Friday, September 30, 2011
Let me set the stage. The European Union, comprised of 27 nations filled with 501 million people, is in dire fiscal straights. One member among them, Greece, is about to declare a sovereign default. If they go under, most experts expect a domino effect of European Union nations sovereign defults: Next Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy, and then the rest. After months of anguishing political arm-twisting, yesterday Germany put its economic integrity on the line at the eleventh hour and approved a second round of bailouts for Greece.
All that is left for Greece to do to be the recipient of Germany’s largess is to show some accounting documents to German officials.
Not so fast, say Greece’s government unions who have a lot to lose as a consequence of the bail out deal. You see, Greece has much fiscal belt tightening to do to meet the conditions of the bail out. A good deal of the belt tightening must come from public sector employees who are the Greek equivalent of General Motors employees who received unsustainable perks from their employer. But different from General Motors, there is no government to bail out the employees of the Greek bureacracy except Germany who is the one imposing the conditions.
So, like any pissed off union that doesn’t want to lose its unsustainable perks, what does it do? It strikes. In the case of Greece’s government union, its strike is in the form of barring the doors of the government ministry that has the records needed to allow the bailout to go forward.
Unions demonstrators were out in force on October 5th, with most government services shut down once again so the unionized government workers can demonstrate. Violence erupted against police.
What results is a suicide mission by Greek government union workers. They would apparently rather see their government in sovereign default than to lose some portion of their income. “If we can’t keep all our perks, we would rather see our nation fail.”
That is not the worst of it. It is not just the Greek government whose fiscal neck is on the block. It is the entirety of the 27 nations and 501 million people of the European Union, the Euro and all, that are at stake.
What can be expected from this union blockade is a violent confrontation with Greek police and violent union/government clashes. If the Greek police are sympathetic to the other government unions and are themselves unionized, expect the military to step in. I’m wondering what will happen if the Greek military is also unionized. Hmmmm. Military union or not, back in June there was speculation that a military coup might result if strick austerity measures were imposed. That still might happen.
Am I the only one who has heard rumblings from the Obama administration about unionizing our military? That could not possibly end well.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Rasmussen poll summary: Obama vs. X…
Here is what I think this poll says about the large segment of our electorate who still supports Obama, with all due respect (which, with all due respect, isn’t a whole lot of respect)…
- Uninformed, out of touch
- Racist (which doesn’t explain the result for the Cain matchup – but which can be explained by reasons 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.
- Lazy, dependent on government handouts
- Socialist, communist, Islamic – see items 1 through 5 above.
Monday, September 26, 2011
I am excited about Cains decisive straw poll vicotry in Florida this past week.
I am excited about the prospect of seeing liberals trip all over themselves to figure out how to use their “race card.”
Here are some fascinating observations of what a Cain vs. Obama contest would look like, from The American Thinker:
September 26, 2011
'Hermaneutics' Cain-StyleJeannie DeAngelis
Herman Cain winning the Florida straw poll is encouraging. It means an honest, straight-talking non-politician can cut through the flowery rhetoric and be taken seriously. While all eyes are on Rick and Romney, Herman is busy transforming "grass-roots popularity into strong showings in national polls."
In the end, it's more than a long shot that the 'Hermanator,' a Baptist minister who enjoys singing the occasional Gospel hymn and whose favorite dish is the "Godfather's combo with extra cheese, sausage, ham, onions and peppers, [washed down] with an icy Coke," would actually have a chance to win the Republican nomination.
Still, if one were to fantasize about such a scenario, many pleasant ideas come to mind which, if they were to materialize, could inject some humor into a nation that Mr. Cain says needs to "lighten up" and have a few laughs.
Right out of the gate, the first thing that would be striking about a Herman Cain vs. Barack Obama presidential race would be the comparison between Barry dragging out and setting up two Teleprompters to answer a few questions and Herman standing next to him, hands in his pockets, pithy retort at the ready.
On jobs, the President's usual approach is to attempt to razzle-dazzle with flowery rhetorical proposals that sound good on the campaign trail but, in practice, don't work. Herman's method is to listen to his opponents, look at the crowd, smile, and off-the-cuff respond to half-baked ideas with: "It's time to get real, folks. Hope and change ain't working. Hope and change is not a solution. Hope and change is not a job."
After watching Bobble Head Barack turn from right to left reading what someone tells him he believes off a scrolling Teleprompter, oh, to be able to watch Herman Cain lean over a debate podium and hear him say, "We need a leader, not a reader."
A "Yes We Cain" versus a "We thought we could, but then we couldn't" run-off for the White House between the man from Georgia and the man from God-knows-where would certainly create mass liberal confusion, because instantaneously the race card would have to be moved to the bottom of the deck.
Oh, but wait! Obama had better not remove the race card too fast. Herman identifies with racists in a way, because as a black man he knows the racism issue isn't about skin color. On the left, racism is defined as: "People who oppose Obama," and in the past Mr. Cain has in fact admitted, "I guess I'm a racist."
The confusion surrounding having two black candidates for president would make for interesting theatre. Take for instance Black Panther poll watchers standing guard for racial equality. How would they know whom to wave their clubs at on Election Day? Do the Panthers intimidate whites voting for Obama or blacks voting for Cain? How would they figure out who is voting for whom? What a quandary.
Prior to winning the Florida CPAC straw poll, Mr. Cain articulated his intent to replace the tax code with a 999-tax plan where, across the board, he would implement "9 percent tax on businesses, personal income and sales." If, in the aforementioned fantasy, Herman and Barry get to debate taxes, when it's the President's turn to articulate his views on taxes Herman could hold a "999" poster board upside down in front of the camera and America will instantly know where and from whom Barack's tax philosophy gathers its inspiration.
A perfect retort to Obama touting, blaming and refusing to accept responsibility for failed policies would be for Cain to pose a question to America: "How's this guy workin' out for you?"
Who can forget the First Lady opining on Obama's 'share the wealth' view of the world, saying, "The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
Oh, what sweet irony it would be to watch Obama grapple with Godfather's Pizza's successful CEO who saw pie as a symbol of success, not an emblem of imposed sacrificial socialism. A person who, since leaving what he calls "that Democrat plantation" a long time ago, found out that if an individual refuses to adopt the usual liberal victim status, miraculously there's more than enough for everyone to have a whole pie - if a person is willing to work for it.
Sweeter still would be to hear how cancer survivor Herman Cain would respond to Barack laying on the ObamaCare user-friendly insurance language, heartstring-manipulation banter about 32 million+ uninsured, talk of $980 billion in 10-year costs, mandates, and everything else included in Obama's gargantuan government power grab.
At a recent Republican debate, the potential presidential nominee succinctly boiled down all the healthcare drivel to one concise and grateful sentence when he said: "If ObamaCare had been fully implemented when I caught cancer, I'd be dead."
Mr. Cain has repeatedly proven that when truth is in the mix there is no need for theatrics, or Hermanator hysterics. Cain's legendary "I'd be dead" comment not only applies to himself as a cancer survivor, but regrettably also predicts America's future if Barack Obama manages to somehow slickly speechify himself into a second term.
Herman Cain may not be the perfect candidate but, then again, who is? Moreover, Mr. Cain getting the Republican nomination, unfortunately, is doubtful.
However, reality does not diminish the fact that this patriotic man is the master of a unique style of political "Hermaneutics." In few words, Herman Cain clearly articulates the extent of death, doom and destruction a second term would impose on a nation already reeling from three years of Barack Obama's perverted brand of "Hope and Change."
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Morgan Freeman made an erroneous claim out of ignorance.
Here is part of the dialogue from Newsbusters between Piers Morgan and Morgan Freeman:
FREEMAN: Mitch McConnell… [said the Tea Party’s] …stated policy, publicly stated, is to do whatever it takes to see to it that Obama only serves one term. What’s, what does that, what underlines that? “Screw the country. We’re going to whatever we do to get this black man, we can, we’re going to do whatever we can to get this black man outta here.”Freeman is an idiot because 95% of Blacks voted for Obama for the reason he was black while 43% of whites also voted for Obama, some because he was black, but mainly because they were deceived. Who does that make the recists?
MORGAN: But is that necessarily a racist thing?
FREEMAN: It is a racist thing.
MORGAN: Is it not Republicans, wouldn’t that say that about any Democrat president?
FREEMAN: No, they would have gotten rid of Bill Clinton if they could have.
MORGAN: They tried.
FREEMAN: They did try, but still. I don’t, they’re not going to get rid of Obama either. I think they’re shooting themselves in the head.
MORGAN: Does it unnerve you that the Tea Party are gaining such traction?
FREEMAN: Well, it just shows the weak, dark, underside of America. We’re supposed to be better than that. We really are. That’s, that’s why all those people were in tears when Obama was elected president. “Ah, look at what we are. Look at how, this is America.” You know? And then it just sort of started turning because these people surfaced like stirring up muddy water.
Here is how one of the Tea Party favorites, black Herman Cain, said about Morgan Freeman’s comments, again from Newsbusters:
NEIL CAVUTO: Morgan Freeman, the actor, has been very critical of Tea Parties, and said that what they’re doing is racist based, and going after and unseating Obama has at its underpinnings racism. I’m paraphrasing here, but what do you make of that argument?
HERMAN CAIN: Well, first of all, I doubt if Morgan Freeman, with all due respect, who is a great actor, has he ever been to a Tea Party? Most of the people that are criticizing the Tea Parties, Neil, about having a racist element, they have never been to a Tea Party.
CAVUTO: But wait a minute, wait a minute. He has played, wait, wait, wait. He has played a President of the United States.
CAIN: Oh. Great, yeah, in a movie. This is real life out here on the campaign trail, man. This is not a movie.
CAVUTO: So, are you offended by that?
CAIN: No, I’m not offended by it. I just, I just think that it is sad that they’re so short-sighted in really understanding what the whole Tea Party citizen movement is all about. I’m not offended by it, because it doesn’t slow down my momentum. It doesn’t slow down the reaction that I get from people. They know that I bring my message from the heart and the head, and they’re responding to it. So, name calling is something that’s going to continue in this because they don’t know how to stop this movement. And this movement is making a big difference in politics, because a lot of the traditional Democrats are moving to the center or moving over to vote for conservatives. They’re taking another look at a Herman Cain.Many fair minded supporters of Cain believe he should be offended by it. But, really, Cain’s personna and what he stands for is too self evident for him to pile on. He is black, with more of a black accent than Obama would ever have nightmares about, who agrees with and loves the Tea Party, who is among the Tea Party favorites and who believes Obama is killing this country. And did I mention that Herman Cain is Black? Oh, and that he won the Florida Republican straw poll by a wide margin supported by the Tea Party!!
How racist can the Tea Party be, Morgan Freeman, idiot!
Friday, September 23, 2011
Perry's bleeding heart attitude toward illegal immigration is no different than socialist democrats.
The Weekly Standard reports Perry’s comments during the September 22 debate:
…Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all took shots at Rick Perry's record on illegal immigration. Bachmann said that Texas's law allowing in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants acted like a "magnet" for illegal immigrants. Perry's response was forceful and personal. "I don't think you have a heart," Perry told his critics.
"If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they've been brought their through no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," Perry said. "We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society. I think that's what Texans wanted to do. Out of 181 members of the Texas legislature when this issue came up [there were] only four dissenting votes. This was a state issue. Texas voted on it. And I still support it today."
Hey, Perry, those kids don’t belong in this country. Their parents don’t belong in this country. Those are all nice warm fuzzy things you want to do, but they are the wrong things for the wrong situation at the wrong time! Your warm fuzzies should be reserved for US citizens, not for illegal aliens.
In the midst of recession with high unemployment, Perry’s desire to subsidize the education of illegal aliens has to be suicidal to his political success. Perry was reminded by the other candidates that illegals still have the opportunity to be educated – that is not being denied. They just need to pay the going rate – just like any out-of-state resident would need to do. If they are citizens of Mexico and not the United States, they are “out of state”, correcto mondo, Perry?
In truth, illegals shouldn’t have the right to even ATTEND any US school or college, never mind being subsidized to attend. Perry’s attitude gives a clear picture of the problem with our entire US illegal alien policy.
Perry ignores the truth expressed by other candidates that THE PARENTS, NOT THE STATE, are responsible for educating their children. The illegal alien parents of their children are responsible for their kids education. They created the awwwwful situation that would required their darlings to pay full tuition in great US colleges. Isn’t that a shame!
Perry’s “state-knows-all” attitude was also demonstrated in his “opt out” vesus “opt in” program that minimized parental discretion for innoculations. Perry believes it is the state’s obligation to not only educate illegal alien children, but to use US taxpayer money to subsidize their education. Yet he does not believe it is a state or even a federal government responsibility to attempt to physically secure the border as part of a program to reduce illegal immigration.
Perry is out of touch with the needs of this nation and the desires of the electorate. Other than these issues, I thought he gave a less than stellar performance at the debate.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Schiff relies on the harsh, attention grabbing phrase “…how to profit from the coming economic collapse” in his 2009 book, Crash Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse.
I understand that giving advice is this man’s bread and butter, but aren’t there better ways to verbalize how to do it? This title is in the same category as an advisor telling us “how to profit from your neighbor’s heart attack.” Profiting from the failure and hardship of others may be a by-product of the capitalist system, but it is not a by-product that should be used to promote or shore up the capitalist system or fatten your wallet. That title spoils the pot for a lot of people who really do need to be attracted to his message.
While we don’t have Saint Schiff in our midst, he has toned down the unbridled greed motivation of Crash Proof in the title of his current book with a less selfishly opportunistic sounding: How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.
I, a tiny fraction as successful as Peter is financially, nonetheless, with all due respect, have this word of wisdom to offer the man:
Peter: For someone whose primary mission in life is to promote the capitalist system so it can make money for yourself and others, why do you write a book with a title that oozes with unbridled greed to the extent that it makes you sound like Satan Personified and that makes the capitalist idea seem like the spawn of Satan? “How to profit from the coming economic collapse” sounds like instructions on how to line up at Walmart at 5 in the morning to trample your neighbor to death to get to the 30% mark down. Capitalism doesn’t need and does not benefit by that kind of publicity. How about using some of your gifted skills of self expression to represent capitalism in ways that will attract a wider audience? You can do it, and you KNOW we need it.On the other hand, Schiff does have accurate and valuable insight into the economic, fiscal, and behavioral problems this nation faces. I agree with his concerns as well as his advice on how to avoid the worst problems, and agree with him that neither the politicians nor the electorate are willing to take the necessary and painful steps to avoid these worst problems.
Take a few moments and view several Schiff videos on the Peter Schiff Blog HERE.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Yet its leadership and many of its members share an affinity for Islam. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as well as the mainline liberal denominations such as the largest bodies of Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians in the United States seek interfaith alliances with Islam to foster mutual understanding and potential partnerships. And foolishly so.
The liberal denominations pursue alliances with Islam out of lack of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. They have attracted or retained church leadership and parishioners who promote a liberal social (aka “socialist”) gospel and a watered down faith that believes that one “religious” ideology is as good as any other. Their god is a nice, tolerant-of-virtually-anything kind of god that wouldn’t give a crap about evil if it hit them in the face or blew them up. “Gullible” is a fitting word.
Mormons, on the other hand, have a different set of reasons for having an affinity with and defending Muslims.
First off, there are several elements of Mormonism that are eerily similar to Islam.
Both Mormonism and Islam were started by young men: The Mormons were started by Joseph Smith; Muslims by Muhammad. Both of these young men were declared to be “prophets” by their followers.
Both of these founders declared they received new revelation from a god who was somewhat different than the God as understood by the Orthodox religions of Judaism and Christianity of their day.
Both Mormonism and Islam developed new holy scripture comprised of three books from the revelations of their founders: Mormons the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants; Islam the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. Each of these books reinterpret the Old and New Testaments of the Bible as understood by Christian and Jewish leaders.
Mormons have been persecuted within their recent history and their faith continues to be marginalized even today. Now this is the hook. Mormons observe anti-Muslim sentiment and (ignorantly) see a common bond in their perception of Muslim persecution. This is the aspect of Islam that many Mormons viscerally relate to. Mormons are not only intellectually aware of the similarities of their faith with Islam as noted above, but on top of that, they emotionally relate to the disdain Muslims have earned in this country and believe that gives them a common bond with Islam.
This sympathy blinds them to the fact that their Islamic ties are not in their interest. Mormons remain unaware of the historic, orthodox, and deceptive disdain of Muslims toward Christians and Islam’s use of unsuspecting Christians as pawns to further their own supremacist interests. Mormon’s visceral identity with what Muslims face in this country overshadow the ability of many Mormons to grasps the reality of the evil of Islam. They fail to understand that the Islamic ideology is at odds not only with American culture and government, but is diametrically at odds with Mormon doctrine.
One example of this blindness is revealed by the words of Mitt Romney who defends Islam by proclaiming that Islam and Jihad have nothing in common:
"If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.
There is, however, a movement in the world known as jihadism. They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam."Yes, indeed, one's affiliation with a particular sect will influence that individual's reality. It certainly has distorted Romney's.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Have you ever run across someone who declares himself a conservative only to discover that his definition and yours are miles apart?
A central component to my definition of conservatism is a federal government of the smallest possible size necessary to carry out its limited constitutional responsibilities efficiently and effectively. National defense and facilitation of international trade are the two major responsibilities of the federal government. Most other functions are the responsibility of the state, county, city, neighborhood, or family units.
I have discovered that there are other self-described conservatives who have a different view. Their belief is that as long as a government agency is run efficiently and effectively, then it has a legitimate role in whatever function it finds itself performing. It matters not whether that function is appropriate to that level of government. Only the poorly run departments and agencies are worthy of elimination. But if there is a federal agency that is doing a bang up job, even though that job is legitimately not a constitutional requirement of the federal government and best performed at a level of government closer to the people, then hallelujah, that federal role is peachy keen.
This reminds me of the leadership adage that compares the role of a leader to that of a manager. A manager does things well. A leader does the right things.
The federal government should not be given the opportunity to do the WRONG things well.
With that view of “conservatism” an efficiently and effectively performing federal bureaucracy could make state and local governments obsolete. Maybe even make the family unit obsolete – which is precisely the direction we are headed.
With conservatives like that, who needs progressives, socialists, communists, or fascists?
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
A group of semi-like-minded conservatives got together recently and discussed several negative trends that, if they continue, would bring our nation down.
We lamented over…
- The decline in the basis for morality and rule of law
- Growing dependence of larger segments of our population on government
- Growing dependence on increasing and unlimited debt
- The delusional expectation that we can have a sound economy by our shift from being a producing nation to a consuming nation
- The refusal to slow down the rate of illegal immigration
- Institutionalized ignorance concerning Islamic sedition
I played the role of the pessimist, doubting the likelihood of any of these trends being reversed. I asked the question: “How likely is it that any of these trends will be reversed within the next several years?”
There was one among us who demonstrated he was convinced that each of these trends will be turned around. He explained “if X is elected president” and “if Y number of federal departments were eliminated” and “if Z tax rates were reduced” and if a few other “ifs” came true, then all of these nation-destroying trends would evolve into peaches and cream.
Most of us agreed that if these “ifs” occurred, most of these negative trends might be reversed. But there was also a concensus that the chances of even some of the “ifs” coming to the rescue was quite slim.
The crux of my pessimism is that the likelihood of a bunch of these essential “ifs” miraculously raining down is a pretty long bet – the fantasy of “if” – on the order of “if only I would win the $10 million lottery.”
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
There are valid reasons to believe that our high unemployment rate is more permanent than cyclical. Neither economic cycles nor government fiscal policy missteps are entirely to blame. In fact, while government policy may be blamed for a lot of things, it may be as much to blame for high unemployment as first world nations are to blame for global warming -meaning not very much. The magatrends highlighted below may have a similar impact on the employment rate as solar activity has on climate change – meaning a whole bunch.
Two megatrends are putting the squeeze on full employment. One is on the employee supply side, and the other is on the jobs demand side.
On the employee supply side, we have two concurrent megatrends. One is the shift from stay-at-home moms to career women. Instead of one parent staying home to watch 2 or 3 kids and manage the household, we have 2 or 3 daycare workers managing 30 or 40 kids. So we not only have nearly twice as many workers, but we have only a fraction of the workers doing the babysitting. But that is old news from the 70’s. That trend has embedded itself in our culture. It appears to be an voluntarily irresversable fixture of life. On the other hand, the involuntary nature of unemployment may bring one of the parents back into the home. But they will still be considered “unemployed.”
The other impact on employee supply is immigration, both legal and illegal. This one IS a policy lapse, especially in times of high unemployment. How many more jobs would US citizens have if we didn’t have 12 million illegal aliens also seeking employment? By my not so difficult calculation, about 12 million.
Now for the demand side. Technology is the mega-trend that dries up hundreds of thousands of traditional job opportunities. How so, you ask? Here is an abbreviated list of the biggies:
- Postal service: Email replaces the need for thousands of postal jobs
- Banking: On-line banking eliminates the need for tens of thousands of banking jobs
- Retailing: On-line retailing eliminates the need for tens of thousands of store clerks and support services
- Education: On-line courses eliminate the need for thousands of teachers and professors
Sure, new high paying technology jobs have been created. But there is something on the order of one new tech position created for every 10 jobs technology eliminates – the very goal of technology in the first place.
And the granddaddy of all demand side job loss: The high cost of doing business in the United States which sends jobs overseas. We manufacture almost nothing, relatively speaking. We have lost millions of jobs through this invention of no-borders, free trade globalists.
So, what then? What do we do about this? We could stimulate the economy to encourage greater unsustainable consumption so that low paying retail employment can be increased to sell more Chinese goods. We could retrain present and future workers into non-existent jobs. We could reverse the trend of chasing jobs from the US to other countries. The first two options don’t help at all. They just promote unrealistic expectations with unrealistic and counterproductive policies. The third option is not likely because neither democrats nor republicans, with few exceptions, have any desire to reverse “free trade” until they learn that it really isn’t all that free at all.
Or do we bite the bullet and lower our collective expectations? For decades, our cultural sense of satisfaction and success, nationally and personally, was fed by expectations of bigger and more. Bigger houses, bigger pay checks, more vacations, more gadgets. The expectation of ever-growing bigness and more-ness is not sustainable given the momentum of our thrust toward equalizing the world’s wealth.
As rioting in protest of government austerity in Greece and other European countries has demonstrated, creating unrealistic expectations is asking for trouble. Government programs-turned Ponzi schemes due to lack of revenue inevitably end in unfilled expectations and chaos.
Most conservatives refuse to give up the expectation of perpetual “bigger and more” because we believe that capitalism will solve all our problems. It is un-American to believe that our level of prosperity has limits. We get upset with those who believe that we need to lower our expectations and live simpler lives. Maybe the fear is that an attitude of lowered expectations will reduce consumption and ultimately crash our economy. And maybe it will. This explains why some among us expect some level of civil unrest in the near future because they don’t see any of the options as ending well.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
After 10 years, one would think our leaders would at least acknowledge the ideology that motivated the perpetrators of the 9-11 attack and which continues to motivate the dozens of attempted atrocities against our nation since then.
But “know thy enemy” is not in the cards. We insist on apologizing for our imaginary role in provoking and inciting the enemy. We insist that Islam is just like any other religion and is not the motivating ideology behind the terror. Worse, we are ignoring the other components of Islam that stealthily use our civil liberties against us to gradually install their fascist Sharia Law that is devoid of all civil liberties.
Our run-away national amorality has enabled blind tolerance of any human behavioral value except those which made our country great. Our “cultural diversity” now mandates that every other culture is superior to our own. We no longer believe that we ever held the high ground in either culture, religion, or form of government.
Michelle Malkin has more to say on this topic commemorating the 10th anniversary of 9-11:
All the wrong 9/11 lessons
By Michelle Malkin • September 9, 2011 09:02 AM
All the wrong 9/11 lessons
by Michelle Malkin
Are your kids learning the right lessons about 9/11? Ten years after Osama bin Laden’s henchmen murdered thousands of innocents on American soil, too many children have been spoon-fed the thin gruel of progressive political correctness over the stiff antidote of truth.
“Know your enemy, name your enemy” is a 9/11 message that has gone unheeded. Our immigration and homeland security policies refuse to profile jihadi adherents at foreign consular offices and at our borders. Our military leaders refuse to expunge them from uniformed ranks until it’s too late (see: Fort Hood massacre). The j-word is discouraged in Obama intelligence circles, and the term “Islamic extremism” was removed from the U.S. national security strategy document last year.
Similarly, too many teachers refuse to show and tell who the perpetrators of 9/11 were and who their heirs are today. My own daughter was one year old when the Twin Towers collapsed, the Pentagon went up in flames and Shanksville, Pa., became hallowed ground for the brave passengers of United Flight 93. In second grade, her teachers read touchy-feely stories about peace and diversity to honor the 9/11 dead. They whitewashed Osama bin Laden, militant Islam and centuries-old jihad out of the curriculum. Apparently, the youngsters weren’t ready to learn even the most basic information about the evil masterminds of Islamic terrorism.
Mary Beth Hicks, author of the new book “Don’t Let the Kids Drink the Kool-Aid,” points to a recent review of 10 widely used textbooks in which the concepts of jihad and sharia were either watered down or absent. These childhood experts have determined that grade school is too early to delve into the specifics of the homicidal clash of Allah’s sharia-avenging soldiers with the freedom-loving Western world.
Yet, many of the same protectors of fragile elementary-school pupils can’t wait to teach them all the ins and outs of condoms, cross-dressers and crack addictions.
We pulled our daughter out of a cesspool of academic and moral relativism and found a reality-grounded, rigorous charter school where no-nonsense teachers refuse to sugarcoat inconvenient facts and history. Many of the students are children of soldiers and servicemen and women who — inspired by the heroes of 9/11 — have voluntarily deployed time and time again to kill the American Dream destroyers abroad before they kill us over here.
There’s no better way to hammer home the message that “freedom is not free” than to have your kids go to school with other kids whose dads and moms are gone for years at a time — missing births and birthday parties, recitals and soccer practice, Christmas pageants and Independence Day fireworks.
But instead of unfettered pride in our armed forces, social justice educators in high schools and colleges across the country indoctrinate American students into viewing our volunteer armed forces as victims, monsters and pawns in a leftist “social struggle.”
A decade after the 9/11 attacks, Blame America-ism still permeates classrooms and the culture. A special 9/11 curriculum distributed in New Jersey schools advises teachers to “avoid graphic details or dramatizing the destruction” wrought by the 9/11 hijackers, and instead focus elementary school students’ attention on broadly defined “intolerance” and “hurtful words.”
No surprise: Jihadist utterances such as “Kill the Jews,” “Allahu Akbar” and “Behead all those who insult Islam” are not among the “hurtful words” studied.
Middle-schoolers are directed to “analyze diversity and prejudice in U.S. history.” And high-school students are taught “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” – pop-psychology claptrap used to excuse jihadists’ behavior based on their purported low self-esteem and oppressed status caused by “European colonialism.”
It is no wonder that a new poll released this week showed that Americans today “are generally more willing to believe that U.S. policies in the Middle East might have motivated the 9/11 terror attacks on New York and the Pentagon,” according to Reuters.
To make matters worse, we have an appeaser-in-chief who wrote shortly after the jihadist attacks a decade ago that the “essence of this tragedy” derives “from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others.” A “climate of poverty and ignorance” caused the attacks, then-Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama preached. Never mind the Ivy League and Oxford educations, the oil wealth and the middle-class status of legions of al-Qaida plotters and operatives.
9/11 was a deliberate, carefully planned evil act of the long-waged war on the West by Koran-inspired soldiers of Allah around the world. They hated us before George W. Bush was in office. They hated us before Israel existed. And the avengers of the religion of perpetual outrage will keep hating us no matter how much we try to appease them.
The post-9/11 problem isn’t whether we’ll forget. The problem is: Will we ever learn?
Seeing this AP photo I couldn’t help but conjure up several thoughts about animals, hoards, and barbarians from out of our uncivilized human history. These lovelies are tearing down the wall protecting the Israeli embassy in Cairo on September 9th. This is part of the “Arab Spring”, the blooming of the freedom-loving young people in the Middle East, as neo-Muslim Obama likes to describe.
Netanyahu expressed thanks to Egytian officials for their law enforcement stepping in. But that was just standard diplomacy BS. The reality is law enforcement stood by for several hours while the hoards did their work of ransacking the Embassy. Even Netanyahu can be intimidated into acting like a cowering weenie.
The media will portray this as a justified reaction to the killing of some Egytians by Israelis at the border. Again, the reality is these are al Quaeda and Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Islamists jumping at any provocation to vent their hatred toward Israel and Jews. (See more about the instigators of the attack HERE.) The alleged “provocation” was Israel’s defense of its border and population after an upprovoked attack from Egypt killed several Israelis.
This is just one of the first steps of many more similar, and worse, steps to come in the months ahead in what is shaping up to be a widespread Islamic uprising against Israel. I won’t predict how bad it may be. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it devolved into a conflagration that deeply impacts the United States at some point within the next two years.
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
The 9-11 event planners are doing an excellent job of provoking anger amongst Christians and Jews.
- a Hindu priest,
- a Buddhist nun,
- the president of the Islamic Society of North America
- a Muslim musician, and
- the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington
The event planners defense of this eclectic lineup is that the Episcopal Church in the United States represents Christians in the United States.
NOTHING could be further from the truth.
The Episcopal Church in the United States is among the most liberal, progressive, social-gospel-centered churches in our nation. In my own experience of attending a service at the Washinton National Cathedral, which is part of that denomination, the sermon felt like I was at a Marxist rally. That Church represents Satan more than Christianity. It has become such an antithisis to Christianity that the main body of the Episcopal Church in the world found it necessary to send missionaries FROM AFRICA TO the UNITED STATES to plant new Episcopal Churches for member who have fled from the ultra liberal Episcopal Church in the United States.
But I digress.
And who is EXCLUDED from attending the 9-11 memorial event?
- Any protestant representative
- Any evangelical representative
- Any Catholic representative
- Any Jewish representative
Why do you suppose this is the case? Could it be because our nation is run by a President and his cohorts who are more Muslim than Christian? Could it be that they abhor the Christian roots of our nation and prefer the socialist/Islamic/Marxist agenda?
This is clearly the case. There is no other logical explanation.
However, the ignorant, insensitive, radical planners of the event or whoever else is controlling its agenda may live to regret their grave mistake. I would be very surprised if their agenda did not creaate a backlash that will make them wish they really knew what America is all about.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Well, fiscal conservatives have good reason to be concerned about the impact of social liberalism on federal budgets. And “social conservatives” have good fiscal reason to bring their “fiscal” brethren on board. There is a direct linkage between the fiscal and the social for the US government and its out of control budget.
I recently asked a friend about whether immorality tends to be inherited (i.e. genetic) or does it tend to be picked up through socialization. He took the untenable position that immorality tends to be learned behavior while at the same time he believes that homosexulaity is genetic and is a predisposition that should not be stifled. He’s wanting it both ways. To defend his position he presented a synopsis of a scientific study that relates homosexual tendencies to inherited hormonal levels.
What do you want to bet that that study was funded in whole or in part by the federal government?
What’s wrong with the federal government funding such studies, you ask? First, we (yes, WE are the federal government) cannot afford it. We never could. We just pretended we could. Second, most such studies are bogus. How do I have the audacity to say that? Two reasons: Because in one or two years subsequent studies usually crop up that discredit earlier studies. And because such studies with a hot button amoral topic are typically sponsored or promoted by those with an agenda that would be advanced by the proposed outcome of the study – a fox in the hen house study.
Here is how this might work from the bestialicists perspective:
What he needs to do is get his bestiality buddies around the nation to fund a few studies conducted by like-minded folks. He may wonder if his parent's hormonal or other genetics will help. He can then find a few Congressional bestiality sympathizers (who doesn’t like animals, anyway?) to adopt legislation to criminalize anti-bestiality behaviors. Sweet! Now he doesn’t have to be responsible for THAT nagging predisposition to do his cat while he worries what his neighbors might think. He is now confident that his neighbors will be slapped with a hate crime suit if they file a claim the cat was not consenting.
But Mr. Beast-lover may not be the only one taking advanatage of the new science of behavioral excuse-making. How about pedophilia. Here is their advocacy group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Have you noticed that over the last couple of decades there is a new psychological term and special interest advocacy group created for just about every deviant, anti-social, and even criminal behavior that legitimizes and defends deviance as just another illness passed on to the likes of Chuckie Manson's kids.
As in our recent global warming experience, I am convinced that given enough fans, enough time, and enough studies, as questionable as they might be, just about anything can be slathered with the appearance of legitimacy, even immorality.
It is likely that the great majority of these studies are conducted with our tax dollars at work through our public university system and federal grant system. Yes! - a connection between immorality and fiscal irresponsibility.
At birth we all have different sorts of propensities to do all sorts of things that our millenia of moral standards taught us are immoral. They have been declared as such for a reason, mostly related to health and reproduction of our species.
Some folks have propensities to act like wild animals. Does that mean they should be encouraged, condoned, or even allowed to act that way?
Some are born with a propensity to drink themselves silly. Does that mean that behavior should be enabled and respected by the rest of us?
Others have a propensity to have same-sex sex. Does that mean that behvior should be enabled and respected by the rest of us? Unfortunately that is now the law of the land. It is only a matter of time before other perversions have similar legal status.
We are not the most monogomous creatures on earth. But the most civilized nations make polygamy illegal - based on what? Judeo-Christian scripture. Or maybe that is outmoded and Mormons (had) and Muslims have it right. Perhaps the prohibition of polygamy is just another useless tradition that ought to be finally ignored. That is the inevitable direction of social liberals.
The trend is clear: We are making every sort of excuse we can imagine to eliminate the need for encouraging self control in our society.
How about we direct our increasingly scarce tax dollars into things that are moral and not into trying to prove that what has been considered immoral for centuries is suddenly not only moral, but worthy of our respect. We must be insane spending our tax dollars on these studies that are ultimately destructive to our society. Fiscal conservatives who tolerate social liberalism are shooting themsleves in the foot.