between the two topics on subsequent days.

Well, the al-Assad regime refused to even discuss the "transitional government body," and his spokesman said that the terrorism problem has to be completely solved and agreed by all sides "with a common vision," before any other topic could be even discussed.

A “transitional governing body” is out of the question for the Assad government.  I can relate to Assad’s concern.  It is much like the US conservative desire to close the border and enforce existing immigration laws before we open the floodgates of future liberal, entitlement Democrats into our nation.

I can also sympathize with Assad’s insistence on eliminating terrorism as a priority before anything useful can be accomplished.

Now as for the perceived evil of the Assad regime, this is where where the theory of relativity kicks in:  Relative Evil.  The entire Middle East is indisputably a bad neighborhood.  Unfortunately, liberal Pollyannas in the United States believe that those folks live by a similar moral code as we do in the West and respect similar peaceful values for their governments.  Wrong, wrong, wrong!  That false belief is what has gotten us into costly, endless, and futile “nation-building” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As much as we chafe at the thought, iron-fisted Assad-esque regimes are required in that neighborhood.  That is the only way any semblance of stability can be maintained.  They live under millennia of bad habits.  And we think we can change those habits in a decade or two?  We are fools.

We will be more “humanitarian” by being on the side of stability, even though the price of stability is high in blood and freedoms.  The prospect of even more radical Islamic rebels taking over will result in a much higher cost in blood, freedoms, and stability.  The better of two evils.

Saturday, February 01, 2014

Lone Survivor: Everything that’s wrong with our policy toward Islam…

I experienced the movie “Lone Survivor” this afternoon.

It is both a propaganda film and a lesson in everything that’s wrong with our policy  toward Islam.  It is also a film worth avoiding because it distorts the truth of the conflict and dwells on gore.

First, the propaganda:  Near the end of the movie, the Pashtuns, an Islamic Afghan/Iranian sect, were made out to be the heroes by sacrificing themselves to hide and save Marcus Lattrel, the lone survivor of the Seal team.  The endnotes to the movie portray the ancient Pashtun “ethic”, called Pashtunwali, in a very Christian light:  Sacrificing to save others.  It leaves the ignorant viewer of the movie to believe that Afghanistan is filled with these peace-loving, pro-American Pashtun with the ethics of angels.  NOTHING could be further from the truth.

Here is reality: 

“In the late 1990s, Pashtuns became known for being the primary ethnic group that comprised the Taliban, which was a religious government based on Islamic sharia law…”

The reality is that while 42% of the Afghan population is Pashtun, a significant number have sided with the Taliban.  The reality is that there may be only a small minority of the Pashtun who continue any semblance of a peace-loving persona of the Pashtunwali tradition as exclusively portrayed by this propaganda film.

Once again, the problem is Islam, not Afghanistan.

There are a number of other problems portrayed in the movie.

  • Our rules of engagement (ROE):  They put our soldiers at a distinct disadvantage.  Our ROE fail to recognize the environment our men are required to engage – an environment where the enemy dress and act like civilians.  There should be no distinction when confronted.  The ROE prevent our soldiers from carrying out their mission.  If international laws of warfare are broken by the enemy, e.g. enemy combatants not wearing a uniform and hiding in the midsst of civilians, the other side (the US) should not be restricted in their behaviors. 
  • Our political correctness:  I have no doubt that cultural sensitivity training these SEALS had to endure caused them to make absolutely the wrong decision that resulted in their failed mission and their ultimate death.  Fear of CNN trumped their fear of the enemy and resulted in a wrong and deadly decision.
  • Technological failures:  Overreliance on technology and “an awful lot of moving parts” to a mission begged for failure. 
  • Resource shortage:  Any public official who advocates running a war on the cheap as we are doing in Afghanistan ought to be convicted of treason.  The shortage of Apache helicopters and an effective extraction force is just one example.

And finally, and most significant, is our failure to recognize the real enemy:  The Islamic ideology.  The Taliban, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and every one of the dozens of other Islamic terror organizations and front groups are the military and political arms of the Islamic ideology.  We, as a nation, fail to recognize this.  We need to consider every human being who knowingly insists on affiliation with Islam to be an enemy and threat to our nation.

Yes, there are cultural Muslim who are ignorant of the Islamic ideology.  They need to be educated about the evils of Islam so they become knowledgeable, aware, and convinced to the point where they can freely and intelligently renounce their ignorant Islamic association.  But this will never happen because most of our leaders and media of this nation are also ignorant of the Islamic ideology – they wrongly insist it is a religion of peace.

As long as we continue in this ignorance, we are doomed to failure.  We will see Lone Survivor repeated time and time again ad nauseum – someday in our own nation.

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Obamahood: Coerced vs. Voluntary Giving…

Despite all his great sounding words, our president’s agenda is all about eliminating what progressives call “economic inequality.”  Despite his speech that will seem to contain all the right words about hard work, creating opportunity for all, and expanding the middle class, we must understand this is a deception. 

The president stands for and will promote wealth redistribution at every opportunity:  Forcibly take, by the powers of the government, from the productive and give to the unproductive.  Coerced giving is known as stealing.  And that is what the Obama administration, as well as the majority in Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is all about. 

It matters not that every government tax law and program that steals from the haves to give to the have nots stifles incentives, kills productivity, and destroys innovation.  It is a human character destroying policy.  Greater economic inequality will be the real result.

Here are several examples: 

Obama’s proposed executive order to increase the minimum wage for government contractors takes more from the taxpayer – who comprise only 50% of us and declining – to give to those working on government programs without any expectation of increased productivity.

Obamacare is the biggest coerced wealth redistribution scheme since the progressive income tax.  Because the majority who are signing up will have low premiums and high health care needs, it is virtually assured that a taxpayer bailout will be required.  Proven, reliable actuarial tables for health care expenses  versus premium generation are thrown out the window.

The reach and power of the federal government is growing like a cancer and invading virtually every aspect of our lives.  Our communications, our accounts, our travel, what we eat, the products we are allowed to buy (e.g. lightbulbs), how our children are taught in schools (Common Core), our health care, the defensive weapons we are allowed to purchase, what decreasing portion of our incomes we are allowed to keep, our money spent to prop up our sworn enemies in the Middle East – all of these things are manifestations of federal confiscation of our resources to give to programs and entities that reduce our freedoms and compromise our national security.

The irony is that those of us opposed to this federal confiscation of our incomes and resources are called heartless and un-Christian by progressives.

Newsflash to progressives:  Christians are not Muslims.  We don’t believe in coercion by some higher dogmatic, bureaucratic decree.  We believe that giving must be voluntary – from the heart – not coerced.  We believe that religion becomes evil when it becomes coercive.  We believe government becomes evil when it exceeds its constitutional and moral authority.    We believe in personal responsibility and hard work – and personal sacrifice when required to achieve our goals – OUR goals.  We don’t believe that the lazy or unmotivated or professional takers should be rewarded by government largess at the expense of those who are hard working.  We should obey government, sure.  But that does not mean we ought to be silent about its abuses.  It doesn’t mean we should stand by and do nothing about its abuses.  In our government we ARE the government.  It is an obligation as a responsible member of society to speak out and act when government stampedes our means of livelihood and economic freedoms.

The role of the federal government has gone way way beyond its constitutional purpose.  It has become not merely paternal, but has become the dictator and the thief.  It is not just protecting us from foreign threats, but it is sacrificing our domestic tranquility with its coercive greed.